Two-pronged Barbarossa

[Tetsu]

What if the pre-planning for Operation Barbarossa went differently, and it was decided that a two-pronged invasion of the USSR, one aiming for Moscow and the other for the Ukraine, was the best plan? How would this alternate Eastern Front have developed?

 

[Codeman]

wasent it a three pronge invasion??? one coming down from finland for lenneingrad 1 for moscow anther for stalingrad?

 

[Wozza]

That is an unlikely option.

The Pripet marshes effectively divide the front in two, so a two pronged thrust for Leningrad and Moscow only would have made sense.In fact that would be an interesting development, although you would have to get around Hitler's pseudo-economic rationale for conquering the Ukraine.

However, in this scenario the Moscow thrust would need massive flank protection, almost to the extent that one might as well just have pushed for Leningrad.

 

[Codeman]

wasnet there a push from finland to lennegrad?

 

[Wozza]

wasnet there a push from finland to lennegrad?

Yes, and even a small advance from Norway, but the main push to Leningrad is from Army Group North, coming through the Baltic republics.

 

[Dave Howery]

one of the AH scenarios in the old 3rd Reich board game had a similar scenario, in that one of the 3 main thrusts were done away with, and a much larger thrust out of Finland was done instead..... that'd be tough for Leningrad, but IIRC, it's harder to move big forces around in that area...

 

[pisces74]

Hitler may have gained Moscow, but wouldn't have gotten Stalingrad, which he needed. Stalin would've fallen back to Stalingrad and after that status quo trading Mocow for Stalingrad.

 

[Tom_B]

Romeo and Juliet

Hitler may have gained Moscow, but wouldn't have gotten Stalingrad, which he needed. .

Did he? Col Seaton makes a good case in his work on the German Russian war that Stalingrad was not essential that it would have been easier and better to cut the Russian communications to the Caucases at some other place whose name is not on the tip of my fingers.

If Staligrad had been named Pleasantiville I don't think it would have been viewed the same way.

Tom

 

[Tom_B]

What if the pre-planning for Operation Barbarossa went differently, and it was decided that a two-pronged invasion of the USSR, one aiming for Moscow and the other for the Ukraine, was the best plan? How would this alternate Eastern Front have developed?

There is a school of thought that the northern prong was a classic case of wasting resources on a secondary at best objective. Stolfi subscribes to this but Stolfi is problematic shall we say. One thing to note is Fourth Panzer Group eventually came to the conclusion that the terrain there was not suited for armored warfare--too many marshes and the dense forests with few roads of mediocre at best quality.

So with virtue of hindsight an advance on RIga by one infantry army and another towards Veliye Luki (however it's spelled LOL) by another with some additional cavalry divisiions for mobile flank protection (I am of the opinion that the Germans could've and should've more cavalry divisions--and Guderian agrees with me) and leave the armor for army Groups Center and South would've been preferable.

There is lengthy topic of the best initial strategy in the South would've been.
Some think the initial ambitious plan which was abandoned would've worked.

Tom

 

[aktarian]

wasn't Barbarossa initially planned as two-pronged attack? IIRC north (Leningrad) and south (Ukraine, Caucassus) but not Moscow.

 

[Admiral Matt]

No. The initial plan included an attack aimed at Moscow, but Hitler had them redirected South to encircle the Russians near Kiev. That may or may not have been a good idea.

 

[aktarian]

No. The initial plan included an attack aimed at Moscow, but Hitler had them redirected South to encircle the Russians near Kiev. That may or may not have been a good idea.

I'm not talking about post-June 1941 changes, I'm talking about initial plan made in 1940. there were to be 2 groups, one north and one south of Pripyet marshes. This was later changed to 3 groups. I wish I could remember where I read about this.

 

[Scomerger]

Well, if [Operation Barbossa] were to be a two-pronged attack, the target cities would likely be Stalingrad, because it was a major industrial center, and Moscow, the capital and "heart" of the Soviet Union.

Hitler might have to postpone the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece in April 1941, because the invasions postponed [Operation Barbarossa] by six weeks (May 15-June 22, 1941) in OTL, and move on in with [Operation Barbarossa] on the original date: May 15, 1941.

Then Hitler would have to leave Leningrad alone for the time being, and go straight for Moscow or/and Stalingrad. This way, the Germans might capture Stalingrad by July/August and Moscow by perhaps August/September 1941, you think?

 

[Codeman]

when i play HoI 2 i always take lenningrad from finland and stailngrad from turkey and they meet at moscow

 

[Tom_B]

Road to Pleasantville

Well, if [Operation Barbossa] were to be a two-pronged attack, the target cities would likely be Stalingrad, because it was a major industrial center, and Moscow, the capital and "heart" of the Soviet Union.

Albert Seaton writes:

"Stalingrad was an industrial city on the Volga about forty miles east of the Don. Hitler's insistence on it's seizure had little basis in reason since it's capture by the Germans did not assist in the destruction of the Russians west of the Don or the further occupation of the Caucasus, and for this reason was to opposed by Halder and von Bock"

He goes on to mention how seizing Vichny Bashunchak would be much better because it would cut rail traffic to the Caspian which Stalingrad would not.

As for it's industrial significance Stolfi has a map with circles around the Russians cities indicationg the relative size of their manufacturing. He puts a number next to it indicating their rank. The circle at Staligrad is rather small and its number is 17.