The Path Through Norway

Soviets used to have very large para before Barbarossa. However, they were lost in summer-autumn 1941 and never adequately restored. Stalin had several para brigades in 1945 (used reasonably successfully against Japan, but that's a separate story), but Americans had para corps at this point. And yes, I agree that an attempt to use large-scale para drops in Norway would produce a disaster which will make Market Garden look like success.

CanadianGoose

I thought I could remember reading of sizeable forces - brigade or division strength - in one of the counter-offensives, in about 43 but possibly remembering it wrongly. Do think they suffered pretty heavily in those battles.

Steve
 
I thought I could remember reading of sizeable forces - brigade or division strength - in one of the counter-offensives, in about 43 but possibly remembering it wrongly.
You might remember force named "para", but neither they were trained paratroopers nor they ever operated as paras. Soviets were always fond of using "loud" but not entirely appropriate names for their better forces. For example, "guard mortars" were Katyusha artillery units and "paratroopers" after 1941 were mostly just better trained and equipped light infantry, more appropriately called "storm" or "shock" troopers. My favourite of the day among inappropriate names used by Soviets is "assault engineer" moniker for heavily armoured (including steel breastplates) storm troopers, trained in urban warfare and blowing their way through enemy-controlled cities. However, "combat chemists" for flamethrower crews isn't bad too.
 
It is true that Norway may seem to be defensible, but you also have to take into account some other factors. First, under air superiority transfer of reserves by Germans would be extremely difficult due to necessity of transferring troops by sea. German naval forces were extremely weak by 1944, so Soviet Northern Fleet - without even taking Western Allied assistance to the account - would have naval superiority. A narrow front does not mean it's a defensible front as the narrow front could be easily outflanked, assisted preferably by strong Soviet paratroop forces. Comparison to Finland is not relevant, as due to geography the possibilities of using paratroops in Finland were much smaller. Soviets had much more experience and also more success in amphibious warfare than Germans, one has to remember.

One also has to remember that after taking Narvik the Soviet forces could be supplied through Sweden via Luleå-Narvik railroad.

One ATL where the Soviet invasion of Norway would assist Western Allies greatly would be one in which a deal would be made between Soviet Union and Western Allies that the Soviet invasion would begin in May 1944 - before Operation Overlord - to distract German attention towards Norway.

This would ensure numerous benefits from Western Allied operational and Soviet strategic viewpoints. First, some German reinforcements might be lured to Norway. Second, remnants of German Navy might be lured into battle. Third, German 20th Army in Finland would be isolated after Finland was separated from the war, as Finnish and Soviet navies would block the Baltic supply route. There would be ample time available for an Arctic campaign, and Soviet air power would be extremely effective due to period of no night at all. After getting Finland out of the war the resupply of forces would be easier as it would be carried out through Bay of Bothnia.

The best case, from Soviet point of view, might be a frontline in Trondheim -level before winter of 1944-1945 sets in. Final campaign in Spring 1945 might see Swedish participation.

The interesting part would be, naturally, the post-war -future. Norway might well continue it's prewar neutrality, perhaps forming a part of the Scandinavian Military Alliance proposed during late 1940's in OTL.

What? While the E6 might be a road, it is easily sabotaged to become no road at all, especially if you just sink the ferry at the multiple locations where it crosses a Fjord. The single real road is easily and almost permanently sabotaged, as is port installations. While the ports are very good, they were small commercial ports, there'll be no heavy duty cranes to offload things like ammunition, artillery, heavy weapons and other supplies. Add some German destruction and every port is practically worthless to supply a modern army.

The 1½ battalions of the Norweigan Police Brigades (in reality trained and equipped like Swedish regular infantry, plus PIATs courtesy of the British) had problems keeping themselves and the small civilian population supplied in northern Norway, despite ample support by Sweden, including an American air bridge from Luleå. How are you going to supply Soviet forces that can take on two German divisions (and the divisions of the 20. Gebrigsarmee had suffered much less than other divisions and were at 80-90% of authorised strength and still high-quality, compared to other divisions on the eastern front) head on?

Sweden would NOT be happy about a Soviet presence at the border and would not like to see the German occupation of Norway replaced by a Soviet one - Russia is after all the old arch-enemy of Sweden. I seriously doubt that Sweden would allow the Soviets to send supplies along the Luleå-Narvik railroad. When the Germans were allowed, June 1940-August 1943, it was because Sweden was weak and Germany strong - strong old cultural and military ties helped too, something the Soviets did not benefit from. Sweden letting the Soviets use their railway network to supply troops occupying Norway is pure ASB.

