Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Norway

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Norway Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Norway - 4/24/2008 12:15:51 PM   
Manic Inertia

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		It's been a couple of years since I last put a msg on this forum, but I've been playing WiF almost continously, and can't wait to see this game on computer: no more angst about their being insufficient players (woo-hoo!).

Many of the threads that existed back in '06 have gone now, so I assume that means the game's moved onto more pressing matters than agonising about whether the counter mix or game rules should be reviewed, but even so, I'd appreciate the thoughts of fellow WiFFE'ers on the following;

The Germans were able to seize Norway very easily, mostly because the Norwegians were hamstrung by Quislings machinations and because Norway simply didn't mobilize its 6 divisions in time. In WiFFE, however, there's a huge and somewhat a-historical challenge to successfully conquering Norway, and so in our games Operation Weserübung is never attempted. So;

Q: doesn't MWiF present an opportunity to rectify this in some way? Maybe a later date for the Norwegian MTN unit?

I'm led to understand that Narvik was crucial for the exportation of Swedish iron ore, which had to be railed out west to Narvik and then shipped down the western scandinavian coast, when the Baltic was frozen over. So;

Q: If there had been a rail link from the swedish iron ore fields to the south of Sweden, why was Narvik used for that purpose, even in the teeth of the Royal Navy?

That said, when the Baltic is frozen in WiFFE games, it'd be impossibly dangerous to have german CONV sitting in the North Sea every impulse: they'd constantly get scrumped So;

Q: does there need to be a mechanism whereby CONV shipping resources down the fiords use some 'special rule' that allows them to occupy norwegian coastal hexes perhaps?
Post #: 1
RE: Norway - 4/24/2008 3:04:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Germans didn't "seize Norway very easily". That's just rubbish. They came within a hair of losing everything at Narvik, for example, and suffered very heavy casualties overall.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Manic Inertia)
Post #: 2
RE: Norway - 4/24/2008 6:31:28 PM   
sajbalk


Posts: 264
Joined: 7/11/2005
From: Davenport, Iowa
Status: offline 		Q: doesn't MWiF present an opportunity to rectify this in some way? Maybe a later date for the Norwegian MTN unit?

You'll find no difference in this version from WiFFE, the paper version.

Q: If there had been a rail link from the swedish iron ore fields to the south of Sweden, why was Narvik used for that purpose, even in the teeth of the Royal Navy?

It was a lot easier to ship the ore to the coast, on to ships, and to the destination. Until the war began, this made the most economic sense. That said, Sweden did develop its rail net later in the war so that Narvik was no longer as needed for exports.


Q: does there need to be a mechanism whereby CONV shipping resources down the fiords use some 'special rule' that allows them to occupy norwegian coastal hexes perhaps?

Withot the special Narvik rule, the Germans would have little incentive for invading Norway, so a deviation from regular resource shipping is used. The Germans normally convey the Swed or through the Baltic Sea. If the Sea Zones were arranged differently, it would make for a more historical invasion of Norway and better incentives for both sides to invade. However, the sea zones are where they are and I think the whole situation is a fair compromise in game design.



_____________________________

Steve Balk
Iowa, USA

(in reply to Manic Inertia)
Post #: 3
RE: Norway - 4/24/2008 6:32:04 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		The Germans get the Swedish ore in the winter (that is, when the weather in the North Temperate during the production step of a turn is snow or blizzard) as long as Narvik is not Allied controlled with convoys still in the Baltic.

ADG tried to give Germany an incentive to invade Norway with a decent MECH SS volunteer unit in Oslo, but it has not been enough.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: Norway - 4/24/2008 8:17:35 PM   
Mitchellvitch

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/29/2008
Status: offline 		We saw the German invasion in one of our last games. They didn't take excessive casualties, and lots of fun was had by all, but it didn't lead to much strategically for a hard-pressed Germany. Perhaps if the Allies run a convoy to Russia it makes a difference?

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 5
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 12:22:59 AM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I don´t get why up to 9 resorces a year isn´t a big deal. With high pm later in the war that´s alot of BPs?


(in reply to Mitchellvitch)
Post #: 6
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 1:32:53 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I don´t get why up to 9 resorces a year isn´t a big deal. With high pm later in the war that´s alot of BPs?



