If Army Group Centre had not been delayed and seized Moscow in the winter of 1941 would it of made much difference?

If Army Group Centre had not been delayed and seized Moscow in the winter of 1941 would it of made much difference?

Probably not

More dead Germans in February 1942

Maybe it would demoralize red army but it still wouldn't change much.

Germans are still exhausted, low on fuel, supplies and winter clothing. Soviets still have fresh reserves and are ready to counterattack.
It would be a Stalingrad tier clusterfuck and they wouldnt be able to stop them as they did in February

Have you seen a map of Russia you stupid cunt?
Russian plan was to keep retreating they would have just kept retreating east

the majority of the semi-trained conscripts that were the bulk of Soviet manpower for the throw back came from outside of Europe. industry had already been moved, and could have been moved again. Germany's campaign went probably as well as it could have, but if anything that rapid advance was even more problematic then if there had been multiple set backs and the German military was forced to take it slower. the German model of high autonomy for front line commanders and high mechanized, rapid advanced worked fantastic in the narrower and better developed regions of France, but in Russia there was only one road and it was really in Poland. (this is according to one German general who complained about having lots of road maps that were actually dirt tracks.)

the Smolensk Salient (massive 200+ bulge that appears around the marshes in Ukraine) as it is called didn't even matter compared to the logistic nightmare that were Russian roads.

They could only have done that by neglecting Kiev, where they encircled and destroyed an entire Soviet front. This would also have left Army Group Center's right flank exposed and greatly increased the already substantial chances of its destruction in the 1941/2 winter counteroffensive. The Germans did about as well as could reasonably have been expected, they lost because they lacked the manpower and logistical resources to make victory possible

Nice battle plan Hitler, looks straight out of hoi4

Army Group Center not diverting south will not get them Moscow. WIthout such a diversion, the Roslavl–Novozybkov Offensive never materializes, and the defenses immediately east of Smolensk are enormously thicker, because the Russians haven't embarked on that little disaster.

Even if the entire Southwest Front does absolutely nothing of consequence, seizing Moscow is unlikely.

This is in Russian i hope you understand

German operational plan for Moscow assumed encirclement and siege of the city. It was expected that the Red Army would have already been destroyed by the time army group Centre reached Moscow, so all Germans had to do was to set up the perimeter and starve the city out. How long such a siege could take? A much smaller Leningrad held out for 3 years.

If the Luftwaffe had any real strength left, I doubt the city would've held out for long under aerial bombings. But Goering was too busy getting shitfaced on morphine to care, and Hitler wanted to turn their first jet fighter into a bomber while they were still struggling for air superiority.

>If the Luftwaffe had any real strength left, I doubt the city would've held out for long under aerial bombings.
Brainlet detected. The Luftwaffe was not set up for city area bombing to begin with. THe British launched orders of magnitude more high explosive on German cities than the Germans delivered by air the entire war (to say nothing of the americans). That didn't force surrenders, and it wouldn't force the Soviets to surrender. Air power just isn't capable of that in WW2.

that literally only works for so long, user.
I think the real question OP wants answered, is how far East would the Germans have had to push the Russians before the Russians ran out of supply and had to surrender.

The USSR had developed extensive industrial zones in the Urals and Central Asia during the 1930s, and large pockets of heavy industry in southern Siberia along the Trans-Siberian Railway. As early as in July, they had already established the Evacuation Soviet, responsible for transfering factories to secure locations in the east. By the end of 1941, something like 1300 factories were packed up from the northern industrial sectors and carried by train into the Urals, Central Asia and Siberia. The loss of industrial zones would have been devastating for the Soviet military economy, but all it would have achieved is temporary disruption of production. The capture of Moscow and Leningrad would've not crippled the overall war effort in the long run.

So it's safe to say that the Soviets were planning to fight until the Urals and beyond.

Nope. The Luftwaffe was already stretched thin at the start of Barbarossa, and attrition had taken a heavy toll by the time Operation Typhoon came around. Plus, as the weather deteriorated, the Luftwaffe was grounded. Late in the year, it was literally too cold for them to fly.

good answer

>a world war 2 battle plan looks like a game that mimics world war 2 battle plans

Really makes me think.

>taking the capital would result in less morale
is this bait?

Russians would've had even more bloodlust

I'm pretty sure it's a reference to this thread >

You are like a little baby

This, they would have to take the Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad axis, something they weren't able to do historically, then push on a thousand kilometers more to Ufa and the rest of the Urals if they wanted to completely cripple Soviet production.
The evacuation of factories is seen as what saved the Soviet Union and in a large part it did, but ironically it also crippled them during the early stages of the war - how do you supply your troops when half of your rolling stock is being used to haul industrial equipment thousands of kilometers away?