WI: Alternate Barbarossa, no AGC

What if instead of OTL Barbarossa, Hitler and his generals come up with this plan? Instead of an Army Group Center, its forces are divided between AGN and AGS, and the initial thrust looks like this map, posted below. Is this a possible winning strategy?
 

Attachments

  • EECC549D-B3F1-4A7E-ADDB-5693B8A11CBD.jpeg
    EECC549D-B3F1-4A7E-ADDB-5693B8A11CBD.jpeg
    163.4 KB · Views: 123
No, you have two thrusts that go farther apart every mile, quickly losing any mutual assistance they may have. Or, I heard of vulnerable hanging flanks but this is ridicules!

Maybe, or maybe it’s one big pincer movement away from completely destroying the Soviet army
 
What if instead of OTL Barbarossa, Hitler and his generals come up with this plan? Instead of an Army Group Center, its forces are divided between AGN and AGS, and the initial thrust looks like this map, posted below. Is this a possible winning strategy?

By looking at the numbers of casualties caused to SU by AGC you can get some kind of an understanding of how much raw manpower would be available for the SU in the center in this scenario (even if numerous reinforcements would now face the pincers instead of AGC ITTL). This would also leave more time to dig in and evacuate anything valuable to east. IMHO not a winning strategy.
 

Deleted member 1487

What if instead of OTL Barbarossa, Hitler and his generals come up with this plan? Instead of an Army Group Center, its forces are divided between AGN and AGS, and the initial thrust looks like this map, posted below. Is this a possible winning strategy?
What about all the huge Soviet forces in Belarus and the enormous logistical problems of burdening the inadequate rail lines in the north and south with half again as many men?
 
Top