Talk:Battle of Moscow/Archive 1

older entries
Combatant strength states approx. 100,000 on either side, yet the losses of the Soviet Union are listed as 650,000. Huh? -- 80.145.164.29 22:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see the figures have been adjusted, but there is of course a general problem with these boxes. Eastern Front battles were not one-day events, but sequences of operations extending over weeks and months, and involving at times major reinforcements. The boxes can thus anyway only give a rough impression about the scale of battles. --Kolt 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is also some suspicion that the casualty figures for the German offensives of 1941 & 1942, usually derived from German wartime reports, may be exaggerated to a greater or lesser degree. However, I've never run across any proposed 'corrected' numbers. &mdash; B.Bryant 04:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed an irrelevant line
I removed the following line "In present-day Russia the ruined hulk of a German panzer rusts away outside Moscow, a silent reminder of how far the Germans moved." From my opinion that is an irrelevant fact, while I believe that it is true , it adds nothing of specific information to the article. (1)Where in Russia first of all? Didn't the person mean Moscow? (2)There is a fault with it : where in Moscow then does this panzer tank is ? Street, boulevard , neighbourhood ? It should be at least stated in detail or left out - it contributes nothing to the article - Babur

Manfred von Richtofen
The article asserts that there was a commander named "Manfred von Richtofen" at the Battle of Moscow, and links to the article about the famous pilot commonly known as the "Red Baron". I don't want to remove this right away since it has a citation (which unfortunately I don't have available to check), but it seems dubious to me. This edit has been in the article for a *long* time, so I don't want to delete it right away, but it should definitely be looked at I think. It also makes me question if other parts of the article have been tampered with. 134.50.7.201 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, it is Wolfram von Richthofen, who was a feldmarshall by that time. Obviously, since Manfred died in 1918, he would not be able to take part in the battle. :)
 * Thank you very much for pointing that one out! Cheers, Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. ^^ Thank you for your *very* quick response! I looked at your other contributions and you're a real benefit to Wikipedia. I just fix typos and stuff. ^^;; Maybe i should get around to getting a real account. >.>; However thanks to you I'll forever have an image of the Red Baron proudly serving the Reich, throwing his men against the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad, while a grizzled hammer-and-sickle-bedecked Snoopy returns sniper fire from within. ^^ 134.50.7.201 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Defenders of Moscow: Illustration
I am working on a project regarding Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov. As you will see, he played a part in the defence of Moscow, and his picture was printed along with other officers in Pravda. I have seen this illustration somewhere on the web, but I lost it. Does anyone know where it is? My e-mail address is in my profile. --Mjjohansen 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs This has been a highly debated topic among historians: was this decision Hitler's only great military feat or was it as mistaken as the many other times he made this order? Some believe allowing any retreat would have led to a complete German collapse and that the Nazi forces avoided this largely to Hitler's steadfast refusal to listen to any of his Generals. Others, like von Rundstent, note they would not have been in such a position if not for Hitler's criminal overconfidence in the first place.

Anyway, when I get some time I will put in a little section on this. I guess I have to register first.

Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs

It was one of Hitlers head long rush into a risky bet which lucky for him (and the German Army) paid off. During that time many if not all of the Generals were screaming to OKH to allow withdrawal, but many of the equipment and men were in no state to move. Had the withdrawl order be issued, the retreat most likely would be a blood bath - Am not using the word collapse here because the russians were also not in a position in terms of mobility and reserves to exploit any successes completely - see December / January 1942 offensive. OKH could not decide and Hitler stepped in.

--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- In the first paragraph it states that Hitler saw the capture of Moscow as the primary objective. This was not the case Hitler always saw the capture of Leningrad (Birthplace of Bolshevism) as the primary objective with Moscow second. He changed his mind again on the 8th july 1941 putting the priority of the the Ukraine over Moscow.

--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- Refer Hitler's Directive No.21, IIIA - Red Army to be destroyed first is the Primary Objective. Only then to deal with Leningrad - he isnt too keen in occupying it because that will mean he had to deal with the population - better to just lay seige and let them die off. See Siege of Leningrad - Hitler's directive on 7 October, signed by Alfred Jodl to the Army not to accept capitulation of the city.

