Murmansk why not?
- Lupo Solitario
- Member
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: 21 Mar 2002, 19:39
- Location: Italy, country of sun, wine and morons
Murmansk why not?
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
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
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.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.
(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
Re: Murmansk why not?
There were plans of attacks to cut the railroad but they led to nothing eventually:
https://archive.org/details/PAM20-271/page/n255
https://archive.org/details/PAM20-271/page/n255
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.BDV wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 00:51By 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.
Try not to deviate to the world of imaginations, history deserves bigger respect!
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
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.
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 760
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
- Location: Finland
Re: Murmansk why not?
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
http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/74464
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=193990
https://histdoc.net/pdf/British-US-Finn ... n_1941.pdf pages 12-13Should 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.
http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/74464
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
Anyway sabotage activity was a different thing.
Re: Murmansk why not?
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?
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?
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 760
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
- Location: Finland
Re: Murmansk why not?
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 wrote: ↑05 Feb 2019, 09:45Finns 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."
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 760
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006, 23:49
- Location: Finland
Re: Murmansk why not?
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.