A 1943 invasion was really a long shot. None of the logistical pre-requisites for a buildup in the UK, (Operation Balero) were in place for 1942 or 1943. The shipping crisis in the first half of 1943 made preparations for Operation Roundup a nonviable option. Gymnast/Torch was the best option the Allies had. Closing out North Africa and knocking Italy out of the war was all the Allies could reasonably do in 1943. Landing in Northern France in 1943 would be a reckless gamble. Not facing the desperate situation, the Soviets were in, and possessing limited manpower Allied planning was more methodical. Shipping was always the limiting factor in all operations globally. It wasn't until the Atlantic supply line was secured, and more landing craft could be built was a return to France a real possibility.
Consequences of Leningrad falling in 1941-42?
- Thread starter Old1812
- Start date
Taking Lenningrad means nothing if you are not prepared to keep substantial troops up in the area to keep the Soviet conterattack, and there will be one coming, from taking the area back. Moving lots of troops out of the area just means the Soviets are going to know they are gone and would be looking at other areas being places for the next German offensive. You also would have to keep large numbers of Finnish troops in the area because they have to prevent movement and flanking attacks if they try to cut the Murmansk RR.
As discussed in countless threads we definitely wouldn’t see a 1944 D-Day in this timeline either if the USSR actually collapsed. I think 1946 would be the earliest they could plausibly accomplish something like that though it would be far more difficult than IOTL. Nuclear weapons would likely be used to break the Atlantic Wall. It would be closer to Operation Olympic in scope and scale.
Last edited:
Some thoughts:
The Germans had a large Seibel ferry force on the lake in 1942, even some Italian MAS boats, these could be redeployed, perhaps taking more supply up the Don. Even a division or two of fresh German infantry might help take the remaining pocket of the city.
Many of the international SS and the Spanish Blue were used around Leningrad, could be redeployed, probably best to replace the Italians and move the Italians to the Caucasus where their mountain trained divisions and their mules might useful.
If the Germans can cut the Murmansk railway, it may butterfly the Naval battle of the Barents, and the whole scrap the fleet order.
Ultimately if Operation Uranus is nerfed a bit and the Germans are a bit stronger, and the Germans can get out of Stalingrad a bit stronger, might make sense for the Germans to play defense in the east 1943.
The Germans had a large Seibel ferry force on the lake in 1942, even some Italian MAS boats, these could be redeployed, perhaps taking more supply up the Don. Even a division or two of fresh German infantry might help take the remaining pocket of the city.
Many of the international SS and the Spanish Blue were used around Leningrad, could be redeployed, probably best to replace the Italians and move the Italians to the Caucasus where their mountain trained divisions and their mules might useful.
If the Germans can cut the Murmansk railway, it may butterfly the Naval battle of the Barents, and the whole scrap the fleet order.
Ultimately if Operation Uranus is nerfed a bit and the Germans are a bit stronger, and the Germans can get out of Stalingrad a bit stronger, might make sense for the Germans to play defense in the east 1943.
This, we know about Nuclear weapons and others, but a more strained SU, that means the war in Europe is harder(and the war of pacific might take more time, as the nukes used in japan will be used first in Europe)
There’s also the issue as to whether a defeated USSR would still declare war and attack Japan like IOTL. It’s plausible that Japan would continue fighting after the atomic bombings if there was no simultaneous Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Meaning the WAllies would have to deal with a stronger Reich and Japan at the same time.
I think Japan might fare far worse OTL, they will not get the easy exit they got from OTL
Since IOTL Germany was seen by the WAllies as the more important threat this wouldn’t change if the USSR was gone and Germany was that much more powerful. The WAllies would likely do what they did in AANW and simply bomb and starve Japan into submission to conserve resources for the final fight against Germany. Millions of Japanese would die.
If, the access to the L-L supplies via Murmansk is compromised, then it will have a knock on effect elsewhere. For example, will the Russians be able to mount a viable offensive to isolate Stalingrad - doubtful. More like, a much more limited one, one that is contained.
For the Germans, Baku was 'a bridge too far' type target, better to concentrate on Maikop, and be able at least to interdict Ashakhan. At the least stop Russia getting the oil from Baku.
