What went wrong most for Germany?

[Medvedya]

Hard to say. Off the back of a Enigmarised and decoded report about the Maikop and Grozny oilfields from Churchill, Stalin had rigged all the refining and cracking equipment to go up in smoke should it look as if it was going to be captured.

To be sure, they could have captured the fields, but if all the equipment to extract and use the oil was wrecked then it would have taken them some time to build the facilities themselves.

[syscom3]

But the oil fields would also not be producing for the soviets. That could have crippled their tank divisions in the center and south.

[Medvedya]

The fundamental problem though, and in some ways the biggest factor in finishing the Germans was the lack of raw materials back home. To be sure, there were the refineries in Romania, but it's getting it as far as the Caspian - that's gonna be the killer. Bear in mind that the Soviets still had oil production in Siberia, and by hook or by crook they would have found a way of getting it to the Southern front - and they'd be doing it on home turf, without any hassle from partisans to literally throw spanners in the works.

[reddragon]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Ive always wondered if the nazi's had bypassed Stalingrad and rolled on towards the Caspian Sea oil fields, that they would have won.

I could be wrong, but I believe they had to capture Stalingrad in order to hold that area. I also believe that the city was open and they could have easily captured it at one point, but they ignored it and gave the Russians time to set up defenses. Even if they had captured the city, the Russians had a huge number of armies nearby (and out of range of the German recon aircraft) and the willingness to sacrifice them so I don't know that the Germans could have held the area, unless they could have somehow destoyed those armies.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Stalingrad was mostly for polotical reasons. Yes there was some strategic value but not much compared to the Polotical Value it meant to Hitler to take the city with Stalins name in it.

[schwarzpanzer]

I also believe that the city was open and they could have easily captured it at one point, but they ignored it and gave the Russians time to set up defenses.

That was Moscow, Stalingrad may have been similar? - but I doubt it.

I don't know that the Germans could have held the area, unless they could have somehow destoyed those armies.

Moscow could have been garissoned, giving obvious defensive advantages and also leaving the Russian troops to freeze, whilst the Germans stayed nice and cosy.

Stalingrad didn't really have as much of a 'temperature defence' IIRC?

So it could have still been lost, so why bother with it?

- Like DerAdler said, it was for it's idealogical value (though there was an important tank factory there)


Someone here said Moscow was a hub?

That would have been great (I didn't really know that!) however Soviet railtracks were useless to the Germans, as they couldn't take German trains (they had to be converted to metric)

However, with cover to work under, the engineers would have had an easier task.


The failure to take Moscow had something to do with Hitler having the Panzers being told to wait for the infantry, as someone here has said, though I forget the exact details.

A leader who knew this actually said he "even saw sunlight dancing off the Kremlin!"

So near, yet so far away...

[reddragon]

Someone here said Moscow was a hub?

That would have been great (I didn't really know that!) however Soviet railtracks were useless to the Germans, as they couldn't take German trains (they had to be converted to metric)

However, with cover to work under, the engineers would have had an easier task.
[/quote]

Moscow was a major communications and transportation center for the Russians. It seems most everything went through Moscow at some point. I may be wrong but I believe if Moscow had been captured, it would have lead to a major disruption in the distribution of material and men for the Russian military.

[reddragon]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

The failure to take Moscow had something to do with Hitler having the Panzers being told to wait for the infantry, as someone here has said, though I forget the exact details.

I may be thinking of the Battle of Smolensk where the panzers were turned from their drive on Moscow and took part in huge pincer movements to trap Russian troops, resulting in a delay of about six weeks on the drive. It seems like after the panzers were released from that action, they may have been sent to support the attack on Leningrad, resulting in a futher delay on Moscow. Shortly after they started the advance again, the rain started, causing major delays because of the mud. The Russians were able to take advantage of these delays and strengthen their defenses of Moscow.

[reddragon]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

That was Moscow, Stalingrad may have been similar? - but I doubt it.

Nope, it was Stalingrad. According to von Kleist:

von Kleist remembered :

The 4th Panzer Army was advancing on my left. It could have taken Stalingrad without a fight, at the end of July, but was diverted to the south to help me crossing the Don. I did not needs it's aid, and merely congested the roads I was using. When it turned north again, a fortnight later, the Russians had gathered just sufficient forces at Stalingrad to check it.