The Soviet northern fleet was even weaker than its German counterpart - by late 1944, most of what remained of the Kriegsmarine was in Norweigan waters. The Soviet Northern Fleet undertook no operations far from its bases and most of its personell died fighting as Marine Brigades on land. British ships delivered as compensation for Italian ships were never really put in running order. Besides, the Soviets did not have a very good track record with landings - the few they did all went badly. And it is very easy to mine a fjord.

How would the Soviets be able to invade Norway BEFORE knocking Finland out of the war? Remember Petsamo? You dont do a Norweigan advance when there's Finnish and German forces that can retake Petsamo, cut you off and put you between a hammer and an anvil, stuck in the worst terrain of Europe. Finland was alive and kicking until September 1944 and the Soviets had lots of forces tied up against the Finnish army and the 20. Gebirgsarmee in northern Finland. The western allies were investing all their resources into Operation Overlord at the time and both them and the Soviets were quite happy about the German forces in Norway, which were more or less locked there since Sweden cancelled the transition treaty in August 1943 - small numbers of men (mostly specialists) could be moved by fast boats during nighttime or by air, but large srategical movements were impossible. That was why there still was almost 500 000 Germans in Norway in May 1945 (although most of the troops were low-quality fixed defence units without operational mobility).

A Soviet invasion of Norway really only helps in the sense that it distracts the western allies from France (if they are to lend a hand) and distracts about 100-150 000 Soviets (and especially a HUGE logistical apparatus, which is even more important) from the post-Bagration advance and knocking Romania out of the war.

20. Gebirgsarmee would not be isolated either - it was supplied from depots in northern Finland, depots that were supplied from Germany by ship.
 
While the ports are very good, they were small commercial ports, there'll be no heavy duty cranes to offload things like ammunition, artillery, heavy weapons and other supplies. Add some German destruction and every port is practically worthless to supply a modern army.

Soviet supply requirements were also smaller than Western or German ones.

How are you going to supply Soviet forces that can take on two German divisions (and the divisions of the 20. Gebrigsarmee had suffered much less than other divisions and were at 80-90% of authorised strength and still high-quality, compared to other divisions on the eastern front) head on?

The said forces were not equipped as well as other German troops, lacking MG's, for example. These troops would have to fight a daylight battle in very open terrain, making any transfer of reserves and resupply effort almost suicidal.

I seriously doubt that Sweden would allow the Soviets to send supplies along the Luleå-Narvik railroad. When the Germans were allowed, June 1940-August 1943, it was because Sweden was weak and Germany strong - strong old cultural and military ties helped too, something the Soviets did not benefit from. Sweden letting the Soviets use their railway network to supply troops occupying Norway is pure ASB.

Why? There would be possibly Western pressure to open railroads as well, as well as the possibility of Western goods delivered via Narvik to Sweden. In best case for Allies Sweden might be tempted to join attack on Norway on grounds that it should not fall in Soviet hands. This would give Western allies an access to the Baltic.

The Soviet northern fleet was even weaker than its German counterpart - by late 1944, most of what remained of the Kriegsmarine was in Norweigan waters. The Soviet Northern Fleet undertook no operations far from its bases and most of its personell died fighting as Marine Brigades on land. British ships delivered as compensation for Italian ships were never really put in running order. Besides, the Soviets did not have a very good track record with landings - the few they did all went badly. And it is very easy to mine a fjord.

By 1944 most of what remained of Kriegsmarine was either in Channel ports or Baltic. Soviets performed a fair amount of landing operations in the Black Sea, including fairly large corps-sized efforts. It's also not easy to mine a fjord since only contact mines could be used. Fjords are so deep WW2 influence mines weren't useful. Also one must remember that if this is an Allied effort a small number of landing craft could be made available to Soviets to support any effort. (in fashion of Project Hula)

How would the Soviets be able to invade Norway BEFORE knocking Finland out of the war? Remember Petsamo? You dont do a Norweigan advance when there's Finnish and German forces that can retake Petsamo, cut you off and put you between a hammer and an anvil, stuck in the worst terrain of Europe.

In Northern Finland the only Finnish forces were very small groups, and Finnish High Command would not invest any forces to a peripheral theatre.
The Soviet Pechenga-Kirkenes operation was quite succesful in OTL against worse odds (due to climate) than what I proposed. Any counterattack would be extremely difficult due to sparse roads in open terrain, in daylight, having no air support.

A Soviet invasion of Norway really only helps in the sense that it distracts the western allies from France (if they are to lend a hand) and distracts about 100-150 000 Soviets (and especially a HUGE logistical apparatus, which is even more important) from the post-Bagration advance and knocking Romania out of the war.

In view of the scale of Eastern Front, these efforts are fairly small, especially as Murmansk is nearby, trucks have to travel only a small distance. Also, the necessary Western support (ie. naval covering force, perhaps a small number of landing craft) would be insignificant compared to assets available for Overlord.

20. Gebirgsarmee would not be isolated either - it was supplied from depots in northern Finland, depots that were supplied from Germany by ship.

...and isolated after Finland is knocked out of war. A northern operation also ensues that German reinforcements are sent to Northern Finland instead of Southern Finland, which may well mean much better progress to Soviet attack.
 
You have the 20. Gebirgsarmee outside Murmansk - you need to get through it to attack Norway.

You would have to provide some data saying that a Soviet infantry division took less supplies than a German one - man for man. As far as I know, the usage of direct-firing artillery and huge amount of SMGs made Soviet formations eat through quite a bit of ammunition in battle.

The said forces of 20. Gebirgsarmee WAS equipped and trained better than the average German division of 1944, since they had not been through the same meatgrinder. And how do you get it to be a daylight battle in the forests of northern Finland (which the Soviets must go through in order to get to Norway) and then when the permanent night falls in autumn, this IS north of the arctic cirkle, you know.

Sweden would never allow Soviet supplies on Swedish railways. Western allied, perhaps, especially if they were for the Norweigan Police troops, but Soviets? Never. No amount of pressure save a real invasion threat could force that - and neither the Soviets nor the Western Allies had the resources to invade Sweden at the time without seriously delaying their efforts elsewhere. Supplies on Swedish railroads is ASBish.

But even if you get supplies through Sweden to Narvik (which I repeat is COMPLETELY ASB), you have to advance 900km:s through winter north of the arctic cirkle in a basically roadless mountain country against one of the least worn-down German armies before you even GET to Narvik - how will you supply those 100-150 000 Soviet troops before you get to Narvik?

All Soviet landings were basically ad-hoc affairs that were basically the same as crossing a wide river. They never had the capacity to do a naval landing far away from their bases.

As for your argument on air support, neither would the Soviets have any air support, probably even less than the Germans, as the Germans would be able to use some planes from the fields they had built, while no fields at all would be available to the Soviets - I would like to see the logistical nightmare of actually building airfields that can house more than just random harrasement's worth of aircraft and keep them supplied!
 
If this thread is contemplating an advance from the Soviet border through Northern Norway, I suppose I should note that there are some geographic differences as you advance.

While the northernmost section, Finnmark, can be quite rough especially at the coast, it is less rough than the terrain you encounter futher south. The inland bit goes into a fairly level vidde. Forested, similar to a taiga, nearly roadless, but flattish. Lots of rivers, but small ones mostly.

The period of total darkness starts in late November in the middle of Troms. The futher south you go, the later it starts. At the arctic circle, some distance down Northern Norway, it stops.

Of course, winter days will still be extremly short.

The inland bit of Finnmark:

utsikt_over_finnmark.jpg
 
Once you get futher south, into Troms, the landscape gets far more rough. It is basically a mountain range filled halfway up with water.

It is also worth noting that the winter temperature diffences between the coast and the inland can be extreme, due to the gulf stream. Winter temperatures at the coast rarely drops below -10 C most places. Plus wind chill, sometimes considerable. The sea does not freeze here.

Inland can pass -50, and -40 is common. The bottoms of fjords should be considered inland for this, and will freeze.

Norland, the next district down southwards is, to my knowledge, similar to Troms geographically, but far more narrow. It would be possible to bypass it and move through Sweden. The Swedes would probably have something to say on the subject though.

Troms landscape:

760447613_171156e422.jpg
 
You have the 20. Gebirgsarmee outside Murmansk - you need to get through it to attack Norway.

Well, historically during Petsamo-Kirkenes -operation Soviet forces did just that against German forces which had been fortifying their positions for three yeas. The operation included numerous amphibious landings, outflanking movements through wilderness etc.

