What if Operation Wesurbung failed?

[Tipsyfish]

This is just a short scenario that I wrote up (and already made a video on) but I thought that still getting feedback on it would be good in the advent that I wanted to go back and re-do the video.


After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the allied powers were sure of an innement attack along the Franco-German border that didn't come for some time. The first major action between Germany and the allies was not in France, but in Scandinavia. These nations, much like in the first World War, thought themselves to be out of the likely fields of battle, yet with Finland battling hard against the Soviet Union only a few months after World War 2 started, that thought quickly vanished.
Both sides had a very interest in Sweden and Norway. High-grade iron ore. This ore was needed for wartime production of Steel, and Germany's other sources from Spain and Morocco were cut off from the British blockage. Germany needed to protect it's supply of iron ore and thus Operation Weserübung was formed. The allies had constructed a plan that was disguised as an operation to help the Finns that would allow them to occupy the mining facilities of Northern Sweden, and the major ports of Norway called R-4, and while this pre-dated Weserübung, it ultimately failed. Starting a string of victories by the Axis-powers. But how could Weserübung had failed? And the allies won the race for Norway?
Well, this could be accomplished in a few ways.

One scenario could be that the naval forces sent to Northern Norway suffered heavy casualties in a battle between the Royal Navy. In OTL the German fleet was sandwiched between the Home Fleet under Admiral Forbes and the first cruiser squadron under Admiral Withworth that was sailing south along the Norwegian coast. Had the two admirals realized that they had the German fleet in a vice, they could have closed it and caused heavy damage. Preventing a landing at Narvik and most likely Trondheim by German forces. If the Royal Navy is able to skirt along the southern coast of Norway after this, preventing any supplies and reinforcements from the sea, then it would spell disaster for the Germans. This would leave only airdrops as a means of landing troops, resulting in a much worse version of Crete in OTL. Once the allies have firm footing in Norway, Germany can't force them out. The invasion was a gamble in the first place and Hitler would not allow another invasion to happen. But what does this spell for the rest of the war?


Allied casualties would be much smaller then they were in OTL while German casualties both in man and sea power would be heavier, stripping the German navy of even more ships that it couldn't spare. This would mean that Sweden in an even more precarious position then it was in OTL, meaning that it likely would be forced to join one side or the other during the war or threat invasion. Denmark would still be under German occupation but Danish cities would be heavily hit by Allied bombs, more German troops would be sent to garrison Denmark even though an invasion would be suicidal. Finland would also not re-start war with the Soviet Union even if Operation Barbarossa still happened in TL.

This could have a rather dramatic change in the political landscape too. While the Norwegian debate was the last straw in Chamberlain being removed, If the operation succeeded he wouldn't stay premier for much longer then in OTL. France would still be occupied in this time-line, the final battles in Norway were still being waged when the Germans crossed the French border. And even if that didn't spell the end to his career, then his declining health would be. However, the victory in Norway might induce France to relocate the government to North Africa instead of capitulating. With France still waging the war from Africa, Mussolini might not join the war for a period of time.

Link to the video: 

[lordroel]

Mar 10, 2016 17:13:50 GMT Tipsyfish said:

This is just a short scenario that I wrote up (and already made a video on) but I thought that still getting feedback on it would be good in the advent that I wanted to go back and re-do the video.


After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the allied powers were sure of an innement attack along the Franco-German border that didn't come for some time. The first major action between Germany and the allies was not in France, but in Scandinavia. These nations, much like in the first World War, thought themselves to be out of the likely fields of battle, yet with Finland battling hard against the Soviet Union only a few months after World War 2 started, that thought quickly vanished.
Both sides had a very interest in Sweden and Norway. High-grade iron ore. This ore was needed for wartime production of Steel, and Germany's other sources from Spain and Morocco were cut off from the British blockage. Germany needed to protect it's supply of iron ore and thus Operation Weserübung was formed. The allies had constructed a plan that was disguised as an operation to help the Finns that would allow them to occupy the mining facilities of Northern Sweden, and the major ports of Norway called R-4, and while this pre-dated Weserübung, it ultimately failed. Starting a string of victories by the Axis-powers. But how could Weserübung had failed? And the allies won the race for Norway?
Well, this could be accomplished in a few ways.

