Slitherine

Many players have questioned idea of attacking Norway in 1940 before Barbarossa. If you're doing Sealion then taking Norway is not so easy before Britain is subdued. One reason is that you need all the naval units you can for Sealion. The most important reason is that you need the amph capacity for Sealion and not Norway.

But if you're not doing Sealion then going after Norway definitely has merit. One reason is that you get access to 3 extra ports, the Bergen port being the most important one. The ports of Bergen and Trondheim can house the Kriegsmarine or be used to upgrade / repair German subs. You can then put the Russian convoy under even more pressure after you launch Barbarossa.

Norway gives you airbases to protect the Kriegsmarine or bombard the Russian convoy before it arrives at the Murmansk port.

Norway has a production of 6 and that means you get 3 extra PP's per turn if you capture Norway. That's equals a mech corps each year and you don't even have to worry about partisans. You need to garrison Oslo, Bergen and maybe even Trondheim. That's 45 PP's.

The Norwegian production is a bit higher than it could have been. That's done to simulate that the Germans get iron ore from Sweden during the winter turns when the Luleå port in the Gulf of Bothnia is frozen. Then the iron ore is railed to the Norwegian port of Narvik and sailed to Germany along the Norwegian coast. With Norway neutral or Allied controlled it would have been very hard to get the iron ore to Germany. Britain mined the Norwegian coast line prior to Weserübüng and could have sunk those transports going from Narvik.

In GS v2.0 you can use a paradrop to land near Oslo to make it easier to take Norway. So Norway is definitely an interesting target for Germany to take prior to Barbarossa. The risk is not so high either. Granted, the Royal Navy can intervene and engage the Kriegsmarine or land units in Bergen / Trondheim. But the invasion usually takes place when Germany is getting newly built subs and these can guard the Skagerrak for the crucial turn to get the land units ashore near Oslo. The Luftwaffe in Denmark can retaliate against the RN as well.

The Danish city of Aalborg is very important as a rail hub. You can quickly get a paratrooper and a fighter to this city to have range to Norway.

Bottom line is that going after Norway is a good way for Germany to increase the income and get vital air and naval bases to harass the Russian convoy.

I agree. Norway is usually a low risk, moderate reward action for the Axis. Even if the British decide to invade the country in 1942 and use it as a platform to bomb Germany, they could have done that with Norway neutral. And it takes away from the Allied efforts elsewhere. When invading, you just have to be careful to ensure that the British don't become too much of a pain. A British garrison in Bergen or Trondheim would require a fairly sizeable commitment to dislodge. So I think stationing at least a couple subs to block the Bergen port on turn 1 of the invasion is essential. Otherwise, you may find that you get more than you bargain for in Norway. From all the AARs, most players seem to have realized/learned this lesson already.

I also agree. Norway is a valuable country for the Axis, because it is a good Sub and Air base for attacks on the Soviet convoys. It also gives some nice PP and with good preparations can be taken easily.

For some time I'm also thinking about a "northern" Axis strategy in which the Axis capture Norway and Sweden. This gives the Axis rail capacity in Scandinavia, but I still miss a good strategy to attack the Soviets from the north.

I think Norway is a tough call for the Axis. I think that the conquest can managed by having plenty of subs and the Luftwaffe on point in Denmark. In fact, if I decide to take Norway as the Axis I want the British to try to interfere with the Royal Navy. If the British manage to run the sub blockade and get garrisons into ports that does become more of an annoyance having to blast them out but it is still manageable. The problem is when 1941 rolls around. The most recent game I played my opponent launched an invasion to liberate Norway 2-3 turns into my Barbarossa. I responded with two fighters/1 tac/1 strat and moved 2 corp/1 mech to Norway. I had 1 corp stationed around Oslo, Oslo had a German garrison and the other cities were garrisoned with Axis minor garrisons. I managed to kill 4-5 British corp/mechs and delayed the conquest for almost a year but the eastern front suffered as a result. I probably overreacted in that game but it does highlight the main problem with Norway in that the Allies can fight the Axis on an equal supply basis early in the war, and this is in my opinion is to the Allies advantage. Of course, once it falls to the Allies it becomes a big problem for the Axis because of strategic bombing as already mentioned in this thread.

