The Wehrmacht appeared to have mastered the operational art of war during its successful fast-moving campaigns in Poland, Scandinavia, the Low Countries and France. This previously unseen capability of waging ‘joint’ campaigns combining the synergy of land, air and maritime forces to direct overwhelming combat power in the right place at the right time was unprecedented. The Schwerpunkt (focus of effort) had to be properly supported by firepower and logistics. The scale and shape of the huge concentration of forces required to invade the Russian land mass from the west, or combine to oppose such an intent, needed careful and skilful operational planning. The German general staff excelled at the art. Such planning involves risk and some luck, and also a methodical prosecution of the aim within an accepted staff framework. This then confers a scientific ability to outweigh the intangible factors, those elements Clausewitz would describe as the ‘frictions of war’. In directing massive armies there comes that decisive moment when forethought backed by meticulous planning and organisation enables the enemy to be outmanoeuvred operationally. This is achieved when the foe, in spite of realising what is likely to happen, is powerless to react. The aim is to penetrate the opponent’s ‘decision cycle’, so that the time and space to execute operational counter-moves is denied him.
These preconditions had been achieved by German planning on the Soviet frontier by the third week in June 1941. Soviet defences were deployed linearly along its 4,500km front from the Barents Sea to the Black Sea. Fifty-six divisions were deployed to a depth of 50km to the front, with the second echelon and their tanks 50–100km behind. Reserve corps were a further 150–400km from the frontier. It was too late to redeploy to meet German offensive concentrations – reserves were too far back. A ‘checkmate’ configuration had been set up on the frontier.
This was soon acknowledged by the Soviet initial contact reports that began to flood higher headquarters. The Soviet Third Army observed on the second day of the campaign that its right flank was being enveloped by the enemy, stating: ‘We have no reserves at all, and there is nothing with which to plan a strike.’ Extracts from the report reveal why: ‘Our most available force – the 11th Mechanised Corps – suffered great losses in tanks, 40 to 50 in all, on 22–23 June 1941.’
The 56th Rifle Division was reduced to two scattered detachments numbering 700 to 800 men and the 85th Rifle Division ‘suffered considerable losses’. The 27th Rifle Division was reduced by 40%, with units down to a quarter or a half of a combat unit of ammunition. Operational flexibility did not exist. ‘Units that are on peacetime establishment have no transport.’ The commander of the Third Army complained, ‘I have had no front orientation for two days’, and that ‘in view of the fact that a number of walkie-talkies are out of order, I can communicate with you on only one walkie-talkie’.(1)
Counter-moves were doomed to failure before they could even begin. Soviet mechanised corps in the central area, required to block German advances between 22 and 26 June, faced long marches. These ranged typically from 80–100km for the IIIrd and XIIth Mechanised Corps and up to 200km for the IXth and XIXth Mechanised Corps. The VIIIth Mechanised Corps had to move 500km. The outcome was piecemeal commitments within a few hours of arrival or immediate and costly advances with no preparation. Gains were insignificant.(2)
Infantry fared even worse. The 212th Rifle Regiment on the right flank of the 49th Division in the Soviet Fourth Army area was facing the German IVth Army Corps. Following an alert at midnight on 22 June the unit slogged 40km through unbearable heat, fighting exhausting skirmishes en route to reach Siemiatycze, its stated objective to the north. Completely fatigued on arrival, they were required to counter-march another 40km after a short rest to Kleszczele, virtually back to their original start point. The soldiers were demoralised. Their situation was hopeless. Progress could be measured by their discarded equipment, notably greatcoats and gas masks, abandoned by roadsides along their route.(3)
Even with warning, Soviet frontier forces had neither the time nor resources to react. The operational paralysis engendered is a consequence of surprise and had featured in all previous German campaigns. At no point had the Polish or western armies been able to break out of the operational straitjacket to which they had been consigned by German strategy. There were, however, a number of fundamental differences to this new campaign. The Wehrmacht was attacking its most heavily armed and psychologically resilient opponent to date. He had been totally outmanoeuvred on the frontier but time, as with previous offensives in Poland and the West, was short. The German army and economy was geared for only a short war. Space was also different. The Soviet Union was limitless in comparison to the distances traversed during the western Blitzkrieg. A key precondition, neutralising the Red Air Force, had already been achieved. Only time would tell, once the impact of surprise wore off, whether the enemy would remain standing. In the west the French had fought valiantly and with some resilience after Dunkirk, but manoeuvre space had been irretrievably lost. In Russia it could be different.
Army Group North commanded by Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm von Leeb was the weakest of the three army groups. The OKH ‘Barbarossa’ order of 31 January 1941 had directed it to destroy enemy forces in the Baltic theatre, and occupy the Baltic ports and Leningrad and Kronstadt, to deny the Russian fleet its bases. Neither of the other two army groups had such vast distances to cover and it had the least armour to execute the thrust. Leeb’s one Panzer group, Panzergruppe 4 under Generaloberst Hoepner, consisted of three Panzer divisions, three motorised infantry and two foot infantry divisions. With two further army corps – XVIth and XVIIIth, consisting of eight and seven infantry divisions respectively – Army Group North was advancing with only 18 divisions, approximately half the size of Army Group Centre and South (including its Romanian divisions). It was directly supported by about 380 aircraft from Luftflotte 1.(4)
Unlike the Centre and South sectors, Army Group North was faced by a shallow rather than wide line of enemy positions. Russian deployment in the recently occupied Baltic countries was dispersed, and in greater depth. Enemy forces stretched back into the territory of the old Russian Empire with a large reserve of Soviet tanks east of Pskov. An encirclement strategy was not, therefore, feasible. Leeb – unlike the practice in the other army groups – kept his comparatively weaker Panzergruppe, the 4th under Hoepner, directly under command and at the centre of his advance. Surprise was to be achieved by exploiting superior speed and mobility. Each partial engagement aimed not at encirclement but rather a deeper and quicker thrust towards Daugavpils, Pskov and Leningrad, the eventual strategic objective. Panzers formed the apex of thrust lines with infantry following as best they could along the flanks, delivering attacks close to the point of the spear to maintain forward Panzer momentum. Daugavpils, with its two bridges over the wide River Dvina, was the immediate objective. The aim, having punched into the defences, was to push forward and maintain sufficient momentum to keep the enemy off balance.
Stiff frontier resistance was quickly broken so that, by the end of the first day, the 8th Panzer Division was already 80km deep into the hinterland, and succeeded in throwing a bridgehead across the River Dubysa. Confidence and progress was so good that at 19.55 hours on the first day the division reported, ‘troops are advancing rapidly eastwards’. The quality of opposition was such that ‘the Division has the impression that it has yet to come into contact with regular troops’.(5)