Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Taking Leningrad first?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Taking Leningrad first? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Taking Leningrad first? - 2/12/2013 11:04:32 PM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
Since the battles of Stalingrad and Moscow went poorly for the Germans, should they of concentrated on Leningrad first? Which they did. But, they didn't move forces involved for the Moscow and Stalingrad fronts to Leningrad? If the Germans took Leningrad, what would it mean to Russians?

< Message edited by Footslogger -- 2/13/2013 3:28:28 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/13/2013 8:13:39 AM   
loki100


Posts: 796
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline
in reality, given the effective collapse of the Soviet state by autumn 1941, with the army effectively taking control of local administration across most of the front, I think the loss of Leningrad could well have toppled Stalin's regime (not least due to Leningrad's iconic position in Soviet political history). I don't think it would have it would have ended the Russian capacity to resist.

(in reply to Footslogger)
Post #: 2
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/13/2013 10:41:53 AM   
MusT1

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 2/12/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Footslogger
But, they didn't move forces involved for the Moscow and Stalingrad fronts to Leningrad? If the Germans took Leningrad, what would it mean to Russians?

It meant russian victory in south and center , then liberation of Leningrad and destrution germans in Eastern Europe.

< Message edited by MusT1 -- 2/13/2013 10:51:51 AM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 3
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/13/2013 6:10:43 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Taking Leningrad would have shaken the regime further. It would have freed substancial Finnish forces from positional warfare on the Karelian front facing Leningrad, perhaps allowing a renewed drive to cut the Murmansk rail line.

The Germans would have also been able to disengage their left, made PG4 and either 16th or 18th army for employment elsewhere along the front or even advance down the Moscow-Leningrad rail axis.

Having Leningrad would have also helped with logistical issues once the mines were cleaned out and the port could be used for shipment of supplies.

One huge issue the Germans would have faced with the occupation of Leningrad is what would they have done with the population of Leningrad.

(in reply to MusT1)
Post #: 4
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/14/2013 1:05:01 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

One huge issue the Germans would have faced with the occupation of Leningrad is what would they have done with the population of Leningrad.


It's easy to guess...

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 5
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/14/2013 5:46:46 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Taking L'grad early allows redistribution of AGN & and any loaned AGC/AGS forces to help AGC and AGS. They need that. In later years, L'grad did have significant armaments industry and also supported Baltic Fleet operations for Soviets. Loss of L'grad would of course extend the Axis period of early success, but its not a gamechanger.

Would there have been an effect upon Papa Joe's regime? Don't think so. Papa Joe and Company absorbed terrific losses and still met out some serious hurt on the Axis up to Stalingrad and then whipped the Axis in every way. (So I think.)


(in reply to The Guru)
Post #: 6
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/14/2013 11:53:07 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
I'm more rrbill camp on this one. As it was, in late 41 and most of 42 - the critical part of the war, Leningrad was a major drain on Soviet resources just to keep it alive.

If the Germans had taken it, strategically, it may, and I mean may, have slowed down lend lease some and freed up a few troops but it wasn't a game changer.

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 7
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/15/2013 3:22:39 AM   
Footslogger

 

Posts: 785
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Washington USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: turtlefang

I'm more rrbill camp on this one. As it was, in late 41 and most of 42 - the critical part of the war, Leningrad was a major drain on Soviet resources just to keep it alive.

If the Germans had taken it, strategically, it may, and I mean may, have slowed down lend lease some and freed up a few troops but it wasn't a game changer.



If not Leningrad, then what would you have done different?

< Message edited by Footslogger -- 2/15/2013 3:37:20 AM >

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 8
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/15/2013 7:54:19 AM   
loki100


Posts: 796
Joined: 10/20/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Would there have been an effect upon Papa Joe's regime? Don't think so. Papa Joe and Company absorbed terrific losses and still met out some serious hurt on the Axis up to Stalingrad and then whipped the Axis in every way. (So I think.)




I'd disagree with this. Leningrad was 'Lenin's city', 'birthplace of the revolution' etc, it held a place in the glue that kept the Stalinist regime together second only to Moscow. By November 1941, the Communist Party was no longer in control - Stalin was governing via the GKO-Stavka, at a local level the army was running things - now this was in part as a lot of party cadres (too many as some were ordered back to the factories) had joined up - and the pre-war civilian governance had collapsed.

Some Soviet generals were talking openly of basing the regime (note they were still talking about keeping the Stalinist state) on the army not the party. If you dropped the loss of Leningrad into that, it would have been a profound shock to the regime's legitimacy in late 1941.

Note I'm not suggesting that it would have a material impact on the Russian capacity to wage war, nor that they lost a lot of resources keeping the city (just) alive, but that in psychological and political terms, given the state of the Soviet State in late 41, then yes, it could well have been the final thing that toppled the pre-war Soviet state.

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 9
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/15/2013 9:24:32 AM   
Karri

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 5/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Having Leningrad would have also helped with logistical issues once the mines were cleaned out and the port could be used for shipment of supplies.



The only problem being that historically I think this took until 1950's until all the major minefields were cleared out.

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 10
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/15/2013 1:16:23 PM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I believe a plan was made to make leningrad a lake, or was that Moscow - scary

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 11
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/15/2013 1:41:49 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2156
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Having Leningrad would have also helped with logistical issues once the mines were cleaned out and the port could be used for shipment of supplies.



The only problem being that historically I think this took until 1950's until all the major minefields were cleared out.


Clearing a safe shipping lane and clearing all the minefields are two different things.

(in reply to Karri)
Post #: 12
RE: Taking Leningrad first? - 2/22/2013 11:20:26 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1244
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Taking Leningrad in the game allows the Finns to garrison the northern part of the German front line, freeing up more German units for garrisoning further south. So it's critical for a German player to do that. In real history, there's no chance that Mannerheim would have allowed the Finnish army to do that, so there was no actual imperative for Hitler to take Leningrad. Also I think it would have been a much harder take in real life than in game -- most competent German players can crack Leningrad by turns 14 or 15 without major loss of life, historically there was no way that would have been possible. Sacrificing many many German troops to the capture of that city (which wouldn't have gotten Germany any closer to the oilfields, what Hitler really needed) would have been strategically unthinkable from a GHC point of view. So the actual and in-game situations are very very different.


_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Taking Leningrad first? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109