Norway, April 1940

I think there's another possible consequence of Germany failing to seize Northern Norway. If we assume that ITTL the Kriegsmarine suffers an even more brutal butt kicking then IOTL, I can see Raeder being made the fall guy and forced out in the aftermath, would Donitz still succeed him? If he takes charge of the KM in 1940 then perhaps he persuades Hitler to abandon construction of ships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz arguing that the resources and manpower are better spent on U Boats? While they would have a harder route to reach the Atlantic this could perhaps be offset by their greater numbers?
 
You might be right, but it is my impression that with Norway in Allied hands the Germans would be prevented from moving through the North Sea - the route taken by Bismarck, right? - thus forcing ships, and subs I suppose, to take the channel route. Norway would secure the North Atlantic and the Denmark Straite for the Allies. Or I suppose it would. I'm I badly mistaken?

Regarding the Arctic Convoys, I'm not sure why you think they were dumb? It was a good way, in comparison, to bring much needed supplies into the USSR.


That's another good point. Could an Allied victory in Norway had propelled another French leader to the fore? It's my impression that DeGaulle was rather troubelsome and that some other French war hero might do a better job, say The Hero of Norway (right now I'm too lazy to look up the French senior officers in Norway, sorry)?


My regards

- Mr. B.

Norway or not, German U-boats still have to go around the UK at least the first time. Norway makes this a little easier (they can coasthug up it), but it doesnt really make any noticeable difference. WIth WW2 tech, the efford required to make serious inroads on U-boats traversing a 300 mile gap simply isnt there.

The Arctic convoys were way and hell gone the most inefficient way of using shipping and supplies in the war, it was done as a purely political effort. Only the USSR could think it a sensible use of resources.

There is always a possibility that with an allied success (or at least, not an allied defeat) in Norway, the French crisis over surrendering would have been different.
 
I think there's another possible consequence of Germany failing to seize Northern Norway. If we assume that ITTL the Kriegsmarine suffers an even more brutal butt kicking then IOTL, I can see Raeder being made the fall guy and forced out in the aftermath, would Donitz still succeed him? If he takes charge of the KM in 1940 then perhaps he persuades Hitler to abandon construction of ships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz arguing that the resources and manpower are better spent on U Boats? While they would have a harder route to reach the Atlantic this could perhaps be offset by their greater numbers?

By this point there is little point in stopping contruction of the B & T. Bismark is nearly finished, Tirpitz will be ready soon.
Its far more cost effective to finish them, even if you just have them lurking around tying up RN units.
The big difference will come in trying to use them. An Atlantic breakout is more difficult now, they are far more likely to be spotted in the North Sea (not impossible to break through, but they probably need to wait for bad weather). Or might they be used to support a landing in Norway (especially if the German army is still in control in the south..) that would be interesting.
 
Erm, no....

The only real naval benefit to Norway is to help the dumb Arctic convoys to Russia.
The problem was the French bases, which forced convoys onto the longer and far more damaging (particularly in teh winter) Northern route

Astrodragon

There is actually one other significant one. Bismarck or any other big ship breakout from Germany could well be caught in the N Sea, in range of allied land based air and with the Home Fleet united rather than split between several exits to the Atlantic.

Steve
 
If Renown and her destroyers manage to sink the two German battlecruisers without taking serious losses, off the top of my head, the admiral who commanded the Bismarck in 1941 would either be dead or a POW as a result.

Given what I've read about him it might help the Bismarck's performance, although it would probably also make Hitler even more paranoid about risking his toys.

However it wouldn't greatly affect the main point of the thread about the fate of Norway.:(

Also, the one big knockon effect of Renown and her destroyer force sinking the BCs would be the HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts not being lost.

That in itself isn't a major game changer, but what would be interesting is that Glorious was initially stationed in the Meditteranean, and was the carrier originally planned for the Taranto attack. If Glorious survives, do I need to point out that butterfly possibility.

