Murmansk why not?

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
User avatar
Lupo Solitario
Member
Posts: 1143
Joined: 21 Mar 2002, 19:39
Location: Italy, country of sun, wine and morons

Murmansk why not?

#1

Post by Lupo Solitario » 05 Jan 2019, 20:10

Hi

I'm sorry if this has just debated elsewhere.

The question is if there's a reason for which Germans made no pressure to take Murmansk or cut the railway for after 1941. It seems me a logical strategical move which could damage a lot allied supplies to USSR.

Any idea or info?

Thanks

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Murmansk why not?

#2

Post by jesk » 05 Jan 2019, 22:57

June 16, 1941 Hitler ordered not to advance on Murmansk.

http://b-ok.cc/book/2059431/6b3bd5

Image


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

Re: Murmansk why not?

#3

Post by BDV » 06 Jan 2019, 00:51

Lupo Solitario wrote:The question is if there's a reason for which Germans made no pressure to take Murmansk or cut the railway for after 1941. It seems me a logical strategical move which could damage a lot allied supplies to USSR.
It proved too tough to crack. While Finnish performance was OK, German troop performance was mediocre. Also, per Wikipedia, there were two Soviet armies defending the sector, the 7th (Separate) Army and the 14th Army, both veteran units of the Winter War.

(also it appears Finns had a dim view of their co-belligerents' materiel readiness for Ost Front combat, but Karelia wasn't the only place where Wehrmacht vanilla infantry performed at or below Italo-Romanian levels).

Hence, when Fins stopped after their own objectives had been achieved, the Axis advance stopped. By October 1941, Germany was out of reserves and was reduced to shifting units between areas of combat (e.g. 11th Army anabasis to Leningrad). As such, there was no chance this area would receive the boost in personnel (one motorized infantry corps, with supplemental engineering assets) required for defeating the soviet force present - but then Soviets might shift additional forces.

Taking concepts to a more extreme POV, one can perceive Germans as overcommitted in the area, and the assets here, especially armour, but also GebirgsJager would have been extremely useful in other areas of the OstFront.
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

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Murmansk why not?

#4

Post by Art » 06 Jan 2019, 16:57

There were plans of attacks to cut the railroad but they led to nothing eventually:
https://archive.org/details/PAM20-271/page/n255

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: Murmansk why not?

#5

Post by jesk » 07 Jan 2019, 15:52

BDV wrote:
06 Jan 2019, 00:51
By October 1941, Germany was out of reserves and was reduced to shifting units between areas of combat (e.g. 11th Army anabasis to Leningrad). As such, there was no chance this area would receive the boost in personnel (one motorized infantry corps, with supplemental engineering assets) required for defeating the soviet force present - but then Soviets might shift additional forces.
Hundreds of sources on a subject. Hitler's decision on transfer of the 11th army under Leningrad was caused by confidence in capture of the Caucasus without it.
Try not to deviate to the world of imaginations, history deserves bigger respect!

Volyn
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 04 Jul 2018, 05:53
Location: USA

Re: Murmansk why not?

#6

Post by Volyn » 01 Feb 2019, 20:43

I am curious why the Germans and Finns did not spend more effort to wreck the railroads that connected Murmansk to the rest of the USSR?

Could small Finn and German sabotage teams combined with random air attacks have kept the rail lines inoperable? The length of the rail to Leningrad is 1,200 km; it should have had some feasibility since that is too much area to guard against.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Murmansk why not?

#7

Post by Art » 03 Feb 2019, 15:24

They tried. See for example:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=203925&p=1839232
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=225271&p=2046360

However, the road couldn't be permanently cut by these type of sabotage activity. The story of Soviet partisan operation against railroads in German rear tells the same.

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
Location: Finland

Re: Murmansk why not?

#8

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 05 Feb 2019, 00:04

Finland made limited attacks, but the plan of a larger scale attack was rejected partly due to the warning made by the US.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=193990
Should materiel of war sent from the United States to Soviet territory in the north by way of the Arctic Ocean be attacked en route, either presumably or even allegedly from territory under Finnish control, in the present state of opinion in the United States such an incident must be expected to bring about an instant crisis in the relations between Finland and the United States.
https://histdoc.net/pdf/British-US-Finn ... n_1941.pdf pages 12-13

http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/74464

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Murmansk why not?

#9

Post by Art » 05 Feb 2019, 09:45

Finns simply ignored this warning as well as the American demand to halt offensives operations and withdraw to the 1939 border. As Ziemke ("German Northern Theater of Operations" says "On 14 December ... Mannerheim stated, the declarations of war by Great Britain and and the United States (the latter against Germany but not Finland) had given the Murmansk Railroad greatly increased significance, and it would have to be cut."
Anyway sabotage activity was a different thing.

Volyn
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 04 Jul 2018, 05:53
Location: USA

Re: Murmansk why not?

#10

Post by Volyn » 05 Feb 2019, 14:58

The main question is why were the attacks only "limited"? It does not make sense how the Axis failed to use more sabotage teams to undermine the effective use of the railroads. For example - the length of the railroad made it impossible to defend every km, what prevented regular attacks on it for 3.5 years? Perhaps this could have tied down more Soviet resources in a static defense posture.

What was the relative distance of the Murmansk railroad to the German front-line? Did this impact on the decision making of the sabotage efforts?

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Murmansk why not?

#11

Post by Art » 05 Feb 2019, 20:21

Replacement of damaged rails is a matter of several hours work. To inflict a long-term damage one have to blow up bridges, tunnels, overpasses etc, and they are usually guarded and cannot be destroyed that easily.

Volyn
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 04 Jul 2018, 05:53
Location: USA

Re: Murmansk why not?

#12

Post by Volyn » 06 Feb 2019, 01:17

Thank you Art, it does make sense that the Soviets would have track repair crews search the lines for damage and then quickly fix it.

However, given the significance of the material that was transported by train from Murmansk to the rest of the USSR, perhaps the Germans/Finns could have made more of an effort to destroy those rail lines permanently.

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
Location: Finland

Re: Murmansk why not?

#13

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 06 Feb 2019, 10:13

Art wrote:
05 Feb 2019, 09:45
Finns simply ignored this warning as well as the American demand to halt offensives operations and withdraw to the 1939 border. As Ziemke ("German Northern Theater of Operations" says "On 14 December ... Mannerheim stated, the declarations of war by Great Britain and and the United States (the latter against Germany but not Finland) had given the Murmansk Railroad greatly increased significance, and it would have to be cut."
That was probably a sound opinion militarily, but the decision not to execute the plan to take Kochkoma and Belomorsk was made in March 1942 by Mannerheim, after the negative attitude of President Ryti and the main reason was, that it could endanger relations with the US. (Master thesis by Mustonen)

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 7028
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 20:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Murmansk why not?

#14

Post by Art » 07 Feb 2019, 10:47

The topic surfaced in the German-Finnish discussion until the summer of 1942. As described by Ziemke Finnish enthusiasm for operation waxed and waned following reversals on the Eastern Front. In any case those plans didn't lead to anything, and the question, as I understand it, was more about sabotage activity.

Seppo Koivisto
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
Location: Finland

Re: Murmansk why not?

#15

Post by Seppo Koivisto » 09 Feb 2019, 15:06

The problem with Ziemke is that he didn't use Finnish sources, except the German translation of Mannerheim's memoirs. After it was clear there will be no swift German victory, keeping relations with the US became more important for the politicians and Mannerheim didn't want to get the blame of a declaration of war based on military operations. After March 1942 the oldest age groups were demobilized and only vague promises to take part in German operations were given.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”