Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
How many capital ships did the British have in Egypt?
Norway
Maybe not the scale of Gibraltar but they did take out a number of Norwegian fortifications.
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.
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.
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."