Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

koontz -> Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 12:41:47 AM)

Really looking forward to this title [:D]

If the whermacht secures Leningrad, how will that affect the supply
situation? I would think that holding Leningrad would been an big
boost for espcially supplies and fuel. And also no Commie subs in the baltic [:'(]

And ie the battle of Krim -42 8th may 100k germans soliders attacked on an narrow front area (~20km wide)
against 200k entrechend Soviets. 19th may had ~170k Soviets troops been captured.
Hopefully this will be well modeled in this game.

Also when I looking at all the screenshots, there seems to be alot of units to keep track on.
I guess there will be an command chain where u can just give orders to the Korps/Div HQ and
also have the abiltiy to micro.



Keep up the work! And pls hurry [;)]



ComradeP -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 9:52:27 AM)

quote:

If the whermacht secures Leningrad, how will that affect the supply
situation? I would think that holding Leningrad would been an big
boost for espcially supplies and fuel. And also no Commie subs in the baltic


The capture of Leningrad would, in terms of supply and fuel, be totally irrelevant for most of the front. The Germans wouldn't ship fuel and supplies to Leningrad, only to have them take trains south again after arrival. What capturing Leningrad does is that it simplifies AGN's front a lot, especially as it nullifies the Finnish no attack line so the Finnish army can support AGN operations beyond Finland.

quote:

And ie the battle of Krim -42 8th may 100k germans soliders attacked on an narrow front area (~20km wide)
against 200k entrechend Soviets. 19th may had ~170k Soviets troops been captured.
Hopefully this will be well modeled in this game.


Stacking limits would make that perfectly possible. ~6 German divisions vs numerous Soviet divisions, possibly 6 in the hexes with more in reserve mode, would make it perfectly possible for that number of men to be in about 2 hexes.

quote:

Also when I looking at all the screenshots, there seems to be alot of units to keep track on.
I guess there will be an command chain where u can just give orders to the Korps/Div HQ and
also have the abiltiy to micro.


You have to "micro" divisions, which isn't really what I'd call micro on this scale. Micro would be moving regiments and battalions around. This isn't going to be BftB, so you'll have to do troop movement and combat yourself, with the possible exception of air operations, which the AI can handle (you'd still have to move the physical air units yourself) if you decide you want the AI to manage your air forces. Logistics are also mostly automated, you don't have to route truck convoys or order trains to go to a certain location as far as your logistics are concerned. The Soviets do have to manually move factories and both sides have some rail road conversion units (they're "construction units" in the litteral sense, but they don't actually construct new rail lines, they just convert what's on the map to your gauge if needed) that they can control.



koontz -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 2:03:28 PM)

U havent read/heard about the "train hell in warsaw" ?

Supplies from Berlin -> near Moscow or supplies from Leningrad -> near Moscow

Id take Leningrad all days in the week.



jaw -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 2:38:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: koontz

Really looking forward to this title [:D]

If the whermacht secures Leningrad, how will that affect the supply
situation? I would think that holding Leningrad would been an big
boost for espcially supplies and fuel. And also no Commie subs in the baltic [:'(]

And ie the battle of Krim -42 8th may 100k germans soliders attacked on an narrow front area (~20km wide)
against 200k entrechend Soviets. 19th may had ~170k Soviets troops been captured.
Hopefully this will be well modeled in this game.

Also when I looking at all the screenshots, there seems to be alot of units to keep track on.
I guess there will be an command chain where u can just give orders to the Korps/Div HQ and
also have the abiltiy to micro.



One of the abstractions of the game is that there is no time lag from the moment supplies are produced in their factories to the time they arrive at the end of the rail line (your railhead). That is to say, you trace supply only as far as the railhead. The distance from the railhead to your supply source (for Axis, western edge of map) can be infinitely long. It has no effect on the quantity of supplies you will receive. Axis control of the port of Leningrad would only have significance for supply purposes if you could not trace a closer supply line to a railhead.

