Discussion A failure of Operation Barbarossa that not a lot of people talk about

[Justanotherbloke]

So Germany launched Operation Barbarossa with roughly 3,350 tanks. But here's the issue that I still think of fairly often. What I've noticed is that most were lightweight, undergunned, or doctrinally misassigned, probably reinforces the narrative that he indeed thought 'only needing to kick in the door' and the house of cards will crumble down (blitzkrieg mindset), and it frustrates me cause it's such an obvious mistake apart from the logistical nightmare, nearly no one talks about it, surprises me

There were a solid amount of Panzer III (~1,000) and Panzer II (~1,000).
No Panthers. No long-barreled medium sized IVs tanks, out of the 3,350 tanks being used

Even a basic strategic mind would recognize that a continental war against a numerically superior enemy demands firepower, mobility, scalability , reliability, etc
The Panzer IV as a stronger brother of Panzer III had this potential, yet it was sidelined as an infantry support tank.
It defies logic in my eyes cause The Panther wasn't even conceived until after encountering the T34 and that was a catastrophic lag in planning.

One medium tank design, mass produced and properly armed, could have changed the dynamic and weight on the scale. I know lots of other factors were at play but this is one of the many things I think about, in which I saw a fault
Instead of all this, German forces crossed into USSR with light tanks better suited for 1939 Poland, not for a 2000 km campaign into the Soviet heartland.
Barbarossa was a conceptual failure in my eyes apart from the logistical nightmare too.

 

[Sir Waco]

i dont agree boyo, in fact wouldnt medium tanks consume even more resources? if they did things by your plan they wouldnt have even made it to moscow and leningrad

 

[Justanotherbloke]

i dont agree boyo, in fact wouldnt medium tanks consume even more resources? if they did things by your plan they wouldnt have even made it to moscow and leningrad

Saying medium tanks would’ve overstretched Germany isnt logical cause the Wehrmacht already burned massive resources fielding thousands of light tanks like Panzer I, II, 38t like I mentioned in the thread. Those things were all obsolete, undergunned, and still consuming fuel, crews, and spare parts. Medium tanks like the Panzer IV offered far better combat value per unit. Fewer and more capable tanks would’ve reduced strain and not increased it, even if they i creased numbers on the field with slightly more presence. Failure wasn’t industrial more so doctrinal.

 

[Pancakecel]

Glad to see that you're back, man

 

[Justanotherbloke]

i dont agree boyo, in fact wouldnt medium tanks consume even more resources? if they did things by your plan they wouldnt have even made it to moscow and leningrad

Germany invaded the USSR without much mobile anti tank guns too, I think that was one of the stuff no one talks about either.
Most were towed 37mm ones and a few outdated Panzerjagers. What would have been Based is if they mounted a gun like the Pak 40 on a tracked chassis

 

[Justanotherbloke]

Glad to see that you're back, man

I can't go without this forum cause it's essentially the only thing I have, I have no social media and only Bitchute. it became daily routine for me to check in, but I'm glad too.

 

[starystulejarz]

They believed in blitzkrieg that was their big mistake. They had to attack Russia as they had almost no oil and good steel left. And since Soviets had a lot oil fields near Moscow and Stalingrad in Hitler's and his commander's heads it was such a brilliant idea and a necessity. Soviets with T-34 and KV-1 completely obliterated Germans, even T-50 and T-70 had much better armor compared to Panzers 2/3, Czechoslovakian 35(t)/38(t) or Jagdpanzers. They had 500 pz4 but despite their armor being a bit better their cannons had just pathetic short 75mm with unreliable heat rounds or very low penning apcbc (even long 50mm was much more successful) i have no clue how many of them were deployed to the battle

Also relying mostly on vastly outdated at rifles that couldn't even pen even more than 42mm of steel and relying on just 37mm dogshit at guns was a grave mistake.

 

[Fallen-Angel]

Dnr but I heard a lot germany army was really bad and economics was shit and that their economics kept working only because they invaded and robbed other countries and that nazi simps really overrate Third Reich.

