Soviet and Allied Plans for the Battle/Fall of Moscow?

Alright, so you seem to be knoweldgeable on this (and quoting a book I actually own, guess I should read it), then could you tell me a way to prolong the Eastern Front while still having a (almost inevitable) USSR victory?

As I observed, most potential PODs for this lay on the Soviet side. So basically Stalin does something extra stupid like freaking out and ordering Moscow abandoned. Or accepting that the Germans are going to attack him only to order a preemptive strike (which given the state of the Red Army in 1941 would end quite poorly for the Soviets). Something along those lines are your best bet.
 

Deimos

Banned
[...]
Use the connections further east. The Leningrad and Murmansk railways could still be maintained via connections which ran through Kurovskoe, Kurlovsky, and Murom. Links with railways to the southern Russia and the Caucasus would be maintained via the connections through Kurovskoe, Arzamas, and Kazan. Indeed, when the Germans took Kalinin in October 1941, thereby severing the direct Moscow-Leningrad railway, the Soviets simply redirected traffic through the Kurovskoe-Yaroslovl routes.

Moscow was certainly an important rail hub, but the above connections mean that it's fall would have hardly severed northern Russia from southern as I have seen some claim. In order to totally sever all the north-south links in Central European Russia, the Germans would have to advance another 300 kilometers. [...]
Thank you for this answer. I hope you do not mind further questions on this topic that I would have to ask due to my overall ignorance on this subject. Are these rail lines able to handle additional throughput and would the loss of Moscow not entail longer routes for some supplies?
I have also see the claim on this forum that by capturing Moscow the supplies from Murmansk become useless bcause of transportation issues. Is that true?
 
Are these rail lines able to handle additional throughput and would the loss of Moscow not entail longer routes for some supplies?

As to the issue of distance: the Murom-Yaroslavl-Leningrad/Murmansk route may be slightly longer or shorter then the Moscow-Kalinin-Leningrad/Murmansk route, but not enough to be noticeable.

As to the issue of throughput: it might. I lack enough info on the capacity of those lines to say for sure. I just know they exist.

I have also see the claim on this forum that by capturing Moscow the supplies from Murmansk become useless because of transportation issues. Is that true?
No. That line connects through Yaroslavl and thus the port would still be connected to southern Russia via Murom-Kurovskoe or Murom-Arzamas and the industrial centers in the Volga-Ural and Ural-Siberian regions via not just the Murom line, but also the Gorky and Kirov ones as well.
 
It is still a bit vague.

I have never seen anything in terms of concrete steps and plans for the abandonment of Moscow.

Surely thy must exist somewhere? Still classified?

Ivan
 
However, ignoring the Kiev pocket is going to come back and bite the Germans.

We did a long thread on this a few years back. Ignoring Kiev leaves a significant threat on the German south flank, that could only be managed by progressing in echelon. The logistic problems to sustaining momentum in a single main axis withou an operational pause are also large. The echelon advanced while providing better flank security, denies the possibility to use the two strong PzGroups in AGC to generate the envelopment battles that proved so devastating in OTL operations.

The whole concept only makes sense if one assumes that the fall of Moscow would lead to the collapse of the USSR. Otherwise, even if the Germans take Moscow, they would have to deal with the soviet winter offensive with a south flank hanging on the air and with an extra 500.000 to 1.000.000 soviet troops in better shape than OTL avaible for the offensive.
 
Otherwise, even if the Germans take Moscow, they would have to deal with the soviet winter offensive with a south flank hanging on the air and with an extra 500.000 to 1.000.000 soviet troops in better shape than OTL avaible for the offensive.

More like 1.5-2 million, since there won't be any Vyazma-Bryansk encirclement either, which cost the Soviets another .5-1 million troops.

It is still a bit vague.

I have never seen anything in terms of concrete steps and plans for the abandonment of Moscow.

Surely thy must exist somewhere? Still classified?

Ivan

The plans were very much real, some were even partially enacted. Chris Bellamy devotes a section of Absolute War on page 296-301 discussing some of the evacuations to Kyubyshev, which included (for example) the entire Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to the OP

Something I'd like to ask for a new map series/mini-TL I've been looking at. I am just starting my research on it, so I figured I'd ask here if there were plans for Soviet and Allied responses to Moscow actually being invaded or even falling?

