German invasion norway 1914

Maybe the best way to break the british blockade was to capture norway in 1914 /obtain bases with the king's permission so that atleast a few more blockade runners could get through.Did the german navy had the capability to pull this off,in my humble opinion it was possible provided they were willing to sacrifice some old pre-dreadnoughts.What would be the most probable british response?And more importantly what should be the german plan? Should the germans risk their dreadnoughts or simply rely on the U-boats to cover the operation and hope that the british will think of this as a trap for their Grand Fleet.The germas dont have to neccesarily challange the british in the north sea to land troops on norway they can also do it via denmark .......or maybe not?
would appreciate any replies
 

MrP

Banned
Depends if the landing's opposed or not, I suspect. Opposed landings in this era were pretty much doomed. If the Germans can land several divisions, they might manage summat. But I don't know the size of the Norwegian army in '14.
 
Depends if the landing's opposed or not, I suspect. Opposed landings in this era were pretty much doomed. If the Germans can land several divisions, they might manage summat. But I don't know the size of the Norwegian army in '14.
they have great fire support even if they use obsolete battleships they have around 10 with 4x 11" guns plus 6" guns
also they have more ships to sacrifice unlike 1940 [ when they lost 1/2 their navy] ....also there is no threat of aircraft and submarine threat is minimal [ koingsberg and karlsruhe were lost to these in 1940]
 
Seizing Norway just opens up another front and won't be a way around the British blockade. Its pretty much a non-winner, particularly within the score that the military leaders of the Great Powers saw the war initially expanding within the remaining months of 1914. It would be a move that the Germans may consider in 1916 or 1917, but in the end it would just be troops taken away from another, more important, front.

If suggested to the German General Staff it would have been turned down.
 

MrP

Banned
they have great fire support even if they use obsolete battleships they have around 10 with 4x 11" guns plus 6" guns
also they have more ships to sacrifice unlike 1940 [ when they lost 1/2 their navy] ....also there is no threat of aircraft and submarine threat is minimal [ koingsberg and karlsruhe were lost to these in 1940]

It isn't really a question of theoretical fire support, though. Naval guns can only be so accurate - even the Allies on D-Day didn't manage to suppress all the Germans firing on the beaches. Don't forget that the predreads were the Baltic Fleet and tasked with ensuring control of the Baltic. Lose too many and the Russians can do more than IOTL. Anyway, this is all a bit up in the air until we know at least the size of the Norwegian Army in '14, and preferably their mobilisation points and defence plans. I can look up their fleet in six feet and five minutes - it's on my bookshelf inside Conway's. Once we know that we can work out how many divisions the Germans need to strip from the West to form the Army of Norway.

If ye can't find info on the Norwegian Army, then if y'have the Norwegian population for '14 or thereabouts, I can compare it to Belgium and get a vague idea of probable army size.
 
^ okay ...fair deal

I will keep looking

although minefield hindered the russians [ and germans] than battleships on either side I think
 

MrP

Banned
Seizing Norway just opens up another front and won't be a way around the British blockade. Its pretty much a non-winner, particularly within the score that the military leaders of the Great Powers saw the war initially expanding within the remaining months of 1914. It would be a move that the Germans may consider in 1916 or 1917, but in the end it would just be troops taken away from another, more important, front.

If suggested to the German General Staff it would have been turned down.

While I agree with David, I'm more willing than he to go into detail to explain why. ;)

Y'see, any diversion of troops to Norway strips them from the important push into France/Belgium. You'll probably need a force about the same size as the OTL BEF (1 division of cavalry and 4-6 of infantry) or larger. You can't strip troops from the armies facing Russia, because they're already small. You can't take them from the armies lunging through Belgium, because they need their men to perform the impossible. So this leaves 6th and 7th Armies.

