Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Carl S RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 10/31/2005 9:41:37 PM

I've seen vague refrences to US preperations for seizing stratigic points during 1940. These appear to have been 'updated' after President Roosevelt declared the State of Emergency after France collapsed in June. The US Navy did have several regiments of marines on the east coast, and a Expiditionary Brigade organized around one of these. So, the capability was there for occupying the ports. What happend after that would depend on how quickly the US Army could organize a effective infantry corps and air wing to follow on and put some real backbone into the defense of Iceland. There is the possibility of a few combat capable battlaions otr brigades of British retreating no further than Iceland after defet in Britian. The real variable would be what the Germans might have to take Iceland with. The Norwegian campaign hurt the Kriegsmarine, and the operational attrition to the Luftwaffe there was not light either. Invading Britian would have been far more demanding for the LW & KM. And the 7th Parachute and 22d Airlanding Divsions might have suffered further serious losses on top of what they took in Holland. There very well have been insuffcient ships and airbourne battalions to make more than a raid. One certainity is the winter weather. Air ops in the North Atlantic after September are risky. It is quite possible the German air attack force would be repeatedly grounded. Worst case is that without reliable weather data the air assualt would be destroyed flying into a unpredicted artic storm. In the summer of 1941 a different situation emerges. The US would certainly have a large infantry corps, or perhaps army settled onto Iceland, along with air and naval forces. The German could have rebuilt their paras and airlanding units, and the Luftwaffe would be recovered. But Iceland is at the extreme range of the Luftwaffes bombers and transports, out of effective fighter range, the KM cannot be rebuilt so quickly, and there is the need to turn east anyway. The question of Iceland can be applied to other areas such as West Africa and the Indian Ocean. Does the US take the initiative and seize such critical forward posts, or does it focus on the Japanese & the Pacific.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 10/31/2005 10:01:14 PM

After Denmark was conquored Britian sent a small contingent to Iceland. It may have ggrown to two brigades. Anyway one of the purposes to sending the US battalions there in 1941 was to release the British units for combat elasewhere. (Africa?)

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/1/2005 12:21:07 AM

Carl, you've got me. As I've earlier postulated that German airborne and airlanding divisions would be critical to the conquest of England, and fully in agreement about the winter weather, and British reconstitution, all this MUST occur before Dec. 1, 1940, at the latest. Clearly, casualties occurred in Holland would impact the relevant German forces for England, much less follow-up ops. in Iceland-all between late April and early December, 1940. Accuracy requires more research into German airborne/airlanding orders of battle, as well as casualties sustained in the Holland operations. Then we'd have to speculate on further casualties sustained in England. Assuming the successful occupation of Iceland by German forces, though, was my original intent. Without adequate forethought, I projected those forces there before allied reinforcement could successfully prevent or respond. I'm outta here for a bit of research.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/1/2005 2:32:25 AM

If Iceland is German occupied in 1940 I dont see the US going there until it get serious about a War for Europe.. probably after the Japanese are dealt with. In that case it is an entirely diferent war. After you do your research on the Germans take a look at the battle for the Solomons. Compare the resources the Japanese threw into that battle and the results they got, then compare to what the Germans had. Next look at 1945 and the battle for Okinawa. Just in terms of range the Luftwaffe does not look good.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/1/2005 5:02:10 AM

Iceland was actually occupied by Britain in may 1940 - before the fall of France - and not by a small unit (25000 men): link The fall of Britain would have expedited a US expetion. As to Germany taking Iceland after Britain had fallen,well ... Look what they proposed to invade Britain in: River barges. Hardly the craft of choise in the autumn storms in the North Atlantic, as to paras landing there? During the cold war it was reconed that the Fairisles could be held by a brigade. Furthermore keeping any sort of sizeable force supplied on Iceland - for the German Navy - nope.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/1/2005 6:45:53 AM

Nothing like a few facts to shut down a thread. : ( I was giving the Germans a little slack, but Thomas requires quite a bit more than better German strategy and planning in 1940. A quick look at the book shows the German bombers and fighters having as poor range, compared to the Japanese, as I remembered.

