RE: Norway

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Norway

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Norway

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Norway - 9/5/2004 6:49:33 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

As far as I am aware, it was a 'marriage of convenience' directed at the Soviet Union only. But if someone would care to correct me ...........

Officially Finland fought a separate war against the Soviet Union, but was allied de facto. In the summer of 1944 Ribbentrop insisted that Finland should make an official alliance with Germany or their support (grain, ammunition) would end. Finally President Ryti made an personal alliance with Hitler, which didn't tie the rest of the government and ceased as soon as Ryti resigned. Quite clever trick since the German help had a significant role in repulsing the Soviet 1944 summer offensives. Mannerheim was named president after Ryti (quite impossible if Finland surrendered...).

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Kevinugly)

Post #: 31

RE: Norway - 9/5/2004 7:02:15 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

We're straying off the path here, but wasn't England the only western power to declare war on Finland?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 32

RE: Norway - 9/5/2004 7:12:26 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

We're straying off the path here, but wasn't England the only western power to declare war on Finland?

Great Britain in 1941 when Finnish forces crossed pre-Winter War borders, and the US in 1944 during the Soviet summer offensive.

Edit: I just checked and in fact the US didn't declare war but just cut diplomatic relations with Finland after Ryti had signed the personal pact.

< Message edited by Keke -- 9/5/2004 7:17:50 PM >

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 33

RE: Norway - 9/5/2004 10:27:59 PM

Error in 0

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

I see my statement of the finnish army surrendering has caused some aggrevation. It was not intended, and of course I can admit I was wrong. However, It would have been nice to hear what happened. Can some of you finns clarify?

JT

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 34

RE: Norway - 9/5/2004 10:59:14 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

I see my statement of the finnish army surrendering has caused some aggrevation. It was not intended, and of course I can admit I was wrong. However, It would have been nice to hear what happened. Can some of you finns clarify?

Feeling lazy so I just copy a post of mine from another forum here. It presents the military events of summer 1944 in short. Hastily written, but better than nothing, I'd guess.

"....Anyway, it was the first major Soviet offensive of 1944, and the only one were the defender was relatively succesful.

In short, Soviets managed to deceive Finns, who believed that practically all the resources were concentrated against the Germans. With typical fashion the Red Army broke through the frontline 10 June (preliminary bombardments and recon attacks had begun the day before) at Karelian Isthmus, and the 21st Army managed to advance approx. 100km in 12 days, capturing Viipuri (Vyborg) virtually without a fight on 20 June. While this was a success without a doubt, Soviets didn't reach the most important goal of the operation, which was destroying the major portion of Finnish forces. In fact while some Finnish formations were seriously depleted, none of them got surrounded and/or destroyed, and could form a cohesive line behind Viipuri and so called VKT-line. Even more important was the fact the Finns were able to transfer formations from the Syv�ri (Svir) -front, were Soviets didn't attack until 21st June.

Since all the military goals were not reached, and Finns were not ready to capitulate, Stalin orderer to continue with the offensive to inner Finland, and all the way to Helsinki if possible, but he denied any reinforcements from 21st, 23rd and 59th Army. So when the offensive began, Soviets were only able to advance approx. 10km in two weeks after the most hard fighting in Scandinavian history (the battle of Tali-Ihantala was bigger than the 2nd battle of El Alamein...).

While the advance seemed to stall Soviets tried to outflank the battlefield, but were repulsed at Viipurinlahti (59th Army) and �yr�p��-Vuosalmi (23rd Army) eventually. Especially on the latter fighting were very vicious (Finns initially defending a bridgehead in fanatic fashion). By 16th of July, Stalin halted the offensive on this front and most resources were redirected against the Germans.

However Soviets still advanced NE of Lake Ladoga were Finns were performing delay action until the pressure at Karelian Isthmus somewhat decreased. When reserves could be directed here, Finns encircled and annihilated 2 Soviet divisions on early August, and that ended any active offensives by the Soviet side there. The war turned into trench warfare for a month, until the truce on early September. Then Finns changed sides and began pushing German troops out of Lappland, which turned into a full war later."

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 35

RE: Norway - 9/6/2004 3:09:25 AM

terje439

Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

As stated earlier in this thread, Hitler wanted to Norway to remain Neutral, however after the Altmark-incident (a british destroyer stopping and boarding a german ship within norwegian territorial waters), Hitler was not convinced that Norway would remain neutral, this was also claimed by the norwegian politician Quisling (as he wanted Germany to invade and make him leader of the country). This and british mining operations in norwegian waters was the deciding factor for Hitler to launch the invasion.

When it comes to the forces stationed in Norway, they remaind there in force because Hitler thought Norway a likely target for the allies. HOWEVER it should be remembered that these divisions were not frontline divisions, so asking about what they could do in the easter theatre makes little sense. The divisions in Norway were old veterans, wounded and young recruites.

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

(in reply to a19999577)

Post #: 36

RE: Norway - 9/6/2004 9:23:57 AM

The_MadMan

Posts: 74
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: Arnhem
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Feeling lazy so I just copy a post of mine from another forum here. It presents the military events of summer 1944 in short. Hastily written, but better than nothing, I'd guess.

"....Anyway, it was the first major Soviet offensive of 1944, and the only one were the defender was relatively succesful.

In short, Soviets managed to deceive Finns, who believed that practically all the resources were concentrated against the Germans. With typical fashion the Red Army broke through the frontline 10 June (preliminary bombardments and recon attacks had begun the day before) at Karelian Isthmus, and the 21st Army managed to advance approx. 100km in 12 days, capturing Viipuri (Vyborg) virtually without a fight on 20 June. While this was a success without a doubt, Soviets didn't reach the most important goal of the operation, which was destroying the major portion of Finnish forces. In fact while some Finnish formations were seriously depleted, none of them got surrounded and/or destroyed, and could form a cohesive line behind Viipuri and so called VKT-line. Even more important was the fact the Finns were able to transfer formations from the Syv�ri (Svir) -front, were Soviets didn't attack until 21st June.

