Could Germany Have Won WW2?

[Viritica]

Moscow was entirely out of reach? Bah. Do you know just how close the Nazis came? If I remember correctly, some Nazi scouts actually reported coming within visual range of Moscow. The Germans only wanted Leningrad because of the number of troops it held. The Germans could simply have surrounded it and starved the Soviets into submission. The reason the Germans lost the Battle of Stalingrad was because Soviet reinforcements arrived. Moscow was the main telegraph and railway center of the USSR. No Moscow means no reinforcements. Stalingrad falls too.

The Urals were a logistical nightmare but the Germans could have pulled it off.

The ensuing counterattacks were some of the worst defeats the Wehrmacht had faced before Operation Bagration. Because even obsolete Soviet tanks are better than German ones that have no gas or ammunition. Trying to take Moscow was impossible, and it all comes down to the constant theme I've been harping on: it's logistics, not tactics. The Soviets had better logistics, period. The logistics of supporting attacks on Moscow are impossible, it's too far, there's break of gauge, no rolling stock, partisan activity, and scorched earth policies.

The Germans did try to surround and starve Leningrad into submission. They spent 900 days doing this, and it still failed.

No, taking Moscow will not prevent the Soviets from reinforcing Stalingrad. The reinforcements were all either newly raised units from the hinterland, or they were forces diverted from the Central Asian and Far Eastern theaters. The forces around Moscow were engaged in an entirely separate operation, closing the German salients at Rzhev and Velikie Luki. But that's neither here no there, because Moscow won't be falling.

No, they couldn't even pull off taking Moscow, their troops were out of food, fuel and ammunition and could not be resupplied hardly at all, let alone for combat operations. The Urals might as well have been on the Moon.

You still aren't even taking into account just how close the Nazis came to Moscow, nor have you addressed it. I see no reason why they couldn't have realistically reached it. The fuel shortages could simply have been solved by taking the oil fields in the Caucasus or however the hell you spell it. Soviet tanks at the time were superior, but the Germans were already in the process of developing the Tiger and the Panther if I'm not mistaken (the Tiger was fielded at the Battle of Kursk). Both tanks were some of the best of WWII.

And quite frankly, the Soviets could have also simply ignored Stalingrad. It held no significance and Hitler only wanted it because it held the name "Stalin" in it. The seige of Leningrad could of continued. Supplies aren't limitless and the Soviets would of ran out eventually.

[Neu Leonstein]

You still aren't even taking into account just how close the Nazis came to Moscow, nor have you addressed it. I see no reason why they couldn't have realistically reached it. The fuel shortages could simply have been solved by taking the oil fields in the Caucasus or however the hell you spell it.

Do you know just how many thousands of kilometres it is from Ukraine to the Caucasus? Russia is pretty big.

Soviet tanks at the time were superior, but the Germans were already in the process of developing the Tiger and the Panther if I'm not mistaken (the Tiger was fielded at the Battle of Kursk). Both tanks were some of the best of WWII.

If you're talking about Moscow, you're talking two years before anything like the Tiger or Panther (the latter especially being a reaction to the T-34, so not even conceived of as such at the time). Not that it would have mattered, if there's not enough fuel to get them moving.

But even if they had gotten to Moscow, there's no particularly good reason to expect that they could have taken the city easily. So that means besieging it, in a situation in which your own supply lines are dysfunctional and the other side has plenty of fresh divisions to attack you. And if there had been no siege, again there's no reason to think the Germans could have defended the city against those Soviet divisions.

Really the only way to make any of this to work is if upon Moscow being taken, the Soviet leadership suddenly collapses all over Russia. That seems pretty unlikely.

And quite frankly, the Soviets could have also simply ignored Stalingrad. It held no significance and Hitler only wanted it because it held the name "Stalin" in it. The seige of Leningrad could of continued. Supplies aren't limitless and the Soviets would of ran out eventually.

Stalingrad was a pretty significant logistics hub. But more importantly, with the forces around there intact, there's no way that the northern flank of a push to the Caucasus could have been defended properly - again, there were thousands of kilometres of open front line between Stalingrad and Baku and the only way to keep those safe was to make sure the Soviets had no troops to attack it.

[Immoren]

Germans were already in the process of developing the Tiger and the Panther if I'm not mistaken (the Tiger was fielded at the Battle of Kursk). Both tanks were some of the best of WWII..

Depends on how you define best.

[Viritica]

You still aren't even taking into account just how close the Nazis came to Moscow, nor have you addressed it. I see no reason why they couldn't have realistically reached it. The fuel shortages could simply have been solved by taking the oil fields in the Caucasus or however the hell you spell it.

Do you know just how many thousands of kilometres it is from Ukraine to the Caucasus? Russia is pretty big.

Soviet tanks at the time were superior, but the Germans were already in the process of developing the Tiger and the Panther if I'm not mistaken (the Tiger was fielded at the Battle of Kursk). Both tanks were some of the best of WWII.