One scenario could be that the naval forces sent to Northern Norway suffered heavy casualties in a battle between the Royal Navy. In OTL the German fleet was sandwiched between the Home Fleet under Admiral Forbes and the first cruiser squadron under Admiral Withworth that was sailing south along the Norwegian coast. Had the two admirals realized that they had the German fleet in a vice, they could have closed it and caused heavy damage. Preventing a landing at Narvik and most likely Trondheim by German forces. If the Royal Navy is able to skirt along the southern coast of Norway after this, preventing any supplies and reinforcements from the sea, then it would spell disaster for the Germans. This would leave only airdrops as a means of landing troops, resulting in a much worse version of Crete in OTL. Once the allies have firm footing in Norway, Germany can't force them out. The invasion was a gamble in the first place and Hitler would not allow another invasion to happen. But what does this spell for the rest of the war?


Allied casualties would be much smaller then they were in OTL while German casualties both in man and sea power would be heavier, stripping the German navy of even more ships that it couldn't spare. This would mean that Sweden in an even more precarious position then it was in OTL, meaning that it likely would be forced to join one side or the other during the war or threat invasion. Denmark would still be under German occupation but Danish cities would be heavily hit by Allied bombs, more German troops would be sent to garrison Denmark even though an invasion would be suicidal. Finland would also not re-start war with the Soviet Union even if Operation Barbarossa still happened in TL.

This could have a rather dramatic change in the political landscape too. While the Norwegian debate was the last straw in Chamberlain being removed, If the operation succeeded he wouldn't stay premier for much longer then in OTL. France would still be occupied in this time-line, the final battles in Norway were still being waged when the Germans crossed the French border. And even if that didn't spell the end to his career, then his declining health would be. However, the victory in Norway might induce France to relocate the government to North Africa instead of capitulating. With France still waging the war from Africa, Mussolini might not join the war for a period of time.

I do not think a British-French win in Norway is going to stop Mussolini from creating his New Roman empire.

[Tipsyfish]

Mar 10, 2016 18:21:15 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 10, 2016 17:13:50 GMT Tipsyfish said:

This is just a short scenario that I wrote up (and already made a video on) but I thought that still getting feedback on it would be good in the advent that I wanted to go back and re-do the video.


After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the allied powers were sure of an innement attack along the Franco-German border that didn't come for some time. The first major action between Germany and the allies was not in France, but in Scandinavia. These nations, much like in the first World War, thought themselves to be out of the likely fields of battle, yet with Finland battling hard against the Soviet Union only a few months after World War 2 started, that thought quickly vanished.
Both sides had a very interest in Sweden and Norway. High-grade iron ore. This ore was needed for wartime production of Steel, and Germany's other sources from Spain and Morocco were cut off from the British blockage. Germany needed to protect it's supply of iron ore and thus Operation Weserübung was formed. The allies had constructed a plan that was disguised as an operation to help the Finns that would allow them to occupy the mining facilities of Northern Sweden, and the major ports of Norway called R-4, and while this pre-dated Weserübung, it ultimately failed. Starting a string of victories by the Axis-powers. But how could Weserübung had failed? And the allies won the race for Norway?
Well, this could be accomplished in a few ways.

One scenario could be that the naval forces sent to Northern Norway suffered heavy casualties in a battle between the Royal Navy. In OTL the German fleet was sandwiched between the Home Fleet under Admiral Forbes and the first cruiser squadron under Admiral Withworth that was sailing south along the Norwegian coast. Had the two admirals realized that they had the German fleet in a vice, they could have closed it and caused heavy damage. Preventing a landing at Narvik and most likely Trondheim by German forces. If the Royal Navy is able to skirt along the southern coast of Norway after this, preventing any supplies and reinforcements from the sea, then it would spell disaster for the Germans. This would leave only airdrops as a means of landing troops, resulting in a much worse version of Crete in OTL. Once the allies have firm footing in Norway, Germany can't force them out. The invasion was a gamble in the first place and Hitler would not allow another invasion to happen. But what does this spell for the rest of the war?


Allied casualties would be much smaller then they were in OTL while German casualties both in man and sea power would be heavier, stripping the German navy of even more ships that it couldn't spare. This would mean that Sweden in an even more precarious position then it was in OTL, meaning that it likely would be forced to join one side or the other during the war or threat invasion. Denmark would still be under German occupation but Danish cities would be heavily hit by Allied bombs, more German troops would be sent to garrison Denmark even though an invasion would be suicidal. Finland would also not re-start war with the Soviet Union even if Operation Barbarossa still happened in TL.

This could have a rather dramatic change in the political landscape too. While the Norwegian debate was the last straw in Chamberlain being removed, If the operation succeeded he wouldn't stay premier for much longer then in OTL. France would still be occupied in this time-line, the final battles in Norway were still being waged when the Germans crossed the French border. And even if that didn't spell the end to his career, then his declining health would be. However, the victory in Norway might induce France to relocate the government to North Africa instead of capitulating. With France still waging the war from Africa, Mussolini might not join the war for a period of time.