In late July, 4th Panzer Army was detached from 6th Army and sent south to Rostov/River Don to support Army Group A, leaving 6th Army with around 13 infantry and 3 motorized divisions. I THINK it may have also had 3 panzer divisions, but I can't be sure. By turning 4th Panzer to the south, it slowed 6th Army's advance and gave the Russians time to prepare defenses for the city. Of course, during July, the Germans engaged Russian strongpoints which also slowed their advance. It wasn't until August that they begin to bypass those strongpoints but 6th Army did not have the mobility of the panzer units for a while and it gave the Russians time, which they badly needed. If they had bypassed the strong points from the beginning and not sent 4th Panzer south, I believe Stalingrad may very well have been taken (as does von Kleist, it seems).

[syscom3]

Well, I think that if Stalingrad was taken, the Soviets were in a bad situation. Go southwards and you have the Caspian Sea oil fields. Head east a bit and you might flank the Russian forces in center Russia. Imagine a Kursk like battle in the early fall.

[schwarzpanzer]

I may be wrong but I believe if Moscow had been captured, it would have lead to a major disruption in the distribution of material and men for the Russian military.

Yes that would've denied the Soviets the advantages too, could they have bypassed it though?

I may be thinking of the Battle of Smolensk...

Some of what you've said rings bells.

Smolensk, dunno what I'd do there?

Leningrad I'd have just left, the same with Stalingrad.

Moscow was vital, as were the oil fields.

Moscow always had excellent air defense though, but the Panzers could have taken it easily, allowing the infantry to hold it easily again.

Why bother with SG and LG though?

Hitler could have bombed them into oblivion?
The same could go for Smolensk? - allowing the infantry to clean up the remainder (if they didn't surrender or run away!) and not stopping the Panzers?

I'd have left the London Blitz, just defended France with Me109's & FW190's and used the He111's etc to smash infantry, tank masses, cities, factories etc. Could that be done?

Then the oil fields should have been reasonably alienated?

If they surrendered...

With the taking of Moscow, Stalin may even have been deposed?

Imagine a Kursk like battle in the early fall.

Kursk was stupid and IMHO, unwinnable.
I mean, using Ferds at point-blank??

If it was much earlier, it would probably be a few KV's vs a lot of PzIII's.

The Germans would have lost more tanks in that situation, maybe leaving not enough to crack Moscow?

[RAGMAN]

Did the British take the Iran/Iraq area when Germany could have taken the oilfields?If they did I was wondering how Germany could have kept the supply line open back to Germany?They would have to fight Britain and Russia on two fronts with the same threatend cut off at the Sea of Azlov or the Black Sea.Turkey was neutral and I don't know if the kriegsmarine was in the black sea or not,if they were, ships could have shipped the oil to Germany by tanker or simular ships. It would have been interesting to see how long Russia could have fought for until Siberia could have picked up the slack.

[reddragon]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

Leningrad I'd have just left, the same with Stalingrad.

Moscow was vital, as were the oil fields.

Moscow always had excellent air defense though, but the Panzers could have taken it easily, allowing the infantry to hold it easily again.

Why bother with SG and LG though?

Hitler could have bombed them into oblivion?
The same could go for Smolensk? - allowing the infantry to clean up the remainder (if they didn't surrender or run away!) and not stopping the Panzers?

Although I would consider it a secondary target, I think reason for the attack on Leningrad was to allow the Germans to link up with Finland. It may be they were also looking for major port facilities for the attack on Moscow, but I can't be sure.

I believe the attack on Stalingrad was necessary. It would have acted as an anchor on the left flank of the drive to the Caucases, as well as cut river traffic on the Volga. I don't think the Caucases could have been held if the Russians were able to use Stalingrad as a staging area for attacks there.

[reddragon]

Oops! My mistake! Looks like the panzers were taken out of the drive to Moscow to attack Kiev rather than Smolensk.

July 19, 1941 - The OKW gives orders that, after defeating the Soviet forces in the Smolensk sector, the II Panzergruppe (Guderian) and the 2nd Army are to abandon the offensive against Moscow and turn south to wipe out the Soviet 5th Army, surround Kiev and join up with I Panzergruppe (von Kleist) in a pincer movement. Guderian protests against giving up the thrust against Moscow, but his objections are overruled.

That is a major reason I believe the Germans were defeated in Russia.

[schwarzpanzer]

Kiev, course it was!

Halting the Moscow advance would't have been as bad had winter not set in.

However of course it did and was IMHO the single biggest mistake.

I do believe that I have a conclusion!

I believe the attack on Stalingrad was necessary. It would have acted as an anchor on the left flank of the drive to the Caucases, as well as cut river traffic on the Volga. I don't think the Caucases could have been held if the Russians were able to use Stalingrad as a staging area for attacks there.

If SG had been bombed (with planes transferred from London)
- would SG have be a problem?