Battle of Moscow is not really talked about, But yet Stalingrad is more talked about. Why?

I have read one of the articles that you indicated. The 5.4 million casualties numbers are right since they fit with the replacements numbers and the numbers in the front for several time periods. I wonder if the soviets had casualties statistics with the same degree of precision.

 

There are quarterly figures given by Krivosheev ,but for 1941 they are probably to low,given the chaotic situatio .

 

Well we have at the end of 1944 some 2 million dead and missing and 3.4 million wounded ;for 1945 there is nothing reliable;I have seen for 20 april 1945 a document of the army chief surgeon,but due to the breakdown of communications at that time,I am very doubting that it is reliable .
For the 2 million dead and missing,the problem is that there are no figures for POW,so whe can only guess .How many missing were dead and how many KIA ? We will never known .And how many POW died in capture ? The difficulty is the greatest for the casualties of Bagration (400000 ) .
If you want a guess (probably wrong ):at the end of 1944 :1.5 million death and 0.5 million POW ;btw :the figures do not include Luftwaffe losses nor the dead from sickness.
Cheers

 

guaporense, its moscow! they could not surround and capture.
1. the men, the soldiers were exhausted, ever seen the pics of germans sleeping on the most odd objects, bikes, trucks, on top of each other with all equipment still attached (i can imagine not very comfortable, but if yer that tired you'll sleep anywhere)

2. supply lines, how on earth could they supply germans wanting to keep constant siege, im sue they just managed to supply german units around leningrad but could you imagine trying to supply 2 armies sieging cities of equal importance + supply other german units on the outside ring when they would be under constant desperate attacks from russkis on the outside.

3.the russian airforce would probably steel itself and try and supply the city (hey the germans tried with stalingrad whos to say the russians wouldnt either?) and i suppose the luftwaffe would be stretched to interfere with the flights.

so in conclusion i think moscow would hold out until its people die to the last stand.

 

Have you read what I wrote before about the: "if the germans had the capability to..."?

Like, if in 1942 they attacked moscow instead of going for the oil.

They were under constant desperate attacks from the russkis during the entire fuking war! Even at the first weeks of barbarossa the russkis made several strategic offensives that were easily destroyed (the germans in fact didn't even notice them). Only in 1943 that the russians had some serious offensive power.

Lets see. Let us assume that the germans surround moscow in november 1941 (assuming that they had 25 extra divisions or something like that compared to historical events), with the destruction of most of its airforce the russians would try to supply a city of 5 million by air? Well, they would fail.

Why? All enveloped russian cities and armies didn't hold to the last stand! They were surrounded and gave up.

 

By this time such a feat was no longer possible.

If I were you, I would refrain from using such language before finding yourself in the cooler.

In the first 6 months of the offensive the Wehrmacht suffered 800,000 casualties in the east due to "Ivans" futile efforts to hold back the invader. I very much doubt that these casualties went "without being noticed". Guderian seemed to notice this as well, as he commented on several unsuccessful Soviet counter offenses in which Soviet armor attacked his flanks while infantry in the front. Witnessing this he quickly wrote in his journal: "They are learning". Countless of other German officers also commented on how ferociously the "Ivan" fought even when surrounded and all seemed lost.

While millions of Red Army soldiers did surrender, more surrendered in 41' than in all following years put together.

Because Moscow was unlike any other Russian city. The city itself was actually expected to fall. For this reason hundreds of govt. building were booby trapped and partisan units were created for harassing the enemy when the city fell. The Germans might have captured the city, but with the casualties sustained in doing so, would have never been able to hold it.

 

More difficult but not impossible. Nothing is "impossible". Taking Moscow in September 1941 would be easy. In December 1941 would be harder. In Summer 1942 it would be even harder.

Just give army group center 100 divisions. It would have been bloody, difficult and painful for the wehrmacht. But I think that the benefits of capturing that city would have been immense to the war effort.

All right. I am sorry for the words I used.

They noticed that they were fighting, but they didn't notice that the soviets had ordered strategic offensives to their troops.

Yes. Because in 1941 the germans advanced more than in all following years put together.

Maybe, maybe not. The germans were able to sustain a few millions of causalities in the eastern front before losing the initiative.

 

Yea roads made unusable by mud makes everything easier...Moscow isn't three times larger than Stalingrad or anything...