I do not think a British-French win in Norway is going to stop Mussolini from creating his New Roman empire.

Well, considering that Mussolini didn't jump onto the Axis bandwagon until France was pretty much out of the picture I'd assume so. Say what you want about the man, but he wasn't that stupid. He still was, but not so much to think that his nation could beat anyone. 

[lordroel]

Mar 10, 2016 18:24:41 GMT Tipsyfish said:

Mar 10, 2016 18:21:15 GMT lordroel said:

I do not think a British-French win in Norway is going to stop Mussolini from creating his New Roman empire.

Well, considering that Mussolini didn't jump onto the Axis bandwagon until France was pretty much out of the picture I'd assume so. Say what you want about the man, but he wasn't that stupid. He still was, but not so much to think that his nation could beat anyone. 

The most of the Allied forces in Norway where British, any French forces that would be garrisoned in Norway would be extra for the Free French instead of them returning to France after the collapse of Norway in OTL.

[stevep]

Shinsu

Interesting idea. The 1st part in trapping and largely destroying the forces to land at Narvik and Trondheim is quite possible. Not sure if the RN could interdict further sea supply to southern Norway in the fact of the Luftwaffe and the British and French forces sent to Norway were were woefully equipped and organised. However its possible that the battle for Norway could be won, possibly because once the northern landings have failed Hitler might consider it as a side-show distracting from the main front in France.

Presuming the attack on France goes as OTL I think Mussolini will declare war once it looks like the allies are defeated but the idea of success in Norway means that the French fight on has some interesting options. This could drastically shorten the war in N Africa as the Italians would have Tripoli exposed.

Chamberlain will lose office shortly simply because he's already dying. Churchill is possibly still most likely to succeed him as the RN will have gained prestige from the victory in Norway while the loss of France will be a huge shock but its possible that Halifax might be chosen instead. I don't think there's a practical 3rd candidate at this point.

Steve

[stevep]

Mar 10, 2016 18:21:15 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 10, 2016 17:13:50 GMT Tipsyfish said:

This is just a short scenario that I wrote up (and already made a video on) but I thought that still getting feedback on it would be good in the advent that I wanted to go back and re-do the video.


After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the allied powers were sure of an innement attack along the Franco-German border that didn't come for some time. The first major action between Germany and the allies was not in France, but in Scandinavia. These nations, much like in the first World War, thought themselves to be out of the likely fields of battle, yet with Finland battling hard against the Soviet Union only a few months after World War 2 started, that thought quickly vanished.
Both sides had a very interest in Sweden and Norway. High-grade iron ore. This ore was needed for wartime production of Steel, and Germany's other sources from Spain and Morocco were cut off from the British blockage. Germany needed to protect it's supply of iron ore and thus Operation Weserübung was formed. The allies had constructed a plan that was disguised as an operation to help the Finns that would allow them to occupy the mining facilities of Northern Sweden, and the major ports of Norway called R-4, and while this pre-dated Weserübung, it ultimately failed. Starting a string of victories by the Axis-powers. But how could Weserübung had failed? And the allies won the race for Norway?
Well, this could be accomplished in a few ways.

One scenario could be that the naval forces sent to Northern Norway suffered heavy casualties in a battle between the Royal Navy. In OTL the German fleet was sandwiched between the Home Fleet under Admiral Forbes and the first cruiser squadron under Admiral Withworth that was sailing south along the Norwegian coast. Had the two admirals realized that they had the German fleet in a vice, they could have closed it and caused heavy damage. Preventing a landing at Narvik and most likely Trondheim by German forces. If the Royal Navy is able to skirt along the southern coast of Norway after this, preventing any supplies and reinforcements from the sea, then it would spell disaster for the Germans. This would leave only airdrops as a means of landing troops, resulting in a much worse version of Crete in OTL. Once the allies have firm footing in Norway, Germany can't force them out. The invasion was a gamble in the first place and Hitler would not allow another invasion to happen. But what does this spell for the rest of the war?


Allied casualties would be much smaller then they were in OTL while German casualties both in man and sea power would be heavier, stripping the German navy of even more ships that it couldn't spare. This would mean that Sweden in an even more precarious position then it was in OTL, meaning that it likely would be forced to join one side or the other during the war or threat invasion. Denmark would still be under German occupation but Danish cities would be heavily hit by Allied bombs, more German troops would be sent to garrison Denmark even though an invasion would be suicidal. Finland would also not re-start war with the Soviet Union even if Operation Barbarossa still happened in TL.