Since all the military goals were not reached, and Finns were not ready to capitulate, Stalin orderer to continue with the offensive to inner Finland, and all the way to Helsinki if possible, but he denied any reinforcements from 21st, 23rd and 59th Army. So when the offensive began, Soviets were only able to advance approx. 10km in two weeks after the most hard fighting in Scandinavian history (the battle of Tali-Ihantala was bigger than the 2nd battle of El Alamein...).

While the advance seemed to stall Soviets tried to outflank the battlefield, but were repulsed at Viipurinlahti (59th Army) and �yr�p��-Vuosalmi (23rd Army) eventually. Especially on the latter fighting were very vicious (Finns initially defending a bridgehead in fanatic fashion). By 16th of July, Stalin halted the offensive on this front and most resources were redirected against the Germans.

However Soviets still advanced NE of Lake Ladoga were Finns were performing delay action until the pressure at Karelian Isthmus somewhat decreased. When reserves could be directed here, Finns encircled and annihilated 2 Soviet divisions on early August, and that ended any active offensives by the Soviet side there. The war turned into trench warfare for a month, until the truce on early September. Then Finns changed sides and began pushing German troops out of Lappland, which turned into a full war later."

Thank you for this information, I never knew what happened to Finland after the winter war with Russia. As I mentioned earlier, I always thought they joined the Axis and nothing else happened there (pardon my ignorence).

_____________________________

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 37

RE: Norway - 9/6/2004 2:16:01 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan
Thank you for this information, I never knew what happened to Finland after the winter war with Russia. As I mentioned earlier, I always thought they joined the Axis and nothing else happened there (pardon my ignorence).

No problem. Glad to be of some service.

I hope that some day events of the Continuation War will be presented to English speaking audience by some prominent historian (like David Glantz with his "Forgotten Battles" -series).

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to The_MadMan)

Post #: 38

RE: Norway - 9/6/2004 2:52:29 PM

Error in 0

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

As stated earlier in this thread, Hitler wanted to Norway to remain Neutral, however after the Altmark-incident (a british destroyer stopping and boarding a german ship within norwegian territorial waters), Hitler was not convinced that Norway would remain neutral, this was also claimed by the norwegian politician Quisling (as he wanted Germany to invade and make him leader of the country). This and british mining operations in norwegian waters was the deciding factor for Hitler to launch the invasion.

When it comes to the forces stationed in Norway, they remaind there in force because Hitler thought Norway a likely target for the allies. HOWEVER it should be remembered that these divisions were not frontline divisions, so asking about what they could do in the easter theatre makes little sense. The divisions in Norway were old veterans, wounded and young recruites.

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

You are right Terje, the Altmark incident was the trigger for the invasion of Norway, and the plans were laid hastily. It featured the worlds first airbourne assault, and was impressive in its mobility and speed. To claim Quisling had much to do with the decision is, however, far streched. It was more a matter of 'better us controlling Norway, than they', and they did not need an obscure politician like Quisling to confirm the british interest in Norway. The loss of the 1000 vessel strong merchandise fleet to the allies is a hypotetichal one, as it is not unreasonable that most of these ships could have ended up under allied control, invasion or not.

JT

(in reply to terje439)

Post #: 39

RE: Norway - 9/7/2004 8:24:09 PM

JTGEN

Posts: 1279
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

terje439:

quote:

In my oppinion I think Germany lost alot when they felt the need to invade Norway. At this time Norway was the 4th or 5th largest shipping nation in the world. So by launching an attack on Norway, the germans actually added large ammount of tonnage to the british supply fleet. The norwegian goldassests which were brought to London, and helped the allied cause. And most importantly tremendous losses in the german surface fleet, ships Germany never did manage to replace.

My bet is that most of that tonnage was allready forced to carry goods for the allied, so there was no real loss there. But the Iron ore was vital and for securing that, Narvik was the key. Also a lot of pressure was put on the Swedes, and the battle of the Atlantic got a boost.

And the Germans also attacked Soviets from Norway. The border between Norway and Soviet was short (Soviets took that piece of property from the Finns in winter war) and so they attacked through the Finnish lappland, but with wery poor success. This was no tank country so no blitzgrieg here, the Soviets had the advantage. And Finnish troops greatly outperformed their neighbouring German counterparts. But I do not know how many Divisions were used by the Germans, probably not many, as the terrain is not wery good. Allthough it is wast wilderness, during winter war on that area a Soviet Division was slowed down by about 20 Finnish borderguards for about a week, before a battallion of reinforcements came and with about 3, the attac was stopped.

And regarding the Finnish surrender discussion. The deal that Ryti made on his own behalf(put him in jail by allies after the war) meant that Germans gave a hefty help, with one Division to watch the coastal flank in Karelian Isthmus (much needed) some Stugs (performed wery poorly compared to Finnish ones) and most importantly air detachment Kuhlmey with stukas and FW190 jabo's that dropped most bombs on Soviets, and large amounts of equipement grain etc.

This helped us a lot and at the time armistice, our army was better equipped than when the Soviet attack had started. All lost artillery was replaced, airforce had more fighters (and they were better ones), and the manpower losses were covered by calling up a couple of older agegroups from the reserve. So we could have stopped an other big assault and retreted to a well laid defensive line. So the Soviets did not have the strenght to make us surrender as they needed troops to get to Berlin and thus we remained independent.

