Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Moscow the impossible dream

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe October 1939 to February 1943' started by steverodgers801, Aug 10, 2011.

  1. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Unless the Soviets just collapsed the capture of Moscow in 1941 was all but impossible. Because of logistical constraints the Germans could not have strted until September, there was a full front that the Germans would have to deal with first and the average time for that is about one month. This means the Germans would not be ready to attack until the mud came. So it will be November before an attack is possible. This puts the Germans in a dilemma, go for a frontal assault and the resulting casualties or send the tank units around to the others side in an encirclement. Since Moscow is so big the Germans would be over stretched trying to maintain the encirclement leaving them vulnerable to counter attacks. Due to German lack of trucks, either the trucks can be used for supply or to carry troops. According the to army historical study of the German campaign, the Germans were at apx 35% of their TOE for trucks. So either way the Germans will have to fight in appalling winter conditions,their troops strung out in an encirclement or battered from a costly assault.
     
  2. marc780

    marc780 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    55
    There would have been much for the Germans to have gained by encircling Moscow, the sooner in in 1941 they did it the better. Actually surrounding Moscow would have probably been more strategically sound then attemping to capture it in 1941.

    Moscow was basically saved due to Stalin's order to release several divisions of Soviet troops from Manchura/Siberia to reinforce the battered Red army troops already defending Moscow. (He did this on the advice of the master spy Richard Sorge, that the Japanese on the Russian's eastern frontier were NOT going to attack there to help the Germans, but that's another story).

    Had the Germans surrounded Moscow, they may have been able to intercept and destroy, or at least slow down, the Siberian divisions before they got near Moscow. The Red Army was in a state of semi-controlled chaos - in leadership, training, logistics and just about every other thing - through all of 1941 and much of 1942 - and a Siege of Moscow would have made Stalin's strategic position much more difficult (but not impossible).

    The subsequent capture of Moscow could have taken place early in 1942. Moscow was a critically important communications, rail, and manufacturing center and it's capture by the Germans would have been a huge political and strategic victory for the Germans. But while it would have been a huge blow to the Russians it would not necessarily have been a fatal one.

    Even if Moscow fell to the German armies, as most of the world thought it would, Stalin had plans to simply relocate his command further east - and that is what he would have done. So long as the Red Army were able to continue fighting, the capture of Moscow would not have caused Stalin to surrender in any event. The Russians had many other manufacturing centers available, because as soon as the Germans invaded, they actually dismantled and moved every factory they could, by rail, as far east as they could from the path of the German armies. This was a massive task but the Russians did it nevertheless, and as a result many Russian factories were hundreds of miles out of range of any German bombers or any German advance.

    With the benefit of hindsight, it seems that Heinz Guderian (German tank genius) had the only feasible plan. Like many other German Generals, he opposed Barbarossa. But once he learned there was to be no changing Hitler's mind about it, he proposed a unique plan of his own. The only way to victory, Guderian urged, was simply to unleash the Panzers east and have them keep going! Smashing all resistance before them as they had done in France and Poland, in conjunction with bomber and artillery attacks and infantry in trucks or APC's, the Panzers would encircle and destroy the Red army division by division.

    Broken or damaged tanks would be left behind, to be fixed by trailing repair crews. New tanks would be brought up by rail as the Germans advanced. The Panzers themselves would have to be supplied fuel, ammunition etc. by air drop!
    His radical plan was rejected, of course, but Guderian insisted this was the only strategy to achieve victory in Russia. Guderian knew the only way to victory against the Red Army was not to seize territory - as Russia was, and is so vast a hundred or a thousand miles of territory seized is of little consequence - but to destroy the Red Army itself until it was incapable of fighting. With German forces deep in their rear, holding every major fuel refinery, marshalling yard, and manufacturing plant, and in place to cut off all reinforcement and all Russian lines of communication, the Red army, in a state of complete disarray, would have been killed or captured piece meal, army after army.
    Unfortunately, we will never know if Guderian was right or not!
     
