Yes or No Germans take Gibralter

Well to be honest i never entertained spains involvement in WWII before yesterday(apart from the spanish that fought at stalingrad)

Also my initial position at the start of this thread was that the germans could take gibralter without having use spains help.

But now its started i guess a lot would come down to who the spanish themselves side with,and even that is mixed along party lines,franco siding with the germans and the communists siding with the allies.

First off the spanish can look after their own coastline.
If the allies landed on the west coast its easy to see the germans coming in over the pyrannes and on the east coast.

Assuming it is early in the war could the allies afford to land in spain.
If gibralter is taken then its likely it would be taken early on and instead of the british sending troops to africa they would be sending them to spain.

Less allied troops in africa equels more oil for germany leading to defeat of the allies in spain.

Its all just opinion.

 

Spain and Britain had an alliance that required either of them to support the other if requested. Britain didn't "request" Portuguese support early in the war. I'm not sure if they did later or not but if the Portuguese were willing to honor the agreement they would come in whenever it was deemed most beneficial to the allies or they were attacked. So for instance in stead of going to North Africa the Torch forces could have stop just outside the 3 mile limit. Portugal could have declared war and they could then move in and unload at Portuguese ports.

 

From 1943 the Portuguese allowed the British to set up air bases in the Azores for ASW duties in return for some Spitfires and Hurricanes for the Portugese air force.
The USN also operated from these bases, but due to the treaty only being with Britain the USN aircraft had to carry both RAF and USN insigna.

 

The 250th ID (aka Blue Division or Spanish Division) of the Wehrmacht didn't fight at Stalingrad. In fact, it wasn't even in Army Group South. Instead, it was in Army Group North and fought in the Novograd-Leningrad-Lake Ilmen area. The division was recalled to Spain on August 10, 1943 when Franco pretty much realized the Germans were finished and didn't want to antagonize the Allies any more than he could possibly avoid.
Altogether, the 250th ID suffered over 8,000 casualties most due to exposure and frostbite.

 

GibraltAr was a fortress. But yes, the Germans could have taken it. The question is, SHOULD they have taken it . It would have opened up a vital sea supply line to the Meditteranean theatre although honestly, that theatre was doomed already. If they had managed to resupply Rommel, he still couldn't have taken Cairo, and by that time (let's say 1942ish, correct me if i'm wrong) some of his resources would have been diverted to the Russian theatre, in places like Stalingrad and the Caucasus. So, yes, they could have taken Gibraltar. They probably shouldn't, but they could.

 

Chesehead121:IMO it would have been worth it,they would have had control of the mediterain and as a consequence north africa and all that oil.
North africa was all about supply,whichever side was better supplied was winning.British convoys wouldnt have been able to go through gibralter and the allies would have had to land in morrocco much earlier.

 

Without Spain in the war they just can't bring enough force to bear. The cost of bringing Spain into the war combined with the vulnerabilities that would insue would almost assuredly be counter productive.

 

I dont accept germany needed spain to take gibralter,i was watching a doc yesterday about the battle for crete and 8000 german paratroops defeated a british force of 40000(not my own figures).

Also if people are relying on the RN to bail gibralter out then again its time to look at what happaned during the evacuation of crete.three cruisers and six destroyers sunk and a further seven damaged

 

maintain what you like in first post however they didnt and if they could they woyld have if is a big word except if like sealion if if if id so why was neither done the end

 

Crete is not Gibralter. You can not take the outcome of one and apply it to a possible outcome for the other. Diffrent set of circumstances, obsticals, objectives, defending forces, etc.

If you want to say the Germans would win because they won on Crete, than I say they will not win because they could not take Malta.

 

The axis could easily have taken malta had they wished to,rommel certainly thought so
Operation Herkules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for gibralter,yes i know the topography is completely different but an attack on gibralter has the advantage of having morrocco just next door.

 

Let's look at things in a little more detail. As a ref Battle of Crete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note that it lists considerably more German's than 8,000 and that 10,000 of the British were not combat capable. Furthermore the Germans didn't have to engage most of the British troops. At Gibralter you are looking at a single fortress with a much smaller land area whose defence has been planned for decades as opposed to a makeshif defence in unfamilar terreign.

