The Allies invade neutral countries to cut off German imports of crucial metals

[Richard Anderson]

They could walk there as the Poles had gone, and came with very little supply.
So if Britain finds it appropriate to sacrifice the free Poles, they could have delayed the Germans for some time.

This is becoming a bit surreal. The Poles were not at the disposal of the British, they were French troops. The British had no way of sacrificing either French or Poles, unless they decided to abandon them.

But Narvik could not be the lifeline of Sweden, it was an Export harbor for Iron ore.
Purpose-built to drop ore from railcars into chutes down in ships.
The Fagernaes quay, used for normal goods was minuscule by comparison.

Indeed, the major problem for the RN supporting logistical operations in Norway was the limited number of suitable quays and supporting infrastructure. It is why the Allied force was withdrawn over so many different locations. Narviks Fagernaes Quay was the only useful military quay there, in that it had a single, 20 to 25 ton quayside crane for unloading. Worse the quay could only accommodate vessels drawing less than 23 feet unless they stopped discharging during low water and it was only 600 feet long, so really practical for single vessels only. The two private quays at Narvik were worse, one was 330 feet long, but was inaccessible to the crane and was the same depth. The third quay was only 80 feet long and limited to 18 foot depth so was useless to anything other than coasters.

So The allies could have destroyed the regiment of Gebirgsjäger and stayed in Narvik for some time if even indefinite it would not change the German supply situation.

Would the notion of a Free North-Norway be worth it ?

But it cuts off the iron trade from Sweden...

[historygeek2021]

The Poles were under the command of the Polish government in exile, which didn't capitulate after the fall of France but kept fighting with the Allies until the war's conclusion. It's entirely plausible that if Churchill decided to stay in Narvik, the Polish commander-in-chief Sikorski would have agreed and ordered his troops to stay.

Whatever difficulties the British had in unloading in northern Norwegian ports, it's still better than dropping supplies in by parachute (or carrying them by mule across 150 km of trackless mountain ranges).

The British had plenty of troops to spare after the fall of France. It had no land commitments anywhere else except North Africa, and Sea Lion was never anything more than a pipe dream.

The Allies had numerical superiority, better logistics, naval supremacy and closer airfields. They could have held Narvik but chose to abandon it.

[KDF33]

Whatever difficulties the British had in unloading in northern Norwegian ports, it's still better than dropping supplies in by parachute (or carrying them by mule across 150 km of trackless mountain ranges).

Again, the Germans could have used the Lulea-Narvik railway.

The British had plenty of troops to spare after the fall of France. It had no land commitments anywhere else except North Africa, and Sea Lion was never anything more than a pipe dream.

The total manpower of the British Army amounted to 1,650,000 men on 30 June 1940. ~150,000 of them served in the Anti-Aircraft Divisions, which in Germany would have been part of the Luftwaffe. That leaves ~1.5 million for the ground forces proper. Most of these men had been inducted in the previous months and were undergoing training.

In mid-May, the British had 34 divisions belonging to one of three categories: Regular Army, and two categories of Territorial Army (pre-war first-line and newly-raised second-line). I color-coded the first two categories for clarity. Here is where they were deployed:

***
France (14): 1st Armoured, 1st Infantry, 2nd Infantry, 3rd Infantry, 4th Infantry, 5th Infantry, 12th Infantry, 23rd, 42nd Infantry, 44th Infantry, 46th Infantry, 48th Infantry, 50th Infantry, 51st Infantry

Egypt (2): 7th Armoured, 6th Infantry

Palestine (1): 1st Cavalry

Iceland (1): 49th Infantry

Home - United Kingdom (16): 1st London, 2nd Armoured, 2nd London, 9th Infantry, 15th Infantry, 18th Infantry, 38th Infantry, 43rd Infantry, 45th Infantry, 52nd Infantry, 53rd Infantry, 54th Infantry, 55th Infantry, 59th Infantry, 61st Infantry, 66th Infantry
***

Note that the 3 second-line divisions deployed to France hadn't finished training and weren't combat-ready. They had been sent across the Channel to serve as ad hoc LOC units, and were supposed to return to the UK to resume training in August. They were caught in the fighting and both 12th Infantry and 23rd Divisions suffered such losses that they were disbanded after evacuation. Meanwhile, 51st Infantry Division, a first-line TA unit, was simply annihilated.