Germany only loses the Swedish Resource Points if Norway is controlled by the Allies. It is unattractive to the CW to attack Norway early in the war for a lot of reasons. So Germany can have the Swedish resources without the hassle of invading Norway. The primary gain for Germany in taking out Norway is the single Norwegian resource point. But the downside is that the CW gets a lot of naval units for free.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 7
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 10:26:23 AM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline 		In our WiF-group the german player never invades Norway. It's simply not worth it, CW gains too many transports and CPs to make it worthwhile. The only gain, as I see it, is that it if Norway is GE-occupied, the allies have a harder time gaining access to the Baltic Sea later in the game (assuming that Denmark is GE-occupied of course).

Making an invasion of Norway more worthwhile for the german is one of my most desired improvements of WiF

< Message edited by oscar72se -- 4/25/2008 10:27:57 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 8
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 1:02:08 PM   
Peter Stauffenberg


Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline 		The Germans attacked Norway to prevent Britain from getting access to Narvik and blockade the iron ore route. The Allies had plans to invade Norway for this reason, but also because they wanted to send troops via Norway to help Finland against Russia. The Allied units were prepared to go to Finland via Norway, but the plans were cancelled because Finland sued for peace in March 1940, thus ending the Winter War.

The German plans to invade Norway started as early as October 1939, but the final decision for the go ahead with Weserübung came after the Altmark affair 16th to 17th February 1940 where the British Navy raided a German supply ship and liberated 300 British prisoners. Germany knew then that Norway was incapable of defending its territory and felt it was necessary to occupy Norway before Britain decided to do it.  Another key benefit for the Germans would be to get excellent submarine bases in Norway and better air cover in the Norwegian Sea and North Sea.

If this should be interpreted into WIF it means that the British should have an incentive to help the Finns against Russia and a chance to blockade the iron ore from Kiruna / Gällivare to Germany via Narvik.  The German incentive to capture Norway before Britain should be to secure the iron ore route and obtaining excellent air and submarine bases.

I think the iron ore route part is already implemented in WIF, but does it help Germany a lot to get the air and naval bases in Norway?  Does it inflict more losses upon Allied convoys or can the Allies simply re-route their convoys?

I think the German incentive to occupy Norway will be higher if the British had a higher incentive to occupy Norway. Are there any rules about Britain helping Finland?  E. g. some positive US entry shifts?  I think this could be the way to "force" Germany to invade Norway.


(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 9
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 6:07:36 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Having Norway as a sub base is good if the British are running a convoy line along the Murmansk Run. Not really otherwise. It's also no better than the Low Countries or western France as an airbase to strike at England or the Faroes' Gap.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)
Post #: 10
RE: Norway - 4/25/2008 9:15:01 PM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Mayby the rule should be; Germany only get the Swedish ore if Narvik is Axis controlled (because of the CW mine fields along the coast that would prevent any shipment to Germany).

Then Germany has a bigger reason to take Norway.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 11
RE: Norway - 4/26/2008 12:04:50 AM   
autarkis1967

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline 		In all our games Germany usually gets Norway soemtimes by conquest sometimes because of allied aggression. We play with Politics in Flames though which has a dramatic affect on the game. If Germany attacks Norway its usually to close the Baltic. This is done instead of taking Denmark so that the US doesn't get the bases to move aircraft through Greenland and Iceland. Well at least not without reprecussions like attacking Denmark or taking the options.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 12
RE: Norway - 4/26/2008 12:19:19 AM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

Mayby the rule should be; Germany only get the Swedish ore if Narvik is Axis controlled (because of the CW mine fields along the coast that would prevent any shipment to Germany).

The simplest solutions are often the best!