Yep, no logistical problem there...

No, because the Soviets hadn't developed a strategic retreat at that point

Cities rigged with bombs and infested with guerrilla forces are always a great help...

 

This is Russian Federal highway Moscow city nowadays.



Now imagine 100 German horse drawn divisions 65 years ago during the September rains...

Easy you say?

Had the Germans entered the city, certain building would immediately be visited by the highest of command. The Balshoi theater, the famous Moscow Hotel and many government buildings, these buildings however were all booby trapped. Benefits to the war efforts would in fact be immense, just imagine Von Bock along with Otto Skorzney watching a show in the Balshoi theater when all of a sudden....

 

our national jumbo has a great sense of humor. Dawai!

 

If one is interested in the problems for AGC to reach Moscow,one could consult AHF :The War in Eastern Europe :The Case Against Moscow .
In june 1941 the Germans choosed a broad front strategy,because there was no possibility to supply an AGC strong enough to reach Moscow .
In 1944 Eisenhower choosed a broad front strategy,because there was no possibility to supply an 21 st AG that was strong enough to reach the Ruhr.
To give AGC 100 divisions would mean 20 for AGN and 20 for AG S .

 

just give them 100 divions....HAVE YOU GONE INSANE, WHERE ON EARTH CAN GERMANY RAISE 100 EXTRA DIVIONS????. what are they gonna go down to KFC and say, "id like 100 divsions please, 50 infantry, 25 panzergrenadiers, 15 panzer and 10 various assortments divisions + all the logistical supplies on the side aswell

germany only had 154 divisions, and that was stretched how can they get an extra 100?
and if they had an extra 100 quality divions of various types (logistics allowing).....they would have won the war...against russia at least.

 

Does that guy have pants on?

 

Like I keep saying: What the Germans needed in Russia wasn't a better panzer it was a CAT D9 bulldozer.....

 

I don't think the Germans had a realistic chance to capture Moscow except during the winter of 1941. They could not launch Barbarossa any earlier than 22 June 1941 because the meteorological conditions in May was horrible. Too much rain and too much mud.

The Germans could not take Moscow in 1942 either. If they tried, they would have found themselves drawn to a slugfest with the bulk of Soviet strategic reserves as Stalin was convinced that the Germans were going to strike Moscow once more. Army Group South found such easy going during Blau partly because they were again attacking a weak point in Soviet defense.

For the actual Battle for Moscow as it happened in history, the Germans could not win. Guderian's Panzer Group had one battalion's worth of tanks left and it was the strongest tank formation in the Ost Heer.

Even if they captured Moscow, they would just have a more severely extenuated supply line. The Siberian divisions were ready, and the weather was even colder.

 

Sloniksp,

Great picture! A friend swore that his relative who was traveling by the trans-Siberian had to cover 100km by a GAZ jeep through a swamp because for some reason that section of the railroad was closed. And the mosquitoes!

 

He probably did but they most likely got stuck in the mud.

It can get a little....

 

Speeking the truth in russian schools this is teaching like this :

the first very important moment of the Great Patriotic War is the Battle of Moscow cuz it was the first time during the whole WWII when germans were stoped and then kicked back, so the whole world was abble to see, that german army and Third reich aren't invincible, and the myth about their invincibility was demystifyed;

the second moment which became the turning point of war was the Battle of Stalingrad, cuz after it Red Army had never falled back till the end of war and was always going forward to Berlin.

So most of russians suggested like this and the meaning of this great victory is no doubt for us.

 

I sense no sarcasm here. lol

 

And the Germans won the Battle of Britain following that victory with a successful invasion....?

Whereas I see the turning point in the East as Kursk. That is the last time the Germans were able to mount a strategic offensive with the objective of breaking the Soviet line and crumbling their army in the field. Moscow? Nah. Quite frankly the only thing that saved the Soviets there was the ineptness of the Germans at logistics and engineering. Stalingrad? Major hurt put on the Germans but they recovered for another go.

I remember reading Admiral Gorshkov's version from the Soviet Union days of turning points in WW 2. For the Pacific War it was Stalingrad. You can't make stuff like that up! His argument was that because the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad the Japanese knew for sure that Germany was doomed to defeat and that they would eventually now face the Soviet Union as an opponet and lose their war too(!). How's that for a stretch of logic.....