The main problem with your thesis of an attack from russia's southern underbelly is there are no powerful states in the region,infrastructure is poor,terrain is rough with mountains and desert like open spaces and its a landlocked region so a vast army will have trouble sustaining itself due to poor infrastructure and no nearby ports.It would also leave the centre of gravity of russian state untouched(western russia) and give it ample time to mobilize its resources.Brilliant observation there @AUSTERLITZ
But i dont agree to what you said here>>>
Austy what if we change the strategy a bit and do some extra homework before attacking Russia?
Like for example
1. Austy, if you notice Russia was always attacked from the western side. What if the strategy was changed and russia was attacked from a direction it least expects from?
I mean south.
This so because most of the Russian population is concentrated on its western border.
View attachment 378312
There's this river which divides russia into two, Irtysh. Parts of Russia towards the east of Irytsh is sparsely populated. So when you attack them from south(near Irtysh) you face lesser resistance and also you cut off military aid to the east. Thats the idea.
Yes, Moscow is closer to the western border (1000 kms or so?). But it is heavily guarded. Infact its a fortress in itself. So its a blunder to attack it from west.
2. I respect germans. To this day anything made in Germany is considered "good" quality.
While the Germans went all BLITZ on Russians initially, they forgot that the German Tanks wouldn't work in the extreme cold. Whereas the soviets came prepared with their winter gears.Their set of Tanks, T-34, could work even in the cold winter of Russia.
So next time an army attacks Russia they should do their homework better and test their weapons for the coldest winters.
And yes...prepare for minutest details so that when general winter comes charging you are not surprised.
3. The army planning to attack should be headed by a pragmatic leader.
Lets accept it that Hitler did make some really good strategic decisions in the beginning, but later on he started over-riding his generals too much.
To this day i feel, had the Britishers not broken the Enigma code Germans would not have lost the battle of kursk.
The Soviets assured of the German punctuality knew when and where the Germans would attack.
Whats your opinion?
Physical education is an imperative part of the syllabus which is often ignored.
One thing that amuses me is the lack of respect for the soldiers on this forum.
IMO,Irrespective of their nationality soldiers deserve respect.
Words like RIP for a soldier from your country sounds hollow if you demean soldiers from other countries.
Overall a great interview.
@AUSTERLITZ Kashmir being the bone of contention between India and Pak, i was looking forward to reading your answers on the subject. Your answers were very honest and unbiased. This is a proof>>>
But let me be frank,when it comes to present state of affairs in J&K, my views differ from yours.
Could i ask you something?
Do you intentionally avoid showing your funny side on the forums? Lolz
Good job @WAJsal
Germans would have lost kursk nonetheless.They lost the battle because they attacked too late after letting the soviets build up their defences for months.The russians knew the attack would come at kursk,zhukov had predicted this to stalin months ago.The code just told them the exact date.Once the defences were built up (attack delayed so the new tigers and panthers could participate in the attack)it meant the soviet defences were too strong for model's northern pincer .No matter how deep manstein's southern pincer advanced,without 2 pincers meeting up plan wouldn't have been a success.
I like to think i have a funny side,i'm not sure.
Thanks for ur kind words levina.
Edited with my favourite question i think.Thanks @WAJsal