Very good point. Glorious and her veteran crews could be very useful. Taranto could be significantly more devastating with more a/c involved. Also getting rid of the twins would reduce the threat from large raiders, which lightens the pressure a little on the poor old RN.;)

Steve
 
I think there's another possible consequence of Germany failing to seize Northern Norway. If we assume that ITTL the Kriegsmarine suffers an even more brutal butt kicking then IOTL, I can see Raeder being made the fall guy and forced out in the aftermath, would Donitz still succeed him? If he takes charge of the KM in 1940 then perhaps he persuades Hitler to abandon construction of ships like the Bismarck and Tirpitz arguing that the resources and manpower are better spent on U Boats? While they would have a harder route to reach the Atlantic this could perhaps be offset by their greater numbers?

The Oncoming Storm

I don't know enough of the internal politics of the KM or Nazi Germany at this point to tell whether Donitz would rise up this early but its a valid danger.

It wouldn't affect the Bismarck and Tirpitz as they were already pretty far advanced and also were seen as status symbols. However you might see more effort into subs earlier.:(

On the other hand this would have to come from somewhere else. Also the navy having 'failed him' so dramatically, Hitler might simply, after the fall of France, decide Britain posed no threat and no real navy was needed so everything goes into air and ground production.

Steve
 
Norway or not, German U-boats still have to go around the UK at least the first time. Norway makes this a little easier (they can coasthug up it), but it doesnt really make any noticeable difference. WIth WW2 tech, the efford required to make serious inroads on U-boats traversing a 300 mile gap simply isnt there.

Early WWII tech possibly but things developed pretty damned quickly and by the late war coastal command were pretty effective in thinning out subs trying to cross the Bay of Biscay going from/to their bases. If you have a similar situation in the North Sea, with allied ASW and air units based on both sides of it then the 1st deployment voyage of a lot of the subs could be a lot shorter.;)


The Arctic convoys were way and hell gone the most inefficient way of using shipping and supplies in the war, it was done as a purely political effort. Only the USSR could think it a sensible use of resources.

Personally I think Britain should have sent a lot less L-L to Russia, especially once the US stepped up stuff to them. However the main reason the Murmansk run was so bad was because the Germans controlled Norway and hence were able to use it as a base. [Coupled with the Soviet Northern fleet being unwilling to help defend them!]. If Norway and its bases are in allied hands interference with the convoys are a lot more difficult and dangerous for the Germans. Its an unpleasant route due to the climate but a lot shorter than round the Cape to Iran. Even with having to get supplies from the US 1st its probably easier than across the Pacific to Vladivostok.


There is always a possibility that with an allied success (or at least, not an allied defeat) in Norway, the French crisis over surrendering would have been different.

Definitely a possibility. And a very nice one for the allies.:D

Steve
 
Were German paratroopers involved in the Norwegian operation? If so, then this will make operations against France and Crete much more difficult.
 
Were German paratroopers involved in the Norwegian operation? If so, then this will make operations against France and Crete much more difficult.

yes they were.
And a lot of the transport planes - if something happens to make them take heavy losses, operations in the netherlands will be affected
 
The French contingent assigned to Norway included three demi-brigades of the Foreign Legion. If those units remain in the war you may have the forces required to take Dakar soon afterwards and if the French have reason to believe that their colonies and fleet are going over to De Gaulle whether they like it or not some ideas might be considered...

Given the lack of specialist landing ships and any intelligence on the landing zones in the area, I think any attempt at a forced landing at Dakar would be worse than Dieppe.

As you suggest, it all depends on what the French Commander on the ground thinks.
 
Since OTL a French messenger at Dakar was already on the way to the beach to request a cease fire preparatory to negotiating a surrender...:)
 

Hyperion

Banned
yes they were.
And a lot of the transport planes - if something happens to make them take heavy losses, operations in the netherlands will be affected

The number of paratroopers involved, AFAIK, where only in the hundreds, and the units involved where not ones earmarked from France or Crete.

There where a lot of transports in use, but most of them where to fly in supplies and extra troops after airfields had already been secured.
 
Wasn´t General Bethouart the french comander of the Alpine troops in Norway?Wasn´t he an ok general or could he be the french hero of Norway?Although he might be too junior to lead a free french.
 
Top