Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
steverodgers801
Member
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#31

Post by steverodgers801 » 04 Dec 2015, 05:11

Spain, where large armies starve and small armies beaten

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#32

Post by Ironmachine » 04 Dec 2015, 09:58

steverodgers80 wrote:Spain, where large armies starve and small armies beaten
Yes, that what Henry IV of France said, but he was no expert in this matter. :lol:
Large armies may starve if trying to live off the land (as in many other places), but with a regular logistic system large armies could operate in Spain without starving. Plenty of large armies have operated in Spain through history without starving. And small armies are not more prone to be beaten in Spain than in any other place.
Last edited by Ironmachine on 05 Dec 2015, 09:36, edited 1 time in total.


pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#33

Post by pugsville » 05 Dec 2015, 03:56

If only the small strip of French coast is available (Vichy france is not used) the Germans could not have supported a large army in Spain.

Occupying Vichy France would have a repercussions that could outweigh getting Gibraltar.'

ChrisDR68
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 13 Oct 2013, 12:16

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#34

Post by ChrisDR68 » 08 Dec 2015, 20:42

Would it have been possible to take Gibraltar by airborne means using paratroops?

The Italian Navy would have had to have been heavily involved in fending off the Royal Navy and as many u-boats as could be spared would have to have been involved as well.

Planning to take the rock by ground forces by way of a passage through Spain was always likely to be a non-starter given Franco's reluctance to enter the war on Germany's side.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#35

Post by Ironmachine » 08 Dec 2015, 21:39

ChrisDR68 wrote:Would it have been possible to take Gibraltar by airborne means using paratroops?
Not really, it's not a good target for an airborne operation. Gibraltar is very small (less than 7 square kilometers), with difficult terrain and steep slopes, almost completely surrounded by the sea, and under strong winds and air streams.
ChrisDR68 wrote:The Italian Navy would have had to have been heavily involved in fending off the Royal Navy and as many u-boats as could be spared would have to have been involved as well.
Why? With the presence of strong Axis air forces in the area, there would be no need for naval forces to counter British naval forces, which anyway would have been of little use for the defense. Anyway, involving the Italians would have been probably not well received by the Spanish government. And why should the Royal Navy risk its valuable ships to defend Gibraltar? After all, it was Gibraltar which was supposed to protect the fleet, not the other way round.

per70
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: 13 May 2015, 22:32
Location: Norway

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#36

Post by per70 » 08 Dec 2015, 23:13

Ironmachine wrote:Anyway, involving the Italians would have been probably not well received by the Spanish government.
Why is that? Didn't the Spanish and Italian governments have a good relationship after the spanish civil war?

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#37

Post by Ironmachine » 09 Dec 2015, 09:13

Generally speaking yes, they had a good relationship, as long as their respective strategic objectives were kept out of the question. Spanish and Italian territorial ambitions and spheres of influence collided in the Western Mediterranean, and Italian interests there (especially in the Balearic Islands) were looked askance by Spain. Considering that the Spanish government wanted the reconquest of Gibraltar to be mainly a Spanish operation with the Germans just providing support, I don't think they would even consider any major Italian involvement.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#38

Post by Alixanther » 14 Dec 2015, 08:58

The only way he could have taken Gibraltar (without aid from Franco, of course) was through an airborne operation. However, since he had squandered most of German parachute troops in Crete, he was unable to do so. Not to mention the other fixation (mainly of Italians but also of some German staff) was Malta and taking one meant British forces could comfort on being reassured the other isn't.

One could argue than Gibraltar is more critical than Malta or Crete to ensure that Mediterranean becomes an Axis lake, but - let me think - if they did so, I'm almost sure that the Western Allies expeditionary force would have preferred to land in Portugal / Spain, instead of a longer interlude in Northern Africa. Which renders moot such an acquisition.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#39

Post by Ironmachine » 14 Dec 2015, 14:35

Without aid from Franco, an airborne operation was hardly feasible, it would be very difficult to end with success, and losses would probably be too high. Even with Franco's aid, a pure airborne operation was still hardly feasible. German parachute troops being squandered in Crete is of no importance here, because by then Gibraltar has been given up by the Germans; the next target was the Soviet Unión, and there was no point in taking Gibraltar until after the defeat of the Soviets.
Yes, one could argue tan Gibraltar is more critical than Malta or Crete to ensure that the Mediterranean becomes an Axis lake, but without taking Egypt there was Little point in having Gibraltar; that was the Spanish point of view, in any case. And even if the Western Allies expeditionary force would have preferred to land in Portugal/Spain, it is far from clear than there would not be a long interlude in the desert or even in Spain.

