German Gibraltar? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
BTW, how weer the axis fleets going to handle the RN sub threat? If the allied ASW capabilities at this time of the war were "poor" at best, the axis capabilities were even worse.

Any invasion force off of Gibraltar had better be ready for some big time, possibly crippling losses, even before the attack starts in earnest.

What about the light "Caliques" (fish-boats?) that the Axis tried to use to invade Crete. Would these flat-bottom boats still be affected by torps?

Might be easier to get onshore too, run them right onto the beach. But taking out the British guns MG's would be critical.

Does anyone know just how many guns the Germans had on the nearby coast for D-day?

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.

What about if the French fleet does not participate? Say Bismarck, 2 x Sharnhorst BC's 2 Italian BB's- would it be enough, along with the Luftwaffe Italian bombers?

Would the British be able to keep the airfield operational, like they did on Malta?
 
What about the light "Caliques" (fish-boats?) that the Axis tried to use to invade Crete. Would these flat-bottom boats still be affected by torps?

Might be easier to get onshore too, run them right onto the beach. But taking out the British guns MG's would be critical.

The attack would need quite a few warships providing covering power close up. That's where the subs would come in handy.

And if you think that you could invade Gibraltar without heavy specialized amphib craft, then you would be seeing a slaughter of epic proportions. And flat bottomed boats might make the run in easy, but just a little bit of seas and youre in trouble.
 
I'm not sure Germany would need specialized amphibious equipment, they had already been able to make amphibious landings against forts without specialized equipment.

Just going on the French angle, if the only purpose is to kick the British out why not just give them (ie France) Gibraltar for helping? They get the price and the Axis gets rid of a thorn.
 
To transport any real number of troops by submarine is going to require an awful lot of submarines. Please see the Makin raid: Makin Island raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that those two American submarines were not only larger than the later fleet boats but almost 3 times the size (tonnage) of a MK IX U-boat or many Italian Submarines.
Also please note these two subs carried a pair of 6in guns apiece as fire support compared to the single 3"-4" gun on most German, French or Italian boats.

Subs vrs shore batteries is a battle that heavily favors the shore batteries. With One or at best two guns per sub (compared to 4 or more guns on a destroyer) and no directors or fire control the fire suport from subs is going to be marginal. While the subs are a small target a single good hit on a sub turns it into a slow serface vessel. It is win or die as a surfaced sub is going to moving at below fleet speeds. Perhaps no worse than some impressed freighters though.
Considering the cost per ton of submarines vrs surface ships ( and the time to build them) offering up a large percentage of a fleets operational subs to shore batteries doesn't seem like a good idea. I mean, what is the point of the Italians getting better access to the Atlantic for theri subs if they loose a fair number of them getting that access.
 
I'm not sure Germany would need specialized amphibious equipment, they had already been able to make amphibious landings against forts without specialized equipment.

Just going on the French angle, if the only purpose is to kick the British out why not just give them (ie France) Gibraltar for helping? They get the price and the Axis gets rid of a thorn.

What fortifications on the scale of Gibraltar did they attack by sea, being multiple sea miles from their bases?
 
Maybe not the scale of Gibraltar but they did take out a number of Norwegian fortifications. Of course the Norwegian fortifications also took out a German ship or two?

And Norway was closer.

One more victory like Norway for the Germans and the Britsh could stop worring about a German serface fleet.
 
QUOTE=freebird;554888]What about the light "Caliques" (fish-boats?) that the Axis tried to use to invade Crete. Would these flat-bottom boats still be affected by torps?

Might be easier to get onshore too, run them right onto the beach. But taking out the British guns MG's would be critical.

Does anyone know just how many guns the Germans had on the nearby coast for D-day?



What about if the French fleet does not participate? Say Bismarck, 2 x Sharnhorst BC's 2 Italian BB's- would it be enough, along with the Luftwaffe Italian bombers?

Would the British be able to keep the airfield operational, like they did on Malta?[/QUOTE]

The problem is not so much the availability of heavy units, so much as the availability of sufficient merchant shipping to support the operation.

