Is it Possible: Allied Amphib Invasion of Romania?

In 1941 total assets that where assigned to Rommel would be two full strength panzer divisions, a mechanized light infantry division and 400-500 aircraft (counting replacements and the like)... basically a full strength panzer corps and an extra Luftflotte... the butterflies of his corps depends on which army group he is assigned to... I have argued previously that if he was assigned to army group north's panzer group 4 that Leningrad would become truly and utterly surrounded and likely fall, greatly easing the supply stain (since ships could feed army group north and some of their logistical assets could be xferred to the other army groups

if he was with army group south, you could see the Germans hold Rostov over the first winter (since their flanks wouldnt be so recklessly in the air)... I don't think this would be off to much value

if he was with army group center you maybe see quite a few less troops escape out of the Vyzama disaster... maybe the Germans reach Moscow proper, but they utterly lacked the strength to take the city

2 divisions is INSANE... Narvik was part of the Atlantic wall, and fortified with artillery and bunkers, direct attacks against ports where shown by Dieppe to generally be a bad idea.... You can't accomplish anything with 2 divisions... the Germans in otl had 12 in the country with the med theater and getting slaughtered on the eastern front...in what battle did the British perform well against the Germans where they didn't have serious numerical supriority... in Italy in OTL where their supply situation was far more secure they had a slow laborious death struggle to move forward inspite of outnumbering the Germans 2.5-4 to 1... if we except that a British division was capable beating a German line division in a one on one match (and that is without giving the Germans any tactical advantages due to the terrain, where they could fortify the mountain passes and make it impossible to advance) the British would still need a full field army...and you think there was little air support in the winter in northwest europe... wait till they do a northern norweigan winter... the Germans might invest and box in the bridgehead... wait for winter to close air support and obscure visability for naval fire missions and open up an offensive against the bridgehead, which might push it into the drink

*sigh*
Ireally sympathise with Grimm, you are so divorced from the realities of WW2 its silly..

Extra forces in Russia are fairly irrelevant, the bottleneck was logistics.
Norway part of the Atlantic Wall??! What hav eyou been smoking... first it wasn't, second the wall was pitiful until 1944.

The purpose of a few divisions is, initially, to placate the Russians. In any case, given the terrain its likely that the actual meeting forces would be quite low. germany have to reinforce by sea (RN subs in the area), then a slow train and road trip north. British have to go a further distance by sea alone (again, with added U-boats). Not much difference. However Britain no longer has to ship troops and equipment 12,000 miles around the Cape. This frees up a LOT of shipping...

The issue I have with Murmansk is Stalin. In OTL he didnt want any allied troops fighting in Russia. However he might if its JUST to take northern Norway (the troops would only be attacking out of Russia, not staying in it). That way any forces in the north get squeezed from both sides. Bonus, after that Finland is looking a lot less secure..its possible some sort of peace could be brokered (something broadly in line with the 1939 boundaries), that would free up Soviet troops. I think the allies would rather that than have to invade Finland.
I wouldnt expect the British to get much further south at least initially... it would be very much an infantry war. But if they can keep a secure base and reinforce it, once Stalingrad comes around.... as long as they have the landing craft, they can keep jumping German defensive lines with further landings (as they should have done in Italy....). They also have a far more effective and militant resistance aidiong them than in Italy, its going to be a boggy mess for germany as well as Britain. But its far closer than the Med.
 
Here's the telling text, thanks, GW!:



Based on this (I'm looking for another source to back it up...anybody have one?) it looks like early June at the very earliest. This plus the added units could make a big difference...not enough for the Germans to win I wouldn't imagine, but things are certainly far worse for the Red Army.

Another interesting quote (damn, that was a great link, GW! :) ):

delays to Barbarossa were nothing to do with the Balkans, it was the weather. If they'd started a few weeks earlier they'd just have moved slower, it was a terrible spring.

