Do you think the USSR would've defeated Germany w/o allies?

There were only two aircraft that flew against the beaches, but there were still several hundred Luftwaffe aircraft ‘dispersed’ in France and the low countries…

The link you provided shows that they continued air operations including significant strikes during Market Garden and The Battle of the Bulge, and late as the end of 1944. But they could not sustain the losses and a few hundred fighters and bombers flying against the beachheads would have been the end of the Luftwaffe in the second battle for France…

And most German aircraft were positioned against the Pas de Calais area because that is where the Germans expected the “real” invasion to take place…

And Hitler didn’t just “order the Luftwaffe to go east,” he ordered them to oppose USAAF and RAF bombers over Germany…

It’s impossible to visualize the difference in airpower at that crucial moment - 2 german aircrafts vs 11000-12000 allied aircrafts.

_

Although the defence of territory of Germany was the primary obligation of Luftwaffe - Hitler could not take the fighters from the Eastern front.
Just look for the interesting statistic that i found:
http://www.duel.ru/publish/duel_sb/pril_2.html

Table 15:The distribution of the Luftwaffe on the fronts in 1943-1944
June of the 1944.
Soviet-german front- 3 267
Western front - 1 450
Over GErmany ( AA defence) - 1 572
Over Norway - 203

Thus the total strength of the Luftwaffe against Soviets was the SAME that against WHOLE Allies Armade in the West.( except the Italy and Balkans)
This is not strange - in the Summer of 1944 in the Eastern front had a critical battles for Ukraine and Romania.

Interesting charts and statistics. But I think if we break those down, we might find that the Luftwaffe maintained a much larger transport capability in the east.

Also, the end of the Luftwaffe in an effective tactical role began to fade in the West really after Sicily and the Italian campaign where losses became unsustainable and offensive operations no longer viable…

It also should be noted that after a certain point in the West, the Luftwaffe all but stopped flying tactical air operations. They achieved some successes in Sicily, especially in the use of guided ordinance against Allied shipping, which could prove hazardous in the course of amphibious operations and caused the Allies a good deal of consternation. Their defeat and marginalization was three fold in that they had to maintain a defense against strategic bombers, they were quickly swamped and lost any air battles of attrition against the Allies even if they destroyed more (or as in the case of The Battle of the Bulge) or the equivalent number aircraft as they couldn’t make good on the losses unlike the US and UK. Especially when it came to pilots. Also, the US and Royal Navies developed effective countermeasures to radio guided bombs, making the losses of aircraft incurred against ferocious fighter and AAA defenses simply too high…

Greetings I discovered this board and thread while searching for something else so forgive my intrusion. With that said I humbly submit my opinion on this discussion.

I am afraid I would have to disagree with the OP’s opinion, the scale of the war on the Eastern front is often misunderstood. Stalin had 35,000,000 men available for military service, that’s a 35 followed by 6 zeros, Germany at her peak on the Eastern front had only 3,200,000 men.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender. Stalingrad and every major city would have to be laid siege in order to secure the rail heads.

The German army that invaded the Soviet Union was just 15 divisions (they were sent to the Balkans) smaller than the one used to invade France and the area to be controlled more than twice as large (about a million square miles already) having only pushed as far as Stalingrad.

The German supply lines were already over 1,000 kilometers long nearly all their trains boilers had burst and partisans were attacking their supply lines relentlessly.

Throughout the entire war the Eastern front consumed 7/8th of the entire German war effort that means North Africa, Italy and the Western front comprised only 1/8th of the entire war effort.

To consider these points further…

First, have you looked at the map? It is farther from Stalingrad (the farthest German penetration into the Soviet Union) to Chelyabinsk (Tankograd) than it is from the Soviet border to Stalingrad (about 800 miles) and twice as far from Moscow to Chelyabinsk (about 1,200 miles) than from the Polish border to Moscow (about 600 miles).

When Barbarossa kicked off Germany invaded with about 150 divisions and they were facing more than 360 divisions even with Germany taking more than 3,500,000 prisoners Stalin still had more than 20,000,000 more men that served in reserve.

Hitler made some major errors long before Barbarossa even started, first he failed to put Germany on a proper war footing, even as late as 1944 German industry was still producing such things as 13 tons of wallpaper.

