Was Barbarossa Even Winnable?

>strategic bombers bomb rail ways and Urals.

Am I missing something? Why didn't the Germans do this?

The true patrician answers

It takes an enormous effort to bomb high capacity railways long enough to keep them blocked, and then keep doing it so that they stay blocked. Furthermore, your planes can only fly so far, you need to constantly advance and set up new airbases. In addition, escorting fighters up until very, very late in the war's technological capacity couldn't be both long range and being able to fight well. So even if you could get the bomb tonnage delivered (you can't) you can't protect them except at the initial phases of their raids, and as bad as the VVS is, they'd still eat you up.

Because they didn't have a bomber design that could reach that distance, an industrial base to produce them in large numbers, fuel to fly them, or infrastructure in the East to house them.

The Germans never developed competent strategic bombers, the luftwaffe focused heavily on tactical and dive bombers as they were essential to the combined arms tactics the overall Wehrmacht was dependent on.

The Germans probably thought the Soviet command would collapse and there won't be that much organised resistance, which would allow them to occupy everything easier.

Surely a black swan like the death of Stalin could have a significant effect on the outcome?

>Was Barbarossa Even Winnable?

Not by a long shot. Heck, even the road to Barbarossa was unlikely. If you told Hitler in 35, that he will Steamroll France in the next war, he'd have a good laugh.
Nobody expected the Reich to come as far as it did. It is still amazing how far Hitler and his goons came, despite some serious corruption and mismanagement. When Barbarossa started, Hitle could have still gotten to Moscow if he had a little bit more luck.
It basically boiled down to a few bad rolls on your d20, like in a weird DnD campaign that only was a thing because one of your players wanted to be a genocidal dictator.

>your planes can only fly so far

Check the ranges of German 4 engine craft. Even the 2 engine bombers could've done more to threaten logistics. The 4 engine bombers could have severed the Archangel line, and those far west of Moscow and Stalingrad.

>It takes an enormous effort to bomb high capacity railways long enough to keep them blocked

It actually doesn't. Dropping a single 250lb bomb every 100 meters would've forced rebuilding parties to have to stop and fix every single track line along the way. If a single track is in disrepair, the line is unusable. A handful of either 2 or 4 engine bombers could've done that.

>escorting fighters

This is the only reason I can think of. They did have 2 engine fighters but none that could reach the Urals and back as far as I'm aware, assuming they use converted Soviet airfields for the bombings. But even then it seems they could've done some severe damage in terms of delays based on the risk of a few bombers alone.

>they didn't have a bomber design that could reach that distance

They had several.

>an industrial base to produce them in large numbers

Arguable. They could've made room if they had fully mobilized earlier, or if they had simply used the 2 engine bombers they already had stocked.

>fuel to fly them

I'm talking about early in the war. The winter of 41 when the Soviet air force is down, they're reeling back, are waiting on reinforcements, and neither side is attacking while Germany has forward airfields.

>infrastructure in the East to house them.

They captured Soviet airfields which were made to house 4 engine bombers equivalent in size to the German bombers.

>luftwaffe focused heavily on tactical and dive bombers as they were essential to the combined arms tactics the overall Wehrmacht was dependent on

Good point, but they did actually have 4 engine bombers.Granted things like the Me-264 came a year after the date I would've planned on. It could've been fast tracked.

They could have won in 1941 if the Moscow campaign didnt fail. The UdSSR was an extremely centralized government. The administration was completely based in Moscow. Loosing the city during winter would mean a total governmental collapse and even more millions of deaths. Stalin position was by no means guaranteed, he was widely despised and other top officials would probably try to take over his position resulting in even more chaos. But it is pretty much safe to say that the war was already over when Germany attacked Stalingrad.

Kiev was kinda a good idea because Stalin considered it an important city but not taking it and just besieging it would have also worked.
I have no clue why Kiev was taken and Leningrad was just left alone. I'd rather take both or neither and just go for Moscow.

>Leningrad was just left alone
Besieging it is hardly the same as "leaving it alone". 1.1 million civilians died in Leningrad.

I worded it wrong.
Of course Leningrad was besieged and signifanct resources were used to keep it that way but why was it not conquered but Kiev was? To me it seems hardly like a big deal. The Nazis had no reason to feed the soviet population anyway. So if they now beseiege it or just sack it, does not really make a difference.

