The Battle of Moscow is not really brought up when I talk to people. people I talk to talk about leningrad and Stalingrad, but why not Moscow? The Germans came so close of taking Moscow and probably ending the war. The German soldiers were able to see the city from binoculars. The Germans were held off by relentless Russian hordes of soldiers (Russians lost around a million men).

This thread was started to share inf and pictures on the Battle of Moscow. Please commitment.



Franz

__________________
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it." Erwin Rommel
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. " George S. Patton
http://wwii-info.net/

Hi;
The author Michael K Jones ("Leningrad" and "Stalingrad") is currently working on a book about Moscow 1941; Amazon.com: Michael K. Jones "Mik...'s review of Moscow 1941: Hitler's First Defeat (Campaign) ; and it might shed some new light. Comparisons are indeed odious but I would rate the Moscow Battle as the most important of the war for the simple reason that it was the first repulse of German land might. Up until that point the German track record was one of unbroken victories, at least in the land arena.
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

As it is usually the victorious countries that postwar tell about the battles, Moscow was a great victory with counterattacks, but Stalingrad was a marvellous victory for them. And Kursk. And Bagration. And Leningrad in 1944.

__________________

kursk,one of the biggest tank battles of ww2,if not the greatest tank battle of ww2!!

__________________
ray w.

The Germans were down to some 40 or 50 odd clapped out Tanks which froze up due to the wrong engine lubication...very little winter clothing facing a million Russian troops ready to die to defend Moscow. There has alway been this on going case about staying on track and not dealing with the Kiev pocket. I think Hitler's order not one step back after the Russians attacked helped to stabilize the line but at a cost.

Barbarossa was flawed right from the start. Hitler said if he did not crush Russia in six months the war was lost...one of his few remarks that was right.

__________________

My Silent Hunter 3 U-Boats Skins to Download.
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gaming/32642-my-u-boat-skins-d-l.html
Small selction of My SH3/4 Mods
http://www.ww2f.com/simulations-gami...-sh4-mods.html

I think a lot of people are confusing operation Typhoon(with as aim to destroy the last Soviet reserves not to capture Moscow) and the Russian winteroffensive (with as aim to repel the Germans to their startline ) ;both of them failed :the Germans end november and the Russians in the winter. What is called "the Battle of Moscow "(an unfotunate expression -there was no battle for Moscow as there was for Leningrad and Stalingrad )happened in october and november 1941 . The importance of 'the Battle of Moscow ' was greater than the two other ones:if the Germans had captured Leningrad,would the USSR have collapsed ? Would the USSR had collapsed after the fall of Stalingrad ?But the fall of Moscow could only have happened,after the last Soviet reserves (following the Germans )had been destroyed . Would that had been enough for a German victory ? Personally,I am sceptical .

to answer the original question:why is Stalingrad better known ? Because1)the general public is always fascinated by "decisive" battles and the pub lic-not reading any book about strategy and tactics-is taking his knowledge from films and the films have as topics Gettysburg,Midway .....and not the blockade of the South by the US navy,nor the submarine war against the Japanese oil transports 2)a film about an encircled army is making big money:films about Bastogne,not about the battle of St.Vith,which was more important .etc

(This is regarding the question)
That very true all, but you got to remember that Moscow was a communication hub and the capital of the country. If Germans took Moscow that would have been major victory. They could have probably captured Stalin in taken Moscow. Then after taken Moscow and securing that part of the front it would have freed up tank and troops to take Leningrad. Stalingrad was not real significant target need to be captured.

(Some people I have talked to, which i agree with them, that if the Germans invaded a few weeks earlier the German would most likely took Moscow before the winter and maybe Leningrad by winter.)

Very good replies thanks, please counter if you would like to or answer the thread.

Franz

__________________
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it." Erwin Rommel
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. " George S. Patton
http://wwii-info.net/

I think the biggest chance(maybe the only) the Germans had to knock-out the Soviet Union,was before september 1941,after september they had a small one,if the result of Typhoon was the collapse of the SU ,it was their last chance(a very small one) .After that,there was no possibility to eliminate te SU,all they could obtain with Fall Blau was a compromise peace with Stalin. And even that ? People are always overestimating the impiortance of oil for the war in Russia:coal was more important:without coal no railways. The Red Army had even in 1945 more horses than trucks and I doubt that the Wehrmacht was much more motorised in the East . And for Kursk:all the Germans could hope obtain was a postponement of the Russian summer offensive for 2,3, ? months .Thus in order of importance 1 Battle of Moscow 2+3 Leningrad and Stalingrad (who had little importance )

I agree about the importance of Moscow, but 'Stalingrad' has a great hold on the popular consciousness today thanks in part to commercially-succcessful movies and books ( mainly 'Enemy At The Gates' and Beevor in the UK ). As has been pointed out above, the total, crushing defeat inflicted on the doomed German 6th Army will always exert a powerful fascination.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

The siege of Tobruk and Crusader are possibly the first German land defeat though only part of the axis force was German.
Don't really know why Moscow is less popular than Stalingrad and Koursk, I have read possibly a dozen books on Stalingrad but only Seaton's The Battle for Moscow. It's doubtful if the loss of Moscow would have brought about a Soviet collapse, Stalin and his cronies were litterally fighting for their lives and would never surrender, but it was the real turning point of the war in the East and possibly of the whole war, after 1941 the German Army never came close to it's original fighting power as the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of it lost most of their offensive capability.

