WI: The Germans halt their advance to Moscow

Okay in this ATL, let's say the Hitler and the German High Command realize around Oct-November 1941, they realize that the Soviet Union isn't going to collapse anytime soon as they saw, and halt their lines before even going upon the Soviet capital and then after improving the logistical situation and defending against Soviet counterattacks in the winter of 1941-42, they then decide to go for Stalingrad in OTL.

How would this change the Eastern front? Would this benefit the Soviets or the Germans? Is this a victory for the Germans, or does this shorten the the campaign for the Soviets?
 
Do you mean they would not do Operation Typhoon? Because by early November 1941 the Germans had generally been halted because of the weather. There was no reason other than that for the Germans to try and push for Moscow, they were practically there already. The halt because of the weather and stretched supply lines gave the Soviets the time to reorganize in a rapid pace and when by Mid-November the Germans decided to push on again, it was a good idea not to. They had no means of countering the much better prepared Soviets at the gates of Moscow in the cold weather and should have waited out the winter. They were forced to eventually and thus decided on Case Blue.

Not doing Operation Typhoon is better for the Soviets as they had even more time to prepare the defence of Moscow with a lot more troops available once the Germans decide to go for Stalingrad. Army Group Center would be weak, waiting in the cold without proper clothes while the Soviet lines are building and building. Bad timing to go south-east.

Not going for Moscow is illogical. Moscow was the big prize, the capital and close enough to touch. Even if they improve their supply lines, i don't see them defending their fronts at Moscow whilst moving their armies towards Stalingrad. Improving their supply lines would make an attack on <oscow more possible, but only after spring when the ground a weather are improved. Too late seeing the rapid increase in Soviet forces, for both cities. It would make for a longer fight, but in the end less casualties for the Soviets i would say.
 

Deleted member 1487

Okay in this ATL, let's say the Hitler and the German High Command realize around Oct-November 1941, they realize that the Soviet Union isn't going to collapse anytime soon as they saw, and halt their lines before even going upon the Soviet capital and then after improving the logistical situation and defending against Soviet counterattacks in the winter of 1941-42, they then decide to go for Stalingrad in OTL.

How would this change the Eastern front? Would this benefit the Soviets or the Germans? Is this a victory for the Germans, or does this shorten the the campaign for the Soviets?
I was actually just looking into this option. Basically let's say that the turn of the weather around the 10th of October convinces them that the grandiose plans for encirclement are just not an option, which means changing all sorts of plans in front of Moscow and around Leningrad, because the plans to link up with Finns near the Svir river in the North are no more viable than the Moscow plan. That means 'pulling the punch' and not going after Tihkvin and instead clearing the west bank of the Volkov, which cuts off the Road of Life before it even gets started and Leningrad falls in January 1942 while leaving the last Panzer Corps of AG-North intact over the winter for other operations.

Meanwhile in front of Moscow after the Bryansk and Vyazma pockets are closed von Bock is ordered to find sustainable lines for winter, which would mean river lines probably running from Rzhev south to Kursk. Preparations along those river lines from the 15th of October would give them plenty of time to bring up winter clothing and develop defenses, while strongly manning any line. That also gives the Soviets a lot of time to mobilize their last reserves for the year and attack when they want to. That probably means nothing until about December, so roughly speaking 2 months of downtime until the Soviets can attack along a broad front against AG-Center in strong prepared positions with winter clothing. There is no over-extension in the German forces, but also no wearing down and logistics being cut for the Soviets, so they can get more forces in place by December 5th for an offensive. I'd imagine the Germans would probably pull out 2nd Air Corps/Fleet in November too to reduce the burden on supply lines and ship them to the Mediterranean as per OTL. The remaining VIII air corps isn't worn down by the October-December fighting, so is in much better shape to fight through the whole winter. Even a month of down time from major operations would be a god send for them.

Basically it screws the Soviets because the Germans are prepared to defeat their attacks. After Vyazma-Bryansk it is the Germans that were worn down by their advance, the Soviets didn't really suffer major losses compared to what had already happened; the loss of the armies in the pocket battles destroyed about 1 million men and their equipment, so the Soviets really are lacking the heavy weapons they need to break prepared German lines; over the winter there were huge gaps in their overextended front due to equipment and manpower losses on the attack and the wide frontage. Here they have a much more contained frontage without the losses of the 2nd half of October through December, plus will be FAR more prepared for the winter weather than they were historically and supply is far better and less worn down without the big advance after the pocket battles. Plus it buys time to strengthen the rail lines, even if the losses to rolling stock due to the cold will still be atrocious.

The Soviets then are unable to make a major dent in the Germans lines and suffer pretty heavy losses as a result. Leningrad falls due to no Tihkvin operation and the cutting of the supply lines over Ladoga, which frees up a ton of troops for operations elsewhere and gives the Axis a huge port in the north to take the burden off of rail come spring once the ice clears from the Baltic. It also takes out 4 million Soviets, including probably around 1 million combatants and potential combatants. The fate of those civilians and soldiers will be horrific though, in line with the rest of the POWs taken in 1941. The Soviets would also lose the KV tank factory in the city and the artillery factory, plus the workshops and airfields, plus probably over 1000 AAA guns defending the Leningrad region; that doesn't even count the naval forces and loss of the Baltic Fleet. IIRC that would also mean at least 4 maybe 5 Soviet armies are destroyed in Leningrad or west of the Volkov. Come spring post-thaw there would then be some 300k Axis troops free to attack Murmansk and it's rail line, cutting that and making the White Sea and access to Archangel impossible for LL shipping. So by Summer 1942 no LL comes in via the north, which frees up the Luftwaffe 5th air fleet for operations elsewhere. Then there is also no Operation Nordlicht for 1942, so Manstein's 11th army stays with AG-South, as thanks to the preparations of AG-Center in Autumn 1941 there is no Rzhev salient nor Demyansk pocket resulting from the Soviet winter offensive.

Come Summer 1942 the Germans are in a much better position, while the Soviets are in a far worse one. Even with the US in the war there is a real danger that the Soviets could lose thanks to the Germans have a lot more manpower saved compared to OTL, while in the Mediterranean the early shift of 2nd Air Fleet might mean Malta actually falls ITTL, especially if assets from 5th Air Fleet from Norway are able to move south after Murmansk falls. That won't really help Rommel by the time he invades Egypt, but it will back a huge difference to the Tunisian campaign without Malta interdicting Axis supply lines in 1943.
I see Stalingrad falling, potentially over the Summer thanks to the greater Axis resources in the East in 1942 due to a much less harsh winter campaign. The losses in equipment and manpower during the December retreat from Moscow were really bad for AG-Center, which were compounded from January on by the Demyansk/Kholm pockets and formation of the Rzhev salient. The Soviets having to attack AG-Center in prepared positions without equipment losses from mid-October 1941 through January 1942 will be a bloodbath for them.
 
