JayJay_H Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Historical, the Crimea was a persistent danger for the deep right flank of the german Ostfront - the soviets were able to constantly pump new units into the peninsula over the sea. In the hands of the enemy, the Crimea also was a considerable danger for the romanian oilfields as airport base. The LIV Corps under General Hansen was ordered to take the isthmus of Perekop: He had the the whole army groups artillery, Flak, Pioneers and the 73., 46. and 50 Infantry Div under his command - for a front of 7 (!) Kilometres! Manstein wanted these forces to kick open the gate, he knew the LIV. wasnt big enuff to conquer the Crimea with its many strongholds, with 26.000 sq km nearly as big as Belgium, on his own. The XXXXIX Mt Corps and the SS-Brigade LSSAH were transferred from the Dnjepr-bow and were ordered to do the rest of the work after the succesful breakthrough. So far about the situation in September 1941. In StratComm the russians mostly do not use the peninsula to threaten the german flank, so axis player can simply cut it off, dont bother about it and march into the caucasus. Why should one spend so substantial ressources for only one port and nevertheless Whats the best way to take Sevastopol for you axis players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 JayJay_H Interesting subject. Anyone who doesn't realize the importance of this penninsula or the difficulty Germany had in capturing it ought to read Fieldmarshall Erich von Manstein's Lost Victories . As the Axis, Odessa, Sevastopol and Rostov are three places where I've found rockets to be very useful. Agreed the Caucasus has very great strategical importance and, speaking for myself, I never take it for granted; nor do I leave the Kerch Straights unguarded after the area is taken. [ March 05, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Originally posted by JayJay_H: ... so axis player can simply cut it off, dont bother about it and march into the caucasus. Why should one spend so substantial ressources for only one port... Because it's a thorn on your side... I saw a few times Sebastopol defenders quit their city to harass me (especially if you left the mines south of Kharkov undefended) then go back to it's city. Originally posted by JayJay_H: Whats the best way to take Sevastopol for you axis players? 1- Destroy the cruiser... Usually done by an Air Fleet when besieging Odessa... 2- Carefully surround Sevastopol with units (like most cities)... Generally 2 Armies or Corps and a Tank... 3- Having a HQ near (the swamps next to Odessa is a good spot... Cover against Partisan pop-up + good supply)... And at least 1 Air Fleet... 4- Removing entranchement then the enemy unit itself... PS: If you have a Rocket unit, it's an excellent spot to make it gains experience without risk of an enemy Air Fleet attack against it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Originally posted by JayJay_H: Historical, the Crimea was a persistent danger for the deep right flank of the german Ostfront True... When playing the Allies, I like putting a Air Fleet there to help defend Odessa and harrass the Axis as long as possible, knowing I can fall back to the Caucasus when in danger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 In this game it's unimportant. They should make it worth something a bit more substantial. Leningrad is a better target, you get Finnish Wealth for it. As is Sweden... Though all can be costly to defend.. They need to offer up something more for Sevastopol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Good topic JJ Russia deserves a port in Batumi in South-East Black Sea so she can resupply Sevastopol from the sea with land units. Hitler was consumed with the histroy and importance of the Crimea. He left and wasted German troops there so Russia could not use it for a Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier to bomb the Oil fields in Romania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Liam: In this game it's unimportant. They should make it worth something a bit more substantial. It should be a City AND a fortification AND a Port... In other word, a city (of 10) with an entranchment possible of 8... Perhaps making it a Supply Point, like Moscow or Stalingrad may do the trick... So unit created there would be fully supplied, even if isolated from Ukraine and Caucasus... [ March 05, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 But then would'nt German rail guns have to be added, for without them the city would probably have not surrendered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Gaylord Historically, the Germans employed Gustav, one of the two largest railroad guns ever produced at 80cm. They were originally built to crack the Maginot forts, then they were to be sent against Gibraltar, but Sevastopol was the only action either of them ever