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 13
RE: Norway - 4/26/2008 2:06:33 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		one incentive for the Germans to occupy Norway is to keep the CW from doing the same from 43 or even 42 onwards. aside from the special rule, once the British take over Norway, they can quite likely interdict the Swedish resources _every_ turn.

it's very hard for the Germans to get Norway without Allied troops showing up. there is one way to do it quite effectively - with a super-combined O-Chit, Japanese style; then all the shipping is overrun and the Germans might even capture a little bit of it (10%); 30% will sink; and 60% will escape but still face an interception roll by the Kriegsmarine. 15 BPs is a lot to pay for this though, and if the MTN unit sets up in one of the North Sea or Arctic ports the fun is over, but most Allied players won't see the O-Chit coming. I think it can be worthwhile on occasion during an Axis anti-USSR strategy. If you want to attack the UK though, it might make an interesting twist on that campaign for a player who spends a little on the Kriegsmarine and is willing to ship von Leeb to Trondheim to develop a good raiding base with secure supply connections through Oslo and the Baltic.

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 14
RE: Norway - 4/28/2008 2:27:50 AM   
IrishGuards


Posts: 542
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline 		Incentive to takeout Norway ..
Maybe a red factory ... to process the Heavy Water ...
World's largest hydro-electric plant ..
IDG

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 15
RE: Norway - 4/28/2008 11:24:02 AM   
oscar72se

 

Posts: 100
Joined: 8/28/2006
From: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: offline 		IMO, the problem isn't that GE lacks incentives to invade Norway, it is that CW gains far too much... If I recall correctly the CW get one extra TRS, 10 oil tankers and 3 CPs for a total of 23 BPs... IMHO, one extra resource point per turn compared to the CW gain doesn't justify an invasion of Norway unless there are very, very strong strategical considerations.

< Message edited by oscar72se -- 4/28/2008 3:09:17 PM >

(in reply to IrishGuards)
Post #: 16
RE: Norway - 4/28/2008 1:47:46 PM   
Mitchellvitch

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/29/2008
Status: offline 		I guess it would be arguable that the real war decision to invade Norway was perhaps a strategic error insofar as the resources could have been better used elsewhere, and that the game simply establishes the same situation.

(in reply to oscar72se)
Post #: 17
RE: Norway - 5/4/2008 1:19:03 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		The main German reason for attacking Norway was to do so before the Allies could occupy northern Norway. Quisling may have fueled the German fear of an Allied attack on Norway but he had no impact on the fighting in Norway.

It took Germany 2 months to conquer Norway. With Trondheim securely in German hands the situation for the Allies in Narvik was hopeless and a German reoccupation on Narvik was just a question of time due to the strong Luftwaffe presence.

German reported losses 5296 (KIA+WIA+MIA)
CW losses in Norway 1869 (KIA+WIA+MIA)
CW losses at sea about 2500
French and polish about 530
Norweigan about 1700

Before the war Sweden exported 10 million ton a year to germany. After the Norwegian occupation Sweden reduced the amount shipped after pressure from Churchill. Sweden did however improve the quality of the ore shipped to satisfy Germany as well.

According to Oxford compendium to WWII Sweden exported to Germany
1939 - 10.0 million tons iron ore
1940 - 8.4
1941 - 9.2
1942 - 7.9
1943 - 9.6
1944 - 3.4

After the battle of Narvik the port was destroyed and had a limited capacity to ship iron ore. The only other ore shipping ports available was Luleå and Oxelösund (Guaranteed icefree port). During the war Luleå port shipped out 24.2 million tons iron ore. Unfortunately I have no figures for Oxelösund .

The railroad Luleå - Kiruna - Narvik was finished 1902 and it was connected to the main railroad to Stockholm.

The iron ore export to Germany ended in oktober 1944 because Sweden felt that it could now defend itself successfully against a German invasion and could therefore stop the export safely. USA had also put increassing pressure on Sweden to stop the export.


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Mitchellvitch)
Post #: 18
RE: Norway - 5/4/2008 1:53:41 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

The main German reason for attacking Norway was to do so before the Allies could occupy northern Norway. Quisling may have fueled the German fear of an Allied attack on Norway but he had no impact on the fighting in Norway.

It took Germany 2 months to conquer Norway. With Trondheim securely in German hands the situation for the Allies in Narvik was hopeless and a German reoccupation on Narvik was just a question of time due to the strong Luftwaffe presence.

German reported losses 5296 (KIA+WIA+MIA)
CW losses in Norway 1869 (KIA+WIA+MIA)
CW losses at sea about 2500
French and polish about 530
Norweigan about 1700

Before the war Sweden exported 10 million ton a year to germany. After the Norwegian occupation Sweden reduced the amount shipped after pressure from Churchill. Sweden did however improve the quality of the ore shipped to satisfy Germany as well.

According to Oxford compendium to WWII Sweden exported to Germany
1939 - 10.0 million tons iron ore
1940 - 8.4
1941 - 9.2
1942 - 7.9
1943 - 9.6
1944 - 3.4

After the battle of Narvik the port was destroyed and had a limited capacity to ship iron ore. The only other ore shipping ports available was Luleå and Oxelösund (Guaranteed icefree port). During the war Luleå port shipped out 24.2 million tons iron ore. Unfortunately I have no figures for Oxelösund .

The railroad Luleå - Kiruna - Narvik was finished 1902 and it was connected to the main railroad to Stockholm.

The iron ore export to Germany ended in oktober 1944 because Sweden felt that it could now defend itself successfully against a German invasion and could therefore stop the export safely. USA had also put increassing pressure on Sweden to stop the export.


Welcome to the forum. Thank you for your post.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 19
RE: Norway - 5/4/2008 1:37:41 PM   
Manic Inertia

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks for all the information guys. I was especially intrigued by the idea of a german invasion of Norway instead of Denmark, to retard US air units transiting via Greenland/Iceland - I'll have to think about that some more.

On the other hand, I'm less impressed by Orm's assertion that "a german reoccupation of Narvik was just a matter of time due to the strong luftwaffe presence" .. even if this is historically true, how could german land based air units threaten Narvik in WiF? There's nowhere nearby for them to fly from: it's all mountain hexes. Surely a CW corps and FTR sitting in Narvik whilst tracing supply back across the North Sea would be almost impossible for Germany to eject, wouldn't they?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 20
RE: Norway - 5/4/2008 4:45:47 PM   
panzers

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans didn't "seize Norway very easily". That's just rubbish. They came within a hair of losing everything at Narvik, for example, and suffered very heavy casualties overall.

What isn't mentioned here in all this babble is the fact that even though the Bismark and later the tirpitz were on the way, they had taken a heavy toll on a lot of their DD"S and CA's which prompted Hitler to sack Raeder and promote Donitz( a sub adniral) as leader of the German Navy which in agreement to Hitler that the dreams of a large German navy had effectively ended in the battle of Norway, thus the high concentration of the uboat campaign was born.
So, in that way, it was a very heavy toll on the Germans because they wanted a large navy to counter CW. That's also when they scrapped what at the time would have been the most heavilly armed carrier in the war, the Graf Zeppelin.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 21
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 1:40:43 AM   
marcuswatney

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline 		What intrigues me is why the Swedes shipped iron ore by sea through the Gulf of Bothnia when in real-life (as well as in the game) they had a good rail net reaching all the way to the south of the country.  From there it was just a short hop across to Lubeck ... or they could even have continued overland transport through Denmark.

That the Germans were so worried about losing the winter route (Narvik-based coastal shipping) that they invaded the country suggests that the alternative winter route (by rail to the south of Sweden) was not viable.  Yet in the game, resources move by rail freely, while taking them overseas is costly (in the sense of needing convoys) and risky.

Perhaps the game exaggerates the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving resources by rail in the forties?

(in reply to panzers)
Post #: 22
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 2:29:44 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

What intrigues me is why the Swedes shipped iron ore by sea through the Gulf of Bothnia when in real-life (as well as in the game) they had a good rail net reaching all the way to the south of the country.  From there it was just a short hop across to Lubeck ... or they could even have continued overland transport through Denmark.

That the Germans were so worried about losing the winter route (Narvik-based coastal shipping) that they invaded the country suggests that the alternative winter route (by rail to the south of Sweden) was not viable.  Yet in the game, resources move by rail freely, while taking them overseas is costly (in the sense of needing convoys) and risky.

Perhaps the game exaggerates the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving resources by rail in the forties?

Millions of tons by rail requires a lot of ore cars and is very hard on the rail bed. This is especially true if the rail line is also being used by passenger trains. For such a long haul (from northern to southern Sweden), you also have all the empty ore cars going back, putting further demands on the rail transportation system.