 

[Sir Waco]

Saying medium tanks would’ve overstretched Germany isnt logical cause the Wehrmacht already burned massive resources fielding thousands of light tanks like Panzer I, II, 38t like I mentioned in the thread. Those things were all obsolete, undergunned, and still consuming fuel, crews, and spare parts. Medium tanks like the Panzer IV offered far better combat value per unit. Fewer and more capable tanks would’ve reduced strain and not increased it, even if they i creased numbers on the field with slightly more presence. Failure wasn’t industrial more so doctrinal.

yea they did, and if they used medium tanks they would have burned even more resources and the war would have probably ended sooner, the medium tanks like the panzer 4 also consumed much more fuel the panzer 2. and if you think that light tanks were undercrewed than wait untill you see what the medium ones would have been like, they were also very prone to breaking down and their complex parts would have drained more resources and time while they would be getting repaired on the field, and for what? for more firepower? light tanks were good at what they were intended to do which was infantry support
german strat was to overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers, which they could do due to spamming light tanks, if they tried that with medium ones like ive said they would have ran out of resources earlier. failure was very much industrial and nothing was gonna save the stretched german logistics

 

[Sir Waco]

Germany invaded the USSR without much mobile anti tank guns too, I think that was one of the stuff no one talks about either.
Most were towed 37mm ones and a few outdated Panzerjagers. What would have been Based is if they mounted a gun like the Pak 40 on a tracked chassis

yea but thats a different story boyo, i still think they would have lost even with all that due to their overworked industry and logistics

 

[starystulejarz]

I wonder how many dumbass Germans had to die to capture a single kv-1 probably like 10 tanks and 50 infantrymen i remember hearing about one crew defending it's tank for entire day till they finally died, you can hear similar stories (but few hours) of KV-1 crewmen. Such well crafted tanks, that Germany couldn't defeat without mass sacrifice till they finally get long 75mm on their panzers 4/jagdpanzers and finally and especially Panther but it was too late. Upgrading their long 50mm was also helpful but they still were at massive disadvantage so i wouldn't want to be the ones that were fieldtesting their new guns just to get obliterated by KV-1

 

[starystulejarz]

As they approached the town of Raseiniai, a tank battle ensued, resulting in heavy losses for the Russians despite outnumbering the Germans 3 to 1.

On June 24, a lone Russian KV2 Heavy tank, with no fuel left, stopped on a crossroad near the town and decided to make a last stand.

The tank took out 12 supply trucks and in response, four 50 mm AT guns began pounding the vehicle, only to be destroyed by the K2.

A heavy 88 mm gun was moved behind the lone Soviet tank but was destroyed by the tank before it could manage to score a hit.

During the night, German combat engineers tried to destroy the tank with satchel charges but failed.

On the morning of June 25, German tanks fired on the KV from the nearby woodland while another 88 mm gun fired at the tank from its rear. Of several shots fired, only two managed to penetrate the tank.

German infantry then advanced towards the KV tank only to be mowed down by machine-gun fire against them.

The tank was finally knocked out when grenades were thrown into the hatches killing the 6 man crew.

The lone tank held back 2 German Mechanized Divisions for 22 hours.

The bodies were recovered and buried by German soldiers with full military honors in the near by woods.

General Erhard Raus of the 6th Panzer Div. recounted in his memoirs: "I am deeply shocked by this heroism, we buried them with full military honors. They fought to the last breath ... "

over for germancels even with their heaviest AT gun that they had to drive for hours couldn't take out a single KV-2 incompetence lvl max

 

[Sir Waco]

i like this thread boyos keep it up

 

[Justanotherbloke]

They believed in blitzkrieg that was their big mistake. They had to attack Russia as they had almost no oil and good steel left. And since Soviets had a lot oil fields near Moscow and Stalingrad in Hitler's and his commander's heads it was such a brilliant idea and a necessity. Soviets with T-34 and KV-1 completely obliterated Germans, even T-50 and T-70 had much better armor compared to Panzers 2/3, Czechoslovakian 35(t)/38(t) or Jagdpanzers. They had 500 pz4 but despite their armor being a bit better their cannons had just pathetic short 75mm with unreliable heat rounds or very low penning apcbc (even long 50mm was much more successful) i have no clue how many of them were deployed to the battle View attachment 1504670
Also relying mostly on vastly outdated at rifles that couldn't even pen even more than 42mm of steel and relying on just 37mm dogshit at guns was a grave mistake.

