Invasion of Norway

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#61

Post by Jon G. » 09 Jul 2007, 09:25

stril wrote:Hello
Didn't the Norwegians have one of the largest merchantile fleets in the world, especially oil tankers?.
Norway had the fourth largest merchantile fleet in the world, and 20 % of the worlds oil tankers and it was a very modern fleet of oil tankers...
Here is a very nice site detailing Norway's merchant fleet during WW2. The exhaustive ships' lists neatly divide ships into Allied/free and domestic/German-controlled parts.

User avatar
janner
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 23:40
Location: London

#62

Post by janner » 09 Jul 2007, 09:37

phylo_roadking wrote:Okay, I'll use the shift key instead......

...because the Italians were willing to accept payment in dried cod!
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing!

I consider that the problem is that in most countries education, full employment, health, social and regional equality, and law and order figure higher on the shopping list than expensive military equipment and the associated in life costs.

Scandinavian states are renowned for their welfare state and high taxes, and it was a particular priority in Norway from 1935 to the invasions.

I guess politicians realise that a modern, well trained and equipped army doesn’t win votes – mind you – nor does losing a war!


John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#63

Post by John T » 09 Jul 2007, 17:47

phylo_roadking wrote:Okay, I'll use the shift key instead......

...because the Italians were willing to accept payment in dried cod!
Dear PHYLO

That statement falls with in what you calls
but also some considerable dross bandied about.
The Capronis where bought from Italy since they where one of the few producers with capacity to export aircrafts after the war started with resonable delivery times.

I think you should look a bit more careful on your sources and not take even Kersaudy for granted in all detals, He's teh best on ANglo-French political part of the history but He isn't that strong on the details of the war.
And by the way his newer book printed 2002 in french
(AFAIK only published in French and Swedish) makes a much more detailed account on the Norwegian side.

You will have a problem coming into the discussion with such limited knowlede of the issue and then start judging others.

Best regards

John T.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#64

Post by phylo_roadking » 10 Jul 2007, 01:59

Limited knowledge? fair enough....

In August 1939 Norway purchased four Caproni Ca.310s - at the same time as purchasing other aircraft around the world, including a large batch of Curtiss P36 Hawks that took up all the government's available foreign exchange. The Italian government was willing to take stocks of dried cod in exchange for monetary foreign exchange credits.The first aircraft arrived and was stationed at Sola Army Air Service airfield outside Stavanger. It was VERY frequently out of service due to engine problems, with Caproni engineers travelling from italy on three occasions that autumn. A further three aircraft arrived, but at the time of the invasion all four were out of service - AGAIN with engine problems.

Norway actually had an option to purchase a further twenty of these Ca310 "Libeccio" ["South West Wind"] three-seater recce-bombers, but argued with Caproni and the Italian government that perfromance - when they actually DID get off the ground - fell far short of promised. Several other nations who had bought small numbers of the 310 were at this time making similar complaints. Instead of taking up the option of any more 310s, Norway was persuaded to take up an option on nine upgraded Ca312s, but none of these arrived before the invasion.

Locally these four aircraft were known as the "Clipfish planes" - "clipfish" being the local Norwegian name for dried cod. Unfortunately the absece of the intended twenty-four recce-bombers - recce aircraft being of great interest to the Navy Service and the Army Air Service bcause of Norway's huge length of coastline, the government re-budgeted, searched abroad again and ordered 24 Northrop N-3P floatplanes for maritime recce, but again none were delivered before the invasion. Instead the exiled Royal Norwegian Navy Air Service operated them out of Reykjavik on behalf of the Allies.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#65

Post by John T » 11 Jul 2007, 09:24

phylo_roadking wrote: Limited knowledge? fair enough....
Well, at least you simplify matters to a degree that makes one wonder why you judged others posts as dross.

Your initial claim was that the reason Norway bought these planes where that they could be pay by dried cod. That France ordered the plane too and even RAF negotiated for a deal do you leave out.
phylo_roadking wrote: In August 1939 Norway purchased four Caproni Ca.310s - at the same time as purchasing other aircraft around the world, including a large batch of Curtiss P36 Hawks that took up all the government's available foreign exchange. The Italian government was willing to take stocks of dried cod in exchange for monetary foreign exchange credits.
What is your source?

According to Flyalarm, Hafsten et al 1991, the order for four aircrafts where placed on the 27 of July 1938 and it was indeed a compensation affair.

