How bloody would a Moscow attack in 1942 have been?

Deleted member 1487

I'm reading "From Defeat to Victory" about the Soviet 1944 offensives and in the section titled "German strategic mistakes" the author mentions several times the failure to target Moscow in 1941 and 1942. Though he acknowledges that prioritizing Moscow in either year would face major challenges, in his view it would have been the only way to defeat the USSR.

However in 1942 the Soviets had major forces concentrated around Moscow and were hammering the Rzhev salient with superior forces. Had the Germans attacked Moscow in 1942 how bloody would it have been and how much of a chance was there to actually succeed? For the sake of argument let's assume that it takes place after Sevastopol falls and 11th army is transferred north to take part in operations against Moscow.
 
I'm reading "From Defeat to Victory" about the Soviet 1944 offensives and in the section titled "German strategic mistakes" the author mentions several times the failure to target Moscow in 1941 and 1942. Though he acknowledges that prioritizing Moscow in either year would face major challenges, in his view it would have been the only way to defeat the USSR.

However in 1942 the Soviets had major forces concentrated around Moscow and were hammering the Rzhev salient with superior forces. Had the Germans attacked Moscow in 1942 how bloody would it have been and how much of a chance was there to actually succeed? For the sake of argument let's assume that it takes place after Sevastopol falls and 11th army is transferred north to take part in operations against Moscow.

I would think the related question of "Will it be worse than what they actually did?" was also important.

Going after Moscow will be extremely bloody, and quite probably fail. Going after the Caucasus oil fields was arguably guaranteed to fail, and OTL did so at a truly astonishing cost.

The Devil or the Deep Blue Sea. Decisions, decisions...
 

Deleted member 1487

I would think the related question of "Will it be worse than what they actually did?" was also important.

Going after Moscow will be extremely bloody, and quite probably fail. Going after the Caucasus oil fields was arguably guaranteed to fail, and OTL did so at a truly astonishing cost.

The Devil or the Deep Blue Sea. Decisions, decisions...
I know the usual suspect (Obsessednuker) already has a thread and makes it clear in OP that the Germans were guaranteed to lose, but (surprise, surprise) I don't think its that clear cut. Take what happened at Kursk in 1943, 3:1 casualties in Germany's favor. Look at 2nd Kharkov and Case Blue. Or what happened to 5th Tank Army near Voronezh in July 1942. In 1942 the Germans were consistently kicking the crap out of the Soviets in open combat, so depending on where the offensive is targeted, even with the Soviets concentrating their defenses and strategic reserves around Moscow, it's not clear that the Soviets would win or inflict more losses on the Germans than they did in 1942 prior to Operation Uranus/Mars. I don't see Rzhev as a jump off point for an offensive due to the Soviet concentration of force around it, operations just to clean up the area ongoing in June 1942, and the logistic situation in that area. I'm thinking it would happen around the northern most armies of the Bryansk Front in the direction of Tula, which is relatively open terrain and would not only wreck Bryansk Front much like IOTL, but also flank/encircle parts of Western Front as the push toward Tula from the Kursk/Orel area north progress. A concentrated advance with concentrated air power seemingly would work as well as Case Blue IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Blue#Opening_phase

If Moscow does fall, how do the Soviets react?
 
Moscow had tremendous importance to the Soviets. over and above being the capital and an important symbol, it was a key rail nexus as has been mentioned here quite often, many key industries and labs were there, and all the bureaucrats who made the wheels turn. Many of those could be relocated, given time, but it would hurt during the transition. The rails, of course, can't be shifted. I expect you'd see Moscow defended just as Stalingrad was, street by street, house by house, room by room. Win or lose it will be expensive for the Germans.
 

Deleted member 1487

Moscow had tremendous importance to the Soviets. over and above being the capital and an important symbol, it was a key rail nexus as has been mentioned here quite often, many key industries and labs were there, and all the bureaucrats who made the wheels turn. Many of those could be relocated, given time, but it would hurt during the transition. The rails, of course, can't be shifted. I expect you'd see Moscow defended just as Stalingrad was, street by street, house by house, room by room. Win or lose it will be expensive for the Germans.
Any worse than the OTL 1942 result?
 

trurle

Banned
Any worse than the OTL 1942 result?
Likely worse. For both sides. In late 1941, Soviets have concentrated about 40% of their total army strength to Moscow front. It will be a tremendous massacre. Likely German reserves will be exhausted to the extent allowing opening of Western Front in France or Germany instead of Sicily in 1943.
 

