Det som går ned må komme opp-An Alternate Royal Norwegian Navy TL

[sonofpegasus]

Vickers built the Kalev class submarines for Latviain 1934. They had 4 x 21 inch torpedo tubes with four reloads and could carry 20 mines in the saddle tanks. With a submerged displacement of around 0 tons they would seem to me a good off the shelve design for Norway.

 

[FinnishFury]

Vickers built the Kalev class submarines for Latviain 1934. They had 4 x 21 inch torpedo tubes with four reloads and could carry 20 mines in the saddle tanks. With a submerged displacement of around 0 tons they would seem to me a good off the shelve design for Norway.

First, Kalev-class submarines were built for the Estonian Navy, not Latvian.
Second, is that a typo with the submerged displacement of 0 tons? Wikipedia says that it's 853 tons submerged.

 

[sonofpegasus]

My bad, late night post syndrome. Yes it was Estonia and 853 ton displacement. with the mine load an eight torpedo's I still think it would be a useful submarine for Norway .

 

[CV(N)-6]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter IX: The Ships

To help gain experience as well as speed up the program, the destroyers Sleipner, the enlarged leader, and Alesund, the first of five of her class, would be built in British yards. The seaplane tender Loki was too large for the skilled yards, and too specialized for the yards that built larger merchant ships, so she too would be built in British yards. That still left a lot of ships to be built in Norwegian yards, and the jobs created by the expansion and the need for workers at the yards made the politicians that had gotten the bill through Storting more popular.

Sleipner, laid down in 1932, was based off the British Codrington, but with a turning circle that much more closely resembled that of a normal destroyer, some minor tweaks, and high pressure Thornycroft boilers that gave her a top speed on trials of 37 knots, though it was lower in service. Norway didn’t have a large armaments industry, and therefore had to order the guns and torpedoes from other countries. A committee was formed on this, and decided to use guns from the Swedish weapons firm of Bofors, from which the Royal Norwegian Navy had been purchasing weapons for decades. Torpedoes and depth charges, however, would be purchased from the British. Sleipner was equipped with five 12cm Bofors Model 1924C guns in single mounts, with a shield protecting the mount’s front. The guns could elevate to 45 degrees, and fire approximately 10 rounds per minute. Two quad banks of Mark IX torpedoes were shipped, and two racks of 12 depth charges to sink the contacts that the ASDIC found were provided. A Model 1934 Bofors 40mm L/60 gun was mounted on each side of the aft funnel, rounding out a modern armament.

The Alesund class was based off the British C class, but like their leader, were equipped with high pressure boilers unlike the British destroyers. Four of the 12cm Bofors guns mounted on their leader were aboard in an ABXY layout. Two quad banks for Mark IX torpedoes sat amidships, and the two AA guns were mounted between the funnels instead of abaft the aft stack. Most ships attained 36 knots on trials though, again, service speeds were lower. Two racks of 12 depth charges sat on the stern. If the ships lost the charges, Y gun, and all torpedoes, 64 mines could be brought aboard, and the ships would then be fast minelayers.

The submarines were essentially sisters to the Swordfish class in the Royal Navy. These boats had six bow 53.3cm torpedo tubes each, and were well-handling vessels, especially when submerged. The two B type submarines were given refits to keep them around for a few more years.

The minelayers were armed with four of the same 12cm weapons that the destroyers shipped, in addition to five 40mm Bofors AA weapons. They could carry nearly 300 mines, and achieved 24 knots on trials. The lead ship was named Olaf Tryggvason. Froya, essentially a tiny Tryggvason, was given a pair of Bofors AA guns, and landed her torpedoes, allowing her mine complement to be increased to just under 200. The two Glommen class, built during the Great War for service in Oslofjord, sacrificed one of their low velocity 7.62cm guns for a Bofors AA gun.

Loki was based on the Yugoslavian seaplane tender Zmaj. Her purpose was to provide a mobile base for the seaplanes. While there were slips for boats in most fjords, Loki would provide better repair facilities than some boatyard. The ship was given an old 7.62cm gun from Norge on the bow for defending against other ships. The gun was in a high-elevation mount. Three twin Bofors mountings, one on the stern, one on each side of the ship, meant that she could defend herself well enough from air attack for a ship.

The subchasers were simple enough ships. They resembled the American 110-foot ships from the First World War, but were larger, with a full displacement of 105 tons instead of 85. They had a low velocity 7.62cm gun on the bow, a 12.7mm Browning machine gun on the stern, and a load of depth charges ready. The main purpose for these ships was to secure entrances to fjords, and do escort work in coastal waters, though they could, unlike most craft their size, sail in the open ocean as long as it wasn’t too stormy. In peacetime, these eight vessels served as patrol ships.