The second batch of two Capronis CA 312bis where ordered on the 14:th of September 1939 with a licence contract for further aircrafts to be built in Norway.
phylo_roadking wrote: Locally these four aircraft were known as the "Clipfish planes" - "clipfish" being the local Norwegian name for dried cod.
Now you confuses facts with local history.

Italy had a desperate need balancing their trade and get strategic raw materials after the Abyssinia crisis. So to barter was simply business as usual for Italian arms export.

So it's a fact that Norway did pay in goods and
it is a fact that local humour branded the aircrafts "cod bombers".
But from those facts assume that the reason Norway bought these aircrafts were the cod is too simple.

I do not have more detailed info on the deal but it would surprise me if Italy did not get steel, molybdenum and other more strategic products too.
I do know that the Norwegian company of Kongsberg did deliver AA-fuzes to Italy during early 1940, but not if it was directly connected with the Caproni deal.

Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#66

Post by phylo_roadking » 11 Jul 2007, 15:39

John, the French and RAF deals were entirely independent of the Norwegian purchase. After the Munich Crisis the RAF actually negotiated to buy TWO HUNDRED 310s (later reduced to 100 when it became clear what an underachiever it was)and a further THREE hundred Ca.311s but the negotiations were VERY protracted and not completed before Mussloini invaded the South Of France. In fact, the Italians had actually asked HITLER two weeks' before that date if it would be wise to continue the deal! Berlin okay'd it...!!! The British had urgent need of a bomber-crew trainer to supplement the Airspeed Oxford etc. And not just Britain and France - Hungary, Peru, Yugsolavia all ordered the Ca310. What has that all got to do with the Norwegian order???
But from those facts assume that the reason Norway bought these aircrafts were the cod is too simple
....why??? ;-)

Er, John - how/why would Italy get STEEL from Norway???


Source for the Norwegian information - "Profiles in Norway No.1 Caproni Ca310" Published 2004, author Arild Kjaeraas.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#67

Post by John T » 11 Jul 2007, 23:41

phylo_roadking wrote: What has that all got to do with the Norwegian order???
It indicates that other nations with good aircraft industry also choose that aircraft, and that is a judgement on the products quality.
And since your statement was that the Noregians bought the plane because they could pay in cod I like to make life a bit more complex for you and state that there where actually other factors affecting the deal.
phylo_roadking wrote:
Er, John - how/why would Italy get STEEL from Norway???
How - the same way the cod whould be shipped.
Why - Because Italy wasn't selfsufficient in steel at that time.
phylo_roadking wrote: Source for the Norwegian information - "Profiles in Norway No.1 Caproni Ca310" Published 2004, author Arild Kjaeraas.
Great then could you quote that source's discription of the financial part of the deal?

Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#68

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Jul 2007, 01:08

Er, John...
How - the same way the cod whould be shipped.
Why - Because Italy wasn't selfsufficient in steel at that time
What steel? I'm not aware of Norway's immense and world famous steel industry at the time...
It indicates that other nations with good aircraft industry also choose that aircraft, and that is a judgement on the products quality
Ah! That bit where I said "The British had urgent need of a bomber-crew trainer to supplement the Airspeed Oxford etc. And not just Britain and France - Hungary, Peru, Yugsolavia all ordered the Ca310" - you must have missed my point - France and Britain were busy rearming, their various aricraft companies were working flat out on the orders they had...why on earth in any other case would either Britain or France go to ITALY??? And by the way, this was also the period when France was SO short of domestic capacity that they were buying Curtiss and Seversky fighter aircraft...even Koolhavens. NEITHER purchase had anything to do with the technical superiority of the aircraft, but rather that it filled a niche that they couldn't for themselves. That's why ANY nation with an aircraft industry buys abroad.

P.S.
other nations with good aircraft industry also choose that aircraft
Hungary, Peru and Yugoslavia??? LMAO

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#69

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Jul 2007, 02:49

At the end of 1939, the supply of any aircraft to the Swedish Air Force from manufacturers abroad became impossible. The capacity of the domestic Swedish aircraft industry was small. One exception was the still neutral Italy. When the possibility to purchase Italian aircraft arose, Sweden had to take the opportunity. The aircraft, the fighters J 11 and J 20 and the Caproni Ca 313, in Sweden designated B/S/T 16, were not what the Air Force really wanted, and the business use to be mentioned as ”the Emergency Purchase”. As compensation, Sweden had to export important raw materials to the Italian war industry.

