Gibraltar falling in 1940, then Malta, etc

IBy getting red of Gibraltar, that end of the Med could and would have been bloked off.

Trying to get additional Allied naval forces into the Med via Suez is not easy.

At the time of construction it was only 8 m deep. Was that a limitation on the size of war ships going through? PoW draught: 10,5 m.

How deep was it in 1939/40?

Could Suez even handle additional transports, trying to get everything that used to flow through Gibraltar to go through Suez? how many more days would it add to the turn-around time of transports?

That could even put a brake on how many troops Egypt could "carry".

Very little that was used in Egypt went through Gibralter.

There was however, quite a lot of chaos at both ends of the canal with ships hanging around waiting to be unloaded - from what i've read, they made 's problems seem simple - but if Germany shows its in for the long run and is ignoring the Soviet Union by building up Libyan ports and rail infrastructure then the UK is going to improve facilities and rail-lines along the canal and at its ends.

Egyptian railways 1939

Egyptianrailways1939.jpg
 
There was however, quite a lot of chaos at both ends of the canal with ships hanging around waiting to be unloaded - from what i've read, they made 's problems seem simple - but if Germany shows its in for the long run and is ignoring the Soviet Union by building up Libyan ports and rail infrastructure then the UK is going to improve facilities and rail-lines along the canal and at its ends.

I don't see Egypt being around long enough for such to matter. In 1940 the UK is very thin in the Med. A handful of Battalions on Malta. Egypt had 4th Indian Division and 7th Armored Division in 1940. Only questions are how does it take to convince Mussolini to allow a German force into Libya and how much trouble to supply the armored corps in Egypt?

Egyptian railways 1939

<CUT MAP>

Interesting map.

Michael
 
I don't see Egypt being around long enough for such to matter. In 1940 the UK is very thin in the Med. A handful of Battalions on Malta. Egypt had 4th Indian Division and 7th Armored Division in 1940. Only questions are how does it take to convince Mussolini to allow a German force into Libya and how much trouble to supply the armored corps in Egypt?

It's very difficult indeed, and the problems are political rather than military or logistical, which means that you can't just throw panzers or railways at them. The Med is Italy's sphere of influence and a Fascist nation like Italy is not going to accept German intrusion into it unless absolutely necessary - to suggest that Italy is incapable of fighting its own battles is a insult that strikes right to the heart of Italy's fascist ideology, even if it's true. The same principle applies to Gibraltar - Franco wants Gibraltar for Spain, he has no interest in seeing Germany in control of it and so will be very reluctant to ask for German help.

IMO, fascist Italy will only accept German "assistance" once it has been proven that she is incapable of fighting her own battles - e.g., Compass. But waiting for a defeat sufficiently severe to convince Italy to accept German help costs you land, troops and, most importantly, time. The deadline for forcing the UK to the table is 7th December 1941, just 10 months after OTL Compass, and that's just too soon for a Med strategy to work, even if you delay Barbarossa to 1942 (which brings with it an entirely different set of problems).
 
The potential ramifications of Hitler turning on a former friend by invading Spain....they are very interesting. You can just see the propeganda now- watch out Fascist nations of Europe, you know Hitler is just waiting for his chance to invade you too.

I wonder what becomes of Portugal in this scenario- scared into joining Germany? Invaded out of fear of it joining/being invaded by, the Brits?
 
This discussion is turning a little. Here is a twist on it:

Could Germany have succeeded in a Med fist strategy prior to June 1941 and Barbarossa.

It would really stretch it, maybe into ASB?

1) France gone in June 1940.
2) No BoB (is that even a good idea? leaving Britain alone
3) Rest of 1940: Gibraltar and Malta (that should be posible
4) 1H 1941: Crete, Suez canal (and that would be a stop line)
5) Barbarossa in June 1941?

I am not sure the logistics would make it possible, but the amount of troops for Gibraltar (Felix) is not huge, neither for Malta.

Crete and Suez would be different, but how different? 2-3 panzer div, properly supplied with infantry to match it should not make a dent in Barbarossa?

Could Germany have made Med First a success?

Ivan
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This discussion is turning a little. Here is a twist on it:

Could Germany have succeeded in a Med fist strategy prior to June 1941 and Barbarossa.