The MTB’s certainly weren’t giants like the British MGB’s or American PT boats that would commission in the coming decade, but they could serve the role of torpedoing anything that entered their fjord very well. The MTB’s closely resembled the 20 ton MAS424, but were armed with a Browning 12.7 on the bow instead of a Breda 13.2 on the stern, and like the boat they were based on, some small depth charges on the stern. The British were beginning to retire aircraft and older submarines armed with the Mark VIII 45cm torpedo, and a number of these torpedoes were bought. Each MTB had one torpedo tube per side, and one reload per tube, allowing them to stay in action against big ships longer since they could reload and attack again. The ex-merchant vessel Snar was bought, given derricks and mountings to carry and launch up to 4 of the MTB’s. A 6-pounder was mounted on the bow, with another on the stern, and a single Bofors gun jutted up from the superstructure. The MTB’s weren’t super seaworthy (most weren't’), but could navigate fjords. The main purpose of Snar was to transfer MTB squadrons between the North and the south, because of the long distance (for an MTB) and rough seas.
The trawlers supporting the coastal artillery each carried a 6-pounder on the bow, and either sweeps or minelaying equipment depending on the task currently at hand. They also served as patrol ships when needed.

The three larger fishery protection vessels, Nordkapp, Senja, and Fridtjof Nansen had alterations to allow them to be swiftly converted to minelayers, increasing the number of minelayers from five to eight, not including the trawlers attending the coastal batteries.

Finally, mobilization plans were drawn up, allowing the reserves to be quickly brought to active duty. Trawlers would be requisitioned, armed with a 7.62cm gun, 6-pounder, or 3-pounder, and given sweeps, depth charges, or a few mines. If completed, the ships of the program would make invading Norway a much more difficult task than it had been since the early 1900’s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Father Maryland]

In regards to motorization, just how well developed were the Norwegian roads at this point in time? There would be little reason for them to spend a lot of money procuring trucks and the like, if their roads are unsuited or perhaps nonexistant. Personally, one part of the military that could profit the most from motorization would be the artillery, both for towing the artillery pieces and as supply vehicles. In addition to that, a few units could be partially motorized, in a sense that their supply train is truck borne, and not reliant upon horses, something that could perhaps be pushed for as a much cheaper alternative to horse transport, considering the time and care the horses need, not to mention the need to feed and water the horses every day. At least, efforts should be made to ensure that at least heavier artillery units (over 100mm if they ever acquire them, 75mm was heaviest) have tractors instead of horses, and even some of the tracked civilian tractors could be pressed in service, no need for purpose built vehicle.

As far as military radios are concerned, we are not talking about reaching US 1945 levels of radio availlability, but somewhat smaller and simpler arrangement. Having a Radio Truck/Horse Cart on a Divisional (or more likely Brigade) level is certainly doable, perhaps down to Regimental level if they are really feeling fancy, but it can be argued that field telephones could be used instead, within various sub-divisional units. It would allow for a much greater amount of command and control over individual divisions, make various units more aware of actions they are taking part in, not to mention that they could also be used to augument their Mobilization system.


Now for weapons:

1. The Krag M1894 was the primary rifle of the Norwegian Army, and while adequate weapon still, its reloading was somewhat obsolete when compared to the stripper fed rifles in widespread use everywhere else. It is far from most critical piece of equipment needing replacement, but if they decide to replace it, Swedish Mauser is likely the best option, if only due to the ammo compatibility and Sweden sharing the border. But again, not critical in any way.
2. Primary LMG was the Madsen LMG, again an adequate weapon, perhaps not the best, but still a usable weapon, no matter its age. Only problem I see is the rather small numbers issued, with only 4 per Platoon or 12 per company, something that could do with a slight increase. If a need for a replacement/greater number is wished for, Swedish versions of BAR are availlable, but it all depends on the cost, and who will give a better price, Swedes or Danes.
3. Colt M/29 ( M1917 Browning) was the primary HMG, and I do not see much need to change this. I do not know how many were in each individual MG company, but considering the state of the rest of the Army, I dare to guess numbers are low. In a pinch it can be used as an AA weapon, though against 1940s aircraft their effect would be minimal at best.
4. Mortars are extremely limited in numbers, some 60mm and 81mm pieces were used, likely French Brandt ones, though the most worrying is the lack of mention of their own units. My proposal is to add 4 60mm mortars to MG companies, to ensure that each Infantry Battalion at least has some minimal amount of organic artillery support, instead of having to rely on Artillery Battalion of Brigade.
5. Artillery is the most problematic, from everything I managed to find it was present in rather limited numbers, and largest caliber is 75mm. Frankly, best option could be to go to France and try and buy their M1897 75mms in as large numbers as possible.
6. AT weapons are non existant, as are AA weapons, but perhaps there is a neat solution possible. In 1930s there are a variety of 20mm+ cannons, and unless I am mistaken most of them had carriages which allowed them to be used against Ground Targets as well. And considering the average armour thickness on AFVs in 1930s (when the procurement programm is started) it would seen as a very adequate choice, and would allow for some cost savings to be made, not requiring two separate weapons.

