Consequences of a fall of Leningrad?

[von Adler]

Say that Leningrad falls due to incompetence, panic or simply German luck sometime in October 1941.

The Germans and Finns have now freed a lot of troops for other fronts. I doubt the Finns will sever the Murmansk railroad as they seemed unwilling to do so, but what can the Germans accomplish with the freed up troops?

Also, how does this affect naval warfare? The Soviets now have no coast and no navy in the Baltic sea. Reasonably the Germans have captured a lot of submarines, destroyers and other ships in various stages of being scuttled and/or destroyed or disabled.

Battleships.
Marat, which was sunk at her moorings in shallow (11m) waterswhen two German 1 000kg bopmbs hit her and had her forward magazine explode. The rear potion was resurfaced and used as a floating battery.

Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya was badly damaged by bombs on the 24th of September, but was under repairs.

Cruisers
Kirov - in good shape in October 1941.

Maxim Gorky - had her bow blown off by mines and were under repairs in Kronstadt.

Petropavlovsk (ex Lützow) - never fully fitted and sunk in shallow waters by German artillery fire.

There should be 2 Leningrad class destroyer leaders and 21 regular destroyers and 64 submarines, with a further 20 under consctruction.

What can the Germans get out of this? And how would a completely safe Baltic Sea and the potential of some perhaps two dozen Soviet subs (perhaps used for training) as well as other vessels added to the German navy influence any potential naval action?

 

[merlin]

Not just the Navy, I wonder if there's any way they can keep the tank factory going for awhile?
KV-1s with swastikas on would be a welcome addition for Hoth!

 

[pattersonautobody]

Well, is this POD that Leningrad falls but Germany gets hurt just as bad in AGC and AGS?

It does not free up a ton of men as the Russians will keep attacking.

Case Blue goes forward as planned. Perhaps Germany can put more reserves in late 42 into the fray and mitigate disaster.

Further, the Rhzev salient will be held longer, as the Germans will still have reserves to man it unless they pull out and go for a bigger Kursk.

So many PODs.

 

[althistoryforum5724]

For one thing it improves AGN's supply situation.

The Finn's may move on Murmansk.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

For one thing it improves AGN's supply situation.

The Finn's may move on Murmansk.

Will move on Murmansk; they were planning on it if Leningrad fell in 1941-42 because then they'd have the manpower to make it work and it would fulfill their dream of Greater Finland and with all of Karelia conquered they could hold a very short line to the East and effectively demobilize much of their military. That would then free up a lot of German efforts historically used in the north to guard Leningrad from the East and make AG-North much stronger in terms of manpower. Supply would be hugely improved and taken off the rail system, the threat of Soviets subs against Baltic trade is over, the airbases of high quality in Leningrad are German, 3 million Soviets are deleted from the Soviet registry (including 1 million men), and important armaments plants are lost, including about 50% of the KV-1/2 production and artillery factories.

It would also be hugely politically damaging to Stalin to lose the birthplace of the revolution and Lenin's city, meaning he'd be forced to launch a lot of very obvious, costly, and ultimately unsuccessful offensives to liberate the city (they'd fail because of improved German supply, extra manpower freed up from the north, the lack of needing to defend in two directions for German defenders once Leningrad falls, and the seizure of the critical airbases in the Leningrad area).

Once Murmansk falls the Soviets also lose the source of about 26% of all LL, more than 40% in 1941 nearly 40% in 1942. The remaining routes cannot take up that difference, they were maxed out IOTL in capacity even after billions of 1940s dollars spent on improvements. That's a devastating blow to the USSR.

I don't know if that means they would lose, but it would be a severe setback to their war effort and guarantee they end the war further East as a result. Finland might be able to end the war with a net territory gain even. Millions more Soviets are probably going to die as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
At least 30 Uboats can be used on other fronts that were lost IOTL against the Arctic Convoys.

http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

 

[CrimsonKing]

Will move on Murmansk; they were planning on it if Leningrad fell in 1941-42 because then they'd have the manpower to make it work and it would fulfill their dream of Greater Finland and with all of Karelia conquered they could hold a very short line to the East and effectively demobilize much of their military. That would then free up a lot of German efforts historically used in the north to guard Leningrad from the East and make AG-North much stronger in terms of manpower. Supply would be hugely improved and taken off the rail system, the threat of Soviets subs against Baltic trade is over, the airbases of high quality in Leningrad are German, 3 million Soviets are deleted from the Soviet registry (including 1 million men), and important armaments plants are lost, including about 50% of the KV-1/2 production and artillery factories.

