Something new...

[MontyB]

Lets assume for a moment everything had gone well for Germany during the first part of 1941 and they had invaded Russia on schedule (6 weeks sooner than actually happened), lets also assume that Hitler had stayed out of the running of the campaign and not diverted large resources south:

1) Could they have captured Moscow before the winter set in?

2) If yes could they have held it through the winter of 1941.

It is my belief that the answer would have been yes they could have taken it but they could not have held it and in the end it may have been Stalingrad on a huge scale with significant Russian forces North and south of Moscow.

 

[Panzercracker]

1) Could they have captured Moscow before the winter set in?

No, as Stalingrad proved Germans were incapable of capturing large cities swiftly when far from their supply centers.

2) If yes could they have held it through the winter of 1941.

No, Siberian troops were head and shoulders above anything Germany had to offer as far as winter warfare is concerned, being bogged down in the city without functional motorised transport meant that the Russians would just massacre any number of Germans found in Moscow.

In fact in an unlikely event that Moscow was captured and invested with significant troops it would spell disaster for the Wehrmacht, unable to pull out they'd just be slaughtered in a way that could rip the heart out of Barbarossa that much sooner.

 

[rattler]

I have a very different opinon on that, though I agree with everything Mr. Panzercracker states.

It is my firm belief that in the over-centralized Soviet Union the capture of Moscow (which is actually also what German High Command had in mind as strategic goal) would have led to a disruption of *organized* resistance alltogether, my guess is the Germans would not even have seen the city contested in winter simply because of central state typical comms breakdown and consequent loss of C3.

Just a guess, of cause,

Rattler

 

[Panzercracker]

It is my firm belief that in the over-centralized Soviet Union the capture of Moscow (which is actually also what German High Command had in mind as strategic goal) would have led to a disruption of *organized* resistance alltogether,

Rattler

Thats exactly what Napoleon believed too, see where it got him.

Russian industry was on the arse end of nowhere and it, not a city no matter how prestigious, was running the show for Russia.

 

[MontyB]

I guess the argument comes down to what Stalin would have done, he claimed that he was not going to leave Moscow yet by all accounts had transport available should he have needed it, we can assume that had he left Moscow Russia was going to fight on but would it had he been killed or captured in the city?

My over all opinion is that capturing Moscow would have led to the destruction of the German army far quicker than actually happened.

 

[Doppleganger]

Lets assume for a moment everything had gone well for Germany during the first part of 1941 and they had invaded Russia on schedule (6 weeks sooner than actually happened), lets also assume that Hitler had stayed out of the running of the campaign and not diverted large resources south:

Not diverting forces south in July (or May/June in your scenario) might have meant no chance for a successful assault on Moscow in the first place. Armies in the field have to be taken care of.

1) Could they have captured Moscow before the winter set in?

Yes. Almost certainly if Hitler had no influence on matters. Realise that this contradicts what I've said above but without Hitler's over ambition more realistic objectives might be set. Germany might only advance on one axis instead of trying to keep 3 Army Groups supplied.

2) If yes could they have held it through the winter of 1941.

Yes, if they had time to dig in. South of Moscow might have been tricky as it got so cold there in the winter of 1941 it was almost impossible to build defensive fortifications.

It is my belief that the answer would have been yes they could have taken it but they could not have held it and in the end it may have been Stalingrad on a huge scale with significant Russian forces North and south of Moscow.

South of Moscow for sure if they did not find some way to deal with those Soviet Armies E and NE of Kiev.

 

[MontyB]

So do you think Stalin would have stayed in Moscow and go down with the ship as Hitler did or would he have abandoned the capital and set up elsewhere and would the Russians have fought on without Moscow or Stalin?

 

[Czin]

So do you think Stalin would have stayed in Moscow and go down with the ship as Hitler did or would he have abandoned the capital and set up elsewhere and would the Russians have fought on without Moscow or Stalin?

Stalin had every intention of staying, he even held a military parade in the battle of moscow, and the entire parade marched straight to the battle field.

 

[lljadw]

Not diverting forces south in July (or May/June in your scenario) might have meant no chance for a successful assault on Moscow in the first place. Armies in the field have to be taken care of.


Yes. Almost certainly if Hitler had no influence on matters. Realise that this contradicts what I've said above but without Hitler's over ambition more realistic objectives might be set. Germany might only advance on one axis instead of trying to keep 3 Army Groups supplied.


Yes, if they had time to dig in. South of Moscow might have been tricky as it got so cold there in the winter of 1941 it was almost impossible to build defensive fortifications.


South of Moscow for sure if they did not find some way to deal with those Soviet Armies E and NE of Kiev.

I think there was no chance for the Germans after september to take Moscow,because they were already to weakened and the Red Army became stronger.
Even if they took Moscow,there was little chance to hold the city.
There is no proof that the fall of Moscow would mean the collapse of the SU;Stalin would continue the fight from Saratov or Gorki .

 

[Doppleganger]

I think there was no chance for the Germans after september to take Moscow,because they were already to weakened and the Red Army became stronger.
Even if they took Moscow,there was little chance to hold the city.
There is no proof that the fall of Moscow would mean the collapse of the SU;Stalin would continue the fight from Saratov or Gorki .

Remember this is a 'what-if' scenario whereby the Germans start the campaign 6 weeks early and Hitler leaves operational planning to his Generals.

The questions asked were whether under this scenario could the Germans take Moscow and hold it through the winter. Therefore, my answers were based on those questions.