Deleted member 94680

Likely worse. For both sides. In late 1941, Soviets have concentrated about 40% of their total army strength to Moscow front. It will be a tremendous massacre. Likely German reserves will be exhausted to the extent allowing opening of Western Front in France or Germany instead of Sicily in 1943.

But if the Russians win (by swamping the area with troops) in a meat-grinder of attrition, where does it weaken them elsewhere? Not all of the Russians were battle-hardened, top-quality, combined arms experts even in early '42.
 
If Moscow does fall, how do the Soviets react?
Badly. In addition to it's importance as a railway hub losing Moscow would have meant the loss of massive numbers of bureaucrats, the people who made the Soviet Union sort-of work, lots of industry and a massive morale blow. Plus the loss of troops and materiel during the encirclement of the city.

Stalin could (and would if he survived) address the motherland from Kuybyshev and remind people that Napoleon had taken Moscow and still lost, but it would still be a huge blow. The effects on anti-Soviet elements within the USSR would be interesting as would the effect on the relationship with the USA and Britain; might the WAllies write off the Soviets?


At little OT to you post but one of my favourite variations is a change in the weather. Let's say the rasputitsa doesn't happen on schedule in October? Instead having a nice hard frost so in November the roads are still usable.
 
Last edited:
OTOH - any campaign aimed at Moscow in '42, they would know about from their spy network, OTOH Stalin thought the thrust in the South would swing north-east to threaten Moscow - his spies couldn't/wouldn't have told him that!
I think the problem with 1942 was that the Germans were strong enough, they concentrated their strength to go South-East, while the rest was relatively calm, in contrast to 1941 when everywhere there was 'action'.
People assume that Moscow will be a 'blood-bath' because of Stalingrad, but Minsk, nor Smolensk was....
So, if 1941 - how? Instead of the Kiev encirclement? Maybe - but the odds are not in favour. No, think the Germans need to do better earlier to be in better shape - logistics, numbers, and equipment.
How? Could mean an earlier start date, even if a few weeks, means Hitler not getting moments of caution early on, a different commander in AGN would be good, so take Leningrad - it will magnify the Soviet panic, next Moscow .....
 

Deleted member 1487

But if the Russians win (by swamping the area with troops) in a meat-grinder of attrition, where does it weaken them elsewhere? Not all of the Russians were battle-hardened, top-quality, combined arms experts even in early '42.
I don't think many if any were by then. 1942 was a major learning experience.
 
In a general perspective Moscow in 1942 enables the concentration of air power against the bulk of Soviet forces. If they Can achieve breakthroughs here, this is were they Can break the Best Soviet forces and do the most damage to the SU. If the engagements achieve mobility, it Will be a Soviet slaughter. The question is how formidable were the Soviet antitank defenses to absorb the Schwerpunkt. That I dont know. Ditches without AT guns wont help much and the Germans Can achieve air superiority unlike OTL Kursk.
I Think it was their Best chance and Moscow was not that far away.
 

Deleted member 1487

In a general perspective Moscow in 1942 enables the concentration of air power against the bulk of Soviet forces. If they Can achieve breakthroughs here, this is were they Can break the Best Soviet forces and do the most damage to the SU. If the engagements achieve mobility, it Will be a Soviet slaughter. The question is how formidable were the Soviet antitank defenses to absorb the Schwerpunkt. That I dont know. Ditches without AT guns wont help much and the Germans Can achieve air superiority unlike OTL Kursk.
I Think it was their Best chance and Moscow was not that far away.
I was kind of surprised looking at a situation map how poorly defended the highway from Orel-Tula was, how extensive the road network, and how close Tula was to the front line (close than the distance to Voronezh that was traveled in about a week IOTL).
This was the opening move of Case Blue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Voronezh_(1942)

It was aimed East instead of North, but from close to where they could have pushed north. They wrecked the Soviet 5th tank army in the process, while Stalin had the 3rd Tank Army and some infantry armies attack the flank of the advance against the German 2nd Panzer Army, which failed badly and saw the tank army lose 500 of it's 700 tanks.