    Hans Rudel likes this.
  3. daft

    daft Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    marc780,

    I'm not sure how feasible that would have been. Tanks van't run on air unfortunately, and I don't think the Luftwaffe would have been able to supply the forward units with enough fuel to keep going. The Germans inflicted horrendous losses and kept a brisk pace, yet they continually ran into issues with logistics and unsupported armour moving too far ahead of the infantry. The foot soldiers were still required to contain and reduce the pockets of enemy units left behind by the Panzer. I struggle to see how they could have moved much faster and avoided increases in the issues they ran into historically. But as you say, we'll never know for sure. :)
     
  4. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Sorry,but most of these things are myths
    1) the role of Sorge is a fable
    2)most of the Far East divisions were already sent to the front in the summer
    3)their role in the autumn and the winter was not very important :they constituted 10 % of the forces defending Moscow.
    4)the Red Army was not in a state of chaos (controlled oe not) in 1941 and 1942
    5) about Guderian :as a lot of his proposals,this was wishfull thinking:while the only possibility to defeat the SU was to defeat the Red Army,this had to happen
    a)at the border
    b) in the summer
    well the Germans failed to do this .
    Result :it was over at the end of august .
    Supplying the PzD by air drop is a stupid thing one should not expect from a leading general .
    There was no way Moscow could be captured after september,and,absolutely not early 1942.
    The Germans failed not because they were to slow,not because of logistics,but,because the Red Army was to strong .This is proved by the figures:in 1941,the Germans committed 3.6 million men in Barbarossa,the Soviets 9 million .Every day the Soviets became stronger and the Germans weaker.On 22 june,there was equality in number :2.7 million men on both sides,when the Soviet counteroffensive started (5 december),there were less than 2.7 million Germans facing more than 4 million Soviets .
     
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Surrounding Moscow was one of the steps the Germans planed in taking it was it not? In any case surrounding Moscow would have meant a considerable lengthening of the German lines as they would have had both interior and exterior lines to defend.
    That's rather overstating the case IMO. The German logistical problems slowed them down which bought time for the Red Army to reorganize and abosrb new troops. Saying any one factor was "THE" reason is flawed.
     
  6. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    No,it is not,because your argument implies that without logistical problems,the Germans would not be slowed down and the Red Army would have no time to reorganize .And,I know some goose-stepping person who will claim that without the logistical problems (caused,of course by the stupid Hitler),Guderian would have captured Moscow ,this is starting from the POV that the Germans were intrinsically superior,and that their failure was caused by Hitler,the weather,and blahblah .
    In october 1941,Guderian's PG had only 35 % of operational tanks,but,this is not the reason why he failed,if he had 100 % operational tanks,he still would fail .
    Of course,the Germans had supply problems,but so did the Soviets:in june,the Russian operational forces had some 15000 tanks (of which 1500 T34),and in december,2000 (of which 320)
    The germans (and ,yes,even Hitler) were realistic:they knew that they could commit (till september) 3.2 million men,these could (and had to) defeat the same number of Russians,because,if the war was not won on 1 september,it was very unlikely that he could be won ,after september,the Russian mobilization would start.
    The only chance for the Germans to win,was to be able to attack with 5 million men,7000 tanks and aircraft,but this was impossible .
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    No it doesn't. It does suggest that the Germans might not have been slowed down enough and that the Red army may not have had enough time to reorganize. The August halt was certainly for logistical reasons for example and my impression anyway is that the Germans were slowed somewhat even before that by logistical constraints.
    It's going to take more than that to strongly support your position. For one thing while the Soviets may have had some logisitcal problems they still had working railroads from their factoreis to the front.
    Without some fact and logic that stands as one persons opinion, worth every penny I paid for it ....
     
  8. Fury 1991

    Fury 1991 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    45
  9. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Well,it is wrong to argue in tems of advance,of advance that was slowed down because of logistics .The German plan was to elminate the Red Army in a very short time at the border,the result would be the collaps of the SU,and "all" the Germans would have to do was to advance (before the winter) to the Wolga .
    The august halt was planned,and would be of no importance,because at that moment ,the war would be won .In fact,in august,the Germans were where they expected to be ,but,what was important,is that in august,the Red Army was not eliminated (it was numerically stronger than in june,and was counterattacking)and the SU had not collapsed .
    About logistic problems,maybe you have another definition,but mine is :the difference between what was produced in Germany (men,material) and what was arriving at the front;while that was considerable,it was irrelevant compared to what the SU was sending to the front:1 million men per month.
    The whole thing of logistical problems is,IMHO,only an attempt from the front generals (Guderian,a.o.)and from their to-day's goose-stepping admirers to shift "the blame" for the failure of Barbarossa to some unknown person in the supply channell between the Ruhr and the front-line,while the truth is simple,very simple,:if there has to be a" culprit "for the failure of Barbarossa :it is the Red Army .
    Success or failure of Barbarossa did not depend on German logistic problems,not on the weather,not on an other strategy,not on the decisions of Hitler,it depended onwhat the SU could and would do.
    It depended on the willingness of the SU to accept the battle on the border:if the SU did not and was retreating,Barbarossa already had failed in the beginning
    It also depended on the capacity of the SU to mobilize:the SU was potentially stronger,much stronger:if the SU was able to mobilize quicly,very quickly and to commit its superior resources very quickly to the battle,the Germans had no chance .
    My last point :I thought this was obvious :the Germans were not strong enough in june 1941 (and this is no logistic problem):for the first 3 months,they only could commit 3.2 million men and 4000 tanks .This was not enough to eliminate the SU,their only chance was to attack with much stronger forces,and even then it would be very doubtful:the SU was committing 9 million men in 1941,how much men would the Germans need to defeat these 9 million ?5 million? 6 million ?
    But ,of course,this is irrelevant,because ,in june ,the Germans committed all what was available,and,it was not enough .All the Germans could do was hoping that the opponent was weaker than was to be expected ,but ,very soon,they were faced by reality(see the famous quotes in Halder's diary).
     