Another thing that should be embraced as much as possible is the employment of bicycles. They already use bicycles in their Reconaissance Companies (Skis instead in Winter) and having even larger number of Bicyle mounted troops would greatly increase the mobility of infantry units. Japanese used bicycle mounted troops to a great effect in Malaya in 1942, and even a limited infrastructure would allow for more mobile units then having them march everywhere. When compared to the cost of motorizing even a single regiment, bicycles are extremely cheap, not to mention that they can produce them domestically, and not be reliant on foreign imports.

It should be pretty cheap to buy a large number of old french fast firing 75mm guns. Also ww1 era 60-81/82mm trench mortars should also be very cheap.

Might also be a good idea to purchase a decent number of old WW1 era 37mm "Trench Guns". They're small and portable and with the Norweigans army's lack of motor transport and crappy road network they could come in handy. Armed with cannister or HE they can handle infantry or light armored vehicles. And armed with a AP round they might work for the light tanks the Germans mostly used in the invasion.

 

[Triune Kingdom]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter IX: The Ships

To help gain experience as well as speed up the program, the destroyers Sleipner, the enlarged leader, and Alesund, the first of five of her class, would be built in British yards. The seaplane tender Loki was too large for the skilled yards, and too specialized for the yards that built larger merchant ships, so she too would be built in British yards. That still left a lot of ships to be built in Norwegian yards, and the jobs created by the expansion and the need for workers at the yards made the politicians that had gotten the bill through Storting more popular.

Sleipner, laid down in 1932, was based off the British Codrington, but with a turning circle that much more closely resembled that of a normal destroyer, some minor tweaks, and high pressure Thornycroft boilers that gave her a top speed on trials of 37 knots, though it was lower in service. Norway didn’t have a large armaments industry, and therefore had to order the guns and torpedoes from other countries. A committee was formed on this, and decided to use guns from the Swedish weapons firm of Bofors, from which the Royal Norwegian Navy had been purchasing weapons for decades. Torpedoes and depth charges, however, would be purchased from the British. Sleipner was equipped with five 12cm Bofors Model 1924C guns in single mounts, with a shield protecting the mount’s front. The guns could elevate to 45 degrees, and fire approximately 10 rounds per minute. Two quad banks of Mark IX torpedoes were shipped, and two racks of 12 depth charges to sink the contacts that the ASDIC found were provided. A Model 1934 Bofors 40mm L/60 gun was mounted on each side of the aft funnel, rounding out a modern armament.

The Alesund class was based off the British C class, but like their leader, were equipped with high pressure boilers unlike the British destroyers. Four of the 12cm Bofors guns mounted on their leader were aboard in an ABXY layout. Two quad banks for Mark IX torpedoes sat amidships, and the two AA guns were mounted between the funnels instead of abaft the aft stack. Most ships attained 36 knots on trials though, again, service speeds were lower. Two racks of 12 depth charges sat on the stern. If the ships lost the charges, Y gun, and all torpedoes, 64 mines could be brought aboard, and the ships would then be fast minelayers.

The submarines were essentially sisters to the Swordfish class in the Royal Navy. These boats had six bow 53.3cm torpedo tubes each, and were well-handling vessels, especially when submerged. The two B type submarines were given refits to keep them around for a few more years.

The minelayers were armed with four of the same 12cm weapons that the destroyers shipped, in addition to five 40mm Bofors AA weapons. They could carry nearly 300 mines, and achieved 24 knots on trials. The lead ship was named Olaf Tryggvason. Froya, essentially a tiny Tryggvason, was given a pair of Bofors AA guns, and landed her torpedoes, allowing her mine complement to be increased to just under 200. The two Glommen class, built during the Great War for service in Oslofjord, sacrificed one of their low velocity 7.62cm guns for a Bofors AA gun.

Loki was based on the Yugoslavian seaplane tender Zmaj. Her purpose was to provide a mobile base for the seaplanes. While there were slips for boats in most fjords, Loki would provide better repair facilities than some boatyard. The ship was given an old 7.62cm gun from Norge on the bow for defending against other ships. The gun was in a high-elevation mount. Three twin Bofors mountings, one on the stern, one on each side of the ship, meant that she could defend herself well enough from air attack for a ship.

The subchasers were simple enough ships. They resembled the American 110-foot ships from the First World War, but were larger, with a full displacement of 105 tons instead of 85. They had a low velocity 7.62cm gun on the bow, a 12.7mm Browning machine gun on the stern, and a load of depth charges ready. The main purpose for these ships was to secure entrances to fjords, and do escort work in coastal waters, though they could, unlike most craft their size, sail in the open ocean as long as it wasn’t too stormy. In peacetime, these eight vessels served as patrol ships.

