Is it Possible: Allied Amphib Invasion of Romania?

[Geekhis Khan]

Ok, I got this weird thought in my head this morning. Assuming a) Neutral/Nonbelligerent Italy and b) benevolent neutral Turkey could or even would the Wallies attempt an amphibious invasion of Romania in, say, '42/'43?

The strategic opportunity to seize the oil and hinder German efforts in Russia makes me think someone might come up with the crazy idea, but knowing almost nothing about the logistics of such an operation I have no idea how possible it is.

Any thoughts?

 

[Hörnla]

ASB.

-Have a look at a map of the Aegean Sea and keep in mind that Greece is possibly occupied by the Germans.

-How about Germany attacking the Straits coming from Bulgaria as a mean to stop this endeavour?

-You would anyways have a nightmarish long suppy line (esp. without an allied Turkey!)

-Ah, the Romanians. Sure their army is just a useless pushover... Or maybe not? It is a long way from the coast to Ploiesti. German help will pour in soon.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Not remotely possible. Insane distance from the nearest (inadequate) supply base in Egypt and Turkey will see a difference between benevolent neutrality and openly inviting an Axis attack.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Salonika in WW1 and Greece in WW2 showed these sort of expeditions by the allies where a lot more trouble than they where worth... the logistical tail would be insanely vulnerable... plus the terrain around there isn't uber flat tank country either. The allies had way too few divisions to even consider that kind of expidition, which would likely fail. The Germans had a mechanized division AND entire FLAK division at Ploesti for most of the war (around 20k men and 300 flak guns of various calibers) So unless the allies are willing to land an entire field army there (which they didn't exactly have many just laying around not doing anything) the German troops in place, plus those in reserve (depending on the date of the landing) would just box them in and push them into the drink

 

[Grey Wolf]

I can't even see how they HAVE a supply line, unless its through Syria-Iraq-Caucasus/USSR which is just nuts.

The Turks won't be letting them sail their armada through the Straits so that they can attack the German flank when the Turks own flank abuts a load of German-occuped territory and German allies

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Geekhis Khan]

ASB.

Certainly likely the case, but to address some of your specific issues which don't necessarily apply here (and the semi-condescending tone in them was not appreciated, BTW):

-Have a look at a map of the Aegean Sea and keep in mind that Greece is possibly occupied by the Germans.

Why? Italy is neutral. Greece is therefore probably neutral. Hitler has no reason to divert troops there unless the UK invades.

-How about Germany attacking the Straits coming from Bulgaria as a mean to stop this endeavour?

Why is Bulgaria in the Axis if Italy isn't? They only somewhat reluctantly joined the Axis OTL. Here since Greece (their only real target of expansion) is probably neutral and Germany is looking east, why join a war?

-You would anyways have a nightmarish long suppy line (esp. without an allied Turkey!)

-Ah, the Romanians. Sure their army is just a useless pushover... Or maybe not? It is a long way from the coast to Ploiesti. German help will pour in soon.

These two are the type of points I'm looking for. Thanks.



And Grim, Blair, & Wolf, thank you all for the reasoned information.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Ok, I got this weird thought in my head this morning. Assuming a) Neutral/Nonbelligerent Italy

Apologies - I didn't notice this bit!

How goes the war without Italy? Well, Germany still has a great defence on its Southern flank, probably even better than OTL since Italy is neutral and not about to be invaded...

If we can assume that the fact that there are no huge setbacks in Africa (as there were through Italy's entry into the war) then its POSSIBLE that Italian neutrality would not end up with an invasion of Greece, as there's no huge loss of face to overcome. On the other hand, with the rest of the world involved in a war, Mussolini might see it as an ideal time to have a go at Greece...

But we can assume he doesn't. Maybe the British are secretly offering him concessions to remain neutral, he would certainly have that card to play (especially as they don't know how much of his armed forces are more show than reality)

Bulgaria is more complex since Hitler is still going to want to smash Russia. Presumably he can reasonably trust Mussolini not to do anything treacherous, so he can make preparations unencumbered by either Libya or Greece, and thus probably not having to intervene in Yugoslavia either

But that doesn't stop the growth of the Axis as a weapon against the USSR but if Yugoslavia manage to maintain a pro-Axis neutrality, I agree it is possible that Bulgaria may also do so - they will certainly gain nothing from engagement in the war with Greece and Yugoslavia remaining neutral, not unless Germany forces Rumania to give them the Dobruja as per OTL but even then they may manage to be in the Axis but non-belligerent. I still think they would be pro-ennough to act as defence on the flank tho

But you MAY be right that this allows Turkey to decide to let an armada pass through the Straits but that is one helluva pro-Allied gamble.

