IMO, it would've been worse for the Germans. The T-34 had only started being incorporated into Tank Corps in 1940, by 1942 the transition would've been complete. Also, the mistake of abandoning 'Deep Battle' had been realized after the Russo-Finnish war and this doctrine was being transition into when Barbarossa launched. The Russians were really caught with their pants down in June 41; changing MBT's AND doctrine at the same time while being attacked by what was then the best army in the world but by the end of 42' Russia was starting to prove superior to the Germans in Operational Art.
On the "German way of war": Deep Battle and Blitzkrieg both originated and matured simultaneously. The purges eliminated most of DB's supporting generals, including Tukhachevsky, and any general with new ideas was seen as a revolutionary and an enemy of the state. IMHO, and historically, Deep Battle was superior to Blitzkrieg. They are basically the same but DB is on a much larger scale.
Deep operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The longer Germany waits, the stronger Russia becomes.[/quote]
But then would they have had the T-34/85s and other types of tanks, also the experience level to actually use the deep penetration tactics...... Like I said, a double edged sword, the Germans might have also evolved their "Blitz" as well to, so that could be a a horse apiece maybe.....??
Cheers, a totally different war though to say the least, maybe intel as to who might have had the best at the specific "new time" of the invasion could be a factor, let alone the British and US forces here, What MIGHT have happened in Africa if the Germans put just some of those resources from the Eastern front towards that, a different story there to I think, but that again is for another topic, or maybe not, it might be considered as tied into this at some point.
Thanks for the good post fs, and a good topic to Kurt!!
Tom
For me, 1945 might be stretching it a bit.........