And the delays later were nothing to do with the Germans stoppping for a rest and a beer, it was, yet again, Logistics. There were fixed limits to how far they could go before having to stop and wait for supplies to come up AND the infrastructure to be imroved. Which is why the campaign breaks into a number of phases - lunge to supply limit, pause, resupply, repeat. The trouble was, at some point you run into the Winter, which bogs down (literally!) the resupply, and you cant advance further.
 
*sigh*
Ireally sympathise with Grimm, you are so divorced from the realities of WW2 its silly..

Extra forces in Russia are fairly irrelevant, the bottleneck was logistics.
Norway part of the Atlantic Wall??! What hav eyou been smoking... first it wasn't, second the wall was pitiful until 1944.

The purpose of a few divisions is, initially, to placate the Russians. In any case, given the terrain its likely that the actual meeting forces would be quite low. germany have to reinforce by sea (RN subs in the area), then a slow train and road trip north. British have to go a further distance by sea alone (again, with added U-boats). Not much difference. However Britain no longer has to ship troops and equipment 12,000 miles around the Cape. This frees up a LOT of shipping...

The issue I have with Murmansk is Stalin. In OTL he didnt want any allied troops fighting in Russia. However he might if its JUST to take northern Norway (the troops would only be attacking out of Russia, not staying in it). That way any forces in the north get squeezed from both sides. Bonus, after that Finland is looking a lot less secure..its possible some sort of peace could be brokered (something broadly in line with the 1939 boundaries), that would free up Soviet troops. I think the allies would rather that than have to invade Finland.
I wouldnt expect the British to get much further south at least initially... it would be very much an infantry war. But if they can keep a secure base and reinforce it, once Stalingrad comes around.... as long as they have the landing craft, they can keep jumping German defensive lines with further landings (as they should have done in Italy....). They also have a far more effective and militant resistance aidiong them than in Italy, its going to be a boggy mess for germany as well as Britain. But its far closer than the Med.


You are dead freaking wrong... Festung Norway was an essential part of the Atlantic Wall and heavily fortified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festung_Norwegen

Narvik had German garisson troops in it because it was an obvious target... subs on the Aalborg-Oslo route are you nuts...There where large German airbases all over that area, and it was infested with mines that would make us much sense as German U-boats operating in British territorial waters which is to say none

2 divisions is nothing... Britian had a hard time beating the DAK which had 3 German divisions of good quality and 8 semi motorized Italian divisions and 2 divisions are supposed to be able to hold out against a FIELD ARMY of German infantry

Germany failed for a number of reasons in Russia, none of them logistics (they where able to supply well up to and past the Oka river which was many hundreds of miles past their jump off lines, despite the Russians having different rail track... none of their offensives failed due to logistics... they failed due to the weather, superior Russian numbers, lack of force to occupy the space involved in their missions etc... except for the 6th army which was encircled, there are very few if any common stories of German troops either running out of ammo and fuel (some limited events in the Caucuses which represented the absolute limit of the German advance... over 1000 miles from their main bases


Your are an unapoligetic Brit fanboy; enjoy my ignore list
 
AstroDragon, not to mention that a peaceful Med means British forces are freed for use elsewhere in 1941 and those forces are significantly more powerful than what Germany gains, not to mention a massive ease on British shipping and logistics with Italy out of the war.

Not only BW749 wrong, as usual, about the force levels involved but he also confuses all the equipment including replacements Rommel received over nearly a year and presents it as a single existing force.

Likewise he presents German fortifications and force levels in Norway at far beyond the reality, obviously confusing what existed in Norway in June 1944 is what existed throughout the war. In reality German force levels in Norway were much lower until a series of British raids forced a major increase in the garrison.

For instance, Hitler's response to Operation Archery was to increase the German forces in Norway by 30,000 troops and Operation Claymore was even more damaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Archery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Claymore

In 1941 the German contingent was only 100,000 strong with an extremely extensive coast to cover. A successful landing by the British and use of the RN to make further outflanking landings at need might well clear the Germans from Norway.

