BoB caused unsustainable losses in aircrew.
Yet the Luftwaffe was capable of fighting on for 5 more years. Meanwhile they inflicted pretty massive damage to the RAF too, larger proportional damage relative to their starting strength, as well as the 55,000 civilian casualties.
From wikipedia, British on the left, German on the right.
Casualties and losses | |
---|
Strength | |
---|
1,963 aircraft[nb 3] | 2,550 aircraft[nb 4][nb 5] |
1,542 killed[9]
422 wounded[10]
1,744 aircraft destroyed[nb 6] | 2,585 killed
735 wounded
925 captured[12]
1,977 aircraft destroyed[13] |
23,002 civilians killed
32,138 civilians wounded[14] | |
It failed to knock Britain out of the war, but put them on the back foot. Hard to call that a fuck up given the damage inflicted.
Barbarossa started the beginning of the end for the Germans, a blackhole that kept sucking in more of their manpower and military strength.
Barbarossa didn't have to cause Germany to lose, even if it failed in 1941. Still, the entire pre-war Soviet army was destroyed, millions of PoWs taken, over 40% of the Soviet economy destroyed or captured, and tens of millions of Soviet citizens captured, not to mention several states freed and their manpower made available to help Germany, plus of course resources which were vital to the war effort were captured and denied to the Soviets. Were it not for L-L the USSR would have economically collapsed as a result. The failure to take Moscow was significant, but paled in comparison to the massive gains. No one at the end of 1941 thought Germany was destined to lose at that point.
North African ended in utter disaster at Tunis and directly led to the collapse of Italy, opening another front and losing the entire Med.
In 1943. By that point the unconditional surrender demand meant that the Axis had to fight to the bitter end.
Until that point though the Axis inflicted disproportionate losses on the British and had scored pretty massive victories in the theater. Maybe if not for the Allied demand for unconditional surrender the war could have ended years earlier, but the broad scope of the entire campaign tied down the Allies for years for a fraction of German strength and inflicted pretty severe damage to the Allies.
Stalingrad, I think is obvious.
Of course, but losing a single German army was not nearly the disaster Barbarossa was for the Soviets. Yet they kept trucking too. Turns out losing armies is survivable in the context of a brutal world war in which the enemy refuses to negotiate to end the war.