Alternative to Tikhvin Operation, Leningrad falls

The coal was taken IOTL anyway.
do you have any details or source(s) for that? IIRC they controlled the area but cannot find any mention of production, vs. pre-invasion, etc

there is a lot of good information on shale from Estonia, a huge bounty for Germans.
 
do you have any details or source(s) for that? IIRC they controlled the area but cannot find any mention of production, vs. pre-invasion, etc

there is a lot of good information on shale from Estonia, a huge bounty for Germans.
They captured the region, but the Soviets sabotaged production. IIRC that took until 1942 to recover. Shale too was destroyed by the Soviets on their way out, which took until 1944 to rebuild, only to lose it yet again to the Soviets. So the Germans didn't really get that much out Soviet resource areas until they were liberated/reconquered by the Soviets.
 
The question is whether the Allies could be overwhelmed given the historical experience of Sicily and Salerno. Anzio even wasn't crushed with far less support than the Allies could offer for this invasion. Plus the Germans would lack the experience of the Italian campaign to inform their counterattack doctrine in the face of Allied naval gunnery support. They might well contain them and make breaking out too costly...though carpet bombing with B17s and a lot of escort fighters might alter that equation.
The better question is whether the Allies will be overwhelmed because the Germans will be attacking with 10 times more than what landed at Anzio under contested skies. even if the Luftwaffe gets its butt kicked not all the bridges will be knocked out. The Germans will push the Allies into the sea.
 
The better question is whether the Allies will be overwhelmed because the Germans will be attacking with 10 times more than what landed at Anzio under contested skies. even if the Luftwaffe gets its butt kicked not all the bridges will be knocked out. The Germans will push the Allies into the sea.
The Allies will have more than 10x the air support, several times more divisions landing, and a bigger fleet supporting them; IOTL Anzio had FAR less naval support than the landing in Sicily in 1943 or at Normandy in 1944. It is really an unknown how quickly German divisions can come in to contain the bridgehead and if they could throw it back into the sea given Allied airborne drops and huge naval support.
 
It will be 10X the allied air power, but German airpower in France in May 1943 will be multiplied as well, with the benefit radar. If the advantages were there to attack France in 43 they would ahve done it. It was no sure thing.
 
It will be 10X the allied air power, but German airpower in France in May 1943 will be multiplied as well, with the benefit radar. If the advantages were there to attack France in 43 they would ahve done it. It was no sure thing.
Sure, no one said the invasion wouldn't be bloodier than IOTL, just that throwing the invasion back into the sea once it gets ashore is going to be extremely tough. IOTL the Allies didn't want to pay that price and opted to go with the Mediterranean option; if they don't then they will pay the price to fight their way onshore and maintain their bridgehead until they can break out.
 
Top