|
Posts:
2,186
From:
Houston, TX
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
(1 of 15)
What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jun 29, 2009 8:06 PM
|
|
Historically, the Germans gambled on Caucasus oil fields... but what if the Germans, using the Finnish as a protected northern flank, concentrated their offensive on Leningrad?
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(2 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jun 30, 2009 11:32 AM
|
Although the terrain is less favorable, if they used the same combat power deployed for Blue, they would hopefully at least achieve a complete isolation of the city, which hopefullly would be followed by a successful conclusion of the siege. I'm not sure how much that does for them overall though. They'd free up the German and Finnish forces involved in the siege, but they would not have inflicted massive losses on the Soviet reserves or mobile troops. Possibly they might continue the advance to cut off Lend-Lease supplies via the northern route, but as noted in the Murmansk discussion the Allies had other options.
The Soviet Baltic Fleet was already effectively neutralilzed; even their submarines were unable to operate much in the Baltic until the shores of the Gulf of Finland were cleared by the land advance in 1944. There would be some benefit in opening a sea route for supplies via Leningrad/Kronstadt once it was cleared of mines and wrecks (and while it was unfrozen) but that does not seem tremendously significant.
The German advance would be close to the Russian reserves massed around Moscow, and the rail network would facilitate feeding in troops and supplies. The Germans could have a prolonged slugging match. On the other hand there seems less potential for the sort of catastrophe that threatened them after the Red Army counterattacked at Stalingrad.
One thought on my frequent theme of making effective use of allied forces like the Romanians or Italians; those forces would presumably be holding the line in the south rather than being committed to the main offensive. On the other hand the Russians might take the opportunity to attack in what seemed like a quiet sector rather than confronting the German offensive directly.
Do you see some particular benefits to attacking in the north? The historical Blau had the potential to seize resources the Germans needed - oil - to provide strategic depth to protect other resource areas like the Ukraine, to secure the Black Sea (however much that signified), and offered the opportunity to engage and destroy large Soviet forces in mobile warfare, the Germans' principal advantage. It even threatened the Middle East and the Lend-Lease route through Persia, though I would not give those too much importance.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(3 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jun 30, 2009 4:06 PM
|
|
there actually was a plan. After taking the Crimea Mansteins 11th army was transfered to the north to begin operations. The main problem was armour was useless in the area negating the Germans advantage and there were not enough infanty to effectivly attack. Losing Lenningrad would be a blow but nothing that would force the Soviets out of the war.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,186
From:
Houston, TX
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
(4 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jun 30, 2009 5:00 PM
|
Carronade the benefits I see would be:
A) not risking an encirclement (because the Finns are successfully protecting the northern flank)
B) like you said the weaker Allies could just hold the line instead of being part of the decisive offensive
C) the Germans would have the opportunity to prevent the shortest LL land route from getting to Moscow (by taking Murmansk)
D) historically the ineffective siege of Leningrad tied up Army Group North significantly, and if your main offensive is in the North there would be no Stalingrad risk (Lake Ladoga helps in this regard)
E) Finnish ski troops are highly mobile, and if the Karelian is safer they may venture out instead of holding a line like they did historically
F) The minerals of the north could be extracted if captured (iron ore)
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(5 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 1, 2009 8:28 PM
|
|
you ignore the fact that the German tank advantage was negated by the terrain and Germany could not afford a protracted fight for Lenningrad which is why they never tried to take it. THe fact is that the Germans would have been forced in to the exact same kind of attrition battle to take Leningrad as they suffered in Stalingrad.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,192
From:
NY
Registered:
2/26/04
|
|
(6 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 2, 2009 6:18 AM
|
|
Leningrad proper (city and suburbs) did not need to be directly taken in order for the city to fall. The Wehrmacht needed to work out an agreement with the Finns to allow German troops to take offensive positions on the Northern side of the siege perimeter and to also create more depth around the city that would completely cut off any resupply from the outside. If outside contact was completely severed, Leningrad could not survive more than a few months in the winter of 42/43.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(7 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 2, 2009 4:00 PM
|
|
the Germans had to take and hold Tihkvin to cut off Leningrad, which they did in oct 41, due to the Soviet attack and a lack of troops it was abandoned. My main point is the terrain favored the defender. Even with 4 to 1 superiority in infantry it took till 44 fo the seige to be broken. The losses the Germans would suffer in trying to finish the isolation of lenningrad would have been equal to that of Stalingrad.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,186
From:
Houston, TX
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
(8 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 3, 2009 6:06 PM
|
> the Germans had to take and hold Tihkvin to cut off
> Leningrad, which they did in oct 41, due to the
> Soviet attack and a lack of troops it was abandoned.