I was actually just looking into this option. Basically let's say that the turn of the weather around the 10th of October convinces them that the grandiose plans for encirclement are just not an option, which means changing all sorts of plans in front of Moscow and around Leningrad, because the plans to link up with Finns near the Svir river in the North are no more viable than the Moscow plan. That means 'pulling the punch' and not going after Tihkvin and instead clearing the west bank of the Volkov, which cuts off the Road of Life before it even gets started and Leningrad falls in January 1942 while leaving the last Panzer Corps of AG-North intact over the winter for other operations.

Meanwhile in front of Moscow after the Bryansk and Vyazma pockets are closed von Bock is ordered to find sustainable lines for winter, which would mean river lines probably running from Rzhev south to Kursk. Preparations along those river lines from the 15th of October would give them plenty of time to bring up winter clothing and develop defenses, while strongly manning any line. That also gives the Soviets a lot of time to mobilize their last reserves for the year and attack when they want to. That probably means nothing until about December, so roughly speaking 2 months of downtime until the Soviets can attack along a broad front against AG-Center in strong prepared positions with winter clothing. There is no over-extension in the German forces, but also no wearing down and logistics being cut for the Soviets, so they can get more forces in place by December 5th for an offensive. I'd imagine the Germans would probably pull out 2nd Air Corps/Fleet in November too to reduce the burden on supply lines and ship them to the Mediterranean as per OTL. The remaining VIII air corps isn't worn down by the October-December fighting, so is in much better shape to fight through the whole winter. Even a month of down time from major operations would be a god send for them.

Basically it screws the Soviets because the Germans are prepared to defeat their attacks. After Vyazma-Bryansk it is the Germans that were worn down by their advance, the Soviets didn't really suffer major losses compared to what had already happened; the loss of the armies in the pocket battles destroyed about 1 million men and their equipment, so the Soviets really are lacking the heavy weapons they need to break prepared German lines; over the winter there were huge gaps in their overextended front due to equipment and manpower losses on the attack and the wide frontage. Here they have a much more contained frontage without the losses of the 2nd half of October through December, plus will be FAR more prepared for the winter weather than they were historically and supply is far better and less worn down without the big advance after the pocket battles. Plus it buys time to strengthen the rail lines, even if the losses to rolling stock due to the cold will still be atrocious.

The Soviets then are unable to make a major dent in the Germans lines and suffer pretty heavy losses as a result. Leningrad falls due to no Tihkvin operation and the cutting of the supply lines over Ladoga, which frees up a ton of troops for operations elsewhere and gives the Axis a huge port in the north to take the burden off of rail come spring once the ice clears from the Baltic. It also takes out 4 million Soviets, including probably around 1 million combatants and potential combatants. The fate of those civilians and soldiers will be horrific though, in line with the rest of the POWs taken in 1941. The Soviets would also lose the KV tank factory in the city and the artillery factory, plus the workshops and airfields, plus probably over 1000 AAA guns defending the Leningrad region; that doesn't even count the naval forces and loss of the Baltic Fleet. IIRC that would also mean at least 4 maybe 5 Soviet armies are destroyed in Leningrad or west of the Volkov. Come spring post-thaw there would then be some 300k Axis troops free to attack Murmansk and it's rail line, cutting that and making the White Sea and access to Archangel impossible for LL shipping. So by Summer 1942 no LL comes in via the north, which frees up the Luftwaffe 5th air fleet for operations elsewhere. Then there is also no Operation Nordlicht for 1942, so Manstein's 11th army stays with AG-South, as thanks to the preparations of AG-Center in Autumn 1941 there is no Rzhev salient nor Demyansk pocket resulting from the Soviet winter offensive.

Come Summer 1942 the Germans are in a much better position, while the Soviets are in a far worse one. Even with the US in the war there is a real danger that the Soviets could lose thanks to the Germans have a lot more manpower saved compared to OTL, while in the Mediterranean the early shift of 2nd Air Fleet might mean Malta actually falls ITTL, especially if assets from 5th Air Fleet from Norway are able to move south after Murmansk falls. That won't really help Rommel by the time he invades Egypt, but it will back a huge difference to the Tunisian campaign without Malta interdicting Axis supply lines in 1943.
I see Stalingrad falling, potentially over the Summer thanks to the greater Axis resources in the East in 1942 due to a much less harsh winter campaign. The losses in equipment and manpower during the December retreat from Moscow were really bad for AG-Center, which were compounded from January on by the Demyansk/Kholm pockets and formation of the Rzhev salient. The Soviets having to attack AG-Center in prepared positions without equipment losses from mid-October 1941 through January 1942 will be a bloodbath for them.

There is nothing really more to add. I did a TL a while back "WI Hitler chokes to death on a fish bone on Oct 15th 1941" which essentially fleshed all of this out. I think your research on Leningrad has honed in how much of a big opportunity the Germans squandered.
 

Deleted member 1487

There is nothing really more to add. I did a TL a while back "WI Hitler chokes to death on a fish bone on Oct 15th 1941" which essentially fleshed all of this out. I think your research on Leningrad has honed in how much of a big opportunity the Germans squandered.
That alone would have been a game changer for 1942 and with the 11th army staying as a reserve for AG-South Stalingrad would have fallen and the position on the Don would have been a lot more tenable. Losing both Stalingrad and Leningrad would have put Stalin in a really bad position politically and probably made him rash and quick to purge for fear of a coup. His ability to relax and let the generals run the was seems to have been highly correlated with his declining fear of actually losing the war and having the ability to see he was hurting more than helping by interfering with military operations.

In terms of AG-Center sitting still after Vyazma-Bryansk (even ordering Guderian to firm of the Bryansk pocket and not go for Tula) would have dramatically improved the Axis position in the East over the winter. The Soviets won't get as carried away in their winter counteroffensive and probably would throw in a lot to save Leningrad in November-December with the Germans sitting still in front of Moscow, which would not go well once the Soviets are cleared from the West Bank of the Volkhov in October and much of 54th army trapped and destroyed. A rushed offensive to breach the Volkhov line and liberate Leningrad would create a 2nd Shock Army situation in late 1941 that with the weather would really mean a lot of serious losses the Soviets couldn't afford. Whomever is in charge of that offensive will get executed once it fails, gets pocketed, and Leningrad falls anyway.

