What if...

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

I wonder.

During Operation Barbarossa, what if, after the victory at Smolensk, instead of delaying the Panzer Armies from action for a few months, Hitler (or the generals, doesn’t really matter, just those at the top), acted decisively and ordered one panzer army to force the grand encirclement at Kyiv and ordered the other to aid Army Group North to capture Leningrad speedily before significant reinforcements arrived?

Following (hopefully) great successes, Germany could’ve reoriented their forces and put together a stable frontline and defences, awaiting Soviet counterattacks. Or they could’ve fought through and destroyed the Vyzama-Bryansk pockets and then halted. On the defence, the Germans would’ve done better in the winter and possibly achieve a Manstein-like backhand blow.

Would this have won the war by itself? Probably not. But I feel like this would’ve been a better plan.

In the event the Panzer Armies were too damaged to continue operations immediately (my memory’s a little foggy here), and had to wait months to be operational again (like in real life), instead of the Battle of Moscow, Germany would’ve done better to (after continuing along the same course of action in August and September):

1. Attack at Vyzama-Bryansk then stop and dig in along the entire front.

2. Dig in along the entire front and wait for Soviet counterattacks. Perhaps a backhand blow could be accomplished.

3. Keep the panzer armies in the south and north, while digging in on the central front. In the north, perhaps Leningrad could still be in reach, and if not, perhaps some forces could be detached to lead a drive on Murmansk, thereby cutting Lend-Lease supplies and saving the naval and air resources used in the Arctic, instead distributing them to the Mediterranean at a critical time there… In the south, perhaps a couple more panzer divisions could’ve allowed a German victory at Rostov and a stronger position in the event of Case Blue still happening.

What do you think overall? Do you think my analysis was correct? Would Germany have done better or worse with this strategy, even if this wouldn’t have won them the war? I look forward to hearing your response.

[ABWorsham4]

@SuperbattleshipYamato Leningrad would have been a tough nut to crack. A large city, of significant cultural importance, with a some water ways to help in its defense. The Germans could capture Leningrad, but only by making it a top priority and forgetting Moscow in 1941.
Germany would have to have German Infantry attack from Finland to finish Leningrad.

As many tanks as the Red Army had in the Ukraine. I doubt the Germans could move large panzer armies away from this threat. Prussian ran HQ would not leave that huge force on an under strength flank, and that was the right choice.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@ABWorsham4

You’re back!

I’m afraid you may have misunderstood me.

I always believed that the encirclement at Kiev was a good idea and advocated that it was the right move.

As for Leningrad, while it was definitely well defended, I think I read somewhere that the main reason Army Group North failed in capturing Leningrad before the Soviets reinforced it was the lack of strength, something that would be rectified by transferring the entire, not just a part of, the Fourth Panzer Army (or group as called back then).

The list in the second half of my post were what they should’ve done instead of the Battle of Moscow.

[Linkon]

@SuperbattleshipYamato
infantry can forage, horses can eat grass or hay and drink out of streams.

Armored cavalry needs very specialized supply, which was vulnerable to guerrilla and partisan attacks.
The Axis held air superiority on that front, which could have been key to finding resistance pockets to eliminate with those armies and bombing enemy targets.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Linkon

I don’t understand. What are you trying to say? Thank you!