WI Invasion of Norway fails alternate WW2

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.

Does not look like much difference in distances, if this measurement from Google Earth is accurate. It shows 825 km Oslo to Berlin & 865 from East Anglia to Berlin. I would see a advantage in spreading the defense a little broader.

Ranges Norway copy.jpg
 
I think the Allies holding on to Narvik is possible.

How? Battle of france is over. Germany would be delighted to have a front where it has all the supply advantages and its numerical superiority can be readily exploited. The estimate was that the allies would need something on the order of 250000 troops to have a credible hold on the region. Germany would have air superiority and a largely free hand to move supplies up the coast and supplying the allies would risk ships the RN simply could not spare at the time.

With the battle of France it's a sideshow. Without it it becomes a major focus point where a relatively quick German victory can be seized with relatively modest means.

Germans may end up losing significantly less air assets if the allies decide to stay as a continued war in norway would be a far less risky affair compared to BoB.
 
Last edited:
Does not look like much difference in distances, if this measurement from Google Earth is accurate. It shows 825 km Oslo to Berlin & 865 from East Anglia to Berlin. I would see a advantage in spreading the defense a little broader.

Personally I think the advantage lies in adding another bomber vector. Adding more approaches works firmly in the bombers favour as prediction and interception planning suddenly become a lot more complicated.

In addition Denmark suddenly becomes another invasion very viable invasion target on the same level as normandy. Great point to add another front and much closer to germany.
 

Driftless

Donor
How? Battle of france is over. Germany would be delighted to have a front where it has all the supply advantages and its numerical superiority can be readily exploited. The estimate was that the allies would need something on the order of 250000 troops to have a credible hold on the region. Germany would have air superiority and a largely free hand to move supplies up the coast and supplying the allies would risk ships the RN simply could not spare at the time.

With the battle of France it's a sideshow. Without it it becomes a major focus point where a relatively quick German victory can be seized with relatively modest means.

Germans may end up losing significantly less air assets if the allies decide to stay as a continued war in norway would be a far less risky affair compared to BoB.

For the OP conditions to work, the German timeline has to be slowed down by greater losses during the invasion - pick your poison: more ships sunk or damaged, the airborne forces aren't as successful, earlier Norse mobilization (which would also bring the Norwegian 6th Division to Narvik earlier). As it was, the French and Norwegians drove the Germans mountain troops out of Narvik about at the start of the Battle of France. Historically, pretty much everything broke the Germans way. Any upset to the timetable and Narvik likely is retaken earlier, which allows for a defensible line somewhere between Narvik and Bodo.

As you note, once the Battle for France is over, Norway is a sideshow - for the Germans as well.... Their focus would be on Britain. Historically, they waited till mid September to call off the invasion plans - not the best time to start a campaign in northern Norway. The Kriegsmarine is shot up, the airborne forces have also taken damage (Norway, and Holland/Belgium). They may re-group and try again to finish the job in the spring of 1941, but then other strategic goals come into play.
 
Personally I think the advantage lies in adding another bomber vector. Adding more approaches works firmly in the bombers favour as prediction and interception planning suddenly become a lot more complicated.

Thats what I meant by "spreading the defense". I suspect the weather in that direction will be more uncooperative for days of flying weather. The RAF will have to learn some new tricks to keep up operational tempo in the winter.

In addition Denmark suddenly becomes another invasion very viable invasion target on the same level as normandy. Great point to add another front and much closer to germany.

I'm not optimistic about the reality in that. Theres some difficulties in invading Jutland. BUT, as I keep repeating, Hitler & co were not making their decisions based on reality but on some muddled thinking further befuddled by the Allied deception operations. When the Eastern Task Force convoys departed the UK for Operation TORCH in late October 1942 British deception ops had the entire field force in France and Belgium rushing off to their positions for repelling a invasion. Given the success of the Soviets and British in this its not difficult to see the field forces in Denmark increased from a single infantry division to a full blown army, along with Todt Organization labor teams pouring concrete from Skagen to Cuxhaven.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
In addition Denmark suddenly becomes another invasion very viable invasion target on the same level as normandy. Great point to add another front and much closer to germany.

Not on the same level as Normandy! Norway does not have the port capacity available to base a major amphibious landing. You would have to attack from the North Sea, long approaches under air attack through shifting sand and mud bars, or through the constricted waters and mines of the Skaggerak and/or Kattegut under air and S-boat attack, while praying the Germans were asleep in their beds. Unless Sweden is in the war, no Allied troop transport is going anywhere near Denmark. Even then, it would be a last option.

As I said before, you annoy the Germans from Norway.

Sorry for the rant.:(
 
Does not look like much difference in distances, if this measurement from Google Earth is accurate. It shows 825 km Oslo to Berlin & 865 from East Anglia to Berlin. I would see a advantage in spreading the defense a little broader.

View attachment 382253
Excellent map. Although I'm surprised and disappointed that it destroys my argument.

I thought that bases in southern Norway would make it easier to provide fighter cover over northern Germany, but it won't.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
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.
I've seen Norwegian posters point to a place called Mo I Rana - on the Arctic Circle - as the best place to "hold the line".
I gather that there are places where the distance between the Swedish border and the sea (head of a fyord) is counted in kilometers. As in "tens of" kilometers. Across roadless mountains.
Northern Norway IS an island.
IMO it can be held by a weak corps.
karte-1-863.gif
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Excellent map. Although I'm surprised and disappointed that it destroys my argument.

I thought that bases in southern Norway would make it easier to provide fighter cover over northern Germany, but it won't.