Edit: apparently just Kronstadt naval base had 600 AAA of different calibers defending the fleet. Just that island, not counting anything defending Leningrad, which was supposedly the strongest AAA concentration in the world outside of Moscow in 1941, which itself have over 1000 AAA pieces, not counting MGs. Apparently the Luftwaffe gave up on directly attacking certain areas around Leningrad due to how heavy the AAA was. So the loss of Leningrad and the Kronstadt naval base and the mouth of the Volhkov (which also apparently had substantial AAA to defend the ports supplying Leningrad via Ladoga) could cost the USSR about 2000 AAA pieces. Apparently there were also a number of major factories still operating in Leningrad throughout the siege, including major ammo factories supplying the forces of the Leningrad pocket. Losing that city would be pretty devastating and a huge bonanza of resources and equipment for the Axis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is what is 43.

End of 41: Soviet counter attacks against Leningrad and Center fail, worse Soviet losses than OTL less German than OTL.
End of 42: Soviet counteroffensive gainst Kharkov fails, worse casualties as Germans can surround the pocket better. Germany takes Stalingrad, Grozny, fails at Baku. Soviet counteroffensive against Rostov fails. Rhezev is same as OTL. Worse Soviet casualties, elss German ones.
End of 43: Soviet manpower issues lead to a weak, ineffectual fourth battle of Rhzev--worse than Kursk, but Germany has less casualties, Soviets more. Germany takes Baku. Stalin kills generals and makes peace with Germans.
 

Deleted member 1487

Looking at some maps of the October situation for the Soviet 54th army there would be 9-10 Soviet rifle divisions or brigades, including the 3rd Guards Rifle division, that would be cut off and wiped out by the Panzer Corps used for the Tikhvin Operation instead attacking along the West Bank of the Volkhov river and seizing Volkov city and the Lake Ladoga ports. There was more than enough infantry units in the German 18th Army to reduce the pocket and wipe it out, while holding the lengthened Volkhov line, which would then be even more strongly held without having to worry about anything between the Neva and Volkhov river. The 'inner' ring around Leningrad then could focus on that, while the 'outer' ring on the Volkhov could focus on that and both held very strongly until Leningrad surrendered. When it does then the Germans have another at least 7 infantry divisions for use on the Volkhov or elsewhere or rehabilitation for use in Finland/Karelia in 1942. Besides the Soviet 54th army they'd lose 4 others in Leningrad, plus the Soviet fleet and any naval detachments. I think that would be around 1 million men including militia and armed civilians.

The question is what is 43.

End of 41: Soviet counter attacks against Leningrad and Center fail, worse Soviet losses than OTL less German than OTL.
End of 42: Soviet counteroffensive gainst Kharkov fails, worse casualties as Germans can surround the pocket better. Germany takes Stalingrad, Grozny, fails at Baku. Soviet counteroffensive against Rostov fails. Rhezev is same as OTL. Worse Soviet casualties, elss German ones.
End of 43: Soviet manpower issues lead to a weak, ineffectual fourth battle of Rhzev--worse than Kursk, but Germany has less casualties, Soviets more. Germany takes Baku. Stalin kills generals and makes peace with Germans.
I'm not sure if Soviet losses would be worse in their Winter counteroffensives compared to OTL, as they aren't likely to have the same success, so cut if off early; even with a pocket trying to liberate Leningrad, that is no worse than what happened to 2nd Shock army necessarily in terms of lives and equipment lost. The big loss over OTL would be Leningrad, which would more than offset any Soviet savings from cutting of their winter offensives early. The situation in Ukraine/Crimea shouldn't change much if at all compared to OTL other than the Germans perhaps not going after Rostov and having a stronger winter line without the losses fighting for the city, which with Soviet savings in manpower there is probably a wash for the winter Soviet offensive. Not sure if 2nd Kharkov necessarily changes compared to OTL, nor the minor offensives after to prep for Case Blue. Now with 11th army in reserve that will change things for AG-South along the Don, as they can move up sooner to cover the flank and relieve 6th army of that duty sooner in August. There is no way logistically that Baku is remotely reached in 1942, Grozny would be a major stretch even if Tuapse and Novorossiysk fell, as the ports would still be wrecked and unusable in 1942. Rzhev wouldn't form like IOTL due to prepared German lines holding over Winter wouldn't allow the opportunity for the Kholm-Toropets offensive to work and threaten German lines from the West. That means the Velyki Luki to Rzhev rail line would be open and the Soviet Kalinin front checked on the Valdai Heights. That also means the attacks from the direction of Moscow would be stronger due to fewer avenues to attack and more concentration in certain sectors around Moscow for both sides thanks to shorter lines. In 1942 that is bad news for the Soviets because more concentrate German firepower with good supply lines and intact forces would mean they suffer quite a bit for no gains, but the Germans don't have the chance to pocket Soviet forces like they did around Rzhev IOTL, so attrition for both sides with less fancy maneuver battles. Also that means less of a partisan threat immediately behind the lines due to less cut off Soviet troops melting into the woods. So Rzhev looks more like the Smolensk 1943 fighting.

The real question is what happens around winter 1942-43 and whether the Soviets manage to breach the Don river line as per OTL or not. If not the Soviets are probably headed to a Stalin freak out and internal collapse. If they do and drive the Germans back to their Summer 1942 start line they probably are not going to get a Uranus style pocket and instead a smashing of Axis minor armies, but an intact German army with reserves. The front would be straighter than IOTL and yes a major Soviet problem due to no Northern LL route in 1942 and worse overall losses. But they don't have the fighting for Leningrad in 1942-43 draining them. I think overall by 1943 the Soviets are in a significantly worse manpower situation, the Germans a substantially better one with shorter overall lines (assuming a retreat from the Don). German lines could probably hold up over in 1943 and leave the Soviets pretty exhausted without liberating Ukraine or making much progress around Rzhev. The Germans would be worn down too, but not like IOTL. The Wallies would still have their successes in the Mediterranean, but later and at higher cost, with more Axis forces escaping from Africa thanks to no Malta (I'm assuming it falls due to butterflies for the Luftwaffe); then to even be able to invade Sicily the Allies have to attack Malta first, which tips their hand...or they go for Sardinia and Corsica and set up a major bombing campaign of Italy before invading Sicily and then Italy.

