Taking Leningrad first?

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

Post Reply
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

Taking Leningrad first?

Post by Footslogger »

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?
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11332
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule
Contact:

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by loki100 »

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.
MusT1
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:38 pm

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by MusT1 »

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.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by Klydon »

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.
The Guru
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:12 pm

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by The Guru »

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...
swkuh
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:10 pm

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by swkuh »

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.)

turtlefang
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by 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.
User avatar
Footslogger
Posts: 1232
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
Location: Washington USA

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by Footslogger »

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?
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11332
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule
Contact:

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by loki100 »

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.
Karri
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by Karri »

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.
User avatar
demyansk
Posts: 2843
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:55 pm

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by demyansk »

I believe a plan was made to make leningrad a lake, or was that Moscow - scary
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by Klydon »

ORIGINAL: Karri

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. [;)]
User avatar
delatbabel
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

RE: Taking Leningrad first?

Post by delatbabel »

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
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”