If you're talking about Moscow, you're talking two years before anything like the Tiger or Panther (the latter especially being a reaction to the T-34, so not even conceived of as such at the time). Not that it would have mattered, if there's not enough fuel to get them moving.

But even if they had gotten to Moscow, there's no particularly good reason to expect that they could have taken the city easily. So that means besieging it, in a situation in which your own supply lines are dysfunctional and the other side has plenty of fresh divisions to attack you. And if there had been no siege, again there's no reason to think the Germans could have defended the city against those Soviet divisions.

Really the only way to make any of this to work is if upon Moscow being taken, the Soviet leadership suddenly collapses all over Russia. That seems pretty unlikely.

And quite frankly, the Soviets could have also simply ignored Stalingrad. It held no significance and Hitler only wanted it because it held the name "Stalin" in it. The seige of Leningrad could of continued. Supplies aren't limitless and the Soviets would of ran out eventually.

Stalingrad was a pretty significant logistics hub. But more importantly, with the forces around there intact, there's no way that the northern flank of a push to the Caucasus could have been defended properly - again, there were thousands of kilometres of open front line between Stalingrad and Baku and the only way to keep those safe was to make sure the Soviets had no troops to attack it.

Perhaps you're right. Maybe the Germans shouldn't have invaded and should have simply fortified their new border with Russia. Somebody would have eventually invaded. If not Hitler then Stalin. Their pact would have only delayed the inevitable.

[Viritica]

Germans were already in the process of developing the Tiger and the Panther if I'm not mistaken (the Tiger was fielded at the Battle of Kursk). Both tanks were some of the best of WWII..

Depends on how you define best.

Explain.

[Bulgar Rouge]

No. Largely outdated military, no decent resource supplies, poor leadership.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Depends on how you define best.

Explain.

The Tiger and Panther had thick armor and big guns, yes. But they were also logistical nightmares and gas guzzlers because they weigh a damn lot, not to mention they're over engineered and hard to produce.

The T-34 and its successor, the T-34-85, were simple and rugged. They could be built quickly in any tank factory, then literally rolled off to the frontline by the people who built it. Their sloped armor rendered the PzIII, Germany's actual anti-armor tank (The PzIV was only used after the PzIII proved underpowered against M4s and T-34s), and its gun was decent against most (Note that most were not Tigers or Panthers) German armor of the time-Moreso for the T-34-85, named such for its 85mm gun.

[Immoren]

Explain.

The Tiger and Panther had thick armor and big guns, yes. But they were also logistical nightmares and gas guzzlers because they weigh a damn lot, not to mention they're over engineered and hard to produce.

The T-34 and its successor, the T-34-85, were simple and rugged. They could be built quickly in any tank factory, then literally rolled off to the frontline by the people who built it. Their sloped armor rendered the PzIII, Germany's actual anti-armor tank (The PzIV was only used after the PzIII proved underpowered against M4s and T-34s), and its gun was decent against most (Note that most were not Tigers or Panthers) German armor of the time-Moreso for the T-34-85, named such for its 85mm gun.

Also degradation of quality German steel during WWII made it so that in practice protection value of German armor was less than it was on paper.

[Densaner]

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and compounded his error by declaring war on the United States. Germany lost the war in 1941. It just took 4 years to finish the job. Hitler could have ruled over most of Europe for years if he had left well alone.

[Divair]

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and compounded his error by declaring war on the United States. Germany lost the war in 1941. It just took 4 years to finish the job. Hitler could have ruled over most of Europe for years if he had left well alone.

Except the Soviets would've eventually invaded.

[The Earl of Sandwich II]

If they would have prepared for the winter germany could have easily beaten russia, but not 'the west'. Russia has always been overrated. USA would have been too much for them to handle in any event.

[Lunas Legion]

If Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and compounded his error by declaring war on the United States. Germany lost the war in 1941. It just took 4 years to finish the job. Hitler could have ruled over most of Europe for years if he had left well alone.

Except the Soviets would've eventually invaded.

And would have been much more successful; Germany would be fielding Pz IVs, as there was no reason to build the Panther or Tiger, and the Leopard light tank against Soviet T34s (in much greater numbers) and KV1s with a few BTs and T70s thrown in.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Except the Soviets would've eventually invaded.

And would have been much more successful; Germany would be fielding Pz IVs, as there was no reason to build the Panther or Tiger, and the Leopard light tank against Soviet T34s (in much greater numbers) and KV1s with a few BTs and T70s thrown in.

Germany's mainstay was not the PzIV, it was the PzIII until it was proven obsolete by Soviet Armor. Or was it French?

[Lunas Legion]

And would have been much more successful; Germany would be fielding Pz IVs, as there was no reason to build the Panther or Tiger, and the Leopard light tank against Soviet T34s (in much greater numbers) and KV1s with a few BTs and T70s thrown in.

Germany's mainstay was not the PzIV, it was the PzIII until it was proven obsolete by Soviet Armor. Or was it French?

French. The Pz III was supposed to be up gunned with a L60 70mm gun, but the ordinance board changed it to the L42 70mm, which effectively doomed it. Caliber might be wrong, though.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

Yes; it is more than possible. There are countless (albeit unethical) means by which the Third Reich could have gained advantages during the war. One of which would be to use Holocaust victims as slave labor, rather than wasting money and resources trying to exterminate them; morally sickening, of course, but a potentially effective way to increase production of weapons. Treating Ukrainians and Slavs in Eastern Europe better; they deemed the Germans as saviors at first, hating the Soviets who starved them, and had the Third Reich capitalized on that opportunity, they could have gotten a large source of fresh soldiers and supportive citizens rather than more people to fill death camps. Also, had the Germans been smart enough not to rely purely on aircraft to destroy the retreating Brits at Dunkirk, the British Army would have been devastated and Britain would have a numerical disadvantage in it's other fronts.

It isn't one big thing, like the Soviet Union entering the war, that made Germany lose; rather, a lot of subtle things that led to the Allies being powerful enough to defeat the Axis.

[Marsisian]

The Germans should have focused on Moscow instead of St. Petersburg and Tsaritsyn.

[Lunas Legion]

The Germans should have focused on Moscow instead of St. Petersburg and Tsaritsyn.

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

[Marsisian]

The Germans should have focused on Moscow instead of St. Petersburg and Tsaritsyn.

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

Moscow = Soviet capital

Capture of Moscow results in huge loss of morale to the Soviet Army, plus a loss of a strategic rail hub.

[Granadeseret]

The Germans should have focused on Moscow instead of St. Petersburg and Tsaritsyn.

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

Also, victory in the South might have shaken Turkey and Iran into the Axis camp (The Persians were Aryans, the Turks could probably pass as it, and Hitler had a rather large respect for Islam's structured and warrior rules system, so it could pull that off) and throw the Soviets off-balance by fresh Turkish and Iranians troops, as well as opening up a Southern front in the hard-to-manage and hard-to-supply Central Europe. Event Tibet, at that point, might have even gotten involved. Military moves do have large geopolitical consequences...

Whatever happens though, Germany needs more manpower to pull off any massive tricks with the Soviets; the Turks and Persians could provide just that kind of boon.

[Orla]

Let us just be glad that they didn't.

[Fascist Russian Empire]

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

Moscow = Soviet capital

Capture of Moscow results in huge loss of morale to the Soviet Army, plus a loss of a strategic rail hub.

Napoleon happened to conquer Moscow. Didn't do the French much good.

Destroying the Soviet means of producing and maintaining a strong army is far more important than taking a purely ceremonial city. By seizing the Causcaus oil supplies, the Germans could have ensured they'd have no oil to fuel their armored forces, and by taking industrial cities like Leningrad/St.Petersburg, they could have greatly lowered the Soviet output of weaponry. No weapons, no fighting power.

[Marsisian]

Moscow = Soviet capital

Capture of Moscow results in huge loss of morale to the Soviet Army, plus a loss of a strategic rail hub.

Napoleon happened to conquer Moscow. Didn't do the French much good.

Destroying the Soviet means of producing and maintaining a strong army is far more important than taking a purely ceremonial city. By seizing the Causcaus oil supplies, the Germans could have ensured they'd have no oil to fuel their armored forces, and by taking industrial cities like Leningrad/St.Petersburg, they could have greatly lowered the Soviet output of weaponry. No weapons, no fighting power.

Napoleon beat the Russians. It was the winter that fucked him to hell.

[Neu Leonstein]

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

Again, Russia is a big country. You need functional airfields, from which you basically need long-range strategic bombers to actually get very far - which the Luftwaffe didn't have. And even if they did, they had no long-range escort fighters. During the Battle of Britain it became kind of obvious what happens to unescorted bombers, and that was not flying for a few thousand kilometres over actual enemy air space, where interceptors could literally start from pretty much anywhere along the route.

[Lunas Legion]

No, they should have focused on the Causcaus. Also, other way the Germans could have won; bombing the Soviet rail lines as they relocated industry. No factories, no tanks, Germany wins.

Again, Russia is a big country. You need functional airfields, from which you basically need long-range strategic bombers to actually get very far - which the Luftwaffe didn't have. And even if they did, they had no long-range escort fighters. During the Battle of Britain it became kind of obvious what happens to unescorted bombers, and that was not flying for a few thousand kilometres over actual enemy air space, where interceptors could literally start from pretty much anywhere along the route.

You forget the Brits had radar; that gave them a huge advantage. Also, the Red Air Force was shredded during the opening days of Barbarossa. Those bombers had almost free reign in those first fee weeks.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Napoleon happened to conquer Moscow. Didn't do the French much good.

Destroying the Soviet means of producing and maintaining a strong army is far more important than taking a purely ceremonial city. By seizing the Causcaus oil supplies, the Germans could have ensured they'd have no oil to fuel their armored forces, and by taking industrial cities like Leningrad/St.Petersburg, they could have greatly lowered the Soviet output of weaponry. No weapons, no fighting power.

Napoleon beat the Russians. It was the winter that fucked him to hell.

And Germany wouldn't have faired better. In fact, they didn't.