Bypassing Leningrad

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Bypassing Leningrad

#1

Post by BDV » 05 Feb 2014, 20:43

Historically, the Finnish pressure on the Soviet defender decreased considerably after the Finns achieved the old border (near Leningrad) and the Svir River. On the ther hand, while Leningrad was a big industrial center, it was dependent on everything being brought in: raw industrial materials, food, ad energy.

So an alternative strategy for the northern German flank would have been to bypass Leningrad, and give it the treatment intended for the "Ural Industry" - strategic bombing. This would have decreased Leningrad's industrial output, and by getting finns stuck with dealing with a larger fraction of the Soviet war effort, it could have eased the work of the Wehrmacht.

My question is whether this could have been a feasible option for the Axis attack, particularly in light of the Finnish lack of enthusiasm for continuing the offensive actions after they reached their intended targets.


This could be misconstrued as a "What If" but is not intended as such, rather than a question on the feasibility of an alternative strategy for the Axis side.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
ViKinG
Member
Posts: 533
Joined: 08 Mar 2004, 09:14
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#2

Post by ViKinG » 06 Feb 2014, 02:01

It might have worked somewhat, in the sense that it would free up additional Heer units for further combat. However the concept of strategic bombing for Germany was almost non existent. They had no heavy bombers, worse still, they were woefully short of aircraft to support tactical operations currently on the front, I think that diverting Luftwaffe assets to bombing Leningrad non-stop would have made this effect worse on the front lines. Who really knows how it could have happened I guess.

Luc


steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#3

Post by steverodgers801 » 06 Feb 2014, 09:37

There really was no way to bypass Leningrad, AGN weakness resulted in the decision to lay siege and Im not sure if a strong concentration of bombers could have really forced a decision.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#4

Post by BDV » 06 Feb 2014, 18:59

steverodgers801 wrote:There really was no way to bypass Leningrad, AGN weakness resulted in the decision to lay siege and Im not sure if a strong concentration of bombers could have really forced a decision.
It depends on the presence of proper vulnerable targets for concentrating efforts (e.g. transmission stations, powerplants, fuel depots) and the german ability to identify them. Do17s, AFAIK, were a good tool for these types of missions.

Think USAAF/Bomber Command spring 1945, when they were able to target ("pinpoint") factories using tactical bombing instead of using area bombing.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
ViKinG
Member
Posts: 533
Joined: 08 Mar 2004, 09:14
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#5

Post by ViKinG » 07 Feb 2014, 01:40

Agreed BDV, they had that option. But they also HAD a bomber command in the first place, with large fleets of strategic bombers. Whereas the Germans didn't. Also, Leningrad being cut off as it was, was not much of a production facility anymore for armaments. Therefore any target that would be worth targeting, was no longer a threat in the first place. I can see the use of bombing factories and armament centers far behind the Soviet front as feasible. Bombing a large City that is cut off from the rest of Russia with no more resources going to it, seems kinda pointless in my opinion. I think the only agreeable option would have been to assign more forces to AGN for the ultimate capture of Leningrad instead of siege, this would have greatly helped the front line situation. But this was not possible as we well know.

Luc

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#6

Post by BDV » 07 Feb 2014, 17:23

I did not have in mind flattening the city using something like a hundred 1000 heavy bomber sorties (area/carpet bombing).

Rather, given likely good Finn intel on Leningrad, soviet/communist penchant for centralization of utilities and big plants, and the location of Leningrad at a long distance versus its sources of raw materials, food, and energy, I was wondering whether something within Luftwaffe' capabilities (e.g. total 10,000 bomber-sortie with low level "semi-pinpoint" bombing), against Leningrad industries and their supply network would have been able to hamper to any significant extent the Leningrad's industrial output.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#7

Post by Alixanther » 07 Feb 2014, 18:11

ViKinG wrote:Agreed BDV, they had that option. But they also HAD a bomber command in the first place, with large fleets of strategic bombers. Whereas the Germans didn't. Also, Leningrad being cut off as it was, was not much of a production facility anymore for armaments. Therefore any target that would be worth targeting, was no longer a threat in the first place. I can see the use of bombing factories and armament centers far behind the Soviet front as feasible. Bombing a large City that is cut off from the rest of Russia with no more resources going to it, seems kinda pointless in my opinion. I think the only agreeable option would have been to assign more forces to AGN for the ultimate capture of Leningrad instead of siege, this would have greatly helped the front line situation. But this was not possible as we well know.

Luc
As a matter of fact, Leningrad factories, while not operating at optimal output, were able to deliver significant war material for the defenders of the city. It may have not been a prime target for a bombardment but Leningrad was far from being worthless. Not to mention the surface Soviet fleet, which could have been at least of some importance for the defenders.