It would also be hugely politically damaging to Stalin to lose the birthplace of the revolution and Lenin's city, meaning he'd be forced to launch a lot of very obvious, costly, and ultimately unsuccessful offensives to liberate the city (they'd fail because of improved German supply, extra manpower freed up from the north, the lack of needing to defend in two directions for German defenders once Leningrad falls, and the seizure of the critical airbases in the Leningrad area).

Once Murmansk falls the Soviets also lose the source of about 26% of all LL, more than 40% in 1941 nearly 40% in 1942. The remaining routes cannot take up that difference, they were maxed out IOTL in capacity even after billions of 1940s dollars spent on improvements. That's a devastating blow to the USSR.

I don't know if that means they would lose, but it would be a severe setback to their war effort and guarantee they end the war further East as a result. Finland might be able to end the war with a net territory gain even. Millions more Soviets are probably going to die as a result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II
At least 30 Uboats can be used on other fronts that were lost IOTL against the Arctic Convoys.

http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html

Perhaps Operation Typhoon should have been aimed at Leningrad then, rather than Moscow?

 

[Dementor]

Leningrad was so well fortified, with such favorable terrain for the defenders that capturing it by assault would be nearly impossible after the first few weeks of the war would be nearly impossible without diversion of major forces from Army Group Center. And in September most armored forces were withdrawn anyway.
What might happen is Leningrad being cut off completely by the German army advancing east of Leningrad and meeting the Finnish army advancing from the north. In OTL the Germans had reached as far as Tikhvin by the middle of november, while the Finns had reached and crossed the Svir river. At this point however the Germans were thrown back by one of the first Soviet counteroffensives. Now if Germany had devoted more efforts to this front, they might have linked up with the Finns in October. There is still the problem of preventing a Soviet offensive from reaching the Ladoga lake again.

I don't know if that means they would lose, but it would be a severe setback to their war effort and guarantee they end the war further East as a result. Finland might be able to end the war with a net territory gain even. Millions more Soviets are probably going to die as a result.

Not only will Finland not be gaining territory after the war, but they'll be lucky to only become a Soviet satellite instead of being directly annexed into the USSR. They avoided this fate in OTL not the least due to American sympathy and there will be little of this left after their participation in the atrocity that would be the destruction of Leningrad.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Perhaps Operation Typhoon should have been aimed at Leningrad then, rather than Moscow?

I mean it sort of was, look at the Tikhvin operation that didn't go well. Also in September there was a major push at Leningrad that ultimately failed. Moscow makes more sense as it would be the death blow of the USSR if it failed, it only makes more sense to go after Leningrad in 1941 with hindsight, but then only after the Vyazma/Bryansk pockets. Letting those stand was too dangerous.

Ideal for this OP Leningrad would fall in September during the push then, not sure how that could happen, but that's when things were ready for it. With hindsight Vyazma-Bryansk pockets are done, but then only picking out winter positions thereafter, no Tikhvin operation and then transfer forces north to finish off Leningrad in November-December. It would be hard to do though, but better than Moscow IOTL.

 

[gxblt]

If Finland agrees to assault Leningrad, there is no reason not to sever the railroad/attack Murmansk directly; they have crossed the point of no return. That would mean the end of Allied aid and make Arkhangelsk vulnerable. The amount of released Finnish troops is small, but huge percentually. Maybe you could see more gains in East Karelia or even driving the Soviets out of Fennoscandia, but this also means lot less front for the Soviets to defend.

 

[Dementor]

Also, how does this affect naval warfare? The Soviets now have no coast and no navy in the Baltic sea. Reasonably the Germans have captured a lot of submarines, destroyers and other ships in various stages of being scuttled and/or destroyed or disabled.

Battleships.
Marat, which was sunk at her moorings in shallow (11m) waterswhen two German 1 000kg bopmbs hit her and had her forward magazine explode. The rear potion was resurfaced and used as a floating battery.

Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya was badly damaged by bombs on the 24th of September, but was under repairs.

Cruisers
Kirov - in good shape in October 1941.

Maxim Gorky - had her bow blown off by mines and were under repairs in Kronstadt.

Petropavlovsk (ex Lützow) - never fully fitted and sunk in shallow waters by German artillery fire.

There should be 2 Leningrad class destroyer leaders and 21 regular destroyers and 64 submarines, with a further 20 under consctruction.