84 Caproni Ca 313 were delivered to the Air Force. Of these were 30 intended as bombers (B 16A) and supplied to the newly established bomber Wing F 7 at Såtenäs. The first B 16As arrived to F 7 in October 1940.

The B 16A was armed with two fixed wing-mounted 13 mm automatic cannons and two moveable 8 mm machine-guns. One machine-gun was mounted in a dorsal turret. The other was fitted at the underside of the fuselage, firing downward-backward. The B 16 could carry an internal bomb load of 400 kg and an external of 250-400 kg. The crew of four consisted of pilot, radio operator/co-pilot, bombardier and mechanic/gunner.

The aircraft was powered by two 750 hp Isotta-Fraschini Delta RC 35 engines of inverted V-type.

The Ca 313 was not very successful as a bomber. During 1941, F 7 began to re-arm with light bombers (SAAB B 17). The Capronis were modified to long-range (”strategic”) reconnaissance aircraft (S 16) and transferred to the reconnaissance Wing F 11 at Nyköping.
...sure you're not mixing up "norwegian steel" - for SWEDISH? ;-)

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#70

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Jul 2007, 03:12

You said above...
It indicates that other nations with good aircraft industry also choose that aircraft, and that is a judgement on the products quality
(my emphasis)
The Ca.310 had been planned as an export model, but the Italian air force ordered a small batch for evaluation purposes: 16 of these aircraft were sent to Spain in 7/38 for operational trials in the hands of a reconnaissance bomber squadron of the Italian expeditionary force operating alongside the Nationalist insurgents in the Spanish Civil War. Caproni was more successful in the export market, soon capturing orders for Peru for a small batch delivered in 1938; Yugoslavia for 12 aircraft; Hungary for 36 aircraft delivered in batches of 12 from 8/38-10/38 with a powerplant of two 470 hp P.VII C.35 radial engines; and Norway for a total of 24 aircraft if its full option was exercised.

Most of these countries soon discovered that the actual performance of the Ca.310 fell below the legend specification, and after discovering this fact with its first four aircraft Norway refused to accept any further deliveries of the Ca. 310, but then agreed to take 12 examples of the Ca.312 whose upgraded powerplant offered improved performance. In any event, none of these 32 aircraft had been delivered before Norway was invaded by German forces in 4/40 and the aircraft were taken on charge by the Italian air force. Hungary was also unhappy with its Ca.310s and in 1940 the surviving 33 machines were returned to Italy where they were refurbished by Caproni and reissued to the 50th Stormo d’Assalto as temporary replacements for the groups unsatisfactory Breda Ba.65 attack aircraft.
(again my emphasis)

Sources:
Wings: London Blitz to Pearl Harbor
Elke Weale, Combat Aircraft of World War II, Bracken Books, 1985

You have to know how the RAF's current crop of bomber-trainers measured up agains EVEN the Caproni before you make a statement like yours above ;-) The French and RAF buying them wasn't a quality statement - it was a desperation act, they were buying what they couldn't build.

User avatar
PanzerKing
Member
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 03:26
Location: Texas USA

#71

Post by PanzerKing » 12 Jul 2007, 05:45

What about the American Hawk 75s? Why didn't Norway ever receive them?

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#72

Post by Qvist » 12 Jul 2007, 08:46

No, events overtook their delivery.

cheers

User avatar
Bronsky
Member
Posts: 825
Joined: 11 Apr 2003, 10:28
Location: Paris

#73

Post by Bronsky » 07 Aug 2007, 14:49

Various points.

1. General mobilization being announced by mail was normal. Regular announcements were by mail (mobilization letters) + posters + radio broadcasts. But posters had to be printed and distributed, and not everyone had access to the radio. TV ads and individual emails or SMS were not an option.

So that doesn't make the Norwegians particularly idiotic. General mobilizations took days, they were very complex affairs and needed to be rehearsed. Only a handful of countries had a really efficient mobilization system, as they feared a surprise attack. Even for these (e.g. German, France, Belgium) it took weeks before the army would be ready.

