Entente capturing the Iron Ore Line in WW1

[Askanas]

Why didn't the Entente capture the Iron Ore Line in World War One? The Britisch could capture Narvik and advance South, wile Russia would attack from the East. It would have given Brittain and France a connection with Russia, to transport amminution, troops or other resources. That was what they were trying to get in Gallipolli.

Sweden was pro-German anyway, and Norway was powerless, perhaps they could have been forced to accept the occupation of Narvik untill the end of the war.

So what would have happend if the did?

 

[Mikestone8]

Why didn't the Entente capture the Iron Ore Line in World War One? The Britisch could capture Narvik and advance South, wile Russia would attack from the East. It would have given Brittain and France a connection with Russia, to transport amminution, troops or other resources. That was what they were trying to get in Gallipolli.

Sweden was pro-German anyway, and Norway was powerless, perhaps they could have been forced to accept the occupation of Narvik untill the end of the war.

So what would have happend if the did?

The Allies find themselves at war with Norway and Sweden, and the landing at Narvik becomes a "Gallipoli" in a colder climate.

They had a link with Russia anyway, by sea to Murmansk and (in the warmer months) Archangel. Result - by the end of the war, tons of uncollected equipment were piled up there, due to inadequate rail links. It would be ditto using Narvik.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Why didn't the Entente capture the Iron Ore Line in World War One? The Britisch could capture Narvik and advance South, wile Russia would attack from the East. It would have given Brittain and France a connection with Russia, to transport amminution, troops or other resources. That was what they were trying to get in Gallipolli.

Sweden was pro-German anyway, and Norway was powerless, perhaps they could have been forced to accept the occupation of Narvik untill the end of the war.

So what would have happend if the did?

The German fleet. It would tie down the Grand Fleet to sustaining the bridgehead in Norway and give the Germans an awesome opportunity to wear them down in constant guerilla operations with Uboats, destroyers, and mines. Later when German aerial torpedo bombers and mine laying became possible, things get even nastier.
Also there is major political fallout caused by the invasion of another neutral nation, taking away Britain's moral high ground.
Beyond that it places the pro-British Norwegians into the German camp, gives them naval bases to use against Britain, and denies the British the massive Norwegian merchant fleet they need to supply the Entente war effort.
So yeah, lots of bad things for Britain if they try this.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Beyond that it places the pro-British Norwegians into the German camp, gives them naval bases to use against Britain, and denies the British the massive Norwegian merchant fleet they need to supply the Entente war effort.

This is the big thing. IOTL, during WWII, the use of Norwegian ports by Hitler's ships made the situation for the Royal Navy rather difficult. Considering how much stronger the High Seas Fleet was vis-a-vis the Royal Navy during WWI, it would be a recipe for disaster.

 

[von Adler]

First of all, Narvik was never the only way to ship the northern Swedish iron ore. To railroad it down to Oxölösund (which could be kept open by ice breakers the year around) was also an option - that was used 1940-44 as Narvik was destroyed as a port by the fighting there.

Secondly, Romanov-na-Murman and the rairoad there linking it to the general Russian railway net did not finnish until summer 1916.

Thirdly, with the Alsace-Lorraine iron mines in their control, the Germans were never as dependent on Swedish iron ore (and the Swedish production had not yet really reached the levels to be of real strategic interest)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The minor issue of fighting the Norwegian and Swedish armed forces would also come up, including a surprising number of coastal battleships and other naval units...

 

[King Gorilla]

America will certainly be thrilled by the actions of the entente...

 

[Askanas]

The Allies find themselves at war with Norway and Sweden, and the landing at Narvik becomes a "Gallipoli" in a colder climate.

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.

They had a link with Russia anyway, by sea to Murmansk and (in the warmer months) Archangel. Result - by the end of the war, tons of uncollected equipment were piled up there, due to inadequate rail links. It would be ditto using Narvik.

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.

The German fleet. It would tie down the Grand Fleet to sustaining the bridgehead in Norway and give the Germans an awesome opportunity to wear them down in constant guerilla operations with Uboats, destroyers, and mines. Later when German aerial torpedo bombers and mine laying became possible, things get even nastier.
...
Beyond that it places the pro-British Norwegians into the German camp, gives them naval bases to use against Britain, and denies the British the massive Norwegian merchant fleet they need to supply the Entente war effort.

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.

Also there is major political fallout caused by the invasion of another neutral nation, taking away Britain's moral high ground.

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.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Except the Swedes could still send the ore south and captured French mines would have made up any difference.

