Lookie here Lumpy. Quite a statement! Tend to disagree, but where would the world be without it
Anyway, I am claiming that a stronger LW would have been better and the strength applied was a matter of availability rather than choice. (Hmmm, I think I prefer to use just 2000 for the job????)
One delay in the punchthrough for Barbarossa to be successful was due to the Cauldron Battles or "Kesselschlact" plan which basically aimed at annihalating the Red army rather than defeating it. It caused some delay for the German army under perfect conditions! They got lagged by just not pinching USSR troops into "bags" or "kettles" but spending the time for boiling them. Around there, both transport and air support hurries things up. And these were in the high summer, and transport was going...okay. Much of this was in range from secure airborne positions.
Then there were strongpoints that took quite an artillery beating and so on and caused quite some delays.
Then came the big swing southwards. It absolutely changed things, caused lots of driving, completely delayed the northern campaign, and as for the ground forces, had the LW hopping.
Then back, focus north, go for Moscow. Sorry Gerry, wintertime! When winter hit on the second of December 1941, the German army was at the outskirts of Moscow, - so close was it.
Have to look better in the airstrength at the time, but I feel pretty certain that more all the time would have been better.
BTW, oddly enough, I don't quickly recall any info of fuel shortage at the time. Just spares and such.
And then the final. Since I am digging into this, I am very happy for the debate and every flaw you find in my points. You have helped a lot, and keep trucking, I'll perhaps send you a book or two for it! Really!
