Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Operation Weserübung

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The War Room >> Operation Weserübung Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 5:09:48 PM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
Has anyone tried to conquer Norway as Germany in the early stages of a Global War Scenario (about Mar/Apr 1940)? Any ideas how to accomplish this on the MWIF map, using an historically reasonable amount of forces and effort?

with kind regards

< Message edited by Platon -- 4/17/2015 6:10:53 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 7:17:40 PM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 2535
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
Never tried, but probably use combined action, move Krigsmarine + Amph out from Kiel - probably in North Sea; with loaded like 2 divisions and 1 INF / MNT unit and invade somewhere. Lots depends too on how the Norway units are deployed.
You'll need precious air needed in France / Belgium too.

And by most probabilities the Brits will sail out with the Royal Navy, and if they find the Kriegsmarine ... well ... it won't end well.
Then the Germans have only 1 TPs to ship in more troops in Norway. Whereas the Brits can bring more eventually (but have they the forces).

Also best of luck to keep Northern Norway supplied later on.

(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 2
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 7:42:40 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
As a Strategic game, the gaming of this exercise with historical forces is not really possible i.e. battalion, regiment, divisions.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 3
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 8:05:36 PM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
I believe with the MWIF divisions rule a Norwegian campaign might be possible if not for the supply problem. It is impossible to reach Northern Norway via land without the use of an HQ as far as I can see.
That was not necessary when using the original WIF Europe map where I played this operation in some games albeit it does not make much sense strategically for the large convoy and transport fleet the allies most likely get when Norway is dowed.
NevertheIess I think that this option not being possible in MWIF is somewhat unsatisfying.

with kind regards



< Message edited by Platon -- 4/17/2015 9:08:18 PM >

(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 4
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 8:18:46 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Yes, but it is not just the Germans - the Norwegians operated in smaller units than a corps. Not to mention how they are going to be at sea for at least an impulse (too many historical invasions required for a combined to work).

Re being satisfying I think that, as has been borne out in previous threads, the whole Norwegian situation is mildly unsatisfying; not just that it cannot be played out as per real life (given this is a Strategic game that is perhaps understandable) but the impetus for Germany doing what it did in real life just isn't there (although probably shows what a stupid move it was in the first place!).

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 5
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 8:56:44 PM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
In the board game an implementation of a little houserule often can solve such a problem with relative ease.
For the MWIF map as a possible example ...
1) Reduce the Norwegian MTN to a MTN Div.
2) "Create" a "Notional HQ" by allowing Germany to choose an Inf or Mtn Div which has the abilites of an HQ when operationg inside Norway.
3) Award a (Victory Point) bonus to Germany when conquering Norway and/or some threat (CW mining Norwegian coastal waters) when it does not.
... then wait and see what happens in MAR/APR 40 when Germany is played by a creative Fuhrer

with kind regards

< Message edited by Platon -- 4/18/2015 6:59:09 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 6
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 9:11:10 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8528
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Norway again... If you look at the heavy losses the German navy got there, they never recuperated from that. Effectively, the German navy lost 40% of it's modern ships there (especially destroyers...).

That's why in WiF you don't see a German DoW on Norway.

The way to do it: spend an offensive chit, do a supercombined and invade Narvik with a division (hope the invasion succeeds) and the Oslo region with Para's and invading INF out of the AMPH, with the TRS as backup to move an additional unit unto the coast for the attack on Oslo next impulse. Stuka's are needed for ground strike and ground support.

If you don't use an offensive chit, you give the Home Fleet a chance of slaughtering your invasion force on the ships at Narvik, and if that isn't on the high seas, you give the CW the chance of landing an INF in Narvik, which isn't that easy to get rid of.

Conclusion: too expensive for the economic value you get out of the country (even with the Iron ore flowing in winter turns). Which is historically correct, I believe.

As Warspite put it: the invasion of Norway was a mistake (and a costly one too)...