It would really stretch it, maybe into ASB?

1) France gone in June 1940.
2) No BoB (is that even a good idea? leaving Britain alone
3) Rest of 1940: Gibraltar and Malta (that should be posible
4) 1H 1941: Crete, Suez canal (and that would be a stop line)
5) Barbarossa in June 1941?

I am not sure the logistics would make it possible, but the amount of troops for Gibraltar (Felix) is not huge, neither for Malta.

Crete and Suez would be different, but how different? 2-3 panzer div, properly supplied with infantry to match it should not make a dent in Barbarossa?

Could Germany have made Med First a success?

Ivan

Depends on what you mean by "success" and what the restrictions are on the POD. If you assume that you mean post fall of France POD and limited to Germans, then not really. They can take Malta, but you have to give it to Italy. Maybe you can get Spain to join, and take Gibraltar. You then have the issue of the Italians allowing the Germans to come to North Africa. If you do that, you can get greater success, but IMO, you can't take the entire Suez. You may take Alexanderia. You maybe be able to shut the Suez down with enough air power and sea power. You may get to control the North End of it. Then even if I am optimistic for the Nazi, it just bogs down. And people know of where the UK stopped the Nazi in either the Sinai or Palestine. Logistics win out with the limited time window. The USA still enters the war, and after that, any hope of major gains in Egypt/Palestine/Sinai stall even if the USA does not do Torch. A best case is you get a stalemate. The Germans still get worn down by the USSR and the USA/UK still land somewhere in France/Belgium.

Now there are major benefit to the Nazis in a best case scenario. The Italian Navy can be spared losses. And if the Suez can be shut down, the Italians may even have some Naval success in the Atlantic. Torch might be cancel, so maybe you can keep most of North Africa into very late in the war. Italy stays in the war much longer, so the Soviets have to chew threw more Italian divisions. Romania oil fields are bombed less. The Luftwaffe can focus more on air raids from the UK. But in the end, the Allies win. It was not that close a war after December 7th, 1941.
 
If North Africa goes as OTL besides the losses of Malta and Gibralter, then Alexandria is unlikely to be taken, even with an uninterrupted flow of supplies, Sonnenblume probably isn't going to happen any earlier, and if Rommel sticks at Tobruk the British have time to reorganise their defences back to El Alamein.
 
The problem of not having BoB is two-fold.

One - Germany, without the benefit of hindsight, cannot know that the aerial campaign against Britain will be unsuccessful. At the moment it was executed it seemed that after few weeks, Brits will be convinced into futility of further resistance and cut the losses and give up. After all, Hitler never wanted anything of them other than freedom of action in Europe.

Number two - not having to fight BoB leaves Britain many airplanes, many pilots and unscathed industrial capacities with which to make war at whatever theater Germany chooses. The same is true of Germany, but the net difference favors British. Germans lost only airplanes and pilots in BoB, while British lost at least some industrial capacity too.

In short, you cannot expect of Hitler too pass up what is considered as cheap, quick and safe route to eliminate Britain.
 
The problem of not having BoB is two-fold.

One - Germany, without the benefit of hindsight, cannot know that the aerial campaign against Britain will be unsuccessful. At the moment it was executed it seemed that after few weeks, Brits will be convinced into futility of further resistance and cut the losses and give up. After all, Hitler never wanted anything of them other than freedom of action in Europe.

Number two - not having to fight BoB leaves Britain many airplanes, many pilots and unscathed industrial capacities with which to make war at whatever theater Germany chooses. The same is true of Germany, but the net difference favors British. Germans lost only airplanes and pilots in BoB, while British lost at least some industrial capacity too.

In short, you cannot expect of Hitler too pass up what is considered as cheap, quick and safe route to eliminate Britain.

Both Goering and Raeder suggested the Med Option in 1940. So there is no need to look to hindsight to push this forward; especially as SeaLion and BoB depend on Luftwaffe. I think it depends on Goering being able to better make the case.

Michael
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Both Goering and Raeder suggested the Med Option in 1940. So there is no need to look to hindsight to push this forward; especially as SeaLion and BoB depend on Luftwaffe. I think it depends on Goering being able to better make the case.

