Keep rolling into Spain in June 1940 with Gibraltar the target.
their theory was they would arrive on the doorstep of Turkey, which would (by then) be under their domination, and a "political agreement" with the USSR could be possible.It actually increases the area that the Axis has to defend, not shorten it. The Axis gets a sea to play in, yes. However, all that does is increase the area that the Axis must defend. The Allies can attack from the Red Sea, the Atlantic, sub-Saharan Africa. To what gain, I ask again? There are no new resources/industries to capture and use. So, what is the point?
A terrible idea. Italy already had enough of short-ranged, poor-performing small subs that were not useful at all.evolutionary version of Type II uboat, able to be transported overland to the Med
Yeah, you only have to convince Mussolini. He's to be in the war to lose territory. No go.invasion of Greece with just Germany and Bulgaria, Italy to cede the Dodecanese to Greek state
Don't disagree with your point with what was actually there. My point is that if the Germans had 'planned' for the quick defeat of France and then quickly turning towards the Med they would have had a chance (at that point in time) to expel the British. If in fact in July/August the Wehrmacht had allocated 3 panzer div, 3 motorized divisions, two Mountain divisions, 10 infantry divisions and all of the para troops they should have been able to achieve the goal.You may want to look at what forces the Axis, almost exclusively Italy, had available to 'clean out the Med' in the Summer of 1940 before considering whether the Axis could have pursued a Med strategy in 1940.
[bolding mine]It would have also required detailed planning with the Italians long before the campaign with France even started. So many things would have had to change, but they would have been do-able.
Troops are not the factor. It is transport across the Med and logistics for the Axis on the south side of the Med that is the limiting factor. Plus convincing Benny the Moose that he should be leaving his 4 Blackshirt Divisions in Italy to transport German Panzers across.Malta and Gibralter falling makes Egypt more difficult for the Allies logistically. Germany would still need to commit significant forces to take and hold Egypt but if the USSR is not being invaded there are *a lot* more troops available in the short term. Then again unless the whole of the Med is in Axis hands this gets ugly very quickly.
Malta as an airfield for attacks on Axis logistics into Africa was a major problem. And as I said, losing Malta and Gibraltar makes supplying Egypt more difficult for the Allies - not impossible.Troops are not the factor. It is transport across the Med and logistics for the Axis on the south side of the Med that is the limiting factor. Plus convincing Benny the Moose that he should be leaving his 4 Blackshirt Divisions in Italy to transport German Panzers across.
And the UK was able to keep Egypt supplied outside of the Med IOTL. Losing Gib would complicate convoys but it wouldn't be insurmountable.
Exactly.And the UK was able to keep Egypt supplied outside of the Med IOTL.
Actually, it would be better (for the Cape run, of course not to keep Malta in play), considered that if they lose Gibraltar then in any case the British gain a better waypoint and ASW base(*) - the Canary Islands. They already had troops set aside for that operation and could quickly muster the warships and transports. The Spanish garrison was depleted after the SCW, and would be likely to surrender after a short blockade, if Franco has sided with the Axis. If the Germans have invaded Spain in order to advance on Gibraltar without Franco siding with them, then the garrison is on the British side.Losing Gib would complicate convoys but it wouldn't be insurmountable.
uhm, why do you think they would need any luck? OTL the germans supplied entire armies locked im combat so intense it dwarfed anything in the west at the time, over similar distances on the eastern front, in significantly worse terrain both considering the avaiable infrastructure and partisan activity. Attacking Spain and tacking Gibraltar may or may not be a good idea, but the reflexive "lol logistics" is certainly not a reason.Yeah, a logistics chain stretching through France and Spain? Good luck with keeping that running...
Malta is doable if the Spanish help out with access, the defences were fairly robust against sea attack and land attack would have been messy. Doable maybe but a lot of German infantry is going to end up dead.Malta was doable. Gibralta was possible. Crete was doable. Cyprus was doable. They depend on when they were attempted. If you do them in 1940-41 they were achievable. Later than that? Not likely. All had been reinforced and were better prepared. Egypt was also a possibility if the Germans were serious about it and sent three or four full Panzer divisions there, rather than one and a half. Rommel could have carried it off. The problem was the Germans weren't that interested in Egypt and the Suez Canal. Rommel was only sent to save the Italians' bacon after COMPASS had defeated them. He never had the forces or the supplies to carry his attack to Cairo and beyond.
What would the Germans gain? Domination of the Mediterranean with the removal of all the major British bases there. Would that gain access to more resources/industry? Not really. North Africa was a wasteland, more or less. Egypt has more potential although, only along the Nile Valley though. The Canal was a potential objective but even seizing that only allowed the Germans to basically cut the British Empire in two - something they had already, achieved by staging combat in the Mediterranean.
I think you either mean Gibraltar or the Italians for Malta. The Spanish were not going to be involved in the attack on Malta as far as I am aware.Malta is doable if the Spanish help out with access, the defences were fairly robust against sea attack and land attack would have been messy. Doable maybe but a lot of German infantry is going to end up dead.