>Was Barbarossa Even Winnable?
if the nazis got to moscow before the leadership fled east, captured stalin and made him surrender then maybe, but the chances of that are 10000000 to 1

Germany was struggling with war production overall, without the overall information we have available about how critical the redeployment of industry was to the Soviet Union's capacity to wage war, why would the German leadership invest precious resources and a substantial amount of fuel on strategic bombing when tactical bombers were much more immediately useful. Important to mention is that this tactical airforce had helped them win most of their impressive early victories, it makes sense that they would keeping going with what they had been shown worked.

>I'm talking about early in the war
I mean you do realize the fuel situation was really dire right? In a year they wouldn't have enough fuel for a frontwide offensive and that's why Blau was only focused on the south, if you add in daily bomber raids to the Urals and back they'll probably not even make that long

Urban warfare is always a costly thing, and it leads to massive casualties on both sides. The germans simply didn't have enough men to launch an overall assault on Leningrad, if they also wanted to accomplish any other strategic goals that year. In '41, they got to Leningrad's suburbs and lay siege to it, in '42 they chose to go for the caucasus and its oilfields, and in '43, they threw everything into destroying the soviet bulge at Kursk during Citadel. Leningrad was never strategically important enough for the germans to throw men and materiel at.

Overy mentions that while the Allies certainly had the upper-hand, the idea that the war was unwinnable from a Nazi point of view is a post-war rationalisation. He seems to avoid if the Nazis could have actually won though.

>Germany was struggling with war production overall

I'm looking at Fuller's the Second World War right now on aircraft used in the war, they did have 2 engine fighters by 39 and 4 engine bombers by 40 but those wouldn't have been able to hit the Urals. My point is, even with those small numbers of aircraft, why not use them to hit those railways and bridges deep in enemy territory? As far as I know it wasn't done and they already had the aircraft to do it.

>why would the German leadership invest precious resources and a substantial amount of fuel on strategic bombing

They already did.

>tactical bombers were much more immediately useful

This is why I said the winter of 41. The Germans didn't advance then, and the Soviets weren't either. The Soviet air force was almost entirely wiped out. It would've been the perfect time to begin that intermediate-long range bombing plan. They weren't using 2 engine bombers daily or anything like that at this point.

>I mean you do realize the fuel situation was really dire right?

They already had them built and presumably had fuel for their missions.

>if you add in daily bomber raids

Obviously not daily.

According to the Hoth book I mentioned in another thread, the German plan called for forcing the remaining Soviets to fall into Moscow for a final encirclement. The idea was to basically wipe out the last devoted remnants while they were uniformed and in poor positioning.

>why was it not conquered but Kiev was?
IIRC Hitler kept shifting the Army's priorities. Leningrad was one of his original top-priority targets both because of its strategic importance, but also (and mostly) because it was Russia's major artistic and cultural hub and (most importantly) where the Russian Revolution began. But then Moscow, Kiev, Stalingrad, Baku, etc. became focuses and troops were diverted towards those areas.

Now this is from something I read a few years ago so I might be wrong but that's the main reason I think.

>Check the ranges of German 4 engine craft.
The He-177 wasn't introduced until 1942 and would randomly explode until 1944, they only made 65ish JU-290s, and the Condors were slow, vulnerable, and had low bomb loads.

>Even the 2 engine bombers could've done more to threaten logistics.
But you need those Ju-88s and He-111s et al doing other stuff.

>The 4 engine bombers could have severed the Archangel line, and those far west of Moscow and Stalingrad.
No, they couldn't have, any more than things like the Transport Plan completely severed German logistical deployments to France.

>It actually doesn't. Dropping a single 250lb bomb every 100 meters
How the fuck are you getting that kind of precision out of WW2 planes?
>A handful of either 2 or 4 engine bombers could've done that.
Again, explain how the Allies, who devoted enormous effort towards interdiction bombing, managed to fial to keep rail-lines closed for anything more than a week or so without the commitment of thousands of bombers.

>This is the only reason I can think of
Yes, you aren't very smart. That's a shame.

>But even then it seems they could've done some severe damage in terms of delays based on the risk of a few bombers alone.
You are grossly, grossly overestimating the amount of damage that can be done from the air and similarly underestimating the relative ease of repair.

To answer your question OP, we need to understand what the goal of Barbarossa was, and this is often confused.

The historical consensus is that the aim of Barbarossa was to destroy the bulk of the Red Army west of the Dnieper and Dvina rivers, that is, within the Baltic states and Ukraine, before they could escape to the vast Russian interior. It wasn't a Geographic goal like capturing Moscow, that would come later when it became clear the Red Army hadn't been annihilated.

No, Barbarossa was always meant to be a quick, devastating blow to the soviet military. The German high command was painfully aware, from the very beginning of the war and even before, that Germany did not have the capabilities to fight a prolonged conflict. That's why lightning warfare was a thing in the first place.

Hitler and his generals were confident that, without too much effort, "the whole rotten structure would come crashing down" after a couple of days of fighting. Well it didn't, and the rest is history.

The cutoff for Barbarossa's failure was autumn 1941, when it was obvious Moscow would have to be taken. When operation Typhoon failed by 1942, it was certain to many generals that the war would not be won on Germany's terms.

Of course, within weeks of fighting, as early as July 1941, it became clear to the OKH, the German high command, that effectively mauling the Red Army just wasn't possible. Franz Halder, chief of staff, himself remarked "for every Russian division we destroy, they raise up another dozen".

And by 1941, though, the Russian manpower meme wasn't exactly accurate. Many soviet rifle divisions, by that point and especially after Kiev and Minsk, were severely understrength and under equipped with a lack of vehicles; the Germans could outmaneuver them at nearly every turn. Gradually attrition however would grind the three army groups down, but until then, Stalin traded blood and swathes of steppe for time. And it paid off eventually.

What the actual fuck is that map, Jesus Christ

It's from Fatherland. Seems ok I guess?

The shape of those countries look like they were drawn up by a retard. Also Slovakia is apparently annexed by Germany, something they never intended to do.

>Obviously not daily
You'd have to fly them daily to do any real damage to the decentralized industry in the Urals, it's not easy like in the West where all the cities have nice big industrial areas. Even supposing they managed to fly regular several thousand kilometer bombing raids it's not going to help as much as you think

The issue with strategic bombing is that it has to be done with great enough intensity that the enemy cannot repair his industry or infrastructure as quickly as you can destroy it. So whatever small amounts of bombers you can send out, probably wouldn't make a big enough difference.

>This is why I said the winter of 41. The Germans didn't advance then, and the Soviets weren't either.
The soviets did advance in the winter of '41, also, flying long distances in winter weather is never a good idea, especially over hostile territory. While the soviets did get a majority of their airforce destroyed, they were by no means impotent, especially in attacking long range bombers who would be especially vulnerable due to a lack of fighter cover.

They didn't have long range heavy strategic bombers. For all it's capabilities the Luftwaffe lagged behind in that regard. A hilarious oversight on Goering's part, really.

That's not to say they didn't try though, the HE 177 was a step in that direction. But the Luftwaffe was retarded, and wanted a heavy bomber that could /dive/. This caused a ton of design flaws that were never fully resolved for the 177.

All in all, did Germany have the capability to carpet bomb beyond the Urals? No.

They almost won in the first year until the US gave them supplies

It was doomed to fail because Hitler wanted to micromanage EVERYTHING. Germans had no decentralized command and Hitler was surrounded by yes-men who were only after promotions and personal gains.

Some blame Mussolini for german defeat because germans had to bail him out from his delusional roman empire 2.0 adventures, but even if barbarossa had started earlier the whole campaign was still doomed from the start because the rigid command structure wouldnt allow the people in the field to take initiave.

Tactical retreats amd proper maneuvering & concentrating of troops would have probably turned the odds against russians, since their command structure was even more rotten than the german one, with the political commisars interefering on strategic & tactical decision making.

If you look back in history the only people to ever invade russia proper succesfully was the mongols, and what were they especially known for? High maneuverability and feinting retreats.

No two-engine bomber could make the round trip of 3,200 km from Vyazama to Sverdlosk.
Germany in 1941 was more geared towards a war economy than Britain. You can't really "fast track" four-engine bombers to be produced on a large scale in a military-industrial complex focused on producing aircraft made for tactical bombing.
And Germany's fuel situation was absolutely dire in the winter of 1941 - the lowest point yet, and the monthly requests for fuel by the eastern forces exceeded supply by 62,000. tons.

>The He-177 wasn't introduced until 1942

But it's first flight was in 1939. Again, most of these designs could've been fast tracked if it weren't for doctrine differences.