Disambig
We should have disambig for the battles of Moscow from the Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618), and possibly for the French invasion of Russia (1812) (although the latter was not really a battle). As most refs are to the WWII battle, the article should stay where it is, but battle of Moscow (disambiguation) should be created and linked from the top of this articles. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this link constitute SPAM? Dfl92

Name translations
The article states that the Russian and German names are "(Russian: Битва под Москвой, Romanized: Bitva za Moskvu, German: Schlacht um Moskau)" in the opening line.

The Romanization however, does not match the Russian Cyrillic. Is the most common Russian name 'Битва под Москвой - Bitva pod Moskvoy' or 'Битва за Москву - Bitva za Moskvu'. There needs to be consistency here. D Boland (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right.
 * In Russian the standard usage is Битва под Москвой 1941 - 1942 (Bitva pod Moskvoy 1941 - 1942), which translates to (literally) Battle under Moscow to mean "in vicinity of". Since this sounds implausible in English, usually it is translated as Battle for Moscow 1941 - 1942 although it is technically incorrect since no battle for Moscow ever occurred. Wikipedia.ru decided to avoid the entire issue by using the term used in the Great Patriotic War encyclopaedia, Московская битва (1941—1942) and including Битва за Москву, Битва под Москвой in brackets! However, "Moscow battle" usage in English is also going to be opposed by some editors who insist on inventing new names for Soviet operations as it is with Battle of West Ukraine (1944), Soviet invasion of Manchuria, or the numbered "battles" of Kharkov among others. I do intend to bring up this introduction of original research at the Village Pump in the near future--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

German Planning section
I believe this section needs to be relooked at, it goes from discussing the plan of attack to summerising what happened and anyalsing the battle; surely that should be left for latter sections. I would attempt to do this myself however i just dont have the time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Winter counteroffensive
It looks like the counteroffensive involved a lot more then just Moscow, shouldn't there be a separate article for it? Oberiko 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is due for a major rewrite and restructuring. I think it was a mistake to merge Typhoon into this article because it now represents one German and one Soviet strategic offensives, and one Soviet strategic defensive operations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Operation Typhoon is just a part of the Battle of Moscow, so it deserves its own article. IMHO, it's like redirecting Operation Barbarossa to Eastern Front (World War II). Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Death tool
Although it is difficult but is their any death tool available for both Germans and Russians ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, a death tool? -- C opper K ettle  16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Temperature unit
I am missing a unit in:

"... the temperatures,[54] dropped as low as twenty to fifty below zero."

--Mortense (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates

 * did you know that the coordinates at the top of the Battle of Moscow point to a corner of the Rocket Force Academy building?

Does a battle that spanned hundreds of kilometers in width and depth need coordinates, at all? East of Borschov 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Astounding claim
''Despite the defeat near Aleksino, the Wehrmacht still possessed an overall superiority in manpower and land forces over the Red Army. The German divisions committed to the final assault on Moscow numbered 1,943,000 men, 1,500 tanks, while Soviet forces were reduced to a shadow of their former selves, with barely 500,000 men, 890 tanks.''

The only source given for this is the Russian encyclopedia, which basically rehashes Soviet-era propaganda regarding German strength. The 1,943,000 figure counts every single person in Army Group center, including air force personnel. In addition, it ignores the reinforcements available to the Red Army during the battle.

''Soviet postwar accounts treat the strengths of both sides' forces on the eve of the counterattack as a matter of outstanding historical significance. They emphasize that, as of 5 December, German forces outnumbered Soviet in the Moscow sector. However, the figures they employ vary and in the aggregate do not substantiate the existence of an actual Soviet numerical inferiority. The latest, hence presumably most authoritative figures, those given in the History of the Second World War, are 1,708,000 German and 1,100,000 Soviet troops on the approaches to Moscow.73 The numbers used in earlier Soviet works were 800,000 or "more than 800,000" German and between 719,000 and 760,000 Soviet troops.74 The German strength as it appears in the History of the Second World War comprises all personnel assigned to Army Group Center including air force troops.75 The Soviet strength is that of the forces assigned to the counterattack.76 The strengths given in the other works are said to be those of the divisions and brigades in Army Group Center and those of the Soviet fronts, in other words, the combat strengths for the two sides.77 None of the Soviet strengths given include the eight armies still in the Stavka reserve, a total of about eight hundred thousand men.''