Quote Reply

Seeker Guys 3/4 of the german troops and supplies destine for the UK 11/1/2005 9:26:44 AM

Were to go upto ~ 160 merchants ships escorted by the fleet, which at that time was at best 30 seagoing warships & upto 30 Auxilary warships, to unload directly into british ports all around the country as was done in Norway. Narvik run was 2000km move before they landed...whats the distance to Iceland? Had they not thrown away the fleet on Norway operation, they probably would have double the escorts. The threat of port to port invasion of the UK was so severe , First Sea Lord Admiral Pound warned Churchill in September 1940 that it was likely 100,000 german troops could land unopposed. RN/RAF just didn't have the survalliance capability to cover such a large body of water around the country. Roughly 1/2 the rest of the invasion fleet were to cross the channel was steamers and ferries leaving only 1/10 to go by barges, all escorted by 30-60 smaller warships and hundreds of auxilary armed trawlers [Vboot] plus ~ 1000 smaller fast motorboats/fishing boats [as scouts/guides]. Infact its likely towed barges were mostly for moving supplies and some heavy weapons . With even one years prep would have all been powered by surplus luftwaffe engines and doubled the auxillary warship fleet. The lack of preperation for UK invasion was Hitlers fault, others had considered it since WW-I , including Churchill.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/1/2005 10:23:15 AM

Arctic warfare has something in common with mountain warfare: The worst supply problem. Arctic warfare is very much a patrol warfare.

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/4/2005 4:27:52 PM

Some preliminary research on German airborne operations in Norway and Holland has revealed the following- NORWAY- Approx. 530 Ju-52 aircraft were employed throughout the battle. Losses unknown. German airborne operations seem limited, with single fallshirmkompanie drops at Oslo and one other location. 163 Inf. Div. provided approx. 3,000 troops (Regiment?)as followup to the Oslo airport seizure. Operations were small overall. HOLLAND- Approx. 430 Ju-52 available (attrition from Norway?)of which 162 were destroyed or damaged during campaign. 4000 fallshirmtruppen employed in both airborne and gliderborne roles, including gliderborne pioneers at the Meuse forts in Belgium. In May of 1940, German airborne forces seem centered upon 3 fallshirm regiments of the Luftwaffe, and the 22 Inf. Div. (Luftlande) of the army. Clearly, 163 Inf. Div. had gained valuable experience as a result of Oslo, but I suspect that significant elements of that division were still engaged in Norway. While losses of Ju-52 aircraft over Holland were high, German aircraft production made good those losses easily (over 5400 Ju-52s produced). Still, airborne operations over England would involve, I'm certain, the use of all three luftwaffe fallshirm regiments and the 22 Luftlande Div. None of these units were configured to fight sustained battles. Nor had they fought as regiments and divisions to that point. Five of the six regimental formations would probably have been available for England, with one fallshirm regiment reconstituting following Holland. Employment of these forces, I believe, would be targeted at southern British airfields, radar sites, and communications centers. They would require both air-reinforcement, as well as followup ground forces to survive the campaign relatively intact and be of later use in Iceland. German fighter coverage could probably ensure the initial insertion of these troops, though following resupply aircraft would probably be increasingly vulnerable to RAF interdiction. A Gebirgsjager division later airlanded at Crete, and proved a fortuitous inclusion to the German Order of Battle. Of all the appropriate forces for an Icelandic occupation, this type unit may have been best structured for the task. Those are my thoughts on England.

Quote Reply

CJH RE:Assuming England Conquered by Nov. 1940, What About Iceland? 11/5/2005 10:27:10 AM

Was there any chance the Germans would have better succeeded in taking Iceland in advance of rather than subsequent to an invasion of Britain (circumscribing England's abilty)?

Quote Reply

Seeker Norway 1940. 11/5/2005 6:58:52 PM

Got this from a website.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- German Norway plans ; link German attack : link British response : link ?After the initial phase of Weserubung the Germans responded to the menace they faced at sea by transporting to the south Norwegian ports all troops in small, fast warships and transports routed from Frederikshaven located on the Jutland Peninsula. Between the middle of April and June, 1940, 42,000 troops were ferried to Norway without loss. From the beginning of the campaign to June 15, 1940, a total of 370 ships and trawlers carried 107,581 officers and men, 16,102 horses, 20,339 vehicles, and 109,400 tons of supplies to Norway at a cost of twenty-one ships. ? ?Since the failure of the Ausfuhrstaffel particularly affected German garrisons in the north, it proved necessary to utilize aircraft and submarines for purposes of transporting supplies. Submarines carried out a total of eight transport missions; while the tonnage carried was insignificant to the need, what supplies were delivered alleviated the Wehrmacht's critical situation in the northern latitudes. The Luftwaffe performed yeoman service: 582 transport aircraft delivered 29,280 men and 2,376 tons of supplies during the course of the campaign. ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So over the course of the month or two, each transport delivered ~ 50 troops & 4080kg supplies. Not sure of the delivery capacity of JU-52. I seem to remember it hauled upto 17 troops in high density configuration? Anyone know how many tons supplies it could haul and what distance?

