Graviteam

I recommend reading that very interesting analysis that emanates from the US War College in 1999 on how close Germany came to defeating the Soviet Union and winning WWII.Had Hitler listened to his generals and gone for Moscow it's likely Stalin and the SU would never have recovered. My only personal comment would be to say that the German would have been stuck with a very costly guerilla war Tito style for years to come. One shivers thinking what would have been the fate of the people of the SU had Hitler and his National Socialist policies prevailed....  Here's the link:http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/world-wars/37063-world-will-hold-its-breath-reinterpreting-operation-barbarossa.html

It is a thought provoking article.  One reply made me think though.  Napoleon took Moscow but it did him no good in the end.  I'm not sure Stalin would have ever surrendered even if Moscow was taken.

Something similar was written by Heinz Guderian. A soviet capital was a very important political point and he thought it was possible to capture Soviet Union with Moscow captured. There were many soviet ppl, who took Hither as a liberator from the bolsheviks. And there's a point that german-soviet war was a continuation of Civil War.

The majority of the Russian population resides in the European half of the country. That's the only part of Russia Hitler needed to control; without it Stalin didn't have a chance.


Personally, I think Hitler caused his own doom. His micro-management of his army caused his downfall; had he let his generals do their thing, the USSR wouldn't have stood a chance. In 1942 in particular, Hitler zigzagged the 6th army across the Caucuses. Had he let Manstein roll into the gates of Stalingrad without touring the countryside for those vital months, Chukov would've been annihilated before the Soviets could've counterattacked. At Kursk, he ordered the assault even though the Russians knew what was happening, and then ordered it stopped when Manstein was on the verge of winning. It just goes to show what happens when you let one man have all the power.

Even if they had taken Moscow the germnas would still have been faced with an intractable problem; how to control territories(theEuropean part of the SU) the size of the entire European continent. Look what happened in Yugoslavia despite 4 years of constant offensives and a fierce anti-insurgency war they never managed to defeat Tito and his partisans and they had much more favorable conditions climatic and the smaller size of the country( albeit very mountaneous). I suspect Stalin might have been purged had Moscow been taken by the Wehrmacht as there were lots of people in his party with an axe to grind against his terror and brutality. But the National Socialists brutal and racist policies would have generated a generalised resistance movement able to find shelter in Siberia and vast tracts of the SU that the Wehrmacht would have been unable to conquer or control. Germany wiht a population of 75 million would not have had sufficient human resources to control Europe, North Africa and the a large chunk of the SU. It would have been a war of attrition similar to what Napoleon faced in the Iberian peninsula in 1808-1814 with along with the disaster in Russia brought about his collapse. Not to emntion that the Germans would still have been force to contend with the Britsh and their naval superiority and huge empire which they would have used to keep the SU or what was left of it supplied through Persia, the ME or Pakistan.

I think that had the Germans been smart, they would've crushed the Russians and then used the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Estonians as garrison soldiers. They were known for being terrific fighters and had decades of hate towards the Soviets that could've been put to good use. Once the USSR had been occupied, the only thing the Germans would've needed to keep the population on their side is food, and lots of it. Throughout the 30's, Stalin starved his people to the point of extinction, so by feeding the populace, they would've had a massive leg up towards winning the hearts and minds. But alas, they had to get on with that retarded "final solution" for some reason or another.

As much respect as I have for the British military, they wouldn't have been able to do scratch without the US. They had very few tanks, a dwindling supply of manpower, and no naval/air superiority beyond their coastal zones. Without US planes, the most they could do is a few piddly night raids into France, which were even more deadly than the daylight raids the USAAF would launch. Without US tanks, their armored divisions would've been almost non-existent beyond the few remaining Matilda II's and Churchill I's. Even in 1945, the majority of their armored force was made up of Shermans. Without US manpower, the British had no hope of going on the offensive whatsoever beyond a few Commando raids. Even then, they had about a 50% chance of succeeding and the damage was generally repaired in a few months. As for their Navy... without the US's lend-lease program and the massive influx of ASW ships operating in the North Sea and Atlantic, they almost certainly would've been strangled by Germany's U-boat arm. At the very least, the Queen's Surface Fleet would've been decimated, if not completely destroyed. If we're talking about a scenario where Hitler wasn't a control freak, Germany would've been able to field atleast 3 aircraft carriers by 1944, 6 by 1945, two of which were full blown fleet carriers.