< Message edited by Centuur -- 4/17/2015 10:12:34 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 7
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/17/2015 9:21:56 PM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
The German OKW for sure took it for a splendid idea when it planned the operation back in these old days

The game should help the German player a little to see it the same way ...


with kind regards

< Message edited by Platon -- 4/17/2015 10:34:41 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 8
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:10:04 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1690
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
What about the US entry hit for Germany?

I remember my first WiF game (everyone that played that game was their first as well)...I tried it, and was able to pull it off. However, I got stuffed in France. We had to end the game around the end of 1940 because of demoralization. It was because of this experience that I favor a modified version of "Fall Gelb" (I never let France get out of hand again).

The benefits vs cost does not come close for Germany to consider it. Maybe if there was no US entry hit, the Germans had a better chance than the rules allow for capturing the Norweigan naval assets combined with a tiny chance the Allies get those assets, a rework of the sea zone(s) in the North Sea making it more difficult for the CW to get into a high box, VP would be good as well as someone mentioned, etc...

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 9
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:35:16 AM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
The use of US entry to at least not discourage Germany to go to "Weserübung" looks as a sound idea to me.
No roll for the DOW Norway or alternatively having to roll anyway wether Germany dows Norway or not may be both feasible.

with kind regards

PS: By the way I think that could be a good idea for any historically similar situations (like the Soviet-Finnish winterwar) to create an option for those wishing to have a more historical flavour of the game.

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 10
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 6:25:03 AM   
Orm


Posts: 20626
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
I've seen Germany attack Norway. But I have never, ever, seen CW attack Norway during '40.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 11
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 7:11:38 AM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
Which seems a pitty to me because Germany beat the Allies by perhaps just one day in violating Norwegian neutrality as Churchill's plan "Operation Wilfred" - and a consequently "Plan R 4" - was already on its way on April 8.

with kind regards

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 12
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 9:28:10 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Yes but if the conclusion of history is that the German invasion of Norway was a rubbish idea, imagine how history would view Allied incursion against neutral Norway?

The problems of Norway are, I think, numerous:

a) The game is Strategic level. The assets that Germany must commit to make this operation possible is out of all proportion in terms of the wider game (particularly the knock-on effects for the French Campaign).

b) ADG do not like making too many specific rules to allow for individual events.

c) The game mechanics (sea-boxes in particular) vs the way the plan was able to be carried out.

d) Most of all the plans, from both an Allied and German perspective were not ideal (and that is being kind) so why would a WIF player want to repeat the mistakes? God knows what the result of a British invasion (assuming the Germans react to the mining, let alone if the Germans didn't react!!) would have been - the Germans would have ended up looking like the good guys! For the Germans they just ended up giving huge amounts of merchant shipping to the British and losing much of their surface fleet in the process....

I am sure there are house-rules that can be employed to make Norway an option. However, because of the coding, house-rules are usually harder to implement in MWIF than in WIF.

It's a shame but not much to be done I don't think.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 13
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 11:26:10 AM   
Platon

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 5/16/2014
Status: offline
I concur that from the (M)WIF view a German campaign in Norway seems to be an obvious major blunder. From an historical point of view the odds on this are not so straight forward as I believe.
As for MWIF being a game on strategical level, I think its a shame that a major strategical operation of the war, as I consider "Weserübung" can rightfully be called", is not playable because of the inconsistency of the rules and/or game material.
So maybe, some time in the future, when Steve has got the basics of the game working, he (or his grandson) may take a closer look to this lost opportunity for so much countless heroes to earn the Narvikschild or the Victoria Cross in the region of endless nights ...

with kind regards

< Message edited by Platon -- 4/18/2015 12:27:10 PM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 14
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 1:53:28 PM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 2535
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
There are way too many issues in my eyes in invading Norway than benefits in the long run.

Germany has access already to the North Sea. They won't badly need a minor port giving to the northern sea route to threaten Commerce with Soviets.

