parsifal
Colonel
To win an amphibious assault, the Axis have to isolate the Rock. They also have to neutralize the harbour defences, which could only be achieved by sustained bombardment. .
Going by the experiences in Sevastopol, the Luftwaffe could not subdue the Port defences by aerial bombardment. They needed superheavy artillery to do that. And to get the artillery into position, they need to occupy some part of Spain, either the mainland, or Spanish Morocco.
The only other way I can see the Axis being able to overrun the place is if the fleet can undertake a sustained bombardment, lasting weeks or months with no interference from the RN. That would require the attentions of a substantial portion of the Luftwaffe (a rough guess, 1000-1500 aircraft????) which would need to be supplied over a sustained period, and maintain a long protracted campaign. The aerial assault over Malta in 1942 took about three months to achieve, with over 500 aircraft (not including the Italians). I believe a larger force would be required to subdue and isolate Gibraltar (a matter for debate, admittedly).
The whole thing is difficult for the Axis, but with French co-operation, do-able. Assuming French support, the Axis can move forward their POEs into the territory to Oran or Algiers, rely on the French Fleet for escort, and the French mercfhant marine (about 1000000 tons) for transport across the western med.
However, it would almost certainly see the US supporting the Brits to a much greater extent than they did, with neutrality patrols being extended, the US placed on a war footing earlier.
The Brits would almost certainly apply their ancient treaty with Portugal to get control of Madeira and the Azores early (historically they did not do this until 1944, but the Portuguese would have honoured their trteaty committments earlier if asked IMO).
Because I cannot see the french agreeing to this willingly, I believe there would be massive implications in the diplomentic arena. I believe the USSR would realize the germans could not be trusted, and countries like Spain, Portugal the US etc etc would all react adverselly toward germany as a result of their duplicity.
Comparing French North Africa with what happened in Syria is not a valid comparison. The French commander in Syria was rabidly pro-German, and in any case the Axis were granted transit rights, not basing rights. What would be required in French North Africa would be substantially more than what happened in the Levant.
Going by the experiences in Sevastopol, the Luftwaffe could not subdue the Port defences by aerial bombardment. They needed superheavy artillery to do that. And to get the artillery into position, they need to occupy some part of Spain, either the mainland, or Spanish Morocco.
The only other way I can see the Axis being able to overrun the place is if the fleet can undertake a sustained bombardment, lasting weeks or months with no interference from the RN. That would require the attentions of a substantial portion of the Luftwaffe (a rough guess, 1000-1500 aircraft????) which would need to be supplied over a sustained period, and maintain a long protracted campaign. The aerial assault over Malta in 1942 took about three months to achieve, with over 500 aircraft (not including the Italians). I believe a larger force would be required to subdue and isolate Gibraltar (a matter for debate, admittedly).
The whole thing is difficult for the Axis, but with French co-operation, do-able. Assuming French support, the Axis can move forward their POEs into the territory to Oran or Algiers, rely on the French Fleet for escort, and the French mercfhant marine (about 1000000 tons) for transport across the western med.
However, it would almost certainly see the US supporting the Brits to a much greater extent than they did, with neutrality patrols being extended, the US placed on a war footing earlier.
The Brits would almost certainly apply their ancient treaty with Portugal to get control of Madeira and the Azores early (historically they did not do this until 1944, but the Portuguese would have honoured their trteaty committments earlier if asked IMO).
Because I cannot see the french agreeing to this willingly, I believe there would be massive implications in the diplomentic arena. I believe the USSR would realize the germans could not be trusted, and countries like Spain, Portugal the US etc etc would all react adverselly toward germany as a result of their duplicity.
Comparing French North Africa with what happened in Syria is not a valid comparison. The French commander in Syria was rabidly pro-German, and in any case the Axis were granted transit rights, not basing rights. What would be required in French North Africa would be substantially more than what happened in the Levant.