I'm not saying the US won the war, but it was certainly the linchpin that kept the Allies from losing.

Whukid like many Americans you may be fed a diet of Hollywood version of History  ;D you underestimate the British.By 1945 they had 2.8 million men under arms and could mobilize more from their empire counting 350 million inhabitants.Without England acting as a massive aircraft carrier the American troops would have been unable to launch any assault against Germany.The British invented an dperfected the radar which allowed the American fleets to gain the upper hand against the Japs in the Pacific, they perfected the sonar and broke the Germna enigma cod which allowed the Allies to know exactly where German troops were deployed and when.Yes they were on the ropes but Hitler wasnever able to mobilise a decent fleet to invade England and the Royal Navy, even decimated. managed to supply the American land lease aid through convoys to Murmansk and contributed decisively to DDay.Of the 156 000 Allied troops that landed in Normandy on June 6th 1944 83 000 were British( includes Canadians( then British subjects) and only 73 000 were Americans.The victory in North Africa was first and foremost a British one since they had been fighting the Germans since 1941 Even without the US in the war the British would have been a constant thorn in the side on the Germna who would have had to keep troops in Western Europe and North Africa just in case. Without the Soviet steamroller in the East and the British pitbull in the West the Americans - single handedly - would not have been able to defeat Germany alone end of story!

Why Hitler did even take command in the first place? Because the German generals failed to make Barbarossa go as planned from the beginning.
Someone just had to be blamed for all the fails after the war. And Hitler became that man in the memoirs of his generals. It's not a fact that they could do better without him.

While it's true that all the blame whether for war crimes, the Final Solution and the loss of the warwas conveniently palced on him by his generals and fellow Nazi leadership it's undeniable that his orders to stand fast and transform every city into a stronghold to be defended to the last man, his refusals to withdraw troops which ended in countless Germna lives lost at Stalingrad, Kowel, Korsun, Demyansk, Kamenets-Podoslsky and more.His orders to hold on to the Crimea in May 1944 resulted in of tens of thouand of Germna and Romanian troops, his insistence on trasnforming every major city from Belarus to German Silesia and Pommerania in 1944-1945 into festungs that resulted again in immobilising hundreds of thousand of valuable troops that could have been used to stop or slow down the Soviet advance.  Hitler was a corporal(Gefreiter) his generals were trained commanders with military service during WWI and subsequent rise in the ranks based on talent. I would rather trust military advice and strategy from a von Manstein , Guderian, Rommel, von Rundstedt or even a Model over a Hitler any time.Likewise I would take aRokossovsky,a  Zhukov or a Koniev any day over a Stalin.Which Stalin - all paranoid that he was - saw clearly and accepted letting his generals win the military war while he won the political one.

The thing is you're looking at the events from humanitarian point (i.e. human lives). The decisions to hold the specified areas had been made from a strategic war-time point. And from this point the decisions couldn't have been all bad. Soviet troops just performed better in 1943-45, likewise the Germans in 1941-42. For example take the most crushing German military defeat in 1944 - operation Bagration. Hitler is hardly at any fault here.

Again even with BagrationHitler was partly at fault,  the Kommandant of the Armee gruppe Mittel, a man appointed  by Hitler becasue not of his military skills but because of his absolute loyalty to him, had asked Hitler to shorten his front as there was a bulge which he feared the Soviets would use to make a pincer attack against his forces from the Baltic area and from the Ukraine.Hitler , faithful to the end to his never yield an inch policy, refused putting the AGM in danger. Even though he did not create  huisn polciy to force his troops to remain in Vitebsk as a fortified area condemned 5 divisions to death,  then he refused Busch's request to evacuate Orsha and then refusing Busch's request for 40 000 German troops to cross the Berezina which led them being encircled by the Soviets and decimated. Hitler's refusal to allow his commanders to yield and avoidnd encirclement made the Soviet success, undeniably a remarkable operation, even greater than it should have been. Had generals like von Manstein( who had been forced to retire by Hitler) or even Model allowed a free hand Army Group Centre would still have been mauled but not anihilated and Belarus/Byelorussia still lost but the German losses would have been less severe and the Soviet ones greater and their adavance might have been stopped well before the Vistula.  One can also specualte that if Hitler had not sacrificed some of the best troops of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and other pockets during 1943-1944 may be he would have had reserves available to avoid the catastrophy of June-July 1944.

