WI: Leningrad taken late July 1941.

[DireSituation]

In several history books and atlases (John Keegan's being one of the few I can list of the top of my head), there are mentions of a possible capture of Leningrad in late July when its defenses were disorganized via a rapid thrust.
The reason why such a thrust did not occur before Leningrad reorganized to a solid endurance siege was apparently because Hitler insisted on diverting forces to help Army Group Center assault Moscow.




Here's a map to draw a surfer's interest:

So, what if Leningrad was able to be taken in that apparently critical month?
It'd be clearer if someone lists the short-term effects (the rest of the operation) and the long term effects (entire eastern front).

 

[BlairWitch749]

In several history books and atlases (John Keegan's being one of the few I can list of the top of my head), there are mentions of a possible capture of Leningrad in late July when its defenses were disorganized via a rapid thrust.
The reason why such a thrust did not occur before Leningrad reorganized to a solid endurance siege was apparently because Hitler insisted on diverting forces to help Army Group Center assault Moscow.




Here's a map to draw a surfer's interest:

So, what if Leningrad was able to be taken in that apparently critical month?
It'd be clearer if someone lists the short-term effects (the rest of the operation) and the long term effects (entire eastern front).

My TL Manstein changes the world explored the "go north" option in depth... my pod was to shift the schwerpunkt to the north and for the Germans to conduct an amphibious landing at Riga to loosen up the Russian frontier defenses and trap more divisions than otl... the effects are explored entirely

 

[Crueldwarf]

The reason why such a thrust did not occur before Leningrad reorganized to a solid endurance siege was apparently because Hitler insisted on diverting forces to help Army Group Center assault Moscow.

This is standart method of almost all postwar german memoirs. If you screw up (or didn't win the war) - blame Hitler.

 

[Commissar]

This is standart method of almost all postwar german memoirs. If you screw up (or didn't win the war) - blame Hitler.

And pass off all the atrocities on the SS.

Despite the fact the Wehrmacht not the SS ran the POW camps in which millions of Soviet Soldiers were murdered, or did the initial shootings of Jews and POWs, or did the majority of the punishment missions, etc.

 

[Blue Max]

Well, I'd war gamed a couple of scenarios that get this to work:

-A strong German presence in Finland. If Germany uses Finnish positions to attack and grab Leningrad quickly, it probably falls in the early chaos of Barbarossa.

Blair suggests an amphibious assault at Riga. I'm not sure why it couldn't be even closer to Leningrad itself. In Axis and Allies Europe, I'm generally able to seize Leningrad in the first turn.

Leningrad would also be likely to fall if Germany's siege of the city were just a bit tighter. German success in the Novgorod region would cut off most of the remaining lines to Leningrad, although that's not exactly the OP's question.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well, I'd war gamed a couple of scenarios that get this to work:

-A strong German presence in Finland. If Germany uses Finnish positions to attack and grab Leningrad quickly, it probably falls in the early chaos of Barbarossa.

Blair suggests an amphibious assault at Riga. I'm not sure why it couldn't be even closer to Leningrad itself. In Axis and Allies Europe, I'm generally able to seize Leningrad in the first turn.

Leningrad would also be likely to fall if Germany's siege of the city were just a bit tighter. German success in the Novgorod region would cut off most of the remaining lines to Leningrad, although that's not exactly the OP's question.

When I wrote my TL several suggested landing at Tallinin... either one would probably work and be effective. The key thing is to have enough forces available so that the 4th Panzer Army doesn't have to stop at Dvinsk and wait for the infantry to catch up and cover their flanks. In otl Manstein's 56th Panzer Corps had to sit on the river for five days whilst the forces in front of them reogranized and caught their breath (instead of Manstein just flat out surrounding them and pinning them to the river)... waiting for the infantry divisions right then took most of the momentum out of the attack and doomed any chance they had of taking Leningrad that year

 

[Commissar]

When I wrote my TL several suggested landing at Tallinin... either one would probably work and be effective. The key thing is to have enough forces available so that the 4th Panzer Army doesn't have to stop at Dvinsk and wait for the infantry to catch up and cover their flanks. In otl Manstein's 56th Panzer Corps had to sit on the river for five days whilst the forces in front of them reogranized and caught their breath (instead of Manstein just flat out surrounding them and pinning them to the river)... waiting for the infantry divisions right then took most of the momentum out of the attack and doomed any chance they had of taking Leningrad that year

Which is why you have extra Infantry ride on the tanks, like the Soviets. All it would have taken is a simple request to the Landsers.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Which is why you have extra Infantry ride on the tanks, like the Soviets. All it would have taken is a simple request to the Landsers.

