what if........Hitler captured Moscow???

There were several outline plans, and one was chosen. Also the scope was immensely larger, so it was physically impossible to draw a detailed plan from the border to Irkutsk, for this OKH or any other. The plan actually went in some detail from the border to Minsk, but then afterwards you would need a second plan which did not exist, only general intentions and a Hitler directive. So the General Staff was living more or less on a day to day basis, complicated by some field commanders sense of independence, the worst of them being Guderian.

 

Was it F. Paulus actually who did the major part of planning and war games??

 

Germans planned a short war, they were not supposed to fight during winter.

On the planning question, I'd say they often were very loose in planing, leaving many details to decision to be taken on the field and according to what was happening on the field.

This is a very pragmatic approach, if you got good leaders on the field, you can adapt.

IMHO, the main problem with Barbarossa was not a lack of precision or care in details.

The problem was they made a plan with a VERY poor knowledge of USSR's army, weapons, geography (climate, road -> logistics) and ability to withstand hard losses and blows without collapsing as a State and a military power.

Anyway, German's intelligence/secret services was overall poor during WWII.

About Timoshenko's quote by Za Rodinu, I'd say I got no ideas about what would have happened if Moscow had fallen into facist hands.

So maybe Moscow was not vital for USSR, but it has been defended just as if it was vital, and this is a fact, whatever Timoshenko said

 

Independently of how good/bad the German logistical system was and what shape the German army might be in, if Moscow fell looking at the layout of the national railway lines and the importance of the Moscow hub, effectively that would cut the country in two, north and south. This would be a complete disaster as you would no longer be able to move troops between sectors above and below Moscow. Was Timoshenko whistling in the dark?

 

We again see the old myth of Prussian military 'greatness' vanish in the air... At 'Barbarossa' we see the exact same mistakes made by German field commanders in WWI. Prussian military thinking, which dated back to post-Napoleonic times, and whose main brain was Von Clausewitz, said that it was brute force: hit strongly, rapidly and surprisingly to win. Blitzkrieg followed that logic. And we can see that, just when Poland, France, Greece, etcetera, were collapsing, so was the German logistical system. The mighty Wehrmacht was mighty just for 6 or 8 weeks; then chaos came.

Throughout WWI and WWII the German General Staff showed a fateful disregard for careful logistical planning or coherent long-term strategical planning. That is why they were never able to defeat Great Britain or the Soviet Union during the war, because these two were always superior at strategical level.

'Barbarossa' is a very good example: there were too many operational plans, one was indeed developed by lieutenant general Friedrich Paulus, other by lieutenant general Erich Marcks and there were others. The OKH never actually decided for just one: they kind of made a collage of them all and left OKW to decide what the war-winning strategy and overall strategic goals were. As Miguel said, there was not 'what' and no 'how' after Minsk fell.

Starting like that and with the typical German disregard and incompetence for logistics and intelligence, how on Earth could they plan a successful military campaign of the magnitude which was 'Barbarossa'?

If they're acting on a bigger strategic plan frame, then it's OK. If they're not, then it is fatal. Just like in Verdun: Von Falkenhayn forgot to tell his field commanders that his objective was to kill as many French as possible. Then, his generals, acting with independce, killed as many of his own men conquering useless ground...

Two things, Slonskip:

On the contrary, that played a huge rôle. Those units down to 50% of their strenght hadn't lost their men precisely because of malaria...

And partisans were ver poorly organised in 1941. They didn't play a significant part in the failure of 'Barbarossa'.

 

On the contrary, that played a huge rôle. Those units down to 50% of their strenght hadn't lost their men precisely because of malaria...