This could have a rather dramatic change in the political landscape too. While the Norwegian debate was the last straw in Chamberlain being removed, If the operation succeeded he wouldn't stay premier for much longer then in OTL. France would still be occupied in this time-line, the final battles in Norway were still being waged when the Germans crossed the French border. And even if that didn't spell the end to his career, then his declining health would be. However, the victory in Norway might induce France to relocate the government to North Africa instead of capitulating. With France still waging the war from Africa, Mussolini might not join the war for a period of time.

I do not think a British-French win in Norway is going to stop Mussolini from [trying to create] creating his New Roman empire.

  Small clarification Lordroel.   I know what you meant.

  Steve

[Tipsyfish]

Mar 14, 2016 23:34:40 GMT stevep said:

However its possible that the battle for Norway could be won, possibly because once the northern landings have failed Hitler might consider it as a side-show distracting from the main front in France.

Presuming the attack on France goes as OTL I think Mussolini will declare war once it looks like the allies are defeated but the idea of success in Norway means that the French fight on has some interesting options. This could drastically shorten the war in N Africa as the Italians would have Tripoli exposed.

Norway was rather important since it gave Germany it's Iron ore that it needed, Germany produced around ten tons of crude ore per year, but it needed to be mixed with high-grade ore to make it usable in a military sense. The imports from Sweden went from 600,000 gross tons to around 1.8 million gross tons during the war. However, attempting a second invasion wasn't going to happen, the German navy is blocked up, the paratroopers aren't trusted (even less after crete) the entire location is fortified and the element of surprise is gone. Same as the allies trying to invade Denmark would have been suicidal, they might have been able to pass through the sound but trying to take Jylland or Sjaelland would have been a waste of men, ships, and planes.




Mussolini might just not attack France, or try to drive straight into Tunisia and Algeria even though that would work as well as the Egyptian invasion did. But the only real reason he attacked in the first place was that if he didn't join the "winning" team, then he would lose his only chance and be invaded in turn.

[lordroel]

I wonder if the German invasion of France and the low countries will even happen if Germany losses the battle of Norway.

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 4:57:36 GMT Tipsyfish said:

Mar 14, 2016 23:34:40 GMT stevep said:

However its possible that the battle for Norway could be won, possibly because once the northern landings have failed Hitler might consider it as a side-show distracting from the main front in France.

Presuming the attack on France goes as OTL I think Mussolini will declare war once it looks like the allies are defeated but the idea of success in Norway means that the French fight on has some interesting options. This could drastically shorten the war in N Africa as the Italians would have Tripoli exposed.

Norway was rather important since it gave Germany it's Iron ore that it needed, Germany produced around ten tons of crude ore per year, but it needed to be mixed with high-grade ore to make it usable in a military sense. The imports from Sweden went from 600,000 gross tons to around 1.8 million gross tons during the war. However, attempting a second invasion wasn't going to happen, the German navy is blocked up, the paratroopers aren't trusted (even less after crete) the entire location is fortified and the element of surprise is gone. Same as the allies trying to invade Denmark would have been suicidal, they might have been able to pass through the sound but trying to take Jylland or Sjaelland would have been a waste of men, ships, and planes.




Mussolini might just not attack France, or try to drive straight into Tunisia and Algeria even though that would work as well as the Egyptian invasion did. But the only real reason he attacked in the first place was that if he didn't join the "winning" team, then he would lose his only chance and be invaded in turn.

  Shinsu

  As you say the ore came via Sweden,  It was only during the winter when the Baltic was frozen over that Narvik was important.  Also I believe that the fall of France supplied alternatives to German from Lorraine for instance.  As such, presuming this still happens I think Norway becomes largely irrelevant to German aims.  As you say it would be far more difficult for the Nazis to make another attack against a prepared defence.  They might attack supply lines between Britain and Norway to exert pressure on the allies.

  Agree with Mussolini's actions.  If France falls, even if it decides to fight on from N Africa he will still join the conflict.  However I think the French had a decent garrison in N Africa, apart from anything that could be evacuated from the south coast, plus prepared defences so I doubt the Italians would even consider attacking there.  Plus it would be easier for Britain to reinforce than Egypt.

  However what is likely I suspect would be attacks on Corsica which I can't see the French holding.

  Steve

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 15:32:49 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder if the German invasion of France and the low countries will even happen if Germany losses the battle of Norway.

  Lordroel

  I think it would.  Fighting in Norway was still going on and it served, even if the Germans are quickly and heavily defeated, to distract allied attention.  Also while occupation of Norway is seen as useful for Germany the quick conquest of France [and they hoped forcing Britain to make peace] is pretty much vital for the short war the German economy needs and to enable an early attack on Russia.  Therefore I can't see the attack not being launched and unless some quick butterflies stopped early successes they will very likely win pretty much as OTL.

