Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I've been working on a hypothetical Soviet invasion of northern Norway in Oct 1963, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The scenario assumes no actual combat in central Europe, just LOTS of mobilization and sabre rattling on both sides.

The thinking is limited hostilities confined to northern Norway in order to agree to a to cessation of hostilities and a return to the original borders as a trading card for being allowed to place missiles in Cuba. After all, you can always blame a rogue commander and have him shot before things get totally out of hand!

The Norwegians have mobilized but not deployed their regular army in order to not provoke the Soviets. However their Homeguard and a handful of regular recon/Jaeger formations are defensively deployed ... "Just in Case". The USMC Battalion Landing Team (BLT) that's always afloat has been landed/deployed in order to insure the Soviets will be facing American units should they try anything. Gotta love international politics.

My questions are:
I assume the Soviets aren't going to send more then one Cat A Tank division (T-62/BTR-60) into northern Norway, the terrain is hardly suited to tank warfare, and the single division should be sufficient to punch thru any serious resistance encountered.
What other major (division size) formations would likely be available/used in northern Norway ... Airborne? Mechanized? Naval Infantry? Leg Infantry?
And just what would they be equipped with? T-55? T-44? T-34/85's presumably for the "Invisible Division" - Divisional Commander-Second Formation. BTR-50's? I presume BTR-152'a for the "Invisible Division".

Also would the less capable divisions spearhead the drive leaving the better equipped/manned/trained formations available to be used when and where needed? Or do you lead with your best?

I've dug around a bit but unfortunately can't read Russian and the stuff I can find in English covering this time period is sparse indeed.

Thanks for any help anyone can give!

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The only thing I had in my files was a Naval Post Graduate School thesis written in 1985. You can read it online here:

https://archive.org/details/defendingnorwayn00maho

Strategy and Tactics Magazine had a insert game on this back in the 80's. I have it somewhere and if I can find it, I'll check and see what the TO&E/era they use and post it.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

VERY good read!

Tho it was written in the 80's one would assume the Soviet units stationed in/near the Kola Peninsula were probably much the same during the 60's. What was surprising (to me anyway) was just how many aircraft the Soviets maintain in the area. I knew it was a lot, but not THAT many. Again assuming it was similar in the 60's I'll have to re-think the air/anti-air aspects of the scenario. And trying to get AI controlled helicopters to behave is closely akin to herding cats.

Thank you again, very useful.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The Norwegian defence was hinged on the 'Lyngen Position' - where they established a strong blocking defence and deployed the bulk of their forces in the North (incl. Brig N ('Brigade North')there.

The Lyngen fjord is a narrow passage where basically the mountains meet the ocean - and it located west of the so called 'Finnish wedge'. The Norwegians did not expect to be able to stop a Soviet advance east of the Lyngen position, and figured defences in the border region with the USSR were vulnerable from being outflanded by Soviet forces moving through Finland ("The Finnish Wedge").

The terrain in the arctic and the poorly developed infrastructure is limiting for military land operations - much of Norway is also mountanious.

Norwegian language article - includes a map of the costal artillery and army locations late 1950s near Lyngen fjord. (scroll down):

http://www.forsvarsforening.no/site/...%20%282%29.pdf


East of the defences at Lyngen, in the Finnmark region, Norwegian defences were not particulary strong - numbering about 5000 or so in various smaller units - dedicated to delaying actions.

IIRC the Norwegians were concerned about the Soviets using seaborne forces in a simliar fasihon as the Germans had done in 1940 to land forces along the Norwegain coast at multiple locations.

Some Swedish officers expected that the strength of the Norwegian defences at Lyngen would prompt a Soviet invasion of Finland and Sweden in order to outflank it.


Here's a list of Soviet forces belonging to TVD Northwest:
(note: it's not complete, and of uncertain origin (found it on a Swedish language forum) but gives a pointer to what Soviet units were located there. I imagine it's from the late 1980s, early 1990s).

