WI Invasion of Norway fails alternate WW2

How would this effect the Manhattan Project and Tube Alloys? Would Britain still fold it's program into the American one and if they don't cooperate is the bomb still ready to drop on Japan before an invasion is launched?
 
Even if holding southern Norway is not possible/practical I still think Narvik can be held which still leads to all sorts of interesting scenarios.

Disagree, Once France falls the British have no choice but to pull out of northern Norway, it just simply isn't worth it compared to the assets required to hold onto it. The German presence in Norway have to either be gone or at such a level where an actual victory is within reach.
 
Has anybody mentioned the possible effects that bases in the south of Norway might have on the strategic bombing campaign yet?

My guess is that it would be less wear and tear on the bombers and their crews due to reducing the distances to the targets. It would also allow the escorting fighters to fly further into Germany, which might be more important.
 
Disagree, Once France falls the British have no choice but to pull out of northern Norway, it just simply isn't worth it compared to the assets required to hold onto it. The German presence in Norway have to either be gone or at such a level where an actual victory is within reach.
I agree. IMHO it was effectively Game Over after the Germans captured Oslo because that allowed them to build up overwhelming air and land power. The previous sentence makes me think that the OTL landings at Narvik and possibly Trondheim were unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Are there any advantages to the Germans of the invasion failing completely?

The supply of iron ore from Sweden via Narvik looses much of its importance after the Fall of France because the Germans have captured the iron ore fields in France and Luxembourg.

In 1942 IOTL the Luftwaffe had to split its anti-shipping squadrons between attacking the Arctic and Malta convoys. But there is an OTOH which is the British would probably be in a position to give the Malta convoys stronger escorts.

According to the Niehorster website the Germans had 12 divisions in Norway on 22nd June 1941 plus supporting units. This included 4 divisions fighting with the Finns. They aren't going to be sent to the front in the early stages of Barbarossa due to the logistical problems. However, would they have been useful in the rear areas fighting the partisans or provide a useful strategic reserve when the Soviet counteroffensive came?

Hitler's OTL fear that the Allies would invade Norway led to the Germans deploying a much bigger garrison than was necessary. IIRC it had grown to 300,000 men by June 1944 including a lot of coast artillery. If the men and guns had been in France instead of Norway they are likely to have made the Normandy landings a lot more difficult.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The importance of the Narvik ore route for Germany is overstated, IMO.
A free Norway limits interference with Murmansk/Archangielsk convoys to submarines. And such convoys can travel closer to the coast. A significant gain.
The UK can buy Swedish ore instead of bringing it from across the ocean. I remember that in WWI convoys from Norway brought in highly needed pitprops. Are pitprops still needed in WWII?
 
The importance of the Narvik ore route for Germany is overstated, IMO.
A free Norway limits interference with Murmansk/Archangielsk convoys to submarines. And such convoys can travel closer to the coast. A significant gain.
The UK can buy Swedish ore instead of bringing it from across the ocean. I remember that in WWI convoys from Norway brought in highly needed pitprops. Are pitprops still needed in WWII?
I agree with all 3 points.

IIRC 12% of all the merchant ships in the Arctic Convoys were sunk and the threat from German warships was considered so great that convoys were suspended for long periods. Furthermore they required strong escorts which also suffered significant losses, which included the cruisers Edinburgh and Trinidad.

It was written in another thread that IOTL the British decided that it was a better use of scare shipping to import finished steel than import iron ore. As a result the British steel industry was run below capacity for most of the war. I don't remember from when, but I have a strong suspicion that it was after the invasion of Norway. If that's correct the British would be able to make more steel.

Pit props were still needed in WWII and because the British coal mining industry was huge they were needed a lot. However, I don't know how significant being able to obtain them from Norway ITTL will be in the scheme of things.
 
I keep thinking if the Norwegians had issued a partial mobilization and a war warning, neither German nor Allied landings would be as easy as OTL. Something as easy as unpacking, assembling and staffing the crated Hawk 75's and stationing a battalion of solders at Sola/Stavanger airfield would have unhinged the German attack.
It's well before the POD, but here goes.

In the RAF threads I start, but never finish the plan was for the following:
  1. The first contract for 310 Spitfires from Supermarine to be completed by 31st March 1939 instead of September 1939 so that more had been delivered by the outbreak of WWII.
  2. The first contract for 600 Hurricanes from Hawker to be completed by 31st March 1939 instead of October 1939 so that more had been delivered from this source by the outbreak of WWII.
  3. The Hawker Henley was actually built by Gloster. IOTL they built 200 which were delivered between November 1938 and September 1940. 122 were on charge with the RAF in September 1939. However, most of the reference books say that 350 were ordered and I have an Air Ministry document saying that 400 were on requisition on 12th October 1936. In my timelines the Air Ministry orders 400 Hurricanes from Gloster. 244 aircraft from this order would be on charge with the RAF in September 1939.
  4. The same Air Ministry document says that 389 Hawker Hotspur turret fighters were on requisition from Avro on 12th October 1936. These were to be delivered by 31st March 1939 and equip 7 squadrons in Fighter Command. This was cancelled an replaced by orders for the Boulton Paul Defiant which hadn't entered service by September 1939. In my timeline 389 Hurricanes were on order from Avro in October 1936. The order was transferred to Boulton Paul later and because the Hurricane was about a year ahead of the Defiant in development Boulton Paul had been able to deliver all 389 by September 1939.
  5. 746 Gloster Gladiators were built for the RAF, FAA and export IOTL.
  6. The first RAF Gladiator squadron was formed in February 1937 only 10 months before the first Hurricane squadron and only 3 months before the first Battle squadron. I mention the Fairey Battle because it was the first Merlin powered aircraft to go into service.
  7. The first 225 Gladiators ordered for the RAF were ordered in July 1935 (23 to Contract 419392/35) and September 1935 (202 to Contract 442476/35) but 22 aircraft in the second contract were either cancelled or more likely were the 22 supplied to Belgium, which reduced the total to 203. These were delivered to the RAF between February 1937 and January 1938 (or February 1938 depending on the source).
  8. The next order for 78 Gladiators (to Contract 704393/37) wasn't placed until sometime in 1936. (I don't know the exact date but going by the contract number it is likely to have been between 1st April 1936 and 31st March 1937). The first 28 were delivered in September 1938, which is only 2 months before the first Gloster built Henley. The last 50 were delivered between December 1938 and February 1939. Of the 78 aircraft built 40 went to the RAF proper and 38 were completed as Sea Gladiators for the FAA.
  9. The final order for 300 Gladiators (to Contract 952950/38) was probably placed sometime in 1938. (I don't know the exact date but going by the contract number it is likely to have been between 1st April 1938 and 31st March 1939.) 21 were used to fill export contracts (6 to Norway and 15 to Portugal), which left 279 to be delivered to the RAF (219) and FAA (60). Deliveries were between March 1939 and April 1940.
  10. Of the 603 Gladiators ordered to Air Ministry contracts only 560 were actually delivered to the RAF and FAA because 43 were used to fill export contracts (22 Belgium, 6 Norway and 15 Portugal). A grand total 186 of "first hand" Gladiators were exported, which brought the total number of Gladiators built to 746 plus the prototype. The export contracts include 12 aircraft built for Norway, which included 6 diverted from RAF contracts.
  11. A Cabinet Paper that I downloaded from the National Archives, which is dated 17th May 1935. It says that the first flights of the prototype Hurricane and Spitfire were expected in July and October 1935 respectively. IOTL they were actually November 1935 and March 1936. In my timelines the Hurricane and Spitfire prototypes meet their projected first flight dates.
  12. In my timeline Gloster builds another 746 Hurricanes for the RAF, FAA and export instead of the 746 Gladiators of OTL. The first contract for 23 aircraft and possibly the second contract for 202 aircraft are still placed. However, the earlier first flight of the Hurricane leads the Air Ministry to cancel all its Gladiator orders and replaces them with orders for Hurricanes to be built by Gloster.
  13. OTL Gloster built 2,750 Hurricanes. ITTL the 1,146 aircraft built instead of the Gladiator and Henley increase the total to 3,896 aircraft.
  14. ITTL the Westland Lysander is still built to Specification A.39/34. However, the RAF's army co-operation doctrine changes between 1934 and the placing of the first production contract in 1936. Instead of replacing the modified light bombers used for army co-operation with the Lysander it decides to replace them with Westland built Hurricanes modified for ground attack and use a modified commercial light aircraft for the AOP role.
The upshot of all that is that Norway buys 12 Hurricanes instead of the 12 Gladiators that it bought IOTL and all other things being equal 7 were ready to defend Oslo when the Luftwaffe appeared overhead.

I haven't checked by sources, so the next part will have to be an IIRC. Norway placed an initial order for 36 Curtis Hawks, which depending on the source was brought up to 60 or 84 by subsequent orders.

