How could blitzkrieg ever have hoped to compete?

>Thinking the Krauts would have been able to take Moscow even if they managed to encircle it

Because it worked so well at Leningrad and Stalingrad, right?

>kraut
opinion discarded

...

>thinking war is like HOI where if you take the enemy's capital, they immediately capitulate
That was the plan that the German high command wanted anyway, but they didn't listen to one of Hitler's very few good ideas, which was to bypass Moscow completely and go for the oil fields in the Caucuses. The OKH was filled with moronic commanders with aristocratic backgrounds who didn't understand the nature of the war against the USSR.

Attached: 69323.jpg (900x1200, 183K)

>how could blitzkrieg ever have hoped to compete?
The chad on the right got murdered by Stalin after a sham trial and it took soviet union almost 20 years to politically rehabilitate his name

Attached: spurdo_communism.png (1200x800, 573K)

It gets better when you realize that even if they had the fuel to do such a thing, in a single nonstop push, 1930s and 40s vehicles would have all fallen to pieces 500kilometers before they got there, rendering the entire Axis vehicular inventory a glorified scrapyard with even most of the trains broke down, which eliminates the option fo sending things back to the factory/Which means they would spend at least 3 months completely stopped and vulnerable while they cannibalized everything to get even a quarter of things running again

The rate of advancement goals they had set were completely impossible on both fuel and mechanical casualties

The Bulge was even worse, because that actually might have stood a chance, had it not been for the King Tiger, Panthers 1 and 2, and basically everything Heavy that wasn't the Tiger 1/ The Wehrmacht had gotten so heavy they had lost the mobility that allowed them to succeed in the first place

Because that worked so well

Attached: german-soldier-at-stalingrad.jpg (800x517, 57K)

Capturing of Moscow by Germans would've been a completely unmitigated large-scale catastrophe without chance of recovery.

It would've in a single stroke dismembered literally all soviet field formations from their logistics network.

Attached: USSR_Soviet_Union_WW2_Railway_map_network.jpg (2312x1989, 419K)

I'm still not sure how you wehraboos think the capture of Moscow would have actually happened. Are you under the impression that after the city was surrounded the 14 field armies that counterattacked in real life would have been like "Well, we tried" and gone home?

>I'm still not sure how you wehraboos think the capture of Moscow would have actually happened

You don't need to be a wherb to conceive of it, considering they were at the gates.

Nope. By December 1941, most Soviet industrial defense control apparatus was already moved to Kuybyshev (now Samara).

>hordes of pack animals and infantry as cannon fodder
"Bad Man at Wall-Hole" is still not an accurate historical documentary. Particularly since the Germans and their allies had the numerical advantage for half the war. The Soviets would've ran out of men first had they wasted them in such folly.

During first 6 months of Barbarossa soviets suffered ~200% casualties of their initial strength of ~3 million men

Hit them a bit harder earlier and they never have chance to regain enough strength to field actual field formations before control of logistics choke points are lost

Show me where in German military literature there is this thing called blitzkrieg

Are you blind man? Look at the damn railway map in the message you responded to

Pre-mobilization numbers are a meme; reserves were literally more than 80% of actual soviet strength due to the conscription system. Once again, part of the requirement of taking moscow is holding it, and the Germans had no practical way to do that.

Deep battle = human zerg rush

>yfw they almost did

Attached: scaredmerchant.jpg (661x451, 44K)

They didn't even get to within 1000 miles of the AA line.

...

Germans were less than 500km to Arkhangelsk according to measurement tool in google earth you faggot

He's right though, if those cities are surrounded and bypassed what option do the soldiers inside have?

no they didn't lmao

>there are people who actually believe this
mfw

Attached: 1469527111797.png (398x306, 199K)

This a common meme. In reality, the German army still had enough oil coming in from Romania that they would have been fine for another year or so. If the original OKH plan had been followed, Germany would have attacked 6 months earlier and probably taken Moscow within 3 weeks, which would have completely dismantled the Red Army's command and control apparatus.

In reality what really fucked it all up was Mussolini getting his ass kicked in Greece, which forced Hitler to stall Barborussa to bail his wop ass out.

yeah attacking in the winter is such a great idea

And Kharkov is more than 1000 miles from Astrakhan, faggot.

>Winter
>May

What?

