Gibraltese Stalingrad

[KCammy]

I saw a thread a while back about a fascist victory in the Spanish civil war during ww2. If the axis were going to invade Gibraltar, how much would they really throw into it? Would we see Stalingrad style destruction? Would Britain be able to hold off against Germany, Italy, Spain and Vichy France? (Depending on the date of coarse...)

How long may the fighting last?
What might the scale of destruction be?
Dates?

 

[BlairWitch749]

I saw a thread a while back about a fascist victory in the Spanish civil war during ww2. If the axis were going to invade Gibraltar, how much would they really throw into it? Would we see Stalingrad style destruction? Would Britain be able to hold off against Germany, Italy, Spain and Vichy France? (Depending on the date of coarse...)

How long may the fighting last?
What might the scale of destruction be?
Dates?

The frontage would be very small the Germans only planned to use a single reinforced division or so to attack Gibraltar, a mix of jaegers, brandenbergers, pioneer and mountain troops, the big thing would be the artillery and airforce... operation felix called for said reinforced division to have no less than 26 artillery battalions supporting it. You would see total destruction, either by a valiant though doomed British last stand, or by expert British sabotage prior to surrender. They could only hold out till the Germans reach the water casemate areas at the base of the rock, or until their ammo supplies run out. Gibraltar had no combat aircraft component, nor could it be reinforced, since it could be assumed that 300+ aircraft will be swarming over it, creating a supply situation worse than crete in otl

2 to 3 weeks... 4 if the Germans handle it with total incompetance

to you question if it could be stalingrad the answer is no. at stalingrad the russians where able to reinforce during the hours of darkness by river ferries and lateral rail lines behind the volga... gibraltar would require the royal navy to steam into a very narrow area, which would not only be infested with u-boats and mines, but also would suffer repeated bomber attacks (ju-88's and he-111's would be somewhat effective, stukas with fighter escorts would be lethal in 1940-41)

 

[KCammy]

But then wouldn't the RN be forced to send supplies to Egypt through the red sea/suz area? I think the British might be inclined to put more effort into it's defense. Even if they are not stopping off at Gibraltar for supplies, would it not be good to keep the Med open to friendly ships?

Can we factor in the Americans?

(Another interesting thought - Soviet interest in the Med?)

 

[Sachyriel]

Well, let's say Franco has more power due to a shorter, less costly civil war. He has enough of a nation that it could possibly join Germany. The butterflies from the civil war being less devastating to the Fascists in Spain might lead to more escapees from Fascism to other nations; France, Britain, etc. With more anti-fascist people leaving Spain for other nations, perhaps this has some interesting effects into France, and by that I mean it butterflies away some of their own losses (more people in France = more workers, more workers mean more people available to fight?) and because of this perhaps more French military assets make it out alive, coming to Gibraltar in order to reinforce against Spain and ensure that French Africa has a British Supply Route intact.

So, now we have more than just the British at Gibraltar, and a more aggressive Spain. Spain joins the Axis and they attack Gibraltar, which holds Commonwealth Troops and Free French Forces.

Pretty big battle I gotta say.

However this scenario takes the route of Spain attacking Gibraltar after the Fall of France, is it more likely before the fall of France? probably not, since Spain wouldn't want to take on France even with Hitler advancing on the other side of it, so I believe they would wait until the Battles of France were done for the most part.

 

[Larrikin]

But then wouldn't the RN be forced to send supplies to Egypt through the red sea/suz area? I think the British might be inclined to put more effort into it's defense. Even if they are not stopping off at Gibraltar for supplies, would it not be good to keep the Med open to friendly ships?

Can we factor in the Americans?

(Another interesting thought - Soviet interest in the Med?)

They did send supplies around Africa. IIRC the only convoy to run the Med was the Tiger run to deliver Crusaders prior to Operation Crusader in mid-1941. Everything else went via the Cape. Gib was used to stage through to Malta, but if it falls you can kiss Malta goodbye in very short order.

 

[mailinutile2]

On the other hand, Sebastopol prove that the axis was able to win siege battles, and was quite good at it.

A "Gibiltrar Sebastopol" outcome would sound much more reasonable than a "Gibiltrar Stalingrad" one

 

[Stateless]

Am I the only one that came here hoping for a Gibraltar-wank where Gibraltar conquers Stalingrad?

 

[Adam]

On the other hand, Sebastopol prove that the axis was able to win siege battles, and was quite good at it.