saw. Each gun tied up something like 4,000 men. They were much heavier than the largest Battleship guns. The link below has a great article about them complete with photographs. link to Article with Photos of Gustav and Dora 80 cm Railroad Guns, Gustav used at Sevastopol. [ April 22, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 It is a City in all the other Wargames I play. Considering the importance of the Crimea I would have to give it city status when you're going to give Albania a port and major city. It probably adds up to 1/8th the production of the Crimean pennisula during WW2... I doubt the guns mattered, too cumbersome and too slow rate of fire. Aircraft would easily of taken their place in bombardment roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 The guns would only have been of use against massive fixed targets, which is what they were built for -- the Maginot Line and Gibraltar, but Sevastopol was also a good target. They fired a round every 45 minutes. If you get a chance to read that article you should take a look at the photo of a man standing beside one of it's projectiles -- it's twice his size! Given a week's bombardment they'd definitely have an effect on any defensive position. But you're right. They required too many men to operate and tied up too much transportation to move around. Of the two 80 cm guns actually made, only one, Gustav was ever used, and Sevastapol was the only target it was ever known to have been used against. It had to be disassembled and reassembled every time it moved, a task requiring 500 or so men with 4,000 or so others involved in all other functions, making a unit of close to 5,000. So, all in all, the consensus of opinion is the same as yours, that they weren't worth their drain of manpower and resources. Except, of course, you and friend Billy G. might find using it against those who heist your software an interesting diversion and probably less expensive than cruise missles. It would make a great theme park. [ March 06, 2003, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayJay_H Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Great to see you wargamers discuss this subject with lots of knowledge about historical coherences. By the end of Oct 1942 Montgomery deployed the famous 1000 barrels of cannon against Rommels positions at El Alamein in Northern Africa. Before Sevastopol, Manstein deployed even 300 more. Including rocket launcher regiments with flame-oil-grenades. Just from one single WerferRegt, (WerferRgt 70), 334 grenades were fired against the russian fortifications per second. Along with the traditional artillery, that knocked on the fortress walls there were 3 specific giants: The Gamma-Mortar (42,7cm), the Mortar Karl (61,5cm also named Thor) and the railroad gun Dora (80cm). None of them really was the artillerisitc nonplusultra. Somehow over-dimensionized the useful effect became doubtful. After all, one single shot from Dora destroyed a russian munition depot at the Sewernaja-Bay of Sevastopol, which lay 30 metres under ground! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 JerseyJohn Again: Thank you for your link. It is always interesting to look at your posts, only just not to miss another link. Keep up your good work. In SC i would never try to conquer Sevastopol, it is a waste of time and troops. Better securing the bottleneck north of the city. The nescessary units for the storm on Sevastopol stay this way free for the real front (appr. 1 HQ, 1 Army, 2 Corps and an air unit). Nice that this part of the game is quite historical. If von Mansteins Army would have been used against Stalingrad or Moscow or Leningrad instead of the FORTRESS Sevastopol, who knows what would have happend? Maybe no Kessel von Stalingrad and the loss of the 6th army... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Xwormwood, Glad you liked the link, I was surprised by it myself, thought it would be a lot more difficult finding info on Gustav and Dora. There were a few other good ones but this one had those photos. Great what-if about deploying von Mansetein and his army elsewher. For some reason, after the Crimea, Hitler rushed him to Lenningrad but divided most of the troops and ordinance to other units: the big guns were never used against Lenningrad. The Fins wanted to open the Lake Ladoga gates and flood the city, bringing it's water level up a few feet, making live even more miserable or impossible for those poor wretches, but Hitler passed on the idea. The what-id about Stalingrad is also intrigueing. The key is the death of newly appointed Army Group South Commander FM von Richenau at the end of 1941. Though a fanatic, murderous partyman nazi, Richenau was also a great military general. With Richenau as army group commander and Manstein commanding an army moving across the Ukraine for Rostov and Stalingrad, things might very well have been different. Paulus, a