ChrisDR68
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 13 Oct 2013, 12:16

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#8

Post by ChrisDR68 » 09 Feb 2014, 23:22

Maybe Operation Barbarossa should have ignored Leningrad and Estonia altogether. Looking at a map of the invasion in 1941 there is a rough diagonal line running along the Dvina in north to the Don just below the central area down to the Volga in the south.

All the main resources (including living space) was to be had in the centre and the south. The line based on those three rivers gives Hitler most of what he wanted in Soviet Russia. The grain of the Ukraine, the oil of the Caucasus and a giant newly conquered area that Germany could populate with their own people over time.

The main advantage of making this river line the stop line for the original invasion is that it is much more achievable than the much discussed but distant A-A line of Archangel to Astrakhen. It would also make an invasion and occupation more achievable of the Caucasus with it's all important oil reserves.

The Germans could have dug-in along these three rivers in good time before the cold weather struck ready for another advance in 1942 if Stalin refused to discuss a peace treaty based on this new frontier between the Reich and Soviet Russia.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#9

Post by BDV » 10 Feb 2014, 13:34

OTOH Leningrad cannot just be left alone.
There are two rail line and one major highway fanning out from Leningrad into the Peipus-Ilmen space.

A consistent serving of Sovjet attacks there is a given.
Because Leningrad would be the supply base for these operations, it's weakening through air-attacks focused on infrastructure and manufacturing would be paramount. But, such effective attacks may or may not be possible in reality - hence my question.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#10

Post by sitalkes » 10 Apr 2014, 01:39

It makes absolutely no sense to bypass Leningrad. One of the biggest problems the Germans had in Russia was supplying their forces over huge distances. This is best done by sea transport - something eminently possible for Army Group North. Leningrad should be the easiest target to take for this reason, and something most wargamers usually go for first. The Germans didn't need a strategic bomber force to attack Leningrad - they moved all their largest siege guns there, and pounded the place with artillery. What they didn't do is take a salient west of Leningrad (Oraanienbaum) early on that would have made the whole thing a lot easier for them.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#11

Post by BDV » 20 Jun 2014, 20:40

From Daugavpils its 540 km to St Petersburg, 775 to Moscow. 2/3rds of the way there, that is. If Moscow falls, Leningrad will wither on the vine (if Finns don't occupy it before that, that is).
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#12

Post by thaddeus_c » 22 Jun 2014, 20:55

you could make a case advancing to Narva is far enough. the Soviets were only able to force the Germans out in 1944! and that was after German troops had been sent to reinforce in the south.

think port of Murmansk was better target than Leningrad, from there they could block shipping to Arkhangelsk too.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#13

Post by BDV » 23 Jun 2014, 02:56

The northern component of the Barbarossa plan needed serious refinement. In my opinion, the inflexibility in prescribing Leningrad as target is a big flaw, especially given the uncertainty in Finnish actions.

AGN has 3levels of objectives:

Maximal - Leningrad and Volkhov line - if Finns cooperate fully and/or Soviets collapse spectacularly;
Moderate - Narva-Luga line
Minimal - securing the Riga- Velikyie Luki railline and highway.

Also, to reiterate, Luftwaffe was supposed to eliminate Soviet industries beyond the Urals, but could not affect Leningrad?
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Estonian follies

#14

Post by BDV » 24 Jun 2014, 17:42

On the situation in Estonia in mid-July 1941, excellent info found by "tigre" and posted on feldgrau forum 8 years ago.

Also, courtesy of armchairgeneral's rkka devoted pages, a map of how battle for Estonia evolved in early July 1941, with two arrows showing how the two panzer divisions of PzKorps41 could have moved to assist the forward elements of the 18th army:
Estonia_41.jpg
So, given that by July 12 german forces were already beyond Viljandi and Parnu, and engaging the Soviets on the Emajogi river line/Tartu, quick action by two panzer divisions might have been able keep the Soviet defender out of balance (in particular it seems to me that Soviets used the Emajogi river line to great effect), and posibly cut off the Soviet units dug in on Emajogi; and then, Estonia proper, sometime in the July 20-25th timeframe.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Baltasar
Member
Posts: 4614
Joined: 21 Feb 2003, 16:56
Location: Germany

Re: Bypassing Leningrad

#15

Post by Baltasar » 05 Jul 2014, 15:57

Instead of trying to destroy what was worth capturing the city, AGN should've concentrated on maintaining the siege without assaulting the city but instead repelling relief operations by the Red Army. The Luftwaffe would have to help out against both, relief operations and break out attempts. Leningrad would fall given enough time and by maintaining a siege, the Red Army would have to try to recapture it, simply for moral reasons.
This tactic would help conserving manpower within AGN, potentially enabling them to hand over a few units to AGM / AGS. It'd also mean that the Russian units trapped in Leningrad would remain comparatively helpless and that the Luftwaffe and German heavy artillery could be brought in to put more pressure on the defenders, while the latter would soon run out of sufficient vehicles and fuel to mount quick break out operations.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”