Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningrad?

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Kriegsmarine except those dealing with the U-Boat forces.
mezsat2
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 13:02

Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningrad?

#1

Post by mezsat2 » 01 Jan 2011, 08:23

Perhaps I'm not well-read enough on this topic, but would not the German surface fleet been quite sufficient to annhilate the Soviet Baltic fleet in 1941? Instead, it seems what was left of the Russian fleet there was able to bombard German positions inland with great effect while also smuggling in supplies from Archangel.

It seems a big part of the relatively powerful German surface fleet could have easily sent the hopelessly undergunned Russian Baltic fleet to the bottom, anchored off Leningrad, and pulverized the city. The ships could then run back and forth to Scandinavian bases full of ammo, fuel, and other supplies. Instead, it seems the German capital ships were mostly anchored as a "deterrent" or wandering off in the Atlantic on merchant raiding missions.

I've read numerous accounts of the Russian Baltic Fleet mercilessly hammering German positions on the outskirts of Leningrad. Couldn't the Kriegsmarine bring to bear the same pressure on Soviet positions (as well as sinking the entire Baltic Fleet?) How might the wholesale involvement of the German Navy in the siege of Leningrad changed the outcome of this engagement?

User avatar
Mischa
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 21:07
Location: Bytom, Polen früheres Beuthen O.S.

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#2

Post by Mischa » 01 Jan 2011, 14:20

mezsat2 wrote:Perhaps I'm not well-read enough on this topic, but would not the German surface fleet been quite sufficient to annhilate the Soviet Baltic fleet in 1941? Instead, it seems what was left of the Russian fleet there was able to bombard German positions inland with great effect while also smuggling in supplies from Archangel.

It seems a big part of the relatively powerful German surface fleet could have easily sent the hopelessly undergunned Russian Baltic fleet to the bottom, anchored off Leningrad, and pulverized the city. The ships could then run back and forth to Scandinavian bases full of ammo, fuel, and other supplies. Instead, it seems the German capital ships were mostly anchored as a "deterrent" or wandering off in the Atlantic on merchant raiding missions.

I've read numerous accounts of the Russian Baltic Fleet mercilessly hammering German positions on the outskirts of Leningrad. Couldn't the Kriegsmarine bring to bear the same pressure on Soviet positions (as well as sinking the entire Baltic Fleet?) How might the wholesale involvement of the German Navy in the siege of Leningrad changed the outcome of this engagement?
Hi mezsat2


below, made by me from the book of Meister information in German on the activities of sea around Leningrad. The translation is extremely clumsy (Translator), but my English is too weak to be free to explain yourself in English.

I believe that the Germans and the Finns have done all what was possible with such a faint forces to force the Russians to make it difficult.

I recommend an old but very interesting position of Jürg Meister – Der Seekrieg in den osteuropäischen Seekrieg Gewässern 1941-1945 - JF Lehmanns Verlag München, 1958 + made by the best out of a Russian specialist, Miroslav Morozov corrections and additions described by Meister`s activities in the Baltic in: 1. - Vojna v wostochnoevropeyskikh vodakh 1941-1943
- Moscow 1995 and the second under the same title in 1996, but only describing the action on the Baltic Sea in 1944-1945: in the release cycle “Antologiya Morya, No. 5 ("vypust"), publishing by house - Isdatielstwo TshePo .

Regards
Mischa

Leningrad`s situation in the autumn of 1941 was very difficult, his garrison was weak in numbers, lack of food, fuel and consumer goods. By downloading the Revel and imported Hanko, although much depleted divisions, and the winter of 1941-1942 to the trenches had to go even sailors. The German army had no more strength in the autumn, however, get weak and mired in apathy city, and later as needed for that purpose divisions which, while they were promised, but finally sent them to another direction.