fine staff officer by overly conventional field commander, would have been better suited to the Crimean campaign than the cut and slash of open country, where he consistently failed to close the ring on lagre masses of retreating Russians. Von Mansteing would no doubt have captured all of Stalingrad before Paulus had even reached it's outskirts, and there would have been no ragged Soviet formations retreating into it's defenses, they'd have been rounded up on the steppes west of the city! Historically I think Sevastopol and the Crimean had to be taken, it was too a staging area for operations all over the Black Sea. But I agree with you entirely about the priority Hitler gave it and the particularly timing involved. The other Russian objectives all have harsh weather and early winters. They have to be taken during the Spring, Summer and early Fall. The Crimea is much warmer and could have been reduced and taken even during the winter. Much more important objectives could have been taken first, the Soviet army truly broken, and, with the front settled quietly in it's second winter the blast and crawl battle for Sevastopol could have been fought in isolation. What an incredible strategic blunder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 I can't even put a size on how much I learned about WW2 since I join this Forum... Peoples here know their stuff (well... most of them... ), that's for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Just found another nice link about the GUSTAV railgun (english, in german there are tons more of them): http://www.cix.co.uk/~nrobinson/railgun/Railwayguns/German/Dora%20index.htm :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Minotaur Same here. Back in September I thought I knew a lot about the subject, a few postings by guys like dgaad convinced me of the opposite. Since posting here I've not only learned tons more about the subject but also how to find additional and reliable information on specific items. This is a great site, no doubt about it. Xwormwood Wish I knew German, French, Italian, Russian and various Balkan languages would also help! I know there are numerous times I'm going right over European links that I don't even look into because I don't understand the languages. Thankfully, many of them have English counterparts, though often these are truncated translations -- I'd like to know what was being left out! [ March 06, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I don't know about the emphasis on Stalingrad. I've never made my mind up about it as the key target. I would bypass Crimea to get to it, regardless of the counsequences...as it could as mentioned before<lying in a fixed position> be pounded all through the Winter by Artillery. I would imagine that taking Leningrad and Moscow before Winter was over as monumental. Then Stalingrad the following year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Sounds reasonable. Especially taking Moscow, which would also have effected the supplies and reinforcements available for Lenningrad. It doesn't show on the map but Moscow was the primary railroad center. Losing it would have greatly reduced Russia's ability to transport men, equipment and supplies north and south. Which was one of the reasons von Boch was so frustrated at Hitler's turning away from it in the early Autumn. I agree about Stalingrad being a less important objective. Germany really needed the Caucusus oil, but reaching it is no good if it can't be removed. Regarding Sevastopol, well put about the siege guns; let those monsters blast the place all Winter -- what's left by Spring is rubble and shell shocked infantry looking skyward. [ March 07, 2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 If the Axis player can build up the Italian fleet, Italy can take out the Alexandria fleet in conjunction with taking Turkey and opening up the Dardinelles (sp?). The whole Black Sea/Crimean situation changes when an Italian fleet is available to attack Odessa and Sevatstopol in conjunction with land attacks. The best sequence is: Knock out fleet and take Suez (hurts Britain) while building up for attack on USSR. Take Turkey, continue buildup. Attack USSR. Italian fleet wipes out that damn Russian cruiser and rules the Black Sea. Forces in Turkey operate/walk (slowly!) through mountains of Turkey and take the Caucasus (sp?), killing Russian MPP at the beginning of the campaign. This makes the Russian's problem acute: even with 1200 MPP to buy corps, the Russians get stretched very thinly trying to defend Odessa, the Caucasian oilfields and the Ukraine at the same time. If there is a spare unit or two to threaten Riga, you can stretch out the Russian forces to the point that the German armor will run wild. Of course, this is against the computer. A human opponent would likely be a different matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts