I’m not.
It’s the fjords man, the fjords!
![]()
There are fjords all over. It is a fractal coastline par excellence, but no bridges or land routes at all? Even a ferry crossing would hardly be called transport by ship in the interdiction sense.
I’m not.
It’s the fjords man, the fjords!
![]()
It is a fractal coastline par excellence,
Slartibartfast take a bow, you brilliance is recognised!
![]()
Politically, its a much different story. After all the early defeats, its by no means certain the 8th Army can go all the way, so by going to Norway you risk NA dragging on.
With the disaster of Stalingrad becoming apparent plus the war in Norway I don't think the Germans will send much to save North Africa.
..., but no bridges or land routes at all? Even a ferry crossing would hardly be called transport by ship in the interdiction sense.
But would prolonging the North Africa struggle actually be bad for the Allies?
Surely it would mean, that they could't land as fast as they wanted in Italy, but it does have some positive effects as well.
By 1942 the Med was a very unpleasant spot for the Axis. The Italian Fleet had already been routed several times and Malta was secure. Forcing the Germans to keep an open supply chain to North Africa and devoting Luftwaffe assets to keep that supply chain open and put pressure on Malta could have been quite beneficial for the Allies in the long run.
Imagine of all the Wehrmacht equipment, ammo and fuel that would make its way to the bottom of the Med after the ships and aircraft carrying it would be attacked by Allied forces.
Securing Narvik and securing the Murmansk bound convoys could work wonders for the Allies. It would also make the Germans finally deploy their Kriegsmarike remnants, thus probably losing the Tirpitz and the Scharnhorst.
You are forgetting that Adolf Hitler was in charge.
He would probably get stubborn again and order more men sent to North Africa.
If the Allies were to keep moving to the South and were determined to liberate Norway, then we might have seen Allied heavy bombers operating out of Norway against Germany in 1944.
Securing Narvik and securing the Murmansk bound convoys could work wonders for the Allies.
By 1942 the Med was a very unpleasant spot for the Axis.
From airfields with the worst weather in Europe?
But the resources put into securing Norway, would have been "wasted" in North Africa instead. The point is, that by opening a new front, Germany would be forced to divert forces to a yet new front, thus making its situation more difficult.]No. At best it would gain a grudging thankyou from Stalin. The resources expended taking Norway would far exceed the number of ships gained from securing Narvik. And while Narvik would not be available for German aircraft, the U-boats would still be able to hit the convoys.
It would have taken a more committed attempt by the Allies, but it can be done.The Mediterranean was still very much in dispute. The ease with which the Axis could operate in the central Mediterranean is demonstrated by the speed with which they deployed to Tunisia.
Its the supply chains, that are vulnerable and can be hit hard by the Allies.
If you want to confuse the Germans as to where you are going to invade next, it is so much easier to find someone that has died of pneumonia, dress his corpse in a uniform, handcuff a briefcase containing fake invasion plans to his wrist and drop him from a submarine off the coast of a neutral, but Axis friendly country.
![]()
True, their spies did suck.
I was just wondering what more Deippe type raids would have done in 42'. As the USSR was in desperate need of help, and some mild distractions on the West may have come from Stalin's pleas.
Before the US got into the war, it would have made a bigger difference.Securing Narvik and securing the Murmansk bound convoys could work wonders for the Allies. It would also make the Germans finally deploy their Kriegsmarike remnants, thus probably losing the Tirpitz and the Scharnhorst.
By the time frame we're looking at here, far more went through Vladivostok or Persia.
Nope, US ones! Sailing past Japan.In Soviet hulls I take it?
Nope, US ones! Sailing past Japan.
I don't remember whether they flew Soviet flags or not, but Japan knew that if they stopped those ships, that the Soviets would enter the war against them.
A weird, and not widely known bit of WWII history.
Yes, they were American vessels, crewed by Americans, but flying Soviet flags.I believe they did fly soviet flags