Here's a craft:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_217
>nearly 2k produced
>by 1941
>holds more than enough bomb load for rail runs and enough for industrial bombing
>range of about 1300mi

It would take using Soviet airfields, but estimating based on a launch longitude in western Russia it could cut it. Replacing bombs for fuel could extend that range from Belarus. There's no reason why that wasn't done outside doctrine.

>But you need those Ju-88s and He-111s et al doing other stuff.

Not in the winter of 41. The Germans didn't anticipate having to perform mass maneuvers during the period so they entrenched. It would've been the perfect time.

>No, they couldn't have, any more than things like the Transport Plan completely severed German logistical deployments to France.

You can't be serious. A plane designed to hold thousands of pounds of bombs can't destroy a railway? Who am I discussing with? No way you're older than 20.

>How the fuck are you getting that kind of precision out of WW2 planes?

By flying low over hundreds of miles of unprotected railway.

>Again, explain how the Allies, who devoted enormous effort towards interdiction bombing, managed to fial to keep rail-lines closed for anything more than a week or so without the commitment of thousands of bombers.

Because the Germans were highly industrialized and could afford to defend it's key territories with AA artillery fire. The Soviets had too much territory and too long of pathways to protect. There's no way they could protect all of it, especially after they just lost over 3 million men and almost their entire active air force.

The Soviet government already had plans to move to Samara if they lost Moscow, it would not have been nearly as debilitating as you say. And the idea that Stalin would be overthrown was a big misconception that the German leaders at the time were really banking on, but is implausible. He had removed anyone that could really threaten his authority, and anyway the German invasion greatly strengthened his position as he could take on the role of Russian patriot defending the nation against the aggressor.

If Barbarossa started any earlier the offensive would have ground to a halt in the mud anyway

To be fair, the strategic bombing campaign against Germany was colossally expensive and produced results of dubious value. Not jumping on the same was probably a good call for the Luftwaffe; it's hard to claim with a straight face that they could have gotten through indirect bombing the same sorts of advantages they got from their CAS focuses in 1940 and 1941.

The thing is, it WORKED in France. The conquest of western Europe gave Hitler too much confidence.

This was compounded by the fact it was unthinkable to the Nazis that Slavs, being racially inferior, could ever put up an effective defense.

Anyone know anything about this book or is it a meme

>Again, most of these designs could've been fast tracked if it weren't for doctrine differences.
And that CAS doctrine got them France and the initial advances that ptu them anywhere evn close to the Urals to begin with. Giving them up for probably not being able to do anything significant anyway is really dumb.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_217
>Powerplant: 2 × BMW 801A 14-cylinder radial engine, 1,560 PS (1,539 hp, 1,147 kW) each

>range of about 1300mi
I assume you want these bombers to get back after they fly out. And having enough fuel to maneuver in case they run into or near VVS flights might be nice too, which cuts down your effective range even further. There's a reason that the 109 e3's with a supposedly 410 miles of range had enormous trouble flying and fighting effectively north of London from bases in northern France.

>Not in the winter of 41. The Germans didn't anticipate having to perform mass maneuvers during the period so they entrenched. It would've been the perfect time.
Yeah, well, anticipation besides, they actually did have to do a lot of fighting to fend off Soviet counterattacks.

>You can't be serious
I am dead serious. I have actually read up on this stuff. You do the same. This would be a good start. amazon.de/D-Day-Bombers-Veterans-Normandy-Invasion/dp/1904010792

>By flying low over hundreds of miles of unprotected railway.
It's not unprotected. And you have no navigation equipment worth mentioning.

>Because the Germans were highly industrialized and could afford to defend it's key territories with AA artillery fire.
We're talking about interdiction bombing, not bombing of German cities. They did not have AA guns over every kilometer of French railroad track.

>Because the Germans were highly industrialized and could afford to defend it's key territories with AA artillery fire. The Soviets had too much territory and too long of pathways to protect. There's no way they could protect all of it, especially after they just lost over 3 million men and almost their entire active air force.
AA/enemy aircraft didn't matter shit in the success of the Transport Plan - air supremacy and sheer numbers meant that targets were getting destroyed regardless of those. What that poster was referring to was the fact that the Germans were able to reconstruct rail lines very easily, despite being in a very resource and manpower constricted period of the war. How could the Soviets not do the same against a much smaller and less determined attack?