The MTB’s certainly weren’t giants like the British MGB’s or American PT boats that would commission in the coming decade, but they could serve the role of torpedoing anything that entered their fjord very well. The MTB’s closely resembled the 20 ton MAS424, but were armed with a Browning 12.7 on the bow instead of a Breda 13.2 on the stern, and like the boat they were based on, some small depth charges on the stern. The British were beginning to retire aircraft and older submarines armed with the Mark VIII 45cm torpedo, and a number of these torpedoes were bought. Each MTB had one torpedo tube per side, and one reload per tube, allowing them to stay in action against big ships longer since they could reload and attack again. The ex-merchant vessel Snar was bought, given derricks and mountings to carry and launch up to 4 of the MTB’s. A 6-pounder was mounted on the bow, with another on the stern, and a single Bofors gun jutted up from the superstructure. The MTB’s weren’t super seaworthy (most weren't’), but could navigate fjords. The main purpose of Snar was to transfer MTB squadrons between the North and the south, because of the long distance (for an MTB) and rough seas.
The trawlers supporting the coastal artillery each carried a 6-pounder on the bow, and either sweeps or minelaying equipment depending on the task currently at hand. They also served as patrol ships when needed.

The three larger fishery protection vessels, Nordkapp, Senja, and Fridtjof Nansen had alterations to allow them to be swiftly converted to minelayers, increasing the number of minelayers from five to eight, not including the trawlers attending the coastal batteries.

Finally, mobilization plans were drawn up, allowing the reserves to be quickly brought to active duty. Trawlers would be requisitioned, armed with a 7.62cm gun, 6-pounder, or 3-pounder, and given sweeps, depth charges, or a few mines. If completed, the ships of the program would make invading Norway a much more difficult task than it had been since the early 1900’s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice update. It all seems rather reasonable, especially the part about building some DDs in British Shipyards to get them in service as fast as possible until domestic shipyards come online. For early 1930s navy it all seems all right, nothing out of the ordinary, but I do wonder a bit about some things. For example, it seems that all heavy armament (naval guns) comes from abroad, as do some more specialized pieces of equipment, such as torpedoes and depth charges, and I was wondering would Norwegians perhaps try and set up some limited form of domestic production if such items? I mean, naval guns are one thing, they are more or less something that does last for a longer period of time, but Torpedoes are perhaps something they would want to have a domestic source of.

All in all very interesting chapter, I rather liked how various ships are all OTL designs, but modified in some way to better suit the Norwegian needs and requirements. Considering all the changes occuring, Germans are going to have a much harder task then they did IOTL, and even IOTL they had plenty of luck on their side. Great work, keep it up.

It should be pretty cheap to buy a large number of old french fast firing 75mm guns. Also ww1 era 60-81/82mm trench mortars should also be very cheap.

Might also be a good idea to purchase a decent number of old WW1 era 37mm "Trench Guns". They're small and portable and with the Norweigans army's lack of motor transport and crappy road network they could come in handy. Armed with cannister or HE they can handle infantry or light armored vehicles. And armed with a AP round they might work for the light tanks the Germans mostly used in the invasion.

Yes, for getting artillery on the cheap, French 75mm might be the best option, at least as far as the price is concerned. Ideally, some more modern Mountain Guns would be nice as well, particulary those made by Škoda, but considering that most of the budget is going to the Navy, Army is going to be limited in its purchases. Mortars are needed though, though I do not know how many WW1 mortars would be availlable at this point in time, but even relatively modern Brandt mortars should not be ruinously expensive. But, their artillery really needs some new pieces, their main field gun was the Ehrhardt 7.5 cm Model 1901, and although they were modernised in the 1920s and 30ies, they really could do with at least something a bit more modern.

It is a valid sugestion, to procure these 37mm guns to further augument Norwegian firepower, as well as to provide some sort of AT weapon, but we should consider some things. It is not lightest weapon around, and while it could be broken up in several parts to be easier to carry, it still requires a horse/mule to be carried over longer distances. It also has a rather limited HE payload, and while it is a direct fire weapon, Mortars would perhaps be a better choice. Lastly, I did sugest 2cm Autocannon as a valid choice for a combination AT/AA weapon, and such a weapon would provide adequate AT capabilities to the Norwegians, while not requiring 2 distinct weapon models.

But, I do think that Norwegian army does require a bit more attention, even though this TL is focused primarily on Naval side of things. Problem is that their Army organization is confusing to say the least. I mean from what I managed to find online, we have 6 districts, each of which has a single division, but their divisions seem to be primarily administrative organizations, while primary combat unit was to be Brigade, not that seemed to stop them using Divisions as well. Now, with my Google skills, I have managed to find that these Brigades were each supposed to have all of this: 4 Infantry batallions, Artillery Batallion, Enginering Batallion, Bicycle Inf. Batallion, Car Company(?), Ammunition (Logistics?) Company, Horse Company(?), Medics Company, Veterinary Company and a Field Hospital. I really do not know where to start with this and what could or should be changed, if somebody knows anything more it would be nice to see some more explanation and details. Maybe OP should simply throw everything they had OTL away, and simply use pre-existing TOE from some other nation, somewhat modified for Norwegian service, if only to lessen the confusion somewhat? I mean, with them rearming much earlier then IOTL, it seems reasonable for Army to be modernized and perhaps reorganized as well.