This was an interesting PoV from the Soviet side about the fight for Voronezh and what sort of issues would come up for a Soviet defense of Moscow:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://militera.lib.ru/research/beshanov_vv/16.html&edit-text=&act=url
The first successes of General Weichs, although they complicated the situation on the left wing of the Bryansk Front, but still did not pose a particular threat. To eliminate the grouping of the 4th Panzer Army, General Golikov, on the night of June 29, the 4th and 24th Panzer Corps of the Southwestern Front and the 17th Panzer Corps from the Stavka Reserve were transferred. The reserves of the Bryansk Front-1st and 16th Panzer Corps, 115th and 116th Tank Brigades were also sent to the site of the breakthrough. These forces consisted of more than 1000 combat vehicles and, of course, if properly used, could radically change the situation. The implementation of countermeasures was complicated by the concentration of the corps, their insecurity with fuel and the inability to fight. General Kazakov writes: "The true reasons for the failure, in my opinion, were in another: in inability."

The Supreme High Command recommended that Golikov concentrate the efforts of the tank corps to defeat the enemy grouping that had broken through to the Gorshechnoe area. The 4th and 24th Panzer Corps were to strike from the area of Stary Oskol to the north, and the 17th Panzer Corps from the Kastornoy area in the South. All three corps were combined into an operational group under the command of Lieutenant-General Ya.N. Fedorenko, the chief of the Main Auto Armored Directorate, who had specially arrived at the front to assist in the organization of combat operations of tank formations. To strike on the left flank and rear of the advancing German grouping, the 1st and 16th Panzer Corps were aimed. Thus, the Bryansk Front had sufficient forces to not only stop the Weichs group, but also to crush its main forces.

Knowing the talents of his commanders, Stalin personally instructed Golikov on June 30:

"Remember well. You now have more than 1,000 tanks at the front, and the enemy has not even 500 tanks. [260]
This is the first and second: on the front of the action of three enemy tank divisions, you have gathered more than 500 tanks, and the enemy has 300-350 tanks the largest.

Everything now depends on your ability to use your powers and manage them humanly. Do you understand? "

No, they did not understand! The front command was unable to organize a timely and massive strike on the flanks of the German grouping. Everything was done in the best traditions of the summer of 1941: the corps entered the battle at various times and in parts, without interaction with artillery and aviation, without reconnaissance and communication, and they were used not so much to solve active tasks to destroy the enemy, but to plug gaps in defense combined armies.

On June 29, the 16th Panzer Corps of Major-General M.I. Pavelkin set off stubborn battles with the goal of eliminating the enemy's bridgehead on the left bank of the Ksheni River in the Volovo region. On the next day, June 30, the 1st Panzer Corps, Major-Major M.Ye., advanced to the offensive south of Livny along the left bank of the Kshen River. Katukova. In the interfluve between Xenia and Olim, fierce battles unfolded. Katukov managed to advance south only 5 km, then he was stopped by German artillery and air strikes and took up a job at the junction of the 13th and 40th armies. Pavelkov's brigades went around the enemy from the south and cut off from the rear communications; for 3 days of fighting the 16th Panzer Corps lost more than a hundred combat vehicles, and the 109th Tank Brigade was surrounded by an enemy.

The former commander of this brigade, Colonel General V.S. Arkhipov recalled that the battles on the river Kshen were remembered

"Especially strong because of the many unused opportunities (our italics .- Author). .. Instead of knocking the enemy off the bridgehead with a blow from the tank fist, we tried to push him with his finger. On the first day, they threw against twenty German tanks and two battalions of submachine gunners who had captured the New Settlement, about the same number of riflemen, but half as many tanks. [261] On the second day - 20 of our tanks against 40-50 fascist and so on. The enemy, increasing his strength, was ahead of us, and if on the first day of the battle for the bridgehead we had a common superiority in the tanks, but did not use it in the attacks, then by the fourth day this superiority had already passed to the enemy. That's what the use of tanks means, with the crushing of tank brigades and battalions for "closing gaps."
Marshal of the armored forces M.E. Katukov leads another way of using tanks - "without looking back":

"I gave the commander the task, and he went to carry it out. An hour or two later the chief of the operational department Nikitin handed the report from the left flank:
- The tank brigade, after suffering heavy losses, withdrew from the battle. The commander was sent to the rear. He has a heavy nervous shock.