Michael

So what would have to be said in the case to persuade Hitler?
 
If the Germans invade Spain to get to Gibraltar in late 1940/early 1941 they cannot "threaten" an invasion of the UK, because they will not have credible forces to do so. Also, of course, intervening in the Balkans is out at least in a major way - they may have some Luftwaffe available but not ground forces. Furthermore the transportation infrastructure in Spain in 1940/41 is crap after the Civil War, and you can believe the Spaniards will do their best to trash RRs ahead of German invaders. By the time they got to Gibraltar, there would have been tons of time to get ready, and the Germans would be at the end of a tenuous logistical string - and the Heer was not known for its logistic skills or planning. The Heer had few if any dedicated RR troops, one reason they had problems in Russia where they had to regauge every km of track. IMHO no way the Germans can attack Gibraltar (do Felix) absent Spanish cooperation.

Even with cooperation, and Franco was never ever going to jump on the German bandwagon without guarantees of supplies like food and oil which the Germans would not promise & could not deliver on if they did (and he knew it), getting forces in place will be no surprise and expect the British to use air dominance to attack Spanish RRs & slow things down, doing Felix is iffy. If Germany wins the BoB & looks like they could actually do the unmentionable sea mammal, or if they get to Alexandria, or if the Germans take Moscow in the first campaign of Barbarossa, than and only then will Franco get on the bandwagon.

This has to be done before 12/7/1941 because once the US is in the war then if Franco plays along with Felix even just by letting German troops transit & stage (no Spanish forces fire a shot) then food and oil which Spain is getting from the USA stop completely and privation and difficulty become starvation and economic collapse.

FYI read Stanley Payne's Franco and Hitler for good info on the dance that went on.
 
The problem of not having BoB is two-fold.
You miss out the third problem - it means Britain knows there will be no invasion attempt any time soon. A large chunk of the troops, planes and ships that were slated for home defence are freed up for elsewhere. All the R&D and panic production of anti-invasion weapons can produce something useful.

That frees up a great deal to defend against any German Med Option, and unlike Germany the British actually have sealift capacity and will be on their own territory, so can transport and supply a far larger force.
 
Interesting and good comments as usual on this board.

Somehow, the conclusion is:

Gibraltar: Felix only possible if Franco will play ball. Landing troops in Southern Spain is possible but not the best way forward. Fighting from the top of Spain to the bottom is not a prospect either.

Insofar as Franco is not keen on Felix with German help, it is a difficult proposition.

That leaves a seaborne invasion of Gib, which is exactly what the coastal defences were designed for. Not a great prospect, but not impossible.

It will chew up forces needed later.

Is that a fair conclusion on Gibraltar?

Malta: Indeed possible in 1940 and without too much grief.

However, Malta without Gibraltar is not a Med strategy (1/3 or 2/3 of the goal as M ike poined out).

Suez: Only if Gibraltar, Malta and Crete/Greece are gone. It will still leave a lot of logistic problems to be solved.

Cutting off Suez will make the delta and the broader ME a difficult theatrre for Britain.

US intervention: With Gib goen and in essence Med an Axis lake, Torch is unlikely.

So, the "soft underbelly" stays in Axis hands, the forces otherwise used can be channeled off to Eastern Front.

Other twists:
It opens a lot of questions: If the Med is not a theatre at all, will the additional German divisions have any impact on Barbarossa/Typhoon? Will it be "easier" in 1942 in Russia? in 1943?

Could an additional 20 divisions be supplied in Russia? this is down to logiostics and RR capacity

If US/UK should try Overlord without any "dry run" (i.e Scicily, Torch), would it have been a flop? After all, US forces learned a lot very fast.

I am not sure Overlord could have happened without the lessons learned in 1942/3. Comments?

So, if we have a stalemate in Egypt/Med, Overlord being in for a re-think and the Russians having to fight another 20 divisions in 1942, then what?

Ivan
 

Tellus

Banned
This discussion is turning a little. Here is a twist on it:

Could Germany have succeeded in a Med fist strategy prior to June 1941 and Barbarossa.

It would really stretch it, maybe into ASB?

