Well, that's the thing: some people want to see the roles reversed. To see Allies managing to screw everything up and the Nazis to be remotely competent at times. Whereas the Nazis were often plagued with terrible lack of foresight, an AH or PoD might be for them to have better foresight.
Even now, even in that post, you say the same things I was talking about, that Germany had absolutely no chance whatsoever at all, 0, zilch, nada, none, of ever succeeding because everyone there apparently have absolutely no idea what they were doing, and the Allies were capable of knowledge challenged only by [insert deity here] him/herself. Everything where a country does better sounds like a wank following that logic. In fact, seeing how the country was already wanked in history, nothing short of the Nazis taking over the UK and USA should be considered a wank at all. It's like saying a Napoleon AH in which his empire makes it through is a wank because of its continued existence.
They did roll sixes, and even in the East managed to twice halt Soviet offensives all along the Front, which in 1943 actually lengthened the war by a year or two in the Soviet Union's own territories. Third Kharkov was the best the Germans could do. The major dilemma for the Nazis is that when, not if, they invade the USSR the bulk of their combat strength is tied down in a war that as 1941 showed they can't even win when 97% of everything goes right in their favor. A stronger USSR, by comparison, can change very little to have a situation that favors itself even more and the Allied cause as a whole still moreso (albeit you then run into the Catch-22 that logistics makes a successful Overlord improbable before 1944 where a major Soviet advance earlier means a nasty little Cold War).
You never see POD's in which the Allies are making mistakes on this forum while the Germans do better? You're new here I think.
I think what some people are trying to point out is that OTL was such an unlikely German wank until 1941/42 that adding more improbables is like a dice player who has already thrown 3 pairs of sixes asking for another pair of sixes and asking everyone to comment on how likely it is to come up.
Another point is that you only have to scroll down all the threads opened on this website to see the large amounts of Axis doing better PODs. It's actually geting a little boring now as almost every scenario trying to get a Nazi victory has been explored countless times.
And of course in 1943 the Germans again rolled sixes in halting the general Soviet offensive of winter 1942-3, and tying the Allied down for months in North Africa (which was actually a very impressive feat), and in Italy (where to be fair the British seemed to neglect that charging up mountains when the enemy has firepower and the high ground will take time and effort, it was not a soft underbelly in any sense of the word). It was in 1944 where it all went south for them. Doing more than that by 1943 when the Red Army has the experience, will, and logistics to carry out major offensives is like having the Confederacy win the Civil War in 1865 after Lincoln was re-elected.
You can't really mean that there is no possible way for something who doesn't have every advantage to win, can you? Come on, now. The Nazis were more than capable of rolling a 6, and the Allies were just as capable of rolling a 1. Stop trying to strawman it; I'm not talking about "rolling a 19 on a 1d6", I'm talking about PoDs always getting shot down by the same, repetitive, if not ridiculously hypocritical(Nazis are too dumb to do something smart that might work, and too smart to do something "dumb" that might work) answers that only boil down to "No, the Nazis lose everything. Try to change it? Alright, they lose faster. Feel better?"
They did roll a 6 in 1943, however. It didn't do them a damned bit of good. They did roll a 6 in 1939, 1940, 1941, and a 5 in 1942. It did them no good. When they invade the USSR, they're dead, when they are at war with the USA, they're deader than dead. When they're at war with the USSR and the USA, the question is where the USA meets the Soviets. When at war with the UK, USSR, and USA, the question is where the Allies meet and when they meet, not if, and where the USA, UK, and USSR start remembering their real interests instead of the pesky idiots who don't understand that they're fighting a war they lost months beforehand.
Become slightly sane and withdraw from Stalingrad keeping an active reserve?
General retreat to a few rail hubs so as to make logistics that work?
Dont Launch Kursk at all?
It would end with mushroom clouds over Germany but still, more interesting.
None of those are an answer to the German dilemma. Withdraw from Stalingrad, they free up a huge mass of Soviet troops to attack the forces in the Caucasus from the rear. Withdraw from the attempt to seize Baku and Stalingrad, they confess they've lost, even while preserving a huge amount of troops, all of whom are demoralized at wasting all that blood for bupkiss.