www.ditl.org

Spawned by the other thread I have always thought this "What If" was more interesting than the others.

What if Hitler ignores the temptation to go South in the first year of the war in Russia and drives directly for Moscow?

I think this is an interesting question on a couple of fronts. First there is a large bag of prisoners you leave on the table. The operations in the South grabbed huge numbers of Russians and put them in camps, so that is the downside.

However I think there is more upside to this.

There is a historical bias towards not taking Moscow based on Napoelon's experience there. He captured it and it did...well nothing. There was another capital and it did not materially stop Russia from continuing the war. However I don't think those conditions applied to Russia in 1940 any longer.

The industrial planning under Stalin had largely built/rebuilt the Russian rail system. While it is not true to say all roads led to Moscow a huge, huge majority of the railroad lines passed through there. Controlling Moscow effectively cuts the nation in half as far as North-South rail passage goes.

Politically it is also a more attractive target. There are no dual capitols at this point. Moscow is the center of communist authority and losing it means they lose a lot of prestige. It is a much bigger morale blow than it was in 1812.

So what say you? Can this have a significant impact on the shape of the Eastern Front?

BigJKU316 wrote:What if Hitler ignores the temptation to go South in the first year of the war in Russia and drives directly for Moscow?

I think this is an interesting question on a couple of fronts. First there is a large bag of prisoners you leave on the table. The operations in the South grabbed huge numbers of Russians and put them in camps, so that is the downside.

Numbers aren't the only downside. By not turning south the Germans would leave several virtually intact army groups pointed at the right flank of AG Centre. Given that Centre advanced considerably further than AG North, this would leave it in a huge salient that would have presented the Russians with a beautiful opportunity to strike a crippling blow against the Wehrmacht. With a deal of luck it could have presaged Bagration by three years.

On top of that, one of the biggest problems the Russians had during the war was feeding themselves, as the Ukraine was in German hands. Without the drive south in '41, this wouldn't have been a problem, allowing more war supplies to be shipped on vessels that would otherwise have been devoted to deeding the Russian population.

The industrial planning under Stalin had largely built/rebuilt the Russian rail system. While it is not true to say all roads led to Moscow a huge, huge majority of the railroad lines passed through there. Controlling Moscow effectively cuts the nation in half as far as North-South rail passage goes.

Politically it is also a more attractive target. There are no dual capitols at this point. Moscow is the center of communist authority and losing it means they lose a lot of prestige. It is a much bigger morale blow than it was in 1812.

Good points, but not good enough to change basic strategic facts losing Moscow would have hurt the Russians, but not as badly as losing the Ukraine did, and not badly enough to change the outcome of the war. The industrial base had already been shipped east behind the Urals, the Germans hadn't killed enough of the Red Army in the opening phases to change the long-term outcome, and Zhukov would probably be massing a counter attack to pinch off the extended centre.

True, but without Moscow it is very hard to concentrate the forces for the counter-offensive. I agree it leaves a huge sailent for the Russians to chop away at but I would counter that they were not really equipped to do so at that point anyway. They were desperate until Stalingrad and what limited counters they offered were pretty limited.

What I would propose is that when Hitler shifted forces North and South what should have happened is this.

Stop Army Group North in its tracks. Make no further move North and release the Panzers there to go to Army group center. Shift one panzer group from center to the South to go for the encirclement there while driving forward with two Panzer Groups in the center to push on towards Moscow. Have the Nortern Army Group dig in deep. The Russians up there were in worse shape than in the South.

Once I mop up in the South (I have the same forces there as historical I just shifted the Northern Panzers to Center so I don't have to stop there) then I make a full blooded thrust for Moscow with all 4 Panzer Groups.

BigJKU316 wrote:Once I mop up in the South (I have the same forces there as historical I just shifted the Northern Panzers to Center so I don't have to stop there) then I make a full blooded thrust for Moscow with all 4 Panzer Groups.

Then how are you going to supply them? Moscow is a major rail junction, but it's not the only one. A bit of digging has produced an even bigger problem for the Germans - because of the way Russian railways are laid out, they dictate the axes of advance. Shifting forces from one axis to another is possible, but that won't increase the capacity of the rail network, so you'll still only be able to support a couple of panzergruppe on the central axis, not three or four.

Captain Seafort wrote:

BigJKU316 wrote:Once I mop up in the South (I have the same forces there as historical I just shifted the Northern Panzers to Center so I don't have to stop there) then I make a full blooded thrust for Moscow with all 4 Panzer Groups.

Then how are you going to supply them? Moscow is a major rail junction, but it's not the only one. A bit of digging has produced an even bigger problem for the Germans - because of the way Russian railways are laid out, they dictate the axes of advance. Shifting forces from one axis to another is possible, but that won't increase the capacity of the rail network, so you'll still only be able to support a couple of panzergruppe on the central axis, not three or four.

Most likely, given attrition by that point, what I can do is turn my 4 depleted groups into two more fleshed out groups, plus maintain some sort of operational reserve rather than spreading them across the whole front. Supplies are going to be a major issue, that is no doubt. But at least by turning the Northern sector into a defensive front I can divert some of my rolling stock and trucks from that front to the northern portion of Army Group Central. It is not a perfect solution but if I can stop eating up a ton of supplies up north (the Seige of St. Petersburg burned through shells at a huge rate) I can hopefully peel off enough capacity to really make a go of it in the middle.