Weather ATL - Sunny October 1941 at Moscow

[Redbeard]

A lot of historical events have been excused/explained by the weather at the time they are happening - following this a PoD only involving a plausible change in wether at a given time and place must have significance.

I will try to make a number of ATL where the PoD only involves weather.

The first is Operation Typhoon in October 1941 - the last Blitzkrieg offensive - and intended to take Moscow.

In OTL it started 2nd of October 1941 in fine dry weather and gained momemtum from the start, encircling and capturing 500.000+ (probably 700.000) Soviet soldiers and huge amounts of materiel. Then a week into the offensive it started to rain heavily - the "Rasputitsa" had set in - turing roads into mud pools you could drown in.

After a week in this weather the offensive bogged down with units not capable of moving and very little supplies reaching the front. Moscow was saved and in the following winter the Soviets stoke back.

But what if - the Rasputitsa this year is say two weeks late?

Regards

Steffen "Sunshine" Redbeard

 

[Max Sinister]

It would still be difficult. With Japan not attacking and the US helping in big style, the Soviets could continue the fight - although the loss of Moscow, if it happened, would be a heavy blow for morale (and in other ways, too).

 

[ruisramos]

I'm not so sure. If Moscow does fall in 1941 (when Germany is still at the height of it's military power) it would mean that they would loose the transportation hub for all their terrritory west of Moscow.

This would allow the Germans to dig in and reinforce their defences of the conquered territoties. The logistics would became easier for the Germans and harder for the Russians.

Next the Caucasus would certainly fall, transferring the pocession of its oil fields to the Germans. Turkey would most probably feel obliged to join the axis by this time.

There would also probably be some troops available to strike in the far north, toward the ports used by the americans to send in materials and arms to the russians.

 

[Earling]

If Moscow falls, its the end of the USSR. A rump state behind the Urals might be able to form, but it wouldn't be able to match the potential power Germany could bring to break any force inching west. The political collapse will ensure Germany is essentially supreme.

However I think it doubtful Moscow will fall. Unless you assume the city collapses after the first German enters the gate, its rather optimistic for it to be taken. Offensives are bound to be limited in November/December, the greater bulk of german forces are still outside the city suffering the cold or bottled in the city fighting street to street with suicidal defenders. Frankly I think the odds favour Germany being pushed from the city by Zhukovs counter attack rather than the city falling. If having taken the city Hitler demands it to be held to the death (hardly implausable), a Stalingrad situation isn't out of the question when the Soviet counter attack hits.

 

[Codeman]

Stalingrad was in 43 this is 2 years earlier the germans just kicked the frenchs ass the supposedly most power europeain nation on the conteneit in 43 you had failure after failure but in 41 the germans were fresh from victory so i doubt we would get a stalingrad hitler wasent as crazy then as in 43

 

[whatisinaname]

Next Leningrad and then the Crimea and then the oil all in 1942 ?
Or 1942/1943, 1942 to take Leningrad and then the Crimea and 1943 for the oil?
It would take a while to defeat Russia.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If Stalin is killed or captured by the Germans, then there could be lots of political problems for the USSR, even if the Germans are ultimately driven from the city.

It is true that wherever Stalin is would likely be heavily defended, but all you need is a lucky bomb hit, artillery strike, or a commando raid in the right place.

 

[Redbeard]

Personally I think a few more weeks of good weather in October would have given a considerable chance/risk of Moscow falling. The momentum in the first week or two in OTL Typhoon was stunning and with panic spreading in Moscow. If supplies can be kept comming over the dry roads I don't see why the offensive should stop before Moscow. The Russians really didn't have much at that time in the area and if Moscow is on German hands when the Rasputitsa sets in, it is the Russians who will have to attack over soft ground and away from supplies. The Germans might be overconfident and not realise in time that major offensive operations are futile until frost sets in, but anyway with Moscow they are in a far better position to survive the winter.

Russia will not be beaten yet, but if/when the Germans can cut the railway lines connecting Ural with the south (taking Gorki?) I guess the Soviets will have no more realistic chances of raising new armies in significant numbers. I doubt they will be able to do it when frost sets in, they simply were too ill prepared for winter, and if Hitler is too stubborn in demanding the offensive taken up immediately (a serious risk) the Germans risk a serious rebuff.

