Could be, could be not. However, my point is that I think it is more gamebreaking the issue with the convoys than the issue with warships...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Since you replied to my statement, you want to try cleaning this up so it is comprehensible?
Shipping across the med was closed to UK during war against Italy. Convoys to and from India all went around Africa. Even convoys to Egypt, with a few early outliers (and then, mainly because the Aden strait was partly under italian control and thus considered too dangerous), all went around Africa.
For convoy purposes, the channel of Sicily (i.e. the water between Sicily and Bon peninsula in Tunisia) was just too narrow to think about standard shipping, even having the control of Malta and Bizerte/Tunis.
Malta was supplied either by lone "stealth" missions by fast minelayers and subs, or by few massive convoys escorted by significant fleets. And often with very high damage by mines, subs, airplanes, fast patrol boats and surface combatants.
yeah, IIRC the Ark Royal carrier was sunk by a german sub while returning from such a mission.
Good points. I will try to find more info about this.
Here in Spain I have always heard that "Franco could help greatly the Axis just by taking Gibraltar but he didn't because etc. etc." It could be just another myth related to Franco and his relationships with the Axis powers... I guess Gibraltar is not so important, then.
However, in the game, iirc, there are convoys through the Mediterranean and Gibraltar. I can't check it now, but the blue-red lines are there in the supply map, if you play the UK. I don't know how "fat" those lines are (how many convoys). I'll check tonight.
To be fair.. those guns would not be match to a single King George, or Bismark class battleships... they would not even be able to puncture deck armor, and not even dent belt armor. Blocking a REAL heavy naval force would need to be done by airforce (that get a huge advantage when targets have not much space to maneuver) .. or local presence of smaller torpedo boats and destroiers.
With very little space to maneuver, fast destroiers with torpedos can wreck havoc at any capital ships trying to cross. At same time the guns would be useful to keep enemy screens at bay, helping the patrol boats and destroiers do their jobs.
Sided with that.. the STRONGEST factor on any strait blockade.. are mine fields that become very easy to deploy.
I think straits when controled by enemy should be crosseable, but onnly after a battle against any local fortificaiton and garrison (that would represent patrol boats etc...).. and at a HUGE penalty due to lack of space. AND suffering hellish losses
the reason why you don see fleets of torpedo boats is because they are not blue navy vessels. They are not combat capable outside the continental platform on any kind of bad weather. That and fact torpedoes themselves suck as weapons under those conditions.
But torpedoes were very dangerous to battleships, sicne very few battleships were designed with a large focus on resisting them (doing so would need sacrifices in other areas). And protecting against torpedoes is much more complex than simply wrap a larger hardened face armor belt.
The real things is that naval warfare was a rock paper scissor game. Torpedo boats and torpedo armed destroiers (those last only if able due to some specially favorable condition, to get close enough) could wreck any large capital ship (specially vulnerable due to low maneuverability)... Destroiers could simply walk over torpedo boats. Cruisers could walk over destroiers. Battleship engagement would mean a death sentence to a cruiser. CV changed everything because during day light at least they could engage in serious terms any vessel type, while staying outside their counterattack range. A battleship was still more powerful against surface vessels, but was much less versatile and was much harder to effectively employ their power (but if a carrier had the bad luck of being caught by a BB at night or under very bad weather conditions.. it was toast)
And that's because the UK didn't need bigger guns on Gibraltar. The UK was a naval power, its big guns were on its battleships, where they could move around and be useful in more than one place.
In the absense of big floating artillery plaforms, they'd have built "big static artillery plaforms" on Gibraltar.
Are you seriously saying that the Germans would have been incapable of designing, building and placing guns on Gibraltar that would be capable of destroying battleships?
The fact that the UK didn't bother to do it only shows that it wasn't neccessary for them to do it.
Code:
Shipping across the med was closed to UK during war against Italy.I have dived down to the wreck of the 'Thistlegorm'.. A British WW2 freighter that sailed from Glasgow bound for Egypt in 1941. It had to go 12000 miles around South Africa as the Med was too dangerous for most Allied shipping. German/Italian air power was too great.
Turns out, the Red Sea entrance to the canal wasn't that safe either as she was hit and sunk by German bombers on the way back from an aborted mission.
She carried (and still does) aircraft parts, carriers, motorcyles and a shedload of ammo - to name but a few..
Controlling Gibraltar didn't mean you controlled the med..
#Cakes
The complete blockade seems rather gamey. Having a high level naval fort capable to bomb the straits should be sufficient.
In WW1 the British broke off the naval attack against Constantinople only facing landbased artillery and mines. They did so not because they wouldn't have been capable to break through but because the losses in irreplaceable capital ship would be too heavy to risk.