''It is clear that, even without the reserve armies, the Soviet forces opposing Army Group Center were relatively stronger on 5 December than they had been in October when Operation TAIFUN began. While Army Group Center had not been able to replace its losses in troops and equipment, the Soviet armies in the Moscow sector had acquired a third more rifle divisions, five times more cavalry divisions, twice as many artillery regiments, and two-and-a-half times as many tank brigades by 5 December than they had had on 2 October.78''

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/USA-EF-Decision-3.html

24.210.144.187 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thats right, thats a bad comparision. I changed it. StoneProphet (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Tank strength
The number for German tank strenght cant be correct for 1 October. The Germans had ~1,700 on the whole Eastern Front in October 1941, therefore the number of tanks available for Army Group Centre for the Moscow attack must be smaller. StoneProphet (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1,700 was a Soviet estimate, changed it to the correct number. StoneProphet (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

German planning section (again)
The current German planning section is uncited except for 1 reference. It also repeats content covered in later sections. The FA version did not include a section like this. The section seems to have been added in late March 2008. Here's a version just before that. Since this is a Featured article, I suggest removing this section. Maybe move some details to later in the article where references cover it. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that a high proportion (and what appears to be the majority) of the article's citations are to the memoirs of the senior generals is also a major problem - these aren't reliable sources for a topic such as this, especially in light of the large number of recent and high-quality secondary sources which cover the battle. This article should probably go to a FAR in light of the extent of the problems with sourcing alone (note I haven't read a word of the article yet). Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at that aspect. I'll go ahead with my change in a couple days if no one has valid objection. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source for the first paragraph is Alan F. Wilt. Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941. Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 187-191. I need some time to verify if other paragraphs are supported by good secondary sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That cited paragraph in the "German planning" [starts with "Katukov concealed his armor.."] is partially repeated later in the "Vyazma and Bryansk pockets" section. If you want move and combine the text, that'd be a good improvement. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this section in near future. Not now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no rush. I'll see what I can do this weekend. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I combined the cited text with similar text later in the article. The paragraph I moved to the top of the Background section should be reworked to fit in better with the rest of the section and article as a whole. The previous version of the article is here if anyone wants to readd some text with references. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, note related posts on WT:Military history now archived here -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the text starting with "Elsewhere, the German advance was also bogged down..." and ending with "All possible preparations were done...; today starts the last battle of the year..."" can be removed because it essentially reproduces what Wilt says, but it goes into the details that are hardly relevant to this article. In addition, it is based mostly on primary sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Moscow encyclopedy
Moscow encyclopedy is available online and it does not do any casualties estimates. It gives only Soviet and German official numbers of casualties. So I see no purpose for citing Moscow encyclopedy rather than official data from Wehrmacht and Soviet sources (wehrmacht data btw does not include casualties of SS and Germany's allies).--Dojarca (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Moscow Encyclopedia" seems quite dubious. If you google "Moscow Encyclopedia" the top matches either refer back to Wikipedia or other encyclopedias. Also the reference to "Moscow Encyclopedia" refers to the "Great Russian Encyclopedia 1997", whereas this has been published only since 2004 []. Anytime you see a disparity in casualties such as "Therefore, total casualties between 30 September 1941, and 7 January 1942, are estimated to be between 174,000 and 248,000 for the Wehrmacht (Wehrmacht reports / Moscow encyclopedia estimate) and between 650,000 and 1,280,000 for the Red Army (Erickson / Moscow encyclopedia estimate)", it beggars belief. This war has been over long ago. JS (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting Quotes
Under the section Plans "For Hitler, Moscow was the most important military and political target, as he anticipated that the city's surrender would shortly afterwards lead to the general collapse of the Soviet Union. As Franz Halder, head of the Oberkommando des Heeres (Army General Staff), wrote in 1940, "The best solution would be a direct offensive towards Moscow."