But short of the OTL German disaster in front of Moscow, 1942 will be difficult for the Soviets.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[dittomitto2445]

all germany had to do to win the war would have been to treat the defeated people well

 

[Karlos]

If Moscow falls, Leningrad follows suit. The besieged city resisted only thanks to a lifeline coming from the capital. With Leningrad taken, Army Group North is available to take the northern ports -from where a lot of help was going to come- or to join the attack on the area behind Moscow, where really lies the core and the strengh of Russia, in terms of population and industry. I really think the only real chance for Germany to win WWII was in this moment and this place. There's also the much debated question of attacking Kiev and not Moscow in august. I also read recently about another lost chance, when the germans had the opportunity to take an almost defensless Leningrad but decided to wait and later, lay siege.

 

[Johnnyreb]

One of the more interesting aspects of German production/efficiency was its persistent failure to provide sufficient tanks to the panzer divisions to make up combat losses. The divisions would be worn down by losses until they had to be pulled out of the line and rebuilt.
Operation Typhoon started with the panzers below full strength. By the time they were before Moscow, they had received few replacements and really should have been refitted. It was too late, the Russian counteroffensive was in full swing.

Even given two extra weeks of good going, these divisions (the cutting edge of the Ostheer) would still have taken these casualties and still be at woeful levels. The Red Army would still be in a position to implement its counterattack, as their rifle divisions were available (although Russian tank production was higher than Germany's, even during the year of Barbarossa.)

It follows that this battle would have taken place rather closer to Moscow, maybe even in the suburbs, but the end result would be the same. As for elsewhere, Army Group South had shot its bolt at Rostov and was in no postion to go forward. As far as I can tell Leningrad did not get significant reinforcement anyway, so the situation there would not have changed from OTL.

 

[stevep]

One of the more interesting aspects of German production/efficiency was its persistent failure to provide sufficient tanks to the panzer divisions to make up combat losses. The divisions would be worn down by losses until they had to be pulled out of the line and rebuilt.
Operation Typhoon started with the panzers below full strength. By the time they were before Moscow, they had received few replacements and really should have been refitted. It was too late, the Russian counteroffensive was in full swing.

Even given two extra weeks of good going, these divisions (the cutting edge of the Ostheer) would still have taken these casualties and still be at woeful levels. The Red Army would still be in a position to implement its counterattack, as their rifle divisions were available (although Russian tank production was higher than Germany's, even during the year of Barbarossa.)

It follows that this battle would have taken place rather closer to Moscow, maybe even in the suburbs, but the end result would be the same. As for elsewhere, Army Group South had shot its bolt at Rostov and was in no postion to go forward. As far as I can tell Leningrad did not get significant reinforcement anyway, so the situation there would not have changed from OTL.

I think the key factor that might change matters would be the intangible question of Russian moral. Although Codeman has the dates wrong as its only a year before the counter attack that encircled 6th army in Nov 42 he is right that the Germans probably looked pretty much unbeatable in 41. If Soviet moral cracked and the city fell a lot of the population and resources of central Russia would be lost. Also, as mentioned, Leningrad's position would be hopeless and given the supply situation Army Group South might well be able to hold Rostov and some of the Don basin.

This would seriously weaken the Red Armies long term potential. An attack into the Caucasus in 42 might well succeed. With the Murmansk and then probably the southern route cut the Russians would only be getting supplies via Vladivostok, although this did make 60% of total L-L.

However at the same time German losses for an actual capture of Moscow would probably be even higher. Furthermore they would have to hold this area and central Russia in general, along with Leningrad. While this would mean massacres whenever there was opposition it would tie up a lot of troops. Also the Germans still have Hitler! Hence probably in 42 he would want an advance to the Urals as well as the seizure of Baku. Although the Soviets would have smaller and probably less motorised forces I could see the Germans getting a nasty surprise on one of those fronts in 42. 43 would probably be very even but the Germans would have serious logistics problems, along with growing pressure on their western borders from allied air power.

I think, barring as suggested a different occupation policy, that coupled with the pressure from the west Germany would still lose. If nothing else they would be held until Aug 45 when Berlin is destroyed. By which time an exhausted Red Army might have just completed the liberation of the ruins of Moscow. However it would be a radically different post-war world with an utterly exhausted, although probably even more paranoid, Soviet or successor Russian state.

Steve

 

[dittomitto2445]

well if germany had good occupations then they have a lot of divisions to send to the east or the west they can send more troops to north africa and maybe reach the suez, or send it to the eastern front who knows what hoth could have done with a few more divisions. Maybe even save the army group at stalingrad.