Most of Norway would be OOS for them. (They should get like one "Norway Bound" HQ upon capturing Oslo; Dietl or whatever you want to call it).

The garrisoning requirements are way too much in terms of units Germany can spare. In comparison to a large platform for Strat-Bombers and such the Allies can get later on by counter invading with much higher reinforcing rate vs the Kriegsmarine.

The Swedish Ore goes through Narvik if Norway is neutral anyhow.

1 Resource vs the Risks of losing units, and as already mentioned the garrison requirements vs an Allied Landing are way too against Germany.

All units going to Norway, especially Luftwaffe, will be badly missed in France, which is by far much more important than Norway.


On a different note I've read in some house rules of tabletop gamers they perform a roll upon German DoW of Norway, or better CW and Geramany rolls, and if Germany rolls higher Norway aligns to Germany even if it has been DoWed (They call that House Rule "Quisling". Pratically the Pro-Nazist party surges and gets Norway to side with the Axis.) The rule covers a bit more stuff, like not all of the Norway units could appear and some could be "lost", etc.
But in MWiF we cannot have anything like that unless the player pre-agrees, then the dice roll is on manual setting, etc.

I simply leave Norway be in my games.

(in reply to Platon)
Post #: 15
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 2:25:09 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8528
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
If one would put in "special" rules for Norway, one should look at Sweden too. Would that country join the Axis side after a CW DoW on Norway? It's possible that this would have happened, since there was a large "right wing" political party in parliament at that time and with the CW in Narvik looking at Swedish Iron?

Now, suppose that the USSR would not have started the Winterwar and Germany would have invaded Norway? Couldn't that have meant that Sweden would have stopped giving the iron ore to Germany? Swedish politics really became anti Soviet after the Winterwar and they expected Germany to go to war with Stalin. Before that, the Swedish view on the Iron was that whoever paid, got it.

And what about Spain and Portugal? Don't you think that a CW DoW on Portugal in early war wouldn't have made Franco nervous? What would Franco have done if the US and the CW would have invaded Portugal in force in 1943? Would Franco have given free passage to the Allies, simply to stay in power? That was the only thing he was interested in...

And the Dutch and Belgians also weren't good with eachother before WW II. If Germany would only have attacked the Dutch and would have promised the territory the Belgians wanted to gain in the 1920's, could Belgium not have joined the Axis side?

If one looks at the political situation at that time, things were very, very complicated. For every country in Europe, one could think of "if that happened, that could have been a possibility too". In a strategic game like WiF, that's almost impossible to do.

You need Days of Decision to add to this game, to get somewhat of a political system in place for this. However, that's a "game to far" at this moment...



< Message edited by Centuur -- 4/18/2015 3:25:38 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 16
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 3:44:40 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20626
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
There was no large Nazi movement in either Sweden nor Norway. In Sweden it was a very strong political consensus to stay out of the war. And since we did not enter the war to assist Finland against USSR we would never have joined Nazi Germany if the Allies had attacked Norway.

Most know that Sweden traded with Germany until '44. But few seem to know that Sweden traded with UK throughout the war. This despite the difficulty getting the trade through the war zone.

Sweden shared military intelligence with the British during the war and this was despite the "psilander affair" that did a lot to discredit UK (especially among the naval officers). As example I can mention that Sweden told UK that Bismarck was on the way out in the North Sea, Sweden also reported that Germany was about to attack USSR.

< Message edited by Orm -- 4/18/2015 4:46:53 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 17
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 4:38:46 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1690
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
I'm a bit surprised that Spain cant give "non-beligerant" status to itself after the fall of France.

I don't think the Belgians would have joined the Axis, but perhaps the Dutch would have? Hitler liked to split up countries with multiple ethnic groups...perhaps offering the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium?...or get the Flemish part of Belgium to separate from Belgium as an independent nation favorable to Germany?

Days of Decision is an awesome game!


