It is possible to take Karelia T1, under a wide variety of possible USSR 1st moves. But the problem is that if the USSR player has had an ounce of sense he has heavily built up Karelia AND another adjacent space (usually Caucases and/or Russia–or better, both). In this case you will be so weakened by the attack on Karelia that EVEN IF YOU WIN, you will be powerfully counterrattacked from one or more territories and will have your armor destroyed. Some Germany players counter this by building ALL (or virtually all) ARM the 1st turn, in order to launch a second attack T2, but no matter what you do, you are STILL GAMBLING that you will score better than the Soviets in dice rolls–a LOT better.
Take my advice–if the USSR builds up heavily in INF T1 try attacking Karelia (if you feel you must) and retreating (into Eastern Europe)when you start losing Armor. If you build INF and maintain most of your ARM (augmenting with some new builds) you will have a better effect in the LONG RUN. You hafta make a good showing in Africa and maintain your FTR/BMR force as a “force-in-being”. The ECONOMIC rather than the strictly MILITARY game is the consistent winner. Simple as that…
Ozone27
P.S.: To say the Germans lost the war in Russia because “their tanks froze” is just completely simplistic. The Germans lost largely (and this too is somewhat of a simplification) because they hoped for (and expected–some of them) a short war–one that wouldn’t last until the winter. They were perfectly well-prepared for a short war of annihilation like in France and Poland, and were not expecting–for instance–entire surrounded Soviet armies to keep on fighting practically to the last man…
You sell the Soviets far too short to suggest that “technology” (that is, tanks that can run in sub-zero temperatures) destroyed the German Army. The people of Russia themselves did…
Just my 2 cents…