Invasion of Norway fails in April 1940-what next?

[sharlin]

If you want to read a well written Invasion of Norway fails story I suggest this:

http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/103107/Norway-Fiasco-Part1#reply-103107

and all its parts, just do a search on Norway Fiasco. The author, HMS Pinafore is a superb writer and his stories are always a pleasure to read, even the one about the cuban missile crisis going hot.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

The immediate lesson learned would be that naval invasions are destined to fail if you don't have naval superiotity.

Assume that the German LEARN the lesson.

This would butterfly away the BoB - as this was the preparation to "USM" aka sea lion.

This in return would leave the Luftwaffe with many more fighters and bombers and experienced air crews.

After the fall of France UK is not in shape to invade Germany - even with bases in Norway.

Sure Norway would be a great base for UK bombers, but that is actually a narrow corridor into Germany and easily covered by the Luftwaffe (BoB reversed).

A few breaches of Swedish airspace might push Sweden even more into (economic) support of Germany.

Finland might allow Germany to stage an attack on North Norway from land.

If the German Paras are not used in Crete but (mid-late) 1940 to make a large scale landing in southern Norway they even might suceed in keeping and holding key area (and Skagerak is smaller than the Channel and with Denmark captured (assume Weserübung Süd still suceeds) the Germans don't haveh water to cross.

So unless UK pours many troops into Norway (the might be pulled from Canada and use Free French) its only some time the Northern or Southern thrusts meet...

 

[Magnum]

Also that into account that the Bismarck would be available by then to support the invassion, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau likely joining as well, since these would likely not have sortied into the Atlantic, due to lack of the foreward Norwegian base prior to that.

Except that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could very well have been sunk in round 1, along with most of the ships commited then. Do the Germans support the invasion using just the Bismark, Prinz Eugen and the Emden ?

 

[Jukra]

Western Allied policy towards Finland will be interesting, as the post-Winter War Finnish government is frantically trying to get support and help against Stalin from any source they can get. With Allies on Norway and the oceans secured, Finnish and Swedish governments have completely different diplomatical situation to deal with.

Agree. With Finland able to trade rather freely there's no panic over food or armament supplies. Even with continent under German aegis there's no chance of Finland joining the Axis.

 

[sharlin]

Sending a battleship to attack a narrow well defended harbor is just asking for massive problems.

 

[HMS Warspite]

Except that the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau could very well have been sunk in round 1, along with most of the ships commited then. Do the Germans support the invasion using just the Bismark, Prinz Eugen and the Emden ?

How would that happen and with what? Damaged is more likely, but sunk? The Royal Navy at the time was not yet up to such a job, as it lacked the needed ships for that purpose (No King George V class in commission yet adn HMS Repulse and Renown were not very well comparable with the 25 years younger German ships, when looking at capital ships alone. Older BB's simply were to slow to catch the 32 knot german battleships. Most likely the German ships get damaged and were to be withdrawn to be repaired later.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Carrier based air would be a threat to S+G

 

[sharlin]

Not to mention the german standing orders of disengaging from a surface threat. In WW2 we had a few examples of basically superior german forces disengaging when faced with a capital ship. Both S&G ran from the Renown and her destroyer escort off Norway and then they did a runner from an R class battleship guarding a convoy.

 

[De la Tour]

How would that happen and with what? Damaged is more likely, but sunk? The Royal Navy at the time was not yet up to such a job, as it lacked the needed ships for that purpose (No King George V class in commission yet adn HMS Repulse and Renown were not very well comparable with the 25 years younger German ships, when looking at capital ships alone. Older BB's simply were to slow to catch the 32 knot german battleships. Most likely the German ships get damaged and were to be withdrawn to be repaired later.

Numbers. Simply, the RN could surround the faster ships. Warspite and the Rs would tear the Germans a new angus.

 

[arctic warrior]

First, I'm not sure how you get to a complete failure of the German invasion. The naval part of the German invasion landed at five separate major points. Two of those (Narvik and Trondheim) were over a long enough distance they could reasonably have been intercepted by the Royal Navy. The one at Bergen would have been iffy to intercept because it was probably well within range of German land-based airpower recently shifted to Denmark. The other two landings would be very difficult to intercept because they crossed a narrow strait from Denmark that would be dominated by German air power. The Germans also landed via airborne assault a number of places.

The landing at Oslo could have foiled before entering Norwegian waters as three RN subs had the Blücher, Lützow and Emden in their sights and actually fired torpedoes just as the KM began preventive evasive navigation.
A little luck and that would have left the Germans ashore at Bergen and Kristiansstad though the latter might have been averted had the Norwegian shore batteries not been tricked in holding their fire assuming some KM ships to be French!

 

[DaleCoz]

The landing at Oslo could have foiled before entering Norwegian waters as three RN subs had the Blücher, Lützow and Emden in their sights and actually fired torpedoes just as the KM began preventive evasive navigation.
A little luck and that would have left the Germans ashore at Bergen and Kristiansstad though the latter might have been averted had the Norwegian shore batteries not been tricked in holding their fire assuming some KM ships to be French!

Not impossible, but as noted, it would take not just one but a series of cases where the Germans had far poorer luck than they did historically.

 

[Uff Da the optimist]

As far as the Norwegian merchant marine is concerned, this represents little change; almost the entire M.M. (one of the largest merchant fleets in the world) sailed to Britain during the invasion and served the allies for the duration of the war, proving critically important during the Battle of the Atlantic when half the oil shipped to Britain was transported in Norwegian tankers.

True, what I should have emphasized better was the point that now the MM doesn't have to travel in such dangerous water outside their own occupied country!

Also, Norway could mobilize over 200 000men in a period of 2 months, although of varying quality.
The thing is Norway is not a flat country easy to fight in, it has such a harsh nature that gives defenders golden opportunities for ambushes, entrapment and trading land for time.

Again, if the Norwegian government had not acted like un-decisive babies they could have mobilized some forces after Altmark to show that they intented to remain out of the war, and even this would be sufficient to make life hell for the 8000 men the Germans took the southern part of the country with!

 

[von Adler]

First of all, lets clear up some misconceptions.

Narvik was destroyed as a port for shipping iron ore 1940. For the next four years, until Sweden shut down the ore shipments, the ore was railroaded from Kiruna over Luleå to Oxelösund (south of Stockholm) where it was reloaded on ships and transportet through the Baltic to German ports.

Control of Norway does not give the British access to the Baltic. The southern North Sea remained under German control until 1945, mostly because it is prime mine sea, as is most of the Baltic (there's still about 40-90 000 mines in the Baltic and southern North Sea from ww1 and ww2). The British used MTBs to move agents, evacuate key personell (downed fliers, Norwegian resistance fighters etc) and transport high-quality ball bearings from Sweden during the war, sailing by night at high speeds.

The Swedes and Finns negotiated a state alliance (close to a union, a military alliance and political confederacy) during Spring 1940, but German and Soviet resistance and Finnish revanchism put an end to it (Sweden wanted the alliance to be neutral and that stance to be accepted by both the Germans and the Soviets). With the allies in control in Norway, the German opinion matters far less, and they and the Soviets (who don't want war against the allies or Germany at this point, Stalin wanted the allies and the Germans to bleed each other dry before he intervened) might actually look favourable upon a Swedo-Finnish neutral alliance, as it would secure the northern flank for both of them.

Once the Germans had the control of the French and Belgian iron mines, they were not dependent on Swedish iron ore. Swedish ore was high-quality and was easy to use in the bessemer process to create high-quality steel, but the Germans CAN do without. Sweden needs about 5,5 million tons of coke and coal yearly, and Germany could deliver this 1940-1944, when the western allies could not. Unless the allies can replace this, Sweden will continue to ship iron ore to Germany. OTL, the western allies demanded a reduction in shipping, and Sweden complied, but gave the Germans priority in high grade ore, which made all parts happy.

Allied control of Norway might mean a Swedo-Finnish state alliance, no further Finnish participation in the war and perhaps a France that fights on from North Africa.

 

[DaleCoz]

Thus, if the Allies are lucky, the only german surface warship worthy of mention which would survive the operation would be the light cruiser Emden. Hardly enough to pull of Sealion.

The British will also be far less scared about Sealion, given that the RN just prooved it can easily beat a German landing attempt, sinking most of the Kriegsmarine in the process.

If you count both sunk and damaged ships, the Kriegsmarine didn't have much in the way of surface ships left ready for action after Norway historically.

Finally, butterflies CAN affect the Battle of France. Lets say, for instance, the panzers that went to Norway are sent to the Ardennes, adding 1-2 days to the bottleneck, or that different decisions are taken with regards to Luftwaffe operations at Sedan, potentially leading to a failure of the initial crossing.

While there is a small chance this would butterfly into a German defeat, it can result in things like far, far greater German losses or a French government that decides to continue from North Africa. My personal favoritue though (on which I was once planning on doing a TL) is it delays a German brakethrough long enough for the Allies to launch Operation Pike.

It's certainly possible that Norwegian butterflies might affect the Battle of France, but to the best of my knowledge, no panzer divisions were sent to Norway in the initial invasion, or subsequently between that invasion and the invasion of France. The German troops were infantry (5 divisions) or mountain divisions (1 division). The only part of their order of battle that might have contained tanks was a motorized infantry brigade which historically just went to Denmark and then was sent to the Battle of France starting on May 13th. Even if that brigade got to France marginally earlier, it would be a trivial addition to the mass of 7 panzer divisions and numerous motorized divisions in the crucial area.

More likely sources of butterflies, which can cut both ways: (1) The Allies would be more confident and the Germans less so, both at the individual and command level. That could lead to Hitler putting more restraints on the Panzer rush to the sea. On the other hand, it could lead the Brits to delay starting the Dunkirk evacuation for a day or two in favor of continuing to support French attempts to organize a counter-offensive to cut the Panzer corridor. Hard to know how more confident Allies and less confident Germans would play out.

(2) At least some Allied warships would not be available. The Brits could possibly sink most of the German navy in the Norway operation, but sinking it without losing at least some additional capital ships and presumably accompanying destroyers gets us into Mary Sue territory. The Brits would probably have fewer ships available at Battle of France and Dunkirk evacuation. On the other hand, the British navy would have more freedom of action with no Kriegsmarine to speak of, at least until the Germans got Bismarck into service in August 1940, ran it through sea trials and scraped up some accompanying ships.

(3) Chamberlain would probably still be British PM during Battle of France, as noted earlier. That is a wild card. Would he have been able to provide the kind of inspirational leadership during and after Dunkirk that Churchill did? Would he give the order to attack the French fleet to keep it from falling into German hands? Would he stop sending British planes into the Battle of France when it became obvious that battle was lost? Would he resist the impulse to negotiate with Hitler after Fall of France?

 

[HMS Warspite]

Numbers. Simply, the RN could surround the faster ships. Warspite and the Rs would tear the Germans a new angus.

Did you realise that would mean putting the slow capital ships in U-Boot invested waters and within reach of the Luftwaffe? Also take into account there were minefields there, laid by all three (UK, German and Norwegian Navies) The UK is not stupid and will not risk its main form of defence to catch just two capital ships, which in themselves were not a threat, unless hunting in the Atlantic for commerce.

Another problem: in the heavy seas of Norway the larger Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were much faster than the smaller DD's of both sides, which had to slow down in these heavy seas. A fast modern BB could thus outrun theoretically faster DD's with ease. Carrier aircaft of the period also would have to face the elements in springtime in the nearly Arctic conditions over there. (Open cockpit Swordfishes in freezing conditions is not likely to be improving their capabilities.)

As for the Royal Sovereign class and HMS Warspite, which were there at the time, Warspite already was serving as flagship of the Homefleet, due to the damage of HMS Rodney adn Nelson earlier in the conflict. The Royal Sovereign class was not present at the time, being in the Mediteranean (HMS Ramillies and Resolution), Western Aproaches (HMS Revenge), or lost early in the War (HMS Royal Oak). Only HMS Royal Sovereign would be available, but that ship was in the yard for a minor refit, so not present in the specific time. Whie my namesake ship is a holy grail on her own, she could not catch, nor chase the two German battleships on her own. HMS Renown and Repulse might offer some assistance, but were not fast enough either, due to their added weight (HMS Renown following her refit), or age of her powerplant (HMS Repulse). Dunkerque, which was also stationed in the Norwegian Campaign area already had shown defects on her structural integrity in the heavy swells of the North Atlantic and was in need of a major overhaul and strengthening her hull. HMS Hood recently had joined Force-H in preparation of the operations in the Med, following Italy's more agressive attitude. (HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were in the UK at teh time, but not yet finnished their major refits. HMS King George V and Prince Of Wales were fitting out. HMS Nelson was under repair, as was HMS Rodney.)

 

[Some Bloke]

(Chanting) Time-line! Time-line! Time-line!

 

[von Adler]

I started one, once.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=86956

 

[Some Bloke]

How about a new one with the above issues considered?

 

[Magnum]

If you count both sunk and damaged ships, the Kriegsmarine didn't have much in the way of surface ships left ready for action after Norway historically.