And most were sunk because they ran low on AA ammo and were sent in anyway. Since Gibralter is a major supply base that's unlikely to happen there. I believe there was also a large RAF presence at Gibralter. Furthermore the Germans have a considerable journey both for aircfraft and ships if Spain is not involved.

Malta is problematic. Gibralter is next to if not impossible.

 

LWD:well i was dubious of the figures myself and i did comment on the landscape being different.
But at the same time you got to treat british planning with some retanance,look at what happaned at singapore,the british had 85,000 soldiers there and they couldnt even defend one bridge.
Battle of Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Singapore_map_1942.jpg

Morrocco would have made things very easy for the germans,the RAF would have been destroyed on the ground before a ball was ever kicked.

 

The problem with Singapore was the commander. He didn't understand what he was doing or much about the troops under his command. There is some evidence he was sent there to get him away from anywhere he could do any damage... Guess that dose show a bit of poor planning.

How does Morocco help the Germans? Why do you think they will do at Gibraltar what they couldn't do at Malta?

 

nah,that was just plain bad luck.

Well morrocco is only a few mile away,there is noyhing to stop the germans from building tempory air strips.Its as good an assembly area as any.
also i'm pretty sure that the germans had artillery(assisted or otherwise)that could make it across the straight and even if it couldnt there is no way the RN could relieve gibralter with artillery there.
Gibralter is only a teeny tiny place,to say the germans could succeed in russia but not be able to take gibralter is unreal.

Also the axis assault on malta wasnt a serious effort to take the island.

 

However they don't control Morocco.

They did however make a serious effort to supress it's air defenses.

 

Yeah buts its probably safe to assume that if germany even leant a little on the vichy the vichy would have helped them anyway they could.

according to this link
http://sonic.net/~bstone/history/felix.shtml
gibralter only had 4 infantry battalions and 3 artillery batteries and 5 AA bateries.defending it in jan 1941.
This seems meagre but i guess gibralter is only 3 miles long.

Also there is nothing to stop the germans from dropping on spanish soil and saying sorry afterwards.

 

Is it? I don't think so and certainly not quickly.

Well there was also a considerable naval presence.

They then have to get across a narrow strip of land that is well fortified and defended. Also since they are dropping in the presence of Spanish military forces they might just object as it is technically an invasion.

 

Nah,i think you are wrong about morrocco and spain,morrocco anyway,spains more of a wildcard.

What were the vichy going to say the germans requests?"no".I doubt it.

As for the spanish question i think you got to think like a politition(God forbid).
So the germans land on spanish sovern soil and attack gibralter,what options does the politition have?war or no war?
Franco owed the germans,there would probably be a strong protest and a german promise to hand over gibralter when it was all over but thats all anything would have amounted to.

I think its wrong to assume people are as strong as they claim to be,especially if the guys you are going up against is a german army on the rise.

Had the germans decided to land on spainish soil the germans may have adopted an"if i get hung for a lamb i may as well get hung for a sheep"attitude and landed a force at tarifa as well and worked their way up.

 

Have any support for that?

Actually there is a very good chance that they would. Forcing them would be breaking the treaty they had just signed and would likely result in the Morroco either going Free French or independent.

If they land on top of Spanish army positions it may not be the politicians choice. Indeed the Spanish may not even know who they are but there is a very good chance they will open fire. The line separating Gibraltar from Spain was well defended on both sides I believe. There's also the problem that if you miss Gibralter you may end up in the ocean rather than Spain.

Infantry attacking from Spain to Gibralter are going to have a bit of a problem. Not much support can be landed for them either. As for Franco he defintily doesn't want to go to war with Britian if he doesn't do more than a token protest he's got problems.

Where have I done so? You on the other hand seem to be overstimating the Germans particularly thier airborne forces.

Germany going to war with Spain is a disaster waiting to happen. Possibly not as bad as attacking the Soviets but long term not a whole lot better.