I said they lacked the ability to do these things.doogal wrote: ↑
Conclusively Barbarossa was a failure on a strategic level where as Soviet "failure" occupied the operational and tactical level.
So we have both combatants involved in a series of complex engagements but one had a serious strategic advantage and one held an operational advantage which would over time erode.
The Soviets could afford failure on several levels due to Germanys inability to.
1) Strike at them in any other way than a frontal land assault.
2)Prepare it's armed forces sufficiently for the rigours of movement/combat/supply in eastern Europe.
3)Support eastern European nationalism.
4)Match Soviet industry and rationalise mass production techniques.
5)Mobilise the home population and economy sooner.
6)Make meaningfully alliances.
7)Hinder soviet industry or production.
8)Create a strategic bombing force ....
1 : could not be done
2 : was done and more would not help them
3 : would not help them
4 was not needed for a short campaign
5 : was not possible/not needed
6 : was done
7 : could not be done and was not needed for a short campain
8 : this existed, but would not help them .
1)With this I agree.
2)They were not ready for the mechanical problems encountered on the EF, far more could have been done to ensure the safety of lines of communication to forward units. Being better prepared always helps.
3)How would it not help them ?
4)Ended up being a long campaign, some foresight here would have been useful
5)How was it not possible
6)Please show which alliances were meaningful, apart from the pact of steel Germanys allies were a hinderance.
7)Again point (4) Hope for the best prepare for the worst.
8) The Luftwaffe essentially dropped the idea of a strategic air force once Walter Wever died, what they had was not a Strategic bombing force.