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 18
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:07:26 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8528
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
Wasn't the National Organisation on the Right a nationalist party in those days? They had quite some seats in Parliament in 1940. Sure, they weren't a Nazi party, but they were nationalists. It looked to me (after having done some reading a couple of years ago on Swedish politics during WW II), that they were slowly going towards the fascist party in Italy before it came into power. The only thing missing was a charismatic leader. And I don't confuse them with the real Nazi Party in Sweden (which was very minor indeed).

And are you sure that if the CW would have attacked and put a lot of forces in Norway, that Sweden wouldn't have become very nervous? In such a case the CW would have attacked a country which had a democratic chosen government. I believe such an action would have changed the way politics were done in Sweden. From such a time forward, Sweden could not trust any country in the war anymore. Don't forget: in november 1939 the CW guaranteed any nation which had a democratic chosen government. Chamberlain promised the the CW would never declare war on such a government. Now, Churchill wasn't interested in keeping that promise at all. What would such a thing have meant for Swedish trust in the CW? I believe that they would have reacted. When Germany attacked Norway, it was clearly not in their interest to do so. But if the CW would have done so?

Also, there are the memoires of Molotov, who wrote that Sweden didn't want the USSR to occupy all of Finland. So Sweden put a lot of diplomacy in to get a peace between Finland and the USSR which should make sure that Finland would stay independent after the winterwar. He even wrote that if Stalin would not do this, that Sweden might go to war with Stalin over this...

Now, what if there hasn't been a winter war and suddenly Churchill attacks Norway? I believe that Sweden would swing towards the German side fast in such a case. A democratic nation which attacks another democratic nation after promising that it would never do so? That's very, very difficult to ignore, I believe, even if one is a democratic nation itself...

Of course, Orm, you are from Sweden, but still?



< Message edited by Centuur -- 4/18/2015 6:09:12 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 19
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:16:22 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8528
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm a bit surprised that Spain cant give "non-beligerant" status to itself after the fall of France.

I don't think the Belgians would have joined the Axis, but perhaps the Dutch would have? Hitler liked to split up countries with multiple ethnic groups...perhaps offering the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium?...or get the Flemish part of Belgium to separate from Belgium as an independent nation favorable to Germany?

Days of Decision is an awesome game!



I don't think the Dutch would have voluntarily joined the Axis side. There were two reasons for this:

First: the Dutch managed to stay neutral in WW I. There was the believe of the majority of the politicians that neutrality could be held during WW II too. The one country who never want to talk about military activities with both warring sides were the Dutch (where the Belgians did some talking after a German plane crash in the Ardennes).

Second: the Dutch economy ran on two things. Food (out of the Netherlands) and oil! The amounts of money coming in from the Dutch East Indies was tremendous. Even if Germany would have promised the Dutch the Flemish part of Belgium, going to war at the German side was seen as suicide for the Dutch economy. There is no way to prevent the British from capturing the Dutch Colonies in such a case. And especially the NEI was of utmost importance to the Dutch economy.



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 20
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:51:58 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I've seen German invasions of Norway before. Usually the Royal Navy has to be "tapped out" for that to happen (whether chased from the North Sea by German naval air, or concentrated in the Med, or both).

IMO it could be more feasible if and when offensive points are added to MWif. But all the same, the variable turn length, alternating impulse, and sea box game mechanics all make Weserübung very difficult to implement in this game.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 21
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 5:57:09 PM   
Orm


Posts: 20626
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Wasn't the National Organisation on the Right a nationalist party in those days? They had quite some seats in Parliament in 1940. Sure, they weren't a Nazi party, but they were nationalists. It looked to me (after having done some reading a couple of years ago on Swedish politics during WW II), that they were slowly going towards the fascist party in Italy before it came into power. The only thing missing was a charismatic leader. And I don't confuse them with the real Nazi Party in Sweden (which was very minor indeed).