From 1937 ITTL Hawker Siddeley, Boulton Paul and Westland are building Hurricanes like there's no tomorrow. The RAF Fighter Command and the fighter squadrons overseas receive the quotas of Hurricanes they require under Expansion Scheme F by March 1939 so that there are plenty of aircraft available for export. As a result the Norwegians buy 84 Hurricanes diverted from Air Ministry contracts instead of the 60-84 Hawks of OTL. They do so because of commonality with the 12 Hurricanes that they already have so it makes maintenance and training easier, but mainly because the British can delivery them much earlier than Curtiss can deliver its Hawks.

All 84 aircraft would have been delivered by early April 1940, but not all of them would have been in front-line units. Their presence would not have deterred the Germans from invading ITTL because they were still relying on surprise. However, it is the Germans that would be surprised because instead of 7 Gladiators taking off to defend Oslo it would be a multiple of Hurricanes. I usually say 28 Hurricanes from the first 48 delivered (i.e. 12 instead of the Gladiators and 36 instead of the first 36 Hawks) met the Germans.

OTL the Swedes bought 55 Gladiators which were delivered 1937-38 and in my TL they buy 55 Hurricanes.

OTL the British supplied the Finns with 12 Hurricanes, 30 Gladiators, 25 Gloster Gauntlet biplane fighters and 3 Westland Lysanders (a total of 70 aircraft) from RAF stocks to help them fight the Russians. The Gladiators and Gauntlet's were ex-RAF aircraft. In my TL 70 Hurricanes are sent.
 
Last edited:
...

Hitler's OTL fear that the Allies would invade Norway led to the Germans deploying a much bigger garrison than was necessary. IIRC it had grown to 300,000 men by June 1944 including a lot of coast artillery. If the men and guns had been in France instead of Norway they are likely to have made the Normandy landings a lot more difficult.

If the garrison in Norway was oversized that had more to do with exploiting the fears of the German leaders through the deception operations. That works for Denmark & anywhere else that looks exposed in the map in front of Hitler. A Allied attack on Denmark or Frisia was at the same level of practicality as invading Norway in 1943 or 44. But, the German leaders were convinced otherwise in the case of Norway.
 
If the garrison in Norway was oversized that had more to do with exploiting the fears of the German leaders through the deception operations. That works for Denmark & anywhere else that looks exposed in the map in front of Hitler. A Allied attack on Denmark or Frisia was at the same level of practicality as invading Norway in 1943 or 44. But, the German leaders were convinced otherwise in the case of Norway.
Fair enough.

However, whatever the cause that still doesn't alter the fact that not having to provide a garrison for Norway ITTL will release a large number of German troops for use elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that the elsewhere will be the Jutland peninsular. That is unless they are used to man flak guns to shoot down the allied strategic bombers attacking from bases in southern Norway.
 
Fair enough.

However, whatever the cause that still doesn't alter the fact that not having to provide a garrison for Norway ITTL will release a large number of German troops for use elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that the elsewhere will be the Jutland peninsular. That is unless they are used to man flak guns to shoot down the allied strategic bombers attacking from bases in southern Norway.

It's a fair point that no Norway in German hands releases German forces for duty elsewhere and that is often not considered. However, it also frees up Allied forces. How many naval and air force units were tied down guarding against a breakout by TIRPITZ or one of the other raiders based in Norway? How many convoys to Russia didn't run because of said threat?

Also, Norway in Allied hands probably weight heavily on the mind of Hitler because it creates and exposed northern flank at least on paper. What the Allies can or will do with that I have no idea although I'm sure Winston's active mind will come up with all sorts of interesting ideas that would turn lead to all manner of ATL discussion threads on TTL's version of www.alternatehistory.com.
 
Also, Norway in Allied hands probably weight heavily on the mind of Hitler because it creates and exposed northern flank at least on paper. What the Allies can or will do with that I have no idea although I'm sure Winston's active mind will come up with all sorts of interesting ideas that would turn lead to all manner of ATL discussion threads on TTL's version of www.alternatehistory.com.
Here's one I wrote earlier.
Has anybody mentioned the possible effects that bases in the south of Norway might have on the strategic bombing campaign yet?

My guess is that it would be less wear and tear on the bombers and their crews due to reducing the distances to the targets. It would also allow the escorting fighters to fly further into Germany, which might be more important.
 
I think the Norwegian army would fall back to a choke point in the far north of the country? and possibly push the germans back near the end of the war.
 
It's a fair point that no Norway in German hands releases German forces for duty elsewhere and that is often not considered. However, it also frees up Allied forces. How many naval and air force units were tied down guarding against a breakout by TIRPITZ or one of the other raiders based in Norway? How many convoys to Russia didn't run because of said threat?
I agree with all points.

