Red Army after fall of Moscow

[Redbeard]

In contrafactual history writing Barbarossa is a popular subject, and especially what if (how) Moscow had fallen.

 

I would like some ideas from the esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen of the board on not how the Germans could have taken Moscow, leave that to another thread, but on what would have happened after? Let's say that Armeegruppe Centre keeps up momentum (and support) in autumn and takes Moscow, and the expected Soviet counterattack from the large forces to the south is stopped or thrown back before 1941 ends - what next?

 

How much will the Germans possessing Moscow ease their winterproblems?

 

From map studying it appears like most heavy railway lines went around Moscow, how much would that influence the rebuilding of the Red Army? I guess there is a high risk of the rifles ending up in one place, ammo in another and personell at a third location.

 

How much would the industry relocation programme be influenced by Moscow falling in 1941?

 

In short, would the fightings of 1942 involve the Red Army fighting/counterattacking as a regular army or will it mainly be a partisan like war?

 

Any oppinions or suggestions on litterature?

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Ken Estes]

Interesting idea, sort of puts the Germans in the position of the Reds during the Civil War, in control of the center, with large enemy armies to the N, E and S. The government had already started to pull out, heading to Kuibyshev [cf. Alan Clark], Stalin remaining in the city of course. We must ask Swerve what the rail situation really was and what lines were available to bypass Moscow and link the remaining forces.

 

After a fall of Moscow, both sides would have been exhausted, with replenishment for the Germans far behind...rail gauges took a month to change 60 km I think [must be in vanCrevelt]. No Red Army forces could fight well enough in 1941 to directly throw back main German forces anyway, so there would have been nothing to do until the Spring. The Germans in the north remained contained on the Volkhov front, the Vlassov 2nd Shock Army would have been conserved vice thrown away, given the bad situation overall. The Rostov and Voronezh fronts likely would also remain stable. So the Q is, could Red Army counterattacks against AG Center's communications have been executed as they were historically?

 

The Germans, holding Moscow, would have still overreached, still could not replace their losses of 1941, and thus could only move against one of the three remaining concentrations of the Red Army in Summer42. There is no reason to believe that the industry in the Urals and Siberia would have ceased to function and the stockpiles and manpower in the three 'regions' remained important. Zhukhov knew already in November that he had to preserve his force in being.

 

The Partisan organization generally failed in 1941, would have been less active in 1942 than historically??

 

I guess that I am inclined to think it adds a year to the Russo-German War at most, without changing the outcome? The Germans are still unprepared for the campaign, and the Red Army will still survive & improve. The knockout blow was impossible in a single year, unless the Japanese could have been brought in, but the position of the USA then becomes important.

 

Not a bad what-if!

[swerve]

.... We must ask Swerve what the rail situation really was and what lines were available to bypass Moscow and link the remaining forces. ...

 

I don't actually know - but this book should give a good idea.

 

http://www.lulu.com/content/278415

 

Agree, an interesting what-if.

Edited January 11, 2008 by swerve

[Exel]

Another aspect is could Stalin cling on to power after Moscow had fallen? Would there be a popular 1917-esque uprising to overthrow the bolsheviks to make peace? Could the Germans incite another Civil War in the remaining Soviet areas? Given Hitler's occupational policies that doesn't seem entirely likely, but I don't think we can discard the possibility of Stalin and/or the communists being overthrown even without German input. Needless to say, capturing Moscow would have been a huge propaganda victory for Hitler. Perhaps enough to push for Japan and Spain joining the cause?

 

Then again, could Moscow turn into another Stalingrad without either side being able to permanently secure the city - did the Red Army have the means for it in 1941?

[seahawk]

More so then the Germans in the historic context, but if the Germans really capture Moscow then the losses of the Soviets, I believe that the Soviets would be off worse then in the historic context, considering they would throw in any reserves they had to prevent this from happening. So in late 1941 we would have a German army which should be at least as strong as in the historical context and a Soviet force that is weaker. If the Germans capture supplies around Moscow, then they are even better off. (Food, clothing, weapons etc.)

The railroad network of the Soviets would be compromised but they still could make it work, but it would be more open to attack and less flexibel.