> My main point is the terrain favored the defender.
> Even with 4 to 1 superiority in infantry it took till
> 44 fo the seige to be broken. The losses the Germans
> would suffer in trying to finish the isolation of
> lenningrad would have been equal to that of
> Stalingrad.
Highly unlikely, given that there would be no way for the Soviets to use a pincer movement to surround the Germans like they did Sixth Army.
|
|
|
Posts:
821
From:
Aurora, CO
Registered:
12/14/99
|
|
(9 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 3, 2009 9:20 PM
|
While the Germans might not have been surrounded, remember a couple of other problems they would be contending with:
The terrain up north was far more unsuitable for large scale combat, than it was in the south. Tikhivin, and the areas around it were generally a huge forest. Tanks were almost worthless up there.
The weather was also a bit worse farther north.
Also remember that Leningrad is still fairly close to Moscow. It would be easy for the Russians to feed plenty of infantry units into the heavily forested terrain. The Germans would have to contend with large logistical problems as well. Supply lines through the forest are fairly easy to interdict.
And a direct attack on Leningrad would just result in an urban bloodbath.
Fighting in the forests wouldn't be a whole lot better.
Remember the Huertegen Forest for the US?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,186
From:
Houston, TX
Registered:
5/25/05
|
|
(10 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 4, 2009 6:36 AM
|
> While the Germans might not have been surrounded,
> remember a couple of other problems they would be
> contending with:
>
> The terrain up north was far more unsuitable for
> large scale combat, than it was in the south.
> Tikhivin, and the areas around it were generally a
> huge forest. Tanks were almost worthless up there.
>
> The weather was also a bit worse farther north.
>
> Also remember that Leningrad is still fairly close to
> Moscow. It would be easy for the Russians to feed
> plenty of infantry units into the heavily forested
> terrain. The Germans would have to contend with large
> logistical problems as well. Supply lines through the
> forest are fairly easy to interdict.
>
> And a direct attack on Leningrad would just result in
> an urban bloodbath.
>
> Fighting in the forests wouldn't be a whole lot
> better.
>
> Remember the Huertegen Forest for the US?
The key here is all of your points listed, the Germans faced the same problems at Stalingrad (well except for the forests). But the difference in this scenario is the Germans do not have to rely on weaker Romanian, Bulgarian, and Italian forces to protect their northern flank.
The Germans would be safe as long as the Finns held the north, which is what they had been doing since before Barbarossa.
In historical terms, the Finns were cautious not to appear as the aggressor, picking conservative borders to halt their advance, and refusing the commit more troops to the south to aid the Germans. If the Germans launched an attack in the north they could probably convince the Finns to give a little bigger push.
With the offensive concentrated in the north, the weaker Axis armies in the south would only have to provide a holding action, without being stretched thin miles and miles on the Volga and Stalingrad.
|
|
|
Posts:
821
From:
Aurora, CO
Registered:
12/14/99
|
|
(11 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 4, 2009 12:42 PM
|
Stalingrad was a whole lot further from Moscow than Leningrad was.
Just the threat of an attack on Moscow kept a large portion of the Soviet Army there.