Stalin had nearly given up on Moscow in actuality, and almost all of the political apparatus had been shifted east to Kuybyshev (Samara) until 1943. Had the Germans a 6 week head-start and Hitler stayed out who knows what would have happened.

 

[Czin]

Remember this is a 'what-if' scenario whereby the Germans start the campaign 6 weeks early and Hitler leaves operational planning to his Generals.

The questions asked were whether under this scenario could the Germans take Moscow and hold it through the winter. Therefore, my answers were based on those questions.

Stalin had nearly given up on Moscow in actuality, and almost all of the political apparatus had been shifted east to Kuybyshev (Samara) until 1943. Had the Germans a 6 week head-start and Hitler stayed out who knows what would have happened.

I don't think they could have held Russia for very long. Sooner or later those Elite Siberian divisions are going to come and give the Whermarcht a solid kick to the backside.

Germany simply lacked the manpower to fight the British Empire and Sovjet Union at once. All this will do is change the date Germany gives up.

 

[Doppleganger]

I don't think they could have held Russia for very long. Sooner or later those Elite Siberian divisions are going to come and give the Whermarcht a solid kick to the backside.

Germany simply lacked the manpower to fight the British Empire and Sovjet Union at once. All this will do is change the date Germany gives up.

Well, to begin with those Siberian divisions, although decently trained and equipped, were far from elite. Their main advantage was that they were rested, almost at full combat readiness and well-equipped for winter warfare. Moreover, it was the fact that the Germans were under-equipped, tired and battered from 5 months of constant warfare, over-extended and critically short of fuel which were the real reasons for the failure at Moscow. The fact that most Soviet divisions in the area were so inept allowed Army Group Centre to survive the Soviet winter counter-offensive. If it had been British or American troops then I think German losses would have been even greater and perhaps critical even at this early stage.

Actually, a lack of manpower was not the reasons why Germany lost the Battle of Moscow. The main reasons I have already stated above. In a protracted war the Allies were always going to have the ultimate ability to win by sheer numbers alone, all other things being roughly equal. As Stalin once said; "quantity has a quality all of its own".

 

[LeEnfield]

The Russian would have kept throwing men into the Battle, The German supply lines were over stretched and they did not have an unlimited access to man power that the Russians did. I think that in the finish the result would have been the same

 

[Korean Seaboy]

If only they had specialized winter tanks and troops, they would have taken half of Russia by storm. They would leave the other half alone because they think it's just Siberia.

 

[Korean Seaboy]

But, then again they had like 1 German for 10 Russians. The odds were overwhelming. Especially when the Russians were calling everybody in their country including remote places like Kamchatka to fight.
Also, as Mr. LeEnfield had said, the German supply lines were overstretched. They could have taken Caucasus during the campaign, and built another wave of invasion while the Russians lose their main supply of fuel. Yet, Russia is so big, that it would take years to get the country piece by piece, let alone gulping it in one season.
They could had fought the Western Allies during winter and the Russians during summer.
Also, if they only had an adequete airforce to rescue the grounders, the aircforce could have swept Moscow and Stalingrad because the Russians only had grounders. Yet they were busy by bombing London. So Hitler got it mixed up again

 

[Czin]

If only they had specialized winter tanks and troops, they would have taken half of Russia by storm. They would leave the other half alone because they think it's just Siberia.

Just Siberia? Siberia is full of untapped natural resources of virtually every kind and is home to the world's largest reserves of Natural gas, amongst other Fossil fuels that Germany would need.

However, Siberia is very hard to capture and hold due to it's inhospitable weather and the fact that it's freaking gigantic.

 

[lljadw]

Well, to begin with those Siberian divisions, although decently trained and equipped, were far from elite. Their main advantage was that they were rested, almost at full combat readiness and well-equipped for winter warfare. Moreover, it was the fact that the Germans were under-equipped, tired and battered from 5 months of constant warfare, over-extended and critically short of fuel which were the real reasons for the failure at Moscow. The fact that most Soviet divisions in the area were so inept allowed Army Group Centre to survive the Soviet winter counter-offensive. If it had been British or American troops then I think German losses would have been even greater and perhaps critical even at this early stage.

Actually, a lack of manpower was not the reasons why Germany lost the Battle of Moscow. The main reasons I have already stated above. In a protracted war the Allies were always going to have the ultimate ability to win by sheer numbers alone, all other things being roughly equal. As Stalin once said; "quantity has a quality all of its own".

Most regular "Siberian " divisions were already send to the front before the winter

 

[Doppleganger]

Most regular "Siberian " divisions were already send to the front before the winter

I guess it depends on when you think winter starts. These Siberian divisions (only two were sent to the Moscow region) did not have a big impact anyway.

 

[LeEnfield]

German troops were fighting in the Crimea, in the Caucasus, Leningrad, Moscow and along Baltic coast. They were also fighting in North Africa and were garrisoning Norway, Holland, France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia Estonia, Belgium, Crete, Greece and were fighting in a handful of Slavic Countries so they never had the manpower to finish the job and there could only be one outcome

 

[Doppleganger]

The Russian would have kept throwing men into the Battle, The German supply lines were over stretched and they did not have an unlimited access to man power that the Russians did. I think that in the finish the result would have been the same

The problem isn't of Russian numbers but of time. The Red Army committed almost all of its strategic reserve to the Battle of Moscow. If these men are used up there just isn't enough time to raise new armies and get them to where they're needed. If the Germans can deal with the Russian armies already there (and remember these particular armies were very poorly trained and basically equipped) then they can take and hold Moscow through the winter.

The situation at Moscow was completely different than that at Stalingrad 2 years later. Not really useful to compare the two.