It sounds a bit funny :)
So, du u think that Soviet Union was a winner with German without help of allies? ;)
As my point, would be better to say that Nazi German was overrun by Allies (GB, SU, USA). Only in CONJUNCTION of Allies, the Victory had place.

Come, come frinik.  You sound like a typical British person with a chip on his shoulder.  Whukid never said the Americans won the war by themselves.  He said that without their help there was no way that Germany would have been defeated.  He's right.  Who provided the landing craft that landed those 83,000 British soldiers in Normandy?  Who provided the aircraft numbers that destroyed the Luftwaffe in the west to pave the way for D-Day.  The answer is the US.  Britain in July 1944 was already worried about running short of manpower. It was a subject that worried Churchill, Alan Brooke and Montgomery.  In the months after D-Day which nation provided the largest amount of manpower, armor, and equipment for the push across France and into Germany?  Again the US.  Without the avalanche of manpower and materiel (also sent to the USSR) there would have been no credible threat of an invasion in the west.  Without that threat, Germany would not have faced a two front war and could have concentrated in 1944 and beyond on Russia.  Saying that in no way denigrates the British and it certainly is not Hollywood fiction.  It's obvious that it took all the allies to defeat the axis during the war.

Tanker; just for your info I am not British.I have in fact no English blood or ancestry nor link whatsoever! ;D No I was not berating Whukid, I was pointing out ( spanking him in the process) that unfortunately in the US the tendency is to rewrite history to make it sound like the US army won the war single handedly.Just an example; every pupil in the States knows about the Normandy landings D. Day virtually nobody has heard of Operation Bagration which was the most severe  deafeat ever suffered by a German army in history.DDay was just s little firework compared to the size, scope and result of O.Bagration which in fact all but ended the war for Germany.

I like the States and the Americans and always defend them when I hear some idiot making anti american comments but at the same time I don't mind criticising them when they go overboard with the USA! USA! syndrome.

I also feel that the British contribution tends to be overlooked.That being said their tanks sucked big time and most of their equipment except for the palnes was terrible.

Well frinik, I said you SOUNDED like a typical Brit with a chip on his shoulder, not that you actually were one.

You won't believe the number of times I've heard some British acquaintances of mine whine about Saving Private Ryan and other Hollywood movies highlighting the American story in WW II.  I just laugh and tell them to grow a movie industry and then they can do the same thing for their story.

I feel you over reacted to Whukid's point that, without the US's contribution, Germany would not have been defeated.  His point is essentially valid.  It didn't sound like he went on the kind of jingoistic rant which seems to rankle.   

It is always better for all students to have more knowledge of history, but how many school kids in Russia today believe that the former Soviet Union defeated Germany all by itself?
It's only normal that non-specialists will be more familiar with their own country's participation in history than that of other countries.

I wasn't going overboard with the USA USA syndrome  :'(

Ah ah you are sweating!!!! Good! :D

AS for the British they have made quite a few good war films but nobody in the States likes watching foreign films anyway...

As for the US I absolutely agree with Whukid; their contribution to Soviet and Allies victory was absolutely essential; what is overlooked for example is the aamzing success and efficiency of American bombings of key components of German industry ; ball bearings which tanks and other vehicles need to roll and the destruction of Leuna's synthetic oil plants which essentially led to the Luftwaffe being  largely grounded and limited training for new pilots and tank crews so drastically that the quality of both declined and never recovered.In contrast to largely imprecise Birtish night bombings which resulted in huge civilian casulaties and no effective results, American day bombings were much more accurate and brought tangible results.Hitler's disastrous order to delay production and entry in service of Germans jet fighters such as the ME-262( to turn it into a bomber) gave the Allies air domination which they put to very good use. American land lease aid did keep the British and Soviets afloat in late 1942 all the way to 1944 when their loses in armour and vehicle exceeded their production. Without this aid they would not have been able to take the offensive in mid 1943 . I am fair in my assessment giving credit to everybody .Soviet victory without the Allies would have been possibly unachievable or would have required much more time, losses and left the SU exhausted. Victory Soviet manpower and resilience an Allied victory in the West would have been impossible. Without the UK in the war the Americans alone would not have won the battle of the Atlantic against the U.Boote.The Allies and Soviets had each other to rely on whereas the Germans never had reliable allies...That made all the difference!

I am not fan of the Russian version of history either but at leats they have the excuse of having inherited an education system shaped by a totalitarian regime whereas the American system is based on freedom of thought and the free flow of information.

He successfully repelled 2 RKKA offensives as a commander of army group though. But failed at third.

In 1943 the Soviet forces didn't make anything to shorten Kursk bulge too, but prepared and successfully defended against the German offensive.

Why? From 1943 every German offensive either failed (Kursk, Narew, Balaton) or ended in a stalemate.


After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

I think it would be better to say that Axis nations were overrun by Allies.

Oh my........

Does anyone think the Soviet Union would have surrendered if Moscow fell?  I sure don't.  Maybe someone could have made Stalin have an accident had it fallen.  But throw in the towel?  Don't think so.  BUt had they locked up the Eastern Front it would have been vary bad on the Western side of Europe.  Germany would sooner or later fall no matter what happened.  Stalin did so much damage to the red army its not even funny.  Both nations had tards for leaders, lets face it.  The US was developing ultra long range bombers in case GB fell. And dont forget the manhatten project.  Had things gone down the crapper in Europe it would have been Berlin nuked. 

In the end every nation fighting that fruit cake hitler guy helped EACH other out.  Nazi Germany was simply to evil to exsist.  It was turning a blind eye for years that allowed that nightmare to happen.  That war could have been used to truelly usher in a new era of peace.  But instead we got the damned cold war (both west and east to blame for that). 

After Stalingrad and Kursk  the defeat of German forces was only a matter of time. It would took maybe a year longer and cost a lot more of human lives though.

Had Germany been able to only fight the Soviet Union in 1942-43 without having to worry about the Allies in the West it would have been able to fight the Soviets to stalemate.  Even after Kursk.

Flashburn; I am not sure had the Uk been out of fight the Americans would not have been so interested in taking Germany down.They would have turned their attention to the Japanese as they were more of an immediate threat to them . As for the Atom bomb it was developed more with Japan in mind than Germany.I think the US would have kept it as a trump card against either winner of a German-Soviet war.

As for Nazi Germany being evil no question about it( the regime not the people) but a Stalinist Soviet Union ( again the regime not it's people) was very close behind in term of sheer brutality and murderous ideology.

As for the Western democracies they had their own baggage as well;systemic racism, colonialism etc...

Just because someone is appointed for political skills doesn't mean they can't get lucky or that his soldiers won't fight hard. For example, most officers in the US Army during Desert Storm 1 were commissioned because of their political status within the Army chain of command, yet the Americans still mopped the floor with the Iraqi's. Every offensive after 1943 was fought against an enemy with vast numerical superiority and with massive handicaps, such as fuel shortages, manpower shortages, material shortages, ect. Attributing the German failures to soviet soldiers being "better" is about 10% of the story. If anything, they lost because their factories and refineries were being bombed into submission and the Allies in the West had opened up another two fronts for which the germans had to defend.

Stalingrad was a result of Hitlers' stupidness, but Kursk had little to do with the Russians in terms of victory. The same day as Prokhorovka, the Allies invaded Sicily, causing Italy to fold. Hitler ordered an end to Citadelle and sent Model's forces to Kesserling in Italy while leaving Manstein extremely vulnerable in the South. The Soviets banked heavily on this twist of events and the rest is history. Without the Allies, the Soviets would've lost 70% of their entire armored corps in the Kursk pocket, as well as  a decent chunk of their motorized divisions, because Model would've stayed in the North and Manstein would've closed the pocket after destroying the Soviet reserves on the 10th.

Even had the soviets won at Kursk, there would've been nothing stopping the German Industrial machine without the Allies. Their cities would've remained un touched by war, especially the Industrial parks of Northwest Germany and France, and a large chunk of their army could've been used to instead been used against the Soviets in the East, especially heavy equipment like Tiger 2's or Jagdtigers. Without the Allies, the war would've ended in a German Victory or a stalemate, costing the Soviets millions of more lives.

For example, the V1's and V2's being used against the Allies would've been used against the Soviets, as well as the majority of the German Fighter-arm. Many of the German armored units and Fallschimjager regiments would've been present in Russia during 1944, not the French coast

 I agree entirely wiht you Whukid, wihtotu having to fight on 2 or 3 fronts had Germany been able to muster all its forces agains the Soviets then Soviet victory would have been impossible an dlikewise German victory.Hence a bloody stalemate perhaps like in Korea.

