Well, the sheer expanse of Russia certainly helped in the distancing of the Panzer forces from the regular Army forces.

I've always found it sortof interesting - the only successful conquest of Russia was by the Mongols. The Mongols were largely from Siberia where winter is even nastier that it is on the European side of modern Russia and distances are even more insane ... so General Winter and General Distance were irrelevant to them. Everyone else who has tried has failed.

In my opinion, I think that losing Moscow in the early stages would have been a very big problem for the Red Army. Resupply for Leningrad and the Ukraine would have been prohibitive at best. Guderian would have been at risk of being cut off, but the Red Army was in such a state of disarray at that time that I don't think anyone would have tried the obvious. Partisans were barely beginning to opperate, so I don't know how effective they would have been at cutting off Army Group Center. The taking of Moscow would have left the Russians without their primary industrial area - Moscow/Gorky. That would leave a besieged Leningrad, Stalingrad area and Tankograd. Russia can still fight, but would they managed to drastically outproduce the Germans in this scenario? Not nearly to the same extent certainly. Additionally, the fall of Moscow would have been a terrible blow to the morale of the Russian soldiers. But as history has always shown, all bets are off when invading Russia.

If the Wehrmacht had managed to take and hold Moscow in 1941 the war would have been largely over for the Soviet Union. It would also have spelled the end of its existence as an independent nation. IMO this would have happened had the following conditions been met:

1. Hitler had put German industry onto a war footing before commencing Barbarossa.

2. Moscow and only Moscow had been made the main thrust for the Wehrmacht.

3. Barbarossa had started in late April as originally planned.

Operation Typhoon would have succeeded in the capture of Moscow despite the Germans severely underestimating the courage and will to fight of the individual Soviet soldier, despite the Nazi's alienation of the Ukraine peoples, despite the different railway gauge employed by the Soviet Union, despite the lack of a modern road system in Russia and even despite General Winter.

Truth is, we got lucky.

I don't know god, the stuff the USSR had going beyond the Urals was preety impressive, at best I think the taking of Moscow would of conviced many of the submursive elements in the Red Army to call it quits, which hey, could of been a very big blow for Stalin. Then again, I agree with the fact that taking Moscow would of doomed Leningrad, and the German Army may have had an oppurtunity to move North from there and wipe out any lend lease the Soviets were recieving (In particular Duece and a Halfs. Soviet Infantry was pathetic until they were able to become mechanized).

Yeah, "what they had going behind the Urals" = Tankograd. That's a common nickname for it anyways because T-34's and other Russian tanks were heavily produced from that area. So yes, that would have still been there of course. That's why I mentioned it. But if we can count Leningrad as "doomed" after Moscow falls, there goes two of the biggest industrial areas in the 1941 Soviet Union and puts them into German hands (even if scorched earth means Germany has to rebuild them). Considering that Germany never overtook either, it certainly changes things in this hypothetical situation.

If we added a bit more to the hypothesis and throw all those ridiculous orders to "punish the Russian people" and delete Einzatsruppen from existence, I think you'd also have had a MUCH more substantial number of Russian people willing to sign on for the German cause just out of hatred for Stalin.

Well when the Wehrmacht first entered the Ukraine they were welcomed with jubilation as liberators. Had Hitler been willing to tap into this (which was impossible given his beliefs) then Germany would have had a ready made army of up to half a million strong fighting men who would have gladly joined them against the Red Army.

Can you imagine the difference that would have made to Barbarossa?

I dunno, the Ukranians would have been poorly equiped and second rate at best, probobly similar to the Hungarians and Romanians. But your right, they would be expendable, and thus in the longterm useful.