  Steve

[Tipsyfish]

Mar 17, 2016 16:35:51 GMT stevep said:

Mar 17, 2016 4:57:36 GMT Tipsyfish said:

Norway was rather important since it gave Germany it's Iron ore that it needed, Germany produced around ten tons of crude ore per year, but it needed to be mixed with high-grade ore to make it usable in a military sense. The imports from Sweden went from 600,000 gross tons to around 1.8 million gross tons during the war. However, attempting a second invasion wasn't going to happen, the German navy is blocked up, the paratroopers aren't trusted (even less after crete) the entire location is fortified and the element of surprise is gone. Same as the allies trying to invade Denmark would have been suicidal, they might have been able to pass through the sound but trying to take Jylland or Sjaelland would have been a waste of men, ships, and planes.




Mussolini might just not attack France, or try to drive straight into Tunisia and Algeria even though that would work as well as the Egyptian invasion did. But the only real reason he attacked in the first place was that if he didn't join the "winning" team, then he would lose his only chance and be invaded in turn. 

  As you say the ore came via Sweden,  It was only during the winter when the Baltic was frozen over that Narvik was important.  Also I believe that the fall of France supplied alternatives to German from Lorraine for instance.  

Lorraine didn't give Germans the ore needed to match the output required. Morocco supplied around 2 million tons of high grade ore but even under the Vichy regime, that number was sent to nearly nothing. Spanish shipments were still hovering around the pre-war level of a half million. Even with the Swedish ore increase they didn't have enough to produce what they needed actually. Six months out of the year the ore was needed to be sent through Narvik actually, and if you include the threat of now allied planes, even the pre-war levels wouldn't come through. 

 

Agree with Mussolini's actions. If France falls, even if it decides to fight on from N Africa he will still join the conflict.

Again, I doubt that, Mussolini would still attack Greece, Yugoslavia etc. But I see him more acting like a linch-pin between the Germans and Africa, if Italy doesn't join then Germany can't follow, and if Germany tries to attack Italy then they'll have some fun...

[Tipsyfish]

Mar 17, 2016 15:32:49 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder if the German invasion of France and the low countries will even happen if Germany losses the battle of Norway.

The invasion of France started even before the fighting of Norway was finished. Narvik was taken by the allies but a withdraw was given once the defenses of France broke. The two campaigns don't feed off of each other, they were completely separate. 

[stevep]

Mar 18, 2016 3:36:54 GMT Tipsyfish said:

Lorraine didn't give Germans the ore needed to match the output required. Morocco supplied around 2 million tons of high grade ore but even under the Vichy regime, that number was sent to nearly nothing. Spanish shipments were still hovering around the pre-war level of a half million. Even with the Swedish ore increase they didn't have enough to produce what they needed actually. Six months out of the year the ore was needed to be sent through Narvik actually, and if you include the threat of now allied planes, even the pre-war levels wouldn't come through. 

  I could be wrong there about Norway's importance.  Thought that the Germans were no longer as dependent on iron ore from Sweden.  In that case there might still be later attacks on Norway.

Again, I doubt that, Mussolini would still attack Greece, Yugoslavia etc. But I see him more acting like a linch-pin between the Germans and Africa, if Italy doesn't join then Germany can't follow, and if Germany tries to attack Italy then they'll have some fun...

  Note that OTL Italian dow came on 10-6-40, i.e. 4 days before Paris fell to the Germans and a week before Petain became French premier and asked for an armistice.  Even with a German failure in Norway, which would probably have been seen as a rash gamble, I can only see it possibly being delayed a few days at most.  With the defeat of the main allied forces, eviction of the BEF from the continent and impending collapse of France I can't see Mussolini not seeking a place at the table.  Mussolini might still attack Greece as he did OTL despite already being at war with Britain but his main aim was cheap gains from Britain and France [i.e. Malta, Tunisia, changes on the Alpine border and anything else he could get away with].

  In the unlikely event of Italy not joining the war I can't see Germany bothering to attack it.  Italy as a neutral but fascist state still ties down British forces and is a potential route for imports to breach the British blockade.  Also Hitler saw no merit in a campaign against the British empire in the Med, especially since an attack on Italy while almost certainly successful in itself would see the islands and definitely Libya coming into 'allied' hands, immediately negating any threat to British interests.  He wanted to go east ASAP and would have probably had a short term advantage from Italian neutrality.  [No Afrika Korp and supply burden, no distraction to Greece and Yugoslavia, no 2nd front in Italy later on etc].

  Steve