LENINGRAD

Yes. Must give honour to the defenders of Leningrad for keeping the city! War is cruel and dirty and I think second to Stalingrad, Leningrad is an example of this as well.



What come to Finns, I think we had about seven divisions in the area:

http://axis101.bizland.com/Finland2.htm

But one mustn´t forget that the Finns stopped by Mannerheim´s order. We never bombed by planes or used artillery against Leningrad, there is even a sign on the wall of a Leningrad house today saying that the people should watch out for firing from the southern ( German ) side only.

It is said that Mannerheim already knew the war was won by Russia but I think he wanted to keep as many of Finns alive as possible and as well not to get in bad terms with the USA.

 

First, welcome to the forums, Yevgény and Herb! We'd like to see many postings of you both!

This is right, however. There were not enough mobile German forces available to perform such attacks. The only real solution would have been to take the city in urban dirty fighting supported by all land and naval guns available. An assault against the city as quickly as possible, before Zhúkov or any one else could have organised the defense. This of course, would have involved the Finnish divisions attacking as soon as they could.

I completely agree with that. My grandfather (who fought in 'the other side of the hill') has told me many stories too about that. The German foot soldier learned to fear the Russian foot soldier.

Even nowadays, people still believe that the Russians won the war because of massive frontal attack that overwhelmed the enemy. That's true, but people must not forget that in Leningrad and Stalingrad the Germans always had numerical superiority and that a small Russian squad with a machine gun halted German regiments in the streets.

I diagree slightly on this. There was urban dirty fighting in Stalingrad, more severe than in Leningrad. BUT the ammount of people (civilians) involved and the time the battle took are far greater than those at Stalingrad. And finally, most of the people at Stalingrad were evacuated and at the end of the battle, 24 German and Romanian divisions had been annihilated, while in Leningrad there was only a withdrawl. Leningrad took many more lives to achieve a minor victory compared to Stalingrad.

 

First off, thanks for the welcoming Friedrich. To your thoughts, I do not believe you are going to get much out of the Finns, which a taking of Leningrad requires there help.

Also, I for one believe the drive for Leningrad was not such a good idea. IMO, Germany had to chose one of the flanks (Baltics or Ukraine), and hope to god they can make it to Moscow by winter. Hoth's plan on how he would have conducted Barbarossa is a bit too dangerous for me to digest. Had everything gone right, its perfect, but everythign had to go right.

Here is why a German drive through the Baltics is a bad idea:

1. It lengthens the front, not so good for Germany
2. Roads, while decent compared with others in the USSR, are not there in quantity
3. Terrain does not favor mobile operations, a key to German success (small, hilly, heavily forrested, little room to maneuver)
4. Natural Resources in the Baltic are lacking

In all these points, Ukraine is the better choice. Ukraine does:

1. would not significantly lengthen the front as the Baltics would
2. ground is good as long as no rain, decent logistics
3. terrain favors mobile operations
4. and has loads of natural resources

Not to mention, with the additional taking of the Crimea, the VVS threat to Ploesti is firmly eliminated.

After this, a drive to the Dneipr, destroying as much of the Red Army as possible is attempted, then halting on the Dnepr. This protects the southern flank (the main threat), while still giving AGC enough time to have a drive to Moscow being the main effort, not going in every direction as historically happened.

 

Just some thoughts:

The main problem with Barbarossa as I have started to see it, is that there are 3 different objectives and not one grand one, which brings problems compared to previous Germany campaigns. This gave Hitler problems many a times as troops were transferred from place to place and not properly concentrated ( except for Kursk but that´s too late for Germany ). As well Hitler had started to downgrade ammunitions etc production in autumn 1941 after thinking the was was over....

On Baltics. The Germans actually made their way quite fast and one of the main reasons was that the locals started clearing their countries of Russians as they heard Germans were closing in.So as I´ve read there was not that much fighting as could have taken place.

And as we´ve talked of Moscow of not being so important how about thinking Germans losing Berlin and how that would affect the fighting spirit?