This conflicts with a statement in the article on Barbarossa theat Hitlers objectives were Lennengrad first, then the south then Moscow. My understanding is that this is correct. Hitlers staff mostly wanted to go for Moscow first, but Hitler opposed them. von Rundstadt wanted to do Leningrad first, secure the south and then reassess the situation and start operations on Moscow if the situation permitted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.208.121 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; Brauchitsch also, during the planning meetings, voiced his extreme desire to take Moscow, before the Russian Winter, and Hitler reportedly told him, "Only ossified brains could think of such an idea." It's also plainly obvious (practically common sense) that Hitler did not want Moscow, but rather Keiv, the Ukraine, Rostov-on-Don, Ozono Kizi, and Baku, precisely because he diverted Guderians panzers South. It should defiantly be changed. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and changed it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

FA status failure
This article clearly no longer meets the FA criteria. It's vital for the article we do some clean up work! Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Some Tidying Up
First, it's only fair to acknowledge the research of those who authored the current commentary. It makes some good points and presents facts I wasn't aware of.

Nevertheless, some tidying is in order. The piece is too lengthy, with a tendency to digress into details not terribly significant to the Battle of Moscow itself, such as the Battle Of Smolensk, recovering Soviet air strength and fortification-building, etc.

To my understanding, the Battle of Smolensk went smoothly for the Germans, resulting in the pocketing of 250,000 Soviet troops by mid-August, not September 10. It is at this stage (mid-August), citing passages from Alan Clark's "Barbarossa" that a conflict developed between Hitler and his generals over strategy, with Hitler finally deciding to temporarily halt the drive on Moscow in favor of the Ukraine.

Consequently, Army Group Center was, for a short period, stripped of its armor to speed up the attacks on Leningrad and Kiev. The Soviet counteroffensive which later took advantage of this troop reduction did not extend the Battle of Smolensk beyond its mid-August conclusion as Army Group Center had already been ordered to a temporary halt.

Hence it was not Soviet resistance beyond mid-August, but Hitler which delayed the assault on Moscow. The original piece cites some good arguments in favor of that decision. But Soviet resistance at Smolensk does not seem terribly relevant to the Battle of Moscow. I don't see how it affected German plans in the least.

Some mention should be made with regard to the Soviet system's ability to replace shattered divisions and put new ones into battle.

The autumn rain which turned the countryside into a muddy quagmire needs far greater emphasis as it saved the remaining Soviet forces in front of Moscow from certain destruction following Vyazma-Bryansk. By October 11, the Germans were reduced to a crawl and the tempo of their operations did not pick up until November 15 when the ground hardened.

Further emphasis should be made regarding the German armies lack of cold weather clothing. This made the offensive against Moscow a race against time before freezing temperatures became a serious problem. German artillery and machineguns suffered reduced effectiveness. The Luftwaffe would be grounded much of the time.

The Soviets did not raise new armies for the defense of Moscow. Instead, they withdrew the battered 10th, 19th, 26th and 27th into reserve for rebuild. These were joined by other Soviet armies which, hitherto, had been deployed deep in the hinterland. These included 39th, 57th, 59th, 60th, and 61st. The 19th, 26th, 27th and 60th received extra men and equipment and then redesignated as Shock Armies. That the Soviets perpetually slowed the German advance while steadily accumulating a reserve force of 58 divisions underscores their ability to absorb punishment and keep feeding fresh units into battle.