My question: what do you propose sending to Narvik?

The Allies had numerical superiority, better logistics, naval supremacy and closer airfields. They could have held Narvik but chose to abandon it.

The "Allies" is effectively the United Kingdom at that point. Most of its trained divisions are engaged in France and about to evacuate, leaving behind almost all of their heavy equipment. Italy is about to declare war, thus threatening the Near East, and Germany will be able to directly threaten the homeland as soon as it finishes France off. Germany has overwhelming superiority on land. What logic is there in clinging to a remote part of Norway, thereby directly exposing British divisions to German field forces?

...

Edit: Misnumbered a division.

[Carl Schwamberger]

But it cuts off the iron trade from Sweden...

Four months of the year? Otherwise the Baltic port is used in the ice free months.

[historygeek2021]

Again, the Germans could have used the Lulea-Narvik railway.

No, they couldn't. Lulea was in Sweden, a neutral country with a very powerful navy and a mobilized army. Sweden allowed very limited food and medical supplies to pass along this railway when the 4,500 Germans under Dietl were stranded and starving in the woods, but Sweden would not allow Germany to send military equipment and soldiers through its territory to attack Norway.

My question: what do you propose sending to Narvik?

I don't know, but the British had a lot of forces available to chose from, as you listed.

The "Allies" is effectively the United Kingdom at that point. Most of its trained divisions are engaged in France and about to evacuate, leaving behind almost all of their heavy equipment. Italy is about to declare war, thus threatening the Near East, and Germany will be able to directly threaten the homeland as soon as it finishes France off. Germany has overwhelming superiority on land. What logic is there in clinging to a remote part of Norway, thereby directly exposing British divisions to German field forces?

The Allies decided to abandon Narvik on May 24 in the OTL. Nevertheless, their 24,500 strong force easily brushed aside the 4,500 Germans under Dietl, to the point where Dietl was on the verge of retreating into Sweden to be interned. What if Churchill had decided to stay? The Allies would have pushed Dietl all the way into Sweden. Then what to do the Germans have in northern Norway? 3 battalions of mountaineers hiking through 150 km of mountains with zero infrastructure, not even a road or railroad. The British simply have to wait for them at the end of their hike (which took until June 13) and accept the surrender of these starving and exhausted men.

The British in all likelihood wouldn't even need to send reinforcements. They have 12 battalions when combined with the Norwegians and Poles. Germany cannot reach Narvik. In return, Britain gets a base in northern Norway which will make it more difficult for U-boats to escape into the Atlantic. Britain denies the winter shipment of iron ore out of Narvik (but secures iron ore shipments for itself). Britain can improve the port facilities and send crane ships to allow it to unload supplies and ease Sweden's economic dependence on Nazi Germany. When Barbarossa happens, Germany is denied bases in northern Norway to interdict lend-lease convoys to Murmansk. And above all, Britain shows Sweden and Finland that it can stop Germany on land, that it won't abandon them to be surrounded by Nazis and the Soviets, that they still have a link with the outside world and that Allied help is there for them. Norway's king and government can stay in Narvik and rally the people of Scandinavia against the Nazis. If Sweden still refuses to stop shipping iron ore to Germany, then the British have a military base 100 km away from the mines ready to put an end to the shipments once and for all.

[daveshoup2MD]

German land-based air power based in central and southern Norway would be capable of cutting off the supply lines of any Narvik enclave, however, which leaves the British with either a maritime evacuation or surrender. As the German surface navy recovers from the losses in the Norwegian campaign, it gets even worse for the British.