 

Well, with the loss of Berlin, the Germans counted to ten then surrendered.

But that didn't stop the Red Army from is atrocius behavior in occupied Europe.

 

You couldn't leave the Baltic countries undisturbed. First, you must have a continous front, you can't leave the whole northern flank exposed. Second, you need the Baltic countries on your side (Kai rightly pointed out that there wasn't much resistance from the local civilians). Third, it can provide a good spot to attack Moscow from the rear. Fourth, and most important, you need to eliminate the Russian naval menace in the Baltic; its ports and ships. Besides, a naval supply line would have shortened the supply line.

Yes, the Finnish were needed to take Leningrad, since they had controll over the northern part of the city.

 

Friedrich, I never quite stated that NO advance should be made through the Baltics. I believe an advance should have been made, but that it should not have been very important. Maybe an advance that reaches Riga, then slows after that.

I really do not see a reason to have the Baltic countries immediately. The population of the Baltics was not the big, and so the USSR would not benefit greatly of keeping it. Little to mention the fact that the Baltic populace did not like the USSR. Meanwhile, areas in the Ukraine and Belorussia fully supported the USSR, and were much more populated.

I do not see how the Baltics provide a good area from which to hit Moscow from the rear. Had the Germans taken Leningrad, then I would see this.

However, the advance there is over unfavorable terrain, and would be a slow process, further stretching German supply lines.

Now, AGN could better help the advance to Moscow by giving up divisions to AGC, which, with not to much going in in AGN, would certainly happen.


Finally, the Russian navy was horrible. It constituted absolutely no threat to Germany that the Kriegsmarine could not handle. And AGN's supply line did not need a shipping route very much in my scenario. The Baltics had decent roads, and AGN would not have a lot of forces eating up supplies, not to mention it would not be a long distance from East Prussia. The same cannot be said for the Ukraine option.

And if you take the Crimea (Sevastapol), you would already have Odessa, and therefore have good sea lines to the Ukraine. Once the Crimea was in German hands, the Soviet Black Sea fleet did next to nothing against the Axis except sit in ports and act as AA shields. Not to mention, the Crimea gives Germany the option of hitting the Kuban, the backdoor to the Caucasus.

 

The indecisive Hitler:

Army Group North was encountering difficulties in the attempt to capture Leningrad. In late July, the Army Group's commander, Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, received a visit at his headquarters from Hitler. Hitler promised Leeb that he would send Panzers from Army Group Center and he made good on his promise in the beginning of August - the XXXIX Panzer Corps of Hoth's Panzer Group 3 was transferred up north. In the battle for Leningrad, the Germans encountered fierce resistance from the Russians under the command of Georgy Zhukov. Despite the heavy fighting, the Germans made some progress; they did not capture Leningrad itself but on September 8th, they captured the town of Schlissenburg, east of Leningrad. With the capture of Schlissenburg, Leningrad was almost completely surrounded by the Germans and it's fall seemed imminent.

In the beginning of September, Hitler finally decided to go for Moscow. After Kiev fell, Hitler gathered the largest tank force ever assembled for a single front (General Erich Hoepner's Panzer Group 4 and Hoth's Panzer Group 3, both redirected from Army Group North, and Guderian's Panzer Group 2, which was redirected from Army Group South), for the drive to Moscow which was given the code name Operation Typhoon .

http://www.thirdreichpages.org/defeat.htm

 

Then you keep Leningrad as a huge base where massive Soviet forces can counterattack from, attacjing frontally Army Group North or Army Group Centre on its way to Moscow. No good strategic landscape there.

You are right abouy Byelorussia and the Ukraine. More populated, more important. But if you talk about the Ukraine it cannot be considered pro-Soviet or even pro-Russian... If Hitler wouldn't have had his Einstazgruppen and anti-Slave policies then he could have gained all the Ukrainians to his side. And the Baltic countries were indeed important as they covered the whole flank, meant a secure Baltic Sea and if little, the help of men power (that's always important).