 

[CV(N)-6]

A bunch of the old torpedo boats had this, could some sort of exchange between the services happen? Are these 37mm worth it?

 

[Driftless]

But, I do think that Norwegian army does require a bit more attention, even though this TL is focused primarily on Naval side of things. Problem is that their Army organization is confusing to say the least. I mean from what I managed to find online, we have 6 districts, each of which has a single division, but their divisions seem to be primarily administrative organizations, while primary combat unit was to be Brigade, not that seemed to stop them using Divisions as well. Now, with my Google skills, I have managed to find that these Brigades were each supposed to have all of this: 4 Infantry batallions, Artillery Batallion, Enginering Batallion, Bicycle Inf. Batallion, Car Company(?), Ammunition (Logistics?) Company, Horse Company(?), Medics Company, Veterinary Company and a Field Hospital. I really do not know where to start with this and what could or should be changed, if somebody knows anything more it would be nice to see some more explanation and details. Maybe OP should simply throw everything they had OTL away, and simply use pre-existing TOE from some other nation, somewhat modified for Norwegian service, if only to lessen the confusion somewhat? I mean, with them rearming much earlier then IOTL, it seems reasonable for Army to be modernized and perhaps reorganized as well.

Here's a link to the 1940 OOB. Useful more so for historic structure, rather than a guideline for this Timeline

Another link about unit structure and a table of comparisons of rank

 

[Driftless]

It took a while to find, but here's yet another link to historic 1940 (and long before) Norwegian Army equipment, including small arms to artillery. Quite a bit was home-grown, even if produced under license.

The Kongsberg Arsenal was/is? a first-rate manufacturer, albeit smaller scale than other armaments producers elsewhere.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Hmmm I wonder whether Norway is going to build proper ocean going torpedo boats. I suppose they could order a half dozen or so them in 1937/38 as the clouds of war gather in order to expand the navy quickly since they should be able to be built and crewed faster than proper destroyers.

 

[r1ncewind]

If norway defeats the invasion or is not invaded by germany that will make the atlantic much safer for british shipping

 

[Spencersj345.346]

If norway defeats the invasion or is not invaded by germany that will make the atlantic much safer for british shipping

And yet at the same time if Norway isn't invaded its vast merchant ship fleet isn't available to the Allied cause

 

[jsb]

The realization that Horten Naval Base was too easy to bottle up given its proximity to the bases of possible aggressors led to the plan to build enlarge the base in Bergen, while Horten would be a secondary base.

I think they need to think what the potential enemy is? In the early 30s its more Reds than Germany without hindsight so does this really make sense?

I would think both for the navy and army they should be more deterrent & delaying forces (like CW) than really designed to win a war, ie they should hold the main areas until LoN (anti Red alliance would be likely) forces come to help support them. this then still works in early WWII with RN/MN coming to help from KM.....?

I dont think they need to worry about bottling up as by that point they have lost a main part of Norway and should be more a series of local but inter supporting defence forces with a larger DD force to cover the outer water and theoretically threaten the flanks of an invasion?

The so-called ‘Eight Year Plan’ would scrap all current vessels in the fleet with the exceptions of the Minelayer Frøya, one of the best in the world, the Minelayers Glommen and Laugen, which served in Oslofjord, and the two B-class submarines, which would be laid up......

DD 1 Sleipner-enlarged Alesund to act as flotilla leader for DD’s
DD 5 Alesund-average sized destroyers
SS 6 C-small, well armed coastal submarines
Seaplane Tender Loki-similar to Yugoslavian Zmaj to serve as mobile seaplane base
40 MTB’s-design in progress
Convert 1 Freighter to ferry MTB’s
Purchase 8 squadrons of 12 seaplanes for maritime patrol
Purchase 2 squadrons of 12 torpedo bombers for torpedo attacks
Build 2 new minelayers based off Frøya
Build 8 subchasers for ASW in wartime, patrol in peacetime.
Modernize existing coastal artillery
Install old guns from the 4 BB’s for coast defense
All fishery protection vessels modified for easy conversion into minelayers
Attach a few trawlers with a 6-pounder each to each coastal battery as a patrol/auxiliary

Crew Estimate(Not including aircraft): 2600
Approx. Crew Levels 1930 TTL: 1800
Approx. Crew Levels 1920 OTL: 2525

The subchasers are faster and more specialized for ASW, while trawlers are better off for mine warfare. I'm aware trawlers can serve functionally as ASW ships, but having modern, specialized ASW ships is more effective for the role trawlers, even if trawlers are better cost-wise.