By 1944 the Axis is in a much stronger position, but suffering badly from attrition on all fronts, but have a much stronger position in the East. That may be enough to get some changes for an invasion of France in 1944.
 
I'm not sure if Soviet losses would be worse in their Winter counteroffensives compared to OTL
They would be.

1. Better German defensive positions.
2. Leningrad will be attacked in order to relieve the falling city "at all costs." Stalin meant it.
3. Best German units not worn out.
4. Loss of all Soviet men fighting in Leningrad.

Of course Soviet losses would be worse. I bet Nuker would concede that.

Not sure if 2nd Kharkov necessarily changes compared to OTL

Sure does. You were speculating that more air units would have helped bag another 50,000 Soviets. So, if the cream of the German crop does not die freezing to death in forward positions, they will add more than a little extra umph come 1942 when 2nd Kharkov goes off. Plus, without the Demyansk pocket and Leningrad holding out, German airforces will be in better shape.

There is no way logistically that Baku is remotely reached in 1942, Grozny would be a major stretch even if Tuapse and Novorossiysk fell...

1. Never said Baku is reached, the Germans will die trying to reach it.
2. Grozny falls because the Germans are in better shape and the Soviets are in far worse shape, as the Soviets would have lost 50,000 more in ATL 2nd Kharkov, 1 million in Leningrad, and probably another 500k MORE than OTL in the winter counteroffensive trying to liberate Leningrad at all costs PLUS the offensive against AGC which is fighting on the defensive in defensible positions. How are they going to replace these men? They will be forced to strip the far east and caucusus/central asian divisions to the bone.

The Russian army in 42 after 2nd Kharkov would have shot its bolt, and the Germans would face little resistance in the south.

the Germans don't have the chance to pocket Soviet forces like they did around Rzhev IOTL, so attrition for both sides with less fancy maneuver battles.

Okay, I can concede this may be the one net gain for the Russians, if this gain is not squandered via more frontal assaults towards Leningrad or the center--which is unlikely.

German lines could probably hold up over in 1943 and leave the Soviets pretty exhausted without liberating Ukraine or making much progress around Rzhev. The Germans would be worn down too, but not like IOTL.

Worn by what? They would have lost none of their mobile elements to ice and counteroffensives as they did in 41 and 42 OTL. Germany would have a mobile reserve in 43 larger than in 41.

WHY? All Russian attacks between 41-42 are towards heavily defended positions.

THE RESULT? The Germans would have a significant mobile reserve to attempt a serious go for Baku in 43 (as Hitler would be in fantasy land and think the Russians have nothing in the center to attack with--he would commit significant reserves to going for the oil.) Ironically, the Russians will attack in the center with all their new reserve armies, probably right into another German force prepping for a real go at Moscow 43.

The Wallies would still have their successes in the Mediterranean, but later and at higher cost, with more Axis forces escaping from Africa thanks to no Malta (I'm assuming it falls due to butterflies for the Luftwaffe); then to even be able to invade Sicily the Allies have to attack Malta first, which tips their hand...or they go for Sardinia and Corsica and set up a major bombing campaign of Italy before invading Sicily and then Italy.

Knowing the Wallies, they go the latter route in order to put the pressure on France too.

By 1944 the Axis is in a much stronger position, but suffering badly from attrition on all fronts, but have a much stronger position in the East. That may be enough to get some changes for an invasion of France in 1944.
If it goes this way Stalin probably goes for a phony armistice and major concessions to the Germans.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I disagree that in the winter of 1941-42 the Soviets would brain themselves on the wall of German defenses; the big losses would come from Leningrad falling, not from major attacks. Historically Stalin went overboard with the offensives because of the initial successes and tried to do too much all at once, which caused Soviet forces heavier losses than the Germans took because they were pushed into really bad positions. I also think you're going a bit far with claims about how big the Leningrad rescue effort could/would be before Leningrad surrendered, which limits losses too.

As to what would wear the Germans down in the East...heavy Soviet attacks with artillery on fortified positions, which ground the Germans down heavily IOTL and general attrition. Granted the Germans probably also have 1 million fewer casualties by Summer 1943 than IOTL, while Soviet losses are probably substantially higher than IOTL. The Soviets aren't dumb and will adapt to the worse war circumstances and probably be more willing to avoid a broad front strategy to maximize firepower at specific points in the front and wait more for the Wallies to do more heavy lifting; Stalin might also put more pressure on the Wallies to invade France in 1943 or else.
 
if they stop outside Moscow, avoiding as suggested the last 2 - 3 mos. of major operations in that area, how does it affect Ukraine?

lately become interested in the food production they control (from 1941 - 1943 cripples Soviets) but also how many conscripts does it deny the Soviets?

if they are adopting a sensible strategy, what if they never advance into Caucasus? or wait until Turkey will join Axis?

(they could build synthetic plant(s) in Ukraine for the coal about as fast as acquiring oil from Baku)
 
Best case German scenario:

Lets assume that with the fall of Leningrad, the freeing of 18th army and a Panzer corps to stiffen the Axis allies along the Don, a better Luftwaffe without the Demanysk airlift, along with more Italian MAS and Siebel ferries in the med without the Ladoga operations, that Stalingrad falls and Tupase falls, and without the September and December Murmansk convoys that the Germans hold the Don through the Winter.

Assume that without Demanysk and Stalingrad airlifts the Germans manage a bigger supply airlift to Tunisia November 42 - March 43 and hold out a couple months longer delaying Allied operations in the med a couple of months.

The Germans faced with a September invasion of Sicily and highly suspicious by this point of their Italian allies and the reliability of the other Allied armies on the Don decide to make peace overtures with the Soviets. The Germans and Soviets agree to a two year armistice, with the Germans evacuating back to the Wotan line, the Germans keep the west side of the Dnieper, including the Crimea, the Baltic states, the ruins of Leningrad goes back to Soviets but Germans keep most of oil shale.

This allows the Germans to pull back their entire air force on the eastern front, but only 2 more good panzer divisions and 4 field infantry divisions really can be brought west (vs OTL), because the Soviets are a threat, however the lack of attrition over the winter does allow them to bring divisions in the west up to higher establishments of equipment.

With this can the Germans repel the Normandy invasion????
 