It is true that the Allies can invade Norway if the the Axis player leaves it neutral, but it will be difficult for the Allies to land anywhere near Oslo without taking significant damage during the landings unless the Axis player is really asleep at the switch. The Axis can then rush troops/Luftwaffe units if they so desire and get full income from Norway and not half as they would if the Axis conquered Norway being that Norway would be allied with the Axis at this point. I haven't had the opportunity to play out a game where the Axis have left Norway neutral and the Allies invaded, but it seems manageable for the Axis based on this analysis (or at least no worse than if the Axis decided to take it in 1940 and the Allies invade in 1941). Thoughts?

I agree that as Axis it's safer to not invade Norway as it does provide a more secure flank - the big issue for me is the Luftwaffe from Norway suffers as it's only in a Zone 3 supply area.

I tend to leave Norway alone and since doing so it has helped. I too have suffered from the allied counter invasion of Norway - it can become a Thorne in your side. That said maybe it's just coz I'm crap......

As Axis I have better things to do than invade Norway. British bases allow them to control the convoy route all the way to Murmansk from the air. From 1942 on it is too expensive for Gemany to maintain a viable threat there against the Allies, especially US airpower.
When Allied, it is relatively easy to take Bergen. If there are German surface units there you can blockade them and get a nice 'Bismarck' bonus when you do it. From 1942 on, Norway is an anchor around the Axis neck. In the actual war, Hitler kept 250,000 German troops there which would have obviously been of much greater use elsewhere, like on the Eastern Front. There were very good reasons why Allied leaders discouraged the assassination of the Fuehrer, this being one example out of dozens. I don't invade Norway.

TotalerKrieg wrote:I had 1 corp stationed around Oslo, Oslo had a German garrison and the other cities were garrisoned with Axis minor garrisons.

I would not recommend to garrison the Norwegian cities with GARs. Normally Norway is conquered with two INF. These units should not be transported back, but used for defending Norway instead of bringing GAR there. I learned this from Plaid as he did made a simple calculation.

It costs 70 PP to build two INF. It costs 62 PP to build and bring two GAR to Norway and bring the two INF back. So both INF should stay in Norway.

shawkhan wrote:As Axis I have better things to do than invade Norway. British bases allow them to control the convoy route all the way to Murmansk from the air. From 1942 on it is too expensive for Gemany to maintain a viable threat there against the Allies, especially US airpower.
When Allied, it is relatively easy to take Bergen. If there are German surface units there you can blockade them and get a nice 'Bismarck' bonus when you do it. From 1942 on, Norway is an anchor around the Axis neck. In the actual war, Hitler kept 250,000 German troops there which would have obviously been of much greater use elsewhere, like on the Eastern Front. There were very good reasons why Allied leaders discouraged the assassination of the Fuehrer, this being one example out of dozens. I don't invade Norway.

I agree. I find Norway more problems than its worth - especially as it costs you at least 2 INF and a GAR to garrison it (=85PPs+24PPs transport= 109 PPs total) By the time of Barbarossa, you have only recovered about 14 turns of production ~ 42 PPs. I find being down 67 PPs just before Barbarossa as quite significant. I never have any spare air units to put up there as everything is either committed to France/Germany, North Africa or Russia..... The only times I tend to do it are when I manage to knock France over early and I'm looking for something to do with my TACs....

schwerpunkt wrote:By the time of Barbarossa, you have only recovered about 14 turns of production ~ 42 PPs. I find being down 67 PPs just before Barbarossa as quite significant.

This assumes that you invade Norway in late 1940, but if you do it right you can capture Norway in 1939 before the invasion of France. If you capture Oslo on turn 7 (30. December 1939) and do Barbarossa on turn 34 (22. June 1941) then you got 81 PP out of Norway. Still less then the 109 PP you counted for the defence of Norway with two INF + 1 GAR, but Norway also gives you some good ports for your SUB and can act as an air base.

