Could Germany have won eastern front?

The phone call that saved europe

Germans didn't even bother assaulting the city, that's why.
Moscow would be the same bloodbath as Stalingrad, I bet

Any more info on the Stalin at breaking point thing? Did he tell his close friends this at the time?

If he had managed to get a peace treaty with the western allies not been bombing Hitlers cities or sending lend lease to the USSR there's a good chance he would have or have held out for a good bit longer.

Germany could have won if it was not a nazi state
Imitating the germans of WW1 would have defeated russia pretty soundly, but such was not compatible with the third reich's political goals.

No. I don't think anyone could've at that point, Stalin made his country into the most nationalistic and excessively self sacrafice country in the world with all the propoganda and purges he had.

The Russians would fight to the last man for muh tankie revolution. Also it's hard to fight against the blessings of winter chan.

>Kiev, not Kharkov.
Sorry, got my K cities mixed up. I'm too caffeineated and jittery right now. I've read multiple books on the Eastern front, and just because I have a view that differs from yours does not mean it's pop history.

>Stalin made his country into the most nationalistic and excessively self sacrafice country in the world with all the propoganda and purges he had
>vatniks actually believe this
idiot, they fought like that because nazis fought a war of extermination with them and NKVD and Stalin seemed like the lesser threat. Soviets hated Stalin for the purges but unfortunately they all perished in the war and only brainwashed vatniks remained.

Can you recommend some books m8?

All my books are at my folks' house, and I haven't moved them to my house yet. Otherwise I'd be up to it.

Sounds like a convenient excuse, but there ya go.

>idiot, they fought like that because nazis fought a war of extermination with them and NKVD
>Soviet Propoganda was so good that people still believe it to this day

Tankies and ancoms are unreal.

>Soviets hated Stalin

*feared , and thanks to admitting I'm right about having legions of brainwashed idiot fighting on Stalin's side while also admitting you need to go back to leftypol

they certainly did not set up functioning satellite/rump states
worked for the germans in ww1

What the fuck was his problem?

Maybe if Germany had prepared for total war, like if they had stopped producing civilian cars and focused on mass producing tanks. Maybe.

If Germany had liberated people in the east instead of trying to slaughter them, like with Ukraine. Maybe.

If Hitler didn't have Great Britain and America to worry about. Maybe.

>and just because I have a view that differs from yours does not mean it's pop history.
It's not that "it differs from mine", it's that it's based on literally fucking nothing. There is nothing, outside of self serving memoirs like Guderian's, to point to the notion that an immediate attack on Moscow would even be as successful in the local theater as the later one. Your operational strength is way down, the Soviets have yet to commit to a bad counterattack, and there's this huge force building up on a salient. Diving forward to Moscow like that is insane.

Who had better tanks, the Nazis or Soviets?

fpbp

"Rommel could have totally pushed back Monty: all he had to do was walk fast enough against the crushing wind of history and repeat all the battles without the mistakes."

Soviets.

Germans could build great tanks a few at a time.

Soviets could mass produce tanks far faster, tanks almost as good.

No
Germany could never have done anything but lose horribly against YHWH's chosen Goyim!
They were doomed from the start! Oy Vey! why would you even ask!?

The German tanks were better individually but the Soviets had the power of spam.

Isn't this just a meme though? The T-34 completely shocked the Germans with its competence.

>The T-34 completely shocked the Germans with its competence

If I'm honest, I think that's the meme.

The T-34 was only impressive on paper.

In reality, it had such crap mechanical reliability that it needed an engine rebuild after 100 hours of running, it had one man turret syndrome that ruined fire control and situational awareness, it was so cramped that it was next to impossible to bail out of a burning tank, and the single base propellant in the shells tended to explode rather than burn if the tank was penetrated.

Oh, and the loader didn't get anywhere to sit, so they were in constant danger of having their legs crushed if they slipped while the turret was moving.

"Because fuck you, that's why" - Joseph Stalin 1941

The katushka self propelled rocket launcher beat out the German self propelled artillery.

The T-34 m fixed most of the flaws found in the original T-34.

The spam zerg rush strategy so many nazi sympathizers attribute to the USSR is greatly exaggerated. The soviets were really good strategically in 43 onward.

The main problem was shit training.

Even in 1945, the Soviet military lost far more IFVs in combat than it destroyed.

