Originally Posted by
pr00ne
Rheinstorff,
Whilst struggling to see what relevance 1945 is to the British Army's failure to be able to recruit, your well made points above provoke thought about Hitler and 1941. I am not sure that whatever tactics Hitler adopted would have overcome the massive imbalance in ultimate numbers that the Soviets could employ against him. It may have taken longer, but once the initial thrust had been absorbed the Germans were on the back foot strategically within a pretty short time, and come what may he still had General Winter to fight at least twice, possible more. He may have won a tactical victory and taken Moscow, but then the Soviets still had massive resource that they were able to bring to bear, and Hitler simply did not. Plus he was fighting elsewhere against the British Empire and the USA, that was never going to be doable.
I agree to a considerable extent; I'm not confident a single axis would have worked, but it definitely stood a far better chance than the three axis attack, against which the Soviets barely held on. I do think capturing Moscow would have constituted more than a tactical victory, given the centripetal nature of Stalin's command and control of the USSR, and would have significantly disabled the USSR's capability to organise its military industrial response.
This is thread drift of considerable proportions, so I'll now desist from my qualitative dissection of Nazi tactical and strategic actions!