ignoring the fact that nearly all of the most successful military leaders in history were willing to ignore orders from higher up when it is required for the success of their operations. If a Field Marshall or General obeys a stupid order and losses his command he will be sacked so why not gamble for success. One of Hitlers most insightful orders was to up-gun panzer mk-111's to the L-60 50mm gun prior to the start of operation Barbarosa everybody was quite content to ignore this order. The German armoured troops would have been in a much better position to deal with T-34 and KV tanks with the improved armament. I believe that the overall quality of troops that Germany possessed at the beginning of Barbarosa was never equaled later in the war and that the existence of more effective tank guns in the hands of these troops could have resulted in the fall of moscow.
Pressing for bigger guns does not make one a competent military mind. Look at the insanely large siege artillery pieces developed by the Germans, while they may have assisted in the fall of, most famously, Sevastapol, they had little overall value. While the upgrading of the tank guns was a good idea, the possessing of more effective tank guns would not have lead to the fall of Moscow. What was needed for that, I believe and have discussed in another thread in the Polls section, was firstly, as you've said, more quality, but also, more quantity in the equipment that the Wehrmacht had. Hitler's strategy didn't count for a long war, and this was fatal.
Of interest here is also this part of your post,
ignoring the fact that nearly all of the most successful military leaders in history were willing to ignore orders from higher up when it is required for the success of their operations. If a Field Marshall or General obeys a stupid order and losses his command he will be sacked so why not gamble for success.
Yes gambling often happens in war, but Hitler's gambles should not be compared with the gambles of Guderian or Manstein. Both Guderian and Manstein were hugely knowledgable about the quality and capabilities of both their troops, and their oppenents. Successful military leaders nearly always are, either that or they already have such a huge advantage that they just look good anyway. Hitler's gambles are often senseless, the 1944 Ardennes Offensive for instance. Hitler managed to somehow fool himself that if he could take Antwerp, he could force the Allied armies to sue for peace. Little did he realise that by December 1944, the German's plight was already hopeless.
Hitler's gamble in 1941 of attacking Russia, another ill fated venture, though perhaps with more logical reasoning behind it that the Ardennes offensive. Hitler's General's were often forced to follow stupid orders, and when they tried to disobey, they were forced, by Hitler, to resign. Not effective leadership at all. And there were reprecussions later on for the Wehrmacht.
Most notably of these was Stalingrad. Paulus, having failed to disobey Hitler's orders, failing to take the gamble of breaking out early enough in the encirclement while there was still a chance, is a direct result of Hitler's own belief in his infallibility. Something which Paulus also believed in.
I give Hitler credit for being able to stay in the war for so long, it was quite the achievement. And he did follow some logical paths at times, but I don't believe he was an effective military leader. Certainly he could display good insight into war, especially when he realised that the only chance for victory in 1942 against Russia was to cut her off from her oil supplies completely, however this was merely a vague strategic policy. Hitler's interference in the actual strategy of the campaign, just as in 1941, and was to be seen later in the war, was to prove fatal to the 6th Army.
The Generals and Field Marshalls in the end couldn't really disobey Hitler, his "effective" leadership had, in my opinion, paralised the flexibility needed of
Heer leadership, when they had the knowledge to know what was humanly possible.
Hitler gambled, but ultimately he was a failure, and had many more failings in a military sense than he had victories. As a mobiliser of the masses, now thats where Hitler was effective, but as a controller of a war, I find him sadly lacking in the end.
Regards
Gwynn
I have a question ...how would be posibile for Germany to win the WW2?
sorry for my bad english