With respect to the Crimean Campaign (and combat in general) combat strength is based on a variety of factors including manpower, equipment, experience, readiness, morale, leadership, air support, reserves, etc. so it is not unusual for a numerically inferior but qualitatively superior force to prevail in battle.

WitE requires manual movement of all on-map (not attached support units) forces.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 2:51:38 PM)

what happens to the Finns freedom to move if Leningrad is re taken - do they get nervous ?

Seems to me the priority in 41 is to capture Leningrad . 42 Moscow or other.

cav



karonagames -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 3:22:47 PM)

If Leningrad is re-taken , then the Soviet has to be pretty strong, so my guess is all the Axis nations are pretty nervous! No special rules kick in for Finland until Vyborg is captured, when surrender becomes a possibility.



koontz -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 4:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


quote:

ORIGINAL: koontz

Really looking forward to this title [:D]

If the whermacht secures Leningrad, how will that affect the supply
situation? I would think that holding Leningrad would been an big
boost for espcially supplies and fuel. And also no Commie subs in the baltic [:'(]

And ie the battle of Krim -42 8th may 100k germans soliders attacked on an narrow front area (~20km wide)
against 200k entrechend Soviets. 19th may had ~170k Soviets troops been captured.
Hopefully this will be well modeled in this game.

Also when I looking at all the screenshots, there seems to be alot of units to keep track on.
I guess there will be an command chain where u can just give orders to the Korps/Div HQ and
also have the abiltiy to micro.



One of the abstractions of the game is that there is no time lag from the moment supplies are produced in their factories to the time they arrive at the end of the rail line (your railhead). That is to say, you trace supply only as far as the railhead. The distance from the railhead to your supply source (for Axis, western edge of map) can be infinitely long. It has no effect on the quantity of supplies you will receive. Axis control of the port of Leningrad would only have significance for supply purposes if you could not trace a closer supply line to a railhead.

With respect to the Crimean Campaign (and combat in general) combat strength is based on a variety of factors including manpower, equipment, experience, readiness, morale, leadership, air support, reserves, etc. so it is not unusual for a numerically inferior but qualitatively superior force to prevail in battle.

WitE requires manual movement of all on-map (not attached support units) forces.


Thanks for your answers!

Well there are plenty of other examples where the Whermacht defeated the Red army, just look at the Soviet losses at Kursk compared to Gerries losses.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 5:06:27 PM)

Vyborg , what is that exactly ?



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 5:09:00 PM)

How will Naval ops change if Lenningrad was taken

For the Germans with no allied base in the baltic I think I would have deployed large parts of my navy there.

I am not familiar with naval ops in this game so cannot say anything.

For certain the axis supply situation should improve if they take lenningrad?



karonagames -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 5:15:44 PM)

Vyborg = Viipuri ( hope that's the right spelling)



Joel Billings -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 5:37:00 PM)

Actually, there is a supply modifier that accounts for how far into the Soviet Union the rail head is relative to the date. This is to account for the difficulties the Axis had in getting the rail net up and running in the Soviet Union (aside from simply repairing/regauging the tracks). There is also a major supply modifier that impacts the Axis ability to get supplies forward over the rail in the first winter (to account for the rail issues the Axis had with their trains and the cold weather).

Also, if Leningrad is recaptured, the Finns will lose their ability to attack when south of the Svir River. The Finns take a morale penalty the further they move away from Finland (even when Leningrad is recaptured), so they have their limitations (in addition to a limit on how far they can move from Finland), but it's always nice to take Leningrad and free up the Finns somewhat and shorten the line that needs to be held by the Germans.



ComradeP -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 6:03:42 PM)

quote:

U havent read/heard about the "train hell in warsaw" ?


Considering that the Germans held the Baltic ports, if they wanted to avoid the traffic jam in Poland caused by sending everything overland they could always send something to those ports and move it further by train. The problem is that the layout of the rail network in the Soviet Union would mean that those supplies would end up on the same rail lines as the ones being used by trains passing through Warsaw.

