NO, crazy!

The minor details which do not matter are those 2.000 T-34s you mention. Those tanks, until December 1941 were completely useless. They were easily knocked out by ATs or simply, the always mighty (then) Luftwaffe took care. Or the minor details about a Mark III against a T-34. It doesn't matter.

Perhaps you are right in that about the resources needed. It is true that we did not have as many materials as the US or the USSR had, but we could achieve getting them. We are very good improvising. And about the man power. I have always pointed out in my posts about the men. Read the topic "Kursk, Stalingrad or..." and you will see that I point out Moscow and Stalingrad as the turning points of the war, because the losses in men. In the other hand, you point out Kursk as the turning point of the war because of the losses on materials... Do you get what I mean here?

In 1941 we could put enough men, pilots and staff at the front. We did not have that hard situation of 1945, when we started recruiting old men, kids and prisoners from the concentration camps... Certainly we would have had a lack of German workers, but we had free workers. No problem. It is right that women would have been better, and the quality of weaponry would have been improved. But anyway. At least in 1941 we had everything in our favour.

And here, let's change the topic a bit. Speer as minister of weaponry in August 1939, Hitler declares total war, to smash all its enemies, including the Soviet Union by the end of 1941.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun