Operation Silverfox (Silverfuchs)

Discussion in 'The Eastern Front' started by spidge, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    The German plan to take Murmansk:

    The failure of Silberfuchs was to have a lasting effect on the course of the war. While the rest of the Russian lines had collapsed in 1941, the forces of R.I. Panin's Northern Front had held, causing severe casualties of up to 15% on the German attackers. German failure can be attributed to a number of factors: the terrain, first and foremost, hindered the advance, and the assault lacked a Schwerpunkt (point of maximum effort), the main factor in the successful Blitzkrieg strategy. The lack of a focus point for the German-Finnish attack meant that the necessary breakthrough was not possible, and the stagnation of the front was inevitable.
    The port of Murmansk was to remain in Russian hands throughout the war, and around a quarter of all lend lease material was received through this port (the remainder coming through Vladivostok (almost half), Persia (quarter) and Black Sea (rest). The supplies coming through this port helped the Soviets quickly recover from the disasters of 1941.
    The war in the north dragged on until September 1944, when the Finns sued for peace and the Lapland War began, but at no point was a decisive victory on this front a possibility.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    The Blitkrieg strategy also revolved around the Kesselschlacht(?spelling?) or Cauldron/kettle-battle relying on encirclement to allow placement of the strategic schwerepunkt at exactly the right place. Could it be that the German's military thinking was not fully evolved when it came to attacking Ports? Also bearing in mind Adolf's confusion over Naval matters. (speculation)

    very brief list of sub-campaigns to Silverfox here:
    http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/ref/german_169th_infantry_division
    The Feldgrau info is sketchy on the 169th
    http://www.feldgrau.com/InfDiv.php?ID=116.

    Are we talking a strictly land-based strategy to take out the port with naval attacks on the convoys only, or was Murmansk ever seriously attacked from the sea?
    It'd be nice to learn more on the Convoy's destination and Germany's attempt to bag it.
     
  3. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    It'd be nice to learn more on the Convoy's destination and Germany's attempt to bag it.

    What convoy?
     
  4. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    "the convoys" as in ones destined for murmansk, I thought I'd punctuated it badly.

    I meant Murmansk as.... A destination for Convoys.
    Suspect it should have read

    "the Convoys' (plural?) destination"

    Apologies.
     
  5. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    "the convoys" as in ones destined for murmansk, I thought I'd punctuated it badly.

    I meant Murmansk as.... A destination for Convoys.
    Suspect it should have read

    "the Convoys' (plural?) destination"

    Apologies.

    I do not think the capture of the port (seaward) was the intention but to cut the rail link from Murmansk.
     
  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Trying to find a map with force dispositions indicated on it, the one on the Wikepedia article you quoted initially isn't much cop.
    I think describing Murmansk as the target for the offensive is fair enough but as my Naval understanding, especially of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet is sketchy I was just wondering how much Naval action was concentrated on the port itself as opposed to the fighting amongst the convoys' which I have some awareness of.
     
  7. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I think General Eduard Dietl was in command of this operation wasnt he? He later died in an air crash following a visit to Hitler's Headquarters.
     

Share This Page