Could any one here tell me about german`s army

[Dr Freud]

I would argue that territory meant a LOT for german logistics.
I further argue that, had russia been the same size as france, and Moscow no farther away then Paris, Soviet union would be smoked as easily as France.

As for your Canada comparison, consider this: USA, the only current superpower is begging the rest of the world to help them occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well Afghanistan AND Iraq together is still only 10% of Canada.

Imagine how thin stretched USA army would be to occupy and control Canada,-even if half the rest of the world is helping them.

Soviet union again was more then twice as large as Canada.

 

[Dr Freud]

what would happen if germany did invade europe and if it did then what will happen to the soviet union becouse with out england USA would not have any landing forces to envade europe

Im not sure i understand, but i interpret it as you ask what the outcome would have been, had Germany successfully invaded England ?.
I believe Soviet union would have lost moscow, but kept fighting from ural, i also think germans would have made halt at moscow, and try make a decent defence line.
USA's only entry would be Africa, they could have taken north africa, but unlikely advance into Italy, So there would never be any strategic bombing of germany.
just my vauge idea of the outcome....

 

[eckherl]

You'll have to explain this one. You may be right re RAF (you may be), but the French air force definitely wasn't a match at all. Not enough modern frontline fighters to start with, unability to bring them in the air in sufficient numbers and a significant backwardness concerning tactics. A match?

But during the air battle though didn`t the French pilots prove their worth while flying RAF Spitfires and Hurricaines, maybe this what Chrom was referring to.

 

[Feanor]

He meant that the combined RAF and French AF were more then a match for the Luftwaffe, I think. In regards to the USSR, the Germans should have planned better. They had maps, and presumably should be able to measure how far away Moscow is from the border, and how large the USSR is. (you know, not that hard to take a look and think "Gee, is it something the size of Luxembourg, or maybe a little larger then that?"). The Germans screwed themselves over by not planning properly.

 

[kato]

Well, the "problem" with the USSR was that it was either an attack at that point, or wait at least 9-10 more months.

Nine months would probably have been enough time for Stalin to consolidate multiple fortified defence lines along the new western border, with lots of space inbetween for maneuver warfare with a large number of newer tanks.

Yugoslavia/Greece ahead was somewhat important to consolidate in the South. Think about it like that: British forces had pretty much wiped out Axis forces throughout Africa, with the East-African campaign almost finished, Vichy French Equatorial Africa conquered by the British and Free French, and the axis forces in North Africa stalled at that point. Greece would have been an open gate for these forces and other forces from the Commonwealth to invade continental Europe by say late 1941 / early 1942. And Italy alone couldn't take Greece, as was proven before.

 

[Dr Freud]

Hitler wanted to make a deal with Jugoslavia and Greece, it beats me why Mussolini thought they had any business there.
Net result was tying down 100.000 troops, and probably delayed barbarossa even more.

Beside that, both Charles XII and Napoleon before Hitler had to go there themself to appreciate just how big Russia really is.

 

[Feanor]

Beside that, both Charles XII and Napoleon before Hitler had to go there themself to appreciate just how big Russia really is.

So none of them were intelligent enough to prepare adequate logistics ahead of time. Hitler of course was even dumber, since he didn't even bother to learn from his predecessors. Point is, it was a failure of German planning.

 

[windscorpion]

Most German logistics still depended on the horse throughout the war, i think the German's idea (inspired by Nazi thoughts of the useless Bolshelvick) was that USSR would collapse and the Germans could then occupy the Ukraine for their "living space". Indeed i believe Hitler said they just had to "kick in the door" and USSR would collapse. Obviously it didn't. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow they lost the war the moment they attacked the USSR.

Btw the Blitzkrieg was a close run thing, even Poland wasn't as easy a victory for Germany as i've seen some say. Mass German mobilisation only happened for Barbarossa and by about the end of 1942 most of the best German troops were buried on the Russian steppes somewhere. Despite these problems the Germans kept fighting for some years despite ever higher odds which shows their fighting spirit.

As for the British well France 1940 wasn't our finest hour but by the time we got some decent generals the tide started to turn. Invading Britain in 1940 was highly unlikely. Don't they try and wargame this at Sandhurst every year and they still haven't found a way to make Sealion work.

 

[Chrom]

You'll have to explain this one. You may be right re RAF (you may be), but the French air force definitely wasn't a match at all. Not enough modern frontline fighters to start with, unability to bring them in the air in sufficient numbers and a significant backwardness concerning tactics. A match?

I didnt say French aviation was equal to German ones. That is indeed debatable. But GB + French - definitely was. Else Germany would win BB.

 

[swerve]

I didnt say French aviation was equal to German ones. That is indeed debatable. But GB + French - definitely was. Else Germany would win BB.

A couple of misapprehensions here. Firstly, the French air force did not participate in the Battle of Britain. Strictly RAF. Secondly, to win the Battle of Britain the RAF didn't have to match the Luftwaffe. The contest was asymmetrical: the terms of victory were different for the two sides. The RAF won if it stopped the Luftwaffe gaining control of the air, on ground favourable to the RAF & unfavourable to the Luftwaffe, i.e. over British airspace, where a much larger fraction of British than German strength could participate. It could be weaker, & still prevent Germany from winning.

The Luftwaffes terms of victory were much harder, to render the RAF incapable of interfering with the proposed invasion. It was somewhat like the Vietnam war, in that respect. As long as the RAF could still fight the Luftwaffe on something approaching even terms over SE England, it had not lost. Eventually, it became too late in the year for an invasion to succeed (the invasion fleet needed good weather), & the RAF had won.

 

[Chrom]

A couple of misapprehensions here. Firstly, the French air force did not participate in the Battle of Britain. Strictly RAF.

Thats what i meant. RAF alone was enough to prevent Germany to win BoB. So RAF + FAF - even more so.

Secondly, to win the Battle of Britain the RAF didn't have to match the Luftwaffe. The contest was asymmetrical: the terms of victory were different for the two sides. The RAF won if it stopped the Luftwaffe gaining control of the air, on ground favourable to the RAF & unfavourable to the Luftwaffe, i.e. over British airspace, where a much larger fraction of British than German strength could participate. It could be weaker, & still prevent Germany from winning.

Same applies to battle over France. For French and GB airforces it could be enough to prevent Germany to gain control in the air over France.