Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
dmckay

For fun...another "what if". Russia?

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,036
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles

What if Germany had captured and HELD all 3 of her main objectives in 1941/42?  Leningrad,  Moscow, and Stalingrad. Would that have made any difference?  Knocked Russia out of the war? Or do the Russians just retreat further East and carry on?  For sure it would, I think, have made things a lot more difficult for the Russians.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[KOOKS]
Beta Testers
311 posts
10,692 battles

Stalingrad not really important, the objective was the caucasus oil fields. The only important effect would have been liberating the 6th army for field operations (the industrial base of the city was already destroyed). Leningrad would habe been a moral blast, plus the chance to reach murmansk and cut off the atlantic supply lines for URSS. But real interesting one is Moskov, not only for the significance, but for the centralized urss railroad system. Taking moskov would have seriously impaired the strategic movements of armies, supplies, etc. 

Unfortunately for Germany, that would probably just make the war a lot longer, 2-3 years maybe... because URSS would not surrender, almost for sure, and the supply lines of germany were stretched to the limit. Nobody, never, has succesfully invaded Russia, and 3 great superpowers tried, the sweden, the french, the germans. Too big territory, too hard winter, too stubborn people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,440
[KWF]
Members
4,040 posts
6,190 battles

Though I dont like that much "what ifs", I believe the Germans would lose either way. Its one thing to capture one city, its another to organize proper supply lines and have a partisan free area for a long period of time. The only way I could believe the Germans might have had a chance to win would be if the Japanese army maintained its threat in Siberia, thus limiting the Soviet reinforcements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,651
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
12,453 posts

Remember that to take and hold a city takes soldiers, soldiers that aren't available to fight elsewhere. Also, unlike in some other countries, I don't think that the Russians would have let Germany hold their cities fairly peacefully. The constant guerilla warfare in the occupied cities would have required a substantial military presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,036
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles
7 hours ago, Incendiary_Tanker said:

Oh god why.... do you understand what you've done?!

NO

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,036
Members
4,729 posts
8,265 battles
6 hours ago, Fastwolf66 said:

Stalingrad not really important, the objective was the caucasus oil fields. The only important effect would have been liberating the 6th army for field operations (the industrial base of the city was already destroyed). Leningrad would habe been a moral blast, plus the chance to reach murmansk and cut off the atlantic supply lines for URSS. But real interesting one is Moskov, not only for the significance, but for the centralized urss railroad system. Taking moskov would have seriously impaired the strategic movements of armies, supplies, etc. 

Unfortunately for Germany, that would probably just make the war a lot longer, 2-3 years maybe... because URSS would not surrender, almost for sure, and the supply lines of germany were stretched to the limit. Nobody, never, has succesfully invaded Russia, and 3 great superpowers tried, the sweden, the french, the germans. Too big territory, too hard winter, too stubborn people

Moscow.  Well actually Napoleon got there and took it. Hmmmm. Defeated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×