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeedox4/s...les/nw_tvd.pdf

Some Soviet units were organised according to the Mot Rifle Div NORTH setup - which had somewhat less strength than the ordinare MRDs but were probably better equipped to operate in the arctic region.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Thank you!

Given that the Soviet OOB showed T-90's I'd suspect it was early 90's in origin. But I don't suspect other then equipment upgrades the formations themselves have changed so it gives me a good indication of what was available in the 60's.

Next question.
Would the Soviets be likely to lead with their best formations or with a 2nd line one saving their best for when they ran into a "hot spot"?
I need to decide would the 1st wave or 2nd of the assault be the better equipped one.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I'm not sure - but I wonder if they would not want their best forces in the lead...

If they are invading overland they have basically one road to advance along - I assume they would need the road to supply their invasion. There is little room to manouver along that road and I assume the division in the lead is what the Soviets have to fight with (it being complicated to push a trailing division forward to the front on just one road clogged with stuff belonging to the lead division).

I imagine the Norwegians would have had, similar to to Swedish practice, plans for destroying roads and infrastructure - if they then could mine or fight delaying actions along those destroyed bits of the road they would be able to slow an advance considerably. There is a saying that goes something like "if you continously kill off the enemy lead AFV you create an interesting leadership problem for the enemy (Bn) commander as he will now have to convince the next crew to go forward." In such an environment you'd probably get better results with qualified units rather than trying to bull your way forward with 2nd rate forces.

There might be solutions to this problem though, the Russians have a saying of their own that goes something like "Where the reindeer can go, so can the Russian soldier go. And where the reindeer can not go, the Russian soldier can still go."
Leapfrogging airborne units forward has been suggested, seaborne attacks combined with an overland invasion etc.

Link to a US Army study of the Soviet arctic operations late WWII:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CAR...sOperation.pdf

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Yeah, the more-or-less single road MSR problem would certainly incline one to put their best units forward. Good advice.

Unfortunately the AI can't deal with seaborne attacks and has a limited capability to do heliborne ones so these aren't really an option. While it can do a parachute attacks I'm going to assume there's only one or two airborne divisions available and they'll want to use those near Narvik to deal with the main 'Lyngen Position' so they're not available to deal with what's basically a regimental blocking position (1 USMC Bn, 1 Homeguard Bn, 1 Bn of cats-and-dogs) in place to buy time and force the Soviets to face US troops thus, in theory, making their advance more dangerous politically.

I'm doing this in the early 60's because the Cuban Missile Crisis is a convent reason for a confrontation, it's before the ATGM era, everyone has pretty much replaced their WW II stuff with modern, and helicopter gunships are in their infancy so not much of a factor. Should be interesting.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The AI can do parachute assaults - provided that these are pre-programmed by the scenario designer. Unassigned transports, it will do nothing with as it has no clue.

A battalion-sized desant in the defender's gun line area after a few turns of air and arty prep could be a nasty thing to have to deal with..

Andy

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I had some time to go through my old files and found another article on Norway. I had to look for an online source and finally found it today:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2009/R3439.pdf

It' still in the 80's but it may help you. I know I had an older article from the 70's and I'm still trying to find that one. If I do, I'll either post the link or arrange to get it to you otherwise by a zip file.

I still haven't found the Strategy and Tactics game (#94 - NORDKAPP), but I'm still looking.

Keep updating your progress, I'd really like to see scenarios from this area and time frame.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Sorry to be a pain here, but I found three more articles you may want to read:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2008/R3725.pdf
1988 RAND report on reinforcement of Norway during a Soviet Invasion

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...2009/N2497.pdf
RAND report “Factors affecting the Military Environment of North Norway..