Second, Germany failed to develop an adequate 4 engine strategic bomber capable of hitting the factories that in the first 5 months from July to November 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large armament plants, were packed up brick by brick and relocated by rail and moved east. 667 of them to the Urals, 322 to Siberia, and to Kazakhstan and Central Asia 308 were moved. All these factories were back into production within 6 weeks of being moved.

Third, the Germans made a fatal miscalculation concerning the Pripet Marshes as well which left a more than 300 mile wide hole, roughly the size of Bavaria, in their lines along the nearly 2,000 mile front which the Soviets used to attack the German flanks because Hitler and his Generals believed them to be inaccessible by AFV’s. Ironically the German leaders had heard lectures about the Pripet Marshes in connection with their studies of the Russo-Polish war of 1920 and used similar misconceptions by exploiting the Ardennes with the invasion of France duplicating the Schleiffen plan of WWI.

Fourth, because the Germans believed they could win in as little as six weeks the Heer units were not supplied with any winter clothing or materials required to winterize their equipment for the harsh winter they would face. In a good year you would be lucky to get 6 weeks of suitable weather for AFV operations when the ground isn’t turned into a quagmire or frozen solid.

Not to mention how do you propose to supply the advancing troops? All of the rail roads went through cities like Stalingrad which were in Russian hands. How will you get supplies to your advancing columns considering that Soviet rail gauge was incompatible with German rail and required the off loading of materials and supplies from German rail to Soviet rail which was largely destroyed as the Soviets retreated giving up space to buy time. There were no passable road systems within the Soviet interior and besides Germany lacked adequate numbers of trucks even if the roads existed.

The Soviets did not need the Caucasian oil fields to continue to supply their units as they had more than adequate oil reserves located 600 miles east of Moscow and still yet fields much further east well outside the reach of Germany.

By the time the Germans had got within 26 miles of Moscow all of the central government had already been evacuated and re-established well out of reach.

Finally and most importantly in the area of production and manpower Germany stood no chance of ever competing with the Soviets as the following production reports and troop reports paint a very grim picture for Germany. Wars are won on the factory floors not the battlefields despite what many people believe.

Aircraft Production 1939-1944
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944
Germany 8,295 10,826 11,424 15,288 25,094 39,275
Soviet Union 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,845 40,246

The tank production figures are even bleaker and we need really only just look at 1942 to get a grasp on the reality for Germany.

Germany produced 5,056 tanks (a figure that includes self-propelled artillery) compared to the Soviets who produced 24,500 of which 5,000 of these were T-34’s.

The further east the Germans would advance the broader the front would become, the harder the terrain and conditions as well. All of the top German Generals believed that the war in the east was suicidal and could not be won. What the Germans did by attacking the Soviets was very much akin to what Japan did attacking the US, awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible rage. The outcome was determined the moment the first shots were fired. Germany stood no chance of ever defeating the Soviets.

Hi Baseline! Welcome!

Thanks for the interesting post.

I have not read it whole yet :slight_smile: , but just a quick comment.

Stalin had 35,000,000 men available for military service, that’s a 35 followed by 6 zeros, Germany at her peak on the Eastern front had only 3,200,000 men.

As I understand you compare uncompareable: for USSR the total mobilisation resource and for Germany the instantanious value for a given point in time.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender.

To my knowledge it is a myth. Kind of. The thing is that the rule (1:3) applies only for the area of the main breakthrugh, not to the total army size (I am not sure I am using the right english teerms though). It means by acheiving 3 to 1 superiority on a narrow front and acheiving breakthrough you can defeat a larger force. That is what the Germans more or less did in the beginning so well - mobile warfare.

Hi Baseline.
Welcome to the our hot forums company;)
You point really interesting and as any outstanding point is a bit … fantastic.
Just thisnk about 35 mln of soldiers:)
The whole population of the USSR was about 190 mln in the 1939. so the half is male , 35-45% the male from age 18-40 who could be called up in army.
So the 35 mln is the whole adult male population THAT NEVER WERE in Army.Coz no one state could maintain the such great figure of troops ( 35% of population).
Even the greatest economy of USA was unadble to complect , arm and supplied the army over 6-8 mln of mens. ( no more 3-4% of population).
Indeed the peak of Red Army was just about 5 mln in the mid of the 1943 and continiously decresed till the end of the war.

Standard military doctrine dictates that an attacking army must be three times the strength of the defender. Stalingrad and every major city would have to be laid siege in order to secure the rail heads.