So in summarizing the key events surrounding the Battle of Moscow, one must cite the delay imposed by Hitler's change of strategy in mid-August, stubborn Soviet resistance and their ability to bring in fresh units and establish new lines of defense. The autumn rains and mud which were a pivotal event in slowing the German attack further immediately after the devastating Soviet defeats at Vyazma and Briansk. Finally, the Germans suffered greatly from the Russian winter which they were largely unprepared for and gambled they would not have to deal with. This set the stage for a Soviet counteroffensive in early December which threw the Germans back and made clear the war in Russia would be a long one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.163 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a featured article, meaning not that it can't be edited, but that it has been very thoroughly reviewed and worked on by a team of experienced editors for some months. Given the subject's size and complexity, it will take time for any editor to acquire a deep enough knowledge to decide where improvement may be needed. An initial need for any change is not to damage existing, relevant, and cited claims, including not accidentally breaking citations, or seeming to imply that a new piece of text came from an existing citation. That said, the article seems to read quite well, so I doubt it needs "tidying". If it is wrong in any factual detail, that can of course be corrected at once with a suitable citation. Matters of emphasis and focus require more care: in general with a mature article like this one, be very cautious about removing anything and get consensus here on the talk page for any such removal; and take great care not to try to push any particular point of view, but rely on the sources available and cite them carefully in the same style used in the article. General claims like "too lengthy" are not likely to gain consensus: the article is not unduly long. I suggest you begin with small, specific, cited additions on points that have not been suitably covered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________


 * I will respond to your rebuttal. First, are you knowledgeable on the 1941 Battle of Moscow?  If not, then how capable are you of evaluating those who write about it?

The original contributor(s) make a substantial error in claiming the Battle of Smolensk had much effect on the German drive toward Moscow. The Soviet forces in that area were surrounded and wiped out in roughly the same time as had been done at Minsk. Most historians agree that it was following the Battle of Smolensk, when Hitler made the decision to halt Army Group Center and divert its tank elements toward Kiev and Leningrad that a fateful delay occurred.

Contrary to the article's assertion, the Soviet counteroffensive against Army Group Center which began after mid-August and raged until September 10, did not halt German progress. Hitler's order had already done that. It is inaccurate to assume otherwise.

The article reads well? According to you, perhaps. In my opinion, much of the usage is clumsy and at times not representative of high academic standards. The organization of ideas is scattered at times, resulting in repetitious passages. Other issues such as the mud, German lack of winter clothing, Soviet mobilization capability and the effects of temperature on German weapons are not as fully discussed as should be. It is not enough to be factually accurate. One must know the essentials and summarize concisely Digression into trivial details such as Luftwaffe bombing statistics and Soviet fort-building add little of value.

And yes, the article is unduly long. The opening stages of Barbarossa and especially the Battle of Smolensk have little to do with Typhoon. I could care less if this view does not gain consensus. It's the truth. If you wish to be stubborn and stick your heads in the sand on these points, then live with the consequence of being second-rate academics.

-Bob Holden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.163 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to stand on ceremony, but anything you say on a talk page MUST comply with Policy 'No Personal Attacks' and Policy 'Civility'. As already stated, the article's physical length is perfectly acceptable; but you seem to mean that some parts are not relevant, and the example below certainly looks out of place: feel free to edit it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Example of Irrelevant Commentary
However factual and cited the following may be, it is wholly irrelevant to the 1941 Battle of Moscow:

In his study of the Nazi economy, British economic historian Professor Adam Tooze contends that the very survival of the Red Army as a fighting force indicated that the Germans had lost the conflict in Russia (the same thing happened to Napoleon in Russia), and thus the war, as moving east of Smolensk meant stretching German supply lines beyond their effective limit. He highlights that the colossal loss of materiel on the eastern front – without having won a decisive victory – was bleeding the German economy to death – reaching "a total impasse". He concludes "It was through the achievement of Lebensraum on American scale that the Third Reich hoped to achieve both the standard of affluence and the encompassing reach of global power already attained by Britain and the United States. As events between June and December 1941 made clear, Nazi Germany lacked both the time and the resources to take this first step."

-Bob Holden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.163 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cut the paragraph: the article should focus on the battle, not the historians. For the same reason I've removed mention of Glantz as too prominent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pro Nazi / Pro American propaganda and falsifications
1,280,000 Soviet losses vs 1,250,000 Soviet strength That's heady stuff, 120? % casualty rate is credible as American "history" text books, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83A2:3D86:454F:5182:6D34:9EAA (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Operation Wotan"
This topic is not covered in the article, and the operation is red linked and does not provide any context.


 * A separate operational German plan, codenamed Operation Wotan, was included in the final phase of the German offensive.

The only apparent source for this is a book by an author James S. Lucas, pls see Google books search results. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The battle was of no importance
If Moscow had been taken the Soviets would have simply kept moving their government further east. (81.159.7.253 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

This is not a forum DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
I would just like to add why I changed the result to a Strategic victory. The result was not decisive, since the Soviets had such massive losses, and since they only pushed back the enemy to lines that could be easily defended. The Soviets formed a solid strategy which in whole drove the Germans back and changed the direction of the war (in many ways a definition of a strategic victory). Also, the infobox already claimed that the battle was a strategic Soviet victory, so I removed that line as it was clearly redundant. KevinNinja (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I changed it back to "Decisive victory" because I feel it is the fairest description. The word "victory" used alone almost always means "strategic victory". The latter expression should only be used in contrast to a tactical victory, if that's what the opponent won. In this case the Germans were defeated in all senses of the word. (Massive losses are not relevant, Stalin certainly would not have cared if it would win him the war). Because the Germans never resumed the drive on the city, the victory was decisive of the fate of the Soviet capital, and by extension, to some authors, of the outcome of the war (see text for refs). Nicolas Perrault (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge
I think it would be a good idea to merge the Operation Typhoon page here and redirect it. There isn't much content on the other page beyond background and after-effects, so it's mostly redundant with this page already. &mdash; B.Bryant 04:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A bit too late to oppose (4 years!), IMHO instead of merging Operation Typhoon it should have been expanded. I intend to re-create that wikiarticle with better, comprehensive content and no redundancy, as the topic is notable per se to have a dedicated article. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

After another six years I totally agree with DPdH. The subject of the battle of Moscow is so emence that there should be multiple main articles behind it, of which typhoone must definatly be one Christwelfwww (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We'd just need to write the typhoon article. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