The Soviet attac was hefty indeed with 200 barrels of artillery support per 1kilometer of front line, 8000 aircraft, something like 600 tanks(we had one stug batallion plus some others) etc.

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 40

RE: Norway - 9/7/2004 8:45:55 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTGEN
The border between Norway and Soviet was short (Soviets took that piece of property from the Finns in winter war)...

No they didn't. 1944 they did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JTGEN
But I do not know how many Divisions were used by the Germans,...

Five.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to JTGEN)

Post #: 41

RE: Norway - 9/7/2004 9:01:56 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

norway was not important, but Narvik was.

The norwegian had a large fleet and felt sympathy to the allied side... they did nothing as the altmark was captured and the prisoned british sailors were taken back.

So hitler, who feared for his iron ore transport line (along the norwegean coast) planned to invade norway... unlucky denmark was in the way, otherwise i bet he would have NOT attacked it in 1940 (1941 could have been different, but just remember that the french and the brits stand battleready (or not) at the maginot-line... so from the german pov, norway was a delay (a good one, cause mansteins plan to kick allied butts could be done).

The war in norway went bad for the germans and only the sucsess in france ended it. Later on, the comandos impressed hitler very much, so he did a lot more troops into norway as necessary...
and these troops had been very important in russia... sure, these soldiers had not been the elite of german army, but they still were well trained and "normal" equipped for 1941-standard.

if proper used (as resupply troops) or as reserve for operation typhoon they could have bring the decison. 5 div�s in autum 41 at leningrad or in front of moscow could have bring the missing winning point (say hitler decide to take Leningrad in late august 41 or he achieve his goal moscow or the reinforcement to stop the russian counterattack come in more strength, etc...) it could be interesting to simulate 5 more divisions from norway in russia at say august 1. 41...

gladly, hitler did this mistake

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 42

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 3:31:11 AM

a19999577

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Lima, Peru
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

if proper used (as resupply troops) or as reserve for operation typhoon they could have bring the decison. 5 div�s in autum 41 at leningrad or in front of moscow could have bring the missing winning point (say hitler decide to take Leningrad in late august 41 or he achieve his goal moscow or the reinforcement to stop the russian counterattack come in more strength, etc...) it could be interesting to simulate 5 more divisions from norway in russia at say august 1. 41...

gladly, hitler did this mistake

Well, interesting that you bring up a simulation. After playing quite a bit of Gary Grigsby's War in Russia, I get the feeling that 5 divisions per se wouldn't make that much of a difference. But then again, no game is perfect.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 43

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 4:07:41 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

Agreed. Ultimately, five more divisions were just another 100 000 mouths to feed in the Russian winter. The German logistical train wouldn't have coped. , the Germans were certainly short of forces for Barbarossa from the start. However, without a better logistical train, they took into Russia about as many men as they could (temporarily) sustain.

As for Norway in general, it's position meant it was always going to have to join in the war sooner or later. The Allies wanted to lay mines off the southern coast from early in 1940, and interdict swedish ore heading for Germany down the coast. There were plans for the Allies to take Narvik before the Germans thought about it. I think Norway was rather like Belgium in that respect. It was always going to get involved at some point, whether it wanted to or not.

For the Germans, they could use the air bases to cover ships coming down the Norwegian coast, and once you had southern Norway and Denmark, you closed the Baltic. In addition, you had a number of good fjords to base surface raiders avoiding the North Sea. It was a no brainer for everyone.

I think more than just Narvik was important, therefore. On it's own, Narvik just represented the rail head and port that brought Swedish iron ore to the Norwegian coast and hence on to the Reich in the winter months. However, without the rest of Norway, it was a place waiting to fall. You needed bases along the coast to protect the ships as they moved south.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to a19999577)

Post #: 44

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 11:22:37 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

i have do disagree...

the whole winterdiscussion do not meet an important point. Sure it was cold and sure, the soldiers lacked wintercloths...
but the main problem was the missing soldiers... german army lost many soldiers so any division was low on man...
if you take 100.000 more people and put em in 100 divisions, each division get 1000 mem or 7% of its theoretical strength (yea, i know this is not so easy to do... it is an example

)

so, these men could decide this war (or at last make the situation even worse for the russians)... if they are used in the north to take Leningrad in late august 41 this free nearly 2 german armies and make a big hole in the russian frontline (also improve the supply situation for german northern front massive...)

if you just throw in 5 average-bad divisions, they will have no real impact... take the men and use em to give more fighting men to the front and 100.000 soldiers are really impportant. (you could replace fighting troops with em, e.g.)

say you take these men to france and replace better fighting troops with em... or similar things... or use em in yugoslavia to liquidate the begining partisan movement... anything you do will improve the situation for the german side... (like later in the war the many troops in france instead of russia...)

_____________________________

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 45

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 3:32:36 PM

Error in 0

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

i have do disagree...

the whole winterdiscussion do not meet an important point. Sure it was cold and sure, the soldiers lacked wintercloths...
but the main problem was the missing soldiers... german army lost many soldiers so any division was low on man...
if you take 100.000 more people and put em in 100 divisions, each division get 1000 mem or 7% of its theoretical strength (yea, i know this is not so easy to do... it is an example)

so, these men could decide this war (or at last make the situation even worse for the russians)... if they are used in the north to take Leningrad in late august 41 this free nearly 2 german armies and make a big hole in the russian frontline (also improve the supply situation for german northern front massive...)

if you just throw in 5 average-bad divisions, they will have no real impact... take the men and use em to give more fighting men to the front and 100.000 soldiers are really impportant. (you could replace fighting troops with em, e.g.)

say you take these men to france and replace better fighting troops with em... or similar things... or use em in yugoslavia to liquidate the begining partisan movement... anything you do will improve the situation for the german side... (like later in the war the many troops in france instead of russia...)