[JWB]

As Kenneth Estes has written the Germans wouldn't be able to win the war in a single campaign. The important Soviet war industries were in Staligrad which were relocated to the Urals before the Axis even got to Stalingrad. East of Moscow there would be two rump armies staring each other down and unable to do anything else. The loss of life and equipment would have halted operations well into the summer 1942, Even then the results of any battles would likely be a stalemate. Ultimately the Reds would recover faster because Stalin had more will than Hitler. Probably prolong the war into fall of 1945 or even spring 1946. Outcome would be the same.

[gnocci]

Propagandistically, Soviets always could play the "Ha, they fell, just as Napoleon did!" card.

[Redbeard]

I don't actually know - but this book should give a good idea.

 

http://www.lulu.com/content/278415

 

Agree, an interesting what-if.

 

Thanks for the link, I have alreday bought the download version and in full process of studying. So far it appears like loosiing Moscow would drastically reduce Soviet capacity to move anything about.

 

The south still has a fairly independent network and there is a line from Stalingrad to Urals, but Moscow simply is a spider in the centre of the web and with all lines growing heavier as they approach Moscow.

 

I will return later.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[dpapp2]

The fall of Moscow would cut the Northwestern part of Russia off, the only remaining line of communication being the Vologda-Kirov line (an extra 500km to deliver LL from Archangelsk to S Russia), it can be assumed that it would be bombed 7/24 by the LW.

How it would affect the Lend-Lease? My guess is that in that case Soviet units in NW Russia will be equipped with LL equipment. There might also be a limited offensive in 1942 to cut that line off.

 

I'd assume with less resources available after the fall of Moscow, Germany could (even if barely) hold the huge salient.

 

I don't even want to think of the number of civilian casualties.

 

Some maps from here:

http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/WW2Index/picindexmaps.html

Western Russia map, black and white, but Rail lines can be distinguished, if with difficulty.

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/81903bg.jpg

industry:

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/82027bg.jpg

Edited January 15, 2008 by dpapp2

[Lampshade111]

I imagine the blow to Soviet morale and command would be quite heavy. Unless German forces were quickly reinforced and rearmed I doubt they would have been able to hold the city however.

 

If lend lease was cut off then the Soviets would be in pretty bad shape.

[seahawk]

Seems like you could re-route a lot of traffic through Gorky.

[Josh]

Seems like you could re-route a lot of traffic through Gorky.

 

If the Germans had been able to hold it, which seems doubtful, could the LW have moved twin engine bombers up to bases outside Moscow that would be in range of the Urals? It would be very open position for them to opperate in, but if they were aware of the factories in the Urals it could be worth the risk. I'm aware of the AD of Russian assets in the Urals but I suspect it was slim to none and after loosing Moscow, I doubt reinforcement would be quick.

 

Fundamentally it seems to me an issue as too whose logistical system completely breaks down first, the Germans or the Russians, but certainly taking Moscow historically couldn't have been any worse off than *not* taking Moscow and, at the least, leaving all of the inherant rail lines intact. If nothing else it might have paid dividends to take the city even for a week if only to uproot every rail junction Sherman style.

[binder001]

Always fascinating on the "what ifs". OK, Germans have Moscow and are too weak to do a MAJOR offensive before summer of 1942. The German spirit of being on the offense would lead to minor offensives and parry-thrust actions along the line which would not do any good to a weakened Soviet Army, eating up trained manpower and resources (if the German logistics could support the liited offensives). What about Stalin - does he honor his pledge to remain in Moscow? Is he hanging from a spire on the Kremlin or did he do himself in? Who is the new boss? Does he have the will to continue the fight and the strength to control a fragmented USSR?

 

Would the Japanese take advantage of a weakened Soviet Union to exact a bit of revenge?

 

OK, Moscow falling doesn't mean the end of the war in the East, but IF the propaganda value pushes Spain into the Axis and Franco is able to seize or at least neutralize Gibralter, then Malta has no logistic base. Maybe Hitler could have pushed Italy into an assault on Malta? The Germans weren't notoriously great at amphibious operations (at least anything bigger than a river), but German air cover and possibly German reinforcements could have allowed Malta to be KO'd. No Malta means Rommel has a better logistic situation and possibly reinforcements. Egypt falls and who knows how far the Germans could pursue after Cairo. Turkey becomes a "wild card" in the mid-East. With Lend-Lease flowing on the rail line across Iran, they become a target.