Except for those holed up in the mountains which will either surrender, be interned in Sweden or starve to death at their own choice.:rolleyes:

Subsequent benefits include the new ease sending supplies to the USSR to pressure on Sweden to stop selling key items to Germany to a weakening of the U-boats.
 
AstroDragon, not to mention that a peaceful Med means British forces are freed for use elsewhere in 1941 and those forces are significantly more powerful than what Germany gains, not to mention a massive ease on British shipping and logistics with Italy out of the war.

Not only BW749 wrong, as usual, about the force levels involved but he also confuses all the equipment including replacements Rommel received over nearly a year and presents it as a single existing force.

Likewise he presents German fortifications and force levels in Norway at far beyond the reality, obviously confusing what existed in Norway in June 1944 is what existed throughout the war. In reality German force levels in Norway were much lower until a series of British raids forced a major increase in the garrison.

For instance, Hitler's response to Operation Archery was to increase the German forces in Norway by 30,000 troops and Operation Claymore was even more damaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Archery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Claymore

In 1941 the German contingent was only 100,000 strong with an extremely extensive coast to cover. A successful landing by the British and use of the RN to make further outflanking landings at need might well clear the Germans from Norway.

Except for those holed up in the mountains which will either surrender, be interned in Sweden or starve to death at their own choice.:rolleyes:

Subsequent benefits include the new ease sending supplies to the USSR to pressure on Sweden to stop selling key items to Germany to a weakening of the U-boats.

Grimm, the garrisson was always substantial and grew because Hitler was paranoid about it... INVASION IN 1941? The British didn't even have air superiority in the Desert in 1941 (when Germany was committing most of their assets to Russia) Those 500 aircraft that supported Rommel are available or could be transferred AND home defense aircraft can be committed in 1941 the RAF and the Royal Army was in no way up to the challange of fighting serious elements of the German Army..... VERY few British commanders or troops had any combat experience at all, and would be facing blooded German regiments along with their attached artillery... in 1941 the British would be lucky to get air parity, but their ground forces would get thrashed

after Deippe the Germans began a systematic program of fortifying the ports along the Atlantic wall so that they couldn't be directly attacked without heavy losses... YOU AT LEAST NORMALLY PHRASE YOUR ARGUEMENTS IN COMMON SENSE AND RATIONAL... HERE YOU ARE TOTALLY OFF AND ASTRODRAGON MADE ONE BOGUS CLAIM AFTER THE NEXT IM DONE
 
Interesting...obviously some disagreement! :D


I'll shelve that and move on to the next "option": amphibious invasion of Southern France. Plausible? Possible?
 
Say 1943...roughly analogous to OTL's italian campaign.

Plausable, should succeeed by that date (hopefully enough amphib experience)
The main issue is the difficulty of supply - much further from the UK, one of the driving reasons for Normany was the ease of supply.
IIRC, there are geographical problems with advancing in certain directions (MAssif Centrale??), so it might get bogged down. A lot will depend on how much effort the US will provide, they were quite light on combat troops until 1944 (rhetoric and advice. OTOH...:rolleyes:)
 
Plausable, should succeeed by that date (hopefully enough amphib experience)
The main issue is the difficulty of supply - much further from the UK, one of the driving reasons for Normany was the ease of supply.
IIRC, there are geographical problems with advancing in certain directions (MAssif Centrale??), so it might get bogged down. A lot will depend on how much effort the US will provide, they were quite light on combat troops until 1944 (rhetoric and advice. OTOH...:rolleyes:)

Well, there is one problem: The Luftwaffe. Without aerial superiority, they could potentially turn the ampib op into a larger Dieppe.

Unless of course it got attrited by then, or its focusing most of its airpower in the intensive Eastern Front.
 
Say 1943...roughly analogous to OTL's italian campaign.

It honestly depends what the Germans have in reserve, and how their western defenses take shape with no Italian campaign. Assuming there is still a dieppe raid, one assumes that direct assaults on Toulon and Marsaille are out since they have begun their fortifications process... although there is plenty of open beach to land between them.