T-34: Designed in 1940, the T-34 was the best tank in the world when it was produced. It was a bit outdated by the end, but it was still very useful. By then the upgraded version, the T-34/85, was being mass produced - this tank is sometimes considered the best all-around tank design of World War II. Yes, even when compared to the German Tiger and Panther, as it was cheap to make, with modest maintenance requirements while being reliable and sturdy (all characteristics that the two aforementioned tanks didn't have) and, right up to the end, had decent armour, excellent speed (especially in the snow) and a good gun (in the early years, needless to say, these characteristics were even more impressive). Was the most produced model of tank in the world until the T-55.

In contrast to the over engineered German tanks, the T-34 was designed so that it could be maintained and repaired by a conscript soldier with minimal training and equipment. This proved something of an advantage on the Eastern Front.

The T-34 concept had been the soundest ever fielded up to 1945: a tank designed in the late 1930s could have been either a heavy, lumbering monster (T-35, Char B1) or maneuverable, but lightly armored (BT, Pzkpfw 38(t), Pzkpfw III, Pzkpfw IV), while a tank designed with the experience or the 1940-1941 campaigns in mind could have been either cheap, lightly armed and built by the thousands, or complex, nearly unbeatable in the field, heavily armed, ran by men like Wittmann, but just as expensive as its weight in gold. Modern designs like British Comet came too late to be meaningful in war. Only two projects matched every requirement (speed, armor, gun, maneuverability) and asked for more: M24 Chaffee and T-34, and the last got it right due to the engine, above all: the only 400-500hp tank engine which could be made to tip the scales at just 750kg dry weight. Before the British Meteor engine came, which was more powerful and even lighter, all other 1941-vintage engines weighed 1000-1200-1500kg easily, while the Chrysler Multi-Bank engine in the Sherman weighed a ridiculous 2384kg (5244lbs!).

The T-34 design and craftsmanship varied, with the early model 1940 being exceedingly poor: petrol engines which died after 350km (and not 350 thousand, as people may believe) in the field, an inferior transmission, and a very cramped turret. A lack of radios meant that tanks built in 1940 had to communicate via flags. At cramped two-men turret in T-34/76, rubberless track wheels and links and so on. Later war build quality vastly improved, especially with the introduction of the vastly superior diesel engine and transmission and with build and production defects resolved (and the threat of immediate attack to the factories removed).

In 1945, the main problem of soviet casualties was not their lack of training, but fighting an offensive in a heavily fortified Germany. In 41, 42, and early 43, yes the soviets did indeed round up anyone, handed them a rifle, and expected them to learn during combat, as their situation was very dire; but after fighting the Germans for over four years, they naturally adapted and created their own tactics and strategy.

As a consequence of poor planning, hasty adoption and the colossal disruption caused by Operation Barbarossa, build quality was ridiculously variable (to the point where incompatibility of parts was called into question). The tanks from factory 112 were extremely poor and built with serious flaws, and the tanks built at factory 183 at Kharkov (the tank that originated the T-34 prototype) were excellent, being finished as well, or even better than anything manufactured in Germany or France. Armor quality was consistently excellent, and in fact so good that it was a factor in the Germans being unable to directly copy the T-34 design. The ability of all T-34s, even inferior models, to be brought back into service despite being wrecked on the battlefield probably had to do with the chassis' flexibility for other purposes (for highly effective tank destroyers, for example), and all T-34s, even the lemons, featuring points that revolutionized armored vehicle design, namely wide tracks, sloped armor, a powerful diesel engine, and superb suspension.

T-34 set the standards that every subsequent Soviet tank followed: it was reasonably well armored, very well armed, yet lighter and faster compared to its contemporaries partly due to being relatively small and compact (especially in height). On the other hand, its dimensions severely limited the internal space, lowered crew effectiveness, and made upgrades difficult (problems that also hampered T-55 and T-72). The small size, however, also gave it much tactical advantage, especially in concealment (many German generals thought their own Panther and Tiger were too big and that the smaller T-34 was much better in defensive operations) and in strategic mobility, such as in river crossings (German Tigers could not cross many bridges in Soviet Russia. Even after the war, strategic bridges in Eastern Europe were built so that lighter Soviet-designed tanks could use them, but bigger and heavier NATO tanks could not.)

The M4 was better in every way though.

Much, much, much more reliable, cheaper to manufacture, better crew layout, easier to evacuate if penetrated, and basically the same gun and armor.

Which is better in your opinion, the newest version of T90, or the T15 armata?

>Which is better in your opinion
Going to need a little more context.

Not by 1945 unless they could conduct some miracle during the Ardennes offensive which would force the WAllies to peace. This might free up enough men and resources to slow the eastern front to a stalemate. It would also relieve the pressure on German industry.

What? I thought you knew about them?

If you mean what I mean by better, I mean all around better.