The German's advance was already a bloody crawl by the time mother nature weighed in. The effects of the weather as opposed to the effects of the stiff Russian resistance tend to be overstated as the cause for halting the German advance. In truth the Germans were in serious trouble even before Marshal Mud showed up, and then they lost much of the territory they gained in October, and even some of what they gained in August and September to the Russian counterblows.

Pushing on until the weather turned and then halting would have left the Germans in a position not much better than they were in historically. They'd have still been strung out and vulnerable. The time to stop and consolidate was at the end of September, right after the battle of Kiev ended. The Germans could then have focussed on developing a solid defensive position, bringing up supplies and restoring their combat power.
 

Deleted member 1487

The German's advance was already a bloody crawl by the time mother nature weighed in.
The mud started during the closing of the Vyazma and Bryansk fronts, which was the first week of October; it was already a factor just as the offensive was jumping off. It was the weather in combination with distance and resistance that finally wore out the advance by early November. By the time it resumed the winter weather, distance, and Soviet resistance was a different animal altogether.

The effects of the weather as opposed to the effects of the stiff Russian resistance tend to be overstated as the cause for halting the German advance. In truth the Germans were in serious trouble even before Marshal Mud showed up, and then they lost much of the territory they gained in October, and even some of what they gained in August and September to the Russian counterblows.
It all worked together; had their been dry weather Soviet resistance and the distance wouldn't have been enough to stop the Germans; the mud through most of October wore down the combat and logistics elements heavily just closing the pockets at the start of the campaign; by the time the Germans hit Mozhiask they were already worn out by the conditions and logistics was having a terrible time trying to keep the forward combat units supplied. Without the weather/mud the Soviets would have been bounced after a hard fight, as it was the weather delayed and wore them down significantly, which allowed for defenses to be improved and the first reinforcements to be brought up. It is actually shocking how far the Germans got given everything they were having to deal with.

Pushing on until the weather turned and then halting would have left the Germans in a position not much better than they were in historically. They'd have still been strung out and vulnerable. The time to stop and consolidate was at the end of September, right after the battle of Kiev ended. The Germans could then have focussed on developing a solid defensive position, bringing up supplies and restoring their combat power.
Closing the pockets and then advancing to defensible boundaries by mid/late October would have been ideal for them actually and left them FAR better off than where they were at in December. In terms of the advance on Tula and Kalinin you're right, pushing as far as fast as possible was a huge mistake and problem that cost the Germans badly in the end; had they just focused on pocketing the first line of Soviet defenses and during the start of the mud (depending where on the front, it varied), around October 7-10th, then decided to cut it out for the winter, they'd not have gone to Kalinin and Tula or as far East in terms of AG-South or North.

The Germans could not have really afforded to stop in September, as the Soviet armies in front of Moscow could and needed to be taken down to eliminate the 1 million men that were taken out IOTL, because they'd be attacking hard in October. The Germans got a taste of what that was like in July-September and did not like that one bit. Now there is an argument to be made that the lines would be shorter, logistics better, and there would be more time to prepare for winter, but balanced by the advantages of destroying those 1 million Soviet soldiers directly in front of them, the disadvantages of attacking until October 15th are less than the advantages of wiping out all those armies and taking all that valuable equipment that wouldn't then be attacking them hard over the Autumn/Winter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The mud started during the closing of the Vyazma and Bryansk fronts, which was the first week of October;

Incorrect. The mud set in during the second week of October, after the closing of the pockets.

It all worked together; had their been dry weather Soviet resistance and the distance wouldn't have been enough to stop the Germans;

Yes it would have. It was in fact. The German supply services were already breaking down, their casualty rate was already steadily mounting, and their average rate of advance was falling. The achievement of the Vyazma-Bryansk pocket heavily disguises how poor a shape the German forces were in.

Closing the pockets and then advancing to defensible boundaries

Defensible boundaries only exist within the limits of ones supply capability, of which the Germans had moved beyond that from October 1 onwards.

The Germans could not have really afforded to stop in September, as the Soviet armies in front of Moscow could and needed to be taken down to eliminate the 1 million men that were taken out IOTL, because they'd be attacking hard in October.

You have a far more passive definition of defenses then the Germans did. Consolidation would still have allowed smaller local offensives to secure the immediate front.

The focus for the Germans would be on only taking what was easy with a view to defending current gains, not securing new ones. In that guise, the pocketing of the Soviet defenses would indeed still happen (Soviet errors in defensive placement really helped with this) but the Germans would then withdraw the bulk of their forces back to their start positions, which would constitute their MLR for the winter. The rest would be a buffer territory and security zone, screened by alarm troops who would fall back to the main defense line in the event of a Soviet attack, thereby ensuring that any Soviet assault would have strung itself out before hitting German defenses. These more limited advances won't achieve quite as much as Vyazma-Bryansk, granted, but the the reconstituted Wehrmacht would be able to make up whatever difference left when it resumes the offensive in 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

Incorrect. The mud set in during the second week of October, after the closing of the pockets.
Check your sources I'm seeing references to mud as early as the 6th of October during the closure of the pockets. Osprey Battle of Moscow, Stahel's Typhoon, and Ziemke.

Yes it would have. It was in fact. The German supply services were already breaking down, their casualty rate was already steadily mounting, and their average rate of advance was falling. The achievement of the Vyazma-Bryansk pocket heavily disguises how poor a shape the German forces were in.
They were breaking down during the closure of the pockets due to the weather and mud. Road quality was of course a factor, as was the depth of the war at that point and wear and tear on all German units, but during early Taifun the problem was pretty much weather from the get go coupled with all the accumulated problems. Once the pockets had been closed weather and mud got even worse, which went coupled with the distance and Soviet resistance still continuing from the woods really hobbled front line combat units trying to fight the latest round of Soviet mobilization/reinforcements on the highway to Moscow. The fact that the Germans closed the Vyazma pocket (the Bryansk one was leaky and a lot of Soviets got out to fight again, sans heavy equipment) in the face of the mud was actually very impressive. That was the heaviest Soviet resistance in October, the defensive line on the road to Moscow was meager in comparison, but the casualties from the pocket battles, worsening weather/mud, and distance made even the minor resistance on the highway to Moscow enough to stop the Germans.