I also do not agree that an Allied counter invasion is such a big problem (or anchor). Of course the Allies can liberate Norway if they want too, but it will take time and resources, which could also be used in other theaters, especially in the Med. Even if the Axis player does not try to stop the Allies, it will not be easy for the Allies to capture all of Norway in one year. If the Axis player can spare the resource he could also try to prevent a succesful invasion and inflict heavy losses on the Allies.

Norway is a side show for the Germans and if the Allies want to invade there then let them do it. Then they waste PP's for an invasion and it will take time until they capture all hexes in Norway. Germany can quickly send bombers and corps units to Norway to crush the invaders if they like to.

So usually it will be from 1942 or later you will see an Allied landing in Norway. If it happens then it will delay a landing in France or somewhere else.

You don't have to land 2 corps units in Norway if you use a paratrooper to take Oslo. 2 tac bombers in Denmark will ensure Oslo will fall quickly. Then you can sail garrisons to the Norwegian cities and use the corps units in the east instead. You can always
keep the corps units in German controlled ports when you go after Norway so you can quickly send them to Norway if the British reinforce Bergen and Trondheim.

With the v2.00t update the Germans, Italians and British will have a BB in the production queue that will arrive at the end of 1940 (simulating Bismarck/Tirpitz for the Germans, Roma/Impero for the Italians and King George V / Prince of Wales / Duke of York for the British). This means the Germans can station a BB in Trondheim and another BB in Bergen. I would like to see the Allies trying to send transports to these port cities without serious RN support. If you land adjacent to the ports the transports can be hit by the BB's.

2 German BB's can be a serious threat to the Russian convoy. If you even send the German DD and some subs to the area it's dangerous for the RN to go there unless you send 3-4 BB's, 2 CV's and some destroyers.

So Norway will be a good place to keep the Kriegsmarine as a threat against the Russian Convoy. So now the RN will need to plan how to sink Tirpitz. Tirpitz was originally kept in harbor in the Trondheims fjord. Later it was moved close to Tromsø in the north. The RN went after Tirpitz both places and managed to sink her in November 1944 near Tromsø.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Tirpitz

zechi wrote:For some time I'm also thinking about a "northern" Axis strategy in which the Axis capture Norway and Sweden. This gives the Axis rail capacity in Scandinavia, but I still miss a good strategy to attack the Soviets from the north.

Same here. I've tried to workout if it would be worth the trouble attack Sweden and get railroading possible in Finland. I haven't figured out a way that would warrant the cost in resources it would take. The ability to rail units to, say, Petrozavodsk and be able to gather forces into nothern Soviet flank sounds very interesting. Even more so in 2.0 IF I recall correctly that 2.0 introduces the 2 PP cost moving over straits instead of 8 PP earlier. 2 PP transport over Copegheim-Malmo strait and railroad transport to the northern flank sounds like an inviting alternative for German troops in my eyes.

Does anyone have a good source on what sized army Sweden could had mobilized say in Spring 1940? A quick glance into my books didn't produce any solid info. It's just that 4 infantry corps and 2 mechanized units seem awful lot. At least compared to 3 infantry corps Finland gets. Anyone?

I'm not argueing Sweden gets too many units per se. And even it would get too many going just by historical numbers that might good and avoids Sweden getting unhistorically KOed every game. I'm honestly curious if anyone has solid info for 1940 or say 1941 and how that compares with the game.

Also what's missing from the Axis northern strategy in the game is the possibility to take over the two most important lend lease ports, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, by attacking from Finnish territoty and reducing lend lease going to Soviets that way. An act which can be argued would had reduced the ammount of help from the west at least least well into 1942. Maybe even longer.

_augustus_ //just editing out the typos if anyone wonders about the number of edits

_Augustus_ wrote: Does anyone have a good source on what sized army Sweden could had mobilized say in Spring 1940? A quick glance into my books didn't produce any solid info. It's just that 4 infantry corps and 2 mechanized units seem awful lot. At least compared to 3 infantry corps Finland gets. Anyone?