  10. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    No:the title is wrong,because,this was not what Zhukow was saying :he said that in october ,it was dubious that the frontline before Moscow could be held,what not means that the Germans could capture Moscow,what not means that the SU would loose the war .And,I suspect Zhukow to aggrandize the peril:the greater the peril,the greater his role as saviour .
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Is it? I don't see why?\
    Irrelevant. There's an old saying, "No plan survives contact with the enemy." The fact that the German plan did't work doesn't mean they couldn't have still won.
    But if the Germans had been able to push on in August how much more could the Soviet Union have taken?
    Indeed we have a different definition. In this case the German logistics problems were not having enough fuel, ammo, spare parts, and replacements at the front. It doesn't start at the factory it starts with the planning of what to build when.
    That is a rather derogatory way to characterise those who disagree with you while working a strawman into the arguement. The logistics problems that Germany experianced were due in large part to a flawed plan. The Generals must shoulder a good portion of the blame in this.
    Another old saying: "For every complex question there is a simple answer ... which is wrong."
    Not completely no but in part yes.
    IMO this is a gross simplification.
    But the Germans could and did have considerable impact on this. If they advance faster and further they have even more impact.
    Isn't it? They couldn't support the force they had adequately. How can they equip, train, and support a larger force?

    A minor aside. In English a space usually does not proceed punctiation but follows it. Traditionally two follow a period but that is often ignored now adays. Your posts will be more readable if you conform to the standards (just as mine would be more readable if I didn't make as many typo's or spelling errors).
     
  12. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    I don't see why you are refusing to see it. On the East front, the gaining or losing of ground, advancing or retreating had as such not much importance (as in NA), what was important was to eliminate the opponent, if that happened, gaining of ground would follow automatically.Arguing in terms of advance, is putting the cart before the horses .
    The fact that the German plan did not work, meaned that it was over: there was no plan B possible : As Barbarossa stated: the mass of the Russian army, situated in the West of Russia, must be destroyed.......the withdrawal of parts with fighting- value in the width of the Russian space must be prevented .
    That means that the Germans were staking everything on the summerbattles on the border: if the war was not won before september by the collaps of the SU, it could not be won. The longer the war, the stronger the SU became and the weaker Germany .
    Your second question is, IMHO,wrong : it is not a question of the Germans being able to push in august, the question is that the Red Army had to be eliminated before the end of august, so that a German advance to the Wolga, before the winter, could be possible .
    It is not a question if the plan was a good one, the point is that it was the only plan with a chance of success, the (not decisive) logistic problems were not due to a flawed plan, the plan was adjusted to the German possibilities .
    The fact is, that in contrast with the Allied advance in Western Europe in 1944 which stalled because of logistic problems, there was no moment in 1941 on which the Red Army collapsed:never the Germans had free field , and this caused the failure of Barbarossa .
     
  13. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Because it's not there.
    But gaining ground helps in the destruction of the opposing army and decreases his ability to regenerate forces. You can't seperate the two with any validity.
    That's your assumption and hardly a well supported one. What would have happened if say the Germans had secured a line along the Volga in the South, taken Leningrad, and invested Moscow at the end of September? Would the Soviets have been able to regenerate at the rate they did historically? Would they have even held together?
    How can a question be wrong?
    The Red Army didn't need to be eliminated to allow that. The Red Army didn't prevent the Germans from advancing even further in June and July.
     