With no credible threat in the south (the Romanians and Italians weren't going over on the offensive), the reserves would pour north on a scale much larger and faster than they did historically at Stalingrad.
And the Finns proved throughout the war that they didn't want to attack Leningrad themselves.
This means the vast majority of resources would have to be German. And drawing reserves from the south would just allow the Soviets to destroy the weak Romanian and Italian Armies, and rip a huge hole in the lines down south.
The Germans best weapon against Russia at that time was still the panzer divisions. And these would be worthless in a direct push through heavy forests.
I see only a large scale bloodbath for the Germans. They would suffer huge losses in infantry, and just be slogging forward a mile at a time through forests.
Tikhivin would be harder to capture and even harder to hold than in 1941. I just don't see it happening.
Look at how long it took for the Soviets to push the Germans back up there. Great defensive terrain, not conducive to mobile operations, which was Germany's greatest strength.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,344
Registered:
2/27/03
|
|
(12 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 6, 2009 6:50 AM
|
The failure of Blau stemmed more from mistakes in execution than anything wrong with the basic concept - misuse of the allied armies, getting bogged down in a street fight for Stalingrad, failure to provide mobile reserves. As I always say, anyone with a map could anticipate the path of the Soviet counterstroke. It might be said that a well-executed operation in the north is safer than a faulty one in the south, but that doesn't answer the basic question of which was the better strategy.
The northern operation, even if successful, would be a relatively small "bite" in terms of either territory or Soviet troops destroyed. It would neither secure essential resources for Germany nor preclude Soviet action in the south; historically they launched an offensive comparable in scale to Stalingrad at the same time against the Rzhev salient. Lend-Lease via the northern route was cut off for roughly half of both 1942 and 1943 by air and naval action independent of the ground situation. The war would go on, and I don't see the northern operation improving Germany's position or prospects as much as success in the south.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,192
From:
NY
Registered:
2/26/04
|
|
(13 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 6, 2009 12:26 PM
|
A successful conclusion for the Germans at Leningrad would be a huge boost for morale and free up much of Army Group North (especially their artillery). What they needed was a large amount of infantry and to a lesser extent artillery and even less in regard to armor to finish the job.
If you look at the road/rail hub of Volchov on this map you'll see that the distances involved were not great. A seizure of this town and remaining shore of Lake Ladoga would have sealed Leningrads fate.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Leningrad_Siege_May_1942_-_January_1943.png
|
|
|
Posts:
2,610
Registered:
7/24/06
|
|
(14 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 6, 2009 4:35 PM
|
|
i really doubt that the Germans could have taken any more of the caucausus then they did because of the problems of manpower. the panzers would not be of use in the mountains and the Germans would still have difficulties getting enough manpower to fight and to guard flanks.
|
|
|
Posts:
821
From:
Aurora, CO
Registered:
12/14/99
|
|
(15 of 15)
Re: What if... Case Blue was concentrated on Leningrad?
Jul 7, 2009 9:13 PM
|
The problem wasn't the distances, it was the terrain.
Why did it take so long for the Soviets to push the Germans BACK from Leningrad?
It was only a short distance.
But the terrain was ideal for defense, not offense. And launching an offense in that terrain was a logistical nightmare.
This strategy just looks like a larger scale version of the Huertegen Forest. Even with all of the "advantages", the Allies were stopped cold there.
But you believe that Germany would have better luck?
Count me as a non-believer.
The Soviets could feed tons of infantry and even cavalry into that terrain, and make it an endless slogging match in the forest. This is the kind of warfare that favored them, not the Germans.
Germany's strength was fighting a mobile war. Any "street brawl" style of fighting in the forest or urban areas was a huge drain on their resources. The Soviets had infantry to waste. They could fight a battle of attrition with Germany under those conditions successfully.
Looking at maps, without analyzing the terrain involved, has lead to more defeats than I can remember throughout history.
|
|
|
|
|