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#40

Post by Alixanther » 16 Dec 2015, 14:06

Ironmachine wrote:Without aid from Franco, an airborne operation was hardly feasible, it would be very difficult to end with success, and losses would probably be too high. Even with Franco's aid, a pure airborne operation was still hardly feasible. German parachute troops being squandered in Crete is of no importance here, because by then Gibraltar has been given up by the Germans; the next target was the Soviet Unión, and there was no point in taking Gibraltar until after the defeat of the Soviets.
Yes, one could argue tan Gibraltar is more critical than Malta or Crete to ensure that the Mediterranean becomes an Axis lake, but without taking Egypt there was Little point in having Gibraltar; that was the Spanish point of view, in any case. And even if the Western Allies expeditionary force would have preferred to land in Portugal/Spain, it is far from clear than there would not be a long interlude in the desert or even in Spain.
Well, I don't think the Western Allies would have squandered their forces into 2 separate amphibious operations which do not converge into any focal point, on two separate continents. Maybe as successive to one another, but the much required aerial supremacy would have been disputed if stretched on a greater area.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#41

Post by pugsville » 17 Dec 2015, 13:42

Airborne operation would be suicide. Gibraltar hardly has any suitable landing sites other than the airfield. The density of defenders is just way way to high. The defence AA fire would simply shred paratroopers. Paratroopers cannot ;and against any reasonable opposition. Machine guns against guys hanging from parachutes. Turkey shoot. Gibraltar is far to small with too many defenders for paratroops to have any chance at all.

Malta is about the smallest area you could try an air assault on. And it would be difficult.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#42

Post by Ironmachine » 17 Dec 2015, 15:36

Actually it would be rather difficult to put the paratroopers on the ground even without opposition, as the "target" is rather small and most of its terrain is not adecuate for airborne landings.There are also strong changing wind currents. It's probable that many paratroopers would have fallen into the sea and drowned.
Against opposition that is firing at them while flying by and descending (for the size of the place, anti-aircraft defenses in Gibraltar were quite good), and reaching the ground without most of their weapons (as the standard German procedure was for individual weapons to be dropped in canisters), it would have been a slaughter.
If anyone still believes in the chances of success of such an operation, maybe he should heed the opinion of the (German) experts:
Once the invasion of the British Isles was deemed impractical, planning for the seizure of Gibraltar was moved to the forefront and on 14 August 1940 Hitler consented to a proposal by the Wehrmacht Operations Staff for the seizure of the fortress and ordered that an operational study be prepared. The study was completed on 20 August and approved by Hitler four days later.
[...]
Part of that study included an assessment ordered by Student, as commander of German airborne forces, and written by Rudolf Witzig. On 1 August, Witzig had submitted a concise, three-page report, complete with a photograph of one of the potential landing zones, concluding that the capture of Gibraltar from the air was not feasible. 'The use of parachute and air-landing units to seize or assist in the seizure of Gibraltar,' he wrote, 'is precluded for the following reasons: The terrain, except for the windmill flat to the south of the peninsula, is not suitable for air landing [operations]. Even the exception allows only for the use of gliders in a small number... The [aircraft] exit/drop point would be very difficult to determine due to unpredictable wind conditions and the fact that the approach is hindered by southern hills.' Witzig concluded that the lack of sufficient landing space for gliders and paratroopers, the steep terrain, the heavy British fortifications and defensive armament, the low speed of the Ju-52 transports, and the probable loss of surprise would result in the failure of the operation.
Quoted from Hitler's Paratrooper: The Life and Battles of Rudolf Witzig by Gilberto Villahermosa
And that was his opinion about an operation with Spanish participation. Without Spanish involvement in the operation, German air bases would have been too far away. A long flight to the target, with the paratroopers not arriving in top condition, planes with navigational or technical problems not arriving at the target, those arriving may lose formation during the long voyage and arrive piecemeal, once over target they could not drop their paratroopers at the same time (the landing zones would have been quite small)... Air support, which would have been badly needