We are talking about non historic case of events over here. You all say that if Germany would do X they would win, I oppose that. There is and there will never be a way to be sure, we can at best speculate so to say that I make "a ton of unqualified claims which really need some citation to be taken seriously" is at least wrong.
No, it's not. That's not how this works. You're extrapolating from real events without backup (in the case of diplomacy and peace talks, with other things you're fine), whereas I'm making no pretenses about speculation. You have a higher burden of proof. Not to mention the original rebuttal was quite the straw man.
As we can see on them map the most developed part of Soviet railways was already under German control, further east there were not that many multi-tracks.
Again, that doesn't actually refute what I've said. Sure the majority of multi-tracks weren't under Soviet control, but
there would be fewer still under their control if Moscow is taken and the remaining infrastructure would lack a viable hub. Trains would have to go deep into the USSR just to turn around!
Also, just because there is one track it does not mean train goes only in one direction, far from that
Never said that, only that trains can only go one direction at a time over a stretch of track, otherwise you'll get head-on collisions.
Moscow was indeed very important when they were advancing.
Also when they were defending. Being able to supply the central theater directly from Moscow whereas the Germans were a long distance from Smolensk was a great help to the Soviets.
Even though Germans were better with their manpower, even when Soviets were haemorrhaging faster, it still wasn't enough.
It wasn't enough because the Germans
stopped being better with their manpower. They threw it into the meat grinders of Typhoon and Stalingrad. Remember I'm advocating they forgo those in favor of a more conservative and deliberate plan.
They could but Blitzkrieg worked well for them so far. Why to risk the enemy getting organised when you still have the initiative? They were not stupid in their actions. There was just too much to chew through.
Typhoon and Stalingrad were pretty damn stupid. The Germans gained absolutely no advantage from Typhoon and in fact it may have cost them the war, at least in the east. Stalingrad definitively lost them the war in the east on their terms. They were overextensions motivated by hubris, tunnel vision, and political considerations that taxed their best formations disproportionately, resulting in chaotic retreats and routes which left formations severely underequipped and undermanned.
They didn't indeed but they were followed by German army. If they were not then who knows. What did the Germans realistically gain by pushing past Smolensk? Well, they were trying to win, to accomplish their goals. Now we know how it ended, they only saw disorganized enemy and goal almost within the reach. If they received some serious beating before it might have made the more cautious.
I've seen no serious source indicating that the German commanders thought the Soviets were beaten to the point they'd give up Moscow with any less of a fight than Stalingrad would eventually be. On the contrary, they thought they would fight tooth and nail for Moscow. Anyone without tunnel vision, overconfidence, and Hitler nipping at his heels would know that his forces (those being the Germans) didn't have enough forces to encircle or even seriously contest Moscow even if they
could make it the additional distance from Smolensk. It was a pipe dream, and clearly so, from the beginning. As for the serious beating bit, the German forces were exhausted and their panzer formations at a fraction of their optimal strength. The Wehrmacht was in no position to push on but they did anyways, with disastrous results.
I say, that germany, if they were not forced to withdrew parts of their airforce to the balkans africa and the mainforce to russia (in preparation for barbarossa) they would achieve air superiority. In some documentary, they quoted a british airforce general or minister, that said, if the bombing continued for 14 days, the RAF would cease to exist.
That's actually untrue. The Germans were losing pilots at a rate that they
couldn't keep up, and British aircraft production surpassed Germany's besides. German pilots, when shot down, landed in England or the Channel. In either case they're dead or a POW. British pilots, when shot down, landed in the same areas but would be dead, wounded, or get back into the air as soon as possible (in some cases pilots were back in the air a few hours after they were shot down).
I think the Royal Navy is stronger than it should be. The superior hit and run tactics and range of the german cruiser are / cant be implemented.
The problem is that those tactics are useless in the Channel. The place was full of mines, coastal defense guns, patrolling aircraft, and RN ships. That's why the Germans took the northern route to get the vast majority of their ships and submarines out to the Atlantic proper.