Its funny how one action often is replied with a reaction. Take 5 div's from Norway to the east front -41, and chances are brits invade norway. Thats a problem for germany. Bombers covering all germany and poland, no bases for their own bombers and subs to strangle the north sea convois, no steel, no glyserin, rethink the defense strategy for germany,.... Suddenly Russia gets lots more equipment, and likely your 5 more divisions at leningrad will meet them. It is a fantasy that just taking troops from Norway suddenly would alter the war in the east, as it is a fantasy that holding Narvik was the only reason for the invasion.

JT

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 46

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 6:19:00 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan
Thank you for this information, I never knew what happened to Finland after the winter war with Russia. As I mentioned earlier, I always thought they joined the Axis and nothing else happened there (pardon my ignorence).

No problem. Glad to be of some service.

I hope that some day events of the Continuation War will be presented to English speaking audience by some prominent historian (like David Glantz with his "Forgotten Battles" -series).

Nice recap, Keke. What was achieved at Tali and Ihantala just boggles the mind.

Anyway, isn't there a major motion picture in the works about this?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 47

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 6:34:37 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius
Anyway, isn't there a major motion picture in the works about this?

Yep, to be filmed next summer.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Belisarius)

Post #: 48

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 6:39:22 PM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

well, yes this could happen
if the brits had tried to land seriously and could achieve to hold it against german troops that would have withdrawn from other fronts to take norway back again.

i belive the brits were not able to do such operations in 1941, so no bombers from the brits from this direction and no cut off for the german iron ore

But as someone wrote earlier, this is hindsight.... and with it is allways easy... like hitlers thoughts about the subs in the norwegian sea to hunt down convoys to russia (with little sucsess) instead of using them in the northern atlantic to kill the supply sended to UK...

a scenario with a british landing in 1941 would be interesting and i bet this would have helped the germans a lot, cause the loss of troops and ships (remember, in 1941 the germans had more subs and the torpedos worked much better as in 1940) the brits would get would be missed at the atlantic battle

Oh, by the way, everything is fantasy.. why do you play computergames ? they are fantasy...

look, there is a general agreement that hitler put too much troops into norway, the feared invasion was never able to be happen at this stage of the war. The 5 extra divisions could not have stopped any invasion in norway in a normandy-stile, but at the heat of the battle in russia they could have bring a decision (like i said, not necessary directly, but maybe indirectly, cause they replace better troops, etc...)

So it is an interesting what if, no "marsians kick the hell out of the normany invasion fleet and sink all ships"-scenario, just a "could what really improve the german situation at a certain date of this war" discussion. No flame war necessary, no unfriedly words that i think i could read out of your post. Did i wrote anything like "this had been definetly changed the war ?" no. just that i think (and i hope me too has the right of an own opinion, or is your real name vonrom?) that this could have changed some parts... german troops lacked infantery, cause they did not replace all losses in the bloody battles of the russian theatre... so if these troops get boostered, they could have done "better".

Please, do not act like a certain italian guy

in his posts. I really would love to see your opinion, cause after all it is just fantasy and what if...

have fun

err, another question, could you specify the thing about narvik and the invasion ? i do not understood and i would love to know what you mean. Does you implify that the invasion of norway (what invasion, the british, the german, the ficitonal second british) was done for other things as to take away narvik from the other side (to take away swedish iron ore in the winter or to secure this resupply way of needed iron ore?) i visited norway, i was in narvik. i think this is a beutiful land, but a nightmare to defend cause of the really long coast.... thank you and no flamewar/bashing content, at last not active

< Message edited by Adnan Meshuggi -- 9/8/2004 4:49:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 49

RE: Norway - 9/8/2004 8:00:11 PM

Error in 0

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

well, yes this could happen
if the brits had tried to land seriously and could achieve to hold it against german troops that would have withdrawn from other fronts to take norway back again.

i belive the brits were not able to do such operations in 1941, so no bombers from the brits from this direction and no cut off for the german iron ore

But as someone wrote earlier, this is hindsight.... and with it is allways easy... like hitlers thoughts about the subs in the norwegian sea to hunt down convoys to russia (with little sucsess) instead of using them in the northern atlantic to kill the supply sended to UK...

a scenario with a british landing in 1941 would be interesting and i bet this would have helped the germans a lot, cause the loss of troops and ships (remember, in 1941 the germans had more subs and the torpedos worked much better as in 1940) the brits would get would be missed at the atlantic battle

Oh, by the way, everything is fantasy.. why do you play computergames ? they are fantasy...

look, there is a general agreement that hitler put too much troops into norway, the feared invasion was never able to be happen at this stage of the war. The 5 extra divisions could not have stopped any invasion in norway in a normandy-stile, but at the heat of the battle in russia they could have bring a decision (like i said, not necessary directly, but maybe indirectly, cause they replace better troops, etc...)

So it is an interesting what if, no "marsians kick the hell out of the normany invasion fleet and sink all ships"-scenario, just a "could what really improve the german situation at a certain date of this war" discussion. No flame war necessary, no unfriedly words that i think i could read out of your post. Did i wrote anything like "this had been definetly changed the war ?" no. just that i think (and i hope me too has the right of an own opinion, or is your real name vonrom?) that this could have changed some parts... german troops lacked infantery, cause they did not replace all losses in the bloody battles of the russian theatre... so if these troops get boostered, they could have done "better".