What happened?

... After all, how did the typing-type tankers act in the performance of such a task? Preparing for the attack, they first sent forward the combat reconnaissance, so that it caused fire on themselves. The commanders of tank crews and subunits at that time were located in shelters, observation posts and detected the enemy's fire weapons that had been discovered. And then the "By the Machines" command was sent, and tank crews rushed forward, knowing exactly what targets they were to suppress by fire, destroy, crumple with caterpillars. It is clear that the preliminary reconnaissance did not ensure the detection of all targets, but nevertheless greatly facilitated the fight against enemy firepower.

And that day in Pridonye the brigade commander without any reconnaissance led the tank battalions to a large naked hillock and opened fire on the supposed (!) Positions of the Hitlerites. Undoubtedly, he hoped to crush the enemy's defenses (?), Open the way to tanks and infantry. [262] But everything turned out differently. German artillery, well disguised in rye bread and other shelters, remained invulnerable, and tanks on the naked hill became a good target ... "

The commander of a tank brigade is a general's post, and received her officer in the rank of no less than a lieutenant-colonel. I understand that it is possible to give general's epaulettes to a military man who has no idea about reconnaissance, combat formations, use of terrain, disguise. But to entrust such a man with a brigade of tanks? You involuntarily remember the American: "We fool can not be a boss, it is economically impractical." How much did the Red Army cost only one brigade commander who killed fifty tanks in a couple of hours? We will add here the means spent for its maintenance during twenty years of service and on treatment of "nervous shock". Although the mention of "sighted tankmen" suggests that other brigade commanders learned to fight in exactly the same way, only their nerves were stronger.

In the second half of June 30, a large tank battle began on the left flank of the 40th Army, between the divisions of the German 48th Panzer Corps and the tank corps of the operational group Fedorenko. The 4th Panzer Corps of Major-General V.A. Mishulina, having launched an offensive from the region of Stary Oskol, reached the Poter Island by the end of the day, defeating the advanced enemy units here. The 17th Corps of Major-General N.V. Feklenko struck a blow by one brigade from the Orekhov district also on Gorshechnoe. The remaining connections and parts of the hull were still pushed into the initial area for the offensive. 24th Panzer Corps of General VM. Badanov instead of going over to the offensive in conjunction with the brigades Mishulina was tasked with defending the area of Stary Oskol and preventing the enemy from breaking through to the south. [263]

The counterattack of the 4th and 17th Panzer Corps fell not on the flanks and rear of the 48th Panzer Corps of the enemy, but on its reconnaissance and forward units. This put the Soviet corps, which left the area Gorshechnoe, in a difficult situation, as they themselves were threatened by encirclement. On July 1, the enemy, bypassing the main forces Gorshechnoye from the north and south, by the end of the day went to the line Orekhovo, Yasenki, Bogoroditskoe. In the area of Gorshechnoe were surrounded by the 102nd Brigade of the 4th Panzer Corps and the main forces of the Mishulin Corps. Tankmen fought in the ring for another two days, cut off from the rear by the enemy and in the full domination of his aircraft. On the night of July 3, the remnants of the brigades broke through to the east.

As you can see, General Golikov and his staff failed to organize a massive massive strike on the flanks of the Weichs strike group. Moreover, the commander of the front decided to withdraw part of the 40th Army to a new frontier. The Stavka banned this and simultaneously pointed to the inadmissibility of lack of communication with the 40th Army and the tank corps. That is, in fact, nobody controlled these corps, and their commanders, too, are not yet "Hindenburgs", but only learn.