But again the GErmans used the Blizkriege doctrine that was rather revolutionary in that time.
Accordind the standard doctrine they would be neve capable to capture the France so quickly - but they completely did it for 6 weeks!!!:slight_smile:

First, have you looked at the map? It is farther from Stalingrad (the farthest German penetration into the Soviet Union) to Chelyabinsk (Tankograd) than it is from the Soviet border to Stalingrad (about 800 miles) and twice as far from Moscow to Chelyabinsk (about 1,200 miles) than from the Polish border to Moscow (about 600 miles).

But what deals had the Germans to the Chelyabinsk ( Ural region) if they could win reach thier aims ( i mean the Barbarossa) by capturing the Moscow

When Barbarossa kicked off Germany invaded with about 150 divisions and they were facing more than 360 divisions even with Germany taking more than 3,500,000 prisoners Stalin still had more than 20,000,000 more men that served in reserve.

.
No he could not armed and support the army no more the 5 mln - he simply could not took more from industry without the serious further damage for the strategic economical production.
And the Soviets HAD NAVER 360 divisions against Germans.
The most much figure that i ever read was about 200-210 divisions ( some of then was just partly complected and ready for the combats).
You forgotten about the Soviet Far East - even the during MOST CRITICAL battle for Stalingrad the Soviets was forced to hold about 1 mln troops agains the Kvantung Army in Manchguria.
So you seriously overstimate the figures of Red Army in the Western front ( a mean Soviet western front)

Hitler made some major errors long before Barbarossa even started, first he failed to put Germany on a proper war footing, even as late as 1944 German industry was still producing such things as 13 tons of wallpaper.

But did the British or American industry not produced anything except the Wearpon and amunition?

Second, Germany failed to develop an adequate 4 engine strategic bomber capable of hitting the factories that in the first 5 months from July to November 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large armament plants, were packed up brick by brick and relocated by rail and moved east. 667 of them to the Urals, 322 to Siberia, and to Kazakhstan and Central Asia 308 were moved. All these factories were back into production within 6 weeks of being moved.

The Germans was forced to refuse the super-expensive Strategic bombers fleet as well as the Soviets.
This ws absolutly right solution in condition of lack of materials and resources that both the Soviets and Germans had.
May be you do not know - but the ONE strategic B-29 need as much materials as the 12-15 full-metal fighters.
So if the Germans suddenly has decided to produce the Strategic bombers they according you figures of GErmans aircraft production, could produse no more than 1000 of strategic bombers instead the 15 000 ALL OTHER aircrafts in 1942.
So is theis a really much , keeping in mind thay if they would forced decrease or stoped at all the production of fighers.
They simply lost the air superiority in all of fronts and those 1000 of bombers could be FINISHED for the couple of month by the Soviets and Allies figher aviation.
So indeed just the super-rich americans who could produce the 100 000 aircrafts per year could let themself so super-expensive hobby like a Strategic fleet.
The Germans was forced to developed the other forms of wearpons - for instance the unique V-2 project that thay could seriously improved till the end of war .

Third, the Germans made a fatal miscalculation concerning the Pripet Marshes as well which left a more than 300 mile wide hole, roughly the size of Bavaria, in their lines along the nearly 2,000 mile front which the Soviets used to attack the German flanks because Hitler and his Generals believed them to be inaccessible by AFV’s. Ironically the German leaders had heard lectures about the Pripet Marshes in connection with their studies of the Russo-Polish war of 1920 and used similar misconceptions by exploiting the Ardennes with the invasion of France duplicating the Schleiffen plan of WWI.

Actually the Pripet Marches was a trouble zone for the GErmans- but you are forgotten - they finally destructed the sovet 5-army that hided in Pripet MArches in the 1941 and practically cleaned the Marhces fr4om any regulary forces except the few partisans units.
True this action slowed down the temp of Barbarossa, but i think this had a very few influence at the general comapny.
The resault of Lose of Barbarossa i think was the mistaken desicion to send the Group Army Norht at the Leningrad where it was succesfully blocked by the Soviets for a few years.And as the resault the Group armies Center had not enough power to capture te Moscow in 1941.

Fourth, because the Germans believed they could win in as little as six weeks the Heer units were not supplied with any winter clothing or materials required to winterize their equipment for the harsh winter they would face. In a good year you would be lucky to get 6 weeks of suitable weather for AFV operations when the ground isn’t turned into a quagmire or frozen solid.

Not to mention how do you propose to supply the advancing troops? All of the rail roads went through cities like Stalingrad which were in Russian hands. How will you get supplies to your advancing columns considering that Soviet rail gauge was incompatible with German rail and required the off loading of materials and supplies from German rail to Soviet rail which was largely destroyed as the Soviets retreated giving up space to buy time. There were no passable road systems within the Soviet interior and besides Germany lacked adequate numbers of trucks even if the roads existed.

It was very easy indeed:)
You are forgetting that except the few partisans units in the forest of Ukraine and Belorussia in 1941-42 - there were a lot of voluntaries who ws ready to work for the GErmans.In fact the GErmans has formed and organised the Whole Labor army in the occuped territories to support their troops , building and supply of foods for the Germany.If their policy and relation in the occuped territories was a bit more HUMAN - the native polultion support was guaranted for them.
However as we know they were far from idea of liberation the peoples of USSR ( as it spreaded official Nazy propoganda) - indeed they come for a new slavs.
So this was qute logical resaul of henocide - the partisans action that in the begining was very unessential - since end of the 1942 were quikly rised in times.So already in the mid of the 1943 the entire Partisan war occured in Belorusia and Ukraine.That sure made a seriouse troubles for the GErmans supplies lines.

The Soviets did not need the Caucasian oil fields to continue to supply their units as they had more than adequate oil reserves located 600 miles east of Moscow and still yet fields much further east well outside the reach of Germany.

I have no idea what do you mean about “oil reserves east of Moscow”, but there is no any doubts that the Caucasian oil had a critical meaning for the whole soviet indusrty- therefore they were ready to firght for Stalingrad as cruel as they could while was alive.

No, the Germans could competing with the Soviets in aircraft industry:)
And your figures clearly demonstrate it.
Beside they have an serious technological advantage over the Soviets - in fact the BF109A-2/4 ( the basical fighter at that time) even in the 1941 had a absolute superiority over the most of Soviet fighters except the Mig-3 that was wery limited produced in that time.(And used only in AAA-defence of Moscow).
But if to look at the Allies aircraft production - this is a great ahivenment of Germans - they could neitralize or at least compensate for the two-three ears the absolute figure superiority of Allies in the western front.At least until the end of 1944 when they had lost a giant part of industry in France and Eastern Europe.

The tank production figures are even bleaker and we need really only just look at 1942 to get a grasp on the reality for Germany.

Germany produced 5,056 tanks (a figure that includes self-propelled artillery) compared to the Soviets who produced 24,500 of which 5,000 of these were T-34’s.

And what again?
Does it mean that the Soviets in 1942 had a 24x5 absolute superiority in the Eastern front?:slight_smile:
No, vise verse- if you look at the histroy the 1942 was enough succesfull for the GErmans in the East ( the Manstain captured whole Crimea and was near the Caucaus oil).
Untill the most of end of year ( when the operation Saturn started in november near the STalingrad)- the Germans army was more professionaly leading and therefore they could succesfully won operating by the less number of troops and wearpon.
So it was not a GErmans industry lack - but the profesionalism of GErmans military staff that made unbelieveble having the limited strength.

The further east the Germans would advance the broader the front would become, the harder the terrain and conditions as well. All of the top German Generals believed that the war in the east was suicidal and could not be won. What the Germans did by attacking the Soviets was very much akin to what Japan did attacking the US, awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible rage. The outcome was determined the moment the first shots were fired. Germany stood no chance of ever defeating the Soviets.

Oh i can’t agree again.
Germans had a greates shances to beat the Red Army in the 1941 and in the 1942.
They were in a bit from a victory. Sure they had a lack of everything- but soviets laso was demoralized in that time.

Greetings,

The 35 million figure is what Stalin had available for military service not the number in uniform at any one time. The point of the number is to demonstrate the vast human resources that were at Stalins disposal. Where Germany had a total population of about 80 million in 1939 and throughout the war around 18 million served in the Whermacht in contrast the population of the Soviet Union was around 164 million in 1937.