Also, the German Luftwaffe attacked the occasional Soviet units… In September, engaged in heavy air raids on Kronstadt gathered near the unit, which hampered fire and land inhibited the invading army. The first attacks with bombs weighing 500 kg have not yielded any results. Only 21.09. when he delivered a one-ton bomb, it could seriously damage the "Petropavlovsk", "Maxim Gorky" and other destroyers. Also, "Oktiabrskaya Rewolutsciya" was hit by bombs in addition to a lighter weight 1.000 kg bomb, which did not explode. Already, the Luftwaffe 02.10.1941 halted its continued bombing raids against Kronstadt. (notice from M. Morosov No 38 - battleship "Petropavlovsk" from 31.03.1921-31.05.1943 was called "Marat." Apart from him, as a result of the September bombing damaged "Oktiabrskaya Riewolutsiya"(6 bombs), "Kirov"(2 bomb - 1 is not broke ), and were sunk the leader "Minsk" (at least one bomb hit), destroyers “Steregushchiy” (at least two bombs)," Grosyashtyy” (2 bombs) and slightly damaged the destroyer “Silnyy” (a bomb), and from a close explosion damaged destroyers “Gordyy” and “Sławnyy”).

Upon reaching the gates of Leningrad, and indeed the whole city was surrounded, positions are occupied by coastal batteries and naval troops and harassing fire out an interfering with communication and conduct repair work on some units. When 15.09. Soviet cruisers and destroyers, and raised the pair began to move after the Bay of Kronstadt, just lying on the fire forced them to return to their well-masked "lairs. " This is likely an attempt to leave the base was picked as the Soviet attempt to break out. units in Sweden, which led to the establishment of the Fleet Balts. 25.09. artillery fire damaged a destroyer and I must admit that nm. coastal artillery batteries were this fall (768th Schwa. Art Abt. = 768th Heavy Artillery Division) in good form and managed to destroy several Soviet ships, oil storage and other devices, on the other hand, however, failed to exclude the share of Soviet artillery and naval coastal artillery.

II. / Flak-Rgt. 38 sank on the Neva in September in a variety of actions seven gunboats and a ferry and a few units of damage.

1942 - Göring wanted to fulfill its promises, and ordered "Luftflotte a" destroy after the disappearance of ice accumulated in Leningrad, the Soviet fleet. This, however Luftflotte reborn as her strength was needed elsewhere. But 04.04. had to do the raid to give a very modest success. Redo the raid, which has received an order has been revoked by Hitler on 12.04. as a result of intervention. German air raid of 04.04. was carried out by 132 bombers, 59 fighters in the pocket to give one hit on "Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya", "Kirov", "Maxim Gorky". Slightly weaker raid, probably with 24.04. has been hit again, "Oktyabrskaya Revolutia"and "Maxim Gorky". (4 - air strikes against units of the Baltic Fleet was repeated 24th, 25th, 27.04.1942 r.).

Leningrad Sea Canal was contaminated (October 1942) with 5 shares held by the assault boat 60 bottom mines. On the possible success, nothing is known. I remember one more thing, which I found in Meister s book, but I can not find ot in the text. Germans from Oreninbaum transported across the ice on sleds mines, and then it sank in performed the iceholes of the Gulf of Kronstadt, but I do not know what was the effect?

Particularly disappointing operations Germans at Leningrad. OKH planned to take the city of Lenin, although thanks to a shift of troops who took possession of Sevastopol and the heaviest artillery, and the Finnish Marshal Mannerheim, who had a special quickness of mind, more and more insisted on carrying out "Operation Lachsfang”. Leningrad garrison and the civilians suffered much from frost in winter 1941/42, hunger and fire, and in spring 1942, captured prisoners of war and those who crossed the front line and gave up in the hands of the Germans, reported that the population is already at the end of their mental strength and physical .

Under the city hit hardest, however, the caliber artillery, and joined in the shelling of the main buildings of the city. There is no attempt even to eliminate this nuisance foothold in Oranienbaumie. Despite this situation encircled the city over the summer was very difficult, and the Russians through effective Flotilla Ładoskiej shares managed to trucking in supplies to the city. Occasional artillery duels and raids reconnaissance units had no effect on the whole situation. Even if they managed to get in the summer of 1942, Leningrad, it will beyond the reach of the island of Kronstadt, which will be based for the next few months.

German considerations in connection with the planned seizure of Leningrad were only theoretical in nature.

However, the Russians did in the winter of 1942/1943 was to change the course of the front east of the city, which resulted that the blockade has become less noticeable. Russians in addition to the winter months devoted his attention to work relating to the recovery of the fighting qualities of their ships, repairing submarines, destroyers and eskortowce. The service entered a new patrol. In particular, attract no attention to strengthen air force, partly American models(!).