The same would happen with an axis controlled Gibraltar. You could still get through but aircraft, artillery and mines would be capable to inflict heavy casualties in a cost effective way detrimental to a naval breakthrough.
For the same reason the British never attacked the German coast directly. Minefields can never be 100% tight but the risk of some capital ship simply running onto one and being destroyed or damaged was too great for little gain.
So the effect should be more psychological than real, the chance of serious damage on ships in the Straits with coastal defenses and bomber aircraft being so great that any operation would be reconsidered. Maybe making the traversation of the straits slower so aircraft and defenses get more attacks of opportunity or some other such things instead of an outright blockade? A breakout through the straits should be possible for any side, just a risky business concerning the possibility of serious casualties.
In WW1 the British broke off the naval attack against Constantinople only facing landbased artillery and mines. They did so not because they wouldn't have been capable to break through but because the losses in irreplaceable capital ship would be too heavy to risk.
The same would happen with an axis controlled Gibraltar. You could still get through but aircraft, artillery and mines would be capable to inflict heavy casualties in a cost effective way detrimental to a naval breakthrough.
For the same reason the British never attacked the German coast directly. Minefields can never be 100% tight but the risk of some capital ship simply running onto one and being destroyed or damaged was too great for little gain.
So the effect should be more psychological than real, the chance of serious damage on ships in the Straits with coastal defenses and bomber aircraft being so great that any operation would be reconsidered. Maybe making the traversation of the straits slower so aircraft and defenses get more attacks of opportunity or some other such things instead of an outright blockade? A breakout through the straits should be possible for any side, just a risky business concerning the possibility of serious casualties.
Yeah but let's stop saying that UK was holding Gibraltar with the Mighty Fleet of Doom, please. That was not the case. If you all feel like supporting this thesis then come back with a list of the so many and so powerful battleships stationed at Gibraltar in, say, 1941. We shall enjoy the extremely long list...
This. Let alone the fact that the British didn't regularly ship supplies through the Med. even when in control of Gibraltar, figures if they would risk anything to take it back.
Considering they could not even complete the guns (the original SERIOUS designed ones) for the Ginesenau... no they would NOT be able to deliver at other side of SPAIN a reasonable battery of at least 15 inch guns capable of engaging battleships effectively.
To be a serious deterrent by itself, there would need to be at LEAST 8-12 15 inch guns. Anything less and would be too weak to challenge a battleship running trough at maximum speed and exposing itself for few minutes at a "good firing range".
They could if they pushed MASSIVE amount of their effort to do that. But its not like Germany industry and logistics spent much time idle from 36 to 45.....
normal army field guns were not precise enough to be used against a running battleship while firign in a high parabolic arc. And to get them on a near direct fire line woudl expose them to the much heavier guns of the battleship itself (that would be firing against an imobile target. THis type of deterrement is only effective to counter an attempt of invasion that woud need a long standing presence of the capital ships.
The only thing SERIOUSLY threatening a task force of battleships and destroiers trying to run trough would be mines, torpedo boats and air force. And all those for a fraction of the cost of a single 15 inch gun.
Last edited:
Taking control of Gibraltar would have been a great deal for the Axis, in order to let Italian fleet out of the Med and join with Kriegsmarine, and to close the Med to British fleets.
In this case there is no myth IMHO.
You can read it just fine. I don't have time to make sure that every little comment is 100% perfect. I'll make an exception for you on this occasion and add a couple of tid bits.
Your comment was referring to some kind of task force that was supposedly stationed at Gibraltar. So I said:
"No, because no task force was present {at Gibraltar in WW2 in RL}. If there was, it would have been attacked by aircraft continuously (as opposed to the handful of air raids that actually {took place against Gibraltar in WW2 in RL}).
...
Just incase you missed it, I haven't put my caring face on. If you can't follow it now, I give up.
Although you appear to disagree with the statement 'if you hold Gibraltar then you control the straights'..... I do agree with this statement. There was no big fleet stationed at Gibraltar, despite what a couple of people have posted here.
The small-med guns that the UK had there, combined with air craft, torpedo boats, mines... they were all more than enough to prevent Germany/Italy from risking any large ships.
I'm not sure why that is such a difficult thing to accept for some people.
The German's had guns in nothern France that were capable of hitting mainland England, around Dover. I believe that the distance was twice as large, about 24-28km from memory. Not that they would be accurate at that range, but I'm sure they could have managed 14km at Gibraltar....
As for the Spanish, Hitler sent envoys to Franco to try gain military access. He even had a plan to move his troops through Spain -without- Franco's permission in order to take Gibraltar.
Despite what the armchair experts here think, that by itself demonstrates the rock's importance.