Joel: is that railhead/date modifier positive or negative? Is it positive (along the lines of: the longer the Axis occupy a certain part of the rail network, the fewer difficulties moving trains along that line will cause) or negative (along the lines of: due to the increased logistical burden by advancing deeper into the Soviet Union, the efficiency of the rail network will be reduced over time).



jaw -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 7:11:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Actually, there is a supply modifier that accounts for how far into the Soviet Union the rail head is relative to the date. This is to account for the difficulties the Axis had in getting the rail net up and running in the Soviet Union (aside from simply repairing/regauging the tracks). There is also a major supply modifier that impacts the Axis ability to get supplies forward over the rail in the first winter (to account for the rail issues the Axis had with their trains and the cold weather).


Sorry guys, I forgot about this modifier. I'd re-produce the rules passage for you but it's still in revision.



koontz -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 7:19:52 PM)

Regarding the rail, is it possible to use airplanes to attack railway stations etc?

And also will there be an physical manual?



jaw -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 8:23:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: koontz

Regarding the rail, is it possible to use airplanes to attack railway stations etc?

And also will there be an physical manual?


You can use strategic bombing to bomb railyards but I can't say how effective it would be (probably not much) because I've never tried it. There are just so many more important things to do with air power that I never bother with strategic bombing.

I do not know but I seriously doubt there will be a physical manual. The manual will probably come as a PDF or word file that you could print it out.



Joel Billings -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (8/26/2010 8:51:28 PM)

Actually we're still hoping to have a physical manual for the game manual (not the editor and perhaps a few other notes sections that may only be pdf).

As for the rail modifier, the further into the Soviet Union, the worse it gets, however this negative effect is reduced over time, so it will eventually go away. In late 1942 it is still hurting the Germans in Stalingrad (if they get there), but not so much in other areas that aren't as far east.



17russia -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/10/2010 6:00:55 PM)

Feed 2 million people.....



17russia -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/10/2010 6:02:53 PM)

A city near the Finn Russian boarder



Titi -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/11/2010 5:26:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 17russia

Feed 2 million people.....



True, it semas not taking Leningrad was a political decision at the highest nazi level to avoid having to feed and control all those people.
= Let the civilians die of starvation first before entering the city.

So taking Leningrad will rather be a penalty than a boost for german flow of supply



paullus99 -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/12/2010 4:18:34 PM)

I believe there were some plans on the table to just liquidate the entire population of Leningrad anyway - saving them the need to feed all those mouths.



Titi -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/12/2010 7:46:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I believe there were some plans on the table to just liquidate the entire population of Leningrad anyway - saving them the need to feed all those mouths.


We are in 1941 and the Nazis haven't go so far yet in efficiency for mass destuction (sorry, can't find the exact words in english).
Beside that you are at the border of Finland that even if they don't have a problem that not a stone was left standing in Leningrad, won't agree to kill every citizens of the city.
You also have Sweden that may not stay neutral, US that will enter the war sooner (note that they never declared war on Finland at that time) ...

Even then, it will take ressources (men and supply) to do that dirty job.

So Closing control on Lake Ladoga and putting Leningrad at 0 supply must be worth more VP than control of Leningrad.

Finaly, It took 3 months for Germany to take control of Stalingrad, taking Leningrad in far less time must be see as a serious flaw in the game mechanisms.



ComradeP -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/12/2010 8:30:24 PM)

quote:

Finaly, It took 3 months for Germany to take control of Stalingrad, taking Leningrad in far less time must be see as a serious flaw in the game mechanisms.


The battle for Berlin lasted a little over a week, or around a week if you're only talking about the city centre. Battles for cities didn't normally last months. Leningrad was besieged, not assaulted and the Germans didn't commit enough forces to capture Stalingrad, partially because there were few attempts to cut off the city (again, similar to Leningrad, where the Germans didn't commit the forces required to isolate the city through the capture of ports on Lake Ladoga). City battles lasting months would be a "serious flaw in the game mechanisms" not city hexes being captured in a week/a few weeks. Keep in mind that major cities like Leningrad are composed of multiple city hexes.



