Soviet invasion of Norway 1963

[Suhiir]

I've been working on a hypothetical Soviet invasion of northern Norway in Oct 1963, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The scenario assumes no actual combat in central Europe, just LOTS of mobilization and sabre rattling on both sides.

The thinking is limited hostilities confined to northern Norway in order to agree to a to cessation of hostilities and a return to the original borders as a trading card for being allowed to place missiles in Cuba. After all, you can always blame a rogue commander and have him shot before things get totally out of hand!

The Norwegians have mobilized but not deployed their regular army in order to not provoke the Soviets. However their Homeguard and a handful of regular recon/Jaeger formations are defensively deployed ... "Just in Case". The USMC Battalion Landing Team (BLT) that's always afloat has been landed/deployed in order to insure the Soviets will be facing American units should they try anything. Gotta love international politics.

My questions are:
I assume the Soviets aren't going to send more then one Cat A Tank division (T-62/BTR-60) into northern Norway, the terrain is hardly suited to tank warfare, and the single division should be sufficient to punch thru any serious resistance encountered.
What other major (division size) formations would likely be available/used in northern Norway ... Airborne? Mechanized? Naval Infantry? Leg Infantry?
And just what would they be equipped with? T-55? T-44? T-34/85's presumably for the "Invisible Division" - Divisional Commander-Second Formation. BTR-50's? I presume BTR-152'a for the "Invisible Division".

Also would the less capable divisions spearhead the drive leaving the better equipped/manned/trained formations available to be used when and where needed? Or do you lead with your best?

I've dug around a bit but unfortunately can't read Russian and the stuff I can find in English covering this time period is sparse indeed.

Thanks for any help anyone can give!

[Grant1pa]

The only thing I had in my files was a Naval Post Graduate School thesis written in 1985. You can read it online here:

https://archive.org/details/defendingnorwayn00maho

Strategy and Tactics Magazine had a insert game on this back in the 80's. I have it somewhere and if I can find it, I'll check and see what the TO&E/era they use and post it.

Grant1

[Suhiir]

VERY good read!

Tho it was written in the 80's one would assume the Soviet units stationed in/near the Kola Peninsula were probably much the same during the 60's. What was surprising (to me anyway) was just how many aircraft the Soviets maintain in the area. I knew it was a lot, but not THAT many. Again assuming it was similar in the 60's I'll have to re-think the air/anti-air aspects of the scenario. And trying to get AI controlled helicopters to behave is closely akin to herding cats.

Thank you again, very useful.

[wulfir]

The Norwegian defence was hinged on the 'Lyngen Position' - where they established a strong blocking defence and deployed the bulk of their forces in the North (incl. Brig N ('Brigade North')there.

The Lyngen fjord is a narrow passage where basically the mountains meet the ocean - and it located west of the so called 'Finnish wedge'. The Norwegians did not expect to be able to stop a Soviet advance east of the Lyngen position, and figured defences in the border region with the USSR were vulnerable from being outflanded by Soviet forces moving through Finland ("The Finnish Wedge").

The terrain in the arctic and the poorly developed infrastructure is limiting for military land operations - much of Norway is also mountanious.

Norwegian language article - includes a map of the costal artillery and army locations late 1950s near Lyngen fjord. (scroll down):

http://www.forsvarsforening.no/site/...%20%282%29.pdf


East of the defences at Lyngen, in the Finnmark region, Norwegian defences were not particulary strong - numbering about 5000 or so in various smaller units - dedicated to delaying actions.

IIRC the Norwegians were concerned about the Soviets using seaborne forces in a simliar fasihon as the Germans had done in 1940 to land forces along the Norwegain coast at multiple locations.

Some Swedish officers expected that the strength of the Norwegian defences at Lyngen would prompt a Soviet invasion of Finland and Sweden in order to outflank it.


Here's a list of Soviet forces belonging to TVD Northwest:
(note: it's not complete, and of uncertain origin (found it on a Swedish language forum) but gives a pointer to what Soviet units were located there. I imagine it's from the late 1980s, early 1990s).