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/fil....OgtGeTjS.dpuf
A newer study but worth reading.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Yeah, the AI handles parachute assaults just fine.
Helo ... not so well.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Good read.
I'll have to try to figure out how to include elements of the 63rd Naval Infantry and their Spetsnaz Bn into the scenario.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

From Naval bases at Murmansk on the Barents Sea, deploy an amphibious operation of Naval Infantry preceded by helicopter interdiction of Spetsnaz forces may give the scenario elements of realism and excitement. However, the scenario may have to account for Finnish and Swedish intervention as well.

At Vardo, the Norwegians in cooperation with US operate a submarine surveillance operations facility (SOSUS) monitoring Soviet Fleet Naval activity in the Barents Sea. This facility as the primary objective of the operation may make excellent use of Russian Naval Infantry and Spetsnaz forces.

Very interesting concept, audacious Russian plan similar to what we are witnessing on the Russian Ukrainian border today. Now, for cover for Cuba, Vardo is the Russian tit-for-tat. Looking forward to your scenario.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Keep in mind it's 1963 so helicopters, especially attack helicopters, are in their infancy. And for the most part ATGMs are still on the drawing board.

While the US Navy may operate out of Vardo now they probably didn't in 1963 as the Norwegians were being VERY careful not to allow any foreign basing, or even training exercises in Finnmark.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

This whole topic has dominated my interest over the last week. The more re-reading and research I've done, the more interest I have in developing some scenarios myself for this area.

The most interesting aspect I've encountered is the defense philosophy both of the Norwegians, but also the reinforcing NATO forces. Take a look at the following source I just found yesterday:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a224142.pdf

"Who will stand the Nordic Guard?"

It's hard to read because it's a pdf of a type written report, but it gives a good history of the Norwegian and NATO defense strategy, as well as opposing force theory. I know it's again later than what you want in your era, but its helpful.

What I like about this theater is the use of indigenous Norwegian forces (deployed in Finnmark and in Tromms, homeguard, and reserves), as well as bringing in reinforcements from the USMC, British Marines, Canadian CAST Brigade, and Dutch Marines. The terrain is terrible for the attacker, but quite Spartan in concept for the defender.

You've even got me working on maps to use. I started one for Bardufoss, and just got topo sheets for Narvik. They'll take me some time to workup, but I'll try to share them when I'm finished.

Thanks Suhiir! My wife's about ready to "deport" me!!

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The interesting coincidence of my scenario is that it just happens to take place in the Fall which by every measure is the best time to invade.

Winter - Obviously not a good idea
Spring - Ground is too wet/marshy for any significant maneuver
Summer - Doable, but still a lot of wet ground
Fall - Ground is as dry as it ever gets, weather is still reasonable

So the more I play with it an Oct 1963 invasion to gain political leverage for missiles in Cuba looks "reasonable". If operations are confined to northern Norway it's not too likely anyone will start launching nukes, and that's obviously a major concern.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I do find it VERY interesting that the major Soviet ground forces in the area are still standard MRDs.
Yes, they're "winterized" and "light" (generally PT-76s vice T-Whatevers in the MRRs) but they're still primarily mechanized forces. One would think they'd have at least a couple purely infantry divisions. Because it seems to me they're just begging to re-experience the "Winter War" or "Market Garden". Yeah there are para and naval infantry that are generally infantry-centric but they have missions of their own to perform so wouldn't really be available to act as infantry for the main advance force.

I keep wondering what I'm missing, I've never thought of the Soviets as stupid, over-centralized and doctrine-bound yes, but not stupid.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

A lot of the soviet "Artic" MR regiments were MT-LB based - it is apparently much better in slush etc as it has a lower ground pressure (not modelled in SP).

Also these days there are very few "Leg only" infantry (actually, plenty of trucks in the support echelon). But the Soviets went over pretty much 100% to motor rifle or mech rifle infantry post WW2, in a big way - primarily because of nuclear and chemical warfare. Armoured transports at least get you through the slime and rads a bit more quickly, and if they have CRBN protection (which came with the roofed later model APC, but not the original open-topped tin truck 1/2 platoon types of the 50s), decent protection at least until you crack the hatches.

