Baltic / Black Sea naval WI - German naval strategy for Barbarossa

This is more of putting some thoughts to writing than TL or WI proposition, but merely to create discussion here's something to chew about.

How about more of a combined arms rather than Army-centric approach on Barbarossa?

A navalistic approach to Barbarossa would inevitably have Leningrad area as the primary goal for campaign season no.1. Elimination of Leningrad would eliminate any naval threat (bar from long range aerial minelaying) from the Baltic and thus create a safe haven for Axis trade and submarine training.

But even more significantly, use of Leningrad as supply route would bring great benefits for any subsequent operations. Captured Leningrad could be used as supply location for additional operations towards Moscow, which is just some 600km's distant with excellent rail and road connections.

Additionally, by using canal transportation another access route (Volga-Baltic waterway) is possible.

Second front where navalistic approach could be used is naturally the Black Sea. Although, on paper, Soviet superiority was overwhelming in practice this could be somewhat negated via better quality of German naval units and additionally by the use of German anti-shipping air power. German units were reinforced in OTL between 1942-1944 via Dardanelles (with civilian ships refitted with weapons in the Black Sea) and via Danube (small units only). These units could have well been prepared in advance to be used during 1941 campaign season to permit more rapid advance in Southern front by using Black Sea as transportation route and additionally by utilizing the forces involved in amphibious landings and raids.

So, in sum, I think a naval approach for Barbarossa would have included as targets for campaign season no. 1:

1.) Capture of Leningrad
2.) Advance in the Black Sea region perhaps to Rostov area

Thoughts?
 

Markus

Banned
IIRC the Baltic quickly became a german lake and remained so until the second half of 1944. What bases had not been captured were sealed off watertight with mines.

The Black Sea is more difficult for the Axis´ severe shortage of larger warships. "Larger" meaning anything bigger than a 200 ton S-boat. I´m not at home, so I don´t have my books at hand but IIRC the Romanians had half a dozen DD at most, the Bulgarain Navy was in an even worse shape.
 
IIRC the Baltic quickly became a german lake and remained so until the second half of 1944. What bases had not been captured were sealed off watertight with mines.

This was the case after Dec 1941 (evacuation of Hango), but Soviet subs came back in 1942 to haunt German and Finnish maritime traffic (with not much success but rather much damage for transportation network) and the effort to bottle up Soviet Navy demanded rather much resources in 1943-1944.

The Black Sea is more difficult for the Axis´ severe shortage of larger warships. "Larger" meaning anything bigger than a 200 ton S-boat. I´m not at home, so I don´t have my books at hand but IIRC the Romanians had half a dozen DD at most, the Bulgarain Navy was in an even worse shape.

With preparations German Navy was able to send a significant number of S-boats, R-boats, various landing crafts and Type II U-boats to the area. To do this in 1941 mostly demands that the need for naval units in the Black Sea is recognized. In OTL, as the German High Command thought the Soviet Union would be eliminated by the end of 1941 there was seemingly no need at all for any significant naval preparations.
 

Markus

Banned
In OTL, as the German High Command thought the Soviet Union would be eliminated by the end of 1941 there was seemingly no need at all for any significant naval preparations.

I concur, the underestimation of the USSR is the biggest roadblock to this and any other longer term effort.
 
There are two major objections to launch a Naval Attack on a neighbouring state, with landborders with you: 1st. It does not make sense, as you already have a landborder with the targeted state, so why doing it the difficult way? 2nd. Seems very likely that the fixed coastal defenses, such as minefields are already in place, since the opponent is expecting you. Its primary weakness, the mobile forces on land, are the primary targets to be destroyed first, not the fixed defenses.
 
There are two major objections to launch a Naval Attack on a neighbouring state, with landborders with you: 1st. It does not make sense, as you already have a landborder with the targeted state, so why doing it the difficult way? 2nd. Seems very likely that the fixed coastal defenses, such as minefields are already in place, since the opponent is expecting you. Its primary weakness, the mobile forces on land, are the primary targets to be destroyed first, not the fixed defenses.

To destroy the enemy forces one needs the logistical support in order to make this happen. In OTL the long supply lines of German forces severely hampered their efforts. By making greater use of seaborne transportation the logistics situation ought to be easier. As the crow flies, the distance from German occupied Poland to Moscow is some 1000 km's, from Leningrad to Moscow some 600km, from Rostov-on-Don to Stalingrad some 400km's and by using Don river as transport route some 50km's.