6th & 7th Armies: 12 Infantry Divisions, 4 Reserve Infantry Divisions, 2 Landwehr Brigades, 3 Cavalry Divisions

They're facing the French 1st and 2nd Armies IOTL: 23 Infantry Divisions, 4 Cavalry Divisions.

So they're outnumbered about 3:2. Deplete them further and there's a chance the French will overrun them. Since the German plan was an unstoppable attack and to finish off France in 6 weeks then crush Russia, there's nae much chance of getting them to divert troops to Norway, which will only be useful in a drawn-out conflict.

In other words, your best hope is to replace the Schlieffen Plan with another plan that takes into account the long term - and then come up with a compelling reason to seize Norway, worrying Sweden.
 
Depends if the landing's opposed or not, I suspect. Opposed landings in this era were pretty much doomed. If the Germans can land several divisions, they might manage summat. But I don't know the size of the Norwegian army in '14.

"In 1905, when the Storting voted to separate from Sweden. The army had been modernized and were highly trained in the years before 1905. War seemed inevitable, and 22,000 men were mobilized, but Norway achieved independence peacefully."

From wikipedia, so I'd assume it would be larger in 1914...
 
Another thing to consider in a German Invasion of Norway would be that the north of the country borders Russian controlled Finland. It would be much easier for the Russians to supply an army intended for a counterinvasion of Norway than it would be for the Germans to sustain a campaign there. Granted, the Finnish rebels would play an interesting part in distracting the Russians in said conflict, but I can't see the Germans making such a bold move. Also, an invasion of neutral Norway is likely to provoke protest from other neutral countries, most notably Sweden and Denmark.
 
Or the swedes join the Germans and take back what is rightfully theirs. (We were to cowardly with Norway in OTL anyway.)
 
Or the swedes join the Germans and take back what is rightfully theirs. (We were to cowardly with Norway in OTL anyway.)

Might it not work the other way ? Are the Swedes going to be exactly thrilled to have the Germans suddenly invade their neighbour ? I don't assume that the Germans would ask first...

It might turn Swedish sentiment from being pro-German away from it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
And how is that? :confused:

IMHO you were pretty realistic :)
Yes, they were.
Logically, a peaceful dissolution is better then a bloody dissolution.
And succeeding in reversing the dissolution (that would have occured if Sweden and Norway went to war against each other) by force is quite unlikely.
At least, in 1905.
 
What about Denmark? I'd think you would need to invade them first, going directly from Germany is a long way.


The lack of air power is also a big factor for Britan, they would be far less careful about losing ships here then in WW2 and would jump at the chance to attack the German fleet again.
 

MrP

Banned
What about Denmark? I'd think you would need to invade them first, going directly from Germany is a long way.


The lack of air power is also a big factor for Britan, they would be far less careful about losing ships here then in WW2 and would jump at the chance to attack the German fleet again.

There were a few covering divisions assigned to Norway. Let me just check. Aye, I think it's the North Army - since it plays no visible role in the Western battles - of 2 Reserve Infantry Divisions (shifted to 1st Army in August '14) and 4 Landwehr Cavalry Brigades. There's another covering force on the Upper Rhine of 3 Brigades and 1 Regiment of Landwehr Infantry. Source: The WWI Databook, as it always is with me . . .
 
What about the terrain? It is a lot of mountains and it would take a lot of time advancing giving the Norwegians time to mobilise.
 

MrP

Banned
What about the terrain? It is a lot of mountains and it would take a lot of time advancing giving the Norwegians time to mobilise.

It depends what the Norwegian Army's like, really. The Romanians were defending mountainous terrain in WWI, and the Germans handed them a can of whoop-ass, as the Americans say.*

Oh, something we haven't discussed: how do the Germans transport their troops? There were some big shipping lines like the Hamburg America Line to contribute their ships, but it takes a lot of organisation to have everything ready to shift several divisions at short notice over that distance.

* Merely a counter-example; doesn't mean I think they'd do the same ITTL here against different opponents.
 
Top