While the shares in the Gulf of Kronstadt there were numerous fights with the Soviet patrolowcami and dozorowcami. Operating from Koivisto Finnish torpedo boats pojedynkowały to 30.05. of the 20 Soviet patrolowcami, in effect, which suffered light damage 2 Finnish motor torpedo boats from the collision, and the third after some hitting (52 – on patrol were some boata of the MO – class; № “101", "302", "121", "122", on 31.05.1943, and between the hours: 00.25-00.53 led the fight to the enemy torpedo boats 4, which sank one.).


During the last attempt to bring the mines in the Channel Kronstadt using speedboats attack (KM – class), they saw an Soviet patrol-boat and attacked him, opened fire with machine guns and artillery and drove him back (56 - battle took place at night on 8/31/1943, the German mine-layers fought against KATShsh № “605" [type KM-2] armed with 1 x 7.62 mm machine gun. Later the Soviet boat was destroyed with hand grenades.).

In total, above. boats have set in 1943 in Soviet waters between Kronstadt Lavansaari and 91 min of various types, which the Russians meant an additional burden, but probably not achieved any major successes of them.

Kriegsmarine`s last action performed in the Bay of Kronstadt was the Operation “Drosselfang” - shelling of Soviet landings on the tiny island lined Koivisto on the night of 19 to 20 June 1944. There were 2 Flottentorpedoboote of the 1939 class, T 30 and T 31. The second was hited by one torpedo from torpedo-cutter TK-37 (Lieutenant Tronenko). [/b]

Image Image
Attachments
Meister - Der Seekrieg....jpg
Meister - Der Seekrieg....jpg (51.24 KiB) Viewed 4328 times


mezsat2
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 13:02

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#3

Post by mezsat2 » 07 Jan 2011, 00:03

Thank you. This is a good reference as to what occurred, but doesn't explain why in any depth. The German surface fleet had a tactical situation at Leningrad in which it the ability to make a big difference in the outcome of a critical battle- not so much in other theatres. One can only assume Hitler had no appreciation or understanding of this utility.

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#4

Post by igorr » 07 Jan 2011, 09:32

1. German thinks that Leningrad fall very soon and ships of KBF was either captured, either scuttled.
2. Finnish bay is narrow and shallow place to operate big ships.
3. A lot of mines, supplied by numerous coastal artillery was very danger for any ships breaked to Kronstadt.

So, it is very smart for German not to penetrate to east Finnish bay with big ships. Most likely they suffered stunned losses without do anything good for siege. Btw, contribution of KBF's ships in defence someway exaggregated. They do they best in critical days on autumn 1941, but firing from big distance without corrections can't much. And then quantity of shells, fired by ships, was much lesser, then shells fired by coastal and field artillery.

User avatar
crolick
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 25 Oct 2005, 21:18
Location: Warszawa, Polska

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#5

Post by crolick » 07 Jan 2011, 18:17

igorr wrote:1. German thinks that Leningrad fall very soon and ships of KBF was either captured, either scuttled.
I always though that Germans were afraid that most of the Soviet fleet will try to break out from Kronstadt and this is why they have created 'Baltenflotte'?

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#6

Post by igorr » 07 Jan 2011, 20:00

Well, You right, but this not lasted long. And this Baltenflotte never intended to penetrate in Finnish bay, but must prevent break out somewhere near sweden waters.

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#7

Post by magicdragon » 10 Jan 2011, 01:39

It just was not worth the risk of using large ships in confined waters. A landbased solution - crushing the Oranienbaum Bridgehead would been a far better solution.

The loss of the Finnish coastal defence ship Ilmarinen on 13 September 1941 to Russian mines suggest that coupled with Russian coastal defence guns, surface ships, submarines and aircraft the potential threat was just too great.

User avatar
Mischa
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 21:07
Location: Bytom, Polen früheres Beuthen O.S.

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#8

Post by Mischa » 10 Jan 2011, 11:02

magicdragon wrote: The loss of the Finnish coastal defence ship Ilmarinen on 13 September 1941 to Russian mines ...


are You sure it was a Russian mine? Meister wrote about one mine but he said nothing about his "nationality"

At. 20.30. approximately 22 miles SSW course Utö commanded turn to starboard. At the time of the turn at the top "Ilmarinen" exploded a mine near the stern on the port side. The ship turned over within one minute, and after a further 6 hid in the depths, resulting in the depths of 271 sailors. 133 rescued. "Ilmarinen" was probably a victim of one drifting mine, the explosion also caused the explosion of ammunition.