Please, do not act like a certain italian guy in his posts. I really would love to see your opinion, cause after all it is just fantasy and what if...

have fun

err, another question, could you specify the thing about narvik and the invasion ? i do not understood and i would love to know what you mean. Does you implify that the invasion of norway (what invasion, the british, the german, the ficitonal second british) was done for other things as to take away narvik from the other side (to take away swedish iron ore in the winter or to secure this resupply way of needed iron ore?) i visited norway, i was in narvik. i think this is a beutiful land, but a nightmare to defend cause of the really long coast.... thank you and no flamewar/bashing content, at last not active

I dont know what a flame war is, but if you feel attacked for me talking about fantasy, i can be sorry. To compare me from this with vonRom is your choise, but personally I would find that alot more insulting. VonRom is not here anymore, so I would ask you to drop carachterising him until he returns to defend himself. I am sure a person like you would appreciate the same.

I believe the Brits could invade Norway in -41 if they wanted to, and planned for it. Most of their Expeditionary forces escaped Normandy, and commandoraid at ie Svolv�r showed the weak opposition the germans had. It would be possible to cut supplies to Narvik. But 5 extra german divs would make it much more of an operation, more than the brits could do. As to your reference for an Normandy-sized invasion, that is FICTIONAL to speak about in 1941. But to go along, such an operation could be succsessfull at any place in 1941. No wonder...

About the convois, I do not know if it was very succsessful or not, but I do know that almost one entire convoi was sunk in one stike. There was not that many convois, so I would like you to present some numbers on your claim.

As to Narvik. You said

quote:

norway was not important, but Narvik was...

before you tolds us that 5 less divisions in Norway would win Leningrad. I figured that with the 4-5 div left in Norway, who probably could not have defended the whole country, that you meant they schould defent Narvik. Because, as you said, there was nothing else of value there for the Germans. I disagree since I believe both their naval operations and the fact that Brits did not have Norway, was factored in by the germans. As you probably read, I wrote:

quote:

it is a fantasy that holding Narvik was the only reason for the invasion.

which really is quite clear, and fit in with your statement. I cannot see how I can clarify this anymore.

The rest of your message is basically attempts to ridicule me, and that would be fine with me, if it was not for the paradox that you claim to hate that. Now, that just makes it funny

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 50

RE: Norway - 9/9/2004 12:32:32 AM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

i have do disagree...

the whole winterdiscussion do not meet an important point. Sure it was cold and sure, the soldiers lacked wintercloths...
but the main problem was the missing soldiers... german army lost many soldiers so any division was low on man...
if you take 100.000 more people and put em in 100 divisions, each division get 1000 mem or 7% of its theoretical strength (yea, i know this is not so easy to do... it is an example)

Yes, but you are making two leaps here. First that the men are available, and second that the Germans change their entire method of allocating replacements. German units were often chronically short of replacements because the Wehrmacht tended to build new units rather than strengthen existing ones. They only allocated 100 000 replacements to the eastern front during 1941 (if memory serves) so it is more likely these men would have been allocated as five extra divisions. Here, the actual number of fighting men (or rifles) is much less because large numbers of the 100 000 will be the "tail" of the divisions. You might effectively have had another fifty battalions if all the divisions followed 1941 triangular Regiment OOB. This would have represented maybe 35 - 40 000 rifles rather than 100000.

quote:

so, these men could decide this war (or at last make the situation even worse for the russians)... if they are used in the north to take Leningrad in late august 41 this free nearly 2 german armies and make a big hole in the russian frontline (also improve the supply situation for german northern front massive...)

Leningrad was besieged. I think all five divisions would have been decimated trying to take the place. I'm not sure it was on in late august if you had extra foot infantry. I think these divisions would have had to be motorised to make that sort of difference, and even then, there's no guarantee the Germans wouldn't have settled down to besiege the place, rather than lose thousands trying to storm it.

quote:

if you just throw in 5 average-bad divisions, they will have no real impact... take the men and use em to give more fighting men to the front and 100.000 soldiers are really impportant. (you could replace fighting troops with em, e.g.)

Yes, subject to the qualifications above that over half these men would not have been trained to fight in or allocated to the Rifle battalions where the majority of German casualties were sustained. I think Speciailists like artillery men (five regiments worth, supply troops, engineers, etc,) would not have been used as infantry replacements. Unless they were cut off in the russian counteroffensive of December and forced to fight, that is. Otherwise, you would just have had five extra infantry divisions to use.

quote:

say you take these men to france and replace better fighting troops with em... or similar things... or use em in yugoslavia to liquidate the begining partisan movement... anything you do will improve the situation for the german side... (like later in the war the many troops in france instead of russia...)

There may indeed have been ways to do this, but I don't think there were too many quality fighting formations that didn't invade Russia in June. There were a couple of Panzer Divisions in reserve, and some infantry ones too, but all the key units were there. I think these divisions would have been used directly if available. The Wehrmacht was not yet at the stage where formations were being judged fit only for static defence etc, so I don't see why these divisions would not just have been sent to the Ostfront.

Regards,
IronDuke

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 51

RE: Norway - 9/9/2004 10:43:20 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

hehe, sorry but before wroting it, i read some Patton vers. XY threads and maybe i got an overdose of a certain person.
So sorry for this - also english is defnetly not my native language so it could be that i misread some of the things you wrote.

My poinit is, that an invasion (sorry, syou used this word, invasion often will be seen as an normandylike thing) was not doable for the brits. Sure, they could have taken so ground, dig in. But not conquer norway and hold it - not even conquer. Comandos could have done more damage, but the brits were not able to do anything that could be worth the risk. If they try to take norway, they need a lot troops they do not have. I speak about armed and motivated troops, not shocked survivors of the france-battle... The brits put into greece and later on africa everything they had (what we would call battle-ready), so i can�t see 10 british divisions in norway... also, if the brits want to take and hold norway, they need fighters and bombers and a lot ships, concentrated in a small area... and in range of german ships (like Bismark, Tirpitz, etc.. okay, Bismark may be sunk, but this would have the effekt of inferior feelings in the british navy even more (they were heavily shocked about the "superiority" of the german heavy bbs, they overestimated Tirpitz, they sacrificed pq17 only for him) and more important german planes... bombers and fighters... and this time these planes are in full fightercover range... if the brits want to make a save landing, they need a lot ships that will be missed in the atlantic and this will hurt Great Britain in this stage of the war...

