Patton pushes on (what if)

[Sarmatian]

I think Glantz, whom you have showed appreciatian in this thread disagrees with you about Tikhvin, or Tikhvinsk-Kirishsk offensive operation as it is officially called.

You may have misunderstood me. I don't think anything in my post disagrees with what you've written.

I said Tikhvin was small scale but that was in terms of size of forces, not importance of the battle. I've said it tends to be overlooked because the battle for Moscow was happening at the same time. I've said that Finns were never really enthusiastic allies of Germany and that what was gonna happen up north depended on them and that were they committed, we might have seen some totally different scenarios, meaning it could have been very bad for the Red Army

Unless I'm mistaken, that's pretty much your point...

Now, what would happen if Soviets did lose Leningrad, Archangels and Murmansk... That's one of those big "what ifs" of the WW2. What if Yugoslavia didn't back out of the pact, allowing Germany to lauch Barbarossa in May, as it was planned, what if Hitler didn't switch panzers from AGC to AGS, what if French army in 1939 attacked Germany instead of waiting behind Maginot Line...

It would certainly hurt, although I don't think lend-lease aspect would be that important. As you've seen, I've argued that the overall impact of lend-lease is exaggerated and even so, there still was the other way to get lend-lease to USSR. Good chunk of industry was already removed from Leningrad. Soviets couldn't use manpower of Leningrad anyway. It would have been probably a great morale boost for the Wehrmacht as it would maintain their aura of invincibility. Then again, it could have given a morale boost to the Red Army, basically entire city being a martyr... Instead of all those rockets with "Remember Stalingrad" written on them, the inscription might say "Remember Leningrad"...

It would free up some additional German troops, certainly. Whether that would have been enough to change the course of the fight in the East, I really can't say...

Indeed, but it was definitely time well spent. You certainly know your facts.

Also, I did find the quote I was looking for in Panzer Leader, regarding German defensive fortifications. Although very displeased about having to go on the defensive permanently in the East, Guderian set about trying to solidify German holdings. He says:

"Unfortunately we did not manage to carry out the whole of our Eastern programme successfully. It is true that we did succeed in building the necessary fortified lines and positions, but the indispensable garrisons and weapons were not forthcoming as a result of the catastrophic and rapid sequence of events on the invasion front in the West. The value of the fortifications built there fore remained limited. They further suffered as a result of an order by Hitler that the 'Great Defensive Line,' to which the troops were to withdraw immediately before the enemy launched its attack, was not - as the army groups and I desired - to be some 12 miles behind the normal main defensive line, but was to be build at an insufficient depth of only 1 to 3 miles back." - Guderian 371, 372.

Further he writes:

"The fortifications built on the Eastern Front had meanwhile made our line, long and far too thin as it was, yet sufficiently strong for quiet periods. We did our best to make use of the experience we had gained during the recent battles, but in so doing came up against Hitler's opposition. One essential requirement at the front was that the ordinary main line of defense - to be defended on normal occasions - must be separated from the major line of defense, which was intended to be held in the event of the Russians launching a large scale attack against any one sector. The officers at the front wished to build this major defensive line some 12 miles behind the main line of defense, to camouflage it carefully and to install a holding garrison inside it. They further wanted standing authority to withdraw the bulk of their forces into this major defensive line as soon as the Russian artillery preparation that heralded a forthcoming attack should begin, leaving only rearguards in the old main line of defense; the Russian barrage would thus be wasted, his assault, so laboriously prepared, would be fruitless and by the time he came up against our well-prepared defensive positions he could in consequence be repulsed. There can be no doubt that this theory was absolutely correct. I approved it and submitted it to Hitler. He lost his temper, saying that he refused to accept the sacrifice of 12 miles without a fight and ordered that the major defensive line be build from 1 to 2 miles behind the main line of defense. He was basing his ideas on the conditions prevailing in the First World War when he gave those nonsensical orders and no arguments could bring him to see reason." - Guderian 377.

Well, Heinrici in battle of Seelow (sp?) hills showed that strategy could be useful. He made Zhukov waste his initial artillery barrage and delayed the Red Army for several days. Quite a feat since it was in April 1945, although the terrain configuration itself did a lot for him.

On the other hand, Red Army would probably adapt in some way. Maybe save most of the artillery and make a false attack, prompting Germans to withdraw, then rush in and take those position, deploy the bulk of artillery there and start pounding the second defensive line. Maybe make better coordination with the airforce - after initial artillery attack send massive amounts of CAS fighters to attack German soldiers which are now not dug in but are moving... Red Army had the complete initiative and was therefore in a superior position, it could always be one step ahead of the opponent because Wehrmacht was in a defensive stance, forced to respond to the actions of the Red Army.

Of course, if we're talking about 1944 specifically, Germany was already beaten and the best the Germans could do at that point was delay the inevitable. Nothing short of a miracle or divine intervention would stop Russians from reaching Berlin, and Germans already used up the one they had in the Seven Years' War :D

Thanks Kage & PJ. Glantz has a ton of books on the subject. Now I just have to decide what aspect of the Eastern Front I want to read about first. Too...many...choices...brain...hurts.

Maybe you could start with "When Titans Clashed". It deals with the entire conflict, 1941-1945 and is relatively broad. After that it would be easier to choose what specific part of the conflict would interest you, if any...