Defensible boundaries only exist within the limits of ones supply capability, of which the Germans had moved beyond that from October 1 onwards.
Bullshit. Defensive boundaries existed beyond the pockets. The problem is that the Germans rapidly pushed beyond that and got into trouble. History demonstrated the Rzhev area was as far north and east as the Germans could defend; Kaluga further south along the central axis could have been held had the Germans stopped there, while Tula was a city too far and going anywhere beyond Kursk was a disaster.

You have a far more passive definition of defenses then the Germans did. Consolidation would still have allowed smaller local offensives to secure the immediate front.
Nothing like a minor local offensive to secure tactical terrain features would have done what eliminating the 1 million men and their equipment in the Vyazma and Bryansk pockets did.

The focus for the Germans would be on only taking what was easy with a view to defending current gains, not securing new ones. In that guise, the pocketing of the Soviet defenses would indeed still happen (Soviet errors in defensive placement really helped with this) but the Germans would then withdraw the bulk of their forces back to their start positions, which would constitute their MLR for the winter. The rest would be a buffer territory and security zone, screened by alarm troops who would fall back to the main defense line in the event of a Soviet attack, thereby ensuring that any Soviet assault would have strung itself out before hitting German defenses. These more limited advances won't achieve quite as much as Vyazma-Bryansk, granted, but the the reconstituted Wehrmacht would be able to make up whatever difference left when it resumes the offensive in 1942.
Eliminating Soviet forces deleted a huge amount of experienced manpower and heavy equipment that would have kept the Soviets passive until December or even January without any further attacks, which meant no only would the first Soviet winter offensive have been much weaker than letting those forces live, it gives the Germans months to prepare in peace for the defensive and free up ammuntiion space in trains for winter and entrenching gear. Letting those forces live means the Soviets start attacking in November with much heavier forces than they would posses without them. There is no way that Hitler would have allowed the seizure of ground to relinquish it. That's why I'm saying that once the pocketing happens the river lines east of them are the new frontier for winter. He could say stop at defensible lines...but Hitler would not say withdraw to defensible lines after an offensive victory. For Hitler it is either attack and hold newly acquired ground or sit on the defensive in place; he was not inclined to sit still in September/October. Your gamey operational strategy was not at all what was possible for Hitler at that time and in fact wasn't historically possible given the weather even with preparation; both sides couldn't wage a mobile defense during the muddy season or the winter of 1941-42. Equipment-wise the Germans would have frozen to death if they tried, as their motor vehicles would seize in that weather. Prepared defensive positions with heated bases was the only option for them, which was possible to hold in a contiguous line from Rzhev South.
 
Check your sources I'm seeing references to mud as early as the 6th of October during the closure of the pockets. Osprey Battle of Moscow, Stahel's Typhoon, and Ziemke.

There's mud and then there's the Raputitsa. The former did nothing to hinder German operations. The latter set in around October 10th.

Nor did the Raputitsa set in evenly across the entirety of Army Group Center. Some locations experienced much drier weather for a longer period of time then others. Yet the German advance even in these areas was still stalled out at the same time and just as rapidly.

They were breaking down during the closure of the pockets due to the weather and mud.

They were breaking down even before the closure of the pockets: the rate of advance was one of constant decline on a day-by-day basis while the casualties marched upward. This was almost regardless of the weather conditions. Both before and after the mud set-in, the Germans were able to make gains... but they were destroying themselves in doing so and had been since September 30th.

History demonstrated the Rzhev area was as far north and east as the Germans could defend;

German supply state around Rzhev in January 1942 was no better then it had been at Kalinin, the Moscow outskirts, or even Kaluga in December 1941, what changed is that the Soviets had strung themselves out in their own counter-offensive which turned the whole thing into a bog. If the Germans stop at Rzhev, then the only real differense is that is where they get hammered and they are still thrown back about as far as they were from the Moscow outskirts. Typhoon was what strung them and caused them all the difficulties they experienced in terms of both advancing and erecting an effective defense.

That was the heaviest Soviet resistance in October, the defensive line on the road to Moscow was meager in comparison,

Total nonsense. Some of the worst tactical defeats were inflicted upon the Germans on the road to Moscow that October. The most notable example was near Tula, where a Soviet tank brigade utterly savaged the better part of a German panzer division and effectively stopped Guderian Panzer Army completely for a full week.

Nothing like a minor local offensive to secure tactical terrain features would have done what eliminating the 1 million men and their equipment in the Vyazma and Bryansk pockets did.

As I said, not all the Soviet forces would be wiped out... mainly those in the first line of defense (which is a pretty substantial heft and represents the bulk of Soviet losses). The rest would have to come later, in 1942, when the reconstituted Wehrmacht is able to resume the offensive.

Eliminating Soviet forces deleted a huge amount of experienced manpower and heavy equipment that would have kept the Soviets passive

The Soviet forces the Germans faced at the beginning of Typhoon were pretty devoid of heavy equipment and represented basically the worst trained personnel the Soviets fielded in the entire war. The last of the pre-war standing army had been wiped out at Smolensk and Kiev while the next wave of reservist call-ups, who were getting dibs on the heavy gear, were still forming up and training in the strategic reserve. What the Germans faced at the start of Typhoon mainly constituted little more then hastily assembled militia's. Even many of them were still undergoing basic remedial training when Typhoon started. That even such forces were able to inflict the delays and losses upon the Germans as they did is indicative of how the Germans had rolled past their strategic culmination point.

it gives the Germans months to prepare in peace for the defensive and free up ammunition space in trains for winter and entrenching gear.

The German rail supply net was in a state of total collapse by the start of October from the strain of just trying to support the start of Typhoon. Then the raputitsa's rains washed out the hastily reconstructed rail-beds and then the freeze set in and German locomotive boilers started to explode due to the cold. Even getting enough fuel to run the supply trucks that ran between the rail stations and the depots was impossible. Adding winter and entrenching gear? Total fantasy. Additionally, the Raputitsa and then the freeze meant the Germans found that they couldn't entrench without specialized equipment they didn't have on hand. Just creating something as basic as foxholes required them to improvise by using artillery shells to blow the holes in the ground. If the Germans want to prepare reasonable winter defensive positions and stock up on supplies, the time to do it is before the weather and distance makes it impossible. They can only construct such things as heated prepared positions in the territory they control in September, which precludes trying to hold any land taken in subsequent offensives in October.

There is no way that Hitler would have allowed the seizure of ground to relinquish it.

