EU as joke (modified)

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

"tadaa" wrote in :

If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda
stupid.

...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
*only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
most countries...

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of
getting into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of
maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off
horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or
from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden?
Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project
force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so
they didn't need that strong navy.

Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
an invation force, but also halting that invation force
from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
throught to the rest of europe.

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.

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

The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.

Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember
their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the
Maginot Line?

See above.


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

Norway is a member of an organisation called NATO which boasts several other
members besides the US of A. All are pledged to help one another in the
event of outside attack.

John

"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...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in
:
snip
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.

Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern Norway
if the fit hits the shan?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Andrew Chaplin wrote in
:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in
:
snip

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.

Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern
Norway if the fit hits the shan?

AMF and NCF was dismantled last year, so NRF will probably fulfill
that role in the future. Earmarked reinforments still includes
the UK/NL Amphibious Force and USMC's Norwegian Air Landed
Marine Air Ground Task Force (NALMAGTF), which has predeposition
stocks here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ity/nalmeb.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...le-griffin.htm


There is still close cooperation and training with the US and
German batalions that formed NCF though, and our 6th divison
has had much recent contact with US Marine Corps 2nd Marine
Divison and 34th Infantry Division from the Minnesota NG.



Regards...

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.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.

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

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "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.

Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.



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.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

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.


NATO would still be arguing when the UK and US Forces
would be in the thick of the battle. Remember, NATO has
France, Belgium, Germany etc.

Al Minyard

In article ,
Alan Minyard writes:
The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.

That, BTW, was an inside job. There's a reason that Quisling has
become a word found in nearly all European Languages. Norway was
hardly unique in that respect. While they may have been the
majorities in their countries, there were factions in most countries
that were, if not aiding Hitler outright, were at least sympathetic to
Hiter's, and thus Germany's aims, over those of their own nations.
The Anchluss of Austria, and the Annexation of Czechoslovakia would
not have been possible without these people. They were also found in
the U.K., and France, and the U.S.

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

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

It ended up being more than that. Blucher ended up on the bottom in
Oslo, But _all_ the major German Surface combatants took some damage,
between the Norweigian defences and the Royal Navy. At teh end of the
campaigh, the Battleships Sharnhorst and Gneisenau, were in Kiel, and
weren't going to be back in service until the Winter of 1940/41. The
Panzershiffe Lutzow was also in Keil, and wouldn't be back until the
Spring of 1941. the Panzershiffe Admirial Scheer was in Danzig, and
wasn't out until October 1940. Blucher's sister ship, the Admiral
Hipper, was in Wilhelmshaven until October 1940. Also laid up were 4
of the remaining 10 destroyers.

Interesting point, that gets missed in most of teh Seelowe stuff I've
seen. During the Summer and Autumn of 1940, the German Navy consisted
of a handful of Light Cruisers (4-5), about 10-15 destroyers, various
S-Boats, and about 40 ocean-going submarines. That's hardly enough to
supply Naval Gunfire Support to a Marine Regiment, let alone escort an
invasion fleet and stave off the Royal Navy.

Whatever teh final outcome the Norweigians gave as good as they got,
as long as they could. The Norweigian Campaign effectively put an end
to the German surface Navy.
So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

Not jumping to anyone's defence - I disagree with much of Bjorn's
opinion on more recent happenings, but it should be pointed out the
Norway can be easy to take, but very difficult to hold. The long adn
convoluted coastline can make invading easier, but the same coastline,
and the rugged terrain behind it, mean that controlling it is nearly
impossible.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

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

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.


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

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
that first day.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?


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.

Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.

Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
(and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
(built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
two torpedoes.

Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
the guns or fort.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif


And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg


That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.


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.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
the air runaways are disabled..



Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in
:


Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?


Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" writes:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

I think he meant their losses.

/Tomas

"Tomas By" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" writes:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

I think he meant their losses.

Then he should consider what the true cost of Pearl Harbor
was to Japan.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, several hundred thousand soldiers,
sailors and airmen as well as their Empire.

Keith