Generally that would make sense but not given the composition of Manstein's corps (he had one line infantry division, one motorized infantry division and one panzer division during the drive towards Leningrad)

He only had about 150 tanks in his entire panzer corps, most of which were the rather small Czech models... so even if he was able to get 8 men on each tank which was probably pushing the impossible given the shape of the Czech models that only gives him another two small battalions of infantry... my tl had them take entire panzer corps away from army group south to reinforce this drive

 

[Crueldwarf]

Which is why you have extra Infantry ride on the tanks, like the Soviets.

Lone infantry without artillery and support units don't made any difference. Soviet "tank-riding" troops were used at tactical scale not as substitute motorized units.

 

[Larrikin]

Leningrad July 41

If it fell in 41 the USSR would loose a large amount of their armaments industry, as it had traditionally been centered there. During the siege, after the first winter, Leningrad produced and distributed ammunition, guns, and tanks for the rest of Russia.

Adding to this is that it would mean that the Germans and Finns would almost certainly be able to interdict supply lines from Murmansk and Archangelsk, maybe even capture them, and that cuts further into the USSR's war fighting capability. Additionally, having Leningrad available as a port enables the Germans to use shipping to get troops and materiel to that area without having to deal with the problems of swapping rail guages and poor Russian roads.

On the plus side for the USSR, they threw away Army after Army in the defence and attempted relief of Leningrad. Would they throw them at the Germans to recapture Leningrad as quickly as possible, or would they use them elsewhere, such as in the counter offensive around Moscow?

Further out, the Arctic Ocean convoy battles don't happen, and the Kreigsmarine becomes more focused on the North Atlantic, putting more pressure there.

 

[Crueldwarf]

If it fell in 41 the USSR would loose a large amount of their armaments industry, as it had traditionally been centered there. During the siege, after the first winter, Leningrad produced and distributed ammunition, guns, and tanks for the rest of Russia.

This is not true. Leningrad wasn't even selfsufficient in terms of armaments and ammo production during all siege. Most of industrial capability was evacuated.

 

[corditeman]

Bearing in mind that rat Kruschev withdraw ration cards from all non-combatants, he deserved to lose Leningrad. Does the Russian tourist board still show off non-combatant mass graves as proudly as they did in the 60s and 70s (this I got from friends of my parents, after Intourist guides took them to the graves).

 

[Crueldwarf]

Bearing in mind that rat Kruschev withdraw ration cards from all non-combatants, he deserved to lose Leningrad. .

1. Khruschev wasn't ever close to Leningrad during the siege.
2. Rations for non-combatants were reduced but even in the most dire 1941-42 winter not canceled.

 

[Blue Max]

This is not true. Leningrad wasn't even selfsufficient in terms of armaments and ammo production during all siege. Most of industrial capability was evacuated.

Given the quick loss of Leningrad, this might not be the case, however.

If Leningrad falls quickly, the German logistical situation becomes much better--suddenly, either Helsinki or Leningrad itself can supply the frontlines.

The Soviet Union at this period would still probably throw forces in a poor counterattack and hope for the best. This also shortens the distance to Moscow itself. Forcing the Soviet Union to evacuate Moscow's industrial might, even without actually taking the city, is well within the range of possibility.

Germany will be no better led ITTL than in OTL, but the advantages are still notable. If nothing else, Germany will probably have more forces to deploy without a siege of Leningrad. This is far from winning the war in its own right, but a Moscow threat that forces the Soviets to start withdrawing industry from the region and potentially some kind of fighting in the city itself would probably draw out the war in the East by another year.

 

[usertron2020]

Axis and Allies Europe???

Well, I'd war gamed a couple of scenarios that get this to work:

-A strong German presence in Finland. If Germany uses Finnish positions to attack and grab Leningrad quickly, it probably falls in the early chaos of Barbarossa.

Blair suggests an amphibious assault at Riga. I'm not sure why it couldn't be even closer to Leningrad itself. In Axis and Allies Europe, I'm generally able to seize Leningrad in the first turn.

Leningrad would also be likely to fall if Germany's siege of the city were just a bit tighter. German success in the Novgorod region would cut off most of the remaining lines to Leningrad, although that's not exactly the OP's question.

