|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 8, 2024 18:52:15 GMT
During the "Augustkrise" when it became obvious that blitzkrieg in Russia simply wasn't possible, the German leadership spent weeks arguing in which order to attack Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. IOTL, the "führer" decided for the order 1) Leningrad, 2) Ukraine, 3) Moscow.
Many people have already wondered what'd have happened if the Wehrmacht had attacked Moscow first, because not just of the symbolic value, but because its fall would make logistics for the Soviets so much harder. But that's not the path I want to go this time.
I'm just asking: What if they had switched Leningrad and Ukraine? Would the SU be hurt if they lost the grain and coal of the Ukraine? Or did the symbolic value and the heavy tank factories (which AFAIK never stopped working) matter more? The Ukraine certainly had more people.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 8, 2024 19:28:05 GMT
During the "Augustkrise" when it became obvious that blitzkrieg in Russia simply wasn't possible, the German leadership spent weeks arguing in which order to attack Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. IOTL, the "führer" decided for the order 1) Leningrad, 2) Ukraine, 3) Moscow.
Many people have already wondered what'd have happened if the Wehrmacht had attacked Moscow first, because not just of the symbolic value, but because its fall would make logistics for the Soviets so much harder. But that's not the path I want to go this time.
I'm just asking: What if they had switched Leningrad and Ukraine? Would the SU be hurt if they lost the grain and coal of the Ukraine? Or did the symbolic value and the heavy tank factories (which AFAIK never stopped working) matter more? The Ukraine certainly had more people.
Well the Germans occupied all Ukraine anyway [other than Sevastopol], along with points to the east of it. I wasn't aware of forces being transferred from other fronts to boost the attack on Leningrad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 8, 2024 20:12:25 GMT
During the "Augustkrise" when it became obvious that blitzkrieg in Russia simply wasn't possible, the German leadership spent weeks arguing in which order to attack Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine. IOTL, the "führer" decided for the order 1) Leningrad, 2) Ukraine, 3) Moscow.
Many people have already wondered what'd have happened if the Wehrmacht had attacked Moscow first, because not just of the symbolic value, but because its fall would make logistics for the Soviets so much harder. But that's not the path I want to go this time.
I'm just asking: What if they had switched Leningrad and Ukraine? Would the SU be hurt if they lost the grain and coal of the Ukraine? Or did the symbolic value and the heavy tank factories (which AFAIK never stopped working) matter more? The Ukraine certainly had more people.
Well the Germans occupied all Ukraine anyway [other than Sevastopol], along with points to the east of it. I wasn't aware of forces being transferred from other fronts to boost the attack on Leningrad.
Yes, they did - but the first attack went against Leningrad; after it was cut off, the next attack was in Ukraine, to cut off the Kiev salient. Here's a link to a map of the situation at that time.
And in both cases, AGC had to give valuable troops to AGN/AGS. Including panzers.
|
|
575
Captain
Member is Online
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 8, 2024 21:34:31 GMT
AGC had to lend some Panzer for the attack on Leningrad. Then following the Germans ended up surrounding the Soviet armygroup at Kyiv/Kiev which I have seen several places to be the only sane thing to do as the German attack had outrun its logistics tail and it killed off a potential threat in the SW to the German advance when resumed.
The problem could evolve into Your Escalating/Dampening issue with the AGS outrunning its logistics tail and the Soviets in Kiev getting some idea of what to do now. Come Winter supplying AGS would be a real problem as the Romanians and Bulgarians as far as I know wouldn't have the means for helping in that matter.
Then AGC would anyway have to pocket Kiev to remove that threat which then might upset any move on Moscow - of course here it would see a large part of the Panzers roaming about in Ukraine and on Kalmyk Steppe and then run out of petrol!
OTL the Soviets managed to defend the Caucasus oilfields AND move oil across the Caspian to Astrakhan and Guryev and rail it on to destinations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 12, 2024 12:11:09 GMT
Yeah, it made sense to attack the Kiev salient... that's why I'm wondering why they didn't give Kiev priority 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 15, 2024 7:00:20 GMT
The heavy KV tanks were produced in Leningrad. For once, this factory wasn't moved east. Tanks were rolling right from the factory to the front... then again, the Germans didn't know about the KVs when they started Barbarossa. Maybe he suspected that Leningrad was an important industrial center in general?
Cutting off the Soviets' access to the Baltic can't have mattered. Taking it just because it bore the name of Lenin also couldn't have been the reason. So what was it?
|
|
575
Captain
Member is Online
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,729
Likes: 4,106
|
Post by 575 on Jun 15, 2024 7:43:45 GMT
The heavy KV tanks were produced in Leningrad. For once, this factory wasn't moved east. Tanks were rolling right from the factory to the front... then again, the Germans didn't know about the KVs when they started Barbarossa. Maybe he suspected that Leningrad was an important industrial center in general? Cutting off the Soviets' access to the Baltic can't have mattered. Taking it just because it bore the name of Lenin also couldn't have been the reason. So what was it? An initial objective?
The OKH idea was to capture the Soviet/Russian space between Arkhangelsk in the north and Astrakhan in the south on the Caspian.
Like Leningrad in the north - for what other important objective was there? Moscow in the center as it is an important railways/communications hub and seat of Government. In the South -  Kiev would pass as an initial one as would Odessa but these were close to the borders - Rostov na Donu or Kharkov? The latter ones would make sense as such would define the conquest of Ukraine with agriculture and coalmining.