But it would be also interesting to speak about a what-if-invasion of norway in 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944... personally i think from 43 on, they could have risked it, but only with high losses

So, my opinion is, that Hitler did to many troops into norway. I also can�t say if it are exactly 5 divisions, or less or even more, the germans could have withdrawn. I just think that in late sumer of 1941 the german army could have replace many losses with these men, that sat in norway and did nothing. And that if these men had been in russia, some events that did not happen cause of the lack of manpower could have happen. Not that they HAD to happen - but as we said in the beginning, it is a what-if.

In this what if i have certain rules changed (or it will not happen at all)
1.) Hitler do not create every new unit he want (cause the numbers look nice on paper) but use these extra men as a replacement
2.) Hitler replace with these men one front sector, like north or central (in my opinion north would be best)
3.) They are used at the best place the frontline comanders need em.... not hitler want em to have.

So, these men as replacement in troops that had been weared down and now could do more as they did so they could speed up the last assault in august/september against leningrad. With this, the timing for the first try to take leningrad could happen 2 weeks earlier (at last this is what i would love to find out in a what-if-scenario), so HG North has 2 weeks and more strengh to take leningrad. And i think, this could have worked. Sure, just my opinion, but we could discuss it in the evening, with sources... if leningrad fell in autum 41, the situation for the german army would be improved drastically. From the supply sight, the baltic sea would be a german lake, you could ignore a long and partisan infected resupply situation (just unload in leningrad), you get a huge city, you destroy virtually a large part of russian industry, esp. tank industry and you give the russian army an important psychological disadvantage in the operation thypoon (they now see that the nazis could take everything...)

also for the counterstrike, the russians will have to deal with a much better german defence situation at the southern part of the northern sector (germans could throw in 1 army (18.Armee) to cut off the russian counterstrike.

So i think, from the german pov, hitler should have risked everything to take russia out... he tried and missed, but he did not risk everything. He hold back a lot troops for other things.

I hope i could make clear how i see this what-if. And no bad feelings or trolling inside, at last not activly...

You could give me detailed aspects of your pov... esp. for the norway invasion by the brits. it could be that i overlooked something.

For the other motivations about the landing operation in norway, i just misread your post. i thought you wanted to say someting different... so i asked.

have fun

_____________________________

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 52

RE: Norway - 9/9/2004 10:54:23 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Well, the 100000 Men numbers were from you, if i remember correctly.

I do not say that they all are fighting troops. No, sir. from 5 inf-divisions you could get maximum 15 IR and maybe 3 Regimenters of other troops, plus the artillery...

i did not say that they cut off the divisions, and put man for man into other units...

but you could NOT install this divison at all and put these men in the other units, you could do the artillery in the depot and give it out as a replacement.

Or, you take the troops and give em as HG-Reserve to the sectors you need em
or you take em to france and give "better" divisions to russia...

i did not go into detail, cause we spoke theoretically about a what-if-scenario. And it could be interesting to create such scenario. I nearly could be insulted by your comment about specialists in inf-batallions, but i am not

I hope to find an interesting discussion about a what-if.

Well, i will ook about the strengh of german troops in june 41, but also from memory i think the germans hold back some good and battleexperienced motorized and inf.divisions.... but as i wrote above, my suggestion is to strengh the norhern armygroup for a final assault to take leningrad. If you give 5 divisons worth of men to the HG North to the right time, this could happen (my opinion), even with hitlers orders to withdraw the fast troops later on. If these extra troops had speed up the timing, it could have happen. And i would love to talk about the chances or the no-no�s in this case. I bet we need to cut down the influence of hitler a lot in this single sector (replacement of HG North), but beside this, the timeline could be interested to speak about.

I hope i could specify my interest in this discussion a little bit better - as i wrote, no offending contend or insulting should happen, and no, i do not want to speak about certain generals and their rating. I readed the whole threads and i am aware about this "problem". As you wrote, it is a what if....

_____________________________

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 53

RE: Norway - 9/9/2004 11:00:24 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Well, i forgot two things... fun is the motivation about this thread...

about narvik....
i did not say that the germans should have empty the whole country... just to take 4/5 Divisions out of norway (or not in) and defence the more important key locations.... if you put a well digged in division in narvik, supplied and equipped with some nasty big guns, the brits can�t take it.

About the effectivity of german airforce/marine operations against the russia-convoys...

sure, they kicked pq17 and the next one, too... but the subs had to fight with real heavy weather and were quite disappointing, also the german airforce lost a lot planes by heavy weather... fog for half the year did also not improve the situation... so less subs there and more in the atlantic battle could have improved the german situation...you still can use the heavies as a danger... but better would be to cut off murmansk - and here the 4-5 extra divisions could be better placed in russia

_____________________________

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 54

RE: Norway - 9/9/2004 8:33:03 PM

a19999577

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Lima, Peru
Status: offline

I like the idea of 'What if' scenarios for Gary Grigsby's War in Russia. I still feel that five extra divisions in the initial offensive would not have made that much of a difference (diminishing returns and everything, you know). Five extra full strength divisions in late 1944 to defend the Reich however... that's a dream come true and a huge morale boost for me as a player, at least.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 55

RE: Norway - 9/10/2004 2:07:05 AM

Error in 0

Posts: 248
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

hehe, sorry but before wroting it, i read some Patton vers. XY threads and maybe i got an overdose of a certain person.
So sorry for this - also english is defnetly not my native language so it could be that i misread some of the things you wrote.