>Yes, you aren't very smart. That's a shame.

This coming from the guy who claims that transport planes are equally as dangerous as 4 engine bombers holding thousands of pounds of payload. Right. Nice bait I guess.

>>Obviously not daily
>You'd have to fly them daily to do any real damage to the decentralized industry in the Urals

Depends on the tonnage of bombs and to what degree recon works out. Initially, it wouldn't have been effective at all, but no reason German spotters wouldn't be improving bombing in the future. The real effect is the lag in time the Soviets will have mobilizing their troops without bridges and railways in addition to their general lack of roads.

>Even supposing they managed to fly regular several thousand kilometer

If they use fields in western Russia to Belarus, that's about 1500 miles or less to the Urals. Most German 4 engine bombers have that range, especially those designed after 1938. All German 2 engine bombers can be used to bomb the railways and bridges.

>The soviets did advance in the winter of '41
And they suffered for it. Look at the kill count. After the first year of fighting they lost over 3 million men overall. The air force is nearly non-existent, they're pulling from reserves. The USSR can't defend it's most vital city areas, so it certainly won't be able to defend the entire perimeter of a flightpath of rural terrain.

>They didn't have long range heavy strategic bombers

Designed before 38. They certainly had them in service after 41.

>But the Luftwaffe was retarded, and wanted a heavy bomber that could /dive/

I just realize I'm in that Twilight Zone where the man goes to a town filled with children without an adult in sight. They had 1 engine dive bombers made for the purpose you just illustrated. They did not use 4 engine bombers for that purpose.

>carpet bomb

Leningrad wasn't left alone, it was besieged for 900 days. The Soviets were clinging on to it by a logistical thread, and they knew it. After the winter of 1941 however they started to learn their lessons and the defense of the city became much stronger.

The Germans knew marching right into Leningrad was a dumb idea from the very beginning, as they knew urban warfare was a meat grinder. Why they didn't apply that wisdom to Stalingrad is beyond me.

It didn't help that Leningrad was a major armaments producer with several forts and a naval base within it.

Anyway, Leningrad was 'effectively' contained early on. One thing that bugs me, however, is why they didn't crush the Oranienbaum bridgehead west of the city.

>The conquest of western Europe gave Hitler too much confidence.

That and the absolutely abhorrent soviet military performance against the finns in the winter war.

You cant really blame him, since after that fiasco the image of the "mighty red army" was pretty much destroyed globally.

>This coming from the guy who claims that transport planes are equally as dangerous as 4 engine bombers holding thousands of pounds of payload.
I have never claimed that and I don't know what sort of 6 year old tier reading comprehension you need to have to claim that I did.

>They did not use 4 engine bombers for that purpose
>The inaccuracy of horizontal bombing during the Ural bomber program demonstrated weaknesses in German bombsights and created doubts about the effectiveness of the method. Some in the Luftwaffe believed that dive-bombing was a more effective way to destroy targets. Technical data supported the accuracy of Stuka bombing achieving greater target destruction over Dornier Do 17s or Heinkel He 111s. The experience of the Condor Legion in Spain tended to support the idea that dive bombing was superior and led some to believe that pinpoint accuracy was possible, which diverted attention from improving horizontal bombing. During the final inspection of the Projekt 1041 mock-up on 5 November 1937, Ernst Udet mentioned the OKL's new dive-bombing requirement to Ernst Heinkel, who replied that the aircraft would never be capable of it.[5] The He 177 had to be strengthened to support the stresses imposed by the pull-out from a dive; later, the required angle for dive-bombing attacks was increased to 60°, which necessitated further structural strengthening and a big increase in weight
They certainly gave it a fucking go

Soviet military didn't have a strong image even before Winter War.

Were the Soviets doing that poorly in the Winter War an early example of 4D chess?

No.

Where to start with you.

>No two-engine bomber could make the round trip of 3,200 km from Vyazama to Sverdlosk.

I already outlined a 1500 mi flightpath that could be taken either north or south for full coverage.The bomber that could've made it by 41, using a 2 engine example, could only cover 1300 mi, which is enough to bomb logistics from Belarus or Urals from western Russia.

>Germany in 1941 was more geared towards a war economy than Britain

Per GDP in terms of currency expenditure, true. But not comparative to 1944 Germany. Basically compare the nation to itself.

>You can't really "fast track" four-engine bombers to be produced on a large scale in a military-industrial complex focused on producing aircraft made for tactical bombing.