-50 C in early December?
I quote: "By early December, the temperatures, so far relatively mild by Russian standards,[53] dropped as low as twenty to fifty degrees Celsius below zero, freezing German troops, who still had no winter clothing, and German vehicles, which were not designed for such severe weather." - I think the -50C number needs a strong reference. Maybe it is the "-30C" misspelled? -- C opper K ettle  13:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote from Boris Shaposhnikov's "Battle for Moscow": "Средняя температура для Московского района: ноябрь – 3°, декабрь – 8°, январь – 11° ниже нуля. Однако зима 1941/42 года была очень суровой, с большим снежным покровом. Средняя температура зимой 1941/42 года была следующей: в ноябре – 5°, в декабре – 12°, в январе – 19° ниже нуля. В отдельные периоды морозы в январе доходили до минус 35 – минус 40°. Толщина снежного покрова достигала 50–65 см." -- "The mean temperature in the Moscow Region are for November: -3, for December: -8, for January: -11 C. However, the winter season of 1941/1942 was very harsh, with ample show covering. Mean temperatures for 1941/42 winter were as follows: -5 C in November, -12 C in December, -19 C in January. The temperatures at some time periods fell as low as -35 - -40 C. Snow cover reached 50-65 cm in depth."
 * A book on Rokossovsky gives the -31C number as the lowest point for December 1941. -- C opper K ettle  13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example: I lived in Noyabrsk for 10+ years, and January temperatures there fell to -40C and little below that, but I do not remember -50C. -- C opper K ettle  13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The European Winter of 1941-1942 was the coldest of the 20th century. The lowest recorded morning temperature in Moscow was of -35.9 C and attained on 3 January 1942. The article should not cite temperatures lower than this unless night time temperatures were recorded, but I would not be surprised if during the nights and with the winds it dipped to -50C. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Moscow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025022023/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec41.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec41.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wehrmacht at the gates"
I did some very minor clean up work on this article recently. I must say that this section title is somewhat misleading and colloquial as used. Thoughts about changing this? Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. What do you propose? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it, actually. The "at the gates" idiom has a long history (going back at least to ancient Rome); only the most literal-minded would interpret the expression as Wehrmacht soldiers standing at gates. So much of the writing on WP is flat and gray that it's nice to occasionally see an engaging turn of phrase. I would be saddened to see this turned into "A German patrol reaches a bridge 17 km from Red Square" or something similar. But I won't raise a fuss over it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something like: "Wehrmacht advance towards Moscow". Kierzek (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds good to me too. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strictly the "Wehrmacht advance toward Moscow" began 22 June 1941. Maybe "Wehrmacht advance on Moscow" would carry more of an implication that they were getting near Moscow? But I'm OK with "towards" if everyone else prefers it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, change made. Kierzek (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"Final pincer"
This could also use wordsmithing. In the north, the 4th Panzer Group was pretty close, but in the south, the German forces were spread out hither and yon. The 2nd Panzer Group failed to take Tula (nearly 200 km from Moscow) and Kashira (100+ km to Moscow). So calling it a “final pincer” seems like a stretch. It was more of a frontal assault at that point by PG 4. Perhaps “Failed pincer”? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. "Failed" is clearer. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kierzek (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, change made. Kierzek (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability and ref formatting
The article includes numerous reference to Guderian's book, but the first occurrence refers to a Russian translation ( Heinz Guderian, Erinnerungen eines Soldaten (Memoirs of a soldier), Smolensk, Rusich, 1999 - that is Гудериан Г. Воспоминания солдата. — Смоленск.: Русич, 1999) ; then the following refs are to plain "Guderian"  ; then the bibliography has the original German edition. To which edition refer the various plain "Guderian" refs in the article?--Phso2 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, Guderian is a primary source, and heavy usage of primary sources is not allowed. Is it possible to minimise it, or to supplement is with some good secondary source?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this is another matter. The problem was raised on the [FA discussion, but somehow dismissed for completeness sake. The refs to Guderian actually point to the Russian translation, as shown on the article's history.--[[User:Phso2|Phso2]] (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Page numbers in citations
these are the books the endnotes are referring to (page numbers) ; for the sake of verifiability the reader should be able to know into which edition to look for the cited pages.--Phso2 (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So the article really uses the Russian translation?  I don't have the Russian translation handy to cross-check.  It's quite awkward that a Russian translation is used in an English Wikipedia article when citing a book by a German author, so we should fix that. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is awkward, but the principal contributor was Russian-speaking, this is why. Note that David Stahel's "Operation Typhoon" is also quoted from its Polish translation (Stahel, David (2014). Operacja "Tajfun". note 23 ab) ; twelve footnotes were also erased a while ago because the cited book wasn't precisely ascertainable. This FA doesn't seem to match the current standards for the label.--Phso2 (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

centre/center
I don't care which the article uses, but the mixture it has is just weird, for example: ". . . Army Group Centre advanced towards Moscow. By July 1941, Army Group Center . . . ." Adoring nanny (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not important
More modern historians have asserted the battle was not that important, as any Axis attack on Moscow in 1941 would have failed. (86.173.162.138 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC))
 * Even if this were objectively true, how would this affect what's currently in the article? Every article's subject is important within the article by definition, because readers read what they consider important to them.  Even if I'm not interested in Pokémon, that's no reason for me to insert "this isn't important" into WP's several hundred Pokémon articles.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  01:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Casualties estimation
How can a Russian estimation of German casualties be trustfully, since these number involve a lot of political motivation ? 91.182.248.223 (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Implausible Speculation
" "It is no exaggeration to state that the outcome of the Second World War hung in the balance during this massive attack".[15]" Exaggeration is exactly what it is. Britain and Canada were already committed to the construction of nuclear weapons and America were months away from coming on board. Even if Hitler had avoided declaring war on the US, which he had already promised to Japan, American Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union would have made Germany's cause hopeless. It's would even be an exaggeration to claim that the Battle of Moscow put the Soviet Union in the balance. The Soviets had already built most of their steel industry beyond the Urals. They had twice Germany's population and half Germany's enemies. Hitler was a fool from the start and a double fool to have gone after the Russians. A good recent source on all this is Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction, https://www.amazon.ca/Wages-Destruction-Making-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208?ref_=nav_custrec_signin& , but of course, all standard economic histories of WWII make the same points clear. The article as written is lively speculative journalism and has no business posing as encyclopedia-standard history.