Hint: if they were quite good at it, the siege of Sevastopol wouldn't have lasted for more than nine months.

 

[mailinutile2]

Hint: if they were quite good at it, the siege of Sevastopol wouldn't have lasted for more than nine months.

Considering that Sevastopol was considered "impossible to conquer", 9 months and one of the firrst amphibious operation is not bad at all.
It was manstein doing it

 

[fastmongrel]

Wouldnt the Spanish suffer more from an invasion of Gibraltar. They lose the Canaries and probably all other colonies. There Navy will be sunk if it leaves harbour and there Merchant fleet is scooped up by the Royal Navy very quickly.

Franco might have been a nasty genocidal fascist but he was no fool, he knew that letting the Germans use his country as a springboard for invasion would be suicide. What did he have to gain. The civil war ravaged bankrupt economy and a population that is on the verge of starvation is no way to fight a war.

 

[mailinutile2]

Wouldnt the Spanish suffer more from an invasion of Gibraltar. They lose the Canaries and probably all other colonies. There Navy will be sunk if it leaves harbour and there Merchant fleet is scooped up by the Royal Navy very quickly.

Franco might have been a nasty genocidal fascist but he was no fool, he knew that letting the Germans use his country as a springboard for invasion would be suicide. What did he have to gain. The civil war ravaged bankrupt economy and a population that is on the verge of starvation is no way to fight a war.

You are right regarding civil war country exaustion, and a POD sgould be arranged to cover it.

On the other hand, spain had some very tempting targets.
Apart from Gibiltrar itself, there is western north africa and western france.
I would gladly trade Canaries for that.

Navy is a sore point, and it would have basically to stay in harbour for the entire conflict not to be sunk.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Hint: if they were quite good at it, the siege of Sevastopol wouldn't have lasted for more than nine months.

a different tactical situation than what gibraltar would be

sevastopol was reinforced and resupplied over the strait of kerch... especially over the winter when the Germans had command changes and their armies where exausted.

gibraltar can't be resupplied or reinforced other than extremely risky naval runs... it would be worse than crete because there would be less places to hide... and any reinforcement of gibralter is in effect putting more troops into harms way and probably losing them. the front would be so close that ships comming into the harbor would come under land based artillery fire, to say nothing of the fact that the axis would have total and unlimited air superiority and bomb the harbor into uselessness within 3 days

 

[Astrodragon]

You are right regarding civil war country exaustion, and a POD sgould be arranged to cover it.

On the other hand, spain had some very tempting targets.
Apart from Gibiltrar itself, there is western north africa and western france.
I would gladly trade Canaries for that.

Navy is a sore point, and it would have basically to stay in harbour for the entire conflict not to be sunk.

And once the RN blockades Spain, the population starves (Germany couldnt feed the rest of Europe, let alone adding more hungry Spaniards to the list).

Not quite sure how North African desert compensates for this....??

 

[mailinutile2]

And once the RN blockades Spain, the population starves (Germany couldnt feed the rest of Europe, let alone adding more hungry Spaniards to the list).

Not quite sure how North African desert compensates for this....??

As you state, blockade was the classical problem of all the continental powers, and the only solution to it would be to win the war fast: OOW would be essentially a bet on the war length.
This would be particularly true for a country already devastated by a previous civil war (a POD heavily modifying civil war would be needed).

On the other hand, you do not have over estimate its power, expecially when regarding low-developed countries where a significant percentage of the population is employed in farming and alimentary self-sufficiency is achieved (italy and pre-civil-war-spain are classical examples).
Mind you, the blockade would be hard for its industrial manufacturing (Germany needing all its coal and iron), but starvation would be harder to achieve

Also notice that in a Gibiltrar fallen, france fallen scenario, RN could blockade spain only on the atlantic side, Alexandria harbour being too far.

Regarding booty, there is Morocco and western Algeria in north africa, the Perpignan area on the mediterranean and lower Navarre on the atlantic

 

[Astrodragon]

As you state, blockade was the classical problem of all the continental powers, and the only solution to it would be to win the war fast: OOW would be essentially a bet on the war length.
This would be particularly true for a country already devastated by a previous civil war (a POD heavily modifying civil war would be needed).

On the other hand, you do not have over estimate its power, expecially when regarding low-developed countries where a significant percentage of the population is employed in farming and alimentary self-sufficiency is achieved (italy and pre-civil-war-spain are classical examples).
Mind you, the blockade would be hard for its industrial manufacturing (Germany needing all its coal and iron), but starvation would be harder to achieve

Also notice that in a Gibiltrar fallen, france fallen scenario, RN could blockade spain only on the atlantic side, Alexandria harbour being too far.