My poinit is, that an invasion (sorry, syou used this word, invasion often will be seen as an normandylike thing) was not doable for the brits. Sure, they could have taken so ground, dig in. But not conquer norway and hold it - not even conquer. Comandos could have done more damage, but the brits were not able to do anything that could be worth the risk. If they try to take norway, they need a lot troops they do not have. I speak about armed and motivated troops, not shocked survivors of the france-battle... The brits put into greece and later on africa everything they had (what we would call battle-ready), so i can�t see 10 british divisions in norway... also, if the brits want to take and hold norway, they need fighters and bombers and a lot ships, concentrated in a small area... and in range of german ships (like Bismark, Tirpitz, etc.. okay, Bismark may be sunk, but this would have the effekt of inferior feelings in the british navy even more (they were heavily shocked about the "superiority" of the german heavy bbs, they overestimated Tirpitz, they sacrificed pq17 only for him) and more important german planes... bombers and fighters... and this time these planes are in full fightercover range... if the brits want to make a save landing, they need a lot ships that will be missed in the atlantic and this will hurt Great Britain in this stage of the war...

But it would be also interesting to speak about a what-if-invasion of norway in 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944... personally i think from 43 on, they could have risked it, but only with high losses

So, my opinion is, that Hitler did to many troops into norway. I also can�t say if it are exactly 5 divisions, or less or even more, the germans could have withdrawn. I just think that in late sumer of 1941 the german army could have replace many losses with these men, that sat in norway and did nothing. And that if these men had been in russia, some events that did not happen cause of the lack of manpower could have happen. Not that they HAD to happen - but as we said in the beginning, it is a what-if.

In this what if i have certain rules changed (or it will not happen at all)
1.) Hitler do not create every new unit he want (cause the numbers look nice on paper) but use these extra men as a replacement
2.) Hitler replace with these men one front sector, like north or central (in my opinion north would be best)
3.) They are used at the best place the frontline comanders need em.... not hitler want em to have.

So, these men as replacement in troops that had been weared down and now could do more as they did so they could speed up the last assault in august/september against leningrad. With this, the timing for the first try to take leningrad could happen 2 weeks earlier (at last this is what i would love to find out in a what-if-scenario), so HG North has 2 weeks and more strengh to take leningrad. And i think, this could have worked. Sure, just my opinion, but we could discuss it in the evening, with sources... if leningrad fell in autum 41, the situation for the german army would be improved drastically. From the supply sight, the baltic sea would be a german lake, you could ignore a long and partisan infected resupply situation (just unload in leningrad), you get a huge city, you destroy virtually a large part of russian industry, esp. tank industry and you give the russian army an important psychological disadvantage in the operation thypoon (they now see that the nazis could take everything...)

also for the counterstrike, the russians will have to deal with a much better german defence situation at the southern part of the northern sector (germans could throw in 1 army (18.Armee) to cut off the russian counterstrike.

So i think, from the german pov, hitler should have risked everything to take russia out... he tried and missed, but he did not risk everything. He hold back a lot troops for other things.

I hope i could make clear how i see this what-if. And no bad feelings or trolling inside, at last not activly... You could give me detailed aspects of your pov... esp. for the norway invasion by the brits. it could be that i overlooked something.

For the other motivations about the landing operation in norway, i just misread your post. i thought you wanted to say someting different... so i asked.

have fun

Well, Adnan. I have 3 motovations for participating in this forum. 1 is to have fun

. 2 is to learn more about the war

and 3 is to have active discussions.

The last means that I from time to time say some regrettable things, and that some others do the same. Especially one other person here was very a**l against me, but I take it as part of the fun. In fact, I miss vonRom because he made it all fun.

My point really with Norway can be boiled down to 2 things.
1) Sure iron was key factor in the Invasion, but Norway had other uses for germany. It is a strategical place, and it was much better for germany if THEY controlled Norway than if the Brits did.
2) As you pointed out, large parts of Norway is rugged mountains, and easily defended. However, germany cannot defend all of Norway, so they based their plans around debth defence, with the possibility to counterattack an invasion fast. Humor me, and for the moment accept that they did find Northern part of Norway of interest (airfields and border finland (w russia)), they had to 'defend' all the way to Kirkenes. I write 'defend' because it inheritily means provide open suppliy lines. And that is my key point. If the brits landed south of Narvik, or North or both, established a bridge head, then supply is cut of. They really needed men to counterattack such events, and that was Hitlers consern. I believe 4 understrength divs is not enough for that, and if the Brits had seen this, it would have been tempting to cut off the 2 Northern divisions, and probably made iron transport much more difficult. It would have been another problem for germany, and they really didnt need that.

As to your what-if with Leningrad fallen. Yes, Im sure it would have meant alot for the East front.

JT

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 56

RE: Norway - 9/10/2004 3:27:00 AM

Kevinugly

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline

I tend to agree with JT here, Norway was important to Germany in a number of ways.

1) It allowed German forces to threaten the Arctic convoys. Whilst it may be argued that the actual threat was not that great it diverted resources away from the Battle of the Atlantic which was the decisive theatre in '42 and '43. Even later in the war, the mere existence of German capital ships in the Norwegian fjords tied British strategic plans and resources (look how often the 'Tirpitz' was attacked) far exceeding their actual value.

2) If Allied forces secured Norway then arguably they could use it as a springboard to attack Germany from the north via Denmark. Alternatively (or in conjunction with this), Finland could also have been forced out of the war early, freeing up Soviet forces otherwise engaged in the North.

