alternatehistory.com

Scenario couldn't happen in OTL because Churchill was committed to a Mediterranean strategy but this is ATL.

Cancel Operation Torch.

The Allies choose to leave North Africa to the 8th Army. They agree that they have been given them enough men and equipment to guarrantee victory at El Alamein and may even be able to go on and destroy all Axis forces in Libya too. Libyan Campaign over by January 1943 as OTL unless they (the axis) decide to move into Vichy territory.

POD.

So the Allies decide to move against Narvik and open a real second front that both the Americans and the Soviets can understand.

IMO the forces allocated to Torch were sufficient to at least take and hold Narvik.

I am not talking about the liberation of Norway.

By taking Narvik the German supply of iron ore is directly threatened.

You are actually liberating people from Nazi occupation (in N Africa you aren't really liberating anybody).

If you take and hold Northern Norway then you also make the convoy route to Murmansk much safer.

The U boats would rush from the Atlantic (where they were doing enormous damage) to attack the Allies. I think they would sink less ships than OTL. The invasion force would be better protected than a normal convoy and so U boat casualties are higher.

You may also flush out what's left of the Kriegsmarine surface fleet and destroy it. You can certainly deny them many bases.

As said I am not talking about liberating Norway I am talking about seizing the north and denying it to the Germans. I think the front would settle after a few months across the narrow neck of Norway. Tanks would play a limited role in the terrain so German Tigers would not be a big problem.

My problem is airpower but in the Med the Allies were facing strong air opposition too and all allied aircradft had to come from far away. Norway is close to powerful Axis air assets but the Allies are closer too.

Could the limited operation succeed?
Top