Regarding booty, there is Morocco and western Algeria in north africa, the Perpignan area on the mediterranean and lower Navarre on the atlantic

The North African desert isnt going to produce a lot of food....

There was already starvation in Europe in 1940 - it had its greatest effect on the people who couldnt fight back, like the Poles, but germany did know it was actually an issue that affected production - for example, coal mining in that period was directy affected by how well fed the miners were, output was falling because they simply couldnt feed them well enough in Europe.

And the RN had its hands around the Spanish food lifeline, and Franco knew this very well. he also knew that German promises of food were meaningless, as from 1940 onwards there was a shortage of food all over Europe. The only imports were coming from Russia - now THAT will go down well in Madrid.."Trust us, just declare war on Britain and we can feed you with grain bought from Russia..its OK, they are our friends now...."

 

[elkarlo]

a different tactical situation than what gibraltar would be

sevastopol was reinforced and resupplied over the strait of kerch... especially over the winter when the Germans had command changes and their armies where exausted.

gibraltar can't be resupplied or reinforced other than extremely risky naval runs... it would be worse than crete because there would be less places to hide... and any reinforcement of gibralter is in effect putting more troops into harms way and probably losing them. the front would be so close that ships comming into the harbor would come under land based artillery fire, to say nothing of the fact that the axis would have total and unlimited air superiority and bomb the harbor into uselessness within 3 days

I wonder how much supplies could be shuttled in via sub? Not sure how much Aliied subs could carry circa 1941.

 

[mailinutile2]

The North African desert isnt going to produce a lot of food....

There was already starvation in Europe in 1940 - it had its greatest effect on the people who couldnt fight back, like the Poles, but germany did know it was actually an issue that affected production - for example, coal mining in that period was directy affected by how well fed the miners were, output was falling because they simply couldnt feed them well enough in Europe.

And the RN had its hands around the Spanish food lifeline, and Franco knew this very well. he also knew that German promises of food were meaningless, as from 1940 onwards there was a shortage of food all over Europe. The only imports were coming from Russia - now THAT will go down well in Madrid.."Trust us, just declare war on Britain and we can feed you with grain bought from Russia..its OK, they are our friends now...."

Making promises of food delivery would be silly, and believing them would be even more stupid.
As I stated a DOW of continental powers is essentially a bet on the war length: the basic idea is that each one lives on his own resources as long as he can.
If a peace settling is reached before the situation becomes too hard to endure, he won, otherwise, he lost.
A farming country has a slight advantage here on an industrial one: for example in italy OTL life was certainly not easy, but there was no starvation of sort.
Pre-civil-war spain was pretty much in the same shape, the main problem here would be civil war exhaustion

 

[Larrikin]

a different tactical situation than what gibraltar would be

sevastopol was reinforced and resupplied over the strait of kerch... especially over the winter when the Germans had command changes and their armies where exausted.

gibraltar can't be resupplied or reinforced other than extremely risky naval runs... it would be worse than crete because there would be less places to hide... and any reinforcement of gibralter is in effect putting more troops into harms way and probably losing them. the front would be so close that ships comming into the harbor would come under land based artillery fire, to say nothing of the fact that the axis would have total and unlimited air superiority and bomb the harbor into uselessness within 3 days

The Strait of Kerch is the other side of the Crimean Peninsular to Sevastopol, the Soviets very definitely didn't supply it from there. They did launch a counter offensive across it in the winter of 41/42 but it didn't make it as far as Sevastopol and was then thrown back.

 

[Astrodragon]

I wonder how much supplies could be shuttled in via sub? Not sure how much Aliied subs could carry circa 1941.

Pretty much nothing, there isnt any space.
Malta did get surface night supply on occasion using fast minsweepers, but even then only a few hundred tons a trip, it was mainly for vital stuff such as avgas, aircraft spares and ammo, that sort of thing.
This wouldnt work for Gib, you could get the ship in at night but the harbour is under the guns that are (presumably!) set up on the Spanish side.

 

[Larrikin]

The one thing that has always intrigued me about WWII was how few times the Germans managed to fully penetrate a prepared and manned defensive position that they couldn't go around.

IIRC Sevastopol is it, and that took them way longer than it should have.