The Soviets never actually replaced their pack animals with trucks, they just added the trucks onto existing logistics/Afterwards, once they got the ball rolling, the largest proportion of Soviet superiority in numbers came the larger amounts of infantry, both against the Axis and against the Wallies/And it wasn't as logistically taxing as this might seem, because a lot of that extra bulk leading up and after Kursk was just Soviet citizens being liberated by the advancing Red Army, who then were immediately drafted into service, handed an SMG and some mags, and told to help salvage tank wrecks to put them back into service

A lot of this was assisted by the logistical direction ratio, where the Soviets where mostly just sending fucktons of everything to the front, while sending next to nothing back, not men, not equipment, and they could salvage everything since they held the land afterwards

So yes, the Soviets *did* use hordes of infantry and pack animals, largely because many of those men were already there, as were the pack animals, many of THOSE had been marched from the Volga line all the way to Poland/These weren't just human waves, although it would often appear this way, those fucktons of spare infantry got used for useful tactical and strategic purposes, even when they took disproportionate casualties

Immediately after the war, the Red Army demobilized 2/3rds of their 500 rifle divisions

Waiting for counterattacks, or simply resisting. While the Germans took early cities like Kiev easily, the Soviets demonstrated that they could resist long enough to be relieved by counterattacks at both Lenningrad and Stalingrad.

>he is not aware where all the combat theaters are

Middle to late Feb, which is close enough to spring anyway. Plus the Germans would have had actual winter gear ready.

I love that you're trying to argue that they were a success because in the least important of the three theaters they failed by """only""" 500 km.

>gets proven wrong
>loses his shit
cheka putin vodka rodina?

No, they still didn't get to within 1000 miles of their goal, which was the AA line. I'm just pointing out how retarded you are as a side note.

this

>still hasn't looked at the map
or is the numbers that are tripping you up?

Are you incapable of understanding the fact that they didn't get within 1000 miles of their objective, which was a line? Are you under the impression that if the Germans hadn't advanced at all in the south or center and just driven strait to Archangelsk they objective would have been in any way achieved?

Well when you have more soldiers than the opposing force has bullets it would appear that you're unstoppable now aren't you.

taking both Moscow and Arkhangelsk would be equilevant of 92% of oxygen supply cut to your brains

its game over at that point, no chance of recovery

They had about as much of a chance of accomplishing that as you do of making your parents not regret your birth, which is none. They failed to take Lenningrad, and had no way to hold Moscow against Soviet counterattack if they did take it (which they failed to do).

t. napoleon
the krauts only came within binocular distance of Moscow after getting absolutely skullfucked by the defense in depth outside the city. the slavs literally held a military parade while you pussies were recovering from the intense anal ravaging, and then eventually soviet counteroffensives started dabbing on the g*rms

They thought "wow, we really btfo'ed the Russians in the Great War, and this time, we don't have to babysit Austria-Hungary! We'll just waltz in and take Russia for ourselves."

I see the NKVD isn't sending their best to Jow Forums

Or are you an American saboteur?

Now we're at not addressing facts at all.

Attached: P-47 strafing a Tiger tank.webm (576x360, 644K)

>moscow is the central railway hub
>taking this city effectively fucks most of the soviet logistic line that was necessary for deep battle to work
>this logistic cabilbilty can now be utilized by the germans
>this entire thread is about deep battle which required a heavy ammount of logistics and timing to work
>somehow you miss this point
Put down the paint thinner.

STAVKA was sufficiently concerned of German advances that they wanted Stalin to leave Moscow along with rest of administration

I'd rather take perception of soviet military high command over some anynoymous american faggots larping as russians

The literal 14 Soviet field armies positioned directly east of Moscow didn't need the railways to march like 5 miles west, you mongoloid.

>Germany captures Moscow
>*USSR has left the server*
this is what g*rms actually believe

And if Germans had arrived a month early with +1.5 million extra casualties on soviet side what now?

The Winter War didn't exactly suggest that Russia had improved much since WW1 either. But Stalin was working on it, so giving him time to arm up may be a bad idea. Meanwhile Germany had just pulled off a stellar performance against France and England, its main foes from WW1.

All in all there was quite a lot suggesting Russia wasn't going to be very tough. It's by the Russian performance in WW2 that they became the powerhouse that it was in the Cold War era, before that they didn't really amount to much.

>Yet to internalize lessons learned from bronze age conflicts
>Giving opinions on modern wars

What if they Soviets had developed T-72's in 1920 and rolled directly into Paris in 1924? Why do wehraboo counterfactuals always have to be so ridiculous?

