AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't tell if your baiting or not

Look at a Map and tell me how you think Hitler would get to Iraq

It's a joke idiot

Not just fuel, all of their divisions were exhausted.

After the Sardinian boat antics you can hardly blame me for being dubious fag

That's true, I can't blame you

> the Sardinian boat antics
Do tell more.

He feared the arab warrior

>overextending your lines
>splitting one army into two and acting like you have two armies
>relying on Romanians and Italians to defend your flanks
>trying to fight your way over the caucus mountains
>getting bogged down in urban combat
>fighting till your troops are exhausted
>achieving very little while letting winter set in
>refusing to retreat to more defensible positions
>getting encircled
>not retreating and attempting breakout
>trying to supply an army from the air over hostile territory in winter
>losing an entire army

top kek

>Look at a Map and tell me how you think Hitler would get to Iraq

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Germans were pretty fucking dumb with that airbridge in Stalingrad. The problem with the Germans is that they believed they could perform a supply drop in Stalingrad like the German airforce did in the Demyansk pocket. The difference is that Soviet aviation was rather inactive in Demyansk, + it pretty much used up the entire air transport capacity of Germany, while in Stalingrad the VVS was pretty active and even had numerical superiority in Stalingrad
>We are fucked in Stalingrad, what do we do?
>Let's try what we did in Demyansk pocket despite the fact the VVS is more active than it was in the pocket
>Gut idea
Correct me if I'm wrong on anything

...

I'd say this is more of an example how extremely gullible Veeky Forums can be at times. I still recall some dude saying "Persia is in Europe, retard" and he got like 15 (You)s.

Oh. What kinds of defenses?

If supply lines were a problem, wouldn't that make a good case for attacking near the coast of the Black Sea and capturing the Don river?

Or should Germany have not bothered with an offensive at all?

*just fucking completely run over your forces like nothing*

I love the various small encirclements shown in that map that the USSR did, a good example of "deep operations" tbqh, where the zone of conflict is isolated from any potential reserves/supplies.
>Inflicts psychological damage on your troops from constant raids

why do people keep posting this shit and STILL believing the guy was just being dumb?
Veeky Forums is one of the most easily baited boards. No wonder /pol/tards love to post here, you fags will never not reply to their threads.

They did capture the Don river, user. Then they tried to go further.

No offensive at all prevents something like a Stalingrad, but your long term projections in a war are not good; that probably just means trading the (admittedly extremely small) chance for victory for a certainty of defeat later on.

So where should the Germans have gone on the offensive?

What if their aim was to prolong the war and conserve resources?

basically some dude was being a goober and said that Sardinia was uninhabited until at least the middle ages because it's an island, and islands are surrounded by water.

Therefore inaccessible.

>So where should the Germans have gone on the offensive?
England. Germany was never going to win against the Soviet Union while the Allies were still in play, and even without the Allies the chances are still heavily against Germany.

>So where should the Germans have gone on the offensive?
That's a tough question to answer, because the most likely outcome of any course of action is a loss anyway. But probably an attempt to keep pocketing and eliminating STAVKA formations.

>What if their aim was to prolong the war and conserve resources?
Then don't attack. But that's a losing game. At least on paper, the Wehrmacht hit their peak strength in 1944. By then, the war was completely lost, not because they were losing men and equipment faster than they could replace them, but because the Allies were outbuilding them so badly. Wait, and their production advantage crushes you.

Yes, invade England with no air superiority, overwhelming naval inferiority, and a complete lack of experience with amphibious operations. That'll work.

Rivers flows, user. You can't really "capture" it unless you dam it.

Crossing the channel would have been as big a clusterfuck as Russia. They would never been able to build up enough materiel
Best case scenario is sue for peace after Poland, hoping the Eternal Anglo will forget the treaty obligations to defend the slavs.

Operation Barbarossa was not a mistake,letting the soviets build up around you was a bad idea so a defense is a no-no
Russia is too huge to be conquered completely,and Napoleon's invasion show that conquering the heart of the motherland would not provide a victory
i would've done Barbarossa the same as before,but will stop short 130 miles off Moscow (somewhere along the lines of Rzhev-Bryansk-Vysma) and then set the lines along there and try to see if our troops could actually survive the winter or not
numerous battles (Rzhev,Kharkov,Kursk,Saturn) shows that counter offensive is the best way to go
you can have the best aspect of defense(defense in depth,mobile reserves,fortified position) to blunt any offensive and exhaust them,than you could subsequently attack the forces and drive them back off
what im aiming for is not a victory or knocking out Russia out of the war,its so that we could secure the Eastern Front enough so that we wont get raped as bad in 1945,if history runs its path than Italy would've fall,Normandy would've happened and the atomic bombs would still be created so there's not much hope in winning
Blue line is the summer line,Red is the winter line

You can capture the grounds along its length. I'm sorry if I wasn't' clear about that.