1) the Soviets did not have long range bombers capable of bombing German industry, logistics and fuel plants and as you pointed out and as I did too Allied but especially American ones severely disrupted German industrial production, transports and logistics but as importantly forced Germany to mobilise 1 million men in Air Defence and pull a lot of Lutwaffe units back to the Reich giving the Allies air superiority on the battlefields by late 1943 and essentially depriving the retreating Wehrmacht of a precious asset which it had used effectively in the East against Soviet offensives and defensives actions.Thus the air war against Germany opened a 3rd front which diverted even more resources from the East front. 70% of all German forces were in the East; had the Germans beeen able to field a full 100% without any disruption to their armement production and logistics the war in the East would have looked very different.All the Germans generals would have been able to focus on the Ost Front only and thinking of the material used for the Atalantic wall being used to blolters defences in the Ukraine...

No US policy was always get Germany defeated as #1 priority.  85 percent of the war effort had always gone East not West.  After mid 42 after the Battle of midway Japan was going to loose.  They had a brief window to cause havok with no abilty to take out North America.  All the US had to do was hold on to it hand and wait for the ship writghts to bump out a zillion ships.  And that was only a small percentage of US war production. At that time the US could produce and provide more than enough war material for itself and most of the allies needs.  What kept the US out of the war eariler was not the US's leaders ship.  FDR started many a crash program in the late 30's and in 40 and 41.  Hell how many old destroyers and frigates where send to GB and even the Soviets?   BEfore the US got all the way in?  The Americian people did not want to get into a "European" war again.  But it would have happened sooner or later with out the Japanese attacking.  The US Navy was allready in the fight against nazi U boats before the war got started.  US Merchant fleet was getting slaughtered getting supplies to to GB and and the Soviet Union.  Everyone new Stalin was sicko but he just killed is own people for the most part.  Ok the Finns and Poles too.  But Hitler and a fully militarized Germany with a new Navy they where just getting started on was a HUGE threat. An the US had vary good ties to France and Britian. 

And to say the Abomb was intended for JApan is untrue.  It was intended to make war against the US so bad and to stop the war. Period.  If the allies where kicked out of Europe IT would have been Berlin nuked in a massive decapitation attack.  It was known that Germany was working on simular things.  Hitler with a freaken Abomb is truelly to horiblable to imagine.  Stalin at least was more concerned with screwing over his own than striking outward but who knows. 

By the way if GB was getting over run do you really thinnk the US would sit it out?  I am pretty sure we would have sent everything we could to get out as many people as we could.  The US may act retarded quite alot in foriegn policy but we know true EVil when we see it.  Plus in those days it was a much different country.  We may not have wanted to get in the war but how many US sailors died before the US was in the war?

Might interest you guys... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg

Hitler with a freaken Abomb is truelly to horiblable to imagine.  Stalin at least was more concerned with screwing over his own than striking outward but who knows. 

Here I am not so sure Flashburn, for example Germany had considerable stocks of poison gas , sabun, tari etc..Ther Germans were the inventors and number one manufacturers of very lethal toxic gases.Yet never once even when he was clearly losing and V-1,V-2 rockets were raining on London , did he authorise its use.Not even against the Soviets...Iam not sure he would have use the A Bomb either had he possessed it.

But there are counters to the use of nerve agents and poison gasses.  There is no way to wipe enough of your enemy out that they will not come back and do the same to you.  Noone knew the long term effects of nukes.  It was thought that it was just a big ole bomb by most big wigs.  And hitler did have no problem using that crap on people that could not fight back.  Balance of terror keeps evil bastards in check.  What if he had used poison gas and the like on the Red Army in the final days?  Or dropped that crap on London or Brussels?  Out come would still be the same.  BUT I don't think the German civie population would fair to well after that.  Or for that matter German POW's in allied camps might not fair to well either.   I do find it odd thats its considered ok to blow people up and burn people up, but poison people up is not ok.  But what WOULD have been the response of the ALLIES if London had been gassed?   I am sure there where stock piles of evil crap under guard somewhere in the UK.  Just in case....  Im sure the Soviets did too. 

ON the nuke issue....