And partisans were ver poorly organised in 1941. They didn't play a significant part in the failure of 'Barbarossa'. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]General,
I agree 100% partisans did not play a major role of barbarossa collapse...They only really began to be a thorne in Germany's side in 42' Also I was being sarcastic when I said " Russian resilience played a minor role"

 

sorry I fumbled

 

And don't forget what simple, sheer, disorganization will do to any logistics. Things will simply stop functioning when your trucks don't come back on time from wherever you sent them, when drivers get lost, when the receiving unit has moved elsewhere, when there is nobody to unload, when the front truck just dies and the rest stop...

Please, please don't ask me how I know!

 

This is Russian Federal highway Moscow city - Yakutsk City, named “Lena”, nowadays.

The road doesn’t have asfalt surface, though it is a Federal, vital highway.

Everytime it rains the road gets paralized, these shots are made a few days before the traffic jam for 600 cars got stuck there. Hunger and lack of the fuel followed, according to the witnesses. One woman gave a born to a child right in the public bus she was riding.

Construction team afraids to appear on site because during their previous visit it was beaten by people who stuck in the jam for a few days. People breaking the locks on the trucks, in a search of food and warm cloths.

Fuel, food, firearms and steel tow-line are the things that are needed most these days on this Federal highway

Who in his bloody right mind would invade a country with roads like this?

 

Thanks for the photo za

When Hitler invaded Russia, he found out that roads that looked impressive on maps turned out to be just mere dust roads or were only in the planning stages.
And the people beat up the construction team?? I see why there were so many Russian guerrillas during WWII.


by the way, why are some people half naked in the picture?? is that a Russian custom? no offense.

 

Thank god for all the natural resources and weapons that Russia sells! now it can get enough money to buil this road

 

By Ironcross

by the way, why are some people half naked in the picture?? is that a Russian custom? no offense.

Proves your American mate. Fancy the uproar when the missus was nursing our oldest boy.

At any rate. The thread touches on the vital issue on Barbarossa. Flawed outdated strategic thinking by the Germans.

The organisation in the British army made the units larger, but better equipped in the respect of logistics. A fact many modern writers ignore...?

 

What if they simply they don't want to ruin their clothes with the muck...

 

Just reading on the German attack to Murmansk. Know why the attack got into real big trouble in the beginning? The roads were not there...

I can imagine someone sending a message to Hitler saying " Unfortunately cannot advance because there are no mentioned roads anywhere..."

 

Yes right, just like an exponential growth of chaos as time passes : on day 1, a small delay of a few transports, will bring tomorrow a bigger delay of more transports, and so on...

really I've always perceived the logisitics issue as being "constant" ((while of course depending on what happends on the front), never thought that, if it's not perfect, it will likely turn into a growing and incredible mess.

thanks to you and General for this

 

If Hitler was lucid in mind and allowed Heers Gruppen Mittel to go after Moscow and indeed captured the city then the Soviet economic-military-political-communication-transportation centre is effectively destroyed, their is no other city in the Soviet Union capable of taking over as a secondary capitol with the same infrastructure, the first thing is the disintergration of the Stavka to effectively run the Soviet Military, Communications would break down, economy would collapse.

Also one thing that after gaining Moscow and Gorki on the River Volga, Hitler had planned to halt this would have spreaf southward towards Stalingrad and to Astrakhan thus isolating any Soviet military in the Caucasus and the Germans could effectively take their time in securing the Maykop oilfields and then press onto the Baku oilfields, eventually securing the whole Caspian-Aral Sea area depriving the Soviets of the their oilfields.

Regards

 

Russia failed to collapse when Napolean took Moscow. What makes you think that things would have been different if Hitler had done the same??

 

It never ceases to amaze me how even the most advanced nations can be held hostage by nature. The U.S. does have a good highway system, but I have been to areas that at times defy all attempts at travel. Of course, even the best roads are worthless in an Oklahoma ice storm.

 

The interesting thing is that in the first place Stalin decided to stay in Moscow. If he really stayed there until the end then the Germans by capturing Moscow could get Stalin arrested , well, rather I believe dead as he´d commit suicide but that would end the USSR leadership, I think. And then would follow chaos and collapse of the Red Army.