Italy vs. Spain vs. X

best to close Med to shipping?

  • Italy

  • Spain

  • X


Results are only viewable after voting.
what are the relative merits of Italy vs. Spain in the limited goal of closing the Med to Allied shipping during WWII? under the scenario only one is an active member of the Axis, while the other maintains a benign or Axis-friendly neutrality.

OR could there be a plausible alternative to foreclose or menace shipping and both Italy and Spain remain neutral?

(would suggest there are only a few other possibles, none likely, Vichy France, Turkey, occupied (?) Greece ... and they would not be doing the lifting)
 
Neither.

Spain didn't have a navy relatively speaking following its civil war, and if they tried anything re Gibraltar then they'd be starving in a month as spain was hugely dependent on imports for food. And there would be Civil War II Electic boogaloo.

Italy didn't have the force projection to close the Med from either end.
 
Neither.

Spain didn't have a navy relatively speaking following its civil war, and if they tried anything re Gibraltar then they'd be starving in a month as spain was hugely dependent on imports for food. And there would be Civil War II Electic boogaloo.

Italy didn't have the force projection to close the Med from either end.

historically the entry of Italy closed the Med for UK commercial shipping for most of the war? (my reading on the subject) guess the question would be the costs of Axis (Germany) conducting the North Africa campaign vs. that benefit to them (longer, more perilous route)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Spain can close the Med to shipping as long as Southern Spain is in Axis hands. And Spain can be supplied by rail and comes without that pesky Italian Empire to defend.
 
historically the entry of Italy closed the Med for UK commercial shipping for most of the war? (my reading on the subject) guess the question would be the costs of Axis (Germany) conducting the North Africa campaign vs. that benefit to them (longer, more perilous route)

It was very hard for the Allies to send shipping into the Meds for the start of the war, not enough protection. The Italians tried, but failed to prevent British possession in the Meds from being supplied from the sea eventually. Most notably Malta which was supplied by a couple of succesfull convoys after 1941 which the Italians and Germans failed to stop. The Italians had a fleet-in-being, meaning their fleet was mostly kept in port and acted as a threat to the British fleet, which did sail the seas and supplied their possessions with their aircraft carriers. They never actually create a blockade to stop allied shipping from entering the Meds. If Gibraltar would be in Axis hands however, an actual blockade can be started.

The biggest merit they would get of course from even a short blockade of the meds to allied shipping is the possibility of Malta falling and being occupied, opening up opportunities to take control of the meds fully, with the next target the Suez canal. This will make sailing the meds for the Allies a lot more dangerous as there is less coverage by air.

Taking Girbraltar is possible for Spain, but their control of it would indeed be very short and only help the Allies win the war. The Italians, i'm not sure they had the capabilities to actually invade Gibraltar from their positions, even if they would use their full fleet. It would just endanger their fleet from being sunk and become useless in one failed attempt. They played it safe, which was smart.
 
Spain can close the Med to shipping as long as Southern Spain is in Axis hands. And Spain can be supplied by rail and comes without that pesky Italian Empire to defend.

that was my initial thought, however inadequate the Spanish rail it is superior to relying on Italian transport? and German officers would at least be passing familiar with operating in Spain?
 
re-reading Struggle for the Middle Sea by O'Hara, KM made a pretty good showing with basically a "scratch fleet" even after Italy withdrew from the war in 1943.

if by prior agreement or default Italy and Spain remain neutral, what damage could Germany do operating from Greece (including Crete)?
 
Neither.

Spain didn't have a navy relatively speaking following its civil war, and if they tried anything re Gibraltar then they'd be starving in a month as spain was hugely dependent on imports for food. And there would be Civil War II Electic boogaloo.

Italy didn't have the force projection to close the Med from either end.
Still, Italy could - and did - cut the Mediterranean in two at the strait of Sicily, which still prevented cargo from moving to one end to the other (even though both ends were open).
 
Still, Italy could - and did - cut the Mediterranean in two at the strait of Sicily, which still prevented cargo from moving to one end to the other (even though both ends were open).

possibly if Libya had been fortified and no offensive launched towards Egypt, the ratio of losses would have been improved for Axis? i.e. the British shipping curtailed but no need for Afrika Corps, loss of Italian shipping.
 
Does any one have a map showing how far torpedo bombers could fly from shore bases. We are really talking about ‘combat radius.’
 
Does any one have a map showing how far torpedo bombers could fly from shore bases. We are really talking about ‘combat radius.’

not sure how (if desired) Italy could be gently sidelined? and (any) operations against British shipping carried out by Luftwaffe? as Italy considered Med Mare Nostrum (and Germany did not really want the distraction)

with Italy as a neutral country, UK might be undertaking more operations against Vichy French colonies, at some point the French might accept LW operations?
 
Top