Production cost, and mass production.

Speed, Armor, and Cannon.

Inside tech, communications, and accessibility.

The Germans intentionally starved it

>The Germans didn't wage a war of extermination on the Slavic people

The Germans destroyed 4 Russian tanks for every German tank destroyed. However the soviet production line was so intense the Germans would have had to have destroyed 20 Russian tanks for every 1 german tank to actually exhaust the soviet supply.

>Which is better in your opinion, the newest version of T90, or the T15 armata?
>T15 armata
Do you mean T-14 Armata Tank? Because the T15 armata is a IFV

Yes I ment T-14 armata . From what I know, the crew is three, and its turret is remote controlled amd has cameras for 360 view

>Any more info on the Stalin at breaking point thing? Did he tell his close friends this at the time?

Not him, but, there is many accounts about Stalins reaction. Some say he threw a temper tantrum, others said he remained icily calm. No one knows for certain, as these accounts were most likely corrupted for political reasons.

However, we can extrapolate based on Stalin's behavior, and the fact that Germany had already stabbed Stalin in the back, that Stalin would never strick another deal with Hitler.

My answer would be Stalin would never negotiate a peace with Hitler.

More to the OP, Germany could never have one against the Soviets. They were not even close.

They could have forced a stalemate through defensive tactics and no politically forced offensives. Russia was an amazing place for elastic defence.

See: Gotthard Heinrici

No, germany never had a chance. Their performance irl across the entire war was right at the upper limit of plausible success

Ah the classic 'T-34 was the first tank to have sloped armour' meme. The suspension was also first developed for US tanks in the 20s so that wasn't revolutionary either.

Wide tracks and a larger than usual engine, whoopie,

If they had never been at war with the US, yes, because Germany was in every way a more powerful country than the USSR. Having Japan enact the Kantokuen plan would have also helped. But those are both going into fantasy territory; the USA existed, so ultimately it didn't matter if Germany could eventually beat the USSR, because they couldn't beat the USSR when it was backed by the USA (or just the USA on its own, but that's beyond the purview of the Eastern Front).

Looking at productions of things like tanks is really misleading. Because Lend-Lease provided the Soviets enough of mundane shit like trucks and shipping that they could focus entirely on war materiel. If you want a more accurate indicator, look at comparisons of GDP and production of vital resources like steel and coal. But even that won't compensate for the heavy effect Anglo-American bombing had on German industry and the big boost Lend-Lease gave to Soviet industry even without finished products (e.g. raw materials, machine tools).

bump

German guns at the time had serious trouble penning the t34, that's the entire reason they created the panther

that user is stalhelm on butt retarded. so are most of the anons in this thread.

germany could not compete with the soviet union in terms of war economy, and they gambled on inducing political capitulation through early shock in military victory.

they had the timing right, just when the purges made the red army most vulnerable, but the wehrmacht still fucked up.

wehraboos need to get over ww2, these threads getting annoying.

Bump

the great success of 1941 cost the germans 1/3 of their personel killed wounder or missing in action
and 2/3 of their material (vehicles, equipment)
operation typhoon started with severly understrenght divisions

some reason ppl are not taught this, only about the the fast and relentless advance of the germans

its rarely mentioned the armored divisions werent turned south out of passion but because army group south was foreseeing a collapse and asked for help to avoid army group center to be encircled

theres also no game over sign in case of capturing moscow

>Leningrad was isolated from the rest of the USSR

nope

Nopers

Lake Ladoga was contested by torpedoboats, but the soviets still managed to Supply the city from across the lake.

Tanks destroyed does not signify anything about tank quality though.

...

japanese have been btfo by soviets two years earlier, are stuck in China and are literally on the other half of the world anyway.

>historynet.com/lost-prison-interview-with-hermann-goring-the-reichsmarschalls-revelations.htm

is this genuine? Göring claims that Molotov asked for permission to invade Finland and Romania in 1941 and that this might have pissed off the Anglo-sphere enough to stop supplying them.

no
its just like the attack of the poles on the radiostation
they made shit up to justify the war according to them russians demanded the following
>finland
>romania
>bulgaria
>dardanelles

der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/41-10-03.htm

youtube.com/watch?v=KFiOi_UnX98

"demands" at 3:20

its funny how stormfags blow themselfs the fuck out when they cite hitler himself, if there was such demands you can be sure it would get out and propagated like hell since the big bad USSR was to be smeared after the war

You're telling me that Hermann Göring, lied to his interrogators about the Soviets demanding Finland/Romania, so that he could lie to them about wanting to let the Soviets invade in order to focus the war on Britain instead?

