Leningrad

yer right OP

then again who knows what would have happened if the germans tried assaulting a major city

i only wish we had like an example of them doing that so we might see just what happens and how long it might take and how difficult or easy it is

Because the urban warfare there would be awful. If the Germans tried to take Leningrad it would be like Stalingrad but even worse

any attempt to enter the city would just devolve into the same type of battle Stalingrad presented.

brutal house-to-house, room by room fighting that just turns into a living nightmare, especially for the occupier as they have to worry about the civilian populace harassing you at every turn as well.

German high command knew that the number of soldiers need to both take the city and keep it occupied would have taken too many resources from the front lines at moscow, so they adopted the strategy of just letting the millions of Russians starve to death and occupy a ghost town instead of physically shooting 2+ million people in the name of one city.

The thing that really did doom the Eastern Front from the start was that all urban battles would have devolved into Stalingrad and Karkhov no matter what. Even if the Wehrmacht made it inside Moscow, the odds of them actually defeating all resistance inside it and securing the city would be a near impossible gauntlet, seeing as how even just reaching the city gates was a bloodbath in itself.

>How true is that?

Not at all. Leningrad, especially from the south (they never could convince the Finns to mount a large attack from the north) is one of the toughest positions in Europe. It's all rivers and swamp right up to the city, which had a shit ton of troops and was fortified for bear.

Plus, the German "system" of fighting didn't do so well in urban combat. Everyone poiints to qualitative superiority of the Wehrmacht over the Red Army for the overwhelming bulk of the conflict, and it's true. But it's not like they're better real life CoD players, where German soldiers aim faster and more accurately and duck under cover a little bit better: Pit a german rifleman against a soviet counterpart in the open and they're pretty even in a vacuum.

What made the Germans better was considerably better tactics and doctrine, especially in bringing in air/armor/artillery support. They didn't always have the best tanks, planes, or guns, (in fact, almost never) but they were better at determining where they needed to put that fire support and working out the solution fast, delivering it where it was needed and when.

Urban combat, however, happens at very short range and very quick firefights. The system breaks down; it's very similar to "hugging their belt" that the Vietnamese used to minimize overwhelming American firepower in the Vietnam war. Trap the Germans in street to street city fighting, and their biggest advantages go away. So when they did take cities like Minst or Smolensk or Kiev, they pretty much always surrounded and charged in from every direction. Can't do that in Leningrad, and assaulting the city would be bloody and expensive and above all, not certain of success.

Hence, starving it out.

1/2

>And what the hell was Finland up to?

Finland was more properly a co-belligerent than a real ally. They had their own agenda and weren't interested in a comprehensive Soviet defeat, as the Germans taking over the area isn't really great for their long-term interests either. (Remember, Germany threw them to the wolves with the MR pact) They were in this to recover territory lost in 1939-40, and they did that. And thier reluctant stance saved them from being steamrollered come 1945, so it was pretty smart of them.

Thanks for the quality post but where's part 2? :(

Part 2 was just the bit about Finland in the next post. Sorry, should have marked it clearly.

Oh.

What do you reckon would the chances for a German victory have been had Finland been more proactive in their assistance?

What exactly saved Finns in 1945? The fact that USSR simply didn't want to bother with them, considering their past experiences in the winter war and having a bigger pie to gobble up? Or the good defensive positions the Finns had? Like, did the fact that Finland remained after WWII have more to do with what Finns had and did, or more with what the Russians didn't bother to do?

The city was starved out so that food from Russia could be sent to Germany to avoid a situation like during WW1 with starvation in germany which led to revolts.

>What do you reckon would the chances for a German victory have been had Finland been more proactive in their assistance?

In Leningrad? Almost 100%.

For the overall war? Leningrad wasn't really that important. It would have meant an end to the Baltic Fleet, but they didn't do all that much honestly. It would have been a propaganda victory, but I doubt the Soviets would have quit before it. Given the city's isolation, its industries were already pretty much out of the fray. Losing it wouldn't have hurt the USSR all that much beyond what had already been lost when it was put under investment.

>What exactly saved Finns in 1945? The fact that USSR simply didn't want to bother with them, considering their past experiences in the winter war and having a bigger pie to gobble up?

This, but add into the mix that you had a very large western presence active in the European continent, who might or might not start WW3 on the ashes of WW2 if the Soviets started breaking the agreements made in Yalta and Tehran and the like, which did not include expansion into Finland. Stalin was, by nature, a very cautious, opportunistic leader. He could easily beat Finland. But the risk of them drawing Britain, France, and America in behind them was too great, especially since they were willing to cede most of the disputed border areas anyway.

> Or the good defensive positions the Finns had?

Nah. Most of what saved the Finns in the first winter war was less the defensive positions and more the colossal Soviet incompetence. Most of that had been ground away by 1945, and while the Finns weren't really much stronger than they were the first time around, the USSR was orders of magnitude more so.

> Like, did the fact that Finland remained after WWII have more to do with what Finns had and did, or more with what the Russians didn't bother to do?

Definitely the latter.

Thank you. Have a rare Hitler.

>Why didn't the Germans just take Leningrad and move on to better use their troops on other fronts in Russia?

Why didn't Hitler invent a nuclear bomb and use the eagles to drop it on Washington?

Why didn't the Germans just take Britain and move their planes and better troops to take Russia?

Serious question

Why didn't the Germans just gas the fucking city like they were doing to the jews and the Allied soldiers on the western front 20 years prior?

Hitler. That's literally the whole reason the Germans even bothered with Leningrad and Stalingrad, rather than just besieging them and moving on like the generals wanted.

>besiege something, and also move on
2deep4me.

It's true that urban warfare is very costly and Stalingrad is the perfect example as to how bad it can be. However, the Germans didn't lose the Battle of Stalingrad in the city. They were well on their way to controlling the entire city when operation Uranus was launched by the Soviets which surrounded the Germans at Stalingrad resulting in their defeat.

They didnt lose directly because of the urban warfare aspect. It's not like they hadn't fought over and taken urban centers before.

>They were well on their way to controlling the entire city when operation Uranus was launched by the Soviets which surrounded the Germans at Stalingrad resulting in their defeat.

Ehh, not really. They hadn't made any gains in the city for about a month and a half before Uranus was launched. They got onto Mamenyov Kurgan (or however you spell it) a few times, but weren't able to hold it.

They weren't defeated in the city, to be true, but they weren't really "about to win if only not for that counterattack".