Explain? They had the technology 3 years earlier that they would've needed for 1941. There's no reason they couldn't have.

>And Germany's fuel situation was absolutely dire in the winter of 1941

No question about that. The idea is, is there enough for dozens to hundreds of bombers to make intermediate runs on Soviet infrastructure.

>I am dead serious. I have actually read up on this stuff. You do the same. This would be a good start. amazon.de/D-Day-Bombers-Veterans-Normandy-Invasion/dp/1904010792

>citing eyewitness accounts for technical planning

You've just insulted the intelligence of both of us and discredited yourself. You're the same guy who argued transport planes are equivalents to 4 engine bombers aren't you?

>They did not have AA guns over every kilometer of French railroad track.

So why the hell did you think the Soviets would be able to do the same?

>How could the Soviets not do the same against a much smaller and less determined attack?

They wiped out over 3 million men in the first year and nearly the entire USSR air force. The largest land invasion in history. Smaller attack.

Can you stop reddit spacing if your post is gonna be this big? You're hogging up space for no reason.

>I have never claimed that and I don't know what sort of 6 year old tier reading comprehension you need to have to claim that I did.

The kind right here:

No, they couldn't have, any more than things like the Transport Plan completely severed German logistical deployments to France.

Directly comparing transports bombing capability to that of 4 engine bombers. And the landmass of USSR against France.

>"hurr welp I meant the deployments not really comparable to bombings user"

Then why would you make that non-comparison in the first place? This is two shades of retarded.

Interesting. Thanks user, I was looking for this.

Kek the balkans are drawn in their 1914 borders

Holy fuck, do you even know what the Transport Plan was? I was going to reply to , but maybe not after realizing it would be wasted on your level of retardation.

Grow

An

Attention

Span

Kid

>They had 1 engine dive bombers made for the purpose you just illustrated

Are you retarded user? Single engine stukas aren't long range. What's more, they failed to dent Britain with them in 1940, what makes you think a Urals campaign would have been different?

>They did not use 4 engine bombers for that purpose
They didn't, but they wanted to. Read up into the design of the Heinkel 177, i'm not making this up for the sake of it. They genuinely thought they could build a heavy dive bomber.

>[long range heavy bombers] designed before 38. They certainly had them in service after 41
Oh? Well were they? I assume you're talking about the odd prototype here and there. The Germans had no fleets of these bombers in any number comparable to the allies having B-17s or Lancasters. Their impact on the war was negligible at best.

And I assume you're talking about the FW 200, but that wasn't even pressed into the heavy bomber role, it was a maritime patrol craft first and foremost.

>He thinks the transport plan was transport planes dropping bombs
>Claims he knows fucking anything about the air war
Embarrassing

>>citing eyewitness accounts for technical planning
No, I'm citing eyewitness accounts for the details of a historical campaign. One in which far more resources were employed at far shorter ranges than the Germans could ever hope for which still failed to close down the railroads in a permanent fashion.

>You're the same guy who argued transport planes are equivalents to 4 engine bombers aren't you?
Nobody has argued that. It first comes up in this post, one of your nuggets of stupidity.

>So why the hell did you think the Soviets would be able to do the same?
I don't. I think the defense will be primarily from the air, and what sporadic bombers make it through the bad weather, lack of navigational ability, and enemy patrols are going to get quickly and easily repaired away.

Definitely, however after japan attacked the USA it was going to be near impossible to win.

Had japan instead attacked the soviet union from manchuria than I think russia would have stood little chance.

>HURP DA DUPR IS IS DA WETAD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Plan

>The Transportation Plan was a plan for strategic bombing during World War II against bridges, rail centres, including marshalling yards and repair shops in France with the goal of limiting the German military response to the invasion of France in June 1944.
Literally, physically, and unironically kill yourself. You are a waste of oxygen.

Go back to r*ddit you underage fuck.

>Are you retarded user? Single engine stukas aren't long range.

Dive bombing wasn't used long range genius.

>What's more, they failed to dent Britain with them in 1940, what makes you think a Urals campaign would have been different?

What's less you mean. I don't know if you noticed, but the invasion of the USSR was a little bit bigger than the foray with Britain.

>They didn't, but they wanted to. Read up into the design of the Heinkel 177, i'm not making this up for the sake of it. They genuinely thought they could build a heavy dive bomber.