With my google-fu I could quickly find this link: http://www-solar.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~aaron/sweeds.html

The numbers there seem to be based on reliable sources.

Speaking of the N. Russian ports, has anyone brought up the possibility of designating certain hexes on USSR's nothern border as "gateway" hexes that, if captured by the Axis, would signify the capture of Murmansk or Archangel? According to Carrel, the Germans actually did try to capture Murmansk from N. Finland, but they just didn't have enough manpower.

Historically, it would also be interesting to be able to conduct the Soviet attack on Finland as other games do. Yes I know, big change to the game mechanics. But this was a very important campaign because it showed to the whole world how much damage Stalin's purges had done to the Red Army. Hitler decided the Soviet Union would be an easy target and Stalin began a crash program to upgrade the Red Army, which was far from complete on June 41.

I believe that Britain wanted to not only cutoff Germany's iron ore from Sweden by capturing Narvik, but Churchhill also wanted to send aid the the Finns. I think our Scandinavian gamers would know much more about this from their history classes!

shawkhan wrote:As Axis I have better things to do than invade Norway. British bases allow them to control the convoy route all the way to Murmansk from the air. From 1942 on it is too expensive for Gemany to maintain a viable threat there against the Allies, especially US airpower.
When Allied, it is relatively easy to take Bergen. If there are German surface units there you can blockade them and get a nice 'Bismarck' bonus when you do it. From 1942 on, Norway is an anchor around the Axis neck. In the actual war, Hitler kept 250,000 German troops there which would have obviously been of much greater use elsewhere, like on the Eastern Front. There were very good reasons why Allied leaders discouraged the assassination of the Fuehrer, this being one example out of dozens. I don't invade Norway.

You are right, there were 250k german troops in norway, but most of them were committed in the far nord directly agaist Soviet, and Soviet too had to keep there sizeable forces.

Hi,

Also what's missing from the Axis northern strategy in the game is the possibility to take over the two most important lend lease ports, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, by attacking from Finnish territoty and reducing lend lease going to Soviets that way. An act which can be argued would had reduced the ammount of help from the west at least least well into 1942. Maybe even longer.

Just curious to know if the subject was discussed and might one expect to see any changes to this effect in 2.0?

Cheers,

_augustus_

This is considered off-map for GS v2.00. We would have to expand the map to get northern Norway and Murmansk on-map.

It's hard to determine what would have been necessary to cut the lend lease to USSR. When the White Sea wasn't frozen then lend lease also went to Archangel. Lend lease went via the southern route (through Persia) and the Pacific route as well.

So both the German and Soviet units dedicated in the far north are actually off-map.

A GS v2.00 change is that the German corps in Finland is removed and will spawn in northern Finland if Norway or Sweden are Axis controlled. That unit simulates the German corps in northern Finland that came from Norway.

Our problem is that there are no hexes close enough to Murmansk that could have been the port. The only simple solution I could see is to let control of Archangel determine the possiblity to send LL to USSR. So if Archangel is Axis then the northern convoy would go to Britain instead. But is that realistic? Archangel is very hard to capture in GS, but at least it's on the map.

Stauffenberg wrote: A GS v2.00 change is that the German corps in Finland is removed and will spawn in northern Finland if Norway or Sweden are Axis controlled. That unit simulates the German corps in northern Finland that came from Norway.

Interesting. Makes historical sense in a way.

Gamplaywise an Axis strategy that doesn't take Norway or Sweden is stripped of one corps and must build and transport an unit (43 PPs extra) to have same level of troops in Finland as before. I thought Finland was bit too vunerable as is and is knocked out of the war quite early(at least compared to the historical date) usually? Well, the the extra fort introduced helps some.

The only simple solution I could see is to let control of Archangel determine the possiblity to send LL to USSR. So if Archangel is Axis then the northern convoy would go to Britain instead. But is that realistic? Archangel is very hard to capture in GS, but at least it's on the map.