2. Anecdotes re: uniforms and locked armories. These happen, but care should be taken to distinguish between what occurred once and what occurred in general. A German column marching in the early morning into the streets of a Norwegian town might be confused with local troops: women and children wouldn't know much about uniforms, the light would be poor, and most importantly they would figure that it was a special unit because after all no other army would be marching in these streets, would it? See how persuaded so many Americans were after Pearl Harbor that the Germans must have been behind it all. However, the majority of Norwegian males would know Norwegian from foreign uniforms, and that would include the local police etc. So maybe 1-2 German columns were identified as "our troops" for a few minutes but that doesn't make it a general case.

3. Plane purchases.

Here, I really don't understand where Phylo_roadking is going. Norway bought some Capronis. Why? Because it needed modern planes, and the Italian air force had been a top notch airforce until very recently. Everyone, particularly in the English-speaking world, "knows" that the Italians were just hopeless incompetents with no fight in them and flying obsolete machines, but in the 1930's the Regia Aeronautica had been taken seriously. It had played a pioneering role in Ethiopia, then Spain, and up to 1937 or so it fielded some very competitive planes.

Italy had only missed out on the latest round of technological change i.e. fighters like the Hurricand and Bf.109 entering service around 1938 but these were in small numbers and only two years before 1940. Ask yourself this: does the French Rafale fighter constitute a revolutionary evolution over everyone else's current inventory? Which will be better, the JSF, ESF, F-22? I mean, really better, not "my country's plane is the best coz I looked up my country's air force website and it says so". My bet is you don't know. As a different exercize, which is the better tank between the M1A2, Challenger, Merkava II, Leopard II, Leclerc and T-90? Or do you want to toss in the Italian and Japanese designs as well? Here again, my bet is that 95% of us don't really know (i.e. factual information), as opposed to entertaining vague notions that "the US tank is best because I saw a TV program that said so" or "my country's tank is the best because it had such and such feature".

What I'm getting at is that the same applied to 1940 arms purchasers: they didn't know which country made the best planes. Several countries were claiming that they had the best planes in the world. Italy was a major aircraft manufacturer, there was no doubt that the Caproni represented a major improvement over the Norwegian inventory. The Norwegians would know that it wasn't quite state of the art but they couldn't know how uncompetitive it was. And the planes had a very important quality: they were available.

France and Britain were not exporting planes (with a handful of exceptions usually involving political considerations e.g. Hurricanes to Belgium). What was better, to have some state of the art Curtiss H-75 that were nowhere near assembled but written black on white on the Wright order book, or to have Capronis that were less than top notch but actually available to fly combat missions? The funny thing is that you understand this perfectly as you write about Britain & France: they needed planes urgently, Italy was the only available source of modern planes, so Italian planes were purchased. Why wouldn't that apply to the Norwegians as well?

Let's compare the Italian planes with the US-built H-75s. 12 were ordered on 12th August, 1939 with a further twelve on 27th September. Of these, 19 had been delivered by the time of Weserübung, "but all were in various stages of assembly at the Kjeller depot, or still in their crates at the docks at Oslo or Bergen." (Air Arsenal, North America).

As for payment, the US had no need for Norwegian exports and required gold. Italy was a major importer of various commodities, so a barter deal preserved Norway's gold stocks: why ship gold to the Italians who would then spend it to buy food, rather than sell food directly and keep the gold? Gold reserves were considered a vital strategic commodity in 1940.

User avatar
tigre
Member
Posts: 10550
Joined: 20 Mar 2005, 12:48
Location: Argentina

163 ID in Norway 1940.

#74

Post by tigre » 01 Sep 2007, 17:33

Hello to all, greetings from Argentina :D . I'm trying hard to get some info with regards to the actions carried out by this division at Kristiansand and Oslo during the first stages of "Weserübung" (mainly the IR 307 casualties during the Blücher sinking and the IR 234 airborne task); also the advance inland towards north (Lillehammer). So if someone here can help to me (especially anyone who owns the book Von Potsdam zum Polarkreis und zurück. Der Weg der 163. Infanterie-Division - I. Teil: Norwegen 1940 - Hilmar Potente (Hrsg.), Selbstverlag, Berlin 1982. Thanks in advance. Wishing all of you a nice week end. Tigre 8-) .

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re:

#75

Post by John T » 20 Feb 2009, 20:08

John T wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote: Source for the Norwegian information - "Profiles in Norway No.1 Caproni Ca310" Published 2004, author Arild Kjaeraas.
Great then could you quote that source's discription of the financial part of the deal?

Cheers
/John T.

I still waiting for that information, which should not be that hard to find given you got axcess to the source you claim.

Cheers
/John T

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”