The Atlantic and the Northern Countries

[Lundgren]

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

[Targan]

IIRC there was a Finnish Handbook produced back in the day which had lots of information about Finland (obviously) and Scandinavia during the Twilight War. I don't know if an English-translated version was ever made available though.

[Legbreaker]

I do believe one of our members who just so happens to reside in the area in question began just such a translation on these very boards a year or so back. I don't believe they finished but a good start was made.

Edit: Hmm, looks like it was just the timeline. Still, there's a lot of good info in there!

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=1437

[Lundgren]

I have seen references to that sourcebook, and always thought it was some fan made material. So they made their own licensed stuff over there Cool

Unfortunately, considering the language it would be not be much point of getting my hands on it. If it had been in Swedish... Oh, well.

Reading on wikipedia I can see that the Baltic fleet at Leningrad has the task of securing the coast of Germany and Poland, and give amphibious capability to be able to attach Denmark and Germany.

So no reason to break out and engage in the battle of the Atlantic, thus southern Sweden or eastern Denmark would not be considered an immediate threat.

Denmark and Holland (and possible Belgium depending on if they stay in NATO or not) would be transit lands for US and Canadian troops and supplies. While denying access to those ports would be of interest, I don't think it would be done by an amphibious invasion of Denmark. Strategic bombing and later nukes would probably be the method of choice.

If the invasion of Norway would be halted in Lapland, then the rest of Norway would probably be quite untouched until the nukes starts to fly. If the invasion of Norway is successful, I would guess quite a few resistance group would have their bases on Swedish soil. The later could mean the same type of tension as the one between Colombia and Venezuela/Peru as FARC and other groups have used bases across the border.

But it can be worth to remember that one of the main objective to invade Norway during WWII was to secure the import of Swedish steel. Apparently, there was some plans by the British to invade northern Sweden to deny Germany the option to import from Sweden. Those plans was scrapped. So a question is, how important would imports from Sweden be to Germany and Great Britain in the Twilight war

[Legbreaker]

WWII and T2K are very different situations logistically. In WWII, Germany had to fight virtually all it's neighbours in an effort to secure resources.

In T2K, the situation is very different - Germany, and most of Nato (obviously not including the effectively isolated Turkey and Romania) have a relatively open back door to the west. Likewise, the Pact have the vast natural resources of the USSR in addition to that which can be found within the client states themselves. Nobody on either side in T2K really NEEDS resources from neutral countries (although they do help), so I doubt resources alone would be enough (in the early years) to make anywhere a particular target.

Later on, say 1999-2000 even just the rumour of a single resource type could make a general offensive a real possibility.

[Lundgren]

WWII and T2K are very different situations logistically. In WWII, Germany had to fight virtually all it's neighbours in an effort to secure resources.

True. So it is back to "the only point of attacking Sweden is to get to Norway from another angle"; which sounds to be to costly and time consuming.

Later on, say 1999-2000 even just the rumour of a single resource type could make a general offensive a real possibility.

After the Soviet offensive during the summer of 2000, not many would have the resources needed to go on the offensive again. I also guess food is the primary resource on most minds.

While Sweden might not have the best soil in the world, with a rather small population and large land mass, it would probably be able to handle a wave of refugees from Norway. But it would probably lock down its border. By assisting Denmark in locking down its border against Germany, I see it as quite unlikely that any larger amount of refugees would reach Sweden.

Finland has quite a border against Russia. So it is a question of how well Finland would be able to keep starving masses out. If they would retake Karelia (lost to the Soviet during WWII), they would get a shorter border due to lake Ladoga adding as a natural barrier. So depending on how far Russia collapses, that might end up as an option.

With its railroads, hydropower and nuclear power plants, Sweden would probably be able to fairly well adapt if undamaged. Methanol and charcoal are produced from the same process, and there is a lot of forest to make it from. But everything would probably be rationed, so when the normal idealistic naivety of Swedes might not be as common anymore; creating a higher readiness of keeping people out in the same way as France.

[Raellus]

I've posted these thoughts elsewhere, but...

In the early days of the Twilight War, I can see Soviet forces attempting to seize airbases in northern Norway. Success would allow the Soviets to provide top cover for their fleet to sortie out into the Norwegian/North Sea. In order to seize them quickly and without damaging them, the Soviets would rely on Spetznaz and chemical weapons, followed in short order by airborne troops.

NATO naval forces would respond, both to stop a major Red Fleet sortie and to support NATO ground ops against the Soviet bridgeheads. This would lead to at least one fleet action resulting in heavy losses on both sides.