>the positioning of cities on that map
>it's just like nazi intelligence

T-the black dots represent the location

>That map
I thought the USSR relocated citizens and industries in 1941, not entire cities

>Operation Barbarossa was not a mistake
>that map

Did you honestly think posting this map would support your argument

no

Give an alternative to the Huns then,having a pure defense is dangerous since you let the soviets clump up together and let them concentrate theie forces
You also wouldnt have the devastating destruction of the Red air force
And an important aspect fo defense by then was defense in depth,fighting the battle at the pre war border is hazardous if the enemies penetrates your line so in any case that three pronged advance was successful
Just attacking and stretching yourself gets you the original Barbarossa

What the fuck am I looking at.

If you compare it to a real map its accurate up to 40 km

Its a map that Veeky Forums could understand

There was a serious attempt when it became obvious that Germany wasn't getting the Caucasus. The plan was to drive through the rest of Africa, take the Suez, and secure shipments of Arab oil there, but were stopped at El Alamein.

>Rommel's offensives
>Part of any overarching plan with the rest of the war effort
Pull the other one, it has bells on.

What the fuck am I looking at

Pincering off the k*rsk salient before Citadel

>the problem was that goering was a fat, whiny deluded bitch Who told Hitler what he wanted to hear.
All the rest is correct

Hitler sent an army to take vital oil fields in the Caucasus, until his meth abuse gave him autism and sent that army to attack Stalingrad, a heavily-defended city with no strategic

Seriously, look at that pocket by vitebsk, asking to be encircled

*Trains behind you*

Pssh, nothing personal Lenin

Seriously though, it's insane how quickly armies can move across the open Russian South

Good question. Imho a localized offensive to capture Leningrad and fully link up with the Finns would have been the way to go. After that its cutting the routes to Murmansk.

You reduce the flow of L and L and instead of overextending you actually shorten the front.

*shorten the front is retarded wording. You free up forces.

wouldn't be a bad argument were it not for that map

Leningrad was significantly difficult to capture though,swampy marshy terrain around it and there was a good rail line there
Expect a slaughterhouse the size of Stalingrad anyhow

Cutting Murmansk is going to be damn hard. It's really far away, and your own logistical setup is pretty bad that far north too.

Plus, the Finns weren't even willing to help you take Leningrad. What on earth makes you think they'll join you in USSR proper?

Point out any flaws in that map

For starters, Moscow is considerably north of Minsk, not south the way the map depicts it. The relative distances are all wrong too.

Thats not the Kursk salient

Thats the mistake of using the m*rcator projection my friend,relatively speaking any geologist would agree with the authenticity of my map

Not true, it was more fortified on the German end. Though the Russians at the time had usually around a 3:1 manpower advantage in that area for obvious reasons.

Also
>not posting these gains instead

>Cutting Murmansk is going to be damn hard. It's really far away, and your own logistical setup is pretty bad that far north too.

Ehhh you don't even need to go that far north. Cutting off the rail lines on the karelian peninsula should be enough.

>Expect a slaughterhouse the size of Stalingrad anyhow

No. The Germans would have been able to avoid being encircled because the lines would have been manned by germans and not unreliable auxiliaries.

High casualties sure but not Stalingrad tier.

You put Petrograd significantly inland, behind Lake Lagoda, instead of on the baltic.

The point I was trying to get across was that attacking there in Summer of 1942 would have achieved nothing and been a worst idea than attacking towards the Causcaus

Hitler really should have made more effort in linking up with the Finns on the Svir River and taking Leningrad.

A common mistake anyone could make

>Ehhh you don't even need to go that far north. Cutting off the rail lines on the karelian peninsula should be enough.
And none of the rail lines in Karelia are closer than 200km from the Finnish border, and to supply troops to cut them, you're going to need to haul up food and ammo and whatnot all the way. It's going to be hard as shit dude.

Also refer to the black dots rather than the location of the name

Any investment in the city would require significant increase of manpower and resourcefor Heersgruppe Sud
if they've done it in 1942 it would leave the German critically exposed in the centre and south in the midst of the Battle of Rzhev

It's also worth noting the Allies explained to Finland that they were willing to play nice unless they cut that exact rail line. Any effort would have been exclusively German.

due to autistic complaints
i've revised my map
this is a reflection of the gains that the Heer had made until winter 1941
the line would stretch from Syasstroy-Borovichi-Vyshny Volochyok-Rzhev-Vyasma-Bryansk-Kharkiv-Mariupol
this line serves the function as being the border of the German advance,being just deep enough to give strategic depth and a terrain advantage in permitting using mobile reserves,a cohesive line with well define lines of operation for each army group,not going to deep into the Russian interior that taxes your logistic line significantly and controlling major defensible features(Dnieper River)
i've referred to Imperial Germany during WW1,where they held off the Russian army with the Austro-Hungarian across the entire front and only made advances after the Russians had exhausted themselves,this time the Germans would have the advantage of fighting deeper into the enemy territory and not being in a two front war
Also the Western Front in WW1 is a good lesson,where the Hinderburg Line was maintained for a good 3 years against huge Entente offensive while giving them good posture to mount a counteroffensive

