|
|
Post by imkhoa3 on Dec 17, 2021 14:51:09 GMT
actually , the delay to balkan actually a good because the british gonna bomb oil field in polesti and interupt barbarossa
and go straight to moscow is good idea because it will cut the soviet main transport system which make them cannot bring supply anymore
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 17, 2021 15:13:43 GMT
Normandy defences were poorly manned, when Allies landed in 1944, and it still became a blood bath. Therefore it’s hard for me to imagine an Allied landing in Europe without Eastern Front having already defeated most German forces. Though maybe Allies would still be able to win WW2, who knows. But USSR could win without Western Allies. Battles for Moscow and Stalingrad were won with barely any lend-lease. But of course the war would last much longer and take even more lives. Therefore I thank Western Allies for probably saving my ancestors from being killed in that harder alternate war and thus allowing me to be born. God, let our nations live in peace and friendship! nope , the ussr wont win ww2 or barely win without allies force because 1. no afrika korp so rommel will get in eastern and who know if he might turn the tide or not 2. no more bombing so no more destruction to nazi weapon factory + more factory in france , belgium etc so they will have mass increase of weapons production 3. german will have more troops ( german throw 4 millions soldier in western front )+ their allies will now join them . the japanese and the italian now help ( soviet have 1 millions or 2 divisions to defend from japanese ) and italy have about 300k troops in north african campaign plus their tank and artillery so , the ussr might win but their will struggling alot and remember stalingard fail because of not enough troops to fit into the holes in don river 1. Definitely not, a 200,000 strong small force couldn't ever do anything against the the Soviet war machine. 2. Again, the same with Afrika Corps, such small effect absense of bombings in France couldn't have any real effect. 3. Germany didn't throw even nearly 4 million troops to the western frong as far as I know. Italy was helping anyway and Japan had China (I don't think China counts as a western ally). |
|
|
|
Post by imkhoa3 on Dec 17, 2021 15:18:27 GMT
1. no afrika korp so rommel will get in eastern and who know if he might turn the tide or not 2. no more bombing so no more destruction to nazi weapon factory + more factory in france , belgium etc so they will have mass increase of weapons production 3. german will have more troops ( german throw 4 millions soldier in western front )+ their allies will now join them . the japanese and the italian now help ( soviet have 1 millions or 2 divisions to defend from japanese ) and italy have about 300k troops in north african campaign plus their tank and artillery so , the ussr might win but their will struggling alot and remember stalingard fail because of not enough troops to fit into the holes in don river 1. Definitely not, a 200,000 strong small force couldn't ever do anything against the the Soviet war machine. 2. Again, the same with Afrika Corps, such small effect absense of bombings in France couldn't have any real effect. 3. Germany didn't throw even nearly 4 million troops to the western frong as far as I know. Italy was helping anyway and Japan had China (I don't think China counts as a western ally). 1. Speer admit that the bombing cause alot of effect in german weapon production 2.in 1944 to 1945 , german have 8 millions troops who served |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 17, 2021 15:52:58 GMT
1. Definitely not, a 200,000 strong small force couldn't ever do anything against the the Soviet war machine. 2. Again, the same with Afrika Corps, such small effect absense of bombings in France couldn't have any real effect. 3. Germany didn't throw even nearly 4 million troops to the western frong as far as I know. Italy was helping anyway and Japan had China (I don't think China counts as a western ally). 1. Speer admit that the bombing cause alot of effect in german weapon production 2.in 1944 to 1945 , german have 8 millions troops who served  Impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by imkhoa3 on Dec 17, 2021 16:49:59 GMT
1. Speer admit that the bombing cause alot of effect in german weapon production 2.in 1944 to 1945 , german have 8 millions troops who served Impossible. "Western" |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 17, 2021 18:23:21 GMT
Barbarossa was a good plan. But major flaws were to delay it for the Balkan and not subduing Britain first. And Hitler also should had gone straight for Moscow first. The soldiers could then turn back and help elsewhere like the twin 'grads'. 1. Barbarossa was delayed due to road and river crossing conditions in USSR ( mud + spring floods), not due to the Balkans campaign. I have this information from YouTube show “WW2 week by week”, but can’t remember the primary source. 2. About Britain: agree 3. Hitler has done everything to capture Moscow ASAP, bur not turning 2 PzG south in September 1941 wasn’t an option: such decision would make Germans leave a long flank, which would need troops to be guarded by -> a major distraction of force from the main offensive. Red Army faced similar problem in 1945. After Vistula-Oder offensive it was just 60 km from Berlin, but at first cleared up the flanks to free more troops for the Berlin offensive. Conclusion: Germans could have gone straight on Moscow in August-September 1941, but they wouldn’t be able to do it with the concentration of force they achieved in real Typhoon. Barbarossa would still most likely fail. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 17, 2021 19:27:35 GMT
Impossible. "Western" Read the percentages. |
|