I expect that the rail network in WIF is comparable to ports, in that it serves a dual purpose in the game: military and commercial. Unless you start differentiating between single line rail from double, etc., and throw in a lot of other considerations (e.g., grade/slope, weather effects), the rail lines in WIF are going to be an oversimplification of reality.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to marcuswatney)
Post #: 23
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 3:08:13 AM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
Using some rough math, it looks like Sweden supplied appx 50 million tons of ore from 39-44.

Thats alot of ore.

Using the standard WW2 era ore hopper car holding 13-14 tons of ore, thats roughly 1700-1800 cars of ore *per day* for 6 years straight.

Did Sweden even have the capacity to run that much ore on rail networks all the way to south Sweden? The run from the mines to Narvik or Lulea is alot shorter, maximizing the capacity usable and the carloads possible per day. The long run to south Sweden and then offloading to ships there would have tied up the ore cars for a far greater amount of time, since ore trains are very heavy and extremely slooooow.

The sea route was probably the only way to meet the transport needed for such large amounts of tonnage. One ship can carry several hundreds of train cars of ore.



_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 24
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 10:57:30 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		You must also consider the trouble of reloading the ore from the railway carts to the ship.

You need a pier (prefarable 2) with rail that can take the carts all the way out to the ships.

Out on the pier you need some kind equipment to load the ore to the ships. In Luleå they turned the carts so the ore slided into the ships. The 2 piers was 270 meters long and 14 meters high.

You need to adjust the equipment to the different ships.

You need specialized machines for power. In Luleå they used steampower.

A railway depot is also needed.

A storage area for the ore.

During large part of the year the ore froze during the transport so you need some way to thaw it or break it down to small chunks. In Luleå they thawed the ore by taking up to 48 carts into a steam heated warehouse. The thawing lasted 5 to 6 hours.

In Sweden only 2 ports existed that could handle huge amount of ore. Luleå in northern Sweden and Oxelösund in middle. Oxelösund was mainly used for ore from middle Sweden (mostly Bergslagen)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Orm -- 5/5/2008 1:51:21 PM >

(in reply to Norman42)
Post #: 25
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 12:29:42 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Good stuff. Thanks.

I worked for a transportation analysis company a long time ago. My boss was always telling us to work harder, saying: "We've got coal to move!". But that was in Pennsylvania, where there's a lot of coal mines.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 26
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 2:26:20 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline 		In retrospective, based on historical hindsight, the German occupation of Norway may seem a bit strange. Plus, the German attack on Norway was a prominent case of Initiating a War of Aggression during the Nuremberg Trials. Its surviving main actors (esp. Raeder) tended to belittle or falsify their role and to make up misleading arguments (Altmark case, British plans). These lies were perpetuated in the vast amount of German post-war historical memoir writing.

It was foremost the Kriegsmarine (KM), which was interested in the occupation of Norway: KM wanted Norwegian Naval bases for a war against Britain’s maritime commerce. This was discussed the first time in a KM Kriegsspiel in Feb. 1939. Surprisingly, until then the KM just didn’t do any explicit operational planning for a war against Britain. Anyway the Feb 1939 Kriegsspiel was based on Hitler’s statement, that he didn’t need KM war-ready before 1943. KM knew it would need naval bases war against Britain’s maritime commerce, not to repeat being trapped in the Deutsche Bucht like in WW1. But for such bases KM preferred the French Atlantic coast to Norway for obvious strategic reasons. On the other side before the Frankreich Feldzug in 1940 it remained totally unclear, wether the french Atlantic coast could be occupied. Thus, for KM the attractivity of Norway rose: With Norwegian bases it seemed possible to enhance KM’s importance in inter-service-rivalries.

Some KM planners pushed their case, by adding popular economical-ethnical “arguments” about extending the Lebensraum northwards to incorporate nordic people and to secure swedish ore. The Swedish ore also played a role in a study of OKW’s economical staff (Apr.39): In case of a common European war between 3,2 and 8,5 mio ts of Swedish ore would be lost for the expansion of the German Army. It was also clear that transports from the North Norwegian ore harbors could not be secured. (Narvik alone handled 4,9 from 9,0 Mio ts of yearly prewar Swedish exports to Germany. Therefore German representatives in Sweden lobbied for an modernization of Swedish infrastructure to make this connection more secure)

Thus KM planners fully acknowlegded, that in case of war economically, Norwegian neutrality would be the best option. But quite symptomatically, KM insisted on the bigger importance of the Naval base argument.

As for the fear of a British intervention in Norway. KM propagated it big style - to get Norwegian naval bases. In Jan 1940 it started to plan the occupation of Norway in detail. After the Cossack/Altmark incident Hitler ordered the preperation of Weserübung in case of a British/French intervention, using all the arguments KM had prepared. Luftwaffe and Heer were quite not happy about this distraction from the planned campaign in France, which was estimated to be the real hard campaign of this war.
After the Finnish-Russian peace treaty even KM and Raeder didn’t believe anymore in a French/British intervention in Norway. But KM forces were prepared and thus unavailable for other glorious operations. Hitler himself was looking for arguments to give the order for the Invasion of Norway. Thus Raeder acted like a spin-doctor and just pushed him over the edge using all the well known arguments. Until 1943/44 the Nazis undertook some efforts to transform Drontheim into a huge naval base, which would be connected by Autobahn with the Reich.

As for the Swedish iron ore: Because of the German occupation of Norway, the Nazis could apply even more pressure on Sweden, to export huge ammounts of ore. Germany enforced a “Swedish Neutralty”: Swedens economical policy now was partly decided in Berlin. Swedish mine workers were exepted from Swedish military service. In 1943/44 for Sweden it became save to change all this and to reduce and finally stop the ore exports to Germany. This was also the time of Speers armament miracle in Germany. Because of this, it was even stated that German armament was far less dependent on Swedish ore, than the Germans themselves had thought before.

Sources:
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Vol.2, pp. 189-202.
Gerhrd Weinberg, A world in Arms, pp.130-139. (Germ. ed.)

Regards

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 27
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 3:10:30 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 2347
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: offline 		Plan R 4 was the World War II British plan for an invasion of the neutral state of Norway in April 1940 and occupying the Swedish Iron ore fields.

The plan was to get Norwegian and Swedish permission to send an expeditionary force to Finland across northern Norway and Sweden, ostensibly to help the Finns. Once in place they were however to proceed to take control of the harbors and mines, occupying cities such as Gävle and Luleå and shutting down the German access to Swedish ore, presenting Norway and Sweden with a fait accomplice.

Realizing the danger of Allied/German occupation and of the war being waged on their territory, both the Swedes and the Norwegians refused the transit requests.

Meanwhile, the Germans having realized the Allied threat of Plan R 4, were making plans for a possible pre-emptive invasion of Norway in order to protect their strategic supply lines and get naval bases.

The Altmark Incident of February 16, 1940, convinced Hitler that the Allies would not respect the Norwegian neutrality, and he ordered the plans for an invasion hastened.

The Scandinavian reluctance to allow Allied troops on their territory halted the original Allied plan for using aid to Finland as a pretext for moving in troops, but on March 12 the Allies decided to try a "semi-peaceful" invasion nevertheless. Troops were to be landed in Norway, and proceed into Sweden to capture the Swedish mines. However, if serious military resistance was encountered they were not to press the issue. However, Finland sued for peace on March 12, so the revised version of this plan had to be abandoned too.

< Message edited by peskpesk -- 5/5/2008 3:13:21 PM >

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 28
RE: Norway - 5/5/2008 5:22:04 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		So at the end of the day, is it worth it for either Germany or the Allies to invade Norway?

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 29
RE: Norway - 5/6/2008 12:20:08 AM   
Norman42


Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
Unless it serves to facilitate another strategy (Allies attacking via the Baltic; Allies invade Sweden; German Sealion plans) then in my opinion, no, it is not worth it for either side. Even IF you have such plans, it probably still isn't worth it.

The assets required to succeed, and the assets you give away to your opponant are both higher than the gains from conquering and holding Norway. Britain gains little, and Germany gains naval bases that are easily superceded with the conquest of France.

There is a good reason why the Allies didn't try to liberate Norway until after Germany's surrender: It was an unimportant sideshow, and it kept nine German Divisions 'imprisoned' in their northern garrison duty.

_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Norway Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.172