And are you sure that if the CW would have attacked and put a lot of forces in Norway, that Sweden wouldn't have become very nervous? In such a case the CW would have attacked a country which had a democratic chosen government. I believe such an action would have changed the way politics were done in Sweden. From such a time forward, Sweden could not trust any country in the war anymore. Don't forget: in november 1939 the CW guaranteed any nation which had a democratic chosen government. Chamberlain promised the the CW would never declare war on such a government. Now, Churchill wasn't interested in keeping that promise at all. What would such a thing have meant for Swedish trust in the CW? I believe that they would have reacted. When Germany attacked Norway, it was clearly not in their interest to do so. But if the CW would have done so?

Also, there are the memoires of Molotov, who wrote that Sweden didn't want the USSR to occupy all of Finland. So Sweden put a lot of diplomacy in to get a peace between Finland and the USSR which should make sure that Finland would stay independent after the winterwar. He even wrote that if Stalin would not do this, that Sweden might go to war with Stalin over this...

Now, what if there hasn't been a winter war and suddenly Churchill attacks Norway? I believe that Sweden would swing towards the German side fast in such a case. A democratic nation which attacks another democratic nation after promising that it would never do so? That's very, very difficult to ignore, I believe, even if one is a democratic nation itself...

Of course, Orm, you are from Sweden, but still?



1) All Swedish parties were agreed on that Sweden should remain neutral. Opposition to neutrality was weak in all parties.
2) The German Nazi party and AH were seriously disliked in Sweden. As I understand it is that most saw AH as a clown and could not understand how he could come in power.
3) Germany, on the other hand, was liked but as long as AH remained in power Sweden would be concerned.
4) Sweden made some concessions to Germany because of the German occupation of Norway. As long as Germany was in a position to invade Sweden then we would try to convince them that it would not be beneficial to invade Sweden.
5) Sweden feared USSR so we would go a long way not to provoke them. Sweden lost 1/3 of its territory to Russia during the Napoleonic wars. After that Sweden has had several opportunities to try and recapture part of those territories but each time we have passed. Either siding with Russia (1813-1814) and since then stayed neutral.
6) If the Western Allies had occupied Norway I am sure that concessions to them would have been considered with the goal of staying out of the war.
7) Neutrality was, and is, popular in Sweden. One could even claim that neutrality is more important than religion.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 22
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 8:20:40 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8528
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
That last sentence is probably the most important one where Swedish politics are involved. But there remains the fact that Molotov wrote about the Swedish involvement to get a peace between the USSR and Finland during the winterwar. He truly believed that Sweden would go to war if Finland would become Russian again...

However, would these neutrality politics stay the same if Sweden was suddenly confronted by an assault on a democratic neighbour by a democratic nation who did guarantee that neighbour some months before? That's questionable, because suddenly Sweden is placed between two fronts. One the Germans, who control the Baltic, another the CW, who control Norway. Both nations will demand the iron. How to handle such an impossible situation?

If Sweden negotiates with the CW, they make Hitler mad. If they negotiate with Germany, Churchill is on their doorstep. If they split it up, both nation would accuse Sweden for collaboration with the other party. I don't believe that the CW or Germany wouuld be content with 50-50 on the Iron ore...

It would have been impossible to stay neutral in such a situation for Sweden...

The fact that it was Germany and not the CW which attacked Norway made it possible for Sweden to stay neutral.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 4/18/2015 9:22:12 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 23
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/18/2015 10:14:08 PM   
Cohen_slith

 

Posts: 2535
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
For what I've read across an amount of history books about WW2, Sweden traded with Germany because they were on good terms, nation to nation; Sweden needed Germany coal for their own economy; and Germany seemed to be on the winning side for quite a long time.
Sweden indeed in the mid 1944, once ensured the Germany lacked force to invade or do harm, and when Germany economy was pretty crippled, started to thin down the commerce with Germany, that along the effort of the Allies to starve Germany of strategical resources (For example the USA bought all the production of metalballs from Sweden in mid-44 to avoid these products be sold to Germany.).