Yes. Obviously. But then there is also no way either he, or the rest of the German High Command, would have stopped Typhoon either. They were just too committed to defeating the Soviets ASAP. Trying to appeal to the Hitler-factor neatly torpedos both of our ideas and indeed the entire OP. If this conversation is going to continue forward, we have to accept that we are engaging in hindsight strategizing to begin with.
 
Last edited:
So this more or less boils down to this:

If the Germans stop after pocketing 1 million Soviets at V&B...
W: they can set up defenses and hold the line no problem
O: they can't set up defenses and will get hammered and pushed back to the same degree as OTL

While the truth may be somewhere in between, I'm more inclined to side with the "Germans can hold out" view on this one.

Just my 2 cents.
 

Deleted member 1487

There's mud and then there's the Raputitsa. The former did nothing to hinder German operations.
Given the quality of Russian roads mud really did hinder the Germans and that was nearly going on since the start of Taifun.

The latter set in around October 10th.
Between the 7th-10th depending on the area and that was before the pockets had been closed, which hindered the ability of the Germans to do so and wore them down for the advance after the pockets had been resolved.

Nor did the Raputitsa set in evenly across the entirety of Army Group Center. Some locations experienced much drier weather for a longer period of time then others. Yet the German advance even in these areas was still stalled out at the same time and just as rapidly.
Examples please. 2nd Panzer Army had a lot further to travel and had the most worn out troops in AG-Center, so had the most problems and stalled out before the rest of AG-Center. They are exceptional compared to the rest of the attacking Taifun forces, save for 2nd army, which had also taken part in Kiev and used the same weak logistics net as Guderian's forces.

They were breaking down even before the closure of the pockets:
2nd Panzer sure, but as I said above that was based on specific circumstances that did not apply to other armies of AG-Center. The slow down in advance came as a result of the turn of the weather before the pockets closed.

the rate of advance was one of constant decline on a day-by-day basis while the casualties marched upward.
More importantly because of the weather.

This was almost regardless of the weather conditions.
No, the weather got worse every day of Taifun and the slow down tracks very closely with the weather making every step east that much further. Forczyk and Stahel both describe that.

Both before and after the mud set-in, the Germans were able to make gains... but they were destroying themselves in doing so and had been since September 30th.
They were able to make gains for a time, but it was the weather that slowed them down and wore them out. The mud put the parking brakes on and ground the advance down after resistance collapsed for the most part. Logistics breaking down in the mud did more to slow the advance than Soviet resistance. It wasn't the combat losses that were a problem, their losses on the offensive were FAR less than they were on the defensive in front of Smolensk, which in 'Barbarossa Derailed' Glantz calls the worst period of combat loss to AG-Center from June-December 1941.

German supply state around Rzhev in January 1942 was no better then it had been at Kalinin, the Moscow outskirts, or even Kaluga in December 1941, what changed is that the Soviets had strung themselves out in their own counter-offensive which turned the whole thing into a bog. If the Germans stop at Rzhev, then the only real differense is that is where they get hammered and they are still thrown back about as far as they were from the Moscow outskirts. Typhoon was what strung them and caused them all the difficulties they experienced in terms of both advancing and erecting an effective defense.
Actually it was much better at Rzhev than Kalinin, because trains were actually reaching Rzhev in January, but none had reached Kalinin ever. In fact Rzhev was much closer to German logistics hubs than any area you mentioned and was getting some rail supply, which is why it held, but none of the other places you mentioned was getting rail supply in December. Also the weather in January was better than it was in December. Plus of course with the exception of Kaluga the distance by road to the outskirts of Moscow and Kalinin were logistically unsustainable. Kaluga had to be abandoned only due to flank issues with other German armies; 4th Army stood it's ground against all Soviet frontal attacks.

If the Germans stop at Rzhev they aren't worn out on the advance or lose the men they did during the Soviet counteroffensive trying to hold beyond their logistical sustainment abilities. Nor does the Klin bulge and equipment loss happen. So 9th army can dig in while intact and in an area where they can get rail supply as conversions catch up and the VL-Rzhev rail line is repaired. 3rd Panzer army could hold their flank, which given that it wouldn't be worn out on the road to Kalinin and Moscow in October-December would be in fantastic comparative shape by the time the Soviets can attack that winter. Having two months at least in which to do maintenance work and dig in means they could hold the same line they did historically of the Rzhev salient. I'm surprised you think they'd be thrown back further when they aren't all stretched out in worse logistical situations further east and north over a wider front they couldn't cover; they'd have a much shorter front to hold and be far less worn down and not lose a ton of equipment in Kalinin and at Klin during the retreat back to Rzhev in winter. The problem the Germans had wasn't Taifun as an entire operation, it was the wild advance from October 14th-December 5th; everything up until then was sustainable. Kalinin-Klin-Moscow was too far for them and the Soviets took advantage; without wearing themselves out by the 2nd half of the campaign in the Rasputitsa, as well as holding a much longer frontage come December, they wouldn't be in an overextended position to be crumbled at first blow.

Total nonsense. Some of the worst tactical defeats were inflicted upon the Germans on the road to Moscow that October. The most notable example was near Tula, where a Soviet tank brigade utterly savaged the better part of a German panzer division and effectively stopped Guderian Panzer Army completely for a full week.
Logistics stopped Guderian, not one tank brigade. Mud was far more a factor than anything. Besides one tactical engagement does not a campaign make.

As I said, not all the Soviet forces would be wiped out... mainly those in the first line of defense (which is a pretty substantial heft and represents the bulk of Soviet losses). The rest would have to come later, in 1942, when the reconstituted Wehrmacht is able to resume the offensive.
The only major problem with that is what the Soviets would do over the winter until the German offensive season started. Remember the Soviet forces east of Smolensk dealt AG-Center their worst losses of the campaign when they sat on the defensive in late July-September; leaving them intact and reinforced by the December-January mobilizations of further Soviet forces will mean a rough winter for AG-Center.

The Soviet forces the Germans faced at the beginning of Typhoon were pretty devoid of heavy equipment and represented basically the worst trained personnel the Soviets fielded in the entire war.
You mean other than the forces mobilized in October-January. The Soviet forces at the start of Taifun in front of Moscow had been the ones beating at AG-center and inflicting the worst losses they'd experienced of the campaign to that point. Soviet forces were worn down too of course and weren't what they were in August, but were much more formidable than the Soviet units that attacked in December-January IOTL.