Are you implying that the Germans didn't want to exterminate slavs?

he lied to save his own skin
it didnt work

If they found the Spear of Destiny they definitely could have.

The ratio (muh k/d) of men and material lost was absolutely overwhelming though

1mil casualties for 5mil casualties/captured
2800 aircraft lost for 21,200 destroyed
2800 tanks lost for 20,500 destoyed

It's an astounding testament to the strength of the USSR that they were able to carry on. I don't know of any other country that has suffered such devastating losses in all aspects and still rose to carry on the brunt of the fighting.

its exactly about the ratio
germany lost its 1/3rd of its veteran men, they could never recover from it

The unlucky bastard who had to be the one physically measuring Hitler and Stalin's penis length when they started pointlessly waving them at each other in Stalingrad

It was also devastating to the German forces yes, it's just quite a spectacle from a gross numbers perspective.

bull scheisse

You can find a source that backs your claim or you can trot on

bumpin

Yes.

> Alliance with an anti-communist USA
> Germans get lend lease
> USA blockades Russia

War is over by 1942

>In reality, it had such crap mechanical reliability that it needed an engine rebuild after 100 hours of running,
The V-2 engine was a pretty good engine for its time. The transmission was the problem for early T-34s. Panthers managed to be less reliable.
> it had one man turret syndrome that ruined fire control and situational awareness,
It had a 2 man turret: gunner/commander and loader. Most tanks of the time had 2 man turrets.
>Oh, and the loader didn't get anywhere to sit, so they were in constant danger of having their legs crushed if they slipped while the turret was moving.
Nice meme. The loader had a seat but not a turret basket because they thought it was a pain in the ass. So much they asked for turret baskets to be removed on their M5 Stuarts.

Operational losses are not permanent losses. Slavs counted operational losses while Germans counted permanent losses.

Lend Lease is overrated

It helped the USSR push into Central Europe but it wasn't critical.

I wonder what the soldiers were thinking now that they were stuck in a landwar in Russia

My German isn't great, but I think the columns are Killed, wounded, missing, and a total one respectively. But if that's the case, what's the in parenthesis and out of parenthesis thing for?

maybe, if they went through Ukraine to the Urals with out dicking around with the baltics or moscow. all before the 40 plus Far East divisions and their airplanes, tanks, and other support shows up.

then you secure the eastern frontier of the ural mountain range, work north to the arctic.

I love the idea of some autistic user drawing a front that somehow extends all the way from fucking Romania to the Urals.

Let's have this snake of a 3,000km front PLUS the 1,000km front from the Baltic to Romania. I'm sure that'll work much easier than the 2,000km front they already had to deal with. It will most definitely not be cut off!

A FOUR-THOUSAND KILOMETRE FRONT.

it cuts the soviets off from their oil, their grain, their southern foreign supply route, and you only need to cut off their rail and road passes through the urals.

you get the strategic resources, the angry Ukrainians and Cossacks to fight with you.

>Slavs counted operational losses
No fucking shit. why do you think they did that

Gee user, maybe the Germans should have invaded every border of the USSR at once. Then they could cut off the Russians from lend lease! The Russians would never see an invasion from Northern Siberia coming

Let's solve the problem of the Germans biting off more than they could chew by biting off even MORE

I just love the idea of a German Army piercing through towards the Caspian Sea while Russians take a walk through the Southern Baltic and end up near Berlin 3 years early because no one was left to defend the Vaterland.

In fact I'm going to post a map of the projected front size

Let's push through to the Eastern Urals guys!

>the German advance is sort of shaped like a semierect cock

Top kek

>idiot, they fought like that because nazis fought a war of extermination with them and NKVD
>Soviet Propoganda was so good that people still believe it to this day

Are you retarded on purpose?
>what is Babiy Yar
>what is Leningrad
>what are firestorm bombings of Murmansk and Stalingrad

im only seeing a squirrel

Well, in my analogy, Southern Russia would become the pussy. The squirrel if you will.

>the nazsties didn't want to eradicate the slavs
hmmm i wonder who could be behind this post

>Much, much, much more reliable, cheaper to manufacture, better crew layout, easier to evacuate if penetrated, and basically the same gun and armor.
I think that's because it's a latter design built without the need to produce them ASAP to replenish losses.

Idiot, i was quoting his message and naming examples of G*rms trying to eradicate Soviet civilians

>panzer 4
>lightly armored

>Pz IV without saying variant

A-E was lightly armored the opposition it was supposed to overcome

Early versions were 20-30mm thick in thickest parts.