Sevastopol comes late - why? No ideas on Naval matters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 15, 2024 9:46:37 GMT
The heavy KV tanks were produced in Leningrad. For once, this factory wasn't moved east. Tanks were rolling right from the factory to the front... then again, the Germans didn't know about the KVs when they started Barbarossa. Maybe he suspected that Leningrad was an important industrial center in general? Cutting off the Soviets' access to the Baltic can't have mattered. Taking it just because it bore the name of Lenin also couldn't have been the reason. So what was it? An initial objective?
The OKH idea was to capture the Soviet/Russian space between Arkhangelsk in the north and Astrakhan in the south on the Caspian.
Like Leningrad in the north - for what other important objective was there? Moscow in the center as it is an important railways/communications hub and seat of Government. In the South - Kiev would pass as an initial one as would Odessa but these were close to the borders - Rostov na Donu or Kharkov? The latter ones would make sense as such would define the conquest of Ukraine with agriculture and coalmining.
Sevastopol comes late - why? No ideas on Naval matters?
That's all fine, but I was asking - as in the first post - why did the "führer" value Leningrad as more valuable than Kiev AND Moscow? Otherwise he wouldn't have given it priority #1...
Maybe because it's colder in the North, so it'd make sense to finish this aim first before winter comes? But that's what a sane person would do...
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2024 11:56:58 GMT
I think that Leningrad was an obvious target for the northern army group. They need some immediate target and also it closes off the Baltic, to avoid any threat to shipping or training subs and the like there. Also it would enable a link with the Finns, who they wanted to have as allies and hence opening up an advance to Archangel. Probably after that the northern front would be largely shut down as there were no real further objectives in the region west of the Urals.
In terms of the south the ultimate target was Baku up as 1942 show that was wildly unrealistic without a total Soviet collapse. The political capital of Kiev [as it was then Kyiv now] was a short term target while the industrial centre of the Donbas region was clearly an important target. With Sevastopol I think the thing is because the south was a less prominent target and the Donbas region was a higher priority and it was a defended fortress the Germans simply didn't have the resources to capture it until 42 without sacrificing other options they valued higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jun 22, 2024 16:26:17 GMT
All of that is true, but it doesn't tell me why the "führer" considered Leningrad as more important than the Ukraine. Sure, tanks are important, but so is the food from the Ukraine, and the iron ore and coal to forge the steel for the tanks.
After reading up a bit, it's still unclear. I think in an ATL the "führer" might as well decide for preferring the Ukraine to Leningrad.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Jun 23, 2024 20:14:43 GMT
Attacking Ukraine instead of Leningrad would have made more sense, if you consider the German obsession with food security that caused a lot of starvation to happen to them after WWI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 10, 2024 15:38:00 GMT
Now I've been digging through Halder's famous war journal. Unfortunately, my PDF copy is missing volume VII (post-July 1941 - argh!). Still, I found out a few things which helped about that topic: Seems he really considered that if he had Leningrad, Soviet subs wouldn't be able to endanger the Swedish iron ore anymore. Did you read said journal, stevep ? Because I'm wondering, since you hit it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 10, 2024 15:53:38 GMT
Now I've been digging through Halder's famous war journal. Unfortunately, my PDF copy is missing volume VII (post-July 1941 - argh!). Still, I found out a few things which helped about that topic: Seems he really considered that if he had Leningrad, Soviet subs wouldn't be able to endanger the Swedish iron ore anymore. Did you read said journal, stevep ? Because I'm wondering, since you hit it.
I don't think I have read it although possibly some time in the distant past.
Actually I was thinking of the Baltic being a secure location for training German U-boats that I have seen mentioned in a number of sources as to why he refused to abandon the Baltic coast from late 44 onward. However definitely concern about attacking on iron ore shipments although not sure how crucial they were after the conquest of France made their iron ore sources available, reducing I would have thought the dependency on Swedish sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 10, 2024 15:58:53 GMT
Now I've been digging through Halder's famous war journal. Unfortunately, my PDF copy is missing volume VII (post-July 1941 - argh!). Still, I found out a few things which helped about that topic: Seems he really considered that if he had Leningrad, Soviet subs wouldn't be able to endanger the Swedish iron ore anymore. Did you read said journal, stevep ? Because I'm wondering, since you hit it.
I don't think I have read it although possibly some time in the distant past.
Actually I was thinking of the Baltic being a secure location for training German U-boats that I have seen mentioned in a number of sources as to why he refused to abandon the Baltic coast from late 44 onward. However definitely concern about attacking on iron ore shipments although not sure how crucial they were after the conquest of France made their iron ore sources available, reducing I would have thought the dependency on Swedish sources.
Have never heard anything about the Nazis having too much of iron ore. Also, supposedly the Swedish iron ore is better than that from Lorraine.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jul 10, 2024 16:30:33 GMT
I don't think I have read it although possibly some time in the distant past.
Actually I was thinking of the Baltic being a secure location for training German U-boats that I have seen mentioned in a number of sources as to why he refused to abandon the Baltic coast from late 44 onward. However definitely concern about attacking on iron ore shipments although not sure how crucial they were after the conquest of France made their iron ore sources available, reducing I would have thought the dependency on Swedish sources.
Have never heard anything about the Nazis having too much of iron ore. Also, supposedly the Swedish iron ore is better than that from Lorraine.
What I was thinking of was with the allied blockade and without at the time a deal with the Soviets it seems that the Swedish ore was crucial. I.e. without it the German war effort would suffer very badly. Once other sources were available possibly the Swedish forces were probably still the best but no longer vital.
|
|
Kiev would pass as an initial one as would Odessa but these were close to the borders - Rostov na Donu or Kharkov? The latter ones would make sense as such would define the conquest of Ukraine with agriculture and coalmining.