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/gebhardt/gebhardt.asp

The said forces of 20. Gebirgsarmee WAS equipped and trained better than the average German division of 1944, since they had not been through the same meatgrinder. And how do you get it to be a daylight battle in the forests of northern Finland (which the Soviets must go through in order to get to Norway) and then when the permanent night falls in autumn, this IS north of the arctic cirkle, you know.

Well, I contemplated an early Summer operation, as I wrote. In addition to period of no night during Winter there's also summer without night. Additionally, one must take into account that Germans were not experts in Arctic or wilderness warfare, taking third position after Finns and Soviets.

Sweden would never allow Soviet supplies on Swedish railways. Western allied, perhaps, especially if they were for the Norweigan Police troops, but Soviets? Never. No amount of pressure save a real invasion threat could force that - and neither the Soviets nor the Western Allies had the resources to invade Sweden at the time without seriously delaying their efforts elsewhere. Supplies on Swedish railroads is ASBish.

Why would Sweden not allow Soviet forces to be supplied? What would be the option? Siding with Germany? Sweden would not be ready to sacrifice post-war status on definitely minor gains.

But even if you get supplies through Sweden to Narvik (which I repeat is COMPLETELY ASB), you have to advance 900km:s through winter north of the arctic cirkle in a basically roadless mountain country against one of the least worn-down German armies before you even GET to Narvik - how will you supply those 100-150 000 Soviet troops before you get to Narvik?

Historically Soviets advanced some 150km's in ten days in October, so larger advances in summertime are not unfeasible at all. Especially if even a minor augmentation by Western Allies would be made. The troubles would start after Narvik, but there the narrow front, in addition of being narrow to defend, is also extremely easy to outflank and impossible to supply without local naval superiority, which Soviets would be able to gain. The real problems would start only if Soviets tried to drive south of Trondheim where Germans had much more forces.

All Soviet landings were basically ad-hoc affairs that were basically the same as crossing a wide river. They never had the capacity to do a naval landing far away from their bases.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/ACB.htm

Besides, Northern Norway provides a nice littoral for various operations.

As for your argument on air support, neither would the Soviets have any air support, probably even less than the Germans, as the Germans would be able to use some planes from the fields they had built, while no fields at all would be available to the Soviets - I would like to see the logistical nightmare of actually building airfields that can house more than just random harrasement's worth of aircraft and keep them supplied!

Umm, the airfields of Murmansk area would be more than enough to support the offensive in the initial phase. Soviet offensive in October was supported by a few hundred planes, for starters. After advances historically Soviets captured Petsamo and Kirkenes for further advanced basing. After that, there's Tromso, Bardufoss etc. You see, Germans were nice in building airfields in the area. Until those fields were captured the air units from Murmansk region could be used.
 
I don't think the western allies were too keen on a Soviet presence in the Atlantic. But even with their full support, Sweden would never allow Soviet supplies on Swedish railways. The government included all parties except the communists, and even the dominant social democrats were staunch anti-communists. While the Soviet Ambassador in Stockholm, Madame Kollontaj, and the Foreign Minister, Christian Günther had a growing friendship that allowed many tense situations to be defused (such as the Soviet bombing of Stockholm in February 1944), the Swedish position towards the Soviets was VERY clear - the further away, the better. Sweden would NEVER support their arch-enemy in advancing over Scandinavia, regardless if they were trying to throw out the Germans.

It is completely ASB-ish. There is no incentives the Soviets or the western allies (whom I doubt would use all the pressure they can to get the Soviets supplies to advance in Norway) can provide that is heavy enough for the Swedes to allow it.
 
It is far more likely that if the Soviets attempted to move futher into Norway there would be pressure on the Allied command by Churchill to stage an allied landing in Norway.
I believe that the terrain would however allow the Germans to inflict very heavy loses on the Soviets and probably bottle them up.
 
Why would Sweden not allow Soviet forces to be supplied? What would be the option? Siding with Germany? Sweden would not be ready to sacrifice post-war status on definitely minor gains.

A Soviet-controlled Norway would be a major problem for Sweden post war. Sweden would have a land border against the Soviet block, and look how long it is. It would allow reduce the logistical nightmare every assult on Sweden would be (instead of driving a tank down from the Finnish border to Stockholm, drive it from Oslo.)
 
Top