>A common mistake anyone could make
a pleb mistake. most people in the world couldn't point out where that city is on the map without guidance, but as someone with some historical knowledge you should know better tbhf

ive made the mistake of not clearly pointing out that the dots should be where the city are,rather than the city names itself

>Germany totally would've won if they built WW1-style defensive lines with trenches
hon hon hon

no,my post above that clearly states that Germany must concentrate on defense in depth
with forces concentrating on major town and geographic fixtures across the land
if any Soviet incursion would happen,the defensive line will hold off the attack until reserves in the backline could mobilize and attack the axis of advances,basically you have a strategic situation where you could probably expect where the enemy is going for and use the mobile panzer division to defeat them in detail and push them back
Since normal military doctrine states that a 3:1 superiority in numbers needed to break a defensive line,the Soviets would have a hard time breaking the lines especially if you do spoiling attacks and bottleneck any penetration in the line
in the worse case where your lines get rolled over the Heer could just fall back to a 2nd defensive position,ensuring that any operations would be a costly undertaking

Lots of casualties for no strategic benefit.

Germany were doomed from the start of the invasion though

here's what would roughly happened
Germany sets up a defensive and enforces it throught winter,there's no Operation Typhoon happening
The Russian prepares for a major offensive along 550 kilometre with 5 million men,the Germans drive them back by encircling the attacking force or grind them by forcing them to attack strong point,Soviet could not reach any breakthrough and have to withdraw through the Rasputitsa
Germany continue to strengthen position again

No, what would roughly happen is the Soviets, not being idiots, would focus their attack on a much narrower point in the German line, probably somewhere far away from the available railheads, and likely break through on something that's 40-50 kilometers long, instead of attacking across a quarter of the damn width of the country.

Then when they break through, the Germans are in trouble, because they let this soviet offensive build up to the point where they could attack anywhere, and thus they spread themselves thin defending everywhere ineffectively.

the better for the German knowing that they could contain such a small front
and the front chosen specifically has a good terrain for mobile exploitation
think steppe features like Kursk but with greater avenues of approach
and also defense in depth,how could you successfully exploit a breakthrough when there's another line just behind ready to counterattack and reserves waiting for your force to be exhausted and get counter attacked
Soviets have 2.1:1 superiority in Rzhev and and 5:1 in Kharkov but they managed to pull of a victory
simultaneous operations would be hard since the soviet uses the doctrine of supplying the unit that advances the most in line with deep operations,so they need to be careful with concentrations
in any case the battle line is not expected to be invincible,just good enough to withstand a massive assault and create a stalemate

Yeah like putting Cleveland into Canada

People thought California was an island user
Thats my reasoning for people not actually reading my map well

>the better for the German knowing that they could contain such a small front
Not when they don't know where the blow will fall.

>and also defense in depth,how could you successfully exploit a breakthrough when there's another line just behind ready to counterattack and reserves waiting for your force to be exhausted and get counter attacked
Because again, the front is some 2,000 kilometers long. If you want to put multiple lines everywhere, they'll be spread so thin the Romanians flank guards at Stalingrad will look ephemeral.

>Soviets have 2.1:1 superiority in Rzhev and and 5:1 in Kharkov but they managed to pull of a victory
And they had less than that at Yelnya and Vyzama, and won. What the hell is your point?

The general idea is not a continous defensive line but a general front so you could put forces that isnt going to be easily bypassed or encircled and you could have counterattacks forming up
Local attacks such as in Vyasma or Yelnya are counter attacks where the Germans have been streched out
Also remember the tactical situation of the Germans immediatly after Stalingrad,they were facing 6 million soviets across the front with only 2.2 million and managed to get a reverse at Kharkov decisively
Germany have a high chance of knowing where the soviets is going to attack since they didnt develop the advanced deception plans that we see in Bagration yet
So feasibly any broad front attack could be defeated successively,and any narrow front thrust can be easily encircled

How is Russia so fucking big?

You're an idiot though. Napoleon lost because he went autistic in Borodino.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHA HAHAHAHAH AHHHH HAHAHHAAHHHAAHAHH

Cossacks and the Orthodox Church.

Well, if he took stalingrad he would have total access to caucas oil, so not THAT retarded.

*blobs respectfully away from you*

Stalingrad value was controlling access to the Volga and as a matter of pride between the two dictators
To access the oil you need to conquer the Carpathian mountains

what the fug

Caucasus*

Immediate peace treaty with Soviets. Prewar boundary.

The commitment to Stalingrad spiraled out of control in my point, when you've commited every single Panzer division in your Panzer Korps to city fighting instead of using them as a mobile reserve it's probably a good indication you should stop