I question getting rid of everything, specifically the three old Draug class would make perfectly good subchasers or patrol ships at lower cost than new ships (and Trygg class of torpedo boats as well as other 1900+).
I would add that the Norwegian whaling industry would make a good dual use area for developing ASW trawlers or mine layers?

I also question your use of small MTBs (and so many aircraft) considering Norway's weather?

I think 10 squadrons of aircraft is hugely expensive and in Norway's location in early 30s very ambitious...... whats the cost v DDs?

The seaplane tender Loki was too large for the skilled yards, and too specialized for the yards that built larger merchant ships, so she too would be built in British yards.

Would it really not be easy to build as a merchant (perhaps using a whaling hull design) and then simply refit in a navy yard after all you are not talking a combatant but a support base ships?
Note that even large civilian ships where built in UK anyway for example,

Kosmos II Norwegian Whale factory ship

Kosmos II (Norwegian Whale factory ship) - Ships hit by German U-boats during WWII - uboat.net

The U-boat War in World War Two (Kriegsmarine, 1939-1945) and World War One (Kaiserliche Marine, 1914-1918) and the Allied efforts to counter the threat. This section includes over 21.000 Allied Warships and over 11.000 Allied Commanders of WWII, from the US Navy, Royal Navy, Royal Canadian...

uboat.net

A bunch of the old torpedo boats had this, could some sort of exchange between the services happen? Are these 37mm worth it?

Yes but really heavy compared to land AT weapons, not that it matter if they come to you...

 

[jsb]

The delay in committing to mobilization and the communication by mail was disastrous.

This is really the killer!

In regards to motorization, just how well developed were the Norwegian roads at this point in time? There would be little reason for them to spend a lot of money procuring trucks and the like, if their roads are unsuited or perhaps nonexistant. Personally, one part of the military that could profit the most from motorization would be the artillery, both for towing the artillery pieces and as supply vehicles. In addition to that, a few units could be partially motorized, in a sense that their supply train is truck borne, and not reliant upon horses, something that could perhaps be pushed for as a much cheaper alternative to horse transport, considering the time and care the horses need, not to mention the need to feed and water the horses every day. At least, efforts should be made to ensure that at least heavier artillery units (over 100mm if they ever acquire them, 75mm was heaviest) have tractors instead of horses, and even some of the tracked civilian tractors could be pressed in service, no need for purpose built vehicle.

As far as military radios are concerned, we are not talking about reaching US 1945 levels of radio availlability, but somewhat smaller and simpler arrangement. Having a Radio Truck/Horse Cart on a Divisional (or more likely Brigade) level is certainly doable, perhaps down to Regimental level if they are really feeling fancy, but it can be argued that field telephones could be used instead, within various sub-divisional units. It would allow for a much greater amount of command and control over individual divisions, make various units more aware of actions they are taking part in, not to mention that they could also be used to augument their Mobilization system.

Well, I did make some sort of a overview a few posts back, though a lot depends on how big and what kind of an army Norway wants and needs. Maybe abandoning Divisions entirely, instead main combat formations being Brigades would be good for Norway? Formations would be smaller, but perhaps more flexible and numerous units would be better suited for Norwegian circumstances and terrain?

Agreed...
I would want to simply provide local defence militia/battalions that can quickly mobilize no matter what they ahve kit wise as they will be fighting troops landing from ships (and later aircraft) so dont really need to plan to face many heavy weapons. Its far better to attack beachheads and hold docks early on than be good on day 2-3.

how about investing in a few light-weight Kegresse-type half-tracks. Something on the order of the French UNIC TU-1? The Norwegians had already seen how effective those Kegresse machines were back in the 1920's with a French expedition up on the Hardangervidda. They were lighter weight units, not the big armored German or American style half-track. Then, their movement would not necessarily be tied to roads

I question if any none civlilian transport is really required as they should plan on fighting locally if not simply have them use traines/trucks requsitioned to move to fight as they can only use a very few limited roads that are mostly blocked from flanking by mountains ranges? Norway is long and thin with water on one side and Sweden/Mountains on the other so not sure open manuver warfare is really worth working on.....

Use the Italian MAS boats

Would German not be better for the local conditions the S boats are coming into service in early 30s and are larger and better in heavy weather?

It should be pretty cheap to buy a large number of old french fast firing 75mm guns.

Yes and they could also buy some FTs for not much that would be very useful holding local docks and airfields agaisnt German infantry without much support.....?

For example, it seems that all heavy armament (naval guns) comes from abroad, as do some more specialized pieces of equipment, such as torpedoes and depth charges, and I was wondering would Norwegians perhaps try and set up some limited form of domestic production if such items? I mean, naval guns are one thing, they are more or less something that does last for a longer period of time, but Torpedoes are perhaps something they would want to have a domestic source of.