I cant blame them actually, even though they made the mistake in terms of blitzkrieg with the USSR, It wasn’t a doctrine for them but it was a necessity, cause Germany couldn’t afford attritional war against a numerically superior, resource rich enemy bloc. Rapid offensive war was the only strategic logic available. Barbarossa wasn’t the problem but failing to align production and doctrine with the demands of ideological total war was. The vision was correct. The execution, materially and intellectually, lagged fatally behind. I guess we can both agree that Panzer III and II making up well over 50% of the force being used is something I still can't grasp with my mind. I understand you don't use heavy tanks mainly for logistical reasons and cause they're fuel hungry, but they could have at least given the Panzer IV a shot too

 

[pixy.]

So Germany launched Operation Barbarossa with roughly 3,350 tanks. But here's the issue that I still think of fairly often. What I've noticed is that most were lightweight, undergunned, or doctrinally misassigned, probably reinforces the narrative that he indeed thought 'only needing to kick in the door' and the house of cards will crumble down (blitzkrieg mindset), and it frustrates me cause it's such an obvious mistake apart from the logistical nightmare, nearly no one talks about it, surprises me

There were a solid amount of Panzer III (~1,000) and Panzer II (~1,000).
No Panthers. No long-barreled medium sized IVs tanks, out of the 3,350 tanks being used

Even a basic strategic mind would recognize that a continental war against a numerically superior enemy demands firepower, mobility, scalability , reliability, etc
The Panzer IV as a stronger brother of Panzer III had this potential, yet it was sidelined as an infantry support tank.
It defies logic in my eyes cause The Panther wasn't even conceived until after encountering the T34 and that was a catastrophic lag in planning.

One medium tank design, mass produced and properly armed, could have changed the dynamic and weight on the scale. I know lots of other factors were at play but this is one of the many things I think about, in which I saw a fault
Instead of all this, German forces crossed into USSR with light tanks better suited for 1939 Poland, not for a 2000 km campaign into the Soviet heartland.
Barbarossa was a conceptual failure in my eyes apart from the logistical nightmare too.

The Germans never really focused on light tanks they just had a lot of old panzers and captured czech tanks that made up the bulk of their forces. They focused on building more panzer 3s and intended for them to be the workhorse tank of the Wehrmacht. It was only after fighting kv1s that the Germans decided that the panzer 3 was an inadequate chassis and started upgrading the panzer 4 to have a larger canon. If the Germans could have had a large modernized tank force at the start of Barbarossa they would have but it was far too expensive for them to realistically have at that time.

 

[starystulejarz]

I cant blame them actually, even though they made the mistake in terms of blitzkrieg with the USSR, It wasn’t a doctrine for them but it was a necessity, cause Germany couldn’t afford attritional war against a numerically superior, resource rich enemy bloc. Rapid offensive war was the only strategic logic available. Barbarossa wasn’t the problem but failing to align production and doctrine with the demands of ideological total war was. The vision was correct. The execution, materially and intellectually, lagged fatally behind. I guess we can both agree that Panzer III and II making up well over 50% of the force being used is something I still can't grasp with my mind. I understand you don't use heavy tanks mainly for logistical reasons and cause they're fuel hungry, but they could have at least given the Panzer IV a shot too

They had about 500 Pz4 but they were with mediocre short 75mm which was a big mistake. Redesign PZ4 with thicker and angled armor like T-70/T-50/T-34 they should know by now that angled armor is the future (and soviet past and present) and yet they completely ignored it, give an earlier upgraded long 75mm and they could at least have chance to fight vs T-34/KV-1

Relying on 88mm also couldn't work at it's Tiger H1 cannon had pitiful pen, so Panzer IV with Panthers fully upgraded 75mm could murder literally any tank outside of maybe IS-2 and Jumbo which were developed much later

If weight could be a problem then using modified from the start Tiger 1 hull (VK 45.01) for superior long 75mm of Panther could be way more beneficial. If only they wouldn't be so damn proud, so staganant and having too much faith in their outdated design. They had god damn Ferdinand Porsche working for them he could make something cool that would be mix of all three designs in one.

