Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As others have said, Norway. 

Norway was extremely important to both sides in the prosecution of the war. Much of the Soviet strategy revolved around shutting down/delaying NATO (specifically the US) sea lines of communication (SLOCs) which is a fancy term for maritime resupply routes. To do that, the Soviets had a powerful combination of surface (fleet ships) sub surface (subs) and naval aviation, such as the infamous Backfire bomber. The goal was to prevent NATO from resupplying long enough to give the Soviet army the time it needed to complete its objectives in central Europe. 
Norway, specifically the coast, would have given the Soviets much more control over the SLOCs through the Northern Atlantic had they occupied it. It would have given them air bases for their naval aviation, as well as ports and sanctuaries for their surface and sub surface forces. Plus, it would have effectively extended their effective interdiction range against NATO SLOCs. 

NATO was quite aware of this, and the US Marines were assigned to the area. They had staged equipment in the country, much like the Army did in Germany with REFORGER. Norway was also considered their AO, which makes sense considering how hilly and mountainous Norway is, and how important amphibious operations would be there. Not even opposed amphibious operations, simple ones like redeploying or shifting forces around, and resupplying them. Both sides would have made use of naval infantry in Norway. As well as airborne and other specialized forces. 

To this day the Marines maintain their partnership with Norway's military, and I think they still have equipment staged there as well. Every year (I think so at least) there is usually a major training exercise in Norway for the Marines, and a lot of the cool footage of Abrams drifting on snow and ice are (were) Marine tanks up there doing training. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, markus544 said:

Then with that said US naval units with gunfire support makes sense to me now.  I was somewhat taken aback by BF mentioning that CMCW would have naval gunfire support.

I think that was actually a typo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markus544 said:

Then with that said US naval units with gunfire support makes sense to me now.  I was somewhat taken aback by BF mentioning that CMCW would have naval gunfire support.

Hapless is right. That was a typo. 

39 minutes ago, TJT said:

I'll just leave these here... 🙃

clip_image002_003.jpg

clip_image002_006.jpg

 

Image source: http://www.kalla-kriget.se/

Nice! Although it is important to point out that the Soviets likely would have gone out of their way to ensure Sweden remained neutral. Always remember that when looking at old war plans for the Cold War, one must remember that many of them had contingency planning built in. For example, if Sweden decided to join the war with NATO, then the Soviets needed a plan for that. Just because a plan exists does not mean it was destined to be used. 

Finland would have been an interesting case, but I personally think that the Soviets would have deployed security forces to guard the lines of communication (MSRs, supply dumps, etc) but otherwise would have wanted to avoid any confrontation with the Fins. The less you have to fight through to get to the main objective, the better. Plus, there is always the worry of rear area attacks. The Soviets were not prepared (knowingly so) for in depth occupation duties during the war. That stuff comes later. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the isolation aka stay "neutral" "or else" via threat of nuking was a very likley, the Soviets was well aware of how our politicians worked/work... 
On the other hand all Soviet plans for any thrusts west into Europa involved liberal use of tactical nukes pretty much mooting CW game scernarios that people like us like to play out in wargames like Combat Mission. 🙃😁

Image source: http://www.kalla-kriget.se/ .

clip_image002_004.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Nice! Although it is important to point out that the Soviets likely would have gone out of their way to ensure Sweden remained neutral. Always remember that when looking at old war plans for the Cold War, one must remember that many of them had contingency planning built in. For example, if Sweden decided to join the war with NATO, then the Soviets needed a plan for that. Just because a plan exists does not mean it was destined to be used. 

Finland would have been an interesting case, but I personally think that the Soviets would have deployed security forces to guard the lines of communication (MSRs, supply dumps, etc) but otherwise would have wanted to avoid any confrontation with the Fins. The less you have to fight through to get to the main objective, the better. Plus, there is always the worry of rear area attacks. The Soviets were not prepared (knowingly so) for in depth occupation duties during the war. That stuff comes later. 

Sweden had solid plans with NATO and would have gone that route.