1) France gone in June 1940.
2) No BoB (is that even a good idea? leaving Britain alone
3) Rest of 1940: Gibraltar and Malta (that should be posible
4) 1H 1941: Crete, Suez canal (and that would be a stop line)
5) Barbarossa in June 1941?

I am not sure the logistics would make it possible, but the amount of troops for Gibraltar (Felix) is not huge, neither for Malta.

Crete and Suez would be different, but how different? 2-3 panzer div, properly supplied with infantry to match it should not make a dent in Barbarossa?

Could Germany have made Med First a success?

Ivan

Assuming the Germans can pull it off, they'd essentially win the war in the west, but I have my doubts. I wont call it implausible but it's definitely the 'best case scenario' in the west. Hell, Hess' flight might have an entirely different result after such a successful campaign in theaters where Britain would be expected to hold an advantage - assuming it happens at all. If Suez falls, a no-confidence against Churchill is entirely likely.
 
Yes, it is surely a "best case", maybe even into the impossible.

There is one littel fact in all this, however: Neither Felix nor Malta would require a lot of forces. This might just make it possible insofar as Barbarossa would not be impacted by drawing forces or shifting them around.

I can see, though, that it will require some intellectual gymnastics of the higher military to conceptualise all of this in one go and make some feasible plans out of it. That is staff work of a magnitude, I believe

Although dangerous, the Gib strategy would have been the right one, as far as I read it. It is of course hindsight.

Would it have been worth the wrath of Franco? yes.

Malta was essential for the North Africa convoys.

Stalemate at Suez was within reach.

What about Greece and Crete?

Ivan
 
One question I do have, how are the Germans supposed to take Gibralter, not only against the local defences, but also Force H (Ark Royal, Hood, Resolution, Valiant and Renown, and the cruisers Enterprise and Arethusa, with the addition in August of Sheffield, Coventry and Calcutta and that's not even counting the destroyers), which, if I'm not mistaken is more powerful than the whole Kriegsmarine.

You'd probably be better starting with Malta, it's closer (if Franco holds firm you'll have to invade, or leap-frog down the coast, once you've persuaded Vichy France to allow your passage), and you get the advantage that the Italian fleet hasn't yet been mauled.
 
Interesting Matt. Yes, there would be the RN to look out for as well.

However, moving subs from Atlantic to Med or at least around Gibraltar would be a part of the task as well, I should imagine. Not sure how that will pan out.

Malta first will not stop the RN deployment, so it would be Gib first?

Ivan
 

sharlin

Banned
AS work round Gibraltar is very easy, enemy subs were forced to try and run a gauntlet of narrow, heavily patrolled waters. It was never easy for a U-Boat to travese the Gibraltar Narrows, and thats not even taking into account the current etc. If the RN was defending Gibraltar from a seige you would bet there would be destroyers a pleanty on both sides of the straight. Any attempt to invade Malta would also be met with the RN's battle line and really early in the War the Italians lacked their most modern ships to try and counter the older English ships.
 
You miss out the third problem - it means Britain knows there will be no invasion attempt any time soon.


Actually it doesn't. How many resources is this going to actually take? If Franco goes along in terms of ground forces the answer is not very much.

1 Mech Corps for Libya (1 panzer and 1 motorized divisions)
2 Air Mobile Divisions for Malta
2 Infantry Corps for Gibraltar (6 infantry divisions and heavy artillery support for LOC and actual attack)

Ten divisions total, no problem in 1940.

Germany can still have a big land force on the Channel coast that the British simply can NOT ignore.

The drain of this plan is the Luftwaffe forces. Its going to take a full Luftflotten for the Med option at least, more likely 2. One for Malta / North Africa and second for Gibraltar. In 1940 that leaves 2 for Germany. So that makes doing anything other than harassment over England problematic.


A large chunk of the troops, planes and ships that were slated for home defence are freed up for elsewhere. All the R&D and panic production of anti-invasion weapons can produce something useful.

In late 1940 the British are short of kit for much of their troops and need time to build up equipment. The advantage of a 1940 is the British simple do no have the time produce new gear and then ship it out. They have to for the most part fight with what they have on hand. In 1940 the Germans have way more on hand to fight with. Again they can't strip UK all together.