This would be an operation around half the size of Overlord, and would therefore require the attentions of about 3.5 million tons of shipping for the duration of the operation. The ground troops could be kept at their home stations for a while, but the Luftwaffe (and its supporting elements) will need logistic support. Very roughly, each 200 aircraft consumes approximately the same amount as a motorized Infantry Division. Thats about 1500 tons per day. If there are 1500 aircraft deployed forward, there are also the logistic support units to consider. Using the Axis expereince in Cyrenaica, every ton of supplied delivered to the front from Tripoli also required the consumption of a further ton of supplies in the rear area support elements....the transport companies, the flak formations, the policemen, the gardeners, and the like.

That means that the 1500 strong air striking force would require 25000 tons per day, just to remain supplied, thats approximately 150000 tons per week. The average displacement of the italiahn merchant fleet was under 3000 tons per hull, which roughly means that each ship can carry about 1000 tons of cargo (this is much smaller than the US and British fleets). This means that the ports of Oran and Algiers (and in a pinch, Tunis) would between them need to be able to handle at least 150 unloadings per week. I seriously doubt this is even possible to be honest. In terms of the merchant fleet, the minimum requirements, in deadweight tons, in order to maintain a continuous flow of supplies has to be placed at atleast 1000000 tons. The Italians only had 2 million tons available to them, and this was hard pressed to keep the units in Libya supplied. So where is the extra shipping going to be drawn from if the french are not co-operating????? And please note, we have not even put a single soldier into a transport, or buiult a single landing craft as yet

Logistically, the operation cannot be done without the French (or someone) providing a massive injection of shipping to the operation. There would need to be massive investments into the capacities of the ports undertaken, as the allies did in 1942. I just see the whole thing as completely impractical, given the constraints the Axis would be operating under. And we have not even started to look at the operational difficulties the two axis navies would be labouring under in this scenario.....
 
Maybe not the scale of Gibraltar but they did take out a number of Norwegian fortifications. Of course the Norwegian fortifications also took out a German ship or two?

And Norway was closer.

One more victory like Norway for the Germans and the Britsh could stop worring about a German serface fleet.


Norway had not mobilised at the time of the invasion. There were something like two Battalions in the whole of the country to defend against the invasion. I know of no single case where the defending batteries were actually taken out. A couple surrendered as a result of 5th column activity, the rest were captured by landward assault. None were actually knocked out by German gunfire.
 
Parsifal, those are some good comments about the logistics. I forgot about the port capacities in Morocco and Algeria.

I think the key here is not so much as having a lot of infantry divisions on hand, but having more heavily armored amphib ships to protect the troops as they hit the beach. But then its problematic for the troops as once they left were on shore, they were sitting ducks. Just like the marines at Iwo Jima and the USA at Omaha.

I would also suppose the LW could knock out the RAF, surely by attrition.

But the RN would score heavily on the supply convoys further putting strain on the axis forces.

As for the French navy ..... its one thing for them to defend the french possessions. Its another thing to go after British possessions. The French navy might look good on paper, but it would have to be forced to fight and it would be quite unreliable.
 
Last edited:
Norway had not mobilised at the time of the invasion. There were something like two Battalions in the whole of the country to defend against the invasion. I know of no single case where the defending batteries were actually taken out. A couple surrendered as a result of 5th column activity, the rest were captured by landward assault. None were actually knocked out by German gunfire.

I believe that is in error. Off the top of my head I recall the Hipper herself knocked out (ie silenced the guns) at least one Fort in Trondheim which was later secured by German ground troops. I believe there were a few others as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure Germany would need specialized amphibious equipment, they had already been able to make amphibious landings against forts without specialized equipment.

Nope, never landed against a fort

Just going on the French angle, if the only purpose is to kick the British out why not just give them (ie France) Gibraltar for helping? They get the price and the Axis gets rid of a thorn.

For the effort, Germany would keep it, giving them a first class base, and control the entrance to trhe Med

How many capital ships did the British have in Egypt?

In the second half of 1940 - 4
First half of 1941 - 3
 

Maybe not the scale of Gibraltar but they did take out a number of Norwegian fortifications.

Not by ship.

I believe that is in error. Off the top of my head I recall the Hipper herself knocked out (ie silenced the guns) at least one Fort in Trondheim which was later secured by German ground troops. I believe there were a few others as well.