Marshal Vasilevsky writes:

"The commanders of the tank corps (Major-General of the tank troops ME Katukov, NV Feklenko, MI Pavelkin, VA Mishulin, VM Badanov) did not yet have sufficient experience (?), And we did little to help them with their advice and instructions. The tank corps behaved indecisively: they were afraid to break away from the defending infantry of the combined arms armies, and in this connection, in most cases, they acted according to the methods of the rifle forces, not taking into account their specifics and their capabilities ... Examples: Katukov (1st tk) instead of rapid destruction Infantry of the enemy during the day engaged in the encirclement of two regiments ... "

And Katukov agrees with the senior comrade:

"... like any experience, combat is not given immediately. All these thoughts already come to us, the participants of those events, as a consequence of the experience accumulated in subsequent battles. " [264]

Meanwhile, the troops of the 6th German Army and the 40th Panzer Corps, which switched to the offensive on June 30 from the area of Volchansk, broke through the defenses at the junction of the 21st and 28th Armies of the South-Western Front by fourteen hours and, after three days, 80 km, went to the regions of Stary Oskol and Volokonovka. [265]

Commander of the 21st Army, Major-General A.I. Danilov, in order to avoid encirclement, decided to withdraw troops to the eastern shore of Oskol. The task of protecting the retreating formations was assigned to the 343rd Infantry Division of Colonel P.P. Chuvashev and the 13th Panzer Corps, attached to the army. By that time, the latter had been replenished to full strength, it included 158,167.85 tank, 20th motorized rifle brigades, and 2 divisions of rocket artillery. There were 180 tanks in the brigades. It's a powerful enough fist. However, the structure of the association did not have antiaircraft artillery, reconnaissance units and evacuation and repair units. In the conditions of retreat, every damaged or broken tank fell into the category of irretrievable losses. The withdrawal was accompanied by continuous enemy attacks, bomber air raids and lack of support from its artillery and infantry. Tankmen suffered significant losses in technology and personnel, a deadly wound was received by General P.E. Shumov, the commander of the 20th Rifle Brigade, Major P.I. Turbin and the commander of the 85th Tank Major-General A.A. Aseichev.

The units of the 28th Army were also thrown back to the left bank of the Oskol River. At the same time, according to the memoirs of the army commander:

"Our aviation was not in the air. We had no information about the situation of our right neighbor - the 21st Army and her left-flank formations. Nothing could be reported about it and the headquarters of the front, referring to the lack of connection with the union. We did not receive a response to our inquiries on the radio, but we had no aircraft for communication. "
Further, Ryabyshev complains that the command of the front "doubted absolutely accurate information," issued orders that "did not correspond to the current situation," in particular ordered the forces of the 23rd Panzer Corps to strike north and get in touch with the 13th Panzer Corps the corps of the 21st Army, "not knowing its exact location." [266]

Ordinary story: if the victory has many fathers, then defeat is an orphan. On the other hand, in the archives of the FSB of Russia, a memorandum of the special department of the NKVD dated July 18, 1942, addressed to the commissioner of state security of the third rank Abakumov, which is entitled: "On the shortcomings in the fighting of the 23 rd tank corps for the period from 1 to 10 July 1942 ". In it, among other things, the following was stated:

"The continuous transfer of the parts of the 23 rd tank corps from one frontier to another, misuse of them in combat - exhausted the material part, not reaching the goal.
Within 10 days, the hulls made a march with a total difficulty of up to 300 kilometers (on July 1, there were 85 tanks left in the hull ).

By order of the command of the 28th Army, parts of the 23rd Tank Corps on 1.7.1942 were concentrated in the Kozinka, Kaznacheevka and Konoplyanovka areas with the task of destroying the enemy advancing eastward towards Volokonovka and allowing units of the 28th Army to retreat beyond the Oskol River and take up defensive positions.

The first and main task was not fulfilled.

07/01/42, 6 th and 114 th Tank Brigade launched an attack, not having data on the forces of the enemy, without the organization of interaction with the infantry, artillery and aircraft.

As a result of this lack of organization, the tanks were met by ambushes active artillery fire, with air that immediately violated the order of battle the advancing our tanks (here podish you NKVD and tactics understands better than many of our generals - this is because even in the heads not raised himself or classical: "Everyone fancies himself a strategist seeing the battle from outside"? - Ed)..

As a result of ill-conceived attack, part of the body have lost only two days before the battle 30 tanks and the battle moved to the east bank of the river Oskol. " [267]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know the usual suspect (Obsessednuker) already has a thread and makes it clear in OP that the Germans were guaranteed to lose, but (surprise, surprise) I don't think its that clear cut.

