/k/ - Weapons

No

This is the third WWII what-if thread and the second on Barbarossa.

>>630286

The further you penetrate into another nation the worse your supply lines are particularly if you're also handling partisans and are attacking in the south as well. It's questionable whether or not taking Moscow would have really helped anyway, at the end of the day it's just another city and it didn't exactly do Napoleon any good.

The main reasons I can think of are:

>Logistical issues. Russia has a completely unique railroad gauge, 5', or 1.520m, which as opposed to Standard gauge, about 4'8.5", or 1.435m wide. Combine this with Russia's scorched earth tactics, and extremely poor road systems, and the supply lines will be inevitably overextended.

>Military issues. One of the major failures, in my opinion anyways, was Halder's idea that, once Moscow was captured, the Soviet Union would just fall apart and collapse. This is completely wrong, in my view. The Soviet Union's capital would simply have moved across the Urals, and continued its fight from there, unless Soviet morale broke with Moscow's taking, which I would see as pretty unlikely. In addition, many of the Wehrmacht generals were tactically and operationally excellent, but all too often strategically insufficient. Hitler was focused on strategic matters, which is what caused conflict between him and the Generalstab over how to fight the war, which itself leads to drooling retards saying 'muh listen to generals' and other such nonsense, when that was exactly what Hitler did prior to Barbarossa.

>Lend-Lease aid was actually attacked, especially in the Battle of the Barents Sea. But you also have to consider the Siberian ports. Even with the threat of Japanese subs or surface ships raiding American convoys there, most of the Jap fleets were focused towards the South. So the American convoys were relatively safe, and able to keep the Soviets supplied.

>Weather, of course, is the big one. The Wehrmacht was extremely confident in its ability to fuck up the Soviets, and they had good reason to believe so, considering they defeated the technologically and numerically superior French, whom the Second Reich were never able to defeat in 4 years, in a month and a half; and saw how the Finns BTFO the Soviets with a bunch of under-supplied militia and outdated equipment. However, the Soviets were not that easy to defeat, and Hitler's refusal to create winter equipment for his troops would greatly hinder their progress.

>>630316

Moscow in 1941 was the central rail hub for all of European Russia, in addition to being the political capital which it was not in 1812. It wouldn't necessarily have been enough to win the war but the constant comparisons that get made to Napoleon's invasion are retarded.

Hitler trusted too many people and the eternal jew forced the American people to pay billions for a lend-lease. Also Italians were shit and the japs were retarded.

>>630320

You forgot how Germany was totally unprepared for a total war of attrition. Their whole strategy was based on the idea that they will be able to avoid them, and they didn't even dare to consider that they might have to prepare for one. So they completely wasted their limited resources and manpower. I don't only mean how equipment was constructed, but how they had to make at least two competing organizations with their own unique insignia and uniforms for every minor thing. Really, just read about Speer, especially about the reconstruction works of Berlin in the middle of the war.

>>630334

>You forgot how Germany was totally unprepared for a total war of attrition.

That's true, but as you yourself say,

>Their whole strategy was based on the idea that they will be able to avoid them

And that is important, because that was the main weakness of Germany. Ironic, in that the one nation who wanted to avoid attrition, got it anyways, twice. But I definitely understand why this was their doctrine.

>I don't only mean how equipment was constructed, but how they had to make at least two competing organizations with their own unique insignia and uniforms for every minor thing

That's definitely an incredibly inefficient thing to do, but I'd always thought that that was more or less part of Hitler's political intriguing, as per the classic rules of power. I would definitely agree that they should've had singular organizations for singular things.

>Really, just read about Speer, especially about the reconstruction works of Berlin in the middle of the war.

I've read a ton about Speer, since I'm a bit of a total war autist, but thanks for the recommendations anyways, Magyarbro.

>>630335

> I'd always thought that that was more or less part of Hitler's political intriguing, as per the classic rules of power

No, it's more about inherent German autism that overcomplicates everything to the point of uselessness.

>thanks for the recommendations anyways

I've actually meant the last part as a general recommendation for OP and all the other faggots who don't know basic stuff about ww2.

>>630338

>No, it's more about inherent German autism that overcomplicates everything to the point of uselessness.

That's true lol.

>I've actually meant the last part as a general recommendation for OP and all the other faggots who don't know basic stuff about ww2

Ah, okay. Forgive my autisme Français, then.

Fucked by the weather.

>>630343

It takes time to build factories.

THIS is how you win world war 2

>>630350

Speaking of which, deja vu. I'd seen this before in my dreams.

>>630346

>Moscow surrenders in a single month

>Just don't enter Stalingrad!

A work of genius.

All Germany needed to win was Japanese inventing a single tank worth a damn, but the slimy yellow bastards never figured out the purpose of a mechanized division until America slapped them upside the head and raped sense into them. They're kind of like Italy in that sense.

All the US lend lease

>>630327

Rail hub is the only thing it was good for, but there were other rail hubs too. Additionally, all the important infrastructure have been moved east halfway across the country, capture of Moscow would've accomplished nothing.