As to Denmark, we had a complete thread a while back about when and why the Danes would enter the war and the role Iceland would play in the Twilight version of WWIII. I thought that Denmark might enter the war after the Soviets nuked the US bases in Iceland.

Lundgren, what do you think about the idea of Sweden trying to seize Polish territory along the Baltic Coast after the U.S. evacuation of Europe I ask only because historically, Sweden laid claim to and controlled some of this territory. Since Sweden would come out of the war in relatively good shape, they would have the strength to do this. I can't think of any strategic reason to do this- it would be more a matter of national pride and power projection as Sweden stakes a claim to being a post-WWIII power. Perhaps Sweden could claim that it's seizing Polish territory to stop raids by pirates or something like that. I just kind of like the idea of adding another player to the scramble for Poland.

[Lundgren]

Lundgren, what do you think about the idea of Sweden trying to seize Polish territory along the Baltic Coast after the U.S. evacuation of Europe I ask only because historically, Sweden laid claim to and controlled some of this territory. Since Sweden would come out of the war in relatively good shape, they would have the strength to do this. I can't think of any strategic reason to do this- it would be more a matter of national pride and power projection as Sweden stakes a claim to being a post-WWIII power. Perhaps Sweden could claim that it's seizing Polish territory to stop raids by pirates or something like that. I just kind of like the idea of adding another player to the scramble for Poland.

I can't see Sweden being interested in claiming land in any direction. But I can see Sweden trying to spread our moral values, just as Sweden try to shove our prostitution law down everyone else throat. Here is an Australian evaluation of said law. The Ban on Purchasing Sex in Sweden - The So-Called Swedish Model.

The cultural map of the world might give an indication with whom Sweden somewhat shares values with. So I would guess the first objective would be to secure our own borders. Then help Finland, Norway and Denmark.

But as Sweden currently have troops in Afghanistan, and we have had troops under UN mandate on the Balkans, etc. So while I can't imagine much of forceful expansive ambitions, I can see Sweden to possible send aid to a faction they consider legit. If I would want Sweden to start involve themselves, I would have them help Denmark and Finland to secure their borders. Possible by having enough refugees coming through to make the Swedish population want that situation to stop (much easier to sit on ones high horse and have opinions on how people would handle things while being 5,000 kilometers away). So if Russia is collapsing, having them help Finland setting up a more secure border (retaking Karelia). From there, perhaps going on a "peace making mission", sending aid in form of advisors, troops, arms and supplies (kind of sound like Vietnam, doesn't it... ). Now, Sweden is a small country, population wise. So it would not be a large amount of troops. But having pre-war technology, it would still have some bite.

[Lundgren]

To continue a bit more on the thought of Sweden involving itself in Poland. It touches quite a few sensitive topics, and I will not argue what is right or wrong. The purpose is to give an insight into Swedish mentality, and how it could be used in a plausible way in the Twilight setting. A more cute, slightly politically incorrect way, to learn more about how we in Scandinavia is geared would be to look at the "Scandinavia and the World" web comic.

But to be able to weight my writing a bit, as most Swedish TW2k players (or at least those I have met) tend to be right wing voters; my political affiliation is to the Swedish left.

As I understand it, Poland is one of the most Religious countries in Europe, while Sweden is one of the least religious. If I recall, Poland is one of the few countries in Europe today where abortion is illegal. As many turn to religion during hard times, I would probably turn that up a notch or two. Sweden is on the forefront on the "pro-choice" side. So we have a collision course with religious factions.

Sweden's opinions on democracy, law and order would probably put it on collision course with the communists, criminals and warlords.

A lot of eastern Europe is strongly against homosexuality, Sweden is on the other end of the spectrum. So another point that can be used to raise the tension.

Considering websites like "God hates Sweden" and there was a senator a couple of decades ago who wanted to have an embargo against Sweden because we were a "communistic country that potentially could develop nuclear weapons"; I guess there would be quite a few Americans who would think Sweden is just yet another commie country trying to squash liberty and religion. Apparently, not everyone understand the difference between a Social democratic party and Soviet Union communism. While it would be a small minority, it might destabilize the US ranks, and possible desertions to join "free units that carries on the crusade."

So while I don't think Sweden would end up on a collision course with any NATO forces, I can definitely see them on a collision course with some former NATO soldiers.

Now, with legit group, I would assume a group supporting Swedish ideals of equality and democracy. But if I recall correctly, Castro talked a lot about free elections. So Sweden could be supporting the wrong faction.

So the proper tagline to Swedish intervention in Poland could very well be: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Trooper]

When we are talking about Scandinavia 2.2 oehistory simply sucks.

"Scandinavia: While nothing in the Scandinavian countries was subjected to nuclear attacks, the peninsula saw considerable fighting during 1997-98 between NATO and Soviet forces. Cut off from world trade, life is becoming increasingly difficult for most Scandinavians. Most of the cities of Scandinavia are independent or insular, although broad regions in the south are organized. Areas in the north subjected to fighting during the war are either cantonments, devastated, or in anarchy."

No nuclear strikes in Scandinavia Soviets really didnt appreciate neutrality. I have read some articles about soviet war planning during cold war and those plans were simply horrific. They were prepared to nuke Austrian garrison towns and Wien (2 x 500 kt). Danish people would have enjoyed several nuclear strikes in 20-100 kilotons range. Unluckily historians were unable to get those soviet war plans against other Nordic countries, but I dont think there would be doubts about nuclear weapons use against Norway, Sweden or Finland. Yes - swedes were able to keep their neutrality during WW2 but their fate would have been completely different during Twilight war. "you're either with us, or against us" If soviets didnt hesitate nuke neutral France why should they leave Sweden intact

On the other hand Boomer (v.1) has nice timeline for Norway and there also a few lines about Finland in Twilight war.

[Lundgren]

That the Soviet had plans to nuke about everywhere doesn't mean much. The US had plans to nuke cities and towns in West Germany. War is an ugly business, and one creates plans for a lot of different scenarios.

The traditions of the Soviets tend to be quite brutal and paranoid. But there is an internal logic to it. If nuking France would cripple the war effort of NATO, or a perceived benefit, I don't have any problem with that attack. From the Soviet point of view, taking out the French harbors while still having the ability to do so, might be a long term strategy as well.

France is also quite a power, that have shown itself ready to not care what the rest of the world is thinking. So the Soviets might want them to be weakened, so they won't project that power elsewhere.

Taking out the ability to fly sorties over the Atlantic is a reason to nuke the airbases in Norway. Any harbor in Denmark would probably be targeted. They are already in war with Norway, and Denmark is still a NATO member. But both Sweden and Finland do have high tech industries, but are probably quite insignificant. While being able to knock out the industries and infrastructure, the military forces would be to dispersed to be knocked out. Neither country have any nuclear capability to retaliate with, so any threat would be from conventional measures. Low risk but low reward.

So I find both alternatives to be plausible.

[headquarters]

Soviet invasion of Norway T2k anno 1999

If the Soviets were o do it they couldnt do it efficiently by slugging it out in Finnmark and Lappland. The area is just to void of resources. Roads are limited and the terrain in Norway favours the defender. There is a limited Window of operations due to winter.

Amphibious and airborne ops on a massive scale would have to commence simultanously - or nuclear attacks on population centers. Otherwise the land war would grind on without much gain but hard losses on either side. Assuming the Norwegians have continous airsupport from the USAF and the RAF.

Just a perspektive

[dude_uk]

From the timeline

June 7 - US and British units begin a rapid flanking movement through northern Finland, but are severely hampered by Finnish troops

Which idiot at NATO HQ thought that one up! And more importantly the British Army toy-box is empty, what units

[Adm.Lee]

Drat, now I want to pull out the old GDW "Arctic Front" game. That was sort of my favorite in the TWW series. I think it's the one I played most often with my brother, but the German front game would have been pretty close.

[Legbreaker]

Nuke usage in T2K doesn't exactly follow any plans I've ever heard about. From reading through all the material (all versions) it seems fairly clear that each and every warhead was fired off on a case by case basis - might have been a dozen or so a day, but it was still far from a wide scale usage (well, ok, maybe against China it was). Every warhead was targeted to achieve a specific goal, while simultaneously avoiding going "too far" and triggering a full scale strategic exchange.
As it says in the books:

Neither side wishes to cross the threshold to nuclear oblivion in one bold step, and so they inch across it, never quite knowing they have done so until after the fact.

Therefore, without a clear and specific target in Sweden, there's no real requirement for them to have been hit, especially since the other side may have acted rather negatively at the nuking of a neutral country (NATO were probably happy France got hit after they abandoned them and invaded Belgium, the Netherlands and part of Germany, and may even have fired a few warheads at them themselves).