 

[Justanotherbloke]

yea they did, and if they used medium tanks they would have burned even more resources and the war would have probably ended sooner, the medium tanks like the panzer 4 also consumed much more fuel the panzer 2. and if you think that light tanks were undercrewed than wait untill you see what the medium ones would have been like, they were also very prone to breaking down and their complex parts would have drained more resources and time while they would be getting repaired on the field, and for what? for more firepower? light tanks were good at what they were intended to do which was infantry support
german strat was to overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers, which they could do due to spamming light tanks, if they tried that with medium ones like ive said they would have ran out of resources earlier. failure was very much industrial and nothing was gonna save the stretched german logistics

Thats confusing production volume with operational efficiency. Germany didn’t lose Barbarossa because it lacked the resources for medium tanks, it lost because it wasted those resources mass producing undergunned light shit vehicles that were tactically obsolete from day one. Yes I get you that medium tanks like the Panzer IV consumed more fuel per unit, but the payoff in combat power per liter was exponentially higher. One well armed Panzer IV could outperform multiple light tanks in actual battlefield. And also light tanks still consumed crews, fuel, spare parts, recovery logistics etc but delivered no tactical overmatch against T34s or KV1s.

 

[Sir Waco]

Thats confusing production volume with operational efficiency.

they werent in the state to mass produce medium tanks thats one of my points, and light tanks were more operationally efficient anyway due to simpler maintenance and higher mobility, they also used less crew members than medium tanks

it lost because it wasted those resources mass producing undergunned light shit vehicles that were tactically obsolete from day one.

mobile light shit vehicles were one of the reasons why they captured so much land, they werent tactically obsolete

Yes I get you that medium tanks like the Panzer IV consumed more fuel per unit, but the payoff in combat power per liter was exponentially higher.

that payoff is negated by the common breakdowns and complex maintenance that the soviet could have used for their advantage, also you cant do blitzkrieg with slower medium tanks that were breaking down often like i said, hence they would lag behind more than the german army did in our current universe

And also light tanks still consumed crews, fuel, spare parts, recovery logistics etc but delivered no tactical overmatch against T34s or KV1s.

thats because they were meant for infantry support and swarming the enemy, like i get that soviet tanks would fuck them up but if you were to mosly use medium tanks to counter these moggers then you sacrifice all the other benefits of light tanks anf get bogged down in the process
and my point is that medium tanks would have consumed even more resources, combine that with the fact that germany was low on that shit and you get a collapse in the front even sooner

One well armed Panzer IV could outperform multiple light tanks in actual battlefield.

one well armed panzer IV would fight for a few hours but then break down and the crew would have to abandon it since no mechanic knows how to fix it on the field

 

[Justanotherbloke]

They had about 500 Pz4 but they were with mediocre short 75mm which was a big mistake. Redesign PZ4 with thicker and angled armor like T-70/T-50/T-34 they should know by now that angled armor is the future (and soviet past and present) and yet they completely ignored it, give an earlier upgraded long 75mm and they could at least have chance to fight vs T-34/KV-1

Relying on 88mm also couldn't work at it's Tiger H1 cannon had pitiful pen, so Panzer IV with Panthers fully upgraded 75mm could murder literally any tank outside of maybe IS-2 and Jumbo which were developed much laterView attachment 1504691If weight could be a problem then using modified from the start Tiger 1 hull (VK 45.01) for superior long 75mm of Panther could be way more beneficial. If only they wouldn't be so damn proud, so staganant and having too much faith in their outdated design. They had god damn Ferdinand Porsche working for them he could make something cool that would be mix of all three designs in one.

But the 88mm on the Tiger I didn’t have pitiful penetration but quite the opposite. The kwk 36 was lethal against all Soviet armor until the very late war period, and even then remained tactically decisive when used properly. Adapting the Tiger hull to mount the Panther’s long 75mm is nice in theory but production wise a different story. Tiger chassis was expensive, slow to build etc and overengineered for what Germany needed in 1941 / 43. The Panther was the correct synthesis like mobile, well armed, and eventually sloped.
I was more so in the thread talking about medium sized tanks such as panther that Germany would have been better off deploying more numbers of them, alongside the bigger brother of Panzer III (IV) They needed a stronger medium sized backbone in their tank fleet. I like Tigers though, but more a fan of the medium sized ones

 

[Justanotherbloke]

mobile light shit vehicles were one of the reasons why they captured so much land, they werent tactically obsolete

The thread says barbarossa, which is the USSR and quiet different from blitzkrieg style offensives the Germans conducted in Europe.
I'm not criticizing their entire campaign when it comes to lighter tanks, only laying emphasis on the USSR.
I'm all for spamming lighter tanks like a maniac in the early war days, not for the Soviet union.

