Was the naval battle on the Narvik fjord a major reason for the Germans needing to create absolute airsupremacy above the English Channel and the UK because they lost a lot of destroyers by the fact that just one fuel supply ship was isolated by the Royal Navy?
4 Likes
Even without the loses in the Norwegian campaign it’s almost impossible that the Kriegsmarine could have held off the Royal Navy to keep cross channel supply lines open without air supremacy.
Even with air supremacy it’s doubtful; the RN could have used a cruiser to ram and disable every KM warship, with a few spares; and then send 100 destroyers to disrupt the supply lines.
2 Likes
Thank you on your reply!
My point of view is mainly that a bunch of surface battleships were ready to go and support Operation Seeloewe. By simply taking out both their exit possibility and having no support, at Narvik, IMHO, i think Germany already lost the war whereas they themselves thought it was a winning streak!
1 Like
The invasion of the UK was never a realistic strategy. But I think there was a winning strategy if the Axis had focussed on Libya and the Middle East in 41 and left Russia for later.
1 Like
Never say never😉 I actually believe the invasion would be feasible if the Kriegsmarine would have retained somewhat more naval support to protect the crossings. Because they were weakened on those naval forces, predominantly by the attack on just one tanker vessel, and this fact I find so very interesting, Goering emphasized on first of all achieving airsupremacy and not take any chances. Regarding the state of ‘Dad’s Army’(all respect to those heroes of the Homeguard, make no mistake) and the regular UK army, a combined attack by air and sea and land would, imho, be achievable with the naval support the Germans lost during the battle for Narvik.
Thanks for your input, it made me enticed even more to explain my point of view so this helps to elaborate on the topic.much appreciated!
1 Like