It's certainly possible that Norwegian butterflies might affect the Battle of France, but to the best of my knowledge, no panzer divisions were sent to Norway in the initial invasion, or subsequently between that invasion and the invasion of France. The German troops were infantry (5 divisions) or mountain divisions (1 division). The only part of their order of battle that might have contained tanks was a motorized infantry brigade which historically just went to Denmark and then was sent to the Battle of France starting on May 13th. Even if that brigade got to France marginally earlier, it would be a trivial addition to the mass of 7 panzer divisions and numerous motorized divisions in the crucial area.

I recall reading and seeing a documentary about this, so I did a quick search on wiki, and found this:

Likewise, when German panzers were employed the Norwegians had no regular countermeasures.[48]

During intense fighting with heavy casualties on both sides, troops of the Norwegian Infantry Regiment 16 blunted the German advance at the village of Haugsbygd on 15 April. The Germans only broke through the Norwegian lines at Haugsbygd the next day after employing panzers for the first time in Norway. Lacking anti-tank weapons, the Norwegian troops could not hold back the German attack.[24][45][46][47][48]

A German Neubaufahrzeug tank advancing through the streets of Lillehammer in April 1940

Did you realise that would mean putting the slow capital ships in U-Boot invested waters and within reach of the Luftwaffe? Also take into account there were minefields there, laid by all three (UK, German and Norwegian Navies) The UK is not stupid and will not risk its main form of defence to catch just two capital ships, which in themselves were not a threat, unless hunting in the Atlantic for commerce.

Another problem: in the heavy seas of Norway the larger Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were much faster than the smaller DD's of both sides, which had to slow down in these heavy seas. A fast modern BB could thus outrun theoretically faster DD's with ease. Carrier aircaft of the period also would have to face the elements in springtime in the nearly Arctic conditions over there. (Open cockpit Swordfishes in freezing conditions is not likely to be improving their capabilities.)

As for the Royal Sovereign class and HMS Warspite, which were there at the time, Warspite already was serving as flagship of the Homefleet, due to the damage of HMS Rodney adn Nelson earlier in the conflict. The Royal Sovereign class was not present at the time, being in the Mediteranean (HMS Ramillies and Resolution), Western Aproaches (HMS Revenge), or lost early in the War (HMS Royal Oak). Only HMS Royal Sovereign would be available, but that ship was in the yard for a minor refit, so not present in the specific time. Whie my namesake ship is a holy grail on her own, she could not catch, nor chase the two German battleships on her own. HMS Renown and Repulse might offer some assistance, but were not fast enough either, due to their added weight (HMS Renown following her refit), or age of her powerplant (HMS Repulse). Dunkerque, which was also stationed in the Norwegian Campaign area already had shown defects on her structural integrity in the heavy swells of the North Atlantic and was in need of a major overhaul and strengthening her hull. HMS Hood recently had joined Force-H in preparation of the operations in the Med, following Italy's more agressive attitude. (HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant were in the UK at teh time, but not yet finnished their major refits. HMS King George V and Prince Of Wales were fitting out. HMS Nelson was under repair, as was HMS Rodney.)

Except that the S & G were very lucky OTL IIRC, since they were basically trapped between the Renown and her two DDs to the north and the main British fleet to the south, only to have the british sail north-west thinking the Germans were trying a break-out into the Atlantic. They could easily have been sunk or badly damaged if the RN had deduced their intentions correctly.

 

[Clandango]

1. The Norwegian government probably re-discover their testicles and fight back with ever decreasing confusion instead of doing nothing. This becomes a morale boost, "if a poor country like Norway can fight back, surely France will kick Germany's butt!"

2. Long term effects would be the intact Norwegian Merchant Marine at the WAllies disposal along with bases for airplanes and a MUCH easier task of shutting Germany out of the Atlantic.
In addition you would have a Norway on the Allied side with thousands of extra soldiers and this in turn will probably be enough to convince Sweden politely to seize selling resources with Germany.

You never read about Scandinavia during that period, have you? The King threaten to abdicate it the Storting agreed to the demands to put the much unpopular Quisling as their Prime Minister, the entire Executive and Legislative branches left the country while Germans tried bombing their trains, the high Court, stayed around for a year or two before dissolving itself and leaving only the Nasjonal Samling with a couple of thousand people for legitimacy, and tens of millions of dollars in gold were denied from falling into German hands, which instead went to supporting the government's future efforts. That and the majority of the Norwegian Merchant Marines were already at sea and at once point reported was carrying a fifth of British imports. That and Norway lasted two weeks longer than both France and Poland after they were invaded, they never surrendered to Germany, their collaborater had the least support in the continent, and they had a resistance movement from during the entire war.