The Baltic countries alone no. But them along with captured Leningrad would be very useful to attack Moscow from the rear. Have a look on the map.

Didn't you say there were nice roads and motorways? And this confirms my statement about a necessary sea supply-line. Thanks.

It actually did in October 1941, when a whole Armoured Group was transferred to Moscow (even if needed in the north and even if too late to take Moscow).

Definately no. The Soviet Baltic Fleet included two battleships and several cruisers. That's more firepower than the Kriegsmarine's at the time. Also, were those naval guns the ones who saved Leningrad several times.

Don't change the topic. Make a new thread if you want. It's only a matter to remember that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was far larger than the Bulgarian, Romanian and German combined. The Navy there made landings, kept Armies supplied, supported with guns everything, evacuated troops and made life impossible to the Germans there.

 

Friedrich, I do not quite see the logic in this statement of yours:

"Then you keep Leningrad as a huge base where massive Soviet forces can counterattack from, attacjing frontally Army Group North"

Cannot the same be said for dozens of other Soviet railway centers? When the Germans halted at Smolensk, the same can be said about Moscow.

Had the Germans continued to Moscow, the same can be said about Kiev. Also, had Moscow been captured, the same can be said about Gorki. The list just keeps going, Friedrich. This will force the Germans to take the whole of the USSR, something impossible to do.

"But if you talk about the Ukraine it cannot be considered pro-Soviet or even pro-Russian..."

The strongest supporters the Germans got in the Ukraine came from the right side of the Dneipr.


Ukranians were not as happy to see the Nazis as many say they were.

"And the Baltic countries were indeed important as they covered the whole flank"

Same can be said about the Ukraine. Targets must be prioritized for the Germans to have a chance to win.

And a secure Black Sea was more important than a secure Baltic.

The amount of manpower the Germans would get from the Baltics in 41 would be very small. Only when the USSR started coming back and got closer and closer did the Baltic peoples start joining more and more Wehrmacht forces.


"But them along with captured Leningrad would be very useful to attack Moscow from the rear."

I have looked at the map, and I see a long way of hundreds of miles further stretching Germany's logistics.


"Didn't you say there were nice roads and motorways?"

I said there were decent roadways in the Baltics, not nice, decent.

And I do not consider the area between Leningrad and Moscow to be part of the Baltics. I was referring to tha piece of land.

"And this confirms my statement about a necessary sea supply-line. Thanks.""

I do not see how. Roadways along the Baltic were decent, a whole heck of a lot better than the Ukraine's, which DID require a sea route for supplies. And Riga would give them an excellent base near the front for immediate supply, not to mention many other pors they would have taken with the drive to Riga.


"It actually did in October 1941, when a whole Armoured Group was transferred to Moscow (even if needed in the north and even if too late to take Moscow)."

Yeah, but only after AGC had to give AGN vital armored and infantry assests during September that cost valuable time, in an area which the AGC forces were not suited.

"The Soviet Baltic Fleet included two battleships and several cruisers. That's more firepower than the Kriegsmarine's at the time. Also, were those naval guns the ones who saved Leningrad several times."

Please show me where during the war the Soviet Navy gained naval supremacy in the Baltic.

Even in the later months of the war, the Soviet navy did not openly challenge the Kriegsmarine.

And numbers is not the big issue here. Quality and skill are, both of which are in favor of Germany. Not to mention they had plenty of ports the Kriegsmarine could use to take the Soviet Navy out with.

And I haven't even talked about the Finns, who would let the Germans have any port she could use for naval efforts in the Baltic.


"Don't change the topic. Make a new thread if you want."

I was making more reasons to show the importance of the Ukraine over Leningrad.

"It's only a matter to remember that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet was far larger than the Bulgarian, Romanian and German combined."

Yes, but as on land, numbers are not everything.

