WI: Germans capture Leningrad and Stalingrad, but fail to capture Moscow

Depending on the details of how they lost them, either the Soviets retake them during the subsequent counter-offensives or collapse.
 
Leningrad, maybe...
If AGN had two more Tank Divisions plus support
an entire Tank Corps if possible but the one that the commander of AGN had was diverted for the drive for Moscow in OTL....

Stalingrad near the Volga river??
The Germans were driven out of Rostov by Nov / Dec with their remaining Tank Force down south in OTL while the rest of the other three tank forces drove towards Moscow and were driven back by the Soviet Counter-offensive...
 

Deleted member 1487

What if the Wehrmacht had been able to capture Stalingrad and Leningrad, but failed to (fully) capture Moscow?
Depends on when they capture Leningrad and what the circumstances are; if prior to October they'd capture over 80% of KV tank production and what equipment that would produce 5000k T-34s over the course of the war. Plus some artillery and other stuff and 3 million some odd Soviet civilians, including experienced workers. They would also destroy probably 2-3 armies by taking Leningrad, not launch the Tikhvin offensive, get all sorts of import capacity come 1942 once they clear up the port situation and Kronstat. Then they'd free up enough Finns to cut off Murmansk and take it in 1941. Plus they'd free up enough men to defend Leningrad from liberation by the Soviets. The supply burden for AG-North would be totally taken off the rail lines from Germany as come 1942 they could ship it into Leningrad; they could then use the facilities of the city for the Luftwaffe, which would ensure they could pretty much defend it so long as they wanted.

It doesn't really affect the campaign much in 1941 other than denying the Soviets LL via Murmansk, which would get cut off by the Finns within a month of freeing up troops from guarding the Leningrad front, so that's about 900 tanks and 900 fighters that will not be available via Murmansk; then that also cuts off about 25% of LL for the whole war and most of the early LL until 1943. Add in the hundreds of KV tanks and T-34s and artillery pieces not produced by Leningrad in 1941 leaves the Soviets a lot weaker come Winter. Then thereafter they are just weaker from less tank production and LL coming in.

Things get tough for the Soviets, worse than IOTL, but it doesn't necessarily lose them the war, but it does cost them very badly, as Stalin will be forced for political reasons to launch a lot of unfavorable offensives to liberate the city, which will run into a lot more Germans than IOTL with far better supply and bases (a lot more because the guys manning the line opposite Leningrad will instead be guarding the lines to the East).

Also 11th army wouldn't leave AG-South come 1942 and be extremely helpful come winter 1942 and the Stalingrad situation. The Soviets will be a lot weaker without Leningrad industry, manpower, and LL from Murmansk, while the Germans are stronger thanks to having the 11th army in the south and not having to confront as much Soviet tanks that inflicted losses on the Germans in 1941-42. Plus there is no early loss of the Tiger I around Leningrad in 1942, allowing the Allies to develop countermeasures. It then appears as a surprise in 1943.

Overall its a pretty big help for the Germans, but not war winning on its own. It ensures the Soviets have a lot tougher time in the East and don't end up as far west come 1945.
 
Top