>>630286

They only had momentum at the beginning of war, right at the time when Soviet military consisted of inexperienced soldiers and commanders because all the experienced ones were executed. By 1942 things got on track and by 1943 they got weapon upgrades to bring them on the level, from that point on Germany couldn't do shit against Soviet army.

>>630421

>>630418

Lend-lease helped chiefly with food, at times constituting up to 50% military rations. Fuel constituted about 20% that of Soviet supply and military equipment was less than 5% of total force. I have no info regarding the trucks but the word is that they were rare but significantly better quality than soviet-built trucks, so I guesstimate it's 15-25% of Soviet truck fleet.

>>630462

>58% of the USSR's high octane aviation fuel

>33% of their motor vehicles

>53% of expended ordnance (artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives)

>30% of military aircraft

>93% of railway equipment (locomotives, freight cars, wide gauge rails, etc.)

>50–80% of rolled steel, cable, lead, and aluminium

>43% of garage facilities (building materials & blueprints)

>12% of tanks and SPGs

>50% of TNT (1942 onward)

Burgers kept you alive.

>>630462

>>630465

The trucks, jeeps and bren/universal carriers were much more important than their mere % of the total which was pretty significant anyway would indicate since they were able to carry much more than the Soviet equivalents and functioned much more reliably as well. Similarly the combat aircraft in the early years were often superior to their soviet equivalents and came with pilots and mechanics who both flew combat missions and much more importantly provided training to their soviet counterparts.

>>630327

The railway connection matters though it's possible for the Soviets to have made do without it, the political capital less so since it can be quite easily moved and essential operations were already in less threatened areas. Offset against the huge cost the Germans would have had to expend to take Moscow it would have been a net loss.

Or in short: don't fight a land war in Asia.

>>630472

>Or in short: don't fight a land war in Asia.

And yes, I'm aware the Germans only intended to take European Russia, but the same geography and downsides apply.

>>630491

>yfw that one camping faggot keeps bragging about his ebin KD even though he does absolute jack shit when it comes to playing the objective

>>630543

*grandchildren

>>630491

Continuing Soviet incompetence in the air doesn't invalidate my statement anon.

>>630537

>>630543

Radical changes in history are not a good idea even if you make them with the best of intentions. There's no telling what might happen long-term. You'd also probably be killed in the inevitable post-Hitler power struggle/civil war for being too much of a threat.

>>630547

>implying my life is more important than the very survival of the Aryan race

We had a good run as a nation, even IF uncle Adie wanted us all dead due to irrational nordicist WE WUZ the only desirable genetic trait 400 years of Ottoman dysgenics left us with is our insatiable need for kebab removal, a trait atavistic and redundant if the 1000 years' Reich was to be achieved. Would be arguably better if we went out with a boom taking with us as many muds and roaches as we could than surviving to the end times as a purposeless fragment of what we once were in a world surrounded by our betters out of a mixture of pity and ages past gratitude.

>>630327

All the major political and military leaders where already evacuated from Moscow at that point and it would've been a nightmare to fight in.

>>630586

I hate how correct your post was. I really, really, really want a war with Turkey

>>630543

>ywn see the Nips open a second front against the Soviet Union in the far east

They tried that in 1939 and failed.

>>630543

>ywn convince Hitler to delay the invasion of Soviet Russia at least until the capture of the Suez

Up until the day the Soviets roll in themselves and add 18 new Soviet republics to the Union and rename Berlin into Karl-Marx-Stadt or whatever.

>>634723

You mean they didn't do that in history already?

Why do you think the Soviet only stopped at Berlin when they crushed Germany?

Simple answer? The Germans were inferior on genetic, psychological, social and cultural levels.

Germany at the time had similar population, far greater technology, far greater access to resources. The lendlease Russia got did happen,but it arrived in dribs and drabs and so it couldn't be the reason why the German assault broke suddenly. Compare it to Germany which had the industrial power of the entire continent of Europe, more than the allies at one time.

The hordes, tsars and commissars had killed every Russian who was incapable of following orders, this made it impossible to cause a rout. Germany had fairly independent minded people who (although united in nationalism) were still fairly individualistic, and could be caused to rout.

The continental cold had basically killed every Russian that would let depression get the best of him, so their morale was impossible to break. German morale could and did break if they were surrounded, or if they ran out of ammo even. They surrendered in droves while Russians who had no ammo simply fixed bayonets.

Their society was inured to war and went to total war status almost immediately, they split up their population into those who could fight, those who could work in factories, and those who were to be used to clear minefields and run into enemy barbed wires to make bridges for the others.

Also while they are natively aggressive, their culture does not go far into being the first to strike a blow. They generally suck at that. But if you try to take something that belongs to them, or back them into a corner, they're very good at getting out of that. I suspect it's partially survival training from medieval times, after all it is a good survival strategy to pay the ridiculous taxes of the tsar or the commie, but if they come to fuck your wife you better kill them or die trying. That kind of thing is a good group survival strategy.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/02/04/refugees-go-clubbing-in-russia-harass-girls-wake-up-in-hospital-the-next-morning/

>>634723

>and rename Berlin into Karl-Marx-Stadt or whatever.

