Let's discuss the circumstances leading up to a German victory over the Soviet Union.
hitler manages to take moscow
all over then
>>804387
I am tired of hearing people say this.
That is exactly what Germany TRIED to do.
They couldn't extend deep into Russia because it was a logistical nightmare. They couldn't get enough fuel and ammunition and personal supplies to continue the blitzkrieg. They would have to attack, wait for resupply, attack, wait for resupply, etc. The majority of Russian land is wilderness hardly worth capturing, and the Soviets destroyed everything worth taking as they retreated. The Russian rails were too wide for German trains and had to be rebuilt, and as they were marching to Moscow, they noticed that they had a huge weak point in their line that needed to be covered.
>>804387
This. The soviets would have collapsed if Moscow fell
>>804384
We have this thread every day
>>804408
Why? The factories were gone, the government was gone.
Alternatively, how? The Germans did not even get into the city, and had they done so, they would have faced urban combat. See Stalingrad for an example of urban combat on the eastern front.
>>804408
The Soviets would have kept fighting even if Moscow fell and with the Soviet war machine evacuated to the Urals, they would be far from defeated.
>>804384
So I'm thinking if Germany fell back before the worst of winter leaving western Russia as scorched earth and formed a defensive line rather than throwing away their men into the meat grinder they could have held out long enough for their tech superiority to come through while Russia, gimped from the invasion, would throw their men in waves against the Germans full force motivated to stop the "Bolshevik hordes" who aren't themselves gimped from overextended supply lines and the winter. However I think I might also be underestimating the Russians Siberian industry and Germans need for oil.
The Russian people suddenly really hate the government again and rebel on large scale, forcing capitulation/cooperation by a side.
So, you know, a repeat of ww1.
>>804384
magical pixies fuck your arse.
>>804387
moscow would be stalingrad but worse, i don't see how that would help germans
Ostfront failed becuause germans kept sucking brown people dicks instead of fighting
Prove me wrong pol
U cant
1. Go for Moscow instead of Stalingrad
2. Listen to Manstein and forget about Kursk
3. Don't shell Leningrad
4. Don't go for Kaukasus oil fields
5. Don't invade Russia in the first place
Pick any one, it would be better than what happened.
>>804418
Moscow was THE transport and communications hub for the ENTIRE COUNTRY
>>804896
>posts a pic showing loads of alternate railroad routes around moscow
>>804384
Tbh if the Wehrmacht brought more vehicles and much more horses with them to help with logistics, had an actual unified logistics wing instead of having duties split between different commands, and if Germany actually mobilized for full-war time production, which they should've done right when the Western Allies declared war on them, then maybe, just mabye, they could've won. It always confuses me how Hitler painted Barbaossa as true war to end all wars, a world-ending clash of titans, but he never prepared for it like it was one.
>>804384
About the only way it could conceivably happen is if the Soviets suffer a political collapse due to the battlefield disasters, and you get a Brest-Litovsk treaty 2.0.
Given Stalin's immensely tight grip on power though, I'm not sure how this would happen, you'd probably need to re-order the Soviet political hierarchy, but I'm not an expert at all on their dynamics, or how you could still have a recognizable WW2 USSR with a bunch of people at the top or the Communist political structure significantly altered.
>>804387
>Russia moves the entire government and administration east
What now? You're acting as if Russia would collapse without Moscow in their hands.
alright so as I understand it was such a disaster because most of russia is full of fucking nothing and they burned the rest. what would have happened if they'd sent small teams to destroy things behind the lines and kept their main force where it could be supplied until those had done some damage?
>>805169
stop playing video games
>>805169
Small teams can't do enough damage to keep the Russians from continuing to build up a military force that will eventually sweep the Germans aside by numbers alone*.
You bomb a railroad, the Soviets fix it. You set one factory on fire, ok there's 50 more in different cities making the same shit.
Even moreso than they were defeated by numbers in the first place.
>>805178
I thought they initially had the numbers so they could send men to each of those factories. they wouldn't need to keep it up forever, just delay the mobilization and reduce supplies to the front lines, then attack before they can fix it all.
I admit I don't know anything, though. just seems like a logical way to deal with what they were facing.
>>805195
there is nothing logical about magically conjuring up "small teams" that would destroy enough "things behind the lines" without the enemy noticing, retaliating, doing something
/v/ and /tg/ are this way >>>>>
>>804889
>Go for Moscow instead of Stalingrad
Moscow was well protected by that time. The drive South was so successful partially because the Soviets awaited an attack on Moscow again.
>>804889
>Listen to Manstein and forget about Kursk
Lol, Manstein suddenly started to disagree with Hitler while writing his own memoirs.
>>805195
You still run into the same problems the Germans eventually ran into in that scenario.
The opening parts of Barbarossa basically went as well as they could for the Germans, the Russian were in complete disarray. Huge amounts of armaments were left behind as the Germans rapidly advanced and captured them. Mass amounts of aircraft were destroyed on the tarmac, etc. Your sending in small teams approach doesn't do much to change or enhance this.
Beyond this, you may have the men to send a team to each factory but the nightmare of organizing that is hefty. Even then the Soviet state, an incredibly repressive state that monitors basically EVERYTHING, is going to notice this for 50 or more factories. There's no way you can get away with that 50 times without them wising up.
Also ignore >>805203, your idea is admittedly video gamey but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it.
>>805213
can they stop it, though? it should take more men to protect something than sabotage it and they probably wouldn't be happy to remove those from the front.
I thought they only got the things in west russia with the blitzing. if you could get the other parts too, why wouldn't you?
>>805272
Not him, but not only could they stop it, they could do so without appreciably weakening their front line.
This is Soviet Russia man. Everything is watched by both open and secret police, and they are armed. True, they're more for clamping down on internal dissent than watching out for foreign saboteurs, but they'll be more than sufficient to account for small commando teams if they catch them.
And while not directly related, go look up the strategic bombing campaign over Germany. Max Hastings wrote a very good book on the subject. Even the wholesale flattening of cities with literally hundreds of 4 engined bombers blasting everything in sight rarely damaged wartime production for more than a month per town. A few commandos with some bombs in a factory aren't going to do nearly enough damage to count. Wartime industry was pretty resilient.
>>804384
How about no, these threads are pointless
>>805367
1/10
Atomic weapons.
There was basically no way Hitler could conquer the Soviet Union, even if Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad fell. There would be a massive insurgency at least.
>>804505
>>804424
>le Urals meme