Nope, the fort fired on Hipper, but didn't hit. Hipper didn't take out the fort
 
Technically, the sea assault on Norway was a disaster. It incorporated almost the entire Kreigsmarine with the exception of 3 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 4 torpedo boats, all of which were layed up for repairs.

After losing the Blücher to the 280mm guns of Oscarborg fortress (at the head of Oslofjord), the task force (TF5) had to withdraw and had the Luftwaffe attack Oscarborg. The only reason the fort fell, was because the emplacements were exposed from above and the crews had to take shelter, leaving the guns unmanned. Wehrmacht units were landed below the fort by minesweepers and they effected the fort's surrender.

Lützow and Emden took damage while inflicting little damage to the fort and no Norwegian casualties.

In the end, the Germans had to take Oslo by air to force a capitulation.

Even the General staff considered the naval invasion of Norway "lunatic", Adm. Raeder even telling Hitler that the operation broke al the rules of naval warfare. Aparently, they were anticipating a loss of about 50% of thier forces.

Doesn't look like amphib Ops were a German specialty...
 
This is an extract from the following site
German invasion of Norway, 9 April-9 June 1940
"The only real German setback on 9 April came at Oslo. There the German cruiser Blücher was sunk gunfire and torpedoes from the Norwegian fortress at Oscarborg, preventing the naval expedition from reaching the Norwegian capital. The city fell later on 9 April after an aerial assault captured Fornebu airfield, but by then King Haakon VII and the Norwegian government had escaped, ending any chance that the Norwegian campaign might have ended as quickly as the invasion of Denmark.
The attack on Kristiansand was delayed by fog, which stopped the first attempt to land at 3.45am. A second attempt was made just after 6am, but was defeated by the Norwegian gun batteries, which were now alert to the danger. However, a third attack after 11am succeeded, partly because the fog had returned and partly because the Norwegians mistook the Germans for French ships.
At Bergen the Germans came under fire from coastal gun batteries at 5.15am, and remained under fire for four hours. The Königsberg was hit three times, and received damaged that prevented her from leaving Bergen as planned.
At Trondheim the Hipper became involved in a short duel with the coastal gun batteries guarding the entrance to the fjord as she led her destroyers past them at 25kts. The city itself fell without resistance, but the airfield at Vaernes was not captured on the first day.
Narvik was defended by the two elderly coastal defence vessels Eidsvoll and Norge. The Germans sank the Eidsvoll on their way to Narvik, and the Norge in the harbour. General Dietl, commanding the forces attacking Narvik, then bluffed the Norwegian commander at Narvik, Colonel Sundlo, into surrendering with any resistance. At the end of 9 April the Germans had captured most of their main objectives.
"
I don't think any of the actions in which the Kriegsmarine was involved can in any reasonable way qualify as "overpowering through gunfire" the defensive batteries in Norway. Only where the batteries were unmanned, or were inadequately defended from land assault, or where the Norwegians made fundamental errors of judgement were the Germans able to get ashore. No argument that the Germans were successful, but they weren't successful by force of arms; they succeeded because there was no-one in place to defend once the ground troops got ashore. At sea, the operation was a disaster for the Germans. At no point did they actually silence the guns through the actions of their own ships.

This site gives a brief history of the Hippers attack on the Trondheim defences

German_cruiser_admiral_hipper encyclopedia topics | Reference.com

As can be seen, whilst the battery fire against the Hipper was ineffective, they were not silenced, and because the Norwegians had no ground troops with which to defend the port, the Germans were able to put their landing into effect. The batteries were not silenced by gunfire, but by occupation.

"Admiral Hipper took part in the German invasion of Norway (Operation Weserübung). On 8 April 1940 she encountered the British destroyer HMS Glowworm north-west of Trondheim (Norway's third largest city, roughly half way up Norway's west coast). After exchanges of fire and despite fatal damage, Glowworm turned to ram Admiral Hipper, causing damage to her before sinking.
On 9 April 1940, she passed the Norwegian coastal forts in the Trondheimsfjord, being fired at ineffectively, and entered Trondheim's harbour. Troops landed from Admiral Hipper occupied the city in the early hours, flying the Nazi flag on the city's old Kristiansten fortress and other municipal buildings before most of the inhabitants had even awoken
."
 