Finland is a bit trickier to tell. Some options:
1. Lets Soviets use Finnish territory and pass through (Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948) And most likely gets permanently occupied in the process.
2. Refuses Soviet pass through and gets invaded. This could lead to varying degrees of occupation or even just using airspace and sea without permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Megalon Jones said:

Norway.  They would be joined by UK and French commandos and para.  Now, THAT would make for an excellent expansion for CMCW.  (hint, hint)

Don't forget the Dutch Marines, who trained with the British marines in Norway and were experts on arctic warfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 9:48 AM, Hapless said:

I think a trip to Norway may have been in store for them

Indeed it would. We often had members of the USMC attached to 45 Commando when we deployed for our annual arctic warfare training.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Edited by PaulRS
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 9:49 AM, IICptMillerII said:

As others have said, Norway. 

Norway was extremely important to both sides in the prosecution of the war. Much of the Soviet strategy revolved around shutting down/delaying NATO (specifically the US) sea lines of communication (SLOCs) which is a fancy term for maritime resupply routes. To do that, the Soviets had a powerful combination of surface (fleet ships) sub surface (subs) and naval aviation, such as the infamous Backfire bomber. The goal was to prevent NATO from resupplying long enough to give the Soviet army the time it needed to complete its objectives in central Europe. 
Norway, specifically the coast, would have given the Soviets much more control over the SLOCs through the Northern Atlantic had they occupied it. It would have given them air bases for their naval aviation, as well as ports and sanctuaries for their surface and sub surface forces. Plus, it would have effectively extended their effective interdiction range against NATO SLOCs. 

NATO was quite aware of this, and the US Marines were assigned to the area. They had staged equipment in the country, much like the Army did in Germany with REFORGER. Norway was also considered their AO, which makes sense considering how hilly and mountainous Norway is, and how important amphibious operations would be there. Not even opposed amphibious operations, simple ones like redeploying or shifting forces around, and resupplying them. Both sides would have made use of naval infantry in Norway. As well as airborne and other specialized forces. 

To this day the Marines maintain their partnership with Norway's military, and I think they still have equipment staged there as well. Every year (I think so at least) there is usually a major training exercise in Norway for the Marines, and a lot of the cool footage of Abrams drifting on snow and ice are (were) Marine tanks up there doing training. 

Part of the Marine Corps Hymn is "From the snows of far off northern lands, to the sunny tropic scenes, you will find us always on the job, the United States Marines." Yes, you're all correct about Norway. I went there from Wichita, KS with my Marine Reserve Battalion on a NATO exercise (Operation Teamwork) in September 1976. We were told that it was the first time Marine Reserves were in an exercise outside the U.S., and at the time, it was the largest NATO exercise ever held. We operated north of Trondhiem, about 200 miles south of the Artic Circle. Our Allies were Norwegian Light Infantry, and the Aggressors were British SAS. I think the whole thing was on a hair-trigger as the Soviets massed troops on their northern border with Norway, and we had our ammunition ships sitting just off the coast from us to supply us at a moment's notice. I must admit that I was not impressed with the Marine planning staff that supposedly prepared our participation. Just before we left the states, we were issued Poplin Jungle Utilities that the U.S. troops had worn in Viet Nam. The advanced party to set up our base at Oerland was sent without the proper "colder weather" clothing or galoshes. Some ended up with trench foot so bad that toes had to be amputated, and about a dozen cases of double-pneumonia so bad they had to be medivac. We went from being used to 30C temps in Kansas and Missouri to 10-15C temps in Norway in jungle camos. Flying home, our Company was so ill that one of the flight attendants asked me if the men were really Marines because no one had made a pass at her. I explained that we had just been through a tough exercise and were all sick.

The bright spot was that the Norwegian public treated us fantastic (something we weren't used to just three years after the war ended in Viet Nam}, and they were astonished that we were in the reserves because we wanted to be, not because we had to be. They constantly expressed gratitude that we were there, in there words "to protect them when we didn't have to be." I still have a warm spot in my heart for the Norwegian people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 11:40 AM, HUSKER2142 said:

 

LOL, thank you for that! What great propaganda. Those aircraft were actually designed, and one or two built before the Soviets decided that they just weren't worth it. They were designed to carry tremendous loads, and skim just above the water in ground effect like pelicans. LCATs, or the Soviet versions, and the cost, quickly doomed that airplane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...