The Germans destroyed the British garrisons in the Dodecanese in 1943 with what amounted to air superiority (and, for that matter, did the same to the British in Crete in 1941, albeit at great cost); hard to see how they wouldn't have had air supremacy in Norway in 1940.

[KDF33]

No, they couldn't. Lulea was in Sweden, a neutral country with a very powerful navy and a mobilized army. Sweden allowed very limited food and medical supplies to pass along this railway when the 4,500 Germans under Dietl were stranded and starving in the woods, but Sweden would not allow Germany to send military equipment and soldiers through its territory to attack Norway.

That was before France fell and Germany established hegemony over Europe. The Swedes allowed transit of troops and weapons in June 1941 for the war against the Soviet Union. Under pressure from Germany after the fall of France, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't do the same regarding Narvik.

In the unlikely eventuality that Sweden refused, Germany could just occupy the country.

When Barbarossa happens, Germany is denied bases in northern Norway to interdict lend-lease convoys to Murmansk. And above all, Britain shows Sweden and Finland that it can stop Germany on land, that it won't abandon them to be surrounded by Nazis and the Soviets, that they still have a link with the outside world and that Allied help is there for them.

The Germans would obviously remove that threat before launching Barbarossa.

[Peter89]

There was a single road in poor condition that ended in Sórfold. The remaining 150 miles had to be traversed over mountainous terrain, which took 10 days for specialized mountain troops. The Germans could only deliver supplies by air.

The Germans could only deliver military supplies by air, i.e., ammunition and weapons. The Swedes let them transport rations and medical supplies by rail.

The Polish troops could have stayed and been supplied by the British. The British could have sent reinforcements, and it would have been much easier for them to do so than the Germans, who were only capable of doing so by air and over 150 miles of mountainous terrain with no roads.

The Poles were French troops, under French command, enlisted under oath to the French government. Are they supposed to mutiny? Who instigates that? Perfidious Albion?

If it was so easy for the British to deploy forces to Norway in general and Narvik in particular, then why were Maurice Force (146 Infantry Brigade) withdrawn from Namsos to England and Sickel Force (15 and 148 Infantry Brigade) withdrawn from Aandalsnes to England weeks before Avon Force (24 Guards Brigade) was withdrawn from Narvik? Wouldn't it have made more sense to move the other two forces to concentrate at Narvik?

The nearest German airfield was at Bodo, which the Germans captured on June 1, a week after the Allied decision to withdraw. It took the Germans until August to build a new airstrip there.

No, it took until August for the Germans to improve the forward airstrip built by the British at Bodo. I am uncertain why the transfer of a grass strip unimproved airfield from RAF to Luftwaffe hands makes it unusable?

The Allies had numerical superiority, better logistics and naval supremacy. The Allies could and did build their own airfields, giving them air superiority in an area out of range of Luftwaffe fighters.

By the end of May, the Allies had a rump division in northern Norway, a collapsed front in France, desperate evacuations from France, and a badly over-extended RAF and RN, supported by a shaken French Navy. Their logistics were dependent on maintaining the sea lane from England to Narvik, which was something the RN was not exactly sanguine about.

So, if the Allies could so easily build airfields, a skill apparently the Germans lacked, why did they build essentially just two, Bodo and Bardufoss? Why did they not man them with more than a handful of RAF Gladiators and RN Skuas and Fulmars?

And let's not forget that the KGzbV 105 was there with most of the German heavy airlift capacities, as well as the BV-222 which flew from Hamburg (!) to Kirkenes.

[Peter89]

The nearest German airfield was at Bodo, which the Germans captured on June 1, a week after the Allied decision to withdraw. It took the Germans until August to build a new airstrip there.

So by August 1940 the Germans had a concrete runway within striking distance of Narvik. We are getting somewhere from "there was no way to do it".

In fact, the Germans improved the emergency landing strip of the RAF into a Fliegerhorst and the lack of daylight effectively doesn't stop operations in summer months above Narvik.

[historygeek2021]

That was before France fell and Germany established hegemony over Europe. The Swedes allowed transit of troops and weapons in June 1941 for the war against the Soviet Union. Under pressure from Germany after the fall of France, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't do the same regarding Narvik.