Titi -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 12:53:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The battle for Berlin lasted a little over a week, or around a week if you're only talking about the city centre. Battles for cities didn't normally last months. Leningrad was besieged, not assaulted and the Germans didn't commit enough forces to capture Stalingrad, partially because there were few attempts to cut off the city (again, similar to Leningrad, where the Germans didn't commit the forces required to isolate the city through the capture of ports on Lake Ladoga). City battles lasting months would be a "serious flaw in the game mechanisms" not city hexes being captured in a week/a few weeks. Keep in mind that major cities like Leningrad are composed of multiple city hexes.


Berlin was defended by the equivalent of (full strength) 3 inf. div. with low morale, the same number volk. div. with low experience and some ants (panzert bat., ...). All with low supply and fuel (readiness).
Too few defender to man a city, even more if multihexes as you said.
The defense of the city was planned only 4 week before the attack started, so with few fortification.

Leningrad was protected by the Neva and other channels offering good defensive terrain.
Leningrad was at the starting point of the winter war one year ago so a major depot for the soviet, full of supply and amunitions to sustain a long siege, same for the navy arsenal.
Leningrad had a lot more defenders, more may be recalled from the finnish front at the North of the city if really needed. They may give weapons to a good part of two millions men and women.
Leningrad may call the remains of the russian Baltic fleet to offer big gun support.
Sure defenders will lack fresh tanks and artillery after some time but the german at the same time after the long advance don't have a lot of them left in huge quantity - like at Stalingrad.

Sure Russian morale wasn't at the highest level at that time, but it wasn't neither at the start of the battle of Stalingrad. Commissars with some shooting kept the russian army in line and Russians when forced to defend, do a pretty good job even more when german can't use the power of the mobility of panzers.

If Leningrad fell, it must be after a meat grinder battle like Stalingrad, not a walk in the park like the recent AAR.



delatbabel -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 8:29:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
... the Germans didn't commit enough forces to capture Stalingrad


The Germans committed 1/4 of their army to capture Stalingrad.

Yes, sure, they never put it out of supply, but they certainly threw everything at it that they were able. It was simply the case that the Russians threw in more (from a numbers point of view) because by that stage of the war they had more and were prepared to commit it.



janh -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 9:07:20 AM)

I don't recall a single German source mentioning any concerns about feeding the population in Leningrad and therefore avoiding to take the city.  In fact the Führerbefehle and the OKW plans clearly stated to take city.  Initially the plan was to take it in a rush past the unprepared defenders, as you all know.  But it didn't work out since AGN lacked the mobility and initiative to achieve a tactical surprise that late in the operations.  Tries to take it directly continued until it was decided that that the best way to take the city was by starving and bombarding its defenders.  Therefore, the Ladoga encirclement, which as you also know, didn't work out that well either.

But at no point can I recall any historical document or later literature source mention that the population of that city was of any concern (other than to add to the starvation rate of the defenders).  Think about it the other way:  Germans had taken so much ground by end of 1941 that they had to control at the order of 100Mio civilians, and some cities faced starvation (such as Kharkov).  Would two million more made a big difference to High Command?  Probably not.





ComradeP -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 11:22:50 AM)

quote:

Leningrad was protected by the Neva and other channels offering good defensive terrain.
Leningrad was at the starting point of the winter war one year ago so a major depot for the soviet, full of supply and amunitions to sustain a long siege, same for the navy arsenal.
Leningrad had a lot more defenders, more may be recalled from the finnish front at the North of the city if really needed. They may give weapons to a good part of two millions men and women.
Leningrad may call the remains of the russian Baltic fleet to offer big gun support.
Sure defenders will lack fresh tanks and artillery after some time but the german at the same time after the long advance don't have a lot of them left in huge quantity - like at Stalingrad.