And the Allies are going to be seriously worried about Italy - Italian neutrality doesn't mean they won't suddenly enter the war and destroy their supply lines. IMHO they will have to offer Italy Tunisia and a large part of Algeria at the least, and maybe Tchad and part of the Soudan. AND probably have to go public with this.

All most curious!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Apologies - I didn't notice this bit!

How goes the war without Italy? Well, Germany still has a great defence on its Southern flank, probably even better than OTL since Italy is neutral and not about to be invaded...

If we can assume that the fact that there are no huge setbacks in Africa (as there were through Italy's entry into the war) then its POSSIBLE that Italian neutrality would not end up with an invasion of Greece, as there's no huge loss of face to overcome. On the other hand, with the rest of the world involved in a war, Mussolini might see it as an ideal time to have a go at Greece...

But we can assume he doesn't. Maybe the British are secretly offering him concessions to remain neutral, he would certainly have that card to play (especially as they don't know how much of his armed forces are more show than reality)

Bulgaria is more complex since Hitler is still going to want to smash Russia. Presumably he can reasonably trust Mussolini not to do anything treacherous, so he can make preparations unencumbered by either Libya or Greece, and thus probably not having to intervene in Yugoslavia either

But that doesn't stop the growth of the Axis as a weapon against the USSR but if Yugoslavia manage to maintain a pro-Axis neutrality, I agree it is possible that Bulgaria may also do so - they will certainly gain nothing from engagement in the war with Greece and Yugoslavia remaining neutral, not unless Germany forces Rumania to give them the Dobruja as per OTL but even then they may manage to be in the Axis but non-belligerent. I still think they would be pro-ennough to act as defence on the flank tho

But you MAY be right that this allows Turkey to decide to let an armada pass through the Straits but that is one helluva pro-Allied gamble.

And the Allies are going to be seriously worried about Italy - Italian neutrality doesn't mean they won't suddenly enter the war and destroy their supply lines. IMHO they will have to offer Italy Tunisia and a large part of Algeria at the least, and maybe Tchad and part of the Soudan. AND probably have to go public with this.

All most curious!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Excellent, thank you, Grey Wolf!

It seemed to me implausible to say the least, but just tempting enough to try to figure out how implausible. Assuming you can trust Italy and Bulgaria to stay out and even assuming an Allied Turkey (why?) it's a hell of a gamble, it looks like. Might as well go with something like an invasion of Norway or Southern France, maybe.

 

[usertron2020]

Excellent, thank you, Grey Wolf!

It seemed to me implausible to say the least, but just tempting enough to try to figure out how implausible. Assuming you can trust Italy and Bulgaria to stay out and even assuming an Allied Turkey (why?) it's a hell of a gamble, it looks like. Might as well go with something like an invasion of Norway or Southern France, maybe.

Sorry, but invading Norway is ASB without Sweden's entry, which is also ASB. The ports of Norway are just too small to support/supply amphib ops designed to free the country. Baring a sudden surrender of Japan (ASB again), allowing the Pacific Fleet to power project into the waters between Denmark and Norway, you can't effectively get to Oslo, the only port in Norway large enough to support a liberation campaign.

Then there's the geography. Even with the whole force of the USN and RN Battleship fleet, and the whole USMC, it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Oslo and it's approaches are a natural shooting gallery, as the Germans found to their grief in 1940. If they didn't have paratroopers, the Norwegians would have held off the Germans till they were fully mobilized, and the invasion of Norway would have been a catastrophic defeat for the Germans (they didn't have the naval forces for a second attempt).

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Sorry, but invading Norway is ASB without Sweden's entry, which is also ASB. The ports of Norway are just too small to support/supply amphib ops designed to free the country. Baring a sudden surrender of Japan (ASB again), allowing the Pacific Fleet to power project into the waters between Denmark and Norway, you can't effectively get to Oslo, the only port in Norway large enough to support a liberation campaign.

Then there's the geography. Even with the whole force of the USN and RN Battleship fleet, and the whole USMC, it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Oslo and it's approaches are a natural shooting gallery, as the Germans found to their grief in 1940. If they didn't have paratroopers, the Norwegians would have held off the Germans till they were fully mobilized, and the invasion of Norway would have been a catastrophic defeat for the Germans (they didn't have the naval forces for a second attempt).

Good to know, thanks.

 

[Hörnla]

Certainly likely the case, but to address some of your specific issues which don't necessarily apply here (and the semi-condescending tone in them was not appreciated, BTW):

My apologies.