The goal of this idea is to show that the war would've been far from over with the fall of Moscow, given the sheer amount of Soviet territory unconquered, factories moved into Siberia, etc. that even cursory research shows. That said, were there specific plans for the possibility of a Battle of Moscow taking place or even Fall of Moscow? Things like Allies trying to divert Lend Lease supplies through Central Asia (though I do imagine Astrakhan probably wouldn't fall right after Moscow so the Caspian Sea would at least for the time being be open to Allied shipping), possible locations of a capital in exile, plans to evacuate key Soviet leadership, etc.

Apologies if this has been asked before. :eek:

Several persons have posted remarks about the alternatives to the Moscow rail center for rail movement. I'll try to address the larger global situation and Allied strategy.

First a couple notes on Brit action in the Middle East.

The Brit attempts to intervene in the Balkans was not a haphazard isolated event. It was part of a global strategy started in September 1939 to isolate Germany. Across the Bosphorus this strategy was under way from the start In Turkey, Syria, Trans Jordan, Iraq, Persia, Afganistan. Through diplomacy, espionage, bribery, act… the Brits were hard at work redirecting the 'Great Game' at the Germans - who were also making the same effort. After France collapsed the stakes grew and the violence through the assorted revolts, and British counter moves. While the battles in the ME were not large in terms of bloodshed military resources & logistical effort across the region was the equivalent of supporting a large army. In early 1941 the ME for the British constituted a full fledged war front, albeit with little combat.

When the Brits confirmed the USSR was to be attacked in 1941 the importance and effort doubled. Plans were laid to raise additional corps and armies and the battalions to fill them out. More important in terms of resources the Brits were studying what they would have to do to support the region as a actual battle front.

The result was in the 2d half of 1941 was the start of a massive construction project in the region, with its core in the Persian Gulf region. Resources were sent to bring the ports and transportation to its full designed capacity, and then preparations were started to double & eventually quadruple the logistical/transportation infrastructure of the region. Even before the US formally entered the war construction & transportation businesses were contracted by the Brits to help in this effort. Once the DoW came the US Armys transportation and support services rapidly started setting up shop along side the Brits.

While I've not seen a formal plan, & read just fragments about this it is clear from the results on the ground through 1942 & 43 that what the Brits were up to was preparing the infrastructure for a entire 'Front' or theatre. The logistics capacity they were building towards in port facilities, roads, communications, and other was capable of more than moving aid to the USSR. By early 1943 it was clear such a front would be unnecessary & the extra resources were used elsewhere.

Had 'Moscow Fallen' & by implication the Red Army been in danger of driven east of the Volga region. The Allies had some preparation underway for supporting a southern front of their own. Fast forward to 1949 & you will find the plans that became "Operation Dropshot" or more accurately war plan Dropshot being written. Those old staff studies, Appreciation Papers, & other documentation prepared by the Brits & US 1939-43 served as a starting point for the Dropshot planning.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Churchill mentions this in his history of WW2. IIRC Stalin asked for 25 British divisions to enter the line on the Eastern Front. :confused::eek::rolleyes: Churchill tried to patiently explain a little thing called logistics, though Stalin seems to have thought it was a capitalist plot.

It would take months to get them online. That'd be interesting to game. Even a corps or two
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spkaca View Post
Churchill mentions this in his history of WW2. IIRC Stalin asked for 25 British divisions to enter the line on the Eastern Front. Churchill tried to patiently explain a little thing called logistics, though Stalin seems to have thought it was a capitalist plot.

It would take months to get them online. That'd be interesting to game. Even a corps or two

Only way I can see any Commonwealth field units directly assisting the USSR in 1941-42 would be some sort of expeditionary force to Mumansk or northern Norway. While on paper there were a lot of commonwealth divisions globally, most were under equipped training or garrison units. In the UK in latter 1941 there emay have been a half dozen divisions ready for such a expedition.

Getting Commonwealth forces across Persia & into southern USSR would have been impractical. The railway across Persian did not have the capacity for such a thing in 1941 & the automotive roads were near useless.
 
Top