The Caucasus were being supplied by across Iran/Lend Lease, I bet the Soviet reduce Mars in the Center (and their OTL counter attacks around Leningrad), maybe Uranus is delayed a week or two. But I bet the Soviets would still be able to launch a strong counter attack still, but more Axis reserves are around. Axis probably get a lot out of Stalingrad, falling back along the Don which will be used for ferry supply.
Hitler will insist on holding Kuban and Maikop which will create problems still with a stretched German army.
It might help Mussolini politically if the crushing of the Italian 8th army is butterflied away.
Germans would have more airlift for Tunisia without Stalingrad airlift.
Even if the Germans couldn't take Baku, they could still cut the oil transport routes, which would significantly hinder the ability of the Soviets to launch their doctrinal continuous offensives. If the Soviets can't keep pushing the Germans back, it becomes a lot harder for them to make up for losses with liberated conscripts.
Likely a slaughter on the scale of Nanjing to the Soviet population which will tar Finland with at least hundreds of thousands being massacred once taken and the subsequent occupation.
That said while some might be right in won't have any major ''hard'' effects like the Soviet Union likely won't collapse but in terms of ''soft'' factors could effect a lot.
This is after all 1941 when the situation is most dire for the USSR and things for Germany are going well old capital and one of the most imporant cities in the Union being taken could have a awful affect on moral, that while might not led to a German victory definitely lead to a lot more soldiers breaking and being killed.
That said while some might be right in won't have any major ''hard'' effects like the Soviet Union likely won't collapse but in terms of ''soft'' factors could effect a lot.
This is after all 1941 when the situation is most dire for the USSR and things for Germany are going well old capital and one of the most imporant cities in the Union being taken could have a awful affect on moral, that while might not led to a German victory definitely lead to a lot more soldiers breaking and being killed.
Band in China
Banned
It's what? 700 km East to cut the Arkhangelsk-Moscow line at Vologda starting from Volkhov through swamps and forests while hindered by a single track rail? Not sure how they do that by any stretch of the imagination. The USSR is big and empty, there's not much of value between Leningrad and Moscow.
Not really, the Soviet rail networks splayed out from Moscow on purpose to make it more difficult for invaders. The Smolensk-Rzhev Salient is still reliant on Moscow-Minsk line, unless the Nazis want to drive all the way from Riga/Leningrad to Moscow past another 1000 km of Soviet defenses.
Source: https://tile.loc.gov/image-services...001:g7001p:ct004328/full/pct:25/0/default.jpg
They simply didn't have the rail capacity to supply troops needed to hold an extended southern front like OTL (See map above, there's no major railways that run East-West in Southern Russia), let alone ship crude 3000 km back to Germany where it's needed to refineries they didn't have. The most "likely" proposal IOTL, given that Romanian riverine shipping capacity was already overstrained trying to transport its domestic supply to Germany and thus not a factor was the utilize the only remaining capacity within the Axis: Italy via the Black Seas straits with total dominance of the Mediterranean.
IOTL the TMB (technological petroleum brigade) estimated that the task of drilling out boreholes and repairing filled up shafts, given the expertise, pipeline, transport, and equipment needed were all in shortage or not produced by Germany in any significant quantity. The earliest estimate assuming Baku taken in 1942 (somehow...) was a year for Maikop, two for Grozny, and they never even bothered to plan for Baku. How they would get tankers or pipelines back to Germany past partisans and aircraft raids was dismissed by bravado.
A good deal of the TMB, given their engineering skills and experience are in dire demand everywhere. While I don't think they'll reassign them given the promise of oil the overall German engineering effort will suffer in the meantime.
Leningrad frees up 2 Finnish corps. it doesn't change the fact that the Murmansk railroad is hundreds of kilometers away from Finnish railroads-how are the Finns going to supply a drive across the frozen wilderness against a USSR that can ship in troops and supplies by the trainload? The only railroad at the time in Northern Finland ran along the Baltic, the closest railroad to the Murmansk line was Joensuu to Sortavala, still 200 kilometers within from the Soviet border.
Nope, 400 km of minefields in the Gulf of Finland.
Last edited:
thaddeus
Donor
the Germans laid all/most of the mines during the timeframe I'm talking about, despite that the Soviets sailed a convoy of more than 200 ships including many large ones. they avoided a southern route closer to German forces along the coastline, but the German KM could have used that route.