For the reasons you listed top of your post I thought the control of Archangel might be a reasonable solution in the game when I first thought about the whole issue. But maybe historically the lend lease would have been switched to the other Soviet lend lease routes rather than diverted to UK? Pushing the limits of those routes of course. I was thinking about something in lines with if Archangel is in Axis hands the Soviet convoys suffer a penalty to their size when they are spawned?

That wouldn't alter the game too much much and possibly introduce balance ruining issues. But that would give the Axis northern strategy some benefit if one really wants to go for it.

Other options like "bulking up the Persian PP bonus" or "introducing a Vladivostok bonus PP" are probably too cumbersome to test out for balance.

_augustus_

Vaagso (Norway) Raid: Ch. 3. Commando Operations

I was watching an episode of World War II in Color on the Military Channel last night, which included a discussion of the formation and employment of the British Commandos as a means to bring the war to Germany after the fall of France.

pps 9-10 wrote:The term [commandos] was first used by the Boer guerrillas in South Africa. The Boer commando units consisted of field cornetcies (150 to 200 men), v/hich were subdivided into corporalships of about 25 men. The Boer units were loosely organized and disciplined. They were irregular guerrillas in the traditional sense of the term, depending on nationalism and the ineptitude of the British for success. Both were available in abundant supply. Their World War II counterparts were just the opposite. The men of Combined Operations were professional soldiers, picked from the Independent Companies that had been raised for the Norwegian expedition and from volunteers. They were subject to military discipline and training, which, if unorthodox, was still of a professional military caliber. ] They qualified as guerrillas only in the sense of professionals fighting la petite guerre or kleinkreig ("little war"), a conflict or strategy waged within the scope of a larger conflict or strategy. The commandos of World War II were a product of both traditional skirmishing tactics and modern technology. The hybrid was created for the purpose of striking back at the Germans. Raiding was one meâns of doing this. An army does not have to do things in a big way to hurt the enemy; anything that drains the enemy's resources is justifiable military action. Temporary occupation of enemy territory, such as Churchill envisioned, is one way. Even less
ambitious raid can cause the enemy more loss than he inflicts, hurting him both materially and psychologically. This application of "little war" can also drain and overextend his resources. In 1940 raiding was one of the few options open to Britain for bringing military force to bear against the enemy. This was to be done initially by ten commando units (35 officers and 500 men each), ten troops of 50 men to a commando [unit].

Commando operations in Norway by Simon Orchard provides a nice summary of the 10 commando operations that the UK, Canadians and Norwegians took against German forces in Norway. 4 of 10 of these operations involved significant number of commando raiders (i.e., 800, 1500, 800 & 300 men). I thought I had remember from the WW-II in Color episode that Germany stationed 250,000 men in Norway throughout the war. In searching to try to confirm this number I found an article on Norway's liberation that puts that number at 360,000 to 400,000. Specifically,

It was widely feared that the war would end differently. Such apprehensions had a basis in arithmetic - the Germans had a huge concentration of armed forces on Norwegian soil. As many as 400,000 men- members of the German army, navy and air force - were stationed in Norway and when the Third Reich's collapse drew near, there were still 360,000 enemy troops in the country.

Regardless, British and Canadian commando operations supported by Norwegian resistance fighters caused Hitler significant grief. Enough grief for him to station 5 to 7 corps worth of troops there for the entire way and, from British Commandos,

"In October 1942 Hitler issued his famous "Commando Order," which called for the execution of all Allied commandos and paratroopers captured by the German Army. Failure to obey this order was punishable by court-martial. No specific penalty was specified, but disobeying the order amounted to disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief. It was obeyed in all theaters except North Africa, where Rommel was the commander. The members of these special forces were entitled to full rights as prisoners of war by the Prisoner of War Convention of 1929, and a number of Germans who obeyed the order faced war crimes charges at the end of the war. Hitler's order amounted to an official German recognition of the commandos and their potential to damage the German cause. The commandos were quick to realize this."