The Germans had 6 250 ton u-boats in the Black Sea, with an additional 10 MTBs, 23 motorized minesweepers, with the necessary cutters and other small naval craft needed. Also, with the Black Sea shipyards, the Axis naval effort there began fixing what they could that was laying around, and they came out with more MFPs, Artillerietragers and large transport craft. Over 200 ships were produced in the Black Sea.

Without Sevastapol, the Soviet navy is forced to go into Poti and Batumi, horrible ports. Not to mention the amount of oil that was supposed to come out of it.

The KM studied the Russian Naval efforts in WW1, and lost total respect for the Soviet navy. With some air assests, that small German force listed above sank over 300,000 tons of shipping, some 2/3 of the Soviet Black Sea merchant shipping.


"The Navy there made landings,"

At Kerch, when the Soviet Navy still had Sevastapol.

"kept Armies supplied"

The Soviets? The only force I can think of that the Soviet navy supplied was the Sevastapol garrison.

"supported with guns everything"

Again, only occured in the Criemean battles from what I remember.

"made life impossible to the Germans there"

Not quite true. In the Crimea (the easiest target for the Soviet Navy), after its complete capture up until the Soviets blocked the Perekop Isthmus later on in their Ukranian advances, German life in the Crimea was seen as a vacation resort. It was a paradise for them.

 

I love this thread! Thanks for the responses, Herb!
__________________________________________________

You said that Leningrad should have been left alone. And Moscow at that time was going to be attacked in the short term.

No, it is not the same Moscow or Kiev than Gorki or Grózny. You didn't have to take the whole Soviet Union. Just the main cities. But that's another thread...

Both were too important. That's why the German General Staff decided to take both. Hitler wanted the industrial city and bornplace of communism, Leningrad taken as well as the industrial and rich Ukraine.

This is truth and I agree with you that the whole southern part of teh front was more important than the northern one. But the latter doesn't stop being very important.

You can say the same thing about Memel or the Saar. Very little German manpower. But for little that manpower was valuable then, if used to improve railroads, motorways and seccure the supply lines. You can't deny the fact that help, even if small is still help.

620 kilometres between Leningrad and Moscow in a straight line. Some 750-800 kilometres when attacking the city from the flank and rear using the main motorway Leningrad-Moscow and reaching the rear of the city around Lake Rybinsk and the Volga river, an area free of marshes, good to manoeuvre. With a captured Leningrad there would have been many troops available to perform this attack.

OK. decent, nice roads, the point is that they were not primitive roads like those in the Ukraine. And if you are talking about the Valdai high ground then yes, it is nice terrain for an advance to Moscow. More to my favour.

Well, a sea supply line could have helped things much better. Then supplies coming by motorways directly from Riga and Leningrad instead of Danzig and Königsberg. That's a big relief for German logistics.

Agree, but we are now talking about Army Group Centre and its diversions... That's another thread.

I never did. But that's not the point. The Germans never had naval supperiority in the Atlantic but they were a big threat.

Quantity is not a big issue?! I can't believe that. Don't you remember that was precisely Russian quantity what defeated Germany? The simple fact that the USSR had 180.000.000 inhabitants and the 2nd most powerful industry in the world was what defeated Germany.

Quality. Yes, the Soviet Navy may not have been the best Navy in the world, but the German heavy ships were serving elsewhere then. And the Finland Gulf was ruled by Soviet Naval big guns. German minesweepers and torpedo boats were no match for the Soviet Fleet there. The only thing they could do was blockade it and handle it to the Luftwaffe.

And I take the points. As I stated before, the Ukraine was more important than Leningrad but Leningrad was still very important.

Yes they are. Tell that to a German Tiger tank crew facing 40 T-34s. Maybe they could destroy 25 before running out of AT rounds and losing the unreplaceable Tiger tank.

There was only the III Minesweepers flotilla serving there. And most of the Soviet Navy's losses in the Black Sea were caused by the Luftwaffe. And of course, if the Black Sea was more important than the Baltic why didn't the Germans (with the incompetent Red Navy) there didn't use Tangarod as supply-port or even brought the supplies along the Don river? Because they couldn't move freely in the Black Sea, even if the Soviets lost Odessa and Sevastopol, their main ports.