 

[GobidMujahid]

And since Soviets had a lot oil fields near Moscow and Stalingrad in Hitler's and his commander's heads it was such a brilliant idea and a necessity.

There were no oil fields near Moscow or Stalingrad. Hitler emphasized the need to drive south in the direction of the Caucasus oil fields(e.g., Maykop, Grozny), but the retarded OKW, who wanted to repeat France 1940 by rushing Moscow, betrayed Hitler and secretly strengthened Army Group Center (Moscow direction) at the expense of Army Group South (Ukraine, Caucasus direction). The result was that Operation Barbarossa was an awkward compromise that secured neither Moscow nor the Caucasus. The Wehrmacht had to endure the winter and wait until the spring of 1942 to restart their offensive toward Stalingrad and Grozny, but by then their odds had greatly deteriorated due to Lend-Lease, etc. The Wehrmacht had to secure Stalingrad to protect their flank and to cut off Soviet supply lines flowing via the Volga.

 

[Sir Waco]

The thread says barbarossa, which is the USSR and quiet different from blitzkrieg style offensives the Germans conducted in Europe.

how so, they literally used speed and swarming to overwhelm the unready soviet troops and got a lot of land in a quick time period, sounds pretty similar to blitzkrieg to me

I'm not criticizing their entire campaign when it comes to lighter tanks, only laying emphasis on the USSR.

aight bro but the industrypill strikes again, like other users said they werent in the state to switch to mass producing medium tanks when they were already pumping out light tanks from the western front blitzkrieg days, you need to reorganize a lot of shit in order to do that which wasnt possible due to resource problems they had

I'm all for spamming lighter tanks like a maniac in the early war days, not for the Soviet union.

see but the only way of spamming light tanks in the early day was if your industry was geared for shitting them out which it was

 

[Justanotherbloke]

how so, they literally used speed and swarming to overwhelm the unready soviet troops and got a lot of land in a quick time period, sounds pretty similar to blitzkrieg to me

My brain is going defect in a moment, it will malfunction eventually, are you serious? I thought people here knew the basics, I dont even know why i need to explain this. Blitzkrieg worked in Western Europe because it relied on collapsing centralized, road bound states within narrow geography like France, Belgium. Barbarossa was entirely different cause it's a resource rich and literally continent sized opponent with immense strategic depth, dispersed infrastructure, and the ability to absorb very big losses and still mobilize millions. Swarming unready troops may describe the first few weeks, but it ignores what eventually happened which was overstretched supply lines, total wear on light armor, and an inability to destroy Soviet operational reserves. Barbarossa wasn’t a replay of 1940 blitzkrieg, it was like a war of endurance and industrial scale. If you're equating the two just because both moved quickly at first, you're missing the entire point of my thread

 

[Sir Waco]

My brain is going defect in a moment, it will malfunction eventually, are you serious?

niggy i never ad hominem'd you so shut up and return the favour

I thought people here knew the basics, I dont even know why i need to explain this. Blitzkrieg worked in Western Europe because it relied on collapsing centralized, road bound states within narrow geography like France, Belgium. Barbarossa was entirely different cause it's a resource rich and literally continent sized opponent with immense strategic depth, dispersed infrastructure, and the ability to absorb very big losses and still mobilize millions.

barbarossa and blitzkrieg were pretty much the same thing only thing that made them different was the fact barbarossa got overstretched due to soviet union's size, but that doesnt change the fact that the doctrine used was literally the same

Swarming unready troops may describe the first few weeks, but it ignores what eventually happened which was overstretched supply lines, total wear on light armor, and an inability to destroy Soviet operational reserves.

yea no shit, it was a blitzkrieg that failed

Barbarossa wasn’t a replay of 1940 blitzkrieg, it was like a war of endurance and industrial scale.

it was a replay its just that it failed, the germans never intended it to be a war of endurance because they knew they couldnt win that

If you're equating the two just because both moved quickly at first, you're missing the entire point of my thread

im not equating the two ''just because they moved quickly at first'' im equating them because they used combined arms, speed, and went deep into enemy territory, the germans did envision it as a quick campaign to knock out the USSR in a timely manner
the point of your thread is that operation barbarossa would have succeeded if they used medium tanks in large numbers, and i told you that wouldnt have worked because of the reasons already stated