You have Karl Marx strasse in berlin till this day so what difference would it make?

>>630646

Soon. The roach running that country is going to ask too much from the US in what it can gain by threatening the bosphorus. A day will come when the NATO shall liberate Constantinople

>>635090

>A day will come when the NATO shall liberate Constantinople

That might be true. My question is: for who?

>>630286

1. Lack of resources

2. Lack of industrial capacity

3. Lack of manpower

4. allied lend-lease

/thread

>>635190

5) Lack of helping their own allies

>Spain darling would you please join the war?

<Sure, you going to license us some equipment so we can get our war economy going?

>lel no, fight with what you got!

<Fuck off

>>635197

More like

>Spain-chan, we helped you during the war against Soviet and British proxies.

<Yeah, you and Italy were great, Hitler-sama! We're really lucky to have such great allies as you!

>So, can you help us during our war against the Soviets and British, now that we need you?

<Gib monee 4 ekonome plox hue hue

>No, I don't have anything to spare. Please help me with the war.

<Yeah, nah. Get fucked, cunt. I just butchered the reds, blacks and other assorted traitors, I don't want to lose the country to them.

Honestly, Franco did nothing wrong. Officially joining the war on either side would've been suicide.

>>635200

We did send help but we really were in bad shape. Point Germany needed to go the equivalent of `This is how to make Panzer IV and BF109, *go make it! ' to their allies and they would have been in better shape even if it meant only a 100 more tanks that is a 100 more tanks that are good they don't have to make

>>630286

>Moscow

unimportant. Better question would be Leningrad, which would have allowed the combining with Finnish and german lines and was already under siege.

Really, though, Germany should have pressured (or even attacked) Turkey more and opened the caucasus front there, so that they could grab the oilfields in Baku. The whole push towards Causcasus through all of ukraine and southern Russia was a logistical nightmare on first sight.

Leon De Grelle said that harsh winter decreased speed of attack and after that Soviets launched a counter-attack.

David Irving also said that Hitler had plan to connect two forces behind Moscow and encircle it but he got sick and the generals rehashed the plan and adopted more conservative one which was worse than the Hitler's plan.

>>635200

But Franco's assistance in the war would've helped things tremendously for the Germans, in my view. Denial of resources to the Allies, a chance to besiege and capture Gibraltar, more (mostly experienced) soldiers for the Axis cause, and a greater control of the Med.

They should have built an army of SS robots with Jew-seeking missiles

>>635386

>The best would be if the war in Pacific didn't fucking happen

That was on (((Roosevelt))), for provoking the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor.

>Japan provide 100% support against the USSR and support Chiang Kai-shek in destroying Mao.

The Japs were willing to end the war with Chiang in exchange for Japanese suzerainty over the Chinks, which was a damn good deal in hindsight. But the Chinks manufactured the (((Rape of Nanjing))) against the Japanese, and so the war continued needlessly, when Chinks and Japs could have fought together to defeat the Commies.

>>635411

>War on Pacific happened before Pearl Harbor

The War in the Pacific began with Pearl Harbor. What you are referring to, is the War in China.

>Well, here's the thing, the japs shouldn't have attacked the chinks at all.

The Chinese had to be punished for attacking Japanese civilians, and for being yellow niggers.

>>635414

>You can't win unless you team up with lesser evil to beat greater evils, which are communists.

t. anon whose country allied with the greater evil

>>635421

Is that you, Spergook?

>>635367

Spanish civil war ended in 1939. Had Franco went ot war, he'd need to actually explain why the fuck he'd doing it to his own populace, who had enough war to last them a lifetime by them. So Franco asked for Gibraltar, French Morocco and parts of Algeria and some of the French colonies lower in Africa, plus supplies that'd solve the shortages left in the wake of the war. Hitler offered essentially nothing since he wanted to stay on Vichy's good side, so that was that. Franco had literally nothing to gain from the war, and while he certainly sympathised and was grateful to Germany, he wasn't going to bet the position he just fought a bloody war for (along with his life) because of it.

Hitler should have simply agreed to hand over the French colonies, as even if Spain proved to be an absolutely useless ally, being able to capture Gibraltar would alone outweight any possible negatives, as the Mediterranean would thus effectively belong to Italy alone – you can't just route everything through Suez because it's so fucking far and thus takes so long, and leaves you open to enemy subs the whole time.

Of course, hindsight's a bitch. Hitler expected an end to the war soon after French surrender, so trying to be on good terms with Vichy made perfect sense.

>>635413

The burger strelok is correct

Remember how Stalin transfered all those siberian divisions after the non agression pact? If they were to strike north and not give two fucks of how bad the IJA was going to get it's asses kicked, you bet the Stalin would not hesitate to let go of Siberia to defend European Russia.

>Bomb the transib railroad and just laugh.