The Germans during the course of the med and Italian campaign committed more than 10 divisions to the endevour... if these have otherwise sat in reserve, they could make use of the terrain and give the w allies a run for their money and the LW wasn't utterly beaten in 1943... plus with the landing in southern france, outside of carriers (or maybe ops against corsica?) they don't have anywhere to base their short ranged fighters until they establish a suitable beachead, and it will be difficult to form standing patrols over it

In OTL 1943 the Germans had several panzer divisions in France, going through training and kitting out (HitlerJugend for example, was at this point in about regimental stregnth, but had a decent proportion of officers and NCO's assigned to it that had combat experience in Russia)

A landing in Northern France would make a lot more sense and could be staged out of UK proper instead of out of Gibraltar, Egypt and US/UK mainland which would be a pain in the ass
 
So, let's assume the following:

1. Italy stays neutral.

2. Greece is not attacked by Italy and stays neutral too.

3. The Turks allow the Allies to use the Straits to bring their fleet into the Black Sea.


Where are the Allies supposed to base aircraft in order to have some kind of air support for this operation?
The next Western-Allies-controlled base is probably ... Cyprus?
That's a long way to go, would also have to mean that Tukrey would allow overflying for the Allied aircraft and still if all these happened, the Allies did not have fighters with the range to cover the fleet.
So the Luftwaffe (which was still strong in 1943 in OTL) simply massacres the invasing force.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Invasion Norway April/May 1942

Suppose the raids on Norway in 1941 and Dieppe didn't go ahead, because Norway was to be the target of a full invasion in early 1942.

No.3 commando beach langing at Ognar and Brusand with bren carriers an 2 pounder AT portee. To cut and hold route 44 at Eigersund at the junction with route 42. With support from RN minesweepers and destroyers.
No.4 commando landing at Dirdal and points west by beaching fast cargo vessels (aim to use these as mooring for later supply ships). To cut and hold route 45. With support from RN minesweepers and corvettes.
Cargo vessels armed with rear turret 4 inch DP guns and bow diesel winch cranes for unloading stores and universal carriers, 2 pounder AT portee, etc.
1st Parachute Regiment Bn to land at Hedlandsana with satchel charges, MMGs and mortars. To destroy rail bridge and hold route 39 at junction with route 42.
2nd Parachute Regiment Bn to land at Byrkjedal with satchel charges, MMGs and mortars. To hold route 503 at junction with route 45.
RN bombard route 44 at Ledre inlet to interdict reinforcement.

Multiple beach landings (12 divisions available for three waves) behind this cut off area on the north sea coast (including tank land ships). Relief of pinning forces on the access roads given a high priority. To invest Sola airfield, Sandnes and Stavanger as secondary objectives (the narrow valleys along the three access roads will ensure plenty of forces free to assault/siege the ports and airport) . Coastal bombardment support from Home Fleet. Air cover from available CV based fighters and long range beaufighters. Engineers waiting off coast to begin making a new airfield operational in order to base fighter cover there. Can also act to recover Sola for operational use if/when taken.

Does any of this stand a chance? What were the defences and minefields like at this point? What forces were available both within the area cut off and to attempt relief of the peninsular?

I know there are good arguments for Narvik (maybe that could be done too), but I wanted to test the water on a beachhead closer to Aberdeen/RAF Dyce.

Drop tanks should get combat Spits to fight over Sola and Stavanger at about 265 miles from Tingwall/Lerwick, RAF Scatsta, or RAF Sumburgh (Shetland Isles). Sola is about 310 miles away from Aberdeen/RAF Dyce. Well within the combat range Beaufighters (1700 miles) and Mosquito F Mk2 (900 miles). Not to mention the heavier bombers.

wiki/Bristol_Beaufighter

Developed during 1940, the Mosquito F Mk II was developed and the first prototype was completed on 15 May 1941. These aircraft were fitted with four 20 mm (.79 in) Hispano cannon in the fuselage belly and four .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns mounted in the nose. This fit required the movement of the crew ingress/egress door from the bottom to the right side of the nose. The aircraft also featured a modified windscreen, with flat bulletproof panels in front.[66]
The aircraft was made largely out of wood, the majority of it being plywood. Notable features were the leading edge radiators and the use of compression rubber blocks in the undercarriage legs. The type was also fitted with a gun camera in a compartment above the weapons themselves in the nose. The aircraft was also fitted with exhaust flame dampers to handle the Merlin XX's fumes. The machine had an aspect ratio of seven.
Crosshairs to avoid at all costs.