I dont think you need to worry ist to expensive IMO to buy all norwegen and you can really on getting support from LON/Sweden early on in 30s against say the Reds....(and later GB/Fr v Germany)

And yet at the same time if Norway isn't invaded its vast merchant ship fleet isn't available to the Allied cause

Would it not be perfectly ready to work on a cash and carry basis?

 

[Driftless]

A real pie-in-the-sky idea: how about investing in a few light-weight Kegresse-type half-tracks. Something on the order of the French UNIC TU-1? The Norwegians had already seen how effective those Kegresse machines were back in the 1920's with a French expedition up on the Hardangervidda. They were lighter weight units, not the big armored German or American style half-track. Then, their movement would not necessarily be tied to roads

I question if any none civlilian transport is really required as they should plan on fighting locally if not simply have them use traines/trucks requsitioned to move to fight as they can only use a very few limited roads that are mostly blocked from flanking by mountains ranges? Norway is long and thin with water on one side and Sweden/Mountains on the other so not sure open manuver warfare is really worth working on.....

Oh, to be sure, that half-track idea was pure 20/20 hindsight on my part. I plugged that in as a "possible - probably not plausible" throw-in. Possible, as many Norwegians were aware of the high-profile Kegresse test runs up on the Hardangervidda in the 1920's. The light-weight rigs performed well on the snow (just as their counterparts crossed theSahara successfully in roughly the same timeframe. Norway's military historically was on a very low-calorie diet. CVN(6) is proposing a modest meat, potatoes, and a touch of fiber diet. Half-tracks would only come if you could order off the dessert menu...

It would give the Norwegians some limited off-road mobility
**************

My two cents worth..... Use the Italian MAS boats as a design source, or work out a deal with the Italians (Norway historically did some large scale bartering of dried cod for Italian Caproni bombers). Perhaps build the hulls in Norway, as a jobs program - using smaller scale yards to spread the wealth and then, barter for Italian boat engines. The MAS boats had a spectacular history of success going back into WW1, and would have been very useful in several roles in the narrow, rocky islanded fjords.

Would German not be better for the local conditions the S boats are coming into service in early 30s and are larger and better in heavy weather?

The biggest reason for recommending the Italian option: both countries were cash-strapped in the late 20's and into the 30's, so they worked on a barter basis. The Norwegians send literal tons of dried cod to Italy in return for some Caproni Ca.310 bombers of truly dubious value. Here, I've swapped out the Caproni's and replaced them with MAS boats. The German S boats certainly would work, but the Norwegians likely have to pay cash and work on the Germans timetable.

 

[jsb]

The German S boats certainly would work, but the Norwegians likely have to pay cash and work on the Germans timetable.

Would they not be very willing to sell in early 30s? I think as long as Norway gets in early its a buyers market for anything from almost any country in the first 1/2 of the 30s before rearmament starts up and takes up capacity?

 

[Triune Kingdom]

Thanks @Driftless, I knew of the first two pages you linked, but I was unaware of the third one, lot of useful info there.

So, in your opinion how would they approach modernization of the Army, especially considering that their military build-up is currently focused on possible Soviet threat? Organization wise, it may be for the best to keep their current organisation, with 6 divisional areas, but increasing the number of Brigades for at least some of them to 2, perhaps in areas they consider more under threat. Brigades could remain as they are, roughly 6k men each, but overall more heavily armed then they were OTL or at least with more modern equipment. For most Brigades 75mm guns are to remain standard artillery pieces, mountain guns for those Brigades which are expected to operate in more mountaineus areas, while heavier artillery is to be formed in some sort of Divisional Reserve, independent artillery battalions, to be attached to other units as needed. Even OTL they did motorize at least part of their artillery, and I see no reason why they should not do the same ITTL, at least for field guns and heavy artillery, with mountain guns remaining horse drawn.

However, they must get their army out of the barracks and stage manouvers, it is the only way for them to actually realize all the various problems their army has.

 

[Driftless]

However, they must get their army out of the barracks and stage manouvers, it is the only way for them to actually realize all the various problems their army has.

I'd think that's the single best investment they could make. It was always going to be a hard sell to bump the interwar military budget, so they'll certainly need to narrow their priorities to a few critical points.

I would say training and readiness would be at the top of the list . As you note, get them out of the barracks and into the field. Both in small units and periodically in Brigade size units. That's useful experience for enlisted men and officers.