Leningrad was defended by understrength or mobilizing Rifle divisions and People's Militia divisions when the Germans came knocking on its door. Like your Berlin example, there was little to no preparation for defense of the city from the direct the Germans were attacking from (the build-up for the Winter War you mention was all aimed at stopping an attack from the north). Fortunately for those defenders, the Germans had overstretched themselves and had wasted their mobile strength on flank protection.

If the Germans had focussed on punching through Soviet defences and would've assaulted the city, after taking control over their supply ports, within 3 months of the start of Barbarossa, I have little doubt that the defense would've collapsed like a house of cards like in BigAnorak's AAR.

I recommend Glantz's book on the siege of Leningrad if you want to have an idea of the state the Soviet defenses were in.

quote:

The Germans committed 1/4 of their army to capture Stalingrad.


A maximum of 14 divisions for the greater Stalingrad area isn't 1/4 of the German army.



wosung -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 12:23:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I don't recall a single German source mentioning any concerns about feeding the population in Leningrad and therefore avoiding to take the city.  In fact the Führerbefehle and the OKW plans clearly stated to take city.  Initially the plan was to take it in a rush past the unprepared defenders, as you all know.  But it didn't work out since AGN lacked the mobility and initiative to achieve a tactical surprise that late in the operations.  Tries to take it directly continued until it was decided that that the best way to take the city was by starving and bombarding its defenders.  Therefore, the Ladoga encirclement, which as you also know, didn't work out that well either.

But at no point can I recall any historical document or later literature source mention that the population of that city was of any concern (other than to add to the starvation rate of the defenders).  Think about it the other way:  Germans had taken so much ground by end of 1941 that they had to control at the order of 100Mio civilians, and some cities faced starvation (such as Kharkov).  Would two million more made a big difference to High Command?  Probably not.


Hitler didn't want any capitulation of Leningrad. Because then the Germans would have to feed its population ... somehow. Thus he ordered formal capitulation of the city had to be avoided at all costs - in times of the siege, and in times of German offensive actions around Leningrad.

In fact every million of the population in the SU counted against the Großraumpläne of the Nazi Regime. This was about rare (agrarian) ressources and a slavic slave-population, which for the sake of ideology and technocratic space-management, had to be vastly decimated by hunger. Germany didn't accept the Geneve Convention for the War in the East. This was all about annihilation.

German plans for Leningrad were not decided in what you call 'High Command'. Ultimately they were decided by Hitler.

Besides, there seems to be also serious evidence that even Stalin had an interest in the renintent population of Leningrad being ... educated by the German starvation siege, for the local party branch formerly had been not exactly pro-Stalin.

All this is based on serious archive research in Russia and Germany. See:

Jörg Ganzenmüller: Das belagerte Leningrad 1941-1944: Die Stadt in den Strategien von Angreifern und Verteidigern [Leningrad besieged...Attackers' and defenders' strategies on the city.]

http://www.amazon.de/Das-belagerte-Leningrad-1941-1944-Verteidigern/dp/350672889X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284374844&sr=8-1-spell
(you can look inside the book).

Regards

P.S.: I've no personal interest in promoting the book.

Edit: See pp. 371-372 for the archives researched in.



Grisha -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 6:38:15 PM)

The Germans would have done with Leningrad what they did everywhere else they had occupied in the USSR. The Russians were expected to provide for themselves for the most part. The intent was to make the occupied Russian population as little of a burden as possible for the Wehrmacht. Since Russians had no part to play in the Third Reich other than as slaves, there was no concern for their welfare. The fact that only half the Russian POWs survived the German camps also underscores this.



janh -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/13/2010 10:10:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
All this is based on serious archive research in Russia and Germany. See: Jörg Ganzenmüller: Das belagerte Leningrad 1941-1944: Die Stadt in den Strategien von Angreifern und Verteidigern.


Thanks for the reference, every day one learns something new. Too bad the crucial chapters around p.20 are not accessible. High Command, with Hitler of course at its the head, accounts for its decisions, whatever they may have decided in the case of LG, and whatever later on became public of that information. It would seem quite inconsistent why Hitler would basically decide to eliminate the population of LG, but spare for example those left in Sevastopol, Rostov, Kharkov, Smolensk etc upon occupation of these centers.

Maybe the author, with the information he could dig out, arrived at this conclusion, but it leaves me wonder about its significance. Even illogical and crazy as Hitler was, he and his staff would probably have acted more consistently. I would bet that if the opportunity to take LG had arisen in late 41, or 42, without the need of distracting assets from other, more important operations, Hitler would not have hesitated to seize it.

Maybe it is one of the opinions that so often spring in historical science and require much more effort to correct than to spread. Or maybe those, that cannot be proven or disproved due to lack of evidence. Anyway, an interesting discussion.




Titi -> RE: Couple of questions, importance of Leningrad etc (9/14/2010 1:31:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I don't recall a single German source mentioning any concerns about feeding the population in Leningrad and therefore avoiding to take the city.  In fact the Führerbefehle and the OKW plans clearly stated to take city.  Initially the plan was to take it in a rush past the unprepared defenders, as you all know.  But it didn't work out since AGN lacked the mobility and initiative to achieve a tactical surprise that late in the operations.  Tries to take it directly continued until it was decided that that the best way to take the city was by starving and bombarding its defenders.  Therefore, the Ladoga encirclement, which as you also know, didn't work out that well either.

But at no point can I recall any historical document or later literature source mention that the population of that city was of any concern (other than to add to the starvation rate of the defenders).  Think about it the other way:  Germans had taken so much ground by end of 1941 that they had to control at the order of 100Mio civilians, and some cities faced starvation (such as Kharkov).  Would two million more made a big difference to High Command?  Probably not.


Hitler didn't want any capitulation of Leningrad. Because then the Germans would have to feed its population ... somehow. Thus he ordered formal capitulation of the city had to be avoided at all costs - in times of the siege, and in times of German offensive actions around Leningrad.

In fact every million of the population in the SU counted against the Großraumpläne of the Nazi Regime. This was about rare (agrarian) ressources and a slavic slave-population, which for the sake of ideology and technocratic space-management, had to be vastly decimated by hunger. Germany didn't accept the Geneve Convention for the War in the East. This was all about annihilation.

German plans for Leningrad were not decided in what you call 'High Command'. Ultimately they were decided by Hitler.

Besides, there seems to be also serious evidence that even Stalin had an interest in the renintent population of Leningrad being ... educated by the German starvation siege, for the local party branch formerly had been not exactly pro-Stalin.

All this is based on serious archive research in Russia and Germany. See:

Jörg Ganzenmüller: Das belagerte Leningrad 1941-1944: Die Stadt in den Strategien von Angreifern und Verteidigern [Leningrad besieged...Attackers' and defenders' strategies on the city.]

http://www.amazon.de/Das-belagerte-Leningrad-1941-1944-Verteidigern/dp/350672889X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1284374844&sr=8-1-spell
(you can look inside the book).

Regards

P.S.: I've no personal interest in promoting the book.

Edit: See pp. 371-372 for the archives researched in.


To add to the sources :
The German Northern Theater of Operations 1940-1945 pp 195-196
available online :
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Nw0VAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+German+Northern+Theater+of+Operations+1940-1945&source=bl&ots=UI46siEfzr&sig=WuhO_XYa4WINsA76VNdLTYcnYeo&hl=fr&ei=McGOTK6qCoj-Oc_6odsK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCA

the sources are :
OKW, WFSt, Abt. L (I Op.), Nr. 002119/41, Vortragsnotiz Leningrad, 21.9.41.OKW/1938. H. Gr. Nord, Kriegstagebuch, 22.6.-31.8.41, 29 Aug 41, and passimin succeeding volumes of the K.T.B. H. Gr. Nord 75128/1.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375