Greater freedom for shipping supplies through the Baltic would take some pressure off the overstressed rail network too.
Consequences of Leningrad falling in 1941-42?
- Thread starter Old1812
- Start date
IMHO - the best option to take Leningrad was earlier - before Zhukov took overall control of the city. If there was less interference from Hitler (hold there, wait for the infantry to catch up), and OKW insisting on attack routes, rather than the guys on the ground who could see the lay of the land, and act quickly before the Russians had a chance to react.
If German units suddenly entered the outskirts of the city, would the result have been any different to that of Minsk & Smolensk, that went before!? Without the 'iron hand' of Zhukov who would ensured that the line was held.
Not saying it would be quick, after all it's a big city, but I don't think it's ASB that to have fallen earlier.
It would bring large benefits to the Germans - logistical supply hub via merchant supply ships. Not so good for the people left behind!!
Moreover, if they could sever the Northern L-L supply line, that would make a big difference.
If German units suddenly entered the outskirts of the city, would the result have been any different to that of Minsk & Smolensk, that went before!? Without the 'iron hand' of Zhukov who would ensured that the line was held.
Not saying it would be quick, after all it's a big city, but I don't think it's ASB that to have fallen earlier.
It would bring large benefits to the Germans - logistical supply hub via merchant supply ships. Not so good for the people left behind!!
Moreover, if they could sever the Northern L-L supply line, that would make a big difference.
thaddeus
Donor
just IMO, the Germans cannot defeat the USSR but could force some type of deal on them, and they (the German side) would need (at least) two objectives Leningrad (to control the Baltic and for political influence) and Crimea/Maykop.
Assuming a better Fall Blau (with Manstein's 11th Army available to help out?), the Germans might just take the Caucasus oilfields...but as smoking ruins. The Soviets would do everything they could to make sure the Germans don't capture the oilfields intact, so it will likely take months before the Germans can get them back up and running.
I think the main value of taking (or at least threatening to take them such that the Soviets destroy them) the oil fields for the Germans is in denying the Soviets sufficient fuel to wage the continuous offensives that allowed them to bludgeon the Wehrmacht without respite. The difficulty of actually extracting and processing oil once they're back up and running would be a daunting task for the Germans, even if it's not outright an impossible one.
Finns would be hard-pressed to refuse future German demands to attack Sorokka. Cutting the northern line of Murmansk Railway here is not impossible, but holding it against Soviet counterattacks would be a harder feat.
Murmansk itself will hold regardless, since defending wilderness with only a single road going through it is easy enough.
Further down the line the fall of Leningrad would make it much harder for Finland to leave the war the way it did in OTL.
For starters, the bulk of the Finnish Army and field fortification efforts would be focused on Eastern Karelia, creating a completely different operational scenario for potential Soviet future counteroffensives.
Murmansk itself will hold regardless, since defending wilderness with only a single road going through it is easy enough.
Further down the line the fall of Leningrad would make it much harder for Finland to leave the war the way it did in OTL.
For starters, the bulk of the Finnish Army and field fortification efforts would be focused on Eastern Karelia, creating a completely different operational scenario for potential Soviet future counteroffensives.
The issue that would help the germans massively would be :
1 germans take major manf facilities away from Russia
2 ease of logistics to all areas north of Moscow
3 most likely cut murmansk
4 the impact for Russia would be devastating as to the amount delivered. The need of production of local trucks et al would impact tank and all sorts of equipment.
5 additional resources for attract in 42 to take or destroy Russian oil production would impact all aspects of Russian production and warfare plus make the supply chain through the caucus difficult
1 germans take major manf facilities away from Russia
2 ease of logistics to all areas north of Moscow
3 most likely cut murmansk
4 the impact for Russia would be devastating as to the amount delivered. The need of production of local trucks et al would impact tank and all sorts of equipment.
5 additional resources for attract in 42 to take or destroy Russian oil production would impact all aspects of Russian production and warfare plus make the supply chain through the caucus difficult
thaddeus
Donor
the counterpart to my prior speculation of a more robust naval effort against Leningrad is some better effort in the Black Sea. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44641609?seq=3
it might be possible to invade directly from Crimea towards Maikop, something prevented historically by the remaining Soviet fleet (well, there are other reasons but that was a major reason they could not cross directly from Kerch)
The main problem is that taking Leningrad sooner needs more resources. This means either the centre or the South is weakened in infantry or artillery or both.
South was already too weak to take the oilfields and weakening the centre creates a huge risk of the soviets driving a wedge between Northern and Southern armiess.