Ignore Oslo to Berlin. Check the distance from Sola/Stavanger, Rogaland on the map, to Kiel, Hamburg, and Rostock. Germany must thin out her air defenses to cover this approach. When was Farsund airfield built? Wouldn't take long to get fighter cover to Kiel. I see the Luftwaffe built it starting in 1941. The RAF would start before then, if they held the area.
 
Last edited:
Ignore Oslo to Berlin. Check the distance from Sola/Stavanger, Rogaland on the map, to Kiel, Hamburg, and Rostock. Germany must thin out her air defenses to cover this approach. When was Farsund airfield built? Wouldn't take long to get fighter cover to Kiel. I see the Luftwaffe built it starting in 1941. The RAF would start before then, if they held the area.

The Kristiansand airport in almost the southernmost tip of Norway was completed in the summer of 1939. It would be quite useful if the Allies control Norway. Other southern Norwegian airfields in operation at the time include at least Oslo-Fornebu, Oslo-Gardermoen and Stavanger.
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
Do you mean Farsund? If so, it was only built as a military airport by the Germans IOTL.

Anyway, the Kristiansand airport in the southernmost tip of Norway was completed in the summer of 1939. It would be quite useful if the Allies control Norway. Other southern Norwegian airfields in operation at the time include at least Oslo-Fornebu, Oslo-Gardermoen and Stavanger.

Yes, I changed it to Farsund. Kristiansand is good also. We could see a Battle of Norway and Britain, rather than OTL BOB. Fighters could escort bombers across Denmark by 1941. Kiel would be under regular bombardment.
 
Yes, I changed it to Farsund. Kristiansand is good also. We could see a Battle of Norway and Britain, rather than OTL BOB. Fighters could escort bombers across Denmark by 1941. Kiel would be under regular bombardment.
It seems to be that the distance from Aalborg to Kristiansand is about 100 miles and the distance from Aalborg to Oslo is about 200 miles. It's about 100 miles from Calais to London.

Therefore I think if there had been an air Battle of Norway in parallel to the OTL Battle of Britain I think the Norwegians would be in a strong defensive position provided the RAF can set up a network of radar stations and their associated control & reporting system in time.

The Luftwaffe would be deploying the OTL Luftflotte 5 from Denmark. The Norweigans would be deploying the Curtiss Hawks ordered IOTL with replacements taken from the contracts placed by the French and taken over by the British. I think that apart from setting up the radar stations and the C&R network needed to make them effective the RAF contribution would be limited to the pair of fighter squadrons that went down with the Glorious IOTL. I think they would have the upper hand until the Luftwaffe fitted drop tanks to its Bf109s.

I also think it very likely that there would be a night blitz on Norway to parallel the blitz on Britain. In common with the OTL Blitz the defences won't become effective until the last 6 weeks (i.e. April and the first half of May 1941). That's going to be bad for the Norwegians but it probably means lighter air raids on Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
It seems to be that the distance from Aalborg to Kristiansand is about 100 miles and the distance from Kristiansand to Aalborg is about 200 miles. It's about 100 miles from Calais to London.

Uh, did you mean Stavanger and/or Oslo? or did you mean Aarhus?

Yes, the French Hawk 75's are better deployed here, with French, Polish and Czech pilots, than wasting away in East Africa. The Norwegians can buy Swedish 12.7 mm FN-BMG's to increase their armament. Plus, the Hawks have the range to escort bombers nearly to Copenhagen. with drop tanks, they may get to Hamburg and Bremen.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I also think it very likely that there would be a night blitz on Norway to parallel the blitz on Britain. In common with the OTL Blitz the defences won't become effective until the last 6 weeks (i.e. April and the first half of May 1941). That's going to be bad for the Norwegians but it probably means lighter air raids on Scotland, the North of England and Northern Ireland.
Would the Luftwaffe have the resources for that?
Would planes be wasted on a sideshow whilst they could be used against the one and only opponent that matters?
 
Would the Luftwaffe have the resources for that?
Would planes be wasted on a sideshow whilst they could be used against the one and only opponent that matters?
This is Hitler that we're writing about.

Might he want to flatten Oslo as revenge for his first defeat of the war. Might he also think that if he destroys Oslo he can break the will of the Norwegian people in the same way which IIRC he thought the will of the British people would be broken if he destroyed London.

Yes it would be a diversion of resources. OTOH in terms of population Norway is a much smaller country than the UK with fewer towns and cities which are also smaller. IIRC the total population of Norway was about half the population of London. So it might require the diversion of a relatively small number of bombers to achieve a significant result.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
This is Hitler that we're writing about.
Might he want to flatten Oslo as revenge for his first defeat of the war. Might he also think that if he destroys Oslo he can break the will of the Norwegian people in the same way which IIRC he thought the will of the British people would be broken if he destroyed London.
Oh, I misunderstood then - I was thinking about Narvik and north only, not the whole of Norway holding out.
 
The Allies would base aircraft in Norway making the Baltic a very dangerous place for U-Boats.
The Luffwaffa was over extended in OTL opening up a new front would only make matters worse.
The threat of an invasion of Denmark would tie down a lot of German units and extending the Atlantic wall to Denmark would seriously degrade the defences in France.
If the Allies do get ashore in Denmark Germany is screwed.
Another effect without Norway, where will the Germans hide their major surface units?
 
Last edited:

SwampTiger

Banned
I wonder if Norway can get some of the 140 Curtiss H-81A's/Tomahawk I's from the French order.Neither they or the H-75's were high altitude interceptors, but they are better than Gladiators.
 
Top