Sadly 801 Sqn doesn't start operating Seafires until October 1942. What do the Spitfire VBs look like?
Starting in early 1941 the round section exhaust stacks were changed to a "fishtail" type, marginally increasing exhaust thrust. Some late production VBs and VCs were fitted with six shorter exhaust stacks per side, similar to those of Spitfire IXs and Seafire IIIs; this was originally stipulated as applying specifically to VB(trops).[62]. After some initial problems with the original Mk I size oil coolers, a bigger oil cooler was fitted under the port wing; this could be recognised by a deeper housing with a circular entry. From mid-1941 alloy covered ailerons became a universal fitting.

Large numbers of modifications were made as production progressed. Two new types of "blown" cockpit canopies were introduced in an effort to further increase the pilot's head-room and visibility. In addition, a large number of Spitfire Vbs were fitted with "gun heater intensifier" systems on the exhaust stacks. These piped additional heated air into the gun bays. There was a short tubular intake on the front of the first stack and a narrow pipe led into the engine cowling from the rear exhaust.[62]
The VB series were the first Spitfires able to carry a range of specially designed "slipper" drop tanks which were fitted underneath the wing centre-section. Small hooks were fitted, just forward of the inboard flaps: when the tank was released these hooks caught the trailing edge of the tank, swinging it clear of the fuselage.[63] A wide bladed Rotol constant speed propeller of 10 ft 10 in (3.29 m) diameter was able to be fitted, resulting in a modest speed increase over 20,000 ft (6,100 m) and an increase in the service ceiling. The blades were either "Jablo" (made out of compressed wood) or metal and the spinner was longer and more pointed.[37]
With the advent of the superb Focke Wulf Fw 190 in August 1941 the Spitfire was for the first time truly outclassed [64], hastening the development of the "interim" Mk IX. In an effort to counter this threat, especially at lower altitudes, the VB was the first production version of the Spitfire to use "clipped" wingtips as an option, reducing the wingspan to 32 ft 2 in (9.8 m)...


  • 2 × 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano II cannon; 60 round drum
  • 4 × 0.303" Browning machine guns; 350 rpg
  • 2 × 250 lb (113 kg) or 1 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs
Range 470 miles without 60 gallon drop tank.
VB Supermarine, Castle Bromwich, Westland.
First Mk V; P8532 (VB) June 1941.
 
Last edited:
Churchill

In one of Winston Churchill's books he says he was infavor of an Allied landing in the bulkans. It would liberte Greece, put westron troops in before the Souviets got there and open another front. The idea wasn't acted up due to resources being streaced due to upcomeing landings in France and fighting in Italy. Later spears of influence were negociated with the Soviets. So, not much came of it. If they did do it and Stalin didn't like it there would have been repercussions.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
I seems to remember one of the Med theatre British generals (Wilson?) was into an assault towards the Danube plain.

Here it is:
Supreme Allied Commander Mediterranean (1944) Wilson succeeded Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower at Allied Forces Headquarters (AFHQ) as the Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean on 8 January 1944. As such he exercised strategic control over the campaign in Italy. He strongly advocated the invasion of Germany via the Danube plain, but this did not take place when the armies in Italy were weakened to support other theatres of war.
Although in context it seems he means further upstream than Romania (Between the Carpathians and Alps at Vienna). Now that his son has died I believe that line has ended (no recorded grandchildren).

You are going to need access through the Dardanelles or the major port of Salonika. Preferably both.
 
Last edited:
Top