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeedox4/s...les/nw_tvd.pdf

Some Soviet units were organised according to the Mot Rifle Div NORTH setup - which had somewhat less strength than the ordinare MRDs but were probably better equipped to operate in the arctic region.

[Suhiir]

Thank you!

Given that the Soviet OOB showed T-90's I'd suspect it was early 90's in origin. But I don't suspect other then equipment upgrades the formations themselves have changed so it gives me a good indication of what was available in the 60's.

Next question.
Would the Soviets be likely to lead with their best formations or with a 2nd line one saving their best for when they ran into a "hot spot"?
I need to decide would the 1st wave or 2nd of the assault be the better equipped one.

[wulfir]

I'm not sure - but I wonder if they would not want their best forces in the lead...

If they are invading overland they have basically one road to advance along - I assume they would need the road to supply their invasion. There is little room to manouver along that road and I assume the division in the lead is what the Soviets have to fight with (it being complicated to push a trailing division forward to the front on just one road clogged with stuff belonging to the lead division).

I imagine the Norwegians would have had, similar to to Swedish practice, plans for destroying roads and infrastructure - if they then could mine or fight delaying actions along those destroyed bits of the road they would be able to slow an advance considerably. There is a saying that goes something like "if you continously kill off the enemy lead AFV you create an interesting leadership problem for the enemy (Bn) commander as he will now have to convince the next crew to go forward." In such an environment you'd probably get better results with qualified units rather than trying to bull your way forward with 2nd rate forces.

There might be solutions to this problem though, the Russians have a saying of their own that goes something like "Where the reindeer can go, so can the Russian soldier go. And where the reindeer can not go, the Russian soldier can still go."
Leapfrogging airborne units forward has been suggested, seaborne attacks combined with an overland invasion etc.

Link to a US Army study of the Soviet arctic operations late WWII:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CAR...sOperation.pdf

[Suhiir]

Yeah, the more-or-less single road MSR problem would certainly incline one to put their best units forward. Good advice.

Unfortunately the AI can't deal with seaborne attacks and has a limited capability to do heliborne ones so these aren't really an option. While it can do a parachute attacks I'm going to assume there's only one or two airborne divisions available and they'll want to use those near Narvik to deal with the main 'Lyngen Position' so they're not available to deal with what's basically a regimental blocking position (1 USMC Bn, 1 Homeguard Bn, 1 Bn of cats-and-dogs) in place to buy time and force the Soviets to face US troops thus, in theory, making their advance more dangerous politically.

I'm doing this in the early 60's because the Cuban Missile Crisis is a convent reason for a confrontation, it's before the ATGM era, everyone has pretty much replaced their WW II stuff with modern, and helicopter gunships are in their infancy so not much of a factor. Should be interesting.

[Mobhack]

The AI can do parachute assaults - provided that these are pre-programmed by the scenario designer. Unassigned transports, it will do nothing with as it has no clue.

A battalion-sized desant in the defender's gun line area after a few turns of air and arty prep could be a nasty thing to have to deal with..

Andy

[Grant1pa]

I had some time to go through my old files and found another article on Norway. I had to look for an online source and finally found it today:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2009/R3439.pdf

It' still in the 80's but it may help you. I know I had an older article from the 70's and I'm still trying to find that one. If I do, I'll either post the link or arrange to get it to you otherwise by a zip file.

I still haven't found the Strategy and Tactics game (#94 - NORDKAPP), but I'm still looking.

Keep updating your progress, I'd really like to see scenarios from this area and time frame.

Grant1

[Grant1pa]

Sorry to be a pain here, but I found three more articles you may want to read:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2008/R3725.pdf
1988 RAND report on reinforcement of Norway during a Soviet Invasion

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2009/N2497.pdf
RAND report “Factors affecting the Military Environment of North Norway..

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/fil....OgtGeTjS.dpuf
A newer study but worth reading.

Grant1