'Course you don't, since you share OKH's belief that nothing the Germans do can ever fail.

Take what happened at Kursk in 1943, 3:1 casualties in Germany's favor

And totally failed at achieving anything. The casualty ratio just didn't matter.

Look at 2nd Kharkov and Case Blue.

Successful defensive operation and a failed offensive operation. What of them?

In 1942 the Germans were consistently kicking the crap out of the Soviets in open combat, so depending on where the offensive is targeted, even with the Soviets concentrating their defenses and strategic reserves around Moscow, it's not clear that the Soviets would win or inflict more losses on the Germans than they did in 1942 prior to Operation Uranus/Mars.

So in other words your going to ignore the far superior quality and quantity of Soviet forces in favor of unsupported wishful thinking. Okay...

I'm thinking it would happen around the northern most armies of the Bryansk Front in the direction of Tula, which is relatively open terrain and would not only wreck Bryansk Front much like IOTL, but also flank/encircle parts of Western Front as the push toward Tula from the Kursk/Orel area north progress. A concentrated advance with concentrated air power seemingly would work as well as Case Blue IOTL:

Not likely. Unlike the advance with Case Blau, the Soviets would have considerable forces of far superior training directly in the Germans path immediately available directly in front of the Germans. And the idea the Western Front would just sit still and be destroyed in it's encirclement

When the Germans broke through the Southwestern, Southern, and Bryansk front OTL, there was nothing in front of them until the Don. A drive towards Moscow, on the other hand, would see three armies in their path even before they manage to cross the Oka river and start towards the immediate Moscow Defense perimeter.

I was kind of surprised looking at a situation map how poorly defended the highway from Orel-Tula was, how extensive the road network, and how close Tula was to the front line (close than the distance to Voronezh that was traveled in about a week IOTL).

I'm not sure I'd call three armies "poorly defended".

This was an interesting PoV from the Soviet side about the fight for Voronezh and what sort of issues would come up for a Soviet defense of Moscow:

It's dubious any of that is applicable for a assault on Moscow, given the much state of equipment, training, leadership, and manpower of the armies that would defend it compared to the tattered remains of the 40th army that delayed the Germans at Voronezh despite previously being demolished in the opening stage of Blau. And for all you rag on the Soviet failures, their failed counterstrokes actually delayed and weakened the Germans whereas the losses the Soviets suffered were made good.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I'm not sure I'd call five armies "poorly defended".
Soviet 3rd army was all that was along the Orel-Tula highway/rail line:
(map is from March, but the army dispositions are roughly the same. 3rd army has even less divisions in June than March)
LageOst4Mar42_lg.jpg


It's dubious any of that is applicable for a assault on Moscow, given the much state of equipment, training, leadership, and manpower of the armies that would defend it compared to the tattered remains of the 40th army that delayed the Germans at Voronezh despite previously being demolished in the opening stage of Blau.
Over 500k Soviet troops were lost in the Battle for Voronezh. The Soviet 5th and 3rd Tank armies attacked German forces on the flanks during the march to and battle for Voronezh, they were crushed despite their full TOE. Virtually no Soviet forces had a particularly high degree of training or leadership despite having topped out manpower and TOE.
 
Soviet 3rd army was all that was along the Orel-Tula highway/rail line:
(map is from March, but the army dispositions are roughly the same. 3rd army has even less divisions in June than March)
View attachment 345059

What that transparently German map tells me is their intelligence beyond the immediate frontline continued to be totally borked, which is a rather standard state for German intel during WW2. It's also a typically German map on the Eastern Front in that it makes the road network look thick because it totally disregards the actual quality of the roads.

Over 500k Soviet troops were lost in the Battle for Voronezh. The Soviet 5th and 3rd Tank armies attacked German forces on the flanks during the march to and battle for Voronezh, they were crushed despite their full TOE. Virtually no Soviet forces had a particularly high degree of training or leadership despite having topped out manpower and TOE.

And yet they imposed a far more serious delay upon the Germans then the forces further south while inflicting more serious losses upon the Germans then the forces further south managed. Even furthermore, the Soviets were quickly able to make good on their own losses which the Germans could not do. And even furthermore, the Soviet forces actually defending Moscow were better trained and led then even those forces the Soviets committed to Voronezh. I don't know if you could call their degree of training or leadership as "particularly high", but it was nonetheless it was superior to what was historically thrown at the Germans.

