"John Mullen" wrote in
:
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"

wrote:

In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
where such a landing of force is possible.


The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
more effective today than they were then.

It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from
the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have.
We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to
mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are
more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged
terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who
beats us at this game.


The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting
their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence
information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the
ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo
fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops,
three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer
three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers
and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the
outcome would have been grim for the Germans.

Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit
of WW2 history:

http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.


We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
modernised of course). In later years their tactial
value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
part with a special commando force with small and agile
attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
you won't see until it's too late.

It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
participation in conflicts around the world -- units
which can be sent anywhere.


Regards...

The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
accomplishment for the current Norwegian
armed forces, the rest of the country would be
taken quite easily.

Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.



Regards...