Murmansk and Leningrad

Tom Colton

Tom Colton

I'm working on a timeline which will eventually cover the Eastern Front, so I'd like to ask two questions regarding the sieges of these two cities:

1. What would it take for either or both to fall to Finnish and German offensives, and was either country's armed forces capable of delivering this?

2. Would the loss of either or both make a severe impact on the Soviet war effort, considering that Murmansk was the winter port of call for Lend-Lease?

I'm particularly interested in the Murmansk scenarios, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about a successful Operation Silver Fox.
 

fox~ringo

Hitler wanted to level Leningrad, not occupy it, but German resources were pretty stretched on the Eastern Front. The Finns were content with what they gained by late 1942. More cooperation between Helsinki and Berlin could help end the siege.
 

Shaby

I think this is for a reason. First the terrain and infrastructure in these parts heavily favor the defense, as the Soviets discovered during the Winter War.

Secondly, Murmansk was important, but hardly irreplaceable. There was also Arhangelsk, Persian route and Vladivostok (which by itself amounted to 50% of all Land Lease inflow).

Thrid, specifically for Leningrad - the city didn't fall to the combined assault in OTL. It is very hard to see what could have been done differently. Maybe, just maybe, an amphibious invasion somewhere in the Baltics, but still, you either need to pass through Narva, with all attendant difficulties or through Pskov route, again with difficulties. Simply the terrain and (again) infrastructure favor the defense.
 
Dan

Dan

Shaby said:
I think this is for a reason. First the terrain and infrastructure in these parts heavily favor the defense, as the Soviets discovered during the Winter War.

Secondly, Murmansk was important, but hardly irreplaceable. There was also Arhangelsk, Persian route and Vladivostok (which by itself amounted to 50% of all Land Lease inflow).

Thrid, specifically for Leningrad - the city didn't fall to the combined assault in OTL. It is very hard to see what could have been done differently. Maybe, just maybe, an amphibious invasion somewhere in the Baltics, but still, you either need to pass through Narva, with all attendant difficulties or through Pskov route, again with difficulties. Simply the terrain and (again) infrastructure favor the defense.
Click to expand...

If the Finns cut off Lake Ladoga, which they didn't do OTL, that could have cut the city off, at which point the chances of the city falling rise.
Maybe not to a point that it is guarenteed to fall, but certainly to a level where it's a strong possibility, and in the event that the Russians are still on the winning side at the end of WWII, then Finland may well be in a worse position.
 

Aley

On the Kola Peninsula was a strategically important for the Germans the bridge. Soviet bombing caused a landslide destroy it. To some extent, it was an accident. As a result, the supply for German troops was much more difficult.
Leningrad saved heavy artillery of forts and warships. On the maps of the siege is clearly seen.
 

thaddeus

Donor
missed opportunity.

should have made Leningrad priority for 1941.

eliminate the Soviet Baltic fleet, Germans could have supplied Army Group North by sea.

KM had lots of WWI era, 1920s, ships that could have been risked along with drawing some of the u-boat fleet out of the Atlantic for at least a short time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top