IDK exactly what year or month you are talking about?
I recall from past discussions between Viking and obsessed nuker that quite a lot of Soviet prisoners would be expected if Leningrad fell. If so fresh Soviet forces must defend the northern front that put pressure on Moscow with excellent supply lines.
If case blue goes as OTL then the timetable was initially delayed by attacks on the northern flank of the attack. In this scenario with an army more for the attack they could hold off these strong attacks while keeping the time table. This leads to a possible avoidance of their otl traffic jams and a very early capture of Stalingrad. Logistics would still play in but in this situation they wouldn’t be so bad down to the Caspian Sea. Then it’s everyone’s guess.
In front of Moscow the battle of Rhzev would be more in favor of Germany.
Add in that Leningrad could fall earlier and the battle of Moscow might be replaced by preemptive attacks on Leningrad.
All sorts of things can happen
If case blue goes as OTL then the timetable was initially delayed by attacks on the northern flank of the attack. In this scenario with an army more for the attack they could hold off these strong attacks while keeping the time table. This leads to a possible avoidance of their otl traffic jams and a very early capture of Stalingrad. Logistics would still play in but in this situation they wouldn’t be so bad down to the Caspian Sea. Then it’s everyone’s guess.
In front of Moscow the battle of Rhzev would be more in favor of Germany.
Add in that Leningrad could fall earlier and the battle of Moscow might be replaced by preemptive attacks on Leningrad.
All sorts of things can happen
Last edited:
When did I ever say that the Germans were necessarily going to take Baku? Seems to me like you didn't bother reading anything I said. At any rate, it is entirely within the realm of possibility to break up the flow of oil from Baku into the rest of the Soviet Union, even without taking all the fields themselves.
Derek Pullem
Donor
More radical question - could the fall of Leningrad have persuaded Hitler that a Northern strategy to end the war was feasible. Something that focussed on the isolation of Moscow and the rail hub rather than the lunge into the Caucasus. Which we can see had zero chance of success but looked attractive to Hitler on the map.
Would be a meatgrinder far and above that of Stalingrad but there would be significant German advantages (they can be supplied) to set against the in depth Soviet defences. Stalingrad is still probably under threat from AGS but it is the ultimate aim of the 1942 campaign rather than an inconvenient hold out on the drive to the oil fields. The strategy would rely on the Soviets folding once Moscow, Leningrad and possibly Stalingrad are taken (boardgame victory conditions trope)
I'm not saying it's a winning strategy but is it one that could have gained traction if Leningrad had fallen?
Would be a meatgrinder far and above that of Stalingrad but there would be significant German advantages (they can be supplied) to set against the in depth Soviet defences. Stalingrad is still probably under threat from AGS but it is the ultimate aim of the 1942 campaign rather than an inconvenient hold out on the drive to the oil fields. The strategy would rely on the Soviets folding once Moscow, Leningrad and possibly Stalingrad are taken (boardgame victory conditions trope)
I'm not saying it's a winning strategy but is it one that could have gained traction if Leningrad had fallen?
Except that if the northern convoys aren't really a factor until late 41, so if somehow Leningrad falls or is cut off in 1941 there won't be much point in sending Lend Lease convoys. That frees up a fair bit of allied shipping and several hundred extra allied tanks, some of which will go to the Far and Middle east, with the rest facing Rommel.
Sure they weren't great tanks, but 200 or more extra against a force that at times was down to about two dozen working tanks only needs to take out two or three extra tanks each battle to leave the Afrika Korps with literally no working tanks. Rommel was good, but that's a big deal, even if he retains his AT guns as it hands the initiative to the allies for at least a while.
While a 2nd Compass is unlikely, it's reasonable to expect alt- Torch to start with the allies further west than OTL and with better ports than OTL, so there may be no Tunisgrad or an earlier one.
No, not without a fundamental change in how Hitler thought about strategy. At any rate, Fall Blau was a long shot, but it was not impossible. As Robert Citino notes in Death of the Wehrmacht, it is truly astonishing how close the Germans got, all things considered, to reaching most of their objectives. In a campaign involving maneuvers of hundreds of kilometers, the Germans were halted meters short in Stalingrad, and driven back only a few miles from the mouth of the mountain road to Baku.