No French bases for u-boat war

Surprise there depends on the success of the Allied deception operations. Given how successful those were I'd hazard the garrisons would be surprised at least at the operational level.

historically there was choice between France and Norway, under this scenario France would be at least formally neutral, also would could assume a large concentration of German forces in the Low Countries.

what are your odds on where they land?
 
Multiple locations. The Norwegian geography pushes the Allies towards using their navy and minimizing overland campaigns. One exception would be the need to secure the railway route from Narvik to Sweden. Ending Swedens isolation is a big benefit, perhaps the largest of a Allied Scandinavian campaign. I'd expect there would be a lot of overland campaigning in the southern portion of Norway. Not every important location sits right on the Atlantic coast. For the norther 2/3ds seizing key ports along the coast cuts the road net such as it was & leaves the German garrisons isolated or near isolated, with not much more than poorly connected trails zigzagging across mountain ranges. As the Norwegian Army is rebuilt it can police up the pockets of German garrisons. Green Allied formations can assist in this & get some operational experience. The biggest difference between here & the Pacific is the trapped Germans will surrender at some point. The Japanese refused and usually fought on when they could not escape. So combat casualties will be less when reducing the German pockets.
 
Multiple locations. The Norwegian geography pushes the Allies towards using their navy and minimizing overland campaigns. One exception would be the need to secure the railway route from Narvik to Sweden. Ending Swedens isolation is a big benefit, perhaps the largest of a Allied Scandinavian campaign. I'd expect there would be a lot of overland campaigning in the southern portion of Norway. Not every important location sits right on the Atlantic coast. For the norther 2/3ds seizing key ports along the coast cuts the road net such as it was & leaves the German garrisons isolated or near isolated, with not much more than poorly connected trails zigzagging across mountain ranges. As the Norwegian Army is rebuilt it can police up the pockets of German garrisons. Green Allied formations can assist in this & get some operational experience. The biggest difference between here & the Pacific is the trapped Germans will surrender at some point. The Japanese refused and usually fought on when they could not escape. So combat casualties will be less when reducing the German pockets.

thanks Carl, but was including a neutral France in the options, you think they would avoid trampling in there? if you would still say Norway, when? as early as the historical Torch landings?
 
I was only addressing Scandinavia or Norway.

As for trampling in France. it really depends on who is governing France. Petains attitude was France first. His policy might be summed up in Darlans response to Ambassador Leheays question: 'If you come with three divisions we will fight you, if you come with twenty we will join you.' Theres various ways to interpret that, but one way would be; 'If you are serious about defeating Germany we're in.'

The Brits had a small training base near Murmansk established in late 1941. If Stalin allows then building on that they could have in the spring of 1942 fighter cover to the eastern end of Norway. Hypothetically that could allow leapfrogging west & south, creating two or more enclaves on the coast and starting the isolation of German garrisons. Its a complex military & technical problem. If Dill remained CIGS I could see this at least getting a serious look. Its also the sort of thing that appealed to Churchill.
 
Top