Michael K. Jones in his Stalingad book takes the view that battle was closer than German accounts, with the usual "soviet hordes", usually admit so he may come up with something interesting. IMO Typhoon was a gamble with half exausted men and worn out equipment, it would be very interesting to see how it was perceived from the Soviet side, the Soviet winter counter offensive proved the Soviet army was not beaten despite the huge 1941 losses, and is even less known than Typhoon.

Four words: Turning point.

__________________


Easily the most overpowered tank in history. Seriously - dual 280mm cannons?! It's not like the Allies had a tank with 200mm of armor!

Many of Hitler's Generals urged him to drive on Moscow right from the start of Barbarossa, but Hitler was oddly cautious about doing that. The spectre of Napolean's disastrous flight from Moscow over a hundred years before haunted him and in 1941, he always delayed the drive on Moscow until it was too late to succeed.

Capturing Moscow would probably NOT have ended the war as Stalin would simply have moved his headquarters east. Moscow was a vital communications center, manufacturing city and rail hub but the Russians could still have fought on without it.

By the time Hitler finally threw his panzer armies at Moscow, the German troops were utterly exhausted, supplies of fuel, ammo, tanks, and parts were low, and the arctic Russian winter had set in. Moreoever Stalin had recalled the red army reserves from Manchuria and promptly threw in these half million or so fresh troops into the battle. Under these conditions no army could have succeeded in taking Moscow and it was everything the Germany army could do to avoid collapse themselves, that winter.

Yes, Moscow was the center and a huge target, capturing Moscow however, would not have ended the war. The Germans would have never captured Stalin as he had a special train waiting for him in case all was lost. Not at all sure about the extra troops.... Germans and her allies lost over 800,000 trying to capture Stalingrad and failed. How many troops do you think Germany might have lost trying to capture the worlds most fortified city which was also 4 times the size of Stalingrad? The fact that most of the city was also booby trapped didnt help NAZI cause.

For 3 years Germany tried everything to capture Leningrad. What else could Germany have done?


Oh and welcome.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Slon;
The Nogorski account; The greatest battle: Stalin, Hitler ... - Google Books

The Soviet Military was in a shambles that Fall of 1941-but fortunately so too were the Axis spearheads. IF Hitler would have gotten an earlier start could have he have taken Moscow? Would the seizure of the Soviet railheads have paralized the Soviet transport network? I am guessing yes on both counts. For certain the war would have gone on but the Soviets would have been operating in a much diminished capacity.
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

If you ask me the Battle of Stalingrad was a lot more decisive than the Battle of Moscow. If the Germans had won the Battle of Stalingrad then they could've encircled the capital and that would corner the Russians. But, Hitler timed it at the wrong time. For me it's;

Stalingrad
Leningrad
Moscow

Hi C
Can I ask if you know if the Germans captured any Red Army soldiers during Moscow?
A statement in my Polish grandads army record stated that he was conscripted to the Red Army in 1940 until Dec 15th 1941...on Dec 16th 1941 he has stated he was fighting under the German Army just one day later.
Around this time the only battle I can find is battle of Moscow.
Thanks.

Natalie;
700,000 Red Army soldiers were captured during the Moscow battles. !941 was a year of unmitigated disaster for the Red Army. Your Grandfather was lucky to have survived.
Moscow 1941: A City and Its People at War

__________________

Hm..I am a littlt surprised by your figur;I have the following figures of Soviet POW
01-11 :3691687
O1-12:3870921
01-01-42:3918148
O1-10:279O098
Of-course,all depends when you let start the Battle of Moscow Cheers

LJ;
Your numbers might be correct-or possibly not. The numbers on the German/Russian war vary wildly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
JeffinMNUSA

__________________

Im having a hard time reading these numbers.... Whats the last date?

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Because it was not some great clash of arms like Stalingrad. Instead, the Battle for Moscow started with a last gasp whimper and ended the same way.
That is as the Germans approached Moscow they were quickly running out of steam. The final pushes to try and get to the city consisted of little more than company and battalion sized light "flying columns" that could never have taken the city. With that both sides started to dig in for winter.
The Soviets then reinforced their positions much faster than the Germans who were working off a single badly repaired rail line and heavily dependent on trucks. In the dead of the Russian winter the German supply system broke down and their troops were now undersupplied, undermanned from losses, exposed to the winter without proper clothing and equipment and otherwise just worn out. The Soviets counterattacked into the thin German lines that quickly gave way to the initial assaults but not before inflicting serious casualties on the Soviets.
The Germans then in a frenzied effort reinforced AGC piecemeal to save the day. Both sides took grevious casualties from the fighting and the weather. After a month or so of fighting the Soviets had shot their wad and the Germans were still worn out and understrength too. Both sides gave it a rest and so ended the Battle of Moscow.

Sorry,I forgot the first one and then placed him last :will give them again,because I was using the European method:first day and then month
1 october:2790098
1november:3691687
1 december:3870921
1january 42:3918148
The figures are from Va-Banque with as source:BA-MA,III 805 / 5-7

Gotcha, thanks.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I do not think they tried to capture the city. The cost would have been to high.

Hitler ordered the city encircled and starved.