Were the Germans really that good?

[Steel God]

My opinions of Rommel are not taken from film,but from having read his book The Rommel Papers. His keen insight into what would happen after the allies got airsuperiority, and living it in the Afrikan campaign showed he knew what would happen after the allies landed on D-day. As far as Russian Campaign goes,he wanted to attack russia after finishing off the British in north Afrika and taking the oil fields in the south from the Middle East.

I would say that his appreciation of Allied Air Superiority based on his experiences in North Africa are valid points, but not sure they justify labeling him as the best, or one of the best, German Generals. While he could spot that reality easily enough he was blind to many other realities. To even dream enough to write in a book that he could envision the Germans capturing even Egypt, let alone the ME Oil Fields is delusional on his part. The Axis could not logistically support a larger force than what they had there, in fact what they had there could not be supported as the ill advised advance to Alamein proved. While he was brilliant in the field, Rommel was really out of his depth above the level of a Corp Commander. In a theater like Russia you might have never heard of him as he would have been one of so many Corp Commanders.

Once the Germans started to Moscow and failded it gave the Russians hope that the Germans could be defeated. Taking Moscow would of left a lot of troops with no where to go. A army that is not mobile against a army that is will lose everytime, again a point that Rommel found out in north Afrika.
I'm really starting to like this post a lot of Ideas have been tossed out that you would never think of.

Well, after taking Moscow it's not like they would have had "no where" to go. There would have been plenty of fighting left for them to do in Russia, but they would have been able to do it against a Red Army that would no longer be able to shift it's forces easily between the north - center - and southern parts of the front, nor could forces from the east have been used anywhere easily. Moscow was the rail hub for almost the entire country in 41, taking it would have been a major loss for the Soviets, but their Army wasn't going to just surrender after Moscow either....at least I don't think so.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The Russians would have never surendered in WW2. They would have had no need to. 2 Factors really.

1: Stalin's ego would not have allowed it.

2: The country was too big to be taken by a small country like Germany. (Actually tis the same reason the Chinese never surrendered to the Japanese)

They could have kept retreating beyond the Urals if need be.

Thanx!

[Steel God]

That's probably true Erik, they wouldn't have surrendered. But then again, the German plans for Barbarossa never did envision a complete occupation of the USSR. They had a stop line, which they believed if they could achieve, they could hold the Red Army at bay indefinitely if need be, or if they refused to sue for peace. Now at first glance it makes no sense, but it really goes to the heart of what I have been debating. That is, without the rail hubs in Moscow there is no "center" on which to organize a defense of the rest of Russia. Strategic movement in WWII was still very much dictated by rail movement, and Russia, of all the powers in Europe in WWII, had it's achilles heel in the fact that it's yards all routed through Moscow. There were alternate routes west of Moscow, but not east of Moscow. No routes of significance existing to shift forces from the south to the north east of Moscow, which would be a crippling blow to any organized defense of the entire country. German possession of Moscow would have translated to a huge advantage, or a force multiplier, for them, compelling Stavka to fit the Germans on three independent and non-supporting fronts. I think a compelling argument can be presented that it wasn't necessary to occupy all of Russia, nor was it the plan.

[alaric99x]

That's all true, Paul. You only have to look at a map, Moscow is the center of a spiderweb of rail lines. Add to that all the manufacturing of war materiel there and the fact that Moscow, and the area immediately around it, provided lots of recruits for the Red Army.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The Germans would not have been able to hold the Russians at bay indefinitely though. Even stopping at Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad leaves most of Russia in the Russians hands. While some good real estate is gone there was still plenty of resources and manpower east of this line.

Also the Russians could have usesd the Trans Siberian Railway for transport (yes it runs, east and west, but they could have built off of it.)

Thanx!

[Steel God]

The Germans would not have been able to hold the Russians at bay indefinitely though. Even stopping at Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad leaves most of Russia in the Russians hands. While some good real estate is gone there was still plenty of resources and manpower east of this line.

Also the Russians could have usesd the Trans Siberian Railway for transport (yes it runs, east and west, but they could have built off of it.)

I respectfully submit to you that it would have taken years, if not a decade or more for the Russians to try and build the type of rail net required to replace the loss of Moscow. As for production...the hinterland of Russia in 1941 is not the same place it is today. Those resources won't be accessible for many more years to come. If the Germans achieve their proposed stop line (Astrakahn - Archangel), and obviously it's a huge if because they never did get there, Russia poses no significant threat to the German Army in an organized fashion.

I know when I game it, it works out that way