Not only there, but in 1943 and 1944, while trying to re-capture Sevastopol.

Happened in the Caucasus and Crimean battles of 1942, 1943 and 1944.

A paradise? In 1943, 1944?! Not really...

 

[/QUOTE]Both were too important. That's why the German General Staff decided to take both. Hitler wanted the industrial city and bornplace of communism, Leningrad taken as well as the industrial and rich Ukraine.[/QUOTE]


Friedrich, I have no doubt that the Ukraine, the Baltics and Belorussia were important to the USSR and important for Germany to succeed against the USSR. However, you know as well as I do that Germany did not have the power for powerful, sustained thrusts through all 3 for very long.

That is why I think it is an issue of prioritizing between the 3 areas. Overral, I believe the Baltics were the least important of them.

And von Manstein, not to mention a host of other respected German commanders such as Guderian, Hoth and others.... thought it was better to concentrate in the center, not the flanks.

This is volunteer work, or mostly at least.

Meanwhile in the Ukraine, Nazi policies were forcing many more to work as slaves.

BTW, I wonder how friendly the Baltic populace would be to the Germans once the Germans deported them and placed them farther into Russia after the war.

Friedrich, this is not quite true. The areas south and southeast of Leningrad were very much heavily forrested, swampy and etc....i.e., bad for maneuver. For a map of the area, check here:http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/dhistorymaps/WWIIPages/WWIIEurope/ww2el19.htm

Glantz describes such terrain around Tikhvin in 'The Battle for Leningrad 1941-1944':

"The Tikhvin region , which encompassed the northeastern part of Leningrad region, was a vast forested and swampy territory dotted with many lakes and swamps and crisscrossed by numerous rivers and streams. Forests, swamps, and lakes covered approximately 60% of the region. The region's main communication arteries were the Tikhvin-Volkhov-Luga, Rybinsk-Khvoinaia-Budogosh', Tikhvin-Budogosh', and Oktiabr'skaia rail lines, which were the only decent routes permitting movement through out the region. During the fall the few dirt roads that existed in the region quickly became sodden because of the abundant rains and unsuited movement by vehicular transport. This could be remedied by the construction of corduroy (wooden) roads.

Most towns, villages, and hamlets in the region were located in dry places, on hills and ridges, which were quite low and rolling, and along the roads. Since these populated points dominated all movement routes, they became key terrain and thus objectives for any attacking force."


Best way to encircle Moscow from the north would come via a drive through Vitebsk-Rzhev-Klin.

Not the big issue.

I have no doubt they were an issue, but they did not alone say who would win the war.

The important things about ground war are quality, quantity, logistics and initiative.

The Germans had the quality, quantity in areas, logistics were less than mediocre, and after mid-43, the initiative passed to the Red Army.

 

Many of your thoughts are right but then we come to the conclusion that Germany should have turned her economy to a full-war one by 1938 and mobilise the men she mobilised in 1941 in 1940... But that goesn on the thread "Eastern Front Victory Conditions"...

Agree. After some months, the three Army Groups lost power and therefore autonomy.

And the region south of Leningrad is full with full forests, agreed. But it is not Moscow's rear. And the area you're talking about is the good area for an attack because of the main motorway there! Just imagine German supplies coming that way directly from Leningrad, fetched there by the Kriegsmarine.

Quite true. It doesn't win the war by itself but it means an initial enormous advantage (the biggest nation is able to carry out better a long attrition war). And if you add that the Russians fought extremely well sometimes...

Then in 1941 the Germans had quality, quantity, initiative and horrible logistics. Now, with that statement we have concluded which of the four is the most important. And of course, by autumn the Germans didn't have that much quantity anymore.

In 1943 they didn't have quality, quantity, initiative and kept being bad logistics while the Red Army had quality, quantity, initiative and logistics (why? Because being such a large nation).