There is a fair amount of leg component in the para regiments, and trucks once air-mobiled in or simply driven behind the ground push to link up later.

The Spetznatz (more like UK commandos than SAS equivalents really) are about the only "leg" battalions. And even they will sometimes scrounge APCs if needed. They do have higher priority for any helo lift that is going spare, I'd imagine.

For a helo desant mission they take a normal motor rifle Bn or regt away from their transports for the operation and plan to marry them up with them again later (the drivers will be left behind, along with the trucks and their crews in the support echelon and the tanks and other AFVs from the MRR as well).

BUT - some of the really low schedule formations (C and D?) were planned to take up civilian trucks as their mounts, if there were any left over from other needs. These were the formations that would have the old stored T-34s etc. So Cat C and lower may well end up as Ww2 type "leg" grunts, but you would only see those in a full-on long war as they would need IIRC 6+ months to constitute and so would probably be more of an internal security item, since the planet would be glowing in the dark by then!:hurt:. But these deep reserves you aren't going to see in your situation.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I can get around the lack of the MT-LB (which is in the Soviet OOB starting in 1964) by using the BTR-50 since it's tracked and amphibious.

True, "leg only" infantry has pretty much gone the way of the do-do, but there are times and places it's still needed (jungles, mountains). Their assumption of operations in a nuclear/chemical environment is pretty much my take on why they went essentially 100% motor/mech, that an of course enhanced maneuverability. I've heard it said that while the Germans developed the Blitzkrieg the Soviets embraced it totally.

I'm thinking of doing pretty much what you mentioned for helo desant missions and just dismount an MRR or two, also saves a bunch of unit slots (since we're limited to 500) as there's no reason to even include their vehicles.

I considered a Cat C or D unit but as you said they just wouldn't be mobilized in the amount of time I'm dealing with.

Strangely my biggest problem so far is the PT-76's, they're pretty lousy even as a light tank. So they're not that big a threat even to bazooka/RR armed opposition. I do have the 82nd Gds Ind Tank Bn with T-62's, and even 40 of those is pretty impressive in 1963.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

PT-76 can be a shocker in the early years.

I'm fighting a little generated LC with Czechoslovakia in a "what if they fought it out in 1968" mode. This is rather challenging as you only have T5x against the AI's T5x, bread-and-butter T-62 and the occasional T-64 and BMP. Plus ADA is rather light (SA-2 guideline and twin 30mm SPAA, basically - no shoulder-fired Strelas).

On a recent battle, one of my T-54s fires at an advancing PT-76 at 1500 yards, misses and it then pings back a HEAT round which hits and toasts the T54... (I have had them kill me at short ranges but that one took the cake!). The HEAT on these things is an MBT killer in this time frame, if the wind is in the right direction. The AP shot deals with your APCs just fine and the HE bothers infantry a little bit. Not much ammo supply, but it swims and is cheap and worth a little respect as and until its dealt with.

Not good enough that I would put them in a Warsaw Pact core though - unlike the same period where I love to have some M-41 Bulldogs in a USA core for dealing with OPFOR tin cans. But OK for support forces at ~50 points a pop.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Did not the Cuban Missile crisis occur in October of 1962? I do not think Soviet planners having their plates full with Cuba and John Kennedy's naval blockade would go off script to Norway, at least not during the crisis that threaten the world with nuclear war.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

You're right, 1962 ... no clue where I got 1963.
Thanks!

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

No problemo.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The Soviets broke the German defences above the arctic circle in October 1944. The heaviest burdon fell upon 'leg infantry' which essentially was the deciding arm - but a number of problems surfaced - in offensive battle it was especially hard for the Soviets to keep the artillery support going because the artillery lacked the mobility to keep up with the infantry in this particular terrain. It was also hard to keep the artillery supply going - and the Soviets used numbers to make up for accuracy which meant they needed greater quantity of ammo brought forward instead of a limited number of shells for a limited number of guns.

