The Turks at Gallipoli where more or less prepared, they where already at war, and could reinforce their defenses by railrod and through the Sea of Marmara. For Norway the only way to reinforce is over the Atlantic, which the British can easily prevent.
Yes, Murmansk had no railroad connection untill 1917 and the reachebility of Archangelsk was dependent on the weather. But from Luleå one could ship supplies to Oulu (railroad connection to Petersburg), direct to Petersburg, Riga or somwhere else. From there on take the railroad to the front.
That is indeed bothersome, what if they also capture Stavanger and make it a naval base, like they wanted short before the end of the war? The Royal Navy would make the Hochseeflotte much more carefull.
Well, that was no big deal in case of Persia or Greece, so why in case of Norway?
But perhaps they could push Norway join the Entente (perhaps by promising Svalbart) or make an agreement to allow the Entente to use Narvik. Would tht be possible?
By the way, capturing Iron Ore Line would have an other positive effect:it would cut Germany off form Swedisch iron. That and establishing a reliable connection to Russia (may possibly ease the Russian shortage of ammunition '15) whould have made things hard for Germany, the main enermy. With the Turks could be dealth later without losing over 200.000 people.
hehe, interesting - it is the best way to win the war - for germany
first - the brits invade a true neutral nation (norway), maybe even sweden
second - the royal navy will suffer in a way that no battle for jutland is needed. destroyers, subs, the HSF can ambush the british supply ships... that is perfect - again for germany
third - with the brits doing this the germans have bases at the norwegian coast. so the time to react is much shorter for the brits.
4: the german subs can be placed in norwegian ports (like in ww2), so they have shorter ways to their combat places
5. the norwegian army and navy will fight against the invaders. the brits aren´t welcome, the norwegian forces will give a decent fight and - with german support the british cannot stop - will grow in strengh
6: as decribed, the norwegian fleet (quite large) will be not moving FOR the brits, but against it.
7. (deadly) the americans will not support the brits, they will sell weapons and goods, but not on unsecure loans. they also will support the norwegians (poor little country invaded by evil imperialistic colonists). Without american help it is game-over for the entente, latest in 1917
8. the other neutral nations (spain, portugal, denmark, netherlands, italy (are they in the war allready?, romania, greece) will rething seriously their position. the entente had shown that they do not care...
to summarize - the royal fleet suffer heavily, the british forces hav e to fight the norwegian army, maybe the swedish army (and navy), maybe the danish too - the dans aren´t stupid - if the brits do it in norway they can do it in denmark, too. The forces in norway suffer cause unsupplied and against very motivated norwegian forces (equipped with german weapons) - something the germans do not need to kill in france
result: til mid 1916 (if we speak about an invasion in early 1915) the brits had lost a lot war- and merchant ships, the bridgehead is dead, rotten in the cold and the germans have much more symphaty in the usa (very very bad thing for the entente) and one or four (depending how the dans, sweds and dutch react) allies...
Also, even if a godlike event let the brits win this war (5% chance) they have lost all credits in central and northern europe... so in round 2 you could bet the norwegians side with germany, maybe the dutch too....
no, it is not a smart thing for the brits to try to attack narvik... really not (by the way, such invasion cost money the brits do not have to spend - esp. if the americans think about selling weapons to them at all... hihi... without this toys the game is over in late 1916... i like the idea of an us-embargo of great britain and france

)