# # # On the opening page of "Talk" there is a dire '''This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Moscow article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.''' I'm sorry, the whole point of an encyclopedia is to convey content. It is impossible to improve an article without changing the content. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate interest behind that apparently bizarre imprecation -- the desire to cut down on idle chatter. I suggest that the dire warning be replaced with a friendly invitation, something to the effect of "discussion of the topic, as opposed to improvement f the page, is carried out in the Sandbox, or Coffee Shop," or wherever it actually is. With a prominent click-through and an attractively designed invitational format, that would be the best way of getting clutter out of the way, I'd think. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Many non-professionals (including Hitler himself) believed in some magic weapon as a decisive tool to win any war. Meanwhile, the idea that the war is won by the side that first invented nuclear weapon is totally amateurish. In addition, had Germany got all resources of European Soviet union, she would probably allocated more resources for development of atomic weapon. Remember, all key discoveries needed for construction of the atomic bomb had already been made by 1941, btw, mostly by Germans, and, the fact that many key figures escaped to the West should not mislead us: by 1941, construction of atomic weapon required not brilliant thinkers (majority of whom escaped), but good, well trained professionals (who still were working in Germany). Therefore, it is quite possible that de facto disappearance of Eastern front could create a comfortable situation for German physicists, who would have fixed Heisenberg's error with critical mass determination and created the atomic bomb. Taking into account that Germans had already had ballistic missiles by 1944, there would be no Hiroshima explosion, and London or New York would be the first victim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Paul Siebert supplies a fine example of exactly the sort of chatter which I suggested be consigned to the Sandbox.
 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed
This Featured article is a 2006 promotion whose main writer has not been active for many years. There are problems raised on talk (above), considerable amounts of uncited text, and a MOS review is needed. If these issues cannot be addressed, this article should be submitted to Featured article review. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I will be able to add missing references (or to change the text to address cn). Can you please look through the whole article and check it for other problems?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly I have to agree with comments above. Stating in the lede that it was the turning point in the war without giving another perspective is a NPOV violation. Yes, there are a lot of RS which say so, but you can find lots of equally good sources saying that Barbarossa was doomed from the outset, or giving a different turning point (US entry into the war, El Alamein, Stalingrad, etc.) buidhe 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't meet MOS:IMAGELOC. buidhe 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations and reference style needs an overhaul. I also find it odd that the article relies most heavily on the weakest sources in the bibliography (various memoirs) instead of the best quality secondary coverage. buidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 22:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is probably also on the short side given it covers one of the largest and most important battles of World War II: I doubt it covers its topic fully. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The FAR is due, as the article has not kept up with the FAR requirements. For example, there are multiple citations to Guderian and Zhukov. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I added Bellamy's "Absolute war" to the list of sources. This book was awarded the Duke of Westminster's Medal for Military Literature in 2008, the author is Professor of Military Science and Doctrine and head of the Security and Resilience Group, Cranfield University. It can be used as a source for many statements. I am going to add references to this book with exact page numbers to replace cn tags, memoirs, as well as references to TV films. I need some time to finish this work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Problems with article
A couple problems I noticed with this article: Nosferattus (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The two most heavily used sources are Guderian and Zhukov, both of which are in Russian (making verification extremely difficult) and both of which are primary sources (memoirs), making them potentially unreliable anyway.
 * The article often jumps around chronologically making it difficult to follow.

Moscow
What would happen if battle of Moscow were won by Germany RAYMOND474748682627585737584727573736&#38;7482575727474+ +&#39;+*+&#38;8 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYMOND474748682627585737584727573736&7482575727474+ +'+*+&8 (talk • contribs)