In the unlikely eventuality that Sweden refused, Germany could just occupy the country.

Sweden became compliant with German demands because the British abandoned Norway, and Sweden was left completely surrounded by German forces, with the Russians gunning for Finland and the Baltic straits. In this ATL, the British would show that they were willing to stay in Scandinavia to fight against the Nazis.

Germany couldn't "just occupy" Sweden because Sweden mobilized an army of 320,000, and its Navy was extremely powerful. If Germany did invade Sweden, the iron mines at Kiruna would be left a smoldering crater by British demolition teams by the time Germany got there.

The Germans would obviously remove that threat before launching Barbarossa.

As I showed, Germany had no way of removing this threat, other than to march its soldiers across 150km of trackless mountain ranges where the British would be waiting for them.

[Carl Schwamberger]

My guess is any effective German effort to secure Narvik would wait until the BoB was resolved. Late September OTL ? I don't see the Germans splitting up critical forces like the bombers or the airborne in July for two simultaneous campaigns. Maybe later in the war, but not that summer. That leads to some sort of winter campaign. So the Brits spend a cold dark winter learning about arctic and mountain warfare. That could lead to a larger battle in the spring of 1941.

[Peter89]

My guess is any effective German effort to secure Narvik would wait until the BoB was resolved. Late September OTL ? I don't see the Germans splitting up critical forces like the bombers or the airborne in July for two simultaneous campaigns. Maybe later in the war, but not that summer. That leads to some sort of winter campaign. So the Brits spend a cold dark winter learning about arctic and mountain warfare. That could lead to a larger battle in the spring of 1941.

Idk how those forces would be missed from the Battle of the Atlantic, the BoB and the potential invasion... or other theatres.

The point is they wouldn't change much in Germany's iron ore imports from Sweden:

Although they did not increase, exports from Sweden to Germany were
maintained, despite wartime logistical challenges. Transportation problems
related to the invasion of Norway were quickly overcome: after June 1940, most
of the ore travelled via the Swedish ports of Luleå to Northern Germany instead
of via Norway where it could have been blockaded or seized by the Allies. Although Germany had estimated a yearly delivery of 3.2 million
metric tons of ore from Northern Sweden, a yearly equivalent of 11.2 million
metric tons of ore was delivered via Luleå in the second half of 1940.

[Peter89]

My guess is any effective German effort to secure Narvik would wait until the BoB was resolved. Late September OTL ? I don't see the Germans splitting up critical forces like the bombers or the airborne in July for two simultaneous campaigns. Maybe later in the war, but not that summer. That leads to some sort of winter campaign. So the Brits spend a cold dark winter learning about arctic and mountain warfare. That could lead to a larger battle in the spring of 1941.

Also I think that the worst nightmare of Churchill would be to draw the RN capitals in range of the Luftwaffe. Another nightmare would be to face the German ships on equal terms in the Narvikfjord without air cover.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Also I think that the worst nightmare of Churchill would be to draw the RN capitals in range of the Luftwaffe. Another nightmare would be to face the German ships on equal terms in the Narvikfjord without air cover.

Yes, there are some examples of the RN operating against the enemy surface fleet around Norway 1940-1943 to draw from for this. Those might provide some hints. Building a cluster of airfields around Narvik during the winter is another question.

[Peter89]

...
Also I think that the worst nightmare of Churchill would be to draw the RN capitals in range of the Luftwaffe. Another nightmare would be to face the German ships on equal terms in the Narvikfjord without air cover.

Yes, there are some examples of the RN operating against the enemy surface fleet around Norway 1940-1943 to draw from for this. Those might provide some hints. Building a cluster of airfields around Narvik during the winter is another question.

AFAIK those encounters happened after Barbarossa, no?

Coordination between LW and KM was legendarily abysmal, I'll give you that
They might easily sink their own ships.

I agree with KDF33 on this. Hitler would not let that garrison intact before Barbarossa.