When the infantry out paced the artillery support it lowered their combat power condierably. While mortars were easier to transport and could reach beind slopes etc their effectiveness were limited because of the terrain - supposedly they were too light for really penetrating the rocky soil or exploded more or less harmlessly in the swampy parts.

In October there can be lots of fog, rain and snow, the temperature ranges from between -5 C to +5 C, the Golf Stream keeps the ocean from freezing but the wind is cold and there is basically no way to get out of the wind - the weather conditions, the difficulty of resupplying the 'leg infantry', lack of arty support seriously degarded their combat effectivness over time.


In 1944 the Soviet commander Maretskov requested heavy armour to support his offensive because it thought that the Germans, having no armour of their own would be vulnerable to tank attacks. He wanted both heavy and numbers - he even requested to be given by then obsolete lend lease M3 Lee/Grant type tanks as he thought he would get more if he requested old stuff.

In actual battle the tanks did not play a very important role. They could hardly move outside the very few roads which meant they could fight with one or two tanks up front and all the rest trailing behind. The Soviets did have a fair number of combat and mobility losses to AFVs during these operations but I guess they still kept their faith when it comes to armour in the arctic...

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Thanks Wulfir, that sounds pretty much like I would expect and I hadn't studied the 1944 campaign in any detail, you saved me some digging/reading.

I was near Tromso in November once, being from South Dakota/Minnesota I didn't find the weather to be much of a problem, of course those that grew up in the southern states did. What I recall most was that it hadn't been cold enough long enough yet for the marshes to fully freeze and we generally avoided low areas because we were all to likely to break thru the ice.

Actually what I recall best was the night ski attack WE made on the Norwegians!
Everyone knows US Marines spend all their time in the south Pacific so obviously we know nothing of snow or skiing. Guess no one considered some of us grew up in Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, Maine, etc. Sure it was only about a platoon size attack but how large does a nighttime raid need to be?

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Can someone tell me:

Are Norwegian Homeguard Companies "lettered" (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie), "numbered" (1st, 43rd, 9672nd), or "named" (Sjovegan, Tennevoll) ?

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

It's my understanding that the Army Home Guard units are not under centralized command and are dispersed throughout individual communities in Norway. From what I've read, they are in Regions and districts. The Northernmost is District 17 (Finnmark). They keep their equipment at home so they can rapidly mobilize.

Here's a site that gives some info (TACOPS):

http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalth...-org-blue.html

I'm not aware that they have unit designators, other than those Home Guard units designated as Rapid Reaction Forces (District 17 I think is simply called the Finnmark RRF).

The Air Force and Navy also Have Home Guard units similarly disposed.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Looks like a number system:
HV-14104 belongs to HV-141 which in turn belongs to HV-14 the Sør-Hålogaland district.

HV-14 Sør-Hålogaland
HV-141 Vefsn
HV-14102 Vefsn/Grane
HV-14103 Hattfjelldal
HV-14104 Leirfjord
HV-142 Rana
HV-14202 Hemnes
HV-14203 Mo
HV-14204 Nesna
HV-143 Salten
HV-14302 Fauske/Søndre-Sørfold
HV-14303 Saltdal
HV-14304 Beiarn/Skjerstad
HV-14305 Gildeskål
HV-14306 Bodø
HV-144 Kysten
HV-14402 Bindal
HV-14403 Vega/Brønnøy
HV-14404 Alstahaug
HV-14405 Lurøy/Træna
HV-14406 Rødøy/Meløy
HV-145 Nord-Salten
HV-14502 Hamarøy og Tysfjord
HV-14503 Steigen

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Very interesting stuff. Question, the Norwegian army unit designations apply to 1962?

