WWII Best location for an Allied invasion of Norway

[raharris1973]

kirkenes

the safest starting point is to invade beginning with kirkenes, on Norway's eastern border. approaching from land. not amphibiously. Of course this means staging from Petsamo, Finland. which in turn must be staged from murmansk and polyarny on the ussr's Kola Oblast. your air support will initially stage from the same place as your ground forces, Soviet territory. Depending how things develop it could end up with an exploitation into Finland as well as Norway. The Soviets would be more accepting of a campaign the earlier it is. if it is before stalingrad is resolved it will be hard for the soviets to refuse. after kursk, much easier to refuse. stalin did ask for allied troops on his front during the 1942 german case blue offensive.

 

[muskeg13]

Initial attack: Steinkjer by airborne assault because I have friends there. Also it's the perfect spot to cut E-6 and the rail line so reinforcements can't be brought down from the north. Form a blocking position to assist in the main attack at Trondheim. A smaller force will feint to the south to probe, engage and divert the Trondheim defenders.

Main attack: Take Trondheim by air and sea, and then push east to cut the country in half and eventually retake Oslo, or push south to take Bergen and Stavanger before Oslo.

There would also be a supporting sea landing at Ålesund to secure a second port for offloading motorized and armored equipment and forces. Possibly, the Germans would not be expecting an attack here, and be more focused on Bergen and Stavanger. If Trondheim becomes too hot, Ålesund becomes the main effort.

There would have to be good air interdiction to block reinforcements on the few east-west routes through the mountains, as well as to prevent the Bergen and Stavanger garrisons from moving forces north before the Ålesund and Trondheim beachheads are firmly established.

 

[raharris1973]

Norway was a mistake for the Germans from the beginning

I would argue, as others have, that Norway became a worse and worse drag on the Germans as the war went on. I would also argue it was strategically illogical for Germany from the beginning to invade.

The thing is if the objective was to secure winter ore supplies, there was no need to act in the springtime.

Also, the western campaign was already planned, and it resulted in the capture of the Lorraine iron ore fields, rendering Swedish ore much less important.

Now it can be argued that Germany did not conceive its victory over France would be so rapid, that the 1940 offensive was meant to seize key terrain, and that German planning allowed for a war on France that might continue for many months or even into 1941.

However, I would counter argue that in any scenario where Germany fails to conquer Lorraine (which is so close to the German border) in 1940 is a scenario where Germany is doing very badly indeed.

If Germany failed to gain Lorraine by winter in theory occupation of Norway would secure winter ore, but in such circumstances Germany would need all the air and ground forces it could get to fill gaps on the western front by the winter and into 1941. Having forces strung out along the length of Norway would have been an unaffordable luxury in that case, with a high chance that the Allies could counterinvade Narvik and negate the ore shipping route anyway, rendering the whole effort a waste for Germany. Thoughts?