What can the Germans get out of this? And how would a completely safe Baltic Sea and the potential of some perhaps two dozen Soviet subs (perhaps used for training) as well as other vessels added to the German navy influence any potential naval action?

Nearly all ships in the Baltic fleet were thoroughly mined in September 1941. The Germans would be lucky to get anything more than a few minor ships.

 

[mattep74]

The entire town was rigged for demolition IIRC so Germany inheris a bunch of rubble

 

[Dementor]

The entire town was rigged for demolition IIRC so Germany inheris a bunch of rubble

And destroy everything left standing, they had no intention of Leningrad continuing to exist. They also had no plans to feed the civilian population.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Ideal for this OP Leningrad would fall in September during the push then, not sure how that could happen, but that's when things were ready for it.

Could a combination of no Afrika Corps and no Battle of Britain work if AGN gets the former plus the extra sir support?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Could a combination of no Afrika Corps and no Battle of Britain work if AGN gets the former plus the extra sir support?

In my 3 Fish TL Leningrad falls in July due to that. Arguably you could have the 2nd and 5th Panzer divisions, which IOTL had to sit out Barbarossa because of damage taken during transfers by sea to the RN, allocated to AG-North instead if not damaged and fulfill that same function, blowing through Soviet defenses instead along the Luga in July. You might also need to have Manstein avoid his OTL trouble around Slotsky (sp?) in July, which siphoned off Rheinhardt's panzers just as he was breaching the river and needed extra Panzers to drive on the city. Supply might be an issue then too, but historically the Panzers at Luga were only running on Ju52 support anyway, so perhaps that wouldn't matter given how unprepared Soviet defenses and militia were then. That is really the best time to have the fall of Leningrad, especially compared to September-October.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

As with Moscow, the Germans taking Leningrad requires a POD on the Soviet side as there is nothing more the Germans really could have done. Having Army Group North try to move faster or made stronger is simply not doable given the logistical infrastructure and Soviet resistance. The fact that Army Group North had pushed forward some 400 miles in four weeks meant it's LOCs were so poorly established that as late as August the Germans were unable to muster the supplies to support an attack by even a single corps. By the time the supply lines had been straightened out in mid-August, the Soviets had established a solid defensive line that the Germans were simply unable to punch through given the terrain. Given the degree to which logistical problems set the pace of advance, Army Group North simply could not move any faster then it did IOTL. Adding additional forces to Army Group North is more likely to actually slow it down rather by adding additional burden to a supply infrastructure that was already stretched beyond the breaking point IOTL.

Thus taking Leningrad, as with Moscow, is dependent on the Soviets doing something even more stupid then they did IOTL.

However, taking Leningrad does not really improve AGNs supply position. The Germans captured major port cities as Riga and Tallinn, whose facilities had been captured almost perfectly intact, yet this did nothing to ease their logistical burden despite the fact that the Soviet Baltic Fleet was singularly unable to interfere until late-1944... long after Soviet victories had made it irrellevant..

 

[thaddeus]

However, taking Leningrad does not really improve AGNs supply position. The Germans captured major port cities as Riga and Tallinn, whose facilities had been captured almost perfectly intact, yet this did nothing to ease their logistical burden despite the fact that the Soviet Baltic Fleet was singularly unable to interfere until late-1944... long after Soviet victories had made it irrellevant..

thought they were dealing with Soviet submarines the whole time? (will have to delve into the books on that one)

 

[ObssesedNuker]

thought they were dealing with Soviet submarines the whole time? (will have to delve into the books on that one)

Soviet subs were as locked up in Leningrad during the siege as the rest of the Baltic Fleet. It wasn't until 1945, in fact, that the Baltic Fleet subs began to operate in the Baltics again, when they began interdicting traffic between cut-off port cities in East Prussia and the rest of Germany (which is probably what you're thinking about). The Fleet's surface vessels only contribution were as means of evacuating various Soviet forces cut-off in the Baltic States prior to the siege and as floating gun batteries during the siege. Until late-'44, the Baltic Sea was basically a German lake.

It doesn't help that the Baltic isn't that great a place for submarines to operate, especially in the summer when the days are long.

 

[sitalkes]

a more radical plan could see Lenningrad fall more easily - the usual plan adopted by Hearts of Iron players. This is to use a combined air and sea invasion of Russia, with the amphibious assault coming in behind the Russian lines, resulting in a huge pocket that traps a good portion of the Russian army and leaves the road open to Lenningrad. The capture of the Baltic ports is also facilitated by the use of airborne troops. The terrain around Lenningrad is awful to operate in, causing slow movement and supply problems but the capture of Lenningrad is a huge boost to the supply situation for AGN. So the Germans have to think more three-dimensionally and take a few more risks and there would be a big pay-off (provided they also had the amphibious assault capability and they did successfully amphibiously assault various parts of the Baltic in WW1 and WW2)

 

[Daffy Duck]

Comment

For one thing it improves AGN's supply situation.