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Since the Homeguard was established in 1954 (if I recall correctly) and it's basic organization hasn't changed to the present I would assume so.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

The Norwegian Homeguard of today differs a bit from the one that was active during the cold war.

Heimevernet was established immediatly post-WWII and initially had to make do with old gear as the army had priority. One reason for its establishment was the idea of "controling" the wartime resistance movements like Milorg - a side effect of that was that the Norwegian Home Guard had a sort of dual identity - one line was that the purpose of the Home Guard was to protect against coups/surprise attacks - as the members kept their weapons and gear at home they would be very quick to mobilise.

The other leg it rested on was the idea that the Home Guard was to be able to conduct geurilla warfare - which was, AFAIK, unofficial, but many officers in the Home Guard had their background in the WWII resistance/sabotage type organisations(Kompani Linge/Milorg). According to the Norwegian Defence hompage the debate about the use of the Home Guard as Geurilla units was hot up to the 1970s. The homepage also states that "the further north you got the closer the co-operation with the army".

source:
http://hv.forsvaret.no/om/historie/Sider/Gerilija.aspx

Not sure how the Home Guard designated it's units during the cold war though...

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Once again thanks Wulfir.

Seems that at least until 1963 (and quite probably 1970) the Homeguard was operated as the nucleus of a large scale guerrilla operation as opposed to a defensive one.

That certainly makes a MAJOR difference in my little scenario. I had them in trenches trying to hold off or at least slow/blunt the Soviet Hordes. Given that they see themselves as a guerrilla force that is one of the last things they'd do.

Back to the drawing board?

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Hoping not to pre-empt you Suhiir, but I've been working on a Norway scenario set for the future and not in your era. I've been trying to work out the play balance on it and yet keep it realistic but after 8 run throughs and adjustments, I'm still not there yet.

You've got me obsessed with this concept.

I have a map finished which I will post with the scenario (separately) if you want to use it. It's of Bardufoss in Troms. I'm also working on a map on the Russian border but that's a long way from being finished.

I'll try to post it this weekend if I can at least work out a draw.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I made use of the map generator for mine. I had a few features in mind wanted the map to have so I just kept tweaking parameters and generating maps till I got one I liked for the scenario. Then used the map editor to make a few minor adjustments to some of the randomly generated but geologically unlikely areas.

Make you a deal tho. You can only play test your own scenarios so far because you KNOW where everything is, where it's suppose to go, and what reinforcements will arrive where. So I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Put them in the trenches.

To buy time for the rest of the rest of the defence to mobilise is a perfectly reasonable assignment for the Scandinavian type Home Guard units.

If I got it right the geurilla ideas originated form the WWII experiences of many of the initial commanders of the Norwegian Home Guard but it was a kind of unofficial doctrine.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

That and it was mentioned the unofficial guerrilla doctrine was especially prevalent in Finnmark.

But yeah, buying time I can see.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Yes, but I do not think putting an essentially "guerrilla" or militia force in trenches, as part of a static defense is prudent. However, hastily laid IED's, mines, and other obstacles along with snipers and RPG teams is most appealing to a Home Guard tasked to reconnoiter, delay, and harass an aggressor while securing important domestic installations until follow up forces are mobilized and put to the fight.

So, I agree with Suhiir's initial response to take the Home Guard out of trenches.

IMHO.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

You're right there. I'll post the scenario as a separate post in the scenario section but I'll give you some background of the development of it here.

From the research I've done, the mission of the Norwegian Army during the Cold War (and after) was to buy time in case of a Soviet (now Russian) invasion for NATO to mobilize reinforcements to hold the coastal areas of Norway (including the heartland south). The Soviets (Russians) would be combatting not only a numerically inferior foe, but also battling the weather and inhospitable terrain of Finnmark (northernmost county) and Troms (starting the characteristic fjord terrain south). Because of those latter factors, the Soviets had to either time their invasion with the weather/terrain (basically a two month window in late March into April where the ground was still firm enough to allow vehicular traffic off road), or contend with hostile weather or terrain impasses in the other months.

