#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Atlantic and the Northern Countries
Just poking around a bit on the timeline and the involved countries for the 2.2 setting.
As I see it, the battle of the Atlantic decide if US troops and supplies can reach Europe or not. So a decisive victory there would have a great impact on the war on the ground. But for the Soviet to get the fleets into play, they have to sail past northern Norway with the fleet stationed at Murmansk, and through the narrow gap between Denmark and Sweden with the fleet at Leningrad. Controlling either side of that narrow passage would mean quite a pounding of the Leningrad fleet. So taking and holding that part of Denmark is vital. If the Soviet doesn't trust the Swedish neutrality, they would need take the Swedish side as well. As I understand it, there are four important airfields in Norway that would be "like adding four extra carriers to the battle." Controlling them, or denying access to them, would be important. One can take the long route, as the Soviet Union and Norway share a border; or one can cut through Finland and Sweden. The reason of the Finnish Winter War during WWII was because the Soviets wanted more area around Leningrad to protect the naval base. Beside a lot of forest, and industry, I'm not aware of any strategic resources in Finland. As trees isn't really something the Russians lack, I don't think they would be much more interested in Finland than possible that Shortcut to get to Norway. Same thing with Sweden. Sweden has an iron mine in Kiruna (far north) and a copper mine (about in the middle) as well. But the output are probably to small for the Soviets to bother, unless they want to deny the enemy the option to buy from Sweden. So mainly, as with Sweden, the reason would be said shortcut. While Finland may be east oriented on paper, there is no love between them and the Soviet Union, and the army is geared to give them a new nosebleed if needed. Some of the Soviet leaders might remember the last time. While being neutral on paper, information gathered by Swedish intelligence is passed on westward and the equipment used by the Swedish army is NATO compatible. Not attacking Sweden is a gamble (at least from the Soviets point of view), but attacking would tie down troops that might be needed elsewhere. During the first half of the '90s, Sweden did some upgrades of the military. Replacing the 7.62 battle rifle with 5.56 assault rifles (giving the former to the home Guard), new multi-role jets, and buying quite a load of Leopard I and II's from Germany. Any thought of the battle of the Atlantic or the situation of the Nordic countries?
__________________
If you find yourself to be in a fair fight; you are either competing in a sport, or somebody has messed up. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|