So you could see Leningrad taken, but Stalingrad falling as OTL and a major breakthrough in the thinly held centre which extends the OTL collapse of the Hungarians, Italians, Romanians. That's a big problem, as the infantry and artillery in the north are slow moving and can't easily be redeployed (although control of the Baltic may help a bit).
There is also a question over what happens at Sevastopol if heavy siege guns are up north flattening Leningrad - likely a slower and more costly siege, possible more like OTL Leningrad.
For me, Leningrad falling would change the nature of the victory, but wouldn't break the. soviets as they would do better elsewhere, and wouldn't help the axis much as their real problem was running out of manpower.
It is possible that Finland could do better if the North ends in a harder and longer fight and they cease fighting at a better time, but a truce or switch is not easy if German power is stronger than OTL in the north.
South was already too weak to take the oilfields and weakening the centre creates a huge risk of the soviets driving a wedge between Northern and Southern armiess.
So you could see Leningrad taken, but Stalingrad falling as OTL and a major breakthrough in the thinly held centre which extends the OTL collapse of the Hungarians, Italians, Romanians. That's a big problem, as the infantry and artillery in the north are slow moving and can't easily be redeployed (although control of the Baltic may help a bit).
There is also a question over what happens at Sevastopol if heavy siege guns are up north flattening Leningrad - likely a slower and more costly siege, possible more like OTL Leningrad.
For me, Leningrad falling would change the nature of the victory, but wouldn't break the. soviets as they would do better elsewhere, and wouldn't help the axis much as their real problem was running out of manpower.
It is possible that Finland could do better if the North ends in a harder and longer fight and they cease fighting at a better time, but a truce or switch is not easy if German power is stronger than OTL in the north.
thaddeus
Donor
this is my reasoning for a larger naval effort in the Baltic, they have nowhere else to rob. they could weaken the defense of Leningrad if they stopped the Soviet evacuations to the city. (there was the similar scenario with evacuations, by sea, from Odessa to Crimea)
the German KM could bring up some of the WWI-era ships and/or captured coastal ships to try and shell Leningrad? allow the siege guns to be moved south.
One thing is certainly going to happen - if Leningrad fell in 1941 or 1942, on top of more people starving to death in Leningrad, the Nazis are going to destroy as much of the city as possible before the Soviets can retake it.
You're conflating the 1941 Campaign with the one in 1942. The POD seem to be the focus stays on Leningrad rather than detaching Panzer Group 4 in October and having it join the attack on Moscow. Even with the extra forces it would probably take the Finns making a major effort from the north of the Isthmus to make the city fall. The Finns didn't want to do that because their war aim was just to get back the land the Soviets took from them in 1940. The Soviets do better at Moscow but lose Leningrad, the Baltic Fleet, and all the defending troop in the area. On top of that the Axis gets a shorter line to defend. They can attack Moscow in the Spring of 1942.
Would they still need Panzer Group 4 to make von Leeb's "small solution" work, clearing the western bank of the Volkhov River, and reaching Lake Ladoga?
Captain Homicide
Kicked
It could plausibly lead to the USSR falling but even if they conquered it to the Urals the Reich had no feasible way of actually conquering the UK or US. Their military capabilities simply weren’t enough even with the resources of Europe at their disposal.
If the situation looks bad enough for the USSR, I wouldn't consider it impossible for the WAllies to attempt a cross-Channel landing in 1943.
PZG-4 had a number of infantry divisions with it, along with the infantry of the PZ divisions. The 16th & 18th armies didn't have enough strength to do the job, at least quickly. At some point PZG-4 might have been able to make a wide sweep to cut off Lake Ladoga. Several possibilities might present themselves in a changing situation. Without PZG-4 the battle was just an infantry slogging match.
Captain Homicide
Kicked
I agree but that still wouldn’t lead to German troops marching in London or New York City.
The Germans taking Baku is a logistical impossibility. The German disaster in front of Moscow happened because they advanced beyond the limit of their supply range. They couldn't supply themselves beyond 300 miles from their railheads. The distance between Rostov on Don and Baku is almost 800 miles. They were able to capture the oil fields at Maykop because they were only a little over 200 miles away, but beyond that they began to stall out.
The whole 1942 Campaign was a fantasy. It was a typical German plan where they assumed tactical brilliance would somehow overcome logistical realities of time and space. The further the Germans advanced into the Caucasus the front widened increasing the gaps between their armies, and the forward units of Army Group A ran out of supplies. Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad led to the destruction of most of AGB, and almost took AGA with them. The whole plan of campaign was a disaster waiting to happen.
Last edited: