Could a massive pincer movement by all 3 army groups led to the fall of Moscow and thus Soviet Union

During operation Barbarossa, Kiev fell to a massive Pincer movement by both Army group center and army group south. This led to the largest encirclement in history. But this led to delay in Battle of Moscow and overall failure of Operation Barbarossa. But why did Germany employ only Army Group center to attack Moscow. What would have happened if Wehrmacht used Army group Noth, Army group Center and Army group South to initiate a colossal Pincer movement to encircle Moscow in 1941/1942, while letting Finnish, Italian, Romanian and Hungarian allies along with substantial amount of German units to protect it's flanks? Would this have succeeded? If yes, would this have led to the fall of Stalin and then Soviet Union?
 
Oh dear.

Do the logistics and infrastructure even exist for this? Are there sufficient allied forces to protect the flanks, particularly in the south? I doubt it.
 
German supply considerations consist of not enough fuel and although Moscow is important the Southern pincer was more important . Oil made it impossible to improve mechanisation and improve supply speed . Oil made the Panzer armies not as flexible as they should be . Moscow was a rail hub and a good target however failing to take it in one go made it even more important to take Baku . Read the link below the author makes some very good points I had no idea about until I read them a few minutes ago .

http://www.odessatalk.com/2012/05/baku-or-bust-oilfield-too-far-ww2/

I already knew about the importance of Baku to the Soviet Union and how poor the oil situation for Germany was , I did not however know they had prepared the expertise needed to exploit catured oil fields rapidly .
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Germans had studied the 1812 French campaign in detail and came to the conclusion that it was the single file focus on Moscow that greatly complicated Napoleons campaign.
So going with 3 Army Groups was not an accident.
 
As I see it, the three army groups served the purpose of destroying large Soviet forces as far West as possible.
In this priority it is noticeable that AGS failed, and therefore made the Kiev encirclement become at least seen as a necessity.
AGS lacked some forces that had been used in the yugoslavian and greek campaigns, which is why mussolinis actions here are so disputed.
Following the encirclements on all fronts, the Germans were supposed to reach their strategic objectives. They failed to reach any and the need for the Kiev encirclement is a major reason.
Could they have left the southern flank exposed? Possibly, Soviet mobility was not what it later became, but it was a strategic risk sparing Soviet forces from encirclement.
Could they had done the Kiev encirclement and take Leningrad? Possible, and that gives a much greater threat to Moscow in 1942 and better logistics.
Following a Kiev encirclement ITTL they might have gone further east, but that is with poor supply lines established or they might have tried typhoon a little later achieving the encirclements, but not getting as close to Moscow.possibly the Best outcome in hindsight if AGS fails its first task.
 
Finland stoped when they reached their objectives and if Hitler had wanted them to cover more they would have said "No thank, we are content". AG North was tied up at Leningrad anyway.
 
Top