Could the Germans have done anything to take Leningrad in 41/42?

[Mamluke]

of all the "what if" of Barbarossa, I think this one is the most plausible, taking Leningrad by 1941 or at least 1942.

ASSUMING: that the Finnish behave as historical, Not pushing more then the historical front Line.

So, in your opinions why did the Germans fail to take Leningrad in 41? could they have taken it in 42? what could have been done differently from the start to increase army group North chances of taking Leningrad?

 

[Orlunu]

Does putting a couple of German divisions in Finland to spearhead from the north count? Not that they'd be able to take it themselves, but if they dumped enough ammo to convince the Russians that it was an all out Finnish push for Leningrad, enough troops might have been re-deployed to the northern line to make the main thrust work out.

 

[aruon]

have tanks that can harm the KV-1 perhaps?

it's a common mistake that the germans were number 1 in all forms of warfare but in the early days of the war, it was only their ideas which were particularly bright. all their tanks (not including TDs) going into barbarossa still followed the concept of tanks as infantry support > tank warfare. that's why all the early models or panzer IIIs, IVs, and stugs were equipped with turretless AKA really stubby guns.

hell at that point their most forward thinking practical modification was pretty much the refitting of the grossly obsolete panzer I with a Czech 47 mm Pak (t) anti-tank cannon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerjäger_I

well, and the stug

if only the germans had their later model panzer 3s and panzer 4s (which really only had slight upgrades to armor, cannon, and actual turrets) or the Marder IIIs, the soviets simply wouldn't have been able to stop them with anything, even the KV-1 and KV-2. leningrad and moscow could've fallen in early 1941.

 

[Axe99]

Unlike Stalingrad (where the Soviets could fairly easily keep feeding in troops, as well as apply pressure to the German flanks), the Germans had the potential to grind down Leningrad with it being relatively un-reinforced, so I'd bet it could have been possible, if they'd turned their mind to it and used less resources elsewhere (perhaps given up on Moscow in '41?) I'd expect it would have been a pretty tough slog though - possible, but not cheap.

Note - just my 2 cents, based on general knowledge of the eastern front and having not read anything in particular on the details of the Leningrad siege, so could be a ways off.

 

[Opanashc]

In 1941, diversion of 3rd Panzer group to Moscow depleted Army Group North of strength required to take Leningrad. In 1942, Manstein's 11th Army was transferred into the region after the fall of Sevastopol to take the city, but instead was used as a blocking force to stop the Red Army from lifting the siege. If Germany abandon Fall Blau - they could have gotten into the city, but they were incapable of sustaining offensives on 2 different axis at the same time in 1942 anymore.

 

[MGL 86]

Instead of going all out attack against Moscow in 1941 or Stalingrad in 1942, they could have taken Leningrad. But i am not sure about benefits though. Leningrad was already cut off from the rest of the country

 

[Anichent]

Germany could have done a lot differently in the invasion of the USSR. The biggest factor what would have changed most of it is proper supply and equipment.

Then again, if Germany waited much longer before declaring war the Soviets would have been even more prepared :/

 

[fastfreddie77]

They would of needed to finish off the naval forces early on and pushed further east to cut off all supplies to the city. Then it would of been nasty urban combat if they wanted to push into Leningrad but the Germans were very wary of that. None of it would of mattered anyway because Moscow was the only city that could of really changed things for the Germans in the east and spies in the Japanese government allowed the Soviets to move troops from the far east to the capitol.

I just hope they we can load up these cities with dozens of divisions to have so great urban warfare be it through mods or whatever.

 

[davewolf]

So, in your opinions why did the Germans fail to take Leningrad in 41?

In short: Hitler.

He ordered the spearheads to halt when they were about to enter the city (without much opposition) in September. (If anyone doesn't believe that, read up on it. It's well documented.)

In his hybris he didn't realize that they wouldn't get another chance. And as a mass murderer he'd rather wanted the people of Leningrad to starve than "having to feed them", as he put it.

In the end it's all just speculation, but one last push might have done it at that time. Not sure which outcome would have been the lesser evil for the city itself. (Now there's a macabre brain teaser, if you need one...)

 

[Pasta_Man]

Could some sort of bombing of lake Ladoga during winter have helped? The Soviets used it extensively as a supply route for the city when the lake had frozen over AFAIK. Some sort of fortress buster bombs could have made the ice impossible to pass over, or too much of a risk to use to any great degree.