The Army (in conjunction with the Navy chiefs too) need to draw up some contingency plans. If the Soviets are seen as the big near-term threat, then where are they most likely to appear? For instance, maybe one of the contingencies considered is what to do if the Soviets make a bald-faced attempt to land grab the northernmost part of Finland and Finnmark in Norway. Might they come overland, or might they try a coup-de-main against one or more of the small ports? What time of year? How many Soviet troops are involved? If they do invade, or even threaten to invade, is there anyone else to ally with? What are our (as Norwegians) measured response to these questions. Once they've solved the Soviet threat , then move on to other possibilties, however remote(Sweden, Germany, Britain, etc). Maybe those stacks of planning papers are most suited to be kindling, but the chiefs have put some thought into the process. At some point, involve the Storting chiefs and the King in the general discussion?

A critical part of that contingency planning should be a thorough review of how and when the military is mobilized. Can Norway make use of the changes in technology developed since the country broke from Sweden in 1905? The country is quite large and parts were sparsely populated, so what are the best ways to notify widely separated commands on both land and sea?

As far as weapons and other hardware go, especially if the Navy is getting the bigger share of the budget, then man-portable equipment is key. What gear can be more easily carried by a soldier on foot/skis, or by the cavalry? In the really rugged north, it either needs to be man-portable, or sea-lifted and used where it's dropped off. So, the man-portables to me are rifles, pistols, light machine guns, small mortars-or those 37mm infantry guns as long as they can be sled or cart carried. Even with those pieces, some poor souls are going to be lugging ammunition up the mountainside....

Who controls the coastal guns, Army or Navy? I believe it was the Army, so there's another set of training exercises. Have them do some live fire drills every year and vary when that practice is done. (Col. Birger Eriksson approves...). I don't know if this is realistic, but maybe use one or more of the ships to be scrapped as targets?

 

[CV(N)-6]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter X: The Fortifications

Weapons available for coastal batteries:
8-21cm guns from Norge, Tordenskjold classes
12-12cm guns from Tordenskjold class
12-15cm guns from Norge class
42-7.62cm guns from various classes
16-3 pounders from Norge, Tordenskjold class
Lots of 3.7cm pom-poms from early 1900’s ships
Lots of old 45cm torpedoes from early 1900’s ships

A review of locations for the new artillery batteries was conducted in early 1931.

Oslofjord:

Oscarsborg Fortress
3-28cm guns
4-50cm torpedo tubes

Battery Kopaas
3-15cm guns
2-5.7cm guns

Other
2-12cm guns
4-28cm howitzers
4-5.7cm guns

Several smaller fortifications with small guns were positioned in the approaches to the fjord.

Because of a lack of manpower, only the fortress itself was manned, which would not be good in wartime. The 28cm guns were in good condition, as were the 35 year old torpedoes, which was a miracle

Kristiansand

Odderøya Fortress
3 batteries of 2 15cm guns
4-24cm howitzers
2-21cm guns
2-65cm guns

Again, only a handful of batteries could be manned, and the archaic methods of calling up reserves meant this couldn’t be changed for at least a week if reserves were needed, which was not good.

Bergen

Bergen Fortress

2 batteries of 3 21cm guns
3 24cm howitzers
4 50cm torpedo tubes

The heavy weapons had been designed for a different time, when the ships they were to fire on moved slower. The area they had to fire at approaching vessels was small, and they had an estimated 10 minute firing window from when a ship would enter their firing arc and leave.
Several outer forts serving as tripwires for approaching forces were located in the narrows, and were armed with 6.5 or 5.7cm guns.

Trondheim

2 21cm guns
3 15cm guns

2 21cm guns
2 15cm guns

2 15cm guns

Each battery had a handful of 6.5cm guns for torpedo boat defense.

It was decided that Ofotfjord(Narvik), and Boknafjord(Stavanger) would be given shore batteries, while Bergen’s small outer fortresses would be armed well enough to effectively fight surface ships. The extra guns were emplaced as follows:

Narvik
2 batteries of 2 21cm guns
1 battery of 4 old 45cm torpedoes
3 batteries of 2 12cm guns
2 batteries of 3 7.6cm guns

Stavanger
2 batteries of 2 21cm guns
1 battery of 4 old 45cm torpedoes
3 batteries of 2 12cm guns
2 batteries of 3 7.6cm guns

Bergen fortresses
4 fortresses covering the main entrances to Bergen were upgunned. Each was now armed with:

1 battery of 2 15cm guns
2 batteries of 2 7.6cm guns
1 battery of 2 45cm torpedoes

Anti-Aircraft:
The main fortresses(Trondheim, Bergen, Oslo, Narvik, Kristiansand, Stavanger) would be given an AA battery of 4 7.6cm AA guns, and 2 batteries of 2 4cm Bofors weapons.
The smaller Bergen fortresses were armed with one battery of 2 4cm Bofors guns each.
With the approaches to the larger cities, most of them very strategically important, protected by shore batteries, which would be aided by torpedo carrying ships and reconnaissance seaplanes, invading Norway would cost many men and ships.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Well Narvik is going to be much harder to take since you can't torpedo Fortresses(while under a flag of truce mind you)