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

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

 

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.

 

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

Hitler ordered the city encircled and starved.

 

Jeff,

Moscow is not the only railroad hub the Soviets had. It was important but it was one among many and its lost could be replaced by cities further east. To give quietus to Soviet resistance, the Wehrmacht must take or threaten all cities on the Leningrad-Mascow-Stalingrad-Rastov line. If the Germans have only Moscow, they would still face a Soviet industry relocated in the east and would fight the Soviet winter counterattack in Siberia.

 

Why was Stalingrad seen as the turning point but Moscow was not?

Because although Moscow was, in retrospect, one of the most momentus moments in WWII, this was not apparent at the time. But Stalingrad was one of those battles that, while one combatant suffered a sharp setback but not damaged beyond recovery, the belligerants nevertheless see it as a decisive, turning moment because it presaged things to come.

In Moscow, the Russians defeated a worn down force with raw strength. In Stalingrad, the Russians used superlative mobile tactics, killed a field army, and nearly succeeded in cutting off an entire Army Group. It was a triumph, and both the Germans and Russians saw that the tide of war had changed.

 

Initially Hitler did want the city encircled, but when it became apparent that the Red Army was going to put up a stiff fight their objective changed to the destruction of the Soviet forces within and provide security for the central frount attack on Moscow... IIRC.

 

Trip;
The fall of Moscow would have been a blow. Could Novgorod have filled in as the rail hub of the Soviet war effort? Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Russia_Rail_Map.png Probably after a time... But the Soviet war effort would have been seriously comprimised by the capture of it's transport heart. What the political ramifications might have been are rather unknowable but I for one cannot see the Rus doing anything but soldiering grimly on. Here is a fictionalization about the possible repercussions; http://www.amazon.com/Moscow-Option-David-Downing/dp/185367463X
JeffinMNUSA

 

The initial goal for Germany was to capture Leningrad and the Wehrmacht did all which it could to accomplish this this task. After Von Leeb's men were stopped at the entrance; occupying nothing further than Pushkin (thanks to Zhukov's defenses and relentless counter attacks) an order by Hitler himself was given to level the city by artillery and air. Only when that failed, did the Germans try to starve Leningrad into submission.

The siege did not benefit Germany as these men were desperately needed else where. It was in the best interests of Germany to capture Leningrad which she tried but failed.

 

the battle for moscow was very significant

 

Why did Hitler hold the German troops back to take Leningrad? Why did Hitler turn down the military and political triumph of conquering the city of the October revolution?
Hitler did not want to capture besieged Leningrad during World War II, but intended to starve its citizens to death,
see:
The St. Petersburg Times - Top Stories - New Book: Hitler Didn?t Want to Take Leningrad

 

I think the battle of Moscow the most important battle because it stopped the Blitzkrieg and forced the Germans to change their plans ,It like the battle of Britain though the allies did not gain the ultimate victory but they changed the war from short war(which the Germans preferred because they were prepared for the war and had the upper hand or they thought so ) to long one(which the allies preferred ) after that the Allies were ready to win in the coming battles

 

Its more like the German logistics train and lack of engineering capacity stopped the Germans. They had simply advanced as far as they could and even beyond that and no longer had the capacity to continue the advance.

 

This is only one man's opinion. Common sense would tell anyone that it did not benefit Germany or her allies having roughly a million men stuck around a single city for 3 years when these troops and supplies were desperately needed elsewhere.

Even Glantz states, that the order to starve the city into submission came only when all else failed.

 

I agree and disagree with MastaCheef. Yes, it was a "turning point", but notice how I say "turning point" with an a before it. Kursk, Leningrad, heck even Moscow (if they got there) could be called turning points. Besides, this is leaving out eastern turning points. El Alamein, the beginning of terror bombing, the U.S. entering the war, the development of the P-47 and the P-51, pretty much anything under the sun could have been a turning point in WW2. However, some of these "turning points" are more important than others. But without a few, the war might have been lost. So I guess one of those turning points could be Stalingrad. And on the original subject, Moscow was the Germans waiting outside the gates. Stalingrad was the Russians and Germans stabbing each other through the gates, climbing over the gates to get at each other, running Tigers through the gates and using panzerfausts and 'schreks to blow the gate in half!

 

Stalingrad was a most critically important one though, because the loss of that army forever decided the fate of German offensive power.

Say if Stalingrad fell, leaving the Germans to advance like mad in that south, leaving a huge gap in Soviet lines. Who knows what would happen then but if it ever lead to Russia succeeding Western Russia to the Germans. Well that leaves the infantry for garrison but then...

Hey whats that on the Horizon? 2000 AFVs heading for the more critical western front defense and garrison

Late July 1944: Operation Overlord fails after being repulsed by 20 Panzer divisions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Stalingrad is WAY important if you even try to imagine a possible turn of events, however slight.

I know my little story is a tad exaggerated but your logical mind will tell you that German dominated Europe did hang in the Balance in a certain city on the Volga. For all we know the fate of the world could have been decided in those fateful months.

 

I don't think the Germans would have had free range if Stalingrad had fallen. The Germans were extremely low on fuel and the farther they extended into Russia, the greater the strain on their poor logistical capabilities. During their advance on Stalingrad and the Caucus area they had to stop multiple times due to lack of fuel. There is no reason for this to be different after the fall of Stalingrad. The Caucus campaign was a miserable failure, they were able to recover no fuel from Maikop or Grozny, and the offensive would have most likely ground to a halt and been repelled no matter what the outcome at Stalingrad. So, the Stalingrad force would certainly have to secure their flank (or try to) before advancing. Furthermore, who knows what state the German Army Group B would have been in after capturing Stalingrad. As for the city itself, it bears almost no strategic importance besides its location on the Volga, which the Germans neutralized when their reached the river's banks on August 23, 1942. We also have to remember that the Wehrmacht is not facing the Red Army of 1941. By this time, and was evident during Operation Blue, the Red army had begun to develop the strategic retreat, and the balance of power was certainly starting to shift in the Soviet favor, and this becomes complete by Kursk. In my opinion capturing Stalingrad would certainly not lead to a massive German advance, the Germans simply did not have the capabilities, especially with the US now in the war, and the the city itself provides little strategic value.

With that being said, the battle of Stalingrad still represents a clear turning point, where as the Germans never won a single major battle from that point forward, aside from Manstein's actions around Karkhov from Feb-March 1943 to prevent the Southern front from collapse.

 

Hm,hm,:Tigertanks at Stalingrad ??

 

The Germans never won a major battle after Stalingrad,but was this due to Stalingrad ? The German army was not broken :the Red Army losses in 1943 were even higher than in 1942 ;the German weekly CL in 1941 were 30OOO and in 1943 :30OOO In july 1943 they had more men on the front than in july 1942