The 3 to 1 rule still applies and in fact gets larger when considering an occupation force. By the time the Germans reached the outskirts of Moscow the momentum of the last Blitzkrieg campaign had already been lost as the german forces were slowed by exhaustion and tenuous supply lines that were becoming more difficult to secure. The further east the Germans pushed the more forces that were required to secure those logistic lines and then the Soviets were beginning to setup defense in depth as well. The Soviets knew they could afford to trade territory for time, territory was the greatest resource that Stalin had.

Already addressed in the above post.

Well two points here, first again look at the map France is tiny compared to the Soviet Union and again consider that France was fighting using a doctrine from WWI. The Soviets did not co-operate by doing the same unfortunately for Hitler.

Capturing Moscow would not have ended the war, Stalin was prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child if need be. I think we can all agree he had very little respect for the lives of even his own people. He had already believed that the Germans would capture Moscow and made preparations to carry on with the war in that event.

.

The far east was not real threat to Soviet armor as Zukov demonstrated at Khalkin-Gol. Taking place in 1939 this is even before the legendary T-34 would give the Soviets an even greater advangtage.

The difference being that Germany had already been at war for three years before America entered the war and were engulfed in a two front fight for survival. America never tasted the horror of strategic bombing of it’s cities and factories.

The V-1 and V-2 projects like many German projects for example the Maus and other super heavy tanks were complete wastes of resources and would have been better served in the area of a 4 engined strategic bomber. The V projects were terror weapons unable due to guidance limitations to be of any significant strategic or tactical value.

True the Germans had a notable success in ‘41 but the effort and manpower required to do so demonstrates the problem for Germany. The front was nearly 2,000miles long and the territory that must be pacified and then controlled would just keep getting bigger.

Considering that Hitler had ordered that the war in the east would be a war of annihilation I don’t think the local populations would remain friendly to German occupation forces for long. Many people may have hated Stalin but Hitler was just another dictator in a different uniform and while they may have wished for a change in political leadership they would still be fighting for their homes, lands and their very survival.

Stalingrad was more about political will than about strategic importance. It was the ultimate clash of two enormous egos.

Well the official datas of census of 1939 give us the 170 mln the population of the USSR. But this was without the Western Ukraine, Belorussia and Baltic states that add roughly 15 mln peoples after the 1940.
So this woudl be enough right to consider the figure of USSR during the GErmans invasioun about 190 mln.
However let’s look for the Germany - 80 mln was JUST the GErmans OWN population.
But what abot fact that in the 1941 the GErmany controlled the whole the continental Europe wit the total population over 150 mln?
What about France , ScNDINAVIA and Chehoslovakia?Italy?Balcans?
Besides if the Russia controlled the relatively rural areas with primitive industry.
But the GErmanstook the most European highly-industrialized states.
Do you ever know that for instance the total war production of Britain in the 1941 was equal of war production of Chehoslovakia?
So indeed the GErmans had enough forces to finaly beat the Red Army in 1941 or 42.
And they succesfully did it in warm time until the 1943:)
This is very true to say that inthe 1941 the USSR have faced not the GErmany - but whole the Fascist Union Europe alliance managed by the Hitler.
Coz even the Hungarians , italians, finns , slovakians and romanians took part in Barbarossa.
BTW the figures of the forces in the most beginning of Barbarossa:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/План_Барбаросса
The Fascists:
Groupe armies centre- 50 divisions, South-57 divisions, North -29 divisions.
i.e. total -136 dividions. However later in Jule there were moved the additionally 15 Divisions form the Balcans.
Soviets forces were:
Nothern-western front 34 divisions, Western front- 45 divisions, Southern-western front- 45 divisions,Southern front - 26 divisions i.e total - 150 divisions.
So indeed the Soviets had no any superiority over the Germans.
Besides the GErmans army fought already 2 years and had the great positive combat experience- the Soviets had no wide combat experience coz no more then 250 000 took part in the Winter war and just about 50 000 in far east ( halkin-gol).
So the soviets had no real adventage over Germans.
Hitler clearly did realise what he do:)
He could crush the Soviets already till the september 1941, but he could not coz there were made the several serious lacks and mistakes in management of troops.

Baseline,

I can perfectly see what you want to say. That the Soviet mobilisation resource was larger than German one. That sounds to be true to me in general.
But you again fail to back your staement up. You see, for USSR and Germany you mentioned numbers of the different nature. Again.

IMO you should have state it like this:
Total mobilisation resource USSR: ???
Total mobilisation resource Germany: ???