I LOVE Axis and Allies, but the two recent editions, Europe and Pacific, should be more accurately referred to as Axis and Losers. I have NEVER lost as the Axis player. The game is too simplistic to represent the logistical difficulties involved. Try War in Europe. It's not like the Germans had a Marine Corps or any real amphib capability. As one officer said amidst the planning for Sealion:" We have to take into account that amphibious warfare is the one field for which we have never trained". And for good reason. The Admiralty would have gone ballistic if the Germans had been developing such capabilities before the war. And no doubt Hitler would have worried about sending troops to Finland before the war broke out. Finland, like Turkey, was recognized in the Non-Aggression Pact as being in the Soviet sphere of influence.

 

[usertron2020]

The Arctic Ports Fall?

Adding to this is that it would mean that the Germans and Finns would almost certainly be able to interdict supply lines from Murmansk and Archangelsk, maybe even capture them, and that cuts further into the USSR's war fighting capability. Additionally, having Leningrad available as a port enables the Germans to use shipping to get troops and materiel to that area without having to deal with the problems of swapping rail guages and poor Russian roads.

Further out, the Arctic Ocean convoy battles don't happen, and the Kreigsmarine becomes more focused on the North Atlantic, putting more pressure there.

I agree about the advantages of Leningrad as a port of supply, but beyond that? I agree that the interdiction of Murmansk would continue, but the Arctic Swamp in those regions are among the most inhospitable on Earth for military logistics (Think the Qattara Depression with Arctic winds and temperatures). I could see it neutralized, but not taken. Take Archangelsk? Well, I guess after Moskow falls.

 

[Fearless Leader]

With Leningrad taken it wouldn't be that difficult for the Germans/Finns to cut the rail line connecting Murmansk to the rest of the Soviet Union. This would force any Allied aid to come through Archangelsk which is only open during the hottest summer months due to ice. This would considerably hamper Lend Lease efforts perhaps leading to a bit of a weaker USSR.

Yet the Loss of Leningrad simplifies the Soviet front line somewhat. Without having the burden of keeping Leningrad resupplied I could see them stymieing the Germans in the North while focusing on more critical fronts such as the South and Center, perhaps leading to earlier victories there...

 

[usertron2020]

Well Put, Fearless Leader!

With Leningrad taken it wouldn't be that difficult for the Germans/Finns to cut the rail line connecting Murmansk to the rest of the Soviet Union. This would force any Allied aid to come through Archangelsk which is only open during the hottest summer months due to ice. This would considerably hamper Lend Lease efforts perhaps leading to a bit of a weaker USSR.

Yet the Loss of Leningrad simplifies the Soviet front line somewhat. Without having the burden of keeping Leningrad resupplied I could see them stymieing the Germans in the North while focusing on more critical fronts such as the South and Center, perhaps leading to earlier victories there...

I agree with everything in your last post. I think we simply had a misunderstanding. It's knock out Murmansk, not conquer it. After all, the rail lines run north-south in Karelia using the Soviet rail gauge. No blitzkrieg there. But it also means the rail line is more easily reached by the Finns. And the Allies can buildup the Lend-Lease lines thru the Caucasus and Vladivostok. Though the distances wil mean delay of shipments you won't see the awful losses of the Murmansk run, which after PQ-17 forced the closure of that route until the nights got longer.

 

[Commissar]

Generally that would make sense but not given the composition of Manstein's corps (he had one line infantry division, one motorized infantry division and one panzer division during the drive towards Leningrad)

He only had about 150 tanks in his entire panzer corps, most of which were the rather small Czech models... so even if he was able to get 8 men on each tank which was probably pushing the impossible given the shape of the Czech models that only gives him another two small battalions of infantry... my tl had them take entire panzer corps away from army group south to reinforce this drive

Then have the tanks pull wagons full of troops. Might not look pretty, and make battle prep awkward, but one has to take risks in war.

 

[Tom_B]

If the Germans succeed in taking Leningrad in late July their next step would be twofold. Obviously they would want to link with the Finns. The other objective would be to take the aluminum plants at Tikhvin and Volkov which Hitler wanted badly. In OTL much of the smelting equipment were dismantled by the Soviets and shipped beyond the Urals. If the plants fall quickly (not a given) they may not ave accomplished that.

If and when these objectives are met Fourth Panzer Group would then be ordered into the Valdai Hills, another Fuhrer obsession, probably with Vishnii Volocheck as its objective. This will be along the Moscow Leningrad railway. With Leningrad being supplied by sea I would see no need to convert the railroad gauge but instead use captured Russian railroad stock. So Vishnii Volocheck would become an effective railhead soon after its capture.