The last of the pre-war standing army had been wiped out at Smolensk and Kiev while the next wave of reservist call-ups, who were getting dibs on the heavy gear, were still forming up and training in the strategic reserve. What the Germans faced at the start of Typhoon mainly constituted little more then hastily assembled militia's. Even many of them were still undergoing basic remedial training when Typhoon started. That even such forces were able to inflict the delays and losses upon the Germans as they did is indicative of how the Germans had rolled past their strategic culmination point.
The pre-war army still existed by December. At Mozhiask the 32nd rifle division was a pre-war formation not yet engaged in the fighting and more came later and fought in the December counteroffensive. By October 1st the Soviet troops East of Smolensk were the last of the pre-war troops yet committed to the fighting and were wiped out in the Vyazma-Bryansk pockets with some exceptions. The vast majority of the heavy equipment available in the field was located with these units, who were better equipped than the attacking forces in December-January. Yes, the newly mobilized troops were getting the freshly produced equipment from evacuated industries now starting production again, but even as late as January 1942 2nd Shock army was no gun sights for their artillery when they attacked along the Volkhov and were well short of TOE, which contributed to their destruction in Spring. The forces in front of Moscow in October were more trained and better equipped than the units that attacked later in December-January, which were hastily mobilized militia without training or the majority of their heavy equipment.

The German rail supply net was in a state of total collapse by the start of October from the strain of just trying to support the start of Typhoon. Then the raputitsa's rains washed out the hastily reconstructed rail-beds and then the freeze set in and German locomotive boilers started to explode due to the cold. Even getting enough fuel to run the supply trucks that ran between the rail stations and the depots was impossible. Adding winter and entrenching gear? Total fantasy. Additionally, the Raputitsa and then the freeze meant the Germans found that they couldn't entrench without specialized equipment they didn't have on hand. Just creating something as basic as foxholes required them to improvise by using artillery shells to blow the holes in the ground. If the Germans want to prepare reasonable winter defensive positions and stock up on supplies, the time to do it is before the weather and distance makes it impossible. They can only construct such things as heated prepared positions in the territory they control in September, which precludes trying to hold any land taken in subsequent offensives in October.
The freeze didn't happen in October. There were washouts in Belarus in September, which were a problem, the muds set in around October 7th along with massive rain, but the logistics didn't really become crippling until toward the end of October. The majority of logistical issues you describe happened either before and after the pocket battles, though mud was increasingly a factor as the pockets were being closed and liquidated. The problems really became massive as they exploited after the pockets were destroyed, yet they still advance over 100 miles to the gates of Moscow. Pretty impressive given all of those problems. The train issue with the freeze happened in December-January BTW, not October or even November. The problem wasn't the start of Taifun, it was the continuation of it after the pocket battles.

It's funny though that you still are arguing for the pocket battles, but then withdrawal...it seems the only issue we really disagree on is falling back after doing the pockets. As to digging in, that would be a problem where ever they settled, because the muds/rain would destroy any entrenchment in October. In November the frost still allowed for entrenchment without extraordinary measures that were required in December-January. Then though the Germans just used TNT to blast entrenchments into the ground. That caused the line to hold even in the extreme circumstances IOTL in January 1942. Mid-October is just fine to start entrenching. After liquidating the pockets they can dig in along defensible chose terrain at their leisure and rail extension didn't take long to get to Vyasma and even Rzhev, which IIRC was converted by November and getting train supply.

Yes. Obviously. But then there is also no way either he, or the rest of the German High Command, would have stopped Typhoon either. They were just too committed to defeating the Soviets ASAP. Trying to appeal to the Hitler-factor neatly torpedos both of our ideas and indeed the entire OP. If this conversation is going to continue forward, we have to accept that we are engaging in hindsight strategizing to begin with.
There is more of a case for stopping after the pocket battles and settling in than doing the pocket battles as you suggest and then retreating. As a POD have Hitler incapacitated or killed in October so someone else opted to cut it off as the muds hit.

So this more or less boils down to this:

If the Germans stop after pocketing 1 million Soviets at V&B...
W: they can set up defenses and hold the line no problem
O: they can't set up defenses and will get hammered and pushed back to the same degree as OTL

While the truth may be somewhere in between, I'm more inclined to side with the "Germans can hold out" view on this one.

Just my 2 cents.
Pretty much read my response above. As it was after the pockets of V-B the Soviets planned to sit on the strategic defensive until they finished mobilizing and preparing in January 1942; it was the German advance to the outskirts of Moscow in December that forced an early counterattack. If the advance is cut off on the 14th or so of October as the muddy season hits the Germans have breathing space to sit still, fortify, pick their defensive lines, and rest/repair/replace until January.


For Robert Forczyk's Osprey campaign book on the Battle of Moscow:
Von Bock claimed that Army Group Centre captured 673,098 prisoners, 1,277 tanks and 4,378 artillery pieces within the Vyazma–Bryansk Pockets, and another 300,000 Soviet troops were killed. Tens of thousands more troops were wounded or scattered to the four winds, leaving the Soviets badly outnumbered on the Moscow axis until reinforcements could arrive. It is certain the Western, Reserve and Bryansk Fronts lost 50–80 per cent of their troops, 97 per cent of their armour and 80 per cent of their artillery in the pocket battles. However, it was significant that eight out of nine Soviet cavalry divisions survived.

Some historians have suggested that the Kessel or pocket battles ‘wore out’ the Wehrmacht in a series of attritional battles but German losses during the battle of the Vyazma Pocket were not excessive. Colonel General Ruoff’s V Corps suffered 743 killed, 2,720 wounded and 88 missing during the period 2–14 October (a loss rate of about 7 per cent). During the same period, V Corps captured 19,882 prisoners, 133 tanks, 322 artillery pieces and six Katyusha multiple rocket launchers. At the conclusion of the Vyazma fighting, V Corps still had almost 80 per cent of its personnel. Furthermore, German equipment losses during the Vyazma fighting were negligible.
Even accounting for German over-claiming, in terms of equipment and manpower the forces destroyed during the V-B pockets were critical to the Germans surviving the winter intact if the Moscow offensive was called off by mid-October. Leaving forces like that untouched was not viable. That said having taken them out the last mobilized Soviet forces in 1941 could simply not replace the losses of V-B effectively, which gives the Germans the ability to handle any Soviet offensives if they stop short and spend half of October and all of November and perhaps all of December on the defensive and preparing for Soviet attacks. At no period of the 1941 campaign did the Germans ever have that long to sit unmolested on the defensive, which is hugely important to being able to prepare for the freeze and Soviet winter offensive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top