Once Germans committee air troops to Malta that is a clear sign that they aren't going to go into England but by then its too late to be honest.

That frees up a great deal to defend against any German Med Option, and unlike Germany the British actually have sealift capacity and will be on their own territory, so can transport and supply a far larger force.

1) Look a map, British are on the wrong end of 12,000 NM supply line to Egypt. Once Malta and Gibraltar are under attack Western Med is closed to RN. 50 days for standard convoy (8 knots) to make that trip. For you to get it down to even 30 day trip takes 17 knot speed ships and those are in short supply and the British need cargo volume for ammo, trucks, tanks and other supplies. Liners can move troops sure but they are useless without kit.

2) Germans can use rail to Italian ports and then 600 nm jump to ports in Eastern Libya. Sorry the way I see it the Germans have the shorter logistical tail here, not the British.

British in short term can take troops from India and far east but continuing resupply has to come from UK itself.

As to freed up resources to avoid Invasion scare, some yes but again even then it takes time for it to matter. Time that the British don't have. It takes time to build the stuff and then to ship the stuff, which as shown above the British are along the long end of the longer supply line. Does it matter if the British can build more Crusader and Matilda tanks when it takes the British two months to get them to the front in Egypt?

If the Germans invade Spain to get to Gibraltar in late 1940/early 1941 they cannot "threaten" an invasion of the UK, because they will not have credible forces to do so. Also, of course, intervening in the Balkans is out at least in a major way - they may have some Luftwaffe available but not ground forces. Furthermore the transportation infrastructure in Spain in 1940/41 is crap after the Civil War, and you can believe the Spaniards will do their best to trash RRs ahead of German invaders. By the time they got to Gibraltar, there would have been tons of time to get ready, and the Germans would be at the end of a tenuous logistical string - and the Heer was not known for its logistic skills or planning. The Heer had few if any dedicated RR troops, one reason they had problems in Russia where they had to regauge every km of track. IMHO no way the Germans can attack Gibraltar (do Felix) absent Spanish cooperation.

How many troops do you think going into Spain is going to take? Then consider how many troops Germany has. THEN consider how many troops Germany needs to meet its other needs. In 1940 after fall of France Germany can dump two dozen Divisions into Spain without issue and still have a matching force on Channel Coast. 1941 and beyond things change.

I agree Spain is in poor shape it was the official reason Franco gave for not wanting anything to do with the idea. At the same time to do the attack on the Rock the Germans are going to support a CORPS level operation, they can handle the logistics on that level. Its not like they need to support an Army group 300 miles from rail heads like they were doing in USSR.

I don't see Spain putting up real resistance, army isn't in shape for it. There might be a Partisan problem but that is something else in terms of needs.

Even with cooperation, and Franco was never ever going to jump on the German bandwagon without guarantees of supplies like food and oil which the Germans would not promise & could not deliver on if they did (and he knew it), getting forces in place will be no surprise and expect the British to use air dominance to attack Spanish RRs & slow things down, doing Felix is iffy. If Germany wins the BoB & looks like they could actually do the unmentionable sea mammal, or if they get to Alexandria, or if the Germans take Moscow in the first campaign of Barbarossa, than and only then will Franco get on the bandwagon.

If Hitler holds a gun to Franco's head and gives him a choice to bet on the UK pulling it out in fall 1940 or letting the German troops through I really don't see what the choice is. 1939 and 1942 are very different situations in Europe than was found 1940 after Fall of France.

This has to be done before 12/7/1941 because once the US is in the war then if Franco plays along with Felix even just by letting German troops transit & stage (no Spanish forces fire a shot) then food and oil which Spain is getting from the USA stop completely and privation and difficulty become starvation and economic collapse.


I agree 1942 is a different world. Med option makes sense in 1940 / early 1941. The earlier the better.

Michael
 
Any attempt to invade Malta would also be met with the RN's battle line and really early in the War the Italians lacked their most modern ships to try and counter the older English ships.


BLINK BLINK

Are you seriously suggesting that the British have their BB's hang out around Malta in range of aircraft operating out of Sicily?

Michael
 
Top