Hell, even saying the Germans took Voronezh is an exaggeration of what they actually achieved. It was fundamentally like Stalingrad: they took most of it but never fully and urban combat would continue in the city throughout the autumn.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Edited message means second reply for all the new additions.
'Course you don't, since you share OKH's belief that nothing the Germans do can ever fail.
Obviously Case Blue failed in it's insane objectives, they were hardly immune from defeat, but if you look at the course of combat the Soviets lost badly throughout most of 1942.

The thing is Moscow is far closer than even Stalingrad, let alone Maikop, and given the forces that AG-South engaged historically, the 40% or so of Soviet forces in the general Moscow vicinity (including Northwest Front east of Rzhev?) aren't necessarily numbers the German didn't deal with IOTL. Plus logistics a much easier for such a close objective with such a density of roads and rail lines vs. Stalingrad or the Caucasus.

And totally failed at achieving anything. The casualty ratio just didn't matter.
They smashed through multiple defensive lines against an enemy far more skilled and better equipped/organized/led than in 1942 and called off the offensive because of the Allied landing in Sicily, which required transfer of forces engaged in Citadel.

Successful defensive operation and a failed offensive operation. What of them?
Both demonstrated the inability of the Soviets to fight the Germans on even remotely equal terms. Case Blue was halted by logistics and distance far more than Soviet resistance and again resulted in horrifically lopsided casualty ratios.

So in other words your going to ignore the far superior quality and quantity of Soviet forces in favor of unsupported wishful thinking. Okay...
Superior quality and quantity of Soviet forces compared to what? 1941? Didn't help them stem the tide in 1942.

Not likely. Unlike the advance with Case Blau, the Soviets would have considerable forces of far superior training directly in the Germans path immediately available directly in front of the Germans. And the idea the Western Front would just sit still and be destroyed in it's encirclement

When the Germans broke through the Southwestern, Southern, and Bryansk front OTL, there was nothing in front of them until the Don. A drive towards Moscow, on the other hand, would see three armies in their path even before they manage to cross the Oka river and start towards the immediate Moscow Defense perimeter.
Got any reference to the 'far superior training' of the Soviet forces around Moscow? I already provided a Soviet account that highlights the failures of leadership, training, and experience repeatedly during the Battle for Voronezh by forces dispatched from the Moscow reserve. Despite their full TOE and badly outnumbering the Germans their repeated failures of organization, command, and conduct resulted in them getting crushed. Something both Forczyk and Dick both make that point:
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2295-5.html
https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Warfare-Eastern-Front-1941-1942/dp/1781590087

West Front had serious issues itself as they were facing attack, which dragged in Stalin's reserve, 3rd Tank Army and 2 other infantry armies I forget the numbering of offhand, which were demolished in the fighting (Operation Wirbelwind).

The Soviets had all sorts of forces along the way and counterattacking on the route to Voronezh and to Stalingrad, 5th Tank Army attacked the German 2nd army in the flank north of Voronezh and was nearly wiped out for it's trouble. Bryansk Front had over 1000 AFVs on hand as part of it's reserve IOTL according to the long Soviet account I block posted earlier.

It's dubious any of that is applicable for a assault on Moscow, given the much state of equipment, training, leadership, and manpower of the armies that would defend it compared to the tattered remains of the 40th army that delayed the Germans at Voronezh despite previously being demolished in the opening stage of Blau. And for all you rag on the Soviet failures, their failed counterstrokes actually delayed and weakened the Germans whereas the losses the Soviets suffered were made good.
Can you detail what those would be?
 
Moscow falling in 1942 would be bad, but I think its a lot less catastrophic than in 41. The 'shock' of the German invasion is over, there's already been a dry run for how to transfer out of Moscow, and Stalin won't lose his cool.

If he doesn't lose his cool, the USSR fights on, and probably successfully though slower and even bloodier than OTL. This is a TL where the WAllies probably liberate a good deal of Eastern Europe and, depending, where Berlin might get Instant Sunshine.
 
Top