 

[jcd000]

Conquering Leningrad does not help Germany much strategically.
It does however puts some Red army divisions out of the war and frees up assets for use elsewhere.
I think that a grind to get the city is not worth the expense. Getting it for free (or by blocking supply) however, has merits.

 

[JerkyJerry]

I agree with davewolf. Throughout history there have been generals/leaders who were better equipped to run a marathon than run armed forces during a time of war.


I agree with jcd000. When playing the game capturing Leningrad is ok I suppose. I don't know but maybe capturing the city, the name, the history would have been a blow to the Russian people? I don't see much military significance. At least in the game. I normally just cut it off from supply and let it weaken. It is not as nearly as high a priority for me as it was for Germany.

 

[Xsio]

As I understand It's more about history topic than about HOI4 and ummm.... I don't think It's a good idea discussing siege of Leningrad, for Russians It's the same as discussing Auschwitz for Israelis... (more than 600 000 civilians starved to death during 872 days of siege...) Maybe Instead we could discuss battle of Kursk, or Kenigsberg? Or maybe I just missed the point.

And to point Importance of city for both sides beside political, It was the only city where during 41 and i think 42 KV tanks were manufactured.

The main reason why Axis didn't take the city is because soviet Baltic fleet where stationed there and "Krasnaya gorka" fortress shore anti-ship artillery.

 

[JerkyJerry]

As I understand It's more about history topic than about HOI4 and ummm.... I don't think It's a good idea discussing siege of Leningrad, for Russians It's the same as discussing Auschwitz for Israelis... (more than 600 000 civilians starved to death during 872 days of siege...) Maybe Instead we could discuss battle of Kursk, or Kenigsberg? Or maybe I just missed the point.

I'm not sure a single discussion could take place about a war, any war then? I did not read anything about any negativity towards the innocent who tragically lost their lives.
I would guess you just missed the point.
There are far more really really good people on this forum who are very careful what they post and plenty more to pounce on them if they feel it breaks any forum rules. Trust this forum. Members here completely understand all aspects of the war and all sensitivities needed to have such a forum with such topics.
Good folks here Xsio you can rest assured.

 

[Harada.Taro]

tactically and strategically the capture of leningrad was of no use and would have cost a bunch of german lifes as the finish would not attack he city from their side nor allow the german to push from their side, the soviet could easily focus on line of defense. Sacrifying the civil population to hold more than hundreds of thousands german soldier around the city was an easy choice for Stallin, he had to supply them just enough for them not to die too quickly...

But of course why Saint Petersburg or Moscow did not fall in 1941 was the Kiev mistake.... Stopping the North and Center group to divert them for a stupid, useless victory at Kiev was the mistake that cost Germany a victory over russia in 1941....

 

[svennnnnnnnnnnn]

Well they could have sacrificed offensives in other areas and taken it at some point during the first year or so, either attacking more aggressively or strengthening the blockade. Perhaps some gamble with naval invasion from the baltic, paratrooping and/or stationing troops in Finland that charge before positions can be prepared in Leningrad to make the victory quick and relatively bloodless.

 

[Tarroque]

They could have shifted forces around or struck earlier, but even if Leningrad shared Kiev's fate I don't see any way that the Germans would be able to hold onto their gains with the whole world bearing down on them.

 

[Deo89]

As a few here already stated, the reason the Germans didn't take Leningrad was because of what Hitler is famous for. In game terms, those reasons aren't represented of course, and they don't matter. The ultimate goal of the German Army, both historically and in game terms, has been and should be to destroy the Red Army. If taking Leningrad fulfills that goal in some way, then by all means it wouldn't be hard to take the city.

 

[Harada.Taro]

The idea was to kick Russia out of war during 1941, with the capture of Russian ressources, germany could have turned on england in 1942/1943 and this time properly invade and capture the British island. It was a game of domino. What lost the germans was hat they had to be on multiple fronts at once... which their industry could not support while they were able to be victorious against anyone if limited to that front.

 

[Xsio]

As a few here already stated, the reason the Germans didn't take Leningrad was because of what Hitler is famous for. In game terms, those reasons aren't represented of course, and they don't matter. The ultimate goal of the German Army, both historically and in game terms, has been and should be to destroy the Red Army. If taking Leningrad fulfills that goal in some way, then by all means it wouldn't be hard to take the city.

So basically you are saying if Hitler would want to take Leningrad, the city would fall despite the fact that all Soviet Baltic fleet were stationed there?

Just to make it clear at the start of the siege only Baltic fleet provided up to 345 guns of 100-406mm.