 

Just a few thoughts.

[dpapp2]

Kazan is 700km from Moscow, Archangelsk is 1000km, Chelyabinsk is 1500km. Might be too far for the escorting fighters.

Although the Vologda-Kirov rail line would still be in range for interdiction even for the Stukas, and being a single and very long line I'd think the Luftwaffe could cut it's capacity significantly.

[DesertFox]

If Stalin is killed in the attack, who is there who can take over that might be able to lead Russia?

 

Also, with supplying Egypt, is there any different path which could be taken such as around Africa?

Edited January 16, 2008 by DesertFox

[dpapp2]

Egypt IIRC was supplied around the Cape, only Malta was supplied through Gibraltar.

[Guest JamesG123]

Stalin would have fled from the city to fight another day. Maybe at the last possible moment, but he was a pragmatic survivor.

 

I can't see how the Japanese could resist jumping in to snatch as much of Siberia as they could upon hearing word of Moscow's capture. Might have even have distracted them from the plans for Pearl Harbor. How about that for a plot twist?

[Archie Pellagio]

If Stalin is killed in the attack, who is there who can take over that might be able to lead Russia?

 

Also, with supplying Egypt, is there any different path which could be taken such as around Africa?

 

Probably Beria, if not a host of others, not a problem.

 

I can't see how the Japanese could resist jumping in to snatch as much of Siberia as they could upon hearing word of Moscow's capture. Might have even have distracted them from the plans for Pearl Harbor. How about that for a plot twist?

 

If anything, that would speed up the need for a pearl harbour, the reason the Japanese thundered into asia was to secure the DEI oil fields.

 

Anyway, the Russians were very worried about the prospect and had a lot of units stationed there with armour and would've chewed up and spat out anything the japanese could've sent at them.

[Yama]

Kazan is 700km from Moscow, Archangelsk is 1000km, Chelyabinsk is 1500km. Might be too far for the escorting fighters.

Although the Vologda-Kirov rail line would still be in range for interdiction even for the Stukas, and being a single and very long line I'd think the Luftwaffe could cut it's capacity significantly.

 

It is easy to overestimate tacair's capability for rail interdiction. Murmansk line was always completely within range of Finnish and German bombers and fighters (and special forces patrols), but relatively little was achieved. Even direct hit on the tracks by 250kg bomb was typically repaired in a day. One section of the line was actually captured by ground forces, but Soviets simply built a new track behind the new frontline.

[nitflegal]

Stalin would have fled from the city to fight another day. Maybe at the last possible moment, but he was a pragmatic survivor.

 

I can't see how the Japanese could resist jumping in to snatch as much of Siberia as they could upon hearing word of Moscow's capture. Might have even have distracted them from the plans for Pearl Harbor. How about that for a plot twist?

 

What would make them want as bunch of God-forsaken wilderness? At that time there wasn't much knowledge of all of the resources under there and what was known was scattered and difficult to access. Japan didn't need oil and mineral resources in 5-10 years after lots of money and man-power was spent, they needed it in months. They were also really stretched from a resource standpoint themselves, what actual operation from that year was worth cancelling to grab a bunch of forest? Throw in the dismal transportation infrastructure of the time in the area and it would have been a huge gift to the Allies had Japan committed troops and tanks to an invasion.

 

Besides, the Japanese got really, really badly thumped by the Soviets. Japanes tanks were pitiful in comparison to even the older Soviet stuff, Soviet artillery in theatre was leaps and bounds better, and the Soviets had better aviation assets and transport. It's great for novelists to have Japan join Germany in an attack on the Soviet Union but it would have been a pointless and costly affort for the Japanese themselves.

 

Matt

[Detonable]

What would make them want as bunch of God-forsaken wilderness? At that time there wasn't much knowledge of all of the resources under there and what was known was scattered and difficult to access. Japan didn't need oil and mineral resources in 5-10 years after lots of money and man-power was spent, they needed it in months. They were also really stretched from a resource standpoint themselves, what actual operation from that year was worth cancelling to grab a bunch of forest? Throw in the dismal transportation infrastructure of the time in the area and it would have been a huge gift to the Allies had Japan committed troops and tanks to an invasion.