My scenario comprises a Russian decision to move into Northern Norway (perhaps more dependent upon success) to secure its northern flank on the expanded military bases on its Karelian peninsula. In this move, the Russians not only move across the Norwegian border near Kirkenes in Finnmark, but also move troops and aircraft across northern Finland. This was always an option for the Soviets, and provisions to move through Finnish territory existed in treaty if the USSR (Russia now) was threatened. Such a "threat" is presumed in this scenario (leaving Finland to decide its actions??).

Use of ground forces, air, sea, naval infantry, and airborne assets from the "Leningrad" district (is it still called that, I'm a Cold War Historian?) were to be amassed.

I'm not going to give away my theory of this assault, but in this scenario (Bardufoss) the mission of the Russian player is to take the Bardufoss Lufthavn (now an airbase), to deny the Norwegian player further use of this base to support Brigade Nord (Norwegian Army) forces in their delaying action against the onslaught. Although I know that could be done by air attack alone (at least temporarily), my Russian mission is to assault and hold the air base for reinforcements either by air or ground, from what would be a rapid advance through Finnmark and flanked through northern Finland.

With our current international condition, the response of NATO could be (and probably would be) slower than during the Cold War. In fact, during the Cold War, military planners were concerned about the response of NATO to such an invasion, and how soon help would arrive (length of response by the Canadian Battle Group, naval interdiction of forces, use of the Marine Expeditionary Force in other theatre, etc.). Although threat of naval interdiction in the Atlantic would be reduced for the modern scenario, historic reductions in force composition for NATO would fulfill the same impact.

The map is based on a Soviet topographic sheet for Bardufoss as well as Google Earth satellite photos. Scaling this accurately was difficult and some discretion had to be made (sorry). Also, WinSPMBT is unforgiving to allow for streams and lakes at elevations other than "0". So mud and snow is used to depict frozen lakes and streams. Norway also has numerous upland bog terrain and swamp terrain in the game won't go high. So mud was also used here.

Bardufoss hosts an F-16 squadron and I wanted them off base to avoid use of these units in the game. I use the premise that the majority of air assets have been moved to central Norway for maneuvers to open the base for attack. Designer discretion, but plausible as an opening for the Russian player in a dynamic international setting of Russian moves in the Baltic.

Units at Bardufoss are those I can find stationed at or near the base, or those reasonably moved there.

One final thing. Norwegian defense (NATO also) depended upon intelligence of potential aggression by the Soviets (Russia). Norway depended upon a window of 5-7 days to mobilize Home Guard units for reserve. In the 80's, a Soviet move to the border occurred with no prior intelligence, leaving Norway and NATO off-guard. This is similarly used in this series as an underlying premise. Home Guard units reside in most Norwegian communities. For play balance, Bardufoss has its share (OK, maybe a little more..).

I'll post the game separately, and the map onto this tread later. Suhiir, I'd especially appreciate your comments on the scenario. As you were in country, it would help me with later scenarios.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Attached is the map I made for Bardufoss, Troms, Norway.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

That's one nice looking map Grant1pa, congratulations. I must admit that this is really motivating and inspiring to see such further interest nowadays in scenario building. I'm feeling more proud everyday to be part of this loyal and dedicated WINSPMBT/WINSPWW2 scenario/mapmaking community keeping Steel Panthers alive throughout the years. Thanks. :up:

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Well if you're shooting for "realistic" Canada officially dropped it's commitment to provide a light infantry brigade for Norway in 1994 (or thereabouts), and the British have vital personal interests in not seeing Norwegian ports and airfields in unfriendly hands.

For future scenarios I'd look VERY seriously at Svalbard.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I did research this afternoon on Longyearbyen and the Russian coal mining operation at Barentsberg. Can't find a topo sheet yet but still looking.