You could send 400 or 500 bombers over a city with fire bombs and wipe out 100000 people in a night.......  But the high ups would come out just fine in their bunkers.  Their bunker is not going to do crap against a nuke and its fall out.  Those 8000 mile range bombers Germany had one the drawing board.....  Well thank god we will never know.  But the XB39 COULD fly from Eastern sea board US to Europe.......and back.   Just was not needed thank gawd. 

Then they should've aimed for more reasonable goals.
If the military operation fails (goals aren't reached) because of the reasons mentioned above - I'd say this is a poorly planned and executed operation. Correct?


Even before the bombings started to take any noticeable effect, German forces failed at Kursk, they couldn't hold Mius Front, they couldn't hold Dniepr and Eastern Ukraine, they retreated from Leningrad. Soviet Union retrieved back most of the lost territories, the industry produced more weapons, the army had more soldiers.  It was already too late to turn the tides in 1944.

Lets take just one example. In 1944 the soviet armor industry produced 500 heavy tanks and spgs (ISU-122/152) and 1200 medium tanks in a month. At it's best times german armor industry could only dream of such numbers.


It's a common myth.  The only one division sent to Italy from Kursk was LSSAH. But before that it handed over the remaining tanks to "Totenkopf" and "Das Reich". The last 2 divisions remained in the East and were sent to Mius Front _after_ the operation was terminated. Also that were Manstein's forces not Model's.

 "Zitadelle" stopped not because of the allies, but because German forces in the north did not reach their goals and the Soviet offensive started at June 12 (Orel operation). And so any success achieved on the south was practically rendered useless.
Here's the illustration that shows the situation perfectly:
(http://www.imageup.ru/img204/thumb/0_50430_802fe9bb_orig1140689.jpg) (http://www.imageup.ru/img204/1140689/0_50430_802fe9bb_orig.jpeg.html)

http://www.historynet.com/nine-days-that-shook-the-world-the-death-of-the-kursk-offensive.htm

The Soviet industry was also far from the front lines and untouched by war (the Ural factories, anyway). The German factories were under constant air bombardment from the Summer of 1942 to the end of the war. Without the bombs, the Germans could've easily doubled production

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This article doesn't say anything about how EXACTLY Allied invasion to Sicily did force Hitler to cancel the operation. Transfer of the one division LSSAH relieved of it's equipment on July 26th AFTER it was clear that Model in the north won't succeed and the soviet advance begun to threaten his forces? You can't be serious.

Until 1944 those bombardments were mostly low-scale and didn't have major impact on production.

Lets see how it turned out in 1944 on the following example: Stug SPG production (One of the factories - MIAG had been bombed 7 times during the year).
Actual production:3840  vehicles
Production goals: 4305 vehicles

The difference is 1 to 1.12.  Not much.

Let's check the plant which was among the ones that suffered most severe damage - Henschel. And Tiger 2 production in 1944.

Actual production:380  vehicles
Projected production: 610 vehicles

The difference is 1 to 1.6.  Well that is more. But still far from soviet LKZ plant that produced 1475 of IS-2 heavy tanks during the last 6 months of the year (and the same amount of heavy SPGs on IS chassis).

Re Zhukov ; here's an excerpt form an article about him:

" Certainly the Soviet Union suffered more than any other country during the war, as the 26 million Soviet war dead testify. Part of the explanation for this extraordinary high toll is the tactics adopted by Zhukov and other Soviet commanders during the conflict.

 "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost.

That seems at odd with Zhukov the man who gave a fig about his soldiers lives.... Mind you many German generals, Schoerner in particular, were no  better.

The German factories were under constant air bombardment from the Summer of 1942 to the end of the war.
Until 1944 those bombardments were mostly low-scale and didn't have major impact on production.
 

Mistwalker is correct until spring 1944 the Luftwaffe and the Flak defences were successful in inflcting heavy damage to the Anglo-American bomber fleets and preventing thme form crippling productiosn and logistics.However once the Americans introduced external fuel tanks allowing their excellent P-47 and P-51 fighters to takeon the Luftwaffe then the bombing sbecame more effective and the qualitative adavantage of Allied fighter pilots forced the Luftwaffe on the defensive...By May 1944 the destruction of Germany's synthetic oil plants brought about a reduction in the training of tank and air crews and reduced the movements capabilities of German mechnized forces hammering the last nails in the coffin of the Reich.

It's tanks to Speers' organising Genius that German armement production increased and peaked in October 1994.However producing more tanks and spgs was meaningless as there was no fuel and no adequatelty trained crews to make good use of them.