Their was no big fleet stationed at Gibraltar, the size of the fleet varied during the war with at one point consisted of 2 Cruisers and 9 destroyers. If BBs would have been needed they would have come from the Home Fleet. Its a combination of ships,mines,aircraft and shore emplacements plus the fact that its a choke point an easily defended that makes it hard to cross but not impossible. But i still believe it shouldnt be a rule that if you control Gibraltar nobody can go threw the straights, one observation is for all the shore emplacements in the world they wont stop a submerge sub from going threw, you need some kind of fleet there. Or different rules for sub/surface vessels. As for Suez thats a different story if you control one side you shouldnt be aloud to go threw at all its to narrow and you would be able to board the vessels coming threw from canoes.
Aaron
Aaron
It would appear you gave up awhile ago since I wasn't the person who posted that they kept a task force present at Gibraltar. It was InvaderCanuck who posted that piece of information.
But British fleets were already out of the Med, as you said above.
I agree, however, that joining with the Kriegsmarine would be a big problem for the UK...
My bad. I'm not sure why you were quoted then - perhaps I did a multi-quote thing and got mixed up.
Force H
After France fell in 1940, the British created Force "H". This task force was based in Gibralter and was responsible for taking up the Allied defense of the Western Med. It consisted of 3BC, 2BB, and an AC...plus screens (DD,CL).
The primary engagements during the war were the harrowing supply convoys to Malta..1940-1943..numerous Allied ships were lost, capital, screens and convoy ships. Malta was the main nuisance to the Axis, since it straddled the supply route to the Libyan coast. Allied raids from Malta hampered N. African operations.
Operation Felix was the plan for the capture of Gibralter. It was an overland (through Spain) operation. Spain never agreed to grant land access, since they would then be at war...Once in posession of Gibralter, the German plan was to close the strait by means of: Luftwaffe staged from Spanish bases, mines laid in the strait, coastal artillery, and subs....working together.
For their part, the British planned to seize the Canary islands if Gibralter was lost. It was deemed imperative for the purpose of maintining control of the shipping lanes.
The loss of Gibralter would have greatly facilitated the eventual capture of Malta. The Allies could still probably force through a heavily armed convoy, if it was absolutely imperative, however the losses would be considerable. The battle would look something like this: Long range Axis patrol aircraft pick up the British Fleet long before reaching the strait. Axis Condor's come out and start to pick away at the fleet. Then the U-Boats have their turn, and while the ships are dealing with the subs...suddenly overhead come.....Stuka's, who will repeatedly hit at the fleet, return to base, refuel and rearm and revisit. Finally as the fleet reaches the strait, it faces the coastal artillery batteries, the mines, and more.....Stuka's......whatever gets through would immediately proceed into the Med where it would face more subs and.....Stuka's....from there the Fleet could then proceed to Malta where it would encounter the usual threats; subs, Italian surface ships...I can imagine what that fleet would have looked like upon it's arrival in Malta.
After France fell in 1940, the British created Force "H". This task force was based in Gibralter and was responsible for taking up the Allied defense of the Western Med. It consisted of 3BC, 2BB, and an AC...plus screens (DD,CL).
The primary engagements during the war were the harrowing supply convoys to Malta..1940-1943..numerous Allied ships were lost, capital, screens and convoy ships. Malta was the main nuisance to the Axis, since it straddled the supply route to the Libyan coast. Allied raids from Malta hampered N. African operations.
Operation Felix was the plan for the capture of Gibralter. It was an overland (through Spain) operation. Spain never agreed to grant land access, since they would then be at war...Once in posession of Gibralter, the German plan was to close the strait by means of: Luftwaffe staged from Spanish bases, mines laid in the strait, coastal artillery, and subs....working together.
For their part, the British planned to seize the Canary islands if Gibralter was lost. It was deemed imperative for the purpose of maintining control of the shipping lanes.
The loss of Gibralter would have greatly facilitated the eventual capture of Malta. The Allies could still probably force through a heavily armed convoy, if it was absolutely imperative, however the losses would be considerable. The battle would look something like this: Long range Axis patrol aircraft pick up the British Fleet long before reaching the strait. Axis Condor's come out and start to pick away at the fleet. Then the U-Boats have their turn, and while the ships are dealing with the subs...suddenly overhead come.....Stuka's, who will repeatedly hit at the fleet, return to base, refuel and rearm and revisit. Finally as the fleet reaches the strait, it faces the coastal artillery batteries, the mines, and more.....Stuka's......whatever gets through would immediately proceed into the Med where it would face more subs and.....Stuka's....from there the Fleet could then proceed to Malta where it would encounter the usual threats; subs, Italian surface ships...I can imagine what that fleet would have looked like upon it's arrival in Malta.