Served in Wermacht: ???
Served in RKKA: ???
If we have these numbers we could objectively (hopefully) assess the situation.

To my knowledge USSR mobilised 29,574,900 men during the war with Germany (until 1st July 1945).
Germany mobilised app. 18,000,000 men during WW2, just as you mentioned. Plus all the German Allies - ???.

And about the “3:1” rule… again it only applies to the area of the front line where the enemy’s defence has to be broken. If it applied to the WHOLE force commited to the war, then no one whould ever attack anyone. Becausee it is almost impossible to assemble 3 times as many soldiers than the enemy. I mean in Europe at least.

Of course Germany win the war in europe,when the germans concentrate only east

thats a good one, not as cut and dry as youd think, it definately would have been harder for the russians and took a lot longer, but by the end of the war, those t-34’s were making their presence felt, and the sheer numbers of men, but theres too many factors to come up with a better answer without doing a little more research, ill do my homework and see what scenarios i can envision

If russia stands alone they can’t win, when winning means getting into germany. Even back then the motto was: It’s the economy, stupid. True, they manufactured massive amounts of t-34 etc. but a war is not only fought with weaponry. They couldn’t have clothed, fed or transported their troops on the scale necessary, nor provide the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations. And no allies means at the same time a LOT of free ressources that germany otherwise has to spend on air defence and subs (Just imagine 10000 flak 88 arti tubes used for PAKs instead of FlaKs and the results on the soviet tank divisions). And the german economy was almost twice as large as the russian, even before the initial attack diminished some of the russian capacity.
Russia had a lot of manpower that’s true, but they lost them at an unsustainable rate. Germany can’t defeat russia either though, because it has to few men to control the vast territories.

Hmmn, thats interesting thought.
Can you share it with details?
Some of diehards here still think that USSR had a great Economic and military superioruty over Germany in 1941.

Figures I have seen comparing German output with Soviet output suggest that Germany had considerably higher production of steel and aluminum than the USSR but produced fewer weapons in most categories despite this. One wonders what they were using their resources for.

Maybe for this:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7042&highlight=haunebu&page=5

I take the scenario britain signs a peace deal after the fall of france.
The combined gdp (in 1990 dollars) of germany, austria and france, belgium, low countries and norway (then under german control) was ~ 650 billion, the SU had 360. Though I think GDP isn’t such a good measurement for my argument, since it includes raw materials etc., we need production capabilities. We’d have to check if and how russia could produce all the secondary stuff they received from lend lease like electronics, transport vehicles etc. and how it would affect weapons production and thus fighting capability if they had to produce it alone.
For the gdp info there are various sources, just google it.

The USSR would have had good chances to defeat Germans in 1940-41 if the Soviet leadership had been a bit more adequate as the Soviets possessed the military superiority over Germans in the Soviet Western frontier regions without any mobilization even on June 22nd 1941.

Even back then the motto was: It’s the economy, stupid. True, they manufactured massive amounts of t-34 etc. but a war is not only fought with weaponry. They couldn’t have clothed, fed or transported their troops on the scale necessary, nor provide the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations.

Nonsence. The USSR had clothed and fed its huge Red Army before German invasion for two decades without foreign assistance. What’s more Bolsheviks clothed and fed it even during the civil war. The bulk of Soviet transportation of cargo and troops were carried out by railroads during WWII.
The USSR had the electronic equipment for the coordination of large scale operations.

And no allies means at the same time a LOT of free ressources that germany otherwise has to spend on air defence and subs (Just imagine 10000 flak 88 arti tubes used for PAKs instead of FlaKs and the results on the soviet tank divisions). And the german economy was almost twice as large as the russian, even before the initial attack diminished some of the russian capacity.
Russia had a lot of manpower that’s true, but they lost them at an unsustainable rate.

The fact is that the USSR excelled Germany in every kind of resources needed for war. The military-related sector of the economy of the USSR wasn’t surpassed by the one controlled by Germans in Europe even at the beginning of Soviet-Axis war.

Germany can’t defeat russia either though, because it has to few men to control the vast territories

Germany failed to defeat the USSR because the Soviets had larger military build-up and because the short-sighted Reich’s policy violated the interests of all the nations living within the USSR. It missed the excellent opportunity of turning WWII in the USSR into the full-scale interior civil and interethnic war leading to the collapse of the Red Army and the Soviet system.