So now the Soviets have to retake the capital while the Germans are an defensive position with multiple rail lines leading to the city which could readily get supplies to the front faster. Then there is also the morale killer that is having your capital taken with the administration on a rail car east, or worse, captured by the Germans. The disillusionment in the Soviet army would be devastating. No ammount of NKVD political work could offset that.

Attached: USSR lend lease.png (1898x646, 67K)

Soviets did suffer over 6 million casualties in first 6 months of fighting you mouthbreather

Yep, all while preaching a fight against a world wide jewish conspiracy while refusing to take into account what would happen should they be right, and the world wide jewish conspiracy cooperate with each other

>reasonable assertion of a month earlier arrival is made
>you sperg out and create historical fiction
Totally the same thing. Again, put down the paint thinner.

Then they have even fewer tanks and other vehicles, and Soviets wouldn't suffer that many extra casualties, and the Axis still has to stop to refuel, long enough for winter to kick in

Quite the leap seeing that the krauts never actually got inside Moscow, and even if they did it would've just been Stalingrad 2.0 with both sides getting fucked until ultimately 14 field divisions roll up on the city and retake it from the battered and undersupplied krauts.

That screencap needs a note at the bottom about how much fo that material was moved through Vladivostok, alongside a small map showing how close Vladivostok is to Japan

Literal retards

Attached: 1523336553105.jpg (1242x778, 402K)

Boy, I sure am glad we win wars by almost accomplishing our objectives, and almost killing our enemies, and almost bringing enough food and ammo for the campaign.

Attached: ADED_Spiros_w06_01.jpg (1600x905, 295K)

blitzkrieg didn't even exist to begin with. it was something the foreign newspapers made up because it sounded cute and it explained away the failures of the battle of france, ie "the allies didn't completely screw the pooch by sending all of their forces into benelux and leaving nothing as a reserve, it was actually that the germans invented this totally new kind of war that was impossible to defend against!"

in reality the germans used different plans for different wars and they never used the term "blitzkrieg" themselves. the battle of france was won because the allies left the back door open and watched the germans spill into france.

to add insult to injury, the plans of both sides were copied and pasted from WW1. the difference is that this time the germans had tanks, so they weren't going to get bogged down in trench warfare like the allies imagined they would.

>just take moscow lmao
>take moscow
>ever
Is the germans ever even got into moscow it would be Stalingrad on steroids.
And we all know how Stalingrad ended up for the germans

At least the Germans knew how to concentrate armor

>Quite the leap seeing that the krauts never actually got inside Moscow,
This is assuming, as is the central basis of the discussion, that the Germans captured Moscow.

>and even if they did it would've just been Stalingrad 2.0
Ok. Do you not think the Soviets left in the city would not have surrendered or have you watched Enemy at the Gates one too many times?

>ultimately 14 field divisions roll up on the city and retake it from the battered and undersupplied krauts.
This implies those 14 field divisions would have not been sent elsewhere to secure other areas that would be necessary to rebuild a counter attack, or wouldn't be wasted and equally exhausted in attempting to immediately retake the city. The Germans still have raillines they can use to get supplies to the front and would be in a far less desperate position than the Soviets. Oh, and the momentum is still in favor of the Germans if they capture the city. You again fail to consider the devastating effects the capture of Moscow would have on the Red Army's morale and the disillusionment of the Soviet populace. The eastern front was a political war that require massive amounts of propaganda to spin in favor of each side. The crown jewel of the Soviet Union would be in the hands of the Germans and much of the administration would have been whisked away. Worst case is capture by the Germans depending on how events we don't know about because they never happened. Part of the reason the Soviet war effort was bolstered was the propaganda effect of the victory at Stalingrad. That would pail in comparison to a German victory at Moscow. This would also be an opportune moment for the Germans to capitalize on utilizing resources from Finland, the Baltic States and all the other nations that had a bone to pick with the Soviets. You can try to make this a black and white issue but it's not.

>This is assuming, as is the central basis of the discussion, that the Germans captured Moscow.
Again, quite the departure from history, eh?
>Ok. Do you not think the Soviets left in the city would not have surrendered
Seeing that Stalin ordered a military parade in Moscow while the krauts were on the doorstep and his generals were shitting bricks, yeah, I doubt they would've surrendered. Are we just forgetting that one time Napoleon actually managed to capture Moscow but stil lost the war? The slavs would rather burn the city to the ground than see it fall into enemy hands.