 

[gluttony]

 

[Emba]

OTOH, Operation Barbarino was a suckcess.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQR2isjXLZc

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

So Germany launched Operation Barbarossa with roughly 3,350 tanks. But here's the issue that I still think of fairly often. What I've noticed is that most were lightweight, undergunned, or doctrinally misassigned, probably reinforces the narrative that he indeed thought 'only needing to kick in the door' and the house of cards will crumble down (blitzkrieg mindset), and it frustrates me cause it's such an obvious mistake apart from the logistical nightmare, nearly no one talks about it, surprises me

There were a solid amount of Panzer III (~1,000) and Panzer II (~1,000).
No Panthers. No long-barreled medium sized IVs tanks, out of the 3,350 tanks being used

Even a basic strategic mind would recognize that a continental war against a numerically superior enemy demands firepower, mobility, scalability , reliability, etc
The Panzer IV as a stronger brother of Panzer III had this potential, yet it was sidelined as an infantry support tank.
It defies logic in my eyes cause The Panther wasn't even conceived until after encountering the T34 and that was a catastrophic lag in planning.

One medium tank design, mass produced and properly armed, could have changed the dynamic and weight on the scale. I know lots of other factors were at play but this is one of the many things I think about, in which I saw a fault
Instead of all this, German forces crossed into USSR with light tanks better suited for 1939 Poland, not for a 2000 km campaign into the Soviet heartland.
Barbarossa was a conceptual failure in my eyes apart from the logistical nightmare too.

The only reason for Barbarossa's failure was simply the lack of troops. And the need to rely on allies who, at the first opportunity, betrayed the Reich in exchange for an easier peace, the Finns were not occupied or Sovietized due to their switch to the Soviet side, and the Romanians received back Transylvania for their switch to the Soviet side. German women simply gave birth to few children, resulting in a shortage of human resources for the war compared to the Soviet Union.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

So Germany launched Operation Barbarossa with roughly 3,350 tanks. But here's the issue that I still think of fairly often. What I've noticed is that most were lightweight, undergunned, or doctrinally misassigned, probably reinforces the narrative that he indeed thought 'only needing to kick in the door' and the house of cards will crumble down (blitzkrieg mindset), and it frustrates me cause it's such an obvious mistake apart from the logistical nightmare, nearly no one talks about it, surprises me

There were a solid amount of Panzer III (~1,000) and Panzer II (~1,000).
No Panthers. No long-barreled medium sized IVs tanks, out of the 3,350 tanks being used

Even a basic strategic mind would recognize that a continental war against a numerically superior enemy demands firepower, mobility, scalability , reliability, etc
The Panzer IV as a stronger brother of Panzer III had this potential, yet it was sidelined as an infantry support tank.
It defies logic in my eyes cause The Panther wasn't even conceived until after encountering the T34 and that was a catastrophic lag in planning.

One medium tank design, mass produced and properly armed, could have changed the dynamic and weight on the scale. I know lots of other factors were at play but this is one of the many things I think about, in which I saw a fault
Instead of all this, German forces crossed into USSR with light tanks better suited for 1939 Poland, not for a 2000 km campaign into the Soviet heartland.
Barbarossa was a conceptual failure in my eyes apart from the logistical nightmare too.

Battle of Uman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Casualties and losses Germany	USSR
Total: 20,853[a] Killed: 4,610 Wounded: 15,458 Captured or missing: 785	Total: 203,000 Killed or wounded: 100,000 Captured: 103,000 Captured or destroyed: 317 tanks

Battle of Kiev (1941) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Casualties and losses Germany	USSR
Total: 128,670[3] 26,856 killed96,796 wounded5,018 missing	700,544 men[2] 616,304[4] killed or missing, including 480,000 prisoners[5]84,240 wounded and sick411 tanks and SPGs destroyed[6] 343 aircraft destroyed[6] 28,419 guns and mortars lost[7]

