I may be wrong but I believe if Moscow had been captured, it would have lead to a major disruption in the distribution of material and men for the Russian military.
Yes that would've denied the Soviets the advantages too, could they have bypassed it though?
I may be thinking of the Battle of Smolensk...
Some of what you've said rings bells.
Smolensk, dunno what I'd do there?
Leningrad I'd have just left, the same with Stalingrad.
Moscow was vital, as were the oil fields.
Moscow always had excellent air defense though, but the Panzers could have taken it easily, allowing the infantry to hold it easily again.
Why bother with SG and LG though?
Hitler could have bombed them into oblivion?
The same could go for Smolensk? - allowing the infantry to clean up the remainder (if they didn't surrender or run away!) and not stopping the Panzers?
I'd have left the London Blitz, just defended France with Me109's FW190's and used the He111's etc to smash infantry, tank masses, cities, factories etc. Could that be done?
Then the oil fields should have been reasonably alienated?
If they surrendered...
With the taking of Moscow, Stalin may even have been deposed?
Imagine a Kursk like battle in the early fall.
Kursk was stupid and IMHO, unwinnable.
I mean, using Ferds at point-blank??
If it was much earlier, it would probably be a few KV's vs a lot of PzIII's.
The Germans would have lost more tanks in that situation, maybe leaving not enough to crack Moscow?