>The slavs would rather burn the city to the ground than see it fall into enemy hands.
This doesn't help the soviets because main immediate gain for Germans would be depriving soviets out of their logistics network

Soviet production was behind the Urals already bruh, capturing Moscow doesn't win the war.

Do you not understand that if they destroy the Moscow rail head they've doomed most of their units along the front to destruction? Yeah their industry is behind the Urals, but most of that stuff goes through Moscow to the units that use it.

>Ok. Do you not think the Soviets left in the city would not have surrendered or have you watched Enemy at the Gates one too many times?

Why the fuck would Soviets surrender? They didn't surrender in either Leningrad or Stalingrad, and this is Moscow we are talking about.

Germans never even came close to actually CAPTURING Moscow. They just came near Moscow.

Germans were never even close to victory in the East.

Furthermore, what's funny is that if Stalin just stopped with his brilliant ideas early on and let his generals do the work, Soviets would probably fuck up Germans even quicker than they historically did.

Entire popular narrative of EF is skewered as fuck.

>They didn't surrender in either Leningrad or Stalingrad, and this is Moscow we are talking about.

There was nowhere to run during the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Also, all the alt-history scenarios have serious faults.
Like, ''what if Germans ignored Soviet troops south and went directly for Moscow''...and then those Soviet troops south fuck them up silly on their exposed flank, especially if they fail taking Moscow before winter.
And those were better formations than the ones that stopped and then drove back Germans in front of Moscow.
There was nowhere to run from Moscow either.

Look, only way Germans win was if they did substantially better than they historically did in 1941. And that's hard to imagine, since Barbarossa was in absolute sense a fantastic feat of arms, which resulted from their opponents and especially Stalin not doing many smart things thorough the campaign.
Some people argue Germans lost the war in the first few weeks. That's not as weird as it sounds.
Later they might've held Soviets to a stalemate, but there was very little chance of actually defeating USSR.

all the more reason to SURRENDER than to RUN AWAY, since these are DIFFERENT things, no?

>Again, quite the departure from history, eh?
Considering this is a alternative history discussion. Yes, it is quite the departure. Parading this point around like it means anything is moot.

>Seeing that Stalin ordered a military parade in Moscow while the krauts were on the doorstep and his generals were shitting bricks, yeah, I doubt they would've surrendered.
Stalin was also advised to leave the city and his entire administration was in panic mode. The entire city was in panic mode and nobody had any fucking clue what was going to happen. A parade is a parade, a propaganda effect. That's it. If the Germans took Moscow we would be laughing about how stupid that gesture seemed.

>Are we just forgetting that one time Napoleon actually managed to capture Moscow but stil lost the war?
No. We are not. Again, moot point.

>The slavs would rather burn the city to the ground than see it fall into enemy hands.
Do you really think people would be satisfied with Soviet leadership after decades of economic fuck ups, a lost campaign in Poland in the 20s, a famine, the embarrassment that was the Winter War and now the Germans are knocking at the door at Moscow? At least under the Tsar things were somewhat better. Now you have to torch your home and face the realities of life under Stalin again. Wonderful.

>Furthermore, what's funny is that if Stalin just stopped with his brilliant ideas early on and let his generals do the work, Soviets would probably fuck up Germans even quicker than they historically did.
This would also be at the point in the war were Hitler's generals were calling the shots. That fight I would have paid to see.

This. These kinds of scenarios are like brain teasers.

>There was nowhere to run from Moscow either.

No way to run from the central rail head of the Soviet Union...

I mean they did, France was considered a first rate world power.

Also, people have this weird idea that Soviets didn't know how to fight. That's ridiculous. German themselves noted Soviets knew how to fight and often fought smartly.

Sure, Germans were indeed superior in tactical sense, but the most important thing was their operational superiority. Germans were simply far better at maneuver warfare. If you look at lopsided Soviet losses, most of them were literally German mobile formations encircling them, Stalin forbidding retreat and shit like that. Even the chaotic Soviet forces of 1941 could occasionally bite.
Soviets almost collapsed in 1941, and then recovered amazingly.

People have wrong perspective of this conflict.

Moscow was highly important, it would certainly be defended, and preparations were made to do so. Russians would be more than motivated to defend Moscow. Your point is awful. They would not surrender unless their situation was hopeless.