The Finn's may move on Murmansk.

Intersting point

Marshall Mannerheim and the Finns were not really wanting to go beyond their original goals of recapturing the territory they lost in the Winter War of 1939.

A quick capture of Leningrad in the opening stages of Barbarrosa might have changed that.

Capturing Murmansk and cutting off Archangelesk would have made a big impact, at that particular state in the war. It's a proven fact that most of Lend Lease was coming thru the aforementioned ports during that time

The big question is the affect that would have created during the winter months.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

As with Moscow, the Germans taking Leningrad requires a POD on the Soviet side as there is nothing more the Germans really could have done. Having Army Group North try to move faster or made stronger is simply not doable given the logistical infrastructure and Soviet resistance. The fact that Army Group North had pushed forward some 400 miles in four weeks meant it's LOCs were so poorly established that as late as August the Germans were unable to muster the supplies to support an attack by even a single corps. By the time the supply lines had been straightened out in mid-August, the Soviets had established a solid defensive line that the Germans were simply unable to punch through given the terrain. Given the degree to which logistical problems set the pace of advance, Army Group North simply could not move any faster then it did IOTL. Adding additional forces to Army Group North is more likely to actually slow it down rather by adding additional burden to a supply infrastructure that was already stretched beyond the breaking point IOTL.

Thus taking Leningrad, as with Moscow, is dependent on the Soviets doing something even more stupid then they did IOTL.

However, taking Leningrad does not really improve AGNs supply position. The Germans captured major port cities as Riga and Tallinn, whose facilities had been captured almost perfectly intact, yet this did nothing to ease their logistical burden despite the fact that the Soviet Baltic Fleet was singularly unable to interfere until late-1944... long after Soviet victories had made it irrellevant..

A lot of this is just plain wrong. Subs were a constant problem in the Baltic and use of the ports depended first on clearly the Baltic islands, which took until October and then the clearing of the minefields, while the winter ice was a problem in the Baltic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Beowulf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Sea_campaigns_(1939%E2%80%9345)#Operations_in_1942
Riga and Talinn were major supply hubs later once those things were worked out.


By 1942 the capture of Leningrad in July 1941 or whenever would enabled repairs to facilities and the clearing of mine fields, plus now there isn't a naval threat from subs, so they can move in. You're probably right that in 1941 it wouldn't matter due to the damage and sabotage inflicted on the port and then the winter making the Baltic difficult to traverse.

Capturing the city in 1941 is possible, the constraint wasn't supply it was having enough mobile forces able to cross the Luga, which weren't available due to Manstein's corps being dispersed to the southeast and getting cut off by a Soviet counterattack forcing Rheinhardt to divert units to rescue him. Had Manstein not been siphoned off for that push he would have been available for the drive on Leningrad and considering the defenses in the way that would not have stopped them. Supply at that point wasn't a concern due to Ju52s already supplying both Manstein and Rheinhardt anyway and the fact that capturing Leningrad would have yielded vast supplies of fuel, food, and weapons/munitions.

The other issue is that Ju52 supply transport was a major source for German troops to continue the advance throughout July-September well beyond their rail conversion efforts and in areas where mud and swamps didn't allow much rail supply. You consistently downplay the role of aerial supply in Barbarossa, but it was critical and quite heavy. Ju52s were running several missions a day to keep up the advance and evidence of their success was how far forward German troops were able to be despite rail supply lagging for weeks and months well back of the front lines, far back from even where the Grossraumtransport could conceivably make good.

The big benefit is capturing a ton of supplies in Leningrad while eliminating the Soviet army against the Finns north of Leningrad and enabling them to mass forces to capture Murmansk and Karelia, eliminating whatever Soviet forces are there and making supply runs to Archangelsk impossible. Then the Germans only need to face to the East to resist the Soviets and eliminate all of the Baltic naval threat and can use their airbases in the Leningrad area. They also eliminate about 80% of KV chassis production and an artillery factory if they capture the city in July, capture about 3 million Soviet citizens, including 1 million men that would end up fighting the Germans at some point, and effectively make the Finns safe from any Soviet counteroffensive.