3) As has been mentioned already, securing the supply of vital resources from Sweden.

Germany had to ensure Norway remained in their hands. By the time it was no longer important, the war was virtually over anyway.

Oh and JT, I'm glad someone found Von Rom's 'contributions' to the 'debates' fun

< Message edited by Kevinugly -- 9/10/2004 1:28:02 AM >

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 57

RE: Norway - 9/10/2004 10:33:38 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

Hi, i am glad you are not insulted..

the vR-comparisation really wasn�t nice...

well, maybe the misunderstanding point is the "norway fell to greatbritain if germany withdraw 4 to 5 divisions out of norway".
If this would be the result, i would agree 100%. My opinion is, that the germans had more troops in norway as they needed - so the withdrawed 5 div�s will make no real difference.
Why ?
1.) the brits are not able to do a serious landing and hold the front. As i wrote, the key is narvik. This has to be defended esp. in the autum/winter-time. Cause without, the swedish iron ore can�t delivered in numbers to germany (baltic sea is frozen).
2.) the troops are from lesser quality. We agreed all to this point. So, i can�t see the chance that if the brits do a serious landing (i doubt they are able to do so in 1941/1942 untill very late in 42), these german troops can stop em.
If the withdrawing from this 5 div�s mean norway is empty, that would be not doable.. then the whole country fall back to the allies.

The strategic situation of norway was important (so no longer a narrow blockade is posible) for hitler - but it meant nothing cause of the fact that the whole rest of the world was an enemy... he thought in 1914things.
It is clear that norway HAS strategic worth, but it is overestimated. The brits/americans with their material, yes. They would have closed any shipping by air. But the germans lacked the planes, pilots (piolets

) and the material to establish such threat for more than some times. The heavies, yes, they were a serious threat, but again no stopper. So the cutting of the supply line by taking or make it worthless of Murmansk would be better. Without this supply depot, there will be no convoys at all.

From the german pov_:
So my opinion is, that only the lowest necessary force should have been in norway (or france), and all force had to be thrown into the important battlefronts (north africa and/or russia).
The germans have to take risks to win the war - or they should not begin it.

For the convoys, the russia-convoys had the lowest loss ratio of all convoy-systems in ww2, the allies lost neraly zero ships after spring43... so again the germans made a big mistake.
a.) they have to do more airpower into the area and are ready to risk more of the heavies, so they can do more damage to the allies and they can stop any convoy untill late summer 42 (with scharnhorst, scheer, l�tzow, tirpitz they have too much firepower for the british old ships and with the "bismark-shock" the brits are too cautious to risk another battle there they got kicked (something about moral, and sea tradition, a real weak spot of em) even if they could risk the loss of 5 or 6 old bb�s but the germans can�t loose the tirpitz. But like Cerberus them made nearly crazy (in the press and the opinion of the people) a battle in the northern atlantic with air cover for german ships really could work bad for them. So, the germans should have do more... but they didn�t.

But i would love to hear about the british landing in 1941... it seems you belive strongly that they could do so - do you have some infos about such landing ? No irony content, i would also love a what-if-landing of the brits in norway, with reduced german forces... inital landing and then the battle for norway 2 (still i belive this would be the fastet way for hitler to win the war againt uk...)

so, just let the FRIENDLY discussion begin

PS: oh, i am no historican, these are opinions out of my stomach, based on all the many hundred of books i had readed but do not qoute cause i am a fat lazy men. Also i do not think my opinion is the truth, burnded in stone, like some guy who has a vacation earned...

_____________________________

(in reply to Error in 0)

Post #: 58

RE: Norway - 9/10/2004 10:41:35 AM

Adnan Meshuggi

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline

well, i do not say germany should give up norway

we just spoke about 5 divisons that were too much in norway. Hitler put a lot troops into norway cause he feared an invasion. My opinion is, that this couldn�t be done by the brits untill early 43, so the too much troops in 1940/41) could have used otherwise. So, i do not say that i want to give up norway, just that it couldn�t be conquered by the allies so early in the war and also be careful about the iron ore,... the narvik route is important in the winter, not in the summer. as long as the baltic sea is not frozen, the germans could use this "save" route...

So, yes the germans in norway were a threat to the allied convois, bind surface ships and planes and material, but the troops, the "missing" men in russia used would have been 1000times more usefull at the right time. But, this is just my opinion.

I only wish nobody sees my post as a "let�s give up norway" attitude. Northern norway was very important for the germans, but the rest not. They needed it to supply the northern part, but not for many other things.

Also, if the brits do a landing in norway, why do you think the german army should not be able to kick em out ? Supply in the winter from uk to norway is a pain, germans have the "short" way, like it was in 1940... here the brits couldn�t hold cause the risk of loosing too many resources by the german submarines was too high. In 1943/44, the brits may have take the toll and fight along, but in 41/42 they just have not the resources. At last i belive they have not. But everybody is welcome who agree that Patton sucks (no, a joke

) no, everybody who want to discuss such allied landing in 1941 with the withdraw of a part of the troops is welcome... as the other scenario, it is an interesting what if...

_____________________________

(in reply to Kevinugly)

Post #: 59

RE: Norway - 9/10/2004 1:33:42 PM

Kevinugly

Posts: 438
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Colchester, UK
Status: offline

I think the important issue would be to not let the Allies gain a foothold in Norway. It's an occupied country and one could reasonably expect a certain amount of assistance for the Allied troops from the Norwegians. It's also a country where mobility is quite restricted and communications difficult. Far better therefore to have a large garrison of 'second-line' troops covering against a possible invasion than having to use 'first-line' soldiers in a difficult and possibly expensive operation to crush an Allied landing.

_____________________________

Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)

Post #: 60