>Hit them a bit harder earlier and they never have chance to regain enough strength

Is what they said at Białystok, and Minsk, and Kiev, And Kharkov...

Just to add, it's true that Soviets were mainly saved by the vastness of their land, but their recovery was still amazing.
Imagine literally losing so much resources, so much men, basically your entire pre-war army, and then managing to stall the greatest fighting force of that time, and finally drive them back to their capital.

Yes, they paid the price in blood, but not as much as people think really. In the end, in actual combat, Soviet deaths were some 30-40% higher than Axis combat deaths. Given their predicament, that wasn't so bad.

If Hitler actually listened to (some of) his generals in 1941, Germans might've been routed. It was Hitler's insistence on holding the ground that blunted Soviet offensive.
It was Hitler who approved Manstein plan in 1940.

Hitler wasn't an idiot like his generals tried to convince you after the war.

>Hitler wasn't an idiot like his generals tried to convince you after the war.
He wasn't, nor was I implying that. But towards the end of the war many of his decisions and micromanagement didn't help the post war reputation his generals gave him. Those that were not hung an Nuremberg a least.

You Kraut nigga are obsessed with taking Moscow? Should've ask nicely the professionals - Mongols, Vikings or Poles.

Attached: holdruski.jpg (1024x731, 169K)

Why don't we laugh for a while at a certain highly industrialized Central-European country that couldn't even produce nor get spare parts to the front worth any shit?
All excerpts are from "Historical Study: German Tank Maintenance in World War 2, Department of the Army, June 1954"
>When the Germans launched their summer offensive in 1942, more than 75 percent of their total tank strength was employed in the southern part of the Russian theater.
>Within a short time hundreds of tanks were disabled and a major backlog of repairs accumulated because the necessary spare parts were not available.
>Most of the disabled tanks could have been quickly restored to service since the repairs involved only the replacement of defective parts.
>Less than 30 percent of the damaged tanks required welding or time-consuming labor.
>Had parts been in stock or available at a nearby depot, most of the repairs involving the replacement of defective parts could probably have been accomplished within 2 weeks.
>However, at this time the spare-parts problem had become so critical that it had a paralyzing effect on the simultaneous thrusts toward Stalingrad and into the Caucasus.

>In the autumn of 1942, for instance, heavy Tiger tanks were committed for the first time in the Russian theater.
>The production of extra parts for this tank had been neglected to the extent that only 1 spare engine and 1 spare transmission were produced for every 10 tanks.
>Within a short time almost all of the new Tiger tanks were lost or deadlined because of lack of parts.

>Instead of simplifying the design of the engine, Maybach continued to turn out new, improved series, so that eventually a tremendous variety of spare parts was required for the repair of the tank engines.

Cont. 1/2

Attached: 1537382988135.png (1570x1447, 3.24M)

HAAHHAAHAH

Part 2/2

>One of the most widespread expedients was the practice of cannibalizing disabled tanks, especially those destined for return to the zone of interior.
>The cannibalization crews were so thorough that the manufacturer would rarely receive more than the empty hull by the time the tank reached his plant.
>Disabled tanks awaiting engine replacements at field repair shops were also subject to being stripped, and by the time the new engine arrived there usually was little left of the tank for which it had been intended.

>[...]tank maintenance companies began to send details to the depots to represent their interests.
>Upon the arrival of a supply train carrying spare parts, each detail tried to secure the parts its company needed most urgently.
>When more and more companies adopted this procedure, the depots became the scenes of fierce struggles for priority items.
>As soon as a detail bad secured some parts, it would contact its parent organization by radio or telephone. In a matter of minutes the trucks would be on their way to the depots to pick up the "spoils."
>If the distance between the depot and the field repair shop was too great, the spare parts would be shipped by rail under escort.

>During the latter part of the war some of them even resorted to bribery.
>Others would contact manufacturers in the zone of interior outside of normal channels to procure parts directly at the source.
>Occasionally, even tactical commanders took part in the hunt for parts when the number of serviceable tanks at their disposal began to dwindle.
>It happened in several instances that a private or noncommissioned officer escorting a rail shipment of laboriously acquired spare parts would suddenly be confronted by a field grade officer of some other regiment or division who simply ordered him to surrender the entire cargo.
What a fucking shit-show, so much for German efficiency.

Source: history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-7/cmhPub_104-7.pdf

good argument incel