 

Besides, the Japanese got really, really badly thumped by the Soviets. Japanes tanks were pitiful in comparison to even the older Soviet stuff, Soviet artillery in theatre was leaps and bounds better, and the Soviets had better aviation assets and transport. It's great for novelists to have Japan join Germany in an attack on the Soviet Union but it would have been a pointless and costly affort for the Japanese themselves.

 

Matt

 

Agree on the tanks and thumping and pointlessness. Disagree on aviation, when the Zero comes along.

 

It does bring up the question of what were the Japanese securing in China? It didn't have the oil they needed. Perhaps metals, food?

[swerve]

...

It does bring up the question of what were the Japanese securing in China? It didn't have the oil they needed. Perhaps metals, food?

 

Satisfaction for the Imperial ambitions of the army clique which came to power around 1930. It was not economically rational. Absolutely the opposite.

 

BTW, Manchuria did have the oil they needed, but nobody knew it back then.

[Yama]

It does bring up the question of what were the Japanese securing in China? It didn't have the oil they needed. Perhaps metals, food?

 

Every Empire needs their own 'Eastern Front' where they can bleed their youth dry...

 

China was/is the largest and traditionally most powerful state in East Asia...my guess is that Japanese wanted to eliminate a potential rival.

 

As swerve said, rationality is not necessarily something which was always high on priority list in Japanese militarism. Rivalry between Army and Navy was severe, and shaped foreign policy. Army favoured "Northern" strategy and invasion to Mongolia and Siberia. But Army strategy was discredited by defeats in Lake Khasan and Khalkhing Gol "incidents". It did not help that war against China had also bogged down to stalemate (apparently, Japanese generals had not "quite realized how big interior of China is". Of course, after that it is logical to look for war on either Siberia or Pacific... ) . So it was hardly a surprise that "Southern" advance endorsed by Navy won out.

 

Soviets never their Far East defenseless, quite the contrary. Even after famous reports by Richard Sorge, they kept signifant forces there. Tanks were mostly obsolete, but it's not like Japanese had any better.

[A2Keltainen]

It is easy to overestimate tacair's capability for rail interdiction. Murmansk line was always completely within range of Finnish and German bombers and fighters (and special forces patrols), but relatively little was achieved. Even direct hit on the tracks by 250kg bomb was typically repaired in a day. One section of the line was actually captured by ground forces, but Soviets simply built a new track behind the new frontline.

 

The most sensible thing would probably be to try and destroy any bridges along the railway, since they should take more time to repair. But on the other hand, then the enemy would probably expect this, or at least after he detects the pattern in the attacks, and place a lot more of his AA guns around them, compared to the normal parts of the railway.

[Olof Larsson]

How it would affect the Lend-Lease? My guess is that in that case Soviet units in NW Russia will be equipped with LL equipment. There might also be a limited offensive in 1942 to cut that line off.

 

Well, for the entire year of 1942,

28.8% of the lend-lease came in through the Persian Gulf,

29.9% through the Far East and

38.7% through the Murmansk area.

 

In january 1942 it was

0% through the Persian Gulf,

29.4% through the Far East and

70.6% through the Murmansk area.

 

In october and november 1942 all lend-lease came through the Gulf and the Far East.

The same was the case for may to september 1943.

 

All in all,

23.8% of lend-lease came in through the Persian Gulf,

47.1% through the Far East,

22.7% through the Murmansk area,

3,9% through the Black Sea and

2.5% through the Soviet Arctic.

 

http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

 

The Germans weren't notoriously great at amphibious operations (at least anything bigger than a river), but German air cover and possibly German reinforcements could have allowed Malta to be KO'd. No Malta means Rommel has a better logistic situation and possibly reinforcements. Egypt falls and who knows how far the Germans could pursue after Cairo.

 

The limiting factor for Rommel wasn't getting fuel and ammo to Tripoli.

It was getting fuel and ammo from Tripoli.

 

1500-2000km off desert roads and not enough trucks to supply the divisions at the front.

Thats like Normandy to Warzaw or Normandy to Minsk.

 

BTW, Manchuria did have the oil they needed, but nobody knew it back then.

 

Much like the germans and italians being unavere of sitting on lots off oil in Libya.