But I am quite happy with a Sweden neutral unless attacked, really.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 24
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/19/2015 1:45:44 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1690
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
Centuur: I forgot about NEI, sorry...that does make ALOT of sense! But what about "non-beligerant status"?...allowing any country to move its military through, but remaining neutral? If I were leader of Germany I think I might have offered this up first. If rejected, I would then have moved in anyway...same thing for Franco in Spain...after the fall of France on the way to taking Gibraltar.

Also, about Sweden...what if Stalin had taken all of Finland, CW Norway, and Germany asking for the iron ore and in control of the Baltic? Would there be enough pressure to force them to take a side? Keep in mind that up to mid-41 USSR and Germany were seen as working together...and Germany winning the war vs the west. My wife is Swedish, but cant give me any historical context other than her own personal thoughts about it.


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to Cohen_slith)
Post #: 25
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/19/2015 2:39:49 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3167
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Didn't the last Annual finally include a system - for extending Days of Decision style shifts in minor status - that could be used during General War? That would really be the ultimate modeling of the war.

I've posted this thought before, but what drove Churchill and Hitler on the questions of Scandinavia wasn't just 3 resources out of 25 being used in the German economy. The Swedish iron ore was a high grade ore that Germany could only get limited amounts of elsewhere. Without it, German steel production would certainly decrease. Less steel, less Panzers. But that is too fine a detail for World in Flames.

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 26
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/19/2015 11:56:54 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Centuur: I forgot about NEI, sorry...that does make ALOT of sense! But what about "non-beligerant status"?...allowing any country to move its military through, but remaining neutral? If I were leader of Germany I think I might have offered this up first. If rejected, I would then have moved in anyway...same thing for Franco in Spain...after the fall of France on the way to taking Gibraltar.

Also, about Sweden...what if Stalin had taken all of Finland, CW Norway, and Germany asking for the iron ore and in control of the Baltic? Would there be enough pressure to force them to take a side? Keep in mind that up to mid-41 USSR and Germany were seen as working together...and Germany winning the war vs the west. My wife is Swedish, but cant give me any historical context other than her own personal thoughts about it.

warspite1

I must admit that and

quote:

Centuur: the CW, who control Norway.


did make me chuckle

quote:

Centuur: .....by a democratic nation who did guarantee that neighbour some months before?


Also, does this refer to the UK guaranteeing Norway?



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/19/2015 1:06:58 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 27
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/20/2015 1:30:38 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1690
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
Warspite: If Germany had done nothing concerning Norway, was not CW on the way themselves? I don't think it unrealistic that CW would have taken Norway to keep it out of Axis hands.


_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 28
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/20/2015 7:20:00 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 43395
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
The British and French (oh yes, they were involved too) “planning” for Norway needs to be read to be believed. Farcical, amateurish, muddled, inadequate are probably four of the kinder words I would use*.

Was a force on its way to Norway prior to the Germans launching Weserubung? Yes. What size of force? Where was it going? What was it seeking to achieve? What, given its size, was it capable of achieving?

1.
quote:

If Germany had done nothing concerning Norway, was not CW on the way themselves?


Size: A couple of brigades – one of which was a territorial unit. This tiny force was also deficient in supporting equipment of all sorts.

2. Where was it going and what was it seeking to achieve: This is where the story really goes downhill. The “plan” was that the RN would lay mines in Norwegian waters. As a result the Germans would “react”. What German “reaction” meant was not properly thought through or defined. This was somewhat surprising given that it was this “reaction” that would apparently see the Norwegians acquiesce in the landing of Allied troops in the country, rather than what would be a hostile landing!! Surprisingly no one seemed to notice the contradiction that it was previously agreed by the Allies that if they landed in Narvik, it would be May(!) before the Germans could react.