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

So Germany launched Operation Barbarossa with roughly 3,350 tanks. But here's the issue that I still think of fairly often. What I've noticed is that most were lightweight, undergunned, or doctrinally misassigned, probably reinforces the narrative that he indeed thought 'only needing to kick in the door' and the house of cards will crumble down (blitzkrieg mindset), and it frustrates me cause it's such an obvious mistake apart from the logistical nightmare, nearly no one talks about it, surprises me

There were a solid amount of Panzer III (~1,000) and Panzer II (~1,000).
No Panthers. No long-barreled medium sized IVs tanks, out of the 3,350 tanks being used

Even a basic strategic mind would recognize that a continental war against a numerically superior enemy demands firepower, mobility, scalability , reliability, etc
The Panzer IV as a stronger brother of Panzer III had this potential, yet it was sidelined as an infantry support tank.
It defies logic in my eyes cause The Panther wasn't even conceived until after encountering the T34 and that was a catastrophic lag in planning.

One medium tank design, mass produced and properly armed, could have changed the dynamic and weight on the scale. I know lots of other factors were at play but this is one of the many things I think about, in which I saw a fault
Instead of all this, German forces crossed into USSR with light tanks better suited for 1939 Poland, not for a 2000 km campaign into the Soviet heartland.
Barbarossa was a conceptual failure in my eyes apart from the logistical nightmare too.

The only person responsible for Germany's defeat on the Eastern Front was the German women, who gave birth to fewer children than the Soviet women, resulting in a shortage of troops for the German command. As a result, the Soviet Union was able to sustain numerous defeats while continuing to fight, as its human resources were vast. Even small defeats were more painful for the Germans.

 

[DeadOnArrivalCel]

Gotta mit uns

 

[Justanotherbloke]

Battle of Uman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Casualties and losses Germany	USSR
Total: 20,853[a] Killed: 4,610 Wounded: 15,458 Captured or missing: 785	Total: 203,000 Killed or wounded: 100,000 Captured: 103,000 Captured or destroyed: 317 tanks

Battle of Kiev (1941) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Casualties and losses Germany	USSR
Total: 128,670[3] 26,856 killed96,796 wounded5,018 missing	700,544 men[2] 616,304[4] killed or missing, including 480,000 prisoners[5]84,240 wounded and sick411 tanks and SPGs destroyed[6] 343 aircraft destroyed[6] 28,419 guns and mortars lost[7]

I never deny that Germany achieved stunning operational victories in 1941. Uman and Kiev were textbook encirclements and no modern army matched the Wehrmacht’s ability to execute fast, large scale battles of annihilation. But equating tactical brilliance with strategic adequacy is wrong in my opinion. Cause Barbarossa wasn’t only a war to seize territory, it was also a war to destroy the Soviet state. Those victories you listed were impressive, but didn’t break the Soviet capacity to resist, rebuild, and counterstrike. Because German armor was tactically overstretched and logistics were already cracking, and light tanks even in victory could not sustain the deeper push needed to kill the Soviet system itself. There were many factors but this thread of mine was more so talking about the lack of medium sized tanks and critique that literally over 2,000 tanks out of the 3,350 were those lighter ones

 

[Justanotherbloke]

The only reason for Barbarossa's failure was simply the lack of troops.

More factors I guess than only a lack of troops and the points I mentioned in the thread, the scale and picture was far bigger.
Apart from logistics, them running around through fields in summer gear, the intervention in the Balkans to my understanding delayed it too and had a massive impact

 

[kay']

i dont read boyo

 

[Excalibur]

There were no oil fields near Moscow or Stalingrad. Hitler emphasized the need to drive south in the direction of the Caucasus oil fields(e.g., Maykop, Grozny), but the retarded OKW, who wanted to repeat France 1940 by rushing Moscow, betrayed Hitler and secretly strengthened Army Group Center (Moscow direction) at the expense of Army Group South (Ukraine, Caucasus direction). The result was that Operation Barbarossa was an awkward compromise that secured neither Moscow nor the Caucasus. The Wehrmacht had to endure the winter and wait until the spring of 1942 to restart their offensive toward Stalingrad and Grozny, but by then their odds had greatly deteriorated due to Lend-Lease, etc. The Wehrmacht had to secure Stalingrad to protect their flank and to cut off Soviet supply lines flowing via the Volga.

Been saying this for years. The narrative that Hitler was a retard who knew nothing about military strategy and single handily lost the war by not listening to his generals is such as a cliche and normgroid take.