Dawkland - I feel that the key to a succesful Barbarossa to a large part hinges on two principles: steady and consistent pressure on Russia, and the isolation of Russia. The units used to achieve these two principles cease to matter - the philosophy is more important. You can use armor, mech, artillery, infantry, air power, or whatever combination you want. I prefer a good mix that’s heavy on infantry, personally.
I’m also talking about the use of fighters, airbases, carriers, destroyers, etc. in a mature game - one that lasts 10, 11, 12 turns or more. No matter what, a constant flow of material to the front with Russia has to occur. Almost without exception, a fighter and eight infantry every round is a great foundation - the way you spend your other 20 + IPCs becomes personal choice… an armor, a couple mech, a destroyer, whatever, based on need. Sometimes that extra cash becomes an airbase if it means you gain another turn or two of Russian isolation. Or a carrier.
Munchie19 - yes - I’ve only done it once, but a second German airbase in Denmark, with three fighters parked on it means the SZ in 112 is suddenly covered by six fighters. If you have a carrier, that’s eight. Throw in some fodder, and it becomes a major effort for the allies to overcome it and also land in force. That’s the key. Make the US player have to buy units to take out your fleet long enough to eliminate Russia. If your US/UK opponent only has to continuously shuck infantry to Normandy or Norway, you’re in trouble most of the time. I want my opponent to keep concentrating on buying units other than transports and infantry - the real killer of the Axis powers. Destroyers and bombers don’t take and hold land… they facilitate it.