The terms of engagement for Allied forces were also – shall we be polite and call them - confused? Having landed the Allies were not to fire on the Norwegians (a degree of Allied casualties was to be expected) – unless of course the commanders felt their force was under threat! What constituted being simply shot at and killed and a threat to their force was, of course, not defined, let alone how Narvik was to be taken without killing Norwegians.... no muddled thinking there then eh?

I will leave the embarrassing why’s and the what for’s of what actually happened as your scenario assumes the “CW take Norway” as the Germans have not prepared Weserubung. So, in summary the Norwegians (though keen not to fight the Allies, but are even more keen to remain neutral) have told the Allies that they will not accept troops on their soil. Regardless, the RN have mined Norwegian waters and the Germans are incapable of mounting any response for a month! However, Hitler cries foul and announces that Germany will not allow this outrageous attack on a neutral country (ha ha) to go unpunished! This gives the Allies the “reaction” they were looking for and they land two brigades near Narvik (let's assume Hitler's speech was immediate so the British troops are not waiting on board ship for days!). Let’s also ignore the presence of the two Norwegian coastal defence ships for the moment as I would really rather not think about that….

3.
quote:

I don't think it unrealistic that CW would have taken Norway


What was the Allied force capable of achieving: Well that depends on the situation that now develops. Either:

a) The Norwegians, not realising that Captain Mainwaring and Dad’s Army alone has just landed near Narvik (and assume instead that a proper, appropriate sized professional army has landed and that reinforcements are on their way) they decide to surrender the country to Allied occupation.

b) The Norwegians fight.

In the case of the former (and let’s not even muddy the waters with what Sweden would do), what exactly are the British going to offer in terms of additional troops to defend against the German response? – which no doubt would be landings in strength along Norway’s southern shore. How quickly are those brigades – devoid of proper supporting arms (anti-tank and particularly AA) going to move south to counter any threat? That assumes of course that the Allies (totally oblivious to how quickly the professional Germans can move) even bother to move south – remember, Narvik and indeed the iron ore fields of Sweden(!!!) are why they are there in the first place.

In the case of the latter, well this is where things really come apart. If the Norwegians fight they will no doubt “accept” landings of German troops in the south and then we end up with the same situation as per Weserubung (Germans in the south and Allies in and around Narvik), with the exception that Norway are hostile and Narvik has fallen earlier than real life. The Kriegsmarine is also intact at this point.

Summary

The Allies do not “control” Norway, even in the former scenario. The force there is simply a military defeat waiting to happen and the actions of the Allies would, if anything, push Sweden closer to the Axis camp. God only knows what the US think of this nonsense.

*No disrespect to those troops tasked with undertaking this – but anger and bemusement toward politicians who, having declared war, were simply playing at it in the first year of the war.



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 4/20/2015 8:26:14 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 29
RE: Operation Weserübung - 4/21/2015 3:34:08 AM   
tom730_slith

 

Posts: 169
Joined: 1/28/2014
Status: offline
In my current Solitaire Global War campaign the CW does invade Norway - following a DOW of course!
This results in the addition of a small Norwegian land force and a sizable merchant marine immediately becoming available to Germany!
The Transports in particular have had a big impact on the ability of the Germans to improve over their historical outcomes! The convoys are also a very nice addition as the Axis gains more territory and has access to more resources that require transporting back to Germany!

Kicking the rather small small CW force out of Norway would have proven more difficult if they hadn't been voluntarily withdrawn after things went badly in France.
I'm currently in 1944 and the Axis has done very well on all fronts, and the Norwegian shipping continues to help bring resources from the Middle East and Africa back to Germany (and eventually Italy!) Currently in my game the extra transports are also helping make possible simultaneous moves to Iceland (by Germany) and the also CW and French colonies of north-eastern South America (by Germany and Italy)

A CW invasion of Norway - and DOW - is a gift that just keeps on giving!

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> The War Room >> Operation Weserübung Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.195