Sauce please? I've genuinely never heard of this and am curious.

>Oh? Well were they?

Literally google kid. There's a whole list on wikipedia. Use CTRL + F bomber and run down the list. There's no excuse at this point.

>And I assume

You do a lot of that.

Finally getting back to you, misread it as transport plane instead of transport plan. That should've been obvious, but I'm typing with something like 3 people in two different threads, so I hadn't had time to correct it. The only thing more embarrassing is not realizing the mistake in the argument. But now that we're caught up, what was your point again? Oh, that's right....

>sperging this hard over a missing -e

lmao my day is made

>Damage control

Every

time

you

post

reddit

my

power

grows

Can we get back on point pls

It wasn't even winnable with someone as incompetent as Stalin in charge. Nazi Germany was doomed from day one.

Virginity: the thread

>missing an e at the back of a word means an entire line of reasoning is ruined

I know, it's hard to argue actual points. But since they're there, why not give it a go? Or just give up on trying to use the facts and figures, payload and fuel ratios over ranges, or operational planning and just whine about how misreading a word by one letter somehow affects the argument.

Please?

>lmao my day is made
No, I'm "sperging out" on your incredibly stupidity, as we can now all clearly see that posts like this and are (you) hanging a GIANT FUCKING NEON SIGN over your sub-baboon intellect

For the good of the species, please, kill yourself.

>Nazi Germany was doomed from day one
Sheer geopolitics.

>No, I'm "sperging out" on your incredibly stupidity
>GIANT FUCKING NEON SIGN
>kill yourself.

U mad kid?

It's not just missing the e, it's evident from your initial reaction you didn't know what the Transport Plan was, you've embarrassed yourself

This.

>Per GDP in terms of currency expenditure, true. But not comparative to 1944 Germany. Basically compare the nation to itself.
The country went through a higher degree of mobilization as time went on. This happened to every combatant of WW2.
>Explain? They had the technology 3 years earlier that they would've needed for 1941. There's no reason they couldn't have.
Because this isn't Hearts of Iron where industrial capacity can be used to construct any type of plane whenever you want. They may have had the technology, but production of large four-engine strategic bombers is much different than production of faster two-engine bombers.
>No question about that. The idea is, is there enough for dozens to hundreds of bombers to make intermediate runs on Soviet infrastructure.
I don't know, but the effects would seem minuscule for all the effort it would require.

I know, it's hard to argue actual points, but since they're there, why not give it a go?

He's right, you're kinda dumb and annoying

Luftwaffe couldn't into long range bombers and Russia is a very very big place.

>Importantly, German airfields were, for the most part, extremely primitive. Many had been left ruined by the retreating Red Army in October, and some had been attacked and damaged by German planes during the fighting. As a result, facilities were rudimentary at best and with the severity of the oncoming winter (where temperatures in some areas dropped to -30°C 43 ) maintaining the serviceability of aircraft became a losing battle. While many Soviet aircraft had the benefit of Moscow’s numerous airports with control towers, flood- lights, sealed runways and protective hangers, German airfields were cratered by bombing, exposed to the elements and without running water, heating or electricity. Starting aircraft engines, especially the liquid-cooled engines, became nearly impossible, while ground crews had to work in sub-zero temperatures where skin froze to metal and aircraft tires became brittle and shredded on the rutted and uneven airfields. As one German pilot noted: ‘We have few aircraft. In temperatures like these engines are short-lived.’ The absence of airfield lighting and the shortage of daylight hours reduced flying times for the Luftwaffe dramatically, and even when the sun crept above the horizon sorties often had to be cancelled on account of thick fog. In such conditions German intelligence was again proven to be wide of the mark. Soviet aircraft and their crews were far better suited to these conditions and many of their airfields remained operational round the clock. Not surprisingly, the implications for Bock’s offensive were profound.
Stahel, D. (2015). The Battle for Moscow. Cambridge University Press, p.240-241
This was the state of German air infrastructure in the Soviet Union at the start of December. Does this really seem like something that would be able to sustain a bombing campaign on any appreciable scale?

What would qualify as success? Taking Moscow was doable, the Germans reportedly got within sight of the spires of the Kremlin. Hell, even Napoleon managed to pull it off. Holding Moscow and everything from there to Germany was an entirely different ballgame though.

What if it had started in the spring of 1942? The Germans would have had more time to prepare, but so would the Soviets.

To that stupid fuck who claims a squadron of long-range bombers would be able to do anything:
My greatgrandfather was an engineer forced to serve Germans. He was building bridges for Paulus. Almost every single day the Russian planes came bombing the shit out of stuff he had built. Every time he was able to rebuild it during the night so fast that there was still a plenty of time left for men to move in the cover of a night.
Your plan has no chance of working, it's simply to easy to build infrastructure "good enough" for logistical operations.

>implying it's not just you trying to capitalize on somebody leaving out a single letter on an entire wall of text devoted to him

No user it's apparent one little e was missing and you think because you google basic bitch ww2 information that you somehow know something special, and therefore are special. Wrong.

>The country went through a higher degree of mobilization as time went on. This happened to every combatant of WW2.

Yes.

>Because this isn't Hearts of Iron where industrial capacity can be used to construct any type of plane whenever you want. They may have had the technology, but production of large four-engine strategic bombers is much different than production of faster two-engine bombers.

So something about a video game means that industrial technology they already had couldn't have been applied? Because a video game might simulate that? Is that right?

>I don't know, but the effects would seem minuscule for all the effort it would require.

Possibly. That's what I was trying to figure out. The railways would have a huge effect for little effort, but the Ural bombing would be dubious at best.

I literally told you the same thing 5 minutes ago and you refused to take that advice.

The size of the USSR was against it. It means the USSR has to patrol all air routes the Germans might take to infiltrate it.

You do know we can all read posts like this, which I will quote

>AA/enemy aircraft didn't matter shit in the success of the Transport Plan - air supremacy and sheer numbers meant that targets were getting destroyed regardless of those. What that poster was referring to was the fact that the Germans were able to reconstruct rail lines very easily, despite being in a very resource and manpower constricted period of the war. How could the Soviets not do the same against a much smaller and less determined attack?

which you responded to. You knew or should have known damn well it wasn't just someone mis-writing "transport plane" which wouldn't even make sense in the original usage.

> any more than things like the Transport Plan completely severed German logistical deployments to France.

So which is it? Are you a troll, a liar, or a complete and utter imbecile? Some combination platter perhaps?

>My greatgrandfather should've been gassed on the spot.

Ftfy

>He was building bridges for Paulus

I see where this is going.

>Almost every single day the Russian planes came bombing the shit out of stuff he had built

Was this in 1941? Nope? Oh okay then. I guess I'll switch my scenario to fit an obviously biased war story/eyewitness account.

Here lemme try:
>My great grandpa fought in WW2 in the Pacific and his ship was hit by the Japs on his way to PI. Water was in the ship and there was a massive hit to it but it kept floating which means that US ships are basically invincible.

>How could the Soviets not do the same against a much smaller and less determined attack?

That's what I'm arguing with. The largest land invasion in history is a smaller and less determined attack. By the way, the guy you're calling an imbecile was your ally like two seconds ago. I'm the first poster not the second genius.

>They wiped out over 3 million men in the first year and nearly the entire USSR air force. The largest land invasion in history. Smaller attack.
Why are you conflating the entirety of Barbarossa with your hypothetical air campaign with ragged German forces in the middle of the winter?

>this thread

>implying air warfare was detached from the greater conflict
>ever since ww1

Genius!

>So something about a video game means that industrial technology they already had couldn't have been applied? Because a video game might simulate that? Is that right?
>All industrial technology is the same
>All of it can be put into practice just as easily

>Reading comprehension failing this badly.
I am calling YOU an idiot for failing to understand the obvious component of my "ally" in that the "Transport Plan" is obviously talking about a campaign and not a mis-writing of "transport plane" which you very weakly try to defend.
Which is it, troll, idiot, or liar?
>That's what I'm arguing with.
is arguing against your long range bombing plan, not overall Barbarossa, which you've admitted halted anyway.Kill yourself. There are single celled bacteria which could far more usefully use up all that oxygen you breathe.

>implying technology that the Germans already have and built prototypes can't be built anymore because some mumbling about a video game

>I am calling YOU an idiot
>you very weakly try to defend
>Kill yourself
>Which is it, troll, idiot, or liar?
>far more usefully use up all that oxygen you breathe

>arguing the person in an entire post because you suddenly realized the specific example you used earlier doesn't even compare to the scenario OP put forward and the other user already countered every point already

Brilliant!