German Gibraltar?

[comiso90]

Did the Germans ever develop operational plans to take Gibraltar?

I cant imagine them attempting w/o holding onto N Africa and taking Malta but all sorts of crazy scenarios are hypothesized but never executed.


.

[joy17782]

I do belive the german okw did have plans too invade gilraltar. with the help of the franco,s spainish troops help , but the germans never could get francos help in that area, and bye that time the troops and planes were needed else where, and crete air drop put hitler in a sour puss mood about airdrops, but i think that they could have done it ,if franco would have opened his borders for the german troops too attack the base

[imalko]

Any German invasion of Gibraltar would be impossible without Spain entering the war. Franco was not ready for that, so it never happened...

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by imalko

Any German invasion of Gibraltar would be impossible without Spain entering the war. Franco was not ready for that, so it never happened...

I agree but "impossible" doesnt keep the think tanks from developing plans..

If you can think of a scenario, it's probably been studied and evaluated... I'd like to know if anythng was developed.

[parsifal]

It certainly has. The german codewaord for their plan was "Felix". "Felix" was the proposed name for a German/Spanish seizure of Gibraltar. It was scheduled for 10 January, 1941 but never executed. This plan was discussed at a meeting held between Franco and Adolf Hitler in late October 1940, in Hitler's railroad car at Hendaye, at the border of German-occupied France with Spain. Franco's material demands for joining the Axis powers included:

400,000-700,000 tons of grain
All the fuel required for the Spanish Army
All lacking equipment for the Spanish Army
Artillery, aircraft, and special troops for the conquest of Gibraltar
In addition, Franco wanted Germany to hand over the French African territories of Morocco and Oran, and to help Spain get a border revision in the west of Río de Oro (in Spanish Sahara). Franco knew that these claims were impossible for hitler to meet.....the grain supplies would have left Germany hopelessly starving herself, and the te4rritoial claims on Vichy would have destroyed German credibility in the world, because it would destroy the recent terms of the peace treatry with France.

Ciano's Diplomatic Papers report that Hitler later said he would rather have three teeth extracted than meet with Franco again. It is a subject of historical debate whether Franco overplayed his hand, demanding too much from Hitler for Spanish entry into the war, or whether he deliberately stymied the German dictator by setting the price unrealistically high. Also, Wilhelm Canaris, who secretly relayed information to Franco about the German plans, might have convinced Franco not to agree to Hitler's demands.

In any case, the operation itself would not have been straightforward. German estimates were for as many as 30,000 troops to be involved in the assault. Use of airborne forces was not an option due to the small amount of level ground around the Rock and the perilous air currents. Supporting the assault with heavy siege artillery would have been difficult as the Spanish railway system would not support the movement of such large guns within range of Gibraltar. In addition the actual assault would have go across the exposed runway of the airfield, which runs parallel to the entire land border with Spain. Recognizing this fact, the British defenders had mounted rapid fire Bofors 40 mm guns in tunnel openings facing north and downwards onto the airfield to specifically deal with this threat.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by parsifal

It certainly has. The german codewaord for their plan was "Felix".

Cool... Thanks!

I was wondering if airborne troops were an option... that was my next question.
If anything would motivate the Germans to use gas warfare.. it would have been Gibraltar.

How self sustaining was Gibraltar? drinking water? Crops? farm animals?

.

[parsifal]

I have a friend who has been there. Considering that the british were fortifying it since before the napoleonic war, I would say it it was one of the most impreganable fortresses of Europe.

I think either Glider or trackend were stationed there at some stage....maybe one of them can give a better answer

[vikingBerserker]

They also said the same thing about Fort Eben Emael and it was knocked it in less then an hour.

If man can build it, he can also conquer it.

[parsifal]

True, but forts also have had their succeses. Brest Litovsk, Sevastopol, Hango, Corregidor, Maginot, Tobruk, all had some success. Eban Emmanuel was one case, a special case, and a rather thin case to make against a 300 year old fortress

[vikingBerserker]

Correct me if I am wrong, but everyone of the listed Forts/Fortifications fell in modern warfare.

Eban Emmanuel demonstrated that innovative tactics could succeed quite well and IMHO age is totally irrelevant in how impregnable a fortress is.

[comiso90]

Interesting side note... many researchers believe that Gibraltar was the last stand of the Neanderthals. I believe the most recent evidence of Neanderthals were found there:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Neanderthals' 'last rock refuge'

I doubt it was happenstance that they chose a defensible position... can you imagine cro-magnons assailing Gibraltar against Neanderthals?



.


.

[parsifal]

Most of the forts along the Atlantic Wall never surrendered, except after the surrender of their country. So too with the maginot Line, which did not surrender until either just before, or just after the surrender of France (I forget which.

The fortress at Hango never surrendered, it was evacuated. The fortresses around Leningrad and Moscow never fell, and Stalingrad, which was effectively a fortress also never completely fell.

Tobruk held out for over a year, and only fell because of mistakes by the defending garrison. If it was so easy to take fortresses, why didnt Rommel take Tobruk before 1942. I can tell you it wasnt for lack of trying, or for a lack of innovation, or for a lack of resources. On any of those criteria, the place should have fallen within days of its first encirclement. An assault of the fortress at Malta was never attempted, but would have been bloody.

There is no gurantee in anything in life. Fortresses cannot gurantee a successful defence, but they can improve the chances of holding ground.

Your logic is very akin to the attitude taken by the French in the opening days of WWI. They disdained the need to entrench, to dig in, preferring to rely on the elan of the troops to carry them forward and win the battle. The french army soon abandoned that disastrous policy and were digging in cowering in their increasingly sophisticated fortresses as the war progressed

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by vikingBerserker

Eban Emmanuel demonstrated that innovative tactics could succeed quite well and IMHO age is totally irrelevant in how impregnable a fortress is.

Gibraltar is much more than a fortress...

gibraltar - Google Maps

It's difficult to imagine a geographical feature that's more defensible. I drove by it and was impressed at the size. I think only a 10 year blockade would defeat Gibraltar...

[vikingBerserker]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Most of the forts along the Atlantic Wall never surrendered, except after the surrender of their country.

Cherburg , Saint-malo Dinad, Brest, & Boulogne where major parts of the Atlantic Wal that did surrebder early



QUOTE]So too with the maginot Line, which did not surrender until either just before, or just after the surrender of France (I forget which[/QUOTE]

Some of the smaller forts fell and others were captured due to them haven been abandoned;


The fortress at Hango never surrendered, it was evacuated. The fortresses around Leningrad and Moscow never fell, and Stalingrad, which was effectively a fortress also never completely fell.

Your logic is very akin to the attitude taken by the French in the opening days of WWI. They disdained the need to entrench, to dig in, preferring to rely on the elan of the troops to carry them forward and win the battle. The French army soon abandoned that disastrous policy and were digging in cowering in their increasingly sophisticated fortresses as the war progressed

My logic? The only statements I made:

They also said the same thing about Fort Eben Emael and it was knocked it in less then an hour. (in response to Gibralter being impossible to take.

If man can build it, he can also conquer it. I never made a statement saying the are uesless.

[parsifal]

Look at the reasons behind each case, rather than trying to generalize. And then from those specific cases, try and draw the parrallel with Gibraltar.

Firstly, the example you cited originally. Facts are it fell easily, but for what reason. As you say, it fell to new techniques and weapons, specifically airborne troops and hollow charge explosives. Neither weapon had been anticipated in th original design, and the 1300 defenders were thoroughly demoralised from the very beginning

Is there a parrallel that can be drawn for Gib. If there is, I cant see one. Airborne troops could not be used, and as far as I know ther were no new weapons in the closet. There was just one path of advance. The chances of taking Gibraltar by surpise , by coup de main are slim, particularly since the Germans would need to spend many weeks getting into position

Maginot Line: You mentioned that some of the smaller forts fell, which may be true, but this only reinforces the fact that the main defences did hold, until completely surrounded and isolated.

Is ther any lesson for Gibraltar, any methodology that could be used. Well, possibly that the Luftwaffe would need to maintain a total blockade of the place. But this would be very difficult given that the Brits would almost certainly take over Spanish Morocco, and have the Vichy on their side, due to the latter being betrayed by the Germans to get the Spanish into the war. They tried for more than two years to close communications to Malta, a far more isolated outpost than Gibaraltar, and failed ther. So ther is no reason to suggest that Gibraltar would ever be isolated as such

Tobruk: Here the Germans have a situation similar to that which would face them in "Felix". And here the qualities of the British and Dominion troops showed that in defence they could not be beaten by anything the germans were able to throw at them. The defenders were often outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1; the germans (and yes the majority of the assaults were german, not Italian) were bloodily repulsed and got nowhere.

At Gibraltar, the most that could be thrownat the fort was 30000 troops according to the german Intelligence estimates. Yet the Defenders numbered no less than 16000. 2:1 might sound like good odds, but they are not, when the defender is entrenched, and properly supported. The defenders could count on continuous shore based and naval gunfire support, at least air parity.

Corregidor:

The Japanese were only able to take this fortress after a protracted bombardment, and ground assault, which in total lasted more than four months. Moreover, the critical factor that led to the loss of this position was the isolation imposed by the IJN. I dont think this would occur with Gib. Re-supply and reinforcement would occur as required in Gib. The Allied heavy artillery would prevent any effective Axis artillery barrage, and the Infantry assaults would be subjected to constant and withering fire. I cannot draw any parrallels here.

Sevastopol: This port was taken only after the Russian fleet was dealt with by the Luftwaffe (there being no effective Russian aerial presence at that time) and only after the heaviest artillery bombardment, using super heavy ordinance, was used to break open the Russian forts protecting the city. This bombardment lasted more than a month incidentally. A bomnbardment by heavy guns was not possible at Gib, for reasons relating to the Spanish railnet. .

I could continue, but you get the drift I think The reasons for a probable defeat need to be examined and put forward, rather than just mouthing dogma that is essentially unsupported. Tell people why you think Gibraltar would fall, or why forts are not of any use to a defence, rather than making generalised statements about how all forts can be taken.

I agree that given the right conditions, a fort can be taken, but can those conditions be realistically generated in 1941? I cant see how they could.