But, like Markus said, the great uncertainty in this line of reasoning is the German underestimation of Soviet Union as the opponent. Even by choosing land-only-strategy the choices on initial campaign might well have been very different if two or three stage operation to destroy Soviet Union was chosen (Summer, Winter and Summer campaigns).
 
Apart from the S boats that came down the Danube, to get any sizeable German naval units in the Black Sea - you need Turkey in the Axis. Yet, once German forces are on the eastern shore of the Black Sea all the Russian naval units are bottled up with no where to go.

In the Baltic - closer to German ports, it seems an opportunity was missed. Clearly, it would have been suicidal to attempt any assault on Leningrad itself, but Riga (see previous post) or Tallinin seems more feasible. Better the Panzers link up with forces brought in by sea, than have to wait for the those on foot to catch up!
If Leningrad was to fall, it had to fall quick - before the Russians knew what was happening, and before the defences could be constructed. Once, taken it could have acted as a supply base - with ships coming direct from German Ports - safer than the railways! Leading to a North & Central attack on Moscow!

IF - the UK had been an ally of Germany in this campaign, I could see this part as being 'Britains' contribution - an amphibious RN landing in the Baltic!
 
Whilst FK VIII under Richtoffen is assigned to army group north in 1941 a landing as far forward as Talinin is quite possible. While Germany didn't have the necessary amphibious capability for Sealion in 1940 they did toy with some very useful designs between the end of the fighting in France and Barbarossa. Wading Panzer MK 3's and Diving Panzer MK'2 along with a swimming version of their Hennemog Halftrack had all been developed and tested extensively. Model used a batch of them in his crossing of the Bug River when he commanded the 3rd panzer division and they were quite successful. Given that the Germans would have overwhelming air superiority and could commit at least 5 major warships to any operation (Hipper, Eugene, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gnesienau were all available during the opening months of Barbarossa)the operation would have a high chance of success

The only thing that would be found lacking would be ground troops with necessary training for amphibious warfare. In Manstein changes the world I had the Leibstandarte pulled and trained although this was for propaganda purposes. The most practical units to use would be Schorner's mountain division ( I can't recall the number maybe 5th or 6th), 38th infantry, 1st infantry and 7th panzer. All of those units had practiced embarkation and debarkation techniques in preparing for operation sealion and were supposed to be its first wave so they would be the most natural choice for an amphibious landing.

It would involve perhaps a considerable redeployment because of those units who had some amphibious training that I mentioned only 1st East Prussian Infantry (The Wolfhounds) was assigned to army group north. I am not sure if one division would be enough unless Panzer Group 4 was pretty close by and could relieve them within 72 hours at the most
 
Apart from the S boats that came down the Danube, to get any sizeable German naval units in the Black Sea - you need Turkey in the Axis. Yet, once German forces are on the eastern shore of the Black Sea all the Russian naval units are bottled up with no where to go.

The trick is that due to poor quality of Soviet Navy just S-boats, Type II U-boats and assorted light craft which were historically transferred via Danube or as "civilian" ships transferred via Dardanelles would have been sufficient for more ambitious 1941 naval operations.

In the Baltic - closer to German ports, it seems an opportunity was missed. Clearly, it would have been suicidal to attempt any assault on Leningrad itself, but Riga (see previous post) or Tallinin seems more feasible. Better the Panzers link up with forces brought in by sea, than have to wait for the those on foot to catch up!

The key amphibious operation would have been to capture Saaremaa and Hiiumaa at early stage - Riga was conquered quickly by land armies. Those islands command approach to Gulf of Riga and their capture would have opened up Riga as supply port much quicker. As for amphibious landings on Estonia, I don't see much point except perhaps to northern shore of Narva Isthmus between Lake Peipus and Gulf of Finland. Use of more naval units would have opened Southern Finnish ports to transports earlier, bringing possibility of deploying stronger force to Southern Finland to attack Leningrad via Karelian Isthmus. After capture of Viipuri (in OTL by end of August 1941) large forces could have been transshipped there.

Additionally, deployment of stronger naval and naval air units to Baltic would have made the evacuation of Estonia even more bloodier for Soviets and probably would have made a mess out of Soviet evacuation of Hankoniemi too. These two evacuations significantly strengthened the forces available for defense of Leningrad. Additionally, sinking more Soviet ships would have eliminated significant portion of Soviet artillery available for defense of Leningrad,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_Tallinn
 
Last edited:
Top