OTOH earlier in the thread it was suggested that not being able to send the surface fleet into the North Atlantic in the piecemeal fashion of OTL would lead to a larger fleet in being in the Baltic. By mid-1941 this would consist of Bismarck, Tirpitz, The Twins, the 2 surviving panzerschiffen, Hipper and Prinz Eugen. It was suggested that this would have the perverse effect of actually requiring a stronger Home Fleet to be maintained at Scapa Flow. However, the suggestion assumes that all the Kriegsmarine ships that survived the OTL Norwegian campaign survive ITTL.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
If the Norwegians are able to partially mobilize, they should be able to hold some of the captured ports. With early British and French help, the combined force may be able to contain the Germans to one of the southern port. Allied air and sea power will make a continuing reinforcement operation very expensive and bloody for the Germans. The British may stay in Norway after the French return home.

An Allied Norwegian base is a very real threat to Germany. It would provide access to the Baltic for British, Norwegian and Free Danish and Free Polish small combatants and subs. The Germans would see a constant threat of landings on the Frisian and Jutish coasts. You can be sure the RN and the new SAS/SBS forces will remind them regularly.
 
...
I'm not convinced that the elsewhere will be the Jutland peninsular. That is unless they are used to man flak guns to shoot down the allied strategic bombers attacking from bases in southern Norway.

Like I wrote much of the garrison in Norway was in response to a expectation of a invasion there. Recommend reading up of Op FORTITUDE NORTH & hw it functioned. That is the Allies created a decision for building up the garrison through deception operations. They did the same along the Bay of Biscay, in the Pas de Calais, at Genoa, through targeted deception ops. Given the success of Allied deception operations I've little doubt the German garrison in that region can be used to increase four or five fold or more.

A very likely benefit lies outside strictly military matters. OTL Sweden took the threat of German attack seriously. While the ability of the Germans to conquer Sweden might be debated one way on the other such a thing would be economically catastrophic for the Swedes, even if they repel a invasion. They'd have to expect air attack and were unsure how well they could deal with that. Once Swedens leaders assured themselves the population and industry was relatively safe from German attack they did cease pretense of neutrality. In simple terms they cut off Germany from anything of benefit. Ball bearings, parts orders from factories, lumber, & that iron ore everyone talks about. The also accelerated the formation and training of Norwegian and Dane military units for operations in those regions.

Allied armies adjacent to Sweden and one or more transportation routes open into Sweden from 1940 changes the situation substantially. Allied forces particularly air forces can intervene to support Swedish defenses, arms can be made available. That is Sweden is far less isolated. Its possible to persuade the Swedish leaders to move away from strict neutrality earlier and more decisively. In this the Allies are aided by Hitlers irrational strategic thinking and his thug diplomatic style. Intimidating the Swedish leaders will be a lot less successful with the Allies at their elbow. Worst case for Germany is Hitler attempts to expand the war into Sweden in 1941 or 1942.
 
I agree with all points.

OTOH earlier in the thread it was suggested that not being able to send the surface fleet into the North Atlantic in the piecemeal fashion of OTL would lead to a larger fleet in being in the Baltic. By mid-1941 this would consist of Bismarck, Tirpitz, The Twins, the 2 surviving panzerschiffen, Hipper and Prinz Eugen. It was suggested that this would have the perverse effect of actually requiring a stronger Home Fleet to be maintained at Scapa Flow. However, the suggestion assumes that all the Kriegsmarine ships that survived the OTL Norwegian campaign survive ITTL.

Excellent point and I will admit one I did not think of although I think some of those ships can be reduced because in all probability the German surface fleet comes off even worse than OTL in a failed Norwegian campaign. The other possibility is that if the Norwegian campaign fails, Hitler goes off the handle and orders the surface fleet mothballed (at least the big ships) with the logic that they just demonstrated what a worthless waste of resources they are.
 
Disagree, Once France falls the British have no choice but to pull out of northern Norway, it just simply isn't worth it compared to the assets required to hold onto it. The German presence in Norway have to either be gone or at such a level where an actual victory is within reach.

I think the Allies holding on to Narvik is possible. Not easy and not without cost, but possible. Maybe I am wrong but I am getting Norwegian ground lines of communication that far north were pretty primitive and that Narvik was to some extent an island. In that case you could make an argument that Allies can keep their forces supplied by sea and stay and dug in and make very difficult and not worthwhile to dislodge them. Again, doing this could be costly, maybe not worth it but I could see this being something like the Malta campaign.

On the other side of the world we've had similar threads about the Japanese making a grab for Darwin and while perhaps something of a dead end, its isolated position makes dislodging them a real headache for the Allies.
 
Top