Translated from German with Translator`s help.

Regards
Mischa

magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#9

Post by magicdragon » 10 Jan 2011, 21:41

Mischa
are You sure it was a Russian mine? Meister wrote about one mine but he said nothing about his "nationality"
No I am not sure it was a Russian mine but if it was a stray German/Finnish mine it would reinforce the point that the whole operation was too dangerous.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#10

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Jan 2011, 22:24

According to Finnish sources there were possibly two Soviet mines that had been entagled to the Ilmarinen paravane, and eventualy hit the ship.
According to Per-Olof Ekman book Meririntama (Seafront) the Soviet minefield being number 26A.

Regards, Juha

igorr
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 29 Aug 2009, 03:21

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#11

Post by igorr » 11 Jan 2011, 12:40

Mines was laid by SKR SNEG and TSIKLON on 5/8/41. 60 mines type 1926.

User avatar
Mischa
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 21:07
Location: Bytom, Polen früheres Beuthen O.S.

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#12

Post by Mischa » 11 Jan 2011, 14:10

igorr wrote:Mines was laid by SKR SNEG and TSIKLON on 5/8/41. 60 mines type 1926.
Hello Uha and Igorr,

thank You both very, very much, because You are once again solved a great mystery, which was years in the dark. You are great!

:milwink:

Mischa

User avatar
Mischa
Member
Posts: 970
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 21:07
Location: Bytom, Polen früheres Beuthen O.S.

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#13

Post by Mischa » 11 Jan 2011, 14:25

magicdragon wrote:Mischa
are You sure it was a Russian mine? Meister wrote about one mine but he said nothing about his "nationality"
No I am not sure it was a Russian mine but if it was a stray German/Finnish mine it would reinforce the point that the whole operation was too dangerous.
Meister:

All of the planned trajectory proved before midday auxiliary minesweepers. In total, took part in the operation 23 ships: battleships "Ilmarinen"and "Väinämönen", 4 patrol - boats of the VMV - class, which followed the German minelayer "Brummer, " and Navy tugs "Taifun"and "Monsoon", 5 coast - patrol -boats, the Finnish icebreakers "Jääkarhu" and "Tarmo", Finnish steamer "Aranda" and other units. Due to the very complicated system of transfer orders, which used a Finnish command, the command outputs are in Utö tug-minesweepers arrived too late, what was the reason that the force main and minesweepers did not set off at once and did not meet at the point of repayment, which is 25 miles of Utö. To counteract this situation somehow, and due to report the previous day from one of the tugs-minesweepers that his paravane something is tangled, which occurred about 20 miles from the Utö, at the last moment decided to set a course toward the gutter Utö, about 17, 5 miles and then go on a course WSW and reach of 7.5 miles of the venue of the minesweepers. At. 18.00 23 ships left Utö, armadillos paravanes make to the forefront. At. 20.30. approximately 22 miles SSW course Utö commanded turn to starboard. At the time of the turn at the top "Ilmarinen" ... see my post above

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#14

Post by Juha Tompuri » 19 Jan 2011, 21:52

A scan from book Suomen Laivasto 1918 - 1968 vol II (Finnish Navy...) by Meriupseeriyhdistys (Naval Officers' Association)

-Venäläisten ilmoittaman miinoitteen paikka - minefield according to the Soviet announcement
-Miinoitteen todennäköinen paikka - The probable location of the minefield
-Etsintäraivauksen raja - The line of minesweeped area
-Este noin 20mpk Utöstä - Obstacle 20 nautical miles fron island Utö
Attachments
ilmarinen.1.JPG
ilmarinen.1.JPG (38.92 KiB) Viewed 3895 times

wipo
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 29 Feb 2012, 21:10

Re: Why Didn't the Kriegsmarine Support the Seige of Leningr

#15

Post by wipo » 12 Mar 2012, 21:39

The ocean tug "Taifun" is named beeing in same action (Nord Wind) with Ilmarinen in the finnish archipelago 1941. Is it possible to get some informations about the crew of this Taifun and it´s further movements under the ww2. Is there some archives where I could get crew lists and maybe photographs of the ship and it´s crew?

Post Reply

Return to “Kriegsmarine surface ships and Kriegsmarine in general”