One of the problems I'm having is finding good satellite coverage for areas in Finnmark, nortern Finland, and Troms. So I'm relying on old Soviet maps for many of the areas of interest I have.

I knew the Canadian CAST Brigade disbanded in 1989 and Canada limited its ready status for involvement in Norway. Shame, good soldiers properly tasked.

Looking forward to seeing your scenario soon.

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

45 Cdo is based up the road from me in Arbroath. The Arctic and Mountain Warfare cadre operates out of there IIRC.

Once, when working at a summer holiday student job at a Dundee cold store stacking pallets of frozen haddock, I ran into some of these guys at the back of the main cold store. This was summer, so they had decided to put a few guys to camping in there just to get them "acclimatised"...

cheers
Andy

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Well, the Soviets did have a very ambitious mapping operation going on during the cold war - often with interesting detail. :)

Some links that might be useful:
http://kart.finn.no/ (covers Norway).


National Land Survey of Finland:

http://kansalaisen.karttapaikka.fi/k...u.html?lang=en

Zoom in on the part you want - extreme detail, it will give you all the terrain features you could reasonably want along with the name of every hill, lake, stream or village...

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

[/quote]

Well, the Soviets did have a very ambitious mapping operation going on during the cold war - often with interesting detail. :)

Some links that might be useful:
http://kart.finn.no/ (covers Norway).


National Land Survey of Finland:

http://kansalaisen.karttapaikka.fi/k...u.html?lang=en

Zoom in on the part you want - extreme detail, it will give you all the terrain features you could reasonably want along with the name of every hill, lake, stream or village...[/quote]

THANK YOU! The kart.finn.no site is exactly what I need. They have sat coverage for areas google earth didn't. I can even see the barracks at Overbygd!

Grant1

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I now have a testable version of the scenario ready.
While it's playable I'm sure there will be problems encountered, if for no other reason then since I made the damn thing so I know how to best delay/disrupt the Soviet advance so their main assault while still formidable just doesn't quite manage to break the defense.

Also due to the problems mech infantry has with dismounting I have some mech units "appearing" at various places rather than at the map edge and I need another set of eyes to tell me if there are "issues" with an AI formation suddenly materializing out of thin air in sight of a position a player decides to delay from. While I'm fairly certain the places these reinforcement are appearing shouldn't be in line-of-sight it's hard for me as the scenario designer to be sure.

Lastly, this is a BIG scenario, I could use feedback on the overall length as many "defend" scenarios are a bit too short/long and you wind up wondering if you could have held another three turns or conversely you spend a few turns getting dribbled to frustration by bits and pieces if AI units when it's clear the victory was achieved a few turns ago.

Any guinea pig(s) out there that want to give it a try so I can polish it up for general release?
Send me an private message and I'll send you a copy of the scenario.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

Cuban Crisis - Noraway

Date: October 27, 1962

Battle Type: Soviet Union assault vs USMC/Norwegian defend


In an attempt to gain something to negotiate away in return for missiles in Cuba the Soviets have ordered the mobilization of the Warsaw Pact!
NATO and Pact forces face off in central Europe, but neither side wants hostilities in this region.
In Norway however the Soviets feel limited hostilities confined to northern Norway will gain them a trading card they can return for being allowed to place missiles in Cuba. After all, you can always blame a rogue commander and have him shot before things get totally out of hand!

Designed to be played as the Norwegian/USMC.
This is a BIG and LONG battle.
Possibly suitable for two-player IF the Soviet player has not played/seen the Norwegian/USMC forces and positions.

####################
As always constructive feedback is welcome.
####################

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

OOPS!

Attached is a revised scenario.
I forgot to reset the facing of the Norwegian/USMC fortifications after I revised the Soviet forces.

My apologies.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

I get a "failed to load saved game" message after installing.

Re: Soviet invasion of Norway 1963
 

This is not a saved game, it's a scenario.