Meanwhile the Norwegians and Swedes have a few hundred thousand men, plus German support, which must be dealt with...somehow.

 

[Mikestone8]

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.

How on earth do they get to Lulea? It's hundreds of miles from Narvik, and with all their other commitments the Russians have nothing to spare.

Well, that was no big deal in case of Persia or Greece, so why in case of Norway?

The Norwegians were white. OK I suppose the Greeks were sort of whitish too, but the Norwegians were really white.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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?

Because the Entente managed to play with internal politics in those countries and maintain the fiction that they were 'invited' (in Greece through a coup of the government and Persia through threat of force), though there was still major political fall out. It kept the US out of the war even with the Germans sinking American ships in 1915 and kept the US companies trading with Germany through the blockade, ultimately getting them blacklisted from doing business with the Entente.

None of this is possible with Norway, as Germany is right there to help them. It would be a very blatant violation of neutral rights and would probably cause the US to reevaluate letting the Entente armed forces.

 

[Cecil]

How on earth do they get to Lulea? It's hundreds of miles from Narvik, and with all their other commitments the Russians have nothing to spare.

Not to mention the terrain and the weather. Do anyone have any idea of the logistical problems of supplying a major invasion force that far north with the sort of terrain they have to go through. Any attempt to reach Luleå would probably result in at least half the force being lost before any combat actions. And I doubt the brits or french have any sort of experience fighting in these climates while its second nature to the swedes and norweigians.

 

[von Adler]

Even if the Entente take Narvik, they are not stopping the iron ore trade, as it can be shipped through Oxölösund, as it was in ww2 after the invasion of Norway (which destroyed Narvik as a port for the duration of the war).

Invading Sweden through Narvik would be a very, very bad idea. If the Norwegians don't, I am sure the Swedes will destroy the railroad tunnels, at least on their side. Be aware that there's no road next to the railroad. The Entente would have to advance against Swedish forces with direct rail link to Stockholm and the rest of Sweden over completely roadless terrain, supported from Narvik without a full rail link. You'll have to carry the supplies on muleback, as you would have no rolling stock nor any locomotives on the other side of the blown tunnels.

Even if they somehow through a miracle got to Luleå, the port is unusable 3-4 months per year, more without ice breakers, and where is the Russians or the British finding a merchant navy to ship things to Uleåborg/Oulu? I do not think the Swedish one would be very cooperative.

 

[von Adler]

Here's a map of the tunnels (lower map) just between Abisko and Narvik.

 

[Cook]

Thanks to Narvik and the allied delusions of 1939 - ’40 that resulted in Operation R 4, the significance of Swedish Iron Ore has mushroomed out of all proportion to its real importance to the German war effort in World War Two, to say nothing of World War One when the German demand for steel was less and sources of ore were more.

In 1939-40, 40% of Germany’s Steel production was allocated to civilian use, coming from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. By the end of 1941 Germany was producing 30 million tonnes of steel, but only 8 million tonnes went to the war effort, the rest going to the civilian economy. Meanwhile in the latter half of 1940 the British started collecting steel picket fences for use in the war effort.

 

[BlondieBC]

Why didn't the Entente capture the Iron Ore Line in World War One? The Britisch could capture Narvik and advance South, wile Russia would attack from the East. It would have given Brittain and France a connection with Russia, to transport amminution, troops or other resources. That was what they were trying to get in Gallipolli.

Sweden was pro-German anyway, and Norway was powerless, perhaps they could have been forced to accept the occupation of Narvik untill the end of the war.

So what would have happend if the did?

Which year do you think the Entente would have done this?

This was a max effort war, and probably takes a Gallipoli size force (12-16 divisions) for just the Norway portion. Sweden either involves an naval battle in the Baltic Sea, or more likely a Multi-Army attack through northern Sweden. How do you expect the forces to be supplied? Where do you plan to pull the 3 Armies from?

If you get more specific, it will be easy to show the cost part of the equation. Yes, there would have been a benefit, but the cost would have been huge.

 

[Askanas]

Okay, attacking Norway is probably a stupid idia. If this operation is possible at all, then only with Norwegian support.

First of all, Narvik was never the only way to ship the northern Swedish iron ore. To railroad it down to Oxölösund (which could be kept open by ice breakers the year around) was also an option

The railroad to Oxelösund goes trough Boden, which needs to be captured by Russa anyway. Also the iron ore deposits are within the area Russia needs to conquer to get to the Iron Ore Line.

How on earth do they get to Lulea? It's hundreds of miles from Narvik, and with all their other commitments the Russians have nothing to spare.