    DerGiLLster likes this.
  14. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    Gaining ground ( thus advancing) results always in the exhaustion of the attacker, unless the defender is eliminated before the advance : the Allies could advance to the German border because the Germans were defeated in Normandy . The Germans were not defeated by a big allied advance, but in a war of attrition.
    About the situation of end september, IMHO this again a wrong question : the question should be:could the Germans at the end of september still advance and reach the A-A line before the winter ?The fact is that the Germans could not afford big fighting after august:they had to win before september .My assumption is that as long the A-A line was not reached (and there is 800 km between Moscow and Kazan) the SU would continue the war .
    During Barbarossa,the only way to destroy the enemy was to destroy his army,not by big advances : these could not prevent the SU of regenerating its forces, unless the Ural was captured and this only could happen if ....the Russian forces were destroyed (remember the chart before the horses)
     
  15. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    About the strawman: as I was not naming anyone, I don't know why you feel mentioned .
    The fact is that after the war, some German generals were telling that the Red Army was no good (only a bunch of primitive barbarians, fighting with one rifle for three men), when someone was asking why these primitive barbarians were parading at Berlin,the defense lines (=excuses) were the following
    a) a stupid civilian who was meddling and spoiling the german chances, of course, the Western military (who were disliking civilians ) confirmed this approvingly (this argument always could be used against some civilians in Washington)
    b) it was the weather : you know, the argument that there only was snow on the German side.
    c)it was logistics :blaming Krupp or the director of the German railways, and of course, the US military, convinced that they had invented logistics, confirmed this approvingly : it was not because the Krauts had become allies, that they could think they were the equals of the US
    .d)the classic one : treason : the plans for Barbarossa were betrayed,idem for the plans for Citadelle .An extra advantage of d was if one could "prove" that the traitor was some f....g civilian,as Gehlen was doing in his memoires,accusing Borman of being the traitor .
    But,whatever,all this is not limited to the Germans:
    after the French were defeated in 1940,Gamelin accused everyone:the British (of course),the Belgians,the civilians (of course),the other generals,his soldiers .
    after the failure of Market Garden : the culprits were Eisenhower,Montgomery,the airborne generals,the ground troops,and,the classic one :a Dutch traitor.


    and,I remember the accusations after the Vietnam desaster.
    I bet,we will have some accusations about Iraq and Afghanistan .
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    ???? When was the defender ever eliminated before the advance?
    You are saying loss of resources and manufacturing much less defendable terrain had nothing to do with it? In most of the battles in Europe with heavy losses on one side the losses occured after the defence was unhinged and the attacker advanced and either over ran or pocketed the retreating defendcers.
    But the only way to destroy the army was through large advances.
    How much of the Soviet population was behind the Urals? How much of their resources and manufacturing? If the Germans come close to even reaching the Urals I don't see the Red army surviving.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    It doesn't matter whether on not you named anyone createing a strawman is at best a fallacious form of arguement at worst it's dishonest.
    That may be but it is irrelevant to our discussion.
    Again a strawnman and irrelevant.
    If there was a logistics problem (and there was) it wasn't the fult of Krupp or the director of the GErman railways and the US had nothing to do with it ... more strawmen.
    Again an issue that is irrelevant to the current discussion. As is the rest of your rant.
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    "that may be" :wrong, that's a fact, and it is not irrelevant, as treason, weather, Hitler, logistics , only were excuses to explain the German defeat, and to shift the blame from the shoulders of the frontgenerals .
    But, as I was expected,your answer is only avoiding the question .
     
  19. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    When was the defender eliminated before the advance ? In Normandy
    In Normandy, the defender was not eliminated by large advances .When the Allies advanced from Paris to the German border,they only were doing a mop up of the defeated Germans .
    In the SU, the defender was not eliminated by large advances :the Germans advanced till Moscow, but the Red Army was not eliminated .
    In NA, the Germans twice advanced some 1500 km, without destroing the British Army .
    And, in Bagration, the Soviets advanced some 800 km, without being able to destroy the Ostheer .On 31 may, AGC had 136 Pz and 548 StuG, on 15 september, 713 pz and 796 StuG.
     
  20. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    No more than the Red Army was eliminated during the opening days of Barbarrosa.
    Said mop ups acounted for an awful lot of German equipment and POWs.
    But huge numbers of Soviet troops were. Likewise the Heer was not destroyed at the time of the breakout from Normandy or at Kursk for that matter.

    In summary your position is illogical and one sided.
     

Share This Page