 

[Astrodragon]

What are the British going to do with the forces released from NA?
Invading the continent seems unlikely before 1943 at the earliest, Churchill will want to see them used somewhere.
Bulgaria seems impossibly far until Russia enters the war, so at the earliest nothing is going to happen before 1942. By this time there is Japan to consider.
Building up in Egypt took alot of resources, and convoying around the cape more.
I'd still see a buildup of sorts in the middle east, but only a defensive one. Some of the troops will probably end up in SE asia (as will, hopefully, a competant commander or two), which does not bode well for Japan.
However there is still likely to be a surplus..maybe a Norwegian adventure, once Germany starts getting attracted east? It would also show Russia Britain was still fighting - this time around they arent involved against Italy/germany in the Med.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

What are the British going to do with the forces released from NA?
Invading the continent seems unlikely before 1943 at the earliest, Churchill will want to see them used somewhere.
Bulgaria seems impossibly far until Russia enters the war, so at the earliest nothing is going to happen before 1942. By this time there is Japan to consider.
Building up in Egypt took alot of resources, and convoying around the cape more.
I'd still see a buildup of sorts in the middle east, but only a defensive one. Some of the troops will probably end up in SE asia (as will, hopefully, a competant commander or two), which does not bode well for Japan.
However there is still likely to be a surplus..maybe a Norwegian adventure, once Germany starts getting attracted east? It would also show Russia Britain was still fighting - this time around they arent involved against Italy/germany in the Med.

The Far Eastern butterflies are huge here, obviously...well, the butterflies of neutral Italy alone, but that's a tangential discussion.

The big Q is as you mentioned: what to do, where to fight? Presumably *Torch is still in the cards, but from there there's no Libya and pushing into Senegal is pointless since without the RM Germany isn't taking too much advantage of African goods anyway.

usertron makes good points about Norway's difficulty as a target...which doesn't mean stupider heads don't prevail in Hyde Park. usertron or anyone, is it possible to establish a beachhead (fjordhead?) in Norway? I could potentially see establishing a small pocket (ala Anzio) that slowly grows as the Heer bogs down in Russia. I'm certain it never really affects the war in a significant way and is certain to be a net drain on the Allies more than on the Nazis, though it could make "political" sense in that it gives Stalin the appearance that the WAllies are indeed fighting.

Otherwise...where? What? Churchill and the public will be demanding *something* I'm sure. South of France? Send troops to Russia to fight alongside the Red Army?

 

[Astrodragon]

The Far Eastern butterflies are huge here, obviously...well, the butterflies of neutral Italy alone, but that's a tangential discussion.

The big Q is as you mentioned: what to do, where to fight? Presumably *Torch is still in the cards, but from there there's no Libya and pushing into Senegal is pointless since without the RM Germany isn't taking too much advantage of African goods anyway.

usertron makes good points about Norway's difficulty as a target...which doesn't mean stupider heads don't prevail in Hyde Park. usertron or anyone, is it possible to establish a beachhead (fjordhead?) in Norway? I could potentially see establishing a small pocket (ala Anzio) that slowly grows as the Heer bogs down in Russia. I'm certain it never really affects the war in a significant way and is certain to be a net drain on the Allies more than on the Nazis, though it could make "political" sense in that it gives Stalin the appearance that the WAllies are indeed fighting.

Otherwise...where? What? Churchill and the public will be demanding *something* I'm sure. South of France? Send troops to Russia to fight alongside the Red Army?

Without any fighting in NA, I think that the political pressure from Russia would be such as to force some sort of action on the continent, for fear of Russia pulling out.
The only real option is Norway, which has its own problems.
While a complete invasion is unlikely, landings in, say, the Narvik area are possible. The issue would be twfold; getting an initial beachhed big enough to put air support in, and supporting the landings after. The latter woudl lead to a big, ongoing set of convoy battles across the North Sea.
Which might not be such a bad thing overall, air power would be far easier to deploy against the U-boats, and every U-boat in the North Sea is one that isnt in the Atlantic... Certainly the RN would lose ships, but then they havent had the Med losses, so they can afford them.
If the landings succeed, its open to explot north while stabilising the south, so allowing much easier convoys to Russia, a bonus point.

While all of Norway is too much to ask for, the northern half would still be very useful to hold, I think it would make the costs worthshile.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Without any fighting in NA, I think that the political pressure from Russia would be such as to force some sort of action on the continent, for fear of Russia pulling out.
The only real option is Norway, which has its own problems.
While a complete invasion is unlikely, landings in, say, the Narvik area are possible. The issue would be twfold; getting an initial beachhed big enough to put air support in, and supporting the landings after. The latter woudl lead to a big, ongoing set of convoy battles across the North Sea.
Which might not be such a bad thing overall, air power would be far easier to deploy against the U-boats, and every U-boat in the North Sea is one that isnt in the Atlantic... Certainly the RN would lose ships, but then they havent had the Med losses, so they can afford them.
If the landings succeed, its open to explot north while stabilising the south, so allowing much easier convoys to Russia, a bonus point.

While all of Norway is too much to ask for, the northern half would still be very useful to hold, I think it would make the costs worthshile.

The British had a near impossible time defeating 3 German divisions and 8 Italian divisions in Africa... Norway in OTL was defended by 12 infantry divisions (although the quality wasn't high, without the DAK, and the more inherrant threat to Norway, you could see high quality forces transferred there)... how many British divisions would it take to defeat 12 German infantry divisions...given Italy, and northwest Europe I would bet its more than 12 British divisions, and that would be very strenous since the British home army wasn't particularly large

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, there were Allied troops at Murmansk, and maybe someone would think it a great idea to invade Finland from there? I remember Speer visiting N Norway/Finland and there were German miners or something up there, so denying them these resources could be a help.

Then again, with Italy neutral, Germany can get a whole load of raw materials through Italy via Austria, unless the Allies want to seriously risk pissing off Mussolini and start intercepting cargoes that are third party...It won't be contraband at that stage because an Italian company will be buying it to sell on...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well, there were Allied troops at Murmansk, and maybe someone would think it a great idea to invade Finland from there? I remember Speer visiting N Norway/Finland and there were German miners or something up there, so denying them these resources could be a help.

Then again, with Italy neutral, Germany can get a whole load of raw materials through Italy via Austria, unless the Allies want to seriously risk pissing off Mussolini and start intercepting cargoes that are third party...It won't be contraband at that stage because an Italian company will be buying it to sell on...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Action in Northern Finland Norway is a bad idea..it surrenders all the allied advantages in mobility and firepower since the Germans would just hole up in the mountain passes and make a general nuisance of themselves... attacking into this type of terrain went very poorly in otl Italy, now add snow and more German forces and a less secure supply system... its a recipe for bloody stalemate and tying up valuable allied resources that are better employed elsewhere

 

[Grey Wolf]

Action in Northern Finland Norway is a bad idea..it surrenders all the allied advantages in mobility and firepower since the Germans would just hole up in the mountain passes and make a general nuisance of themselves... attacking into this type of terrain went very poorly in otl Italy, now add snow and more German forces and a less secure supply system... its a recipe for bloody stalemate and tying up valuable allied resources that are better employed elsewhere

Yes but I don't think it would be looked at like that. For one thing the Allied command haven't got the example you use to go on, but for another it is intended to be a localised short victorious campaign. Common sense, especially when based on hindsight not yet gained, does not always prevail when people are considering the impact upon morale first.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[BlairWitch749]

Yes but I don't think it would be looked at like that. For one thing the Allied command haven't got the example you use to go on, but for another it is intended to be a localised short victorious campaign. Common sense, especially when based on hindsight not yet gained, does not always prevail when people are considering the impact upon morale first.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

You are dead right sir, its hard to imagine a campaign that would squander superiority and advantage than the Italian campaign, but that would be it... and without the knowledge that fighting over difficult, mountainous terrain generally leads to bloodbath stalemate, they might be content to give it a try, they wouldn't even have the example of the disasterous Italian offensive into the French alps... their last bout with mountain warfare would have been Caparetto, which only succeeded under very special and unique circumstances (shutters... Norway would go very very poorly)

 

[Geekhis Khan]

So an Allied invasion of Norway, however foolish and ultimately costly, seems a plausible if in hindsight stupid option.

I'm picturing now a campaign possibly as early as Summer 42 to control sealanes to Narvik, invade there with landings, paratroops, and naval gun/carrier air support. Assuming naval superiority can be established (plausible, but costly) a "Narvik Pocket" can be established and potentially supported, though in that terrain it's not going far until at least 44 as the Heer starts falling back before the Red Hordes.

Allied Advantages: Diplomatic points with Soviets, better control of Northern sea lanes to the Soviets.

Allied Disadvantages: High casualties (land, air, and sea), supply sink, little likelihood of advance far beyond the pocket.

Hard Lessons Learned: Logistical and amphibious lessons learned OTL in Italy; applicable to *Overlord.

In short a Northern Anzio at best.

Anything I'm missing there?


...

Now, what about a Southern France invasion: possible? Smart? Dumb?