Well, that is indeed a major problem. Even if Norway could be brougt in the Entente, Russia needs to carry out the heavy part of the operation. The Swedish Army was 400.000 men strong so, regarding the Boden Fortress, the Entente forces would need to be at least of equal strength, which is troublesome. Nowray could, with British support, tie a third of the Swedisch forces in the west. As far as I remember, some Russian troops where already installed in Finnland in case of a Swedish invasion, but more Russian troops must be drawn from the Eastern Front. This would be indeed pretty much impossible.

Which year do you think the Entente would have done this?

Hmm, September 1917 would be the best moment from diplomatic stance, triggered by the Swedish rejection of the common trade agreement proposal of Great Britain and the Luxburg affair, but Russia was allready in civil war by then. So I suppose executing this instead of the Brusilov Offensive in summer '16 would be the best practical time. That could also have the positive effect of Rumania staying neutral.

But I have to admit this operation whould be pretty difficult and risky, I will better put this plan in the same Drawer as the Baltic Plan and friends. Thanks for your posts gentlemen.

 

[BlondieBC]

Hmm, September 1917 would be the best moment from diplomatic stance, triggered by the Swedish rejection of the common trade agreement proposal of Great Britain and the Luxburg affair, but Russia was allready in civil war by then. So I suppose executing this instead of the Brusilov Offensive in summer '16 would be the best practical time. That could also have the positive effect of Rumania staying neutral.

But I have to admit this operation whould be pretty difficult and risky, I will better put this plan in the same Drawer as the Baltic Plan and friends. Thanks for your posts gentlemen.

Brusilov offensive would be largely stripped of forces and instead of a major break through is either cancel or a minor success not requiring serious German assistance. Falkenhayn will use the extra German troops to attack harder at Verdun, but I doubt he breaks through. However it is easy to see a 100K to 200K more casualties on the French side. Not decisive in France.

Once the rail ends in Finland, Russia is going to have to use man/animal porters to carry the supplies. To give an example of a similar operation, 400K laborers were used in Uganda to support a few thousand troops in the field at a distance of no greater than 100 miles. 98% of the food was consumed by the porters. Russia will have some horrible supply line like this, unless they win a major Baltic Sea battle. It is like well over 1 million men or an equivalent amount of horsepower to haul the food/ammo. These men/animals will be drawn off the farm which means a much worse food situation that OTL. Also as winter sets in, the losses to cold will be HUGE. This was a bad winter, if memory serves, so there could be over 1 million Russians dead by Spring in Sweden alone. The revolution will be sooner, and the provisional government may not prevent anarchy. Best Guess Russia is out of the war by mid-summer 1917, and Germany launches an offensive in August/September in France.

All this probably does not save the Germans from the defeat, but early success in 1917 or a breakout in 1918 due to better German supply and 150K fewer French troops (Verdun) could prove decisive for a cold peace stalemate. In the East if Germany still loses, Poland is much larger and might include cities such as Kiev or all of Belarus. The changes to Russia may mean Lenin is butterflied away, but the Tsar is not in power. It could be anyone from the Whites to other types of communist/socialist to someone no one has ever heard of.

 

[Askanas]

That all would cause some butterflies in Scandinavia. Sweden could goe faschist and join the Axis, Norway would probably have gained parts of Sweden and Finnland, Finnland may be closer aligned with Russia and Denmark (which certaily would have been occupied by Germany after Entente operations in Scandinavia, most probably colaborative with the Central Powers) would have gone verry anti-German. So if WW2 goes more or less like OTL, Operation Weserübung would be much more difficult for the Axis, as well as a pro-Allied Finnland.

 

[BlondieBC]

That all would cause some butterflies in Scandinavia. Sweden could goe faschist and join the Axis, Norway would probably have gained parts of Sweden and Finnland, Finnland may be closer aligned with Russia and Denmark (which certaily would have been occupied by Germany after Entente operations in Scandinavia, most probably colaborative with the Central Powers) would have gone verry anti-German. So if WW2 goes more or less like OTL, Operation Weserübung would be much more difficult for the Axis, as well as a pro-Allied Finnland.

I think WW2 type conflict will likely occur, but there are huge butterflies. In say 1 million extra dead Russians, someone went on to important positions. Russians may not do winter offenses because of this disaster. Poland is much larger. The TOV is much different than OTL. An extra year may give the British time to find combined arms tank tactics. Even something small like Hitler or other high profile Nazi's likely die in 1919. The USA may take really large casualties, such as over 500K dead. etc.