Parsifal, those are some good comments about the logistics. I forgot about the port capacities in Morocco and Algeria.

I think the key here is not so much as having a lot of infantry divisions on hand, but having more heavily armored amphib ships to protect the troops as they hit the beach. But then its problematic for the troops as once they left were on shore, they were sitting ducks. Just like the marines at Iwo Jima and the USA at Omaha.

I would also suppose the LW could knock out the RAF, surely by attrition.

But the RN would score heavily on the supply convoys further putting strain on the axis forces.

As for the French navy ..... its one thing for them to defend the french possessions. Its another thing to go after British possessions. The French navy might look good on paper, but it would have to be forced to fight and it would be quite unreliable.

A few quick comments. With regard to the Luftwaffe versus the RAF, even though the RAF would be heavily outnumbered, it would still be a Malta like situation, but without Me 109 escort (I think its too far for 109s to reach, unless spanish Morocco is occupied or has its airspace violated...remeber Spain is supposed to be neutral in this scenario)

The Germans would need at least some divisions in French North Africa, to guard their airfields. They otherwise risk commando style raids by the british that might otherwise c9ost the germans a sizable portion of their air fleet.

I dont think the Luftwaffe would win a battle of attrition, so much as they would render the airfield inoperative. If the British obtained access to another airfield, for example by occupying the free city of tangiers before its occupation by the Spaniards in 1940, or by occupying an airfield and defending it Tobruk style , the outcome might be more protracted. If the BoB is being fought, the Germans would be suffering acute shortages of fighters by the end of october. if it has not been fought, the Raf will have about twice as many fighters as the germans to call on. Not all the air resources available to either side could be devoted to this operation, but the British have greater flexibility....the germans have divert resources to defend the reich, maintain pressure in the North Sea, protec their fleet in the french Atlantic bases (historically the Brits harried any ship deploywed into these ports). They have to allocate resources to support the itaslians in the central basin, and the battle in the western desert. Historically, the RAF managed to hold these places, in a defensive way, using far less resources than their counterparts, if the Axis slacken the pressure on the brits, the brits are bound to react aggressively because they can.....

I agree with about the french Navy, although I think it was effective, from an axis perspective it would be highly untrustworthy....a nett liability in reality
 
Per Norway 1940 by Bernard Ash, page 87, as quoted by Forcible Entry and the German Invasion of Norway by Maj Michael W, Richardson - USA, page:

"The bypassed forts continued to fire at the destroyers, causing one to beach after being hit, and Hipper had to go to the aid of the group by landing additional troops and providing gunfire to silence the forts...................Naval fire silenced the batteries by 1700."
 
Per Norway 1940 by Bernard Ash, page 87, as quoted by Forcible Entry and the German Invasion of Norway by Maj Michael W, Richardson - USA, page:

"The bypassed forts continued to fire at the destroyers, causing one to beach after being hit, and Hipper had to go to the aid of the group by landing additional troops and providing gunfire to silence the forts...................Naval fire silenced the batteries by 1700."


Your first source i have not been able to locate a copy of, but I will.

The second source you are misquoting. I happen to have a copy of this report, and relevantly it says on Page 33 that

"The landings at Trondheim encountered less initial resistance than the Germans
experienced at Narvik. The shore batteries guarding the harbor managed only one volley

before the German assault ships dashed by at high speed. The warships of the group
disembarked their infantry at the docks with no interference. The Germans secured the
city by nightfall
."

The whole thrust of this article was that the Germans achieved their goals because of the level of unpreparedness and devotes considerable space in the article to the threats posed by the coastal batteries. According to Richardson, the Germans specifically aimed to capture the batteries intact, so as to prevent British penetrations of the ports. So, if Hipper did destroy the batteries in the manner you suggest, they were acting contrary to the operational plan.

If Ash does say that (and I note as a source it is very old) he is making assertions that are contrary to every other source I have ever seen. Hippers consorts ducked past the harbour defences, whilst Hipper engaged them. Hipper did not knock them out, however. They eventually surrendered to German troops from the landing force. .

Once I get a copy of the book in question, I am sure the issue will be cleared up. I am expecting another example of misquoting at this stage.....
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back