Quote Reply

S-2 RE:Norway 1940/Ju-52 Cargo Capacity 11/6/2005 2:14:25 AM

"The JU 52 was be used as a troop transport (17 fully equipped troops), a supply carrier, a staff transport, a casualty evacuator, and as an Ad-Hoc bomber. When used in the supply role, a JU 52 3m could carry a large amount of supplies. One plane could load 1500kg, inside the plane, and up to 4 drop containers which could load a plethora of items. These containers could load 100 litres of fuel or 250kg of ammunitions. These ammunitions could be 500 rounds for a 2cm gun, 150 3.7mm PAK rounds, 20 7.5mm rounds, or 55 8mm mortars to name a few of the possibilities." Interestingly, the German Army had calculated 250 Ju-52s at a daily sortie rate of four to supply 350 tons to Stalingrad. Richtofen could only provide 150 as a result of losses sustained in Crete over 18 months before. Perhaps poor mobilization of available aircraft or inadequate command emphasis account for these abysmal numbers. Then again, maybe German production limitations precluded the rapid replacement of Crete related losses, particularly as Hitler didn't foresee the use of large airborne contingents. Still the sortie numbers would indicate a 1000 Ju-52 daily providing 350 tons is only 700 lbs. cargo per aircraft! What's up with that? A function of fuel requirements and flying distances, I presume? Clearly a factor when conducting air re-supply to Iceland. Interesting performance data for the KM's Norway operations provided by the Seeker. More thoughts later...

Quote Reply

Carl S RE: 1940 Ju-52 Replacement 11/6/2005 8:18:00 AM

A further complication to arcraft availability in 1939-1941 was Hitlers policy of shutting down aircraft production as each campaign started. Production stats. show a steep increase in the months leading to a camapign, then a abrupt vertical drop as production nearly halts. There were two ideas driving this. First was the cost of full blown production, Between direct cash costs which brought complaints from the businessmen financing the Nazi state, and the diversion of resources from consumer goods, maintaining full capcity production for sustained periods was distasteful to Hitler. Second Hitler thought each campaign would be very short. There would be no need to replace losses imeadiatly. He was suspirsed by the Brits & French declaring was over Poland, and was suprised again with Britian not seeking peace, and suprised a third time by the USSR not evaporating. Replacement production of aircraft was sufficent for ordinary peacetime attrition during May, June & early July 1940, as few as 20 new Ju57 may have been deliverd to the Luftwaffe by 1 September 1940. A similar condition existed for aircrew replacement. Many of the training (Lehr) schools were attached to combat groups at the start of each campaign. Consequently aircrw replacements ceased for a couple months each time until the schools were fully established again.

Quote Reply

Carl S RE:Norway 1940/Ju-52 Cargo Capacity 11/6/2005 8:33:29 AM

You are correct about the reduction of net payload due to aircraft logisistics requirements. Aside from fuel the initial lifts will include ground crew and the equipment needed to turn the planes around and relaunch. At Stalingrad I would guess an airfield already existed with some ground support. In Iceland this would be established entirely from scratch. There is also a tradeoff of payload vs range but I have no idea what this might be for the Ju57. Last there is gross payload reduction from long term aircraft losses. Initially you can assume a starting loss of 2-5% per day for aircraft either complete losses or requiring several weeks to repair. Heavy use can boost that up to 10%, depending on the aircraft type. I dont know what the mechanical attrition rate for the Ju57 was. Add that to a percent for combat losses, and a further loss for autum weather, and by the end of the week the transport availablity rate could be somewhere between 80% & 60%.

Quote Reply

Seeker RE:Norway 1940/Ju-52 Cargo Capacity 11/6/2005 12:34:56 PM

link ?By the time Germany was ready to crush Poland, the Luftwaffe's Transportverband possessed an inventory of 552 aircraft, of which 547 were Ju 52/3mg3e and Ju 52/3mg4e aircraft (the balance being two obsolete He 111 transports, a Junkers G 38, a Ju 90 and a Focke-Wulf Fw 200). Losses in the month-long campaign in September amounted to 59 Junkers Ju 52/3ms, all but two to ground fire or flying accidents. In the course of 2,460 flights, the aircraft carried 19,700 troops and 1451 tonnes (1,600 tons) of supplies.? Norway: ?A total of 29,000 men, 1180000 litres (259,300 Imp gal) of aviation fuel and 2155 tonnes (2,376 tons) of supplies were airlifted during the campaign, for the significant loss of 150 aircraft.? ?It may be said of the Ju 52/3m that its star shone brightest in adversity from 1942. In February of that year, when six German divisions were trapped at Demyansk, the Luftwaffe performed the prodigious task of sustaining 100,000 troops, and in three months delivered 22045 tonnes (24,300 tons) of materiel, airlifted 15,446 men into the pocket and evacuated 20,093 casualties. The cost of this effort was a loss of 385 flying personnel (including Major Walter Hammer, commanding KGrzbV 172) and 262 aircraft.?

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us