[Preston Cole]

Another question that intrigues me.

Summer '42 was the critical point on the Eastern Front. The Germans only had one shot at winning the war or tilting it in their favor, by carrying out one critical strike. While Fall Blau seems a good idea in theory - to the Soviets who'd deployed most of their forces around Moscow, the strike on the Caucasus came as a surprise - I've heard that the Baku oilfields would take months to repair after the Red Army sabotaged them. Plus, the length of the frontline was insane.

What were the chances of a second, hard and full-on strike on Moscow succeeding in '42, instead of Fall Blau? I imagine it would be sheer carnage shadowing Stalingrad, but it might possibly strike the Russians' morale if Moscow was occupied.

[Smilin' Dave]

It would have been Stalingrad, only with the deck stacked more in favour of the Red Army:
- As you note, the troops were alread concentrated against the Central Front.
- The Red Army had time to dig in somewhat outside of Moscow, where as there were no such preparations outside Stalingrad. So before even reaching the city the Wehrmacht will have a big fight on its hands. Once the fighting enters Moscow it will be comparitively harder as the initial defense of Stalingrad fell to poorly equipped, recently raised formations - Moscow will be defended by the (remanants/reserves) of several better quicked and experienced formations.
- Moscow is easier to reinforce than Stalingrad, being at the centre of the transport hub.
- Just as Stalingrad was a strategically difficult target due to being split in half by the Volga, Moscow as the Moskva river and a number of other waterways outside the city that will trip up any attempt to encircle it.
- Moscow is of course a bigger city, but it was also a better built one. Most of Stalingrad burnt down during the initial incendiary bombing raids, leaving only a relative handful of modern concrete buildings. Moscow on the other hand had been the subject of a massive reconstruction before the war and would have had many hardened buildings for a defender to use.
- While the Wehrmacht would have had more troops etc. on hand for the operation, it would also have absorbed more troops - it's a much bigger front to cover and Moscow itself will occupy many units without even touching the sides.
- Assuming Moscow plays out like Stalingrad on a larger scale, it's not unreasonable to assume it would have subject to a counter-attack and encirclement like the Germans at Stalingrad.
- Were such an encirclement/defeat to be repeated it would be even more disasterous. The later (historical) Operation Bagration gutted Army Group Centre, and effectively made the position of all other formations to the north and south untenable (you can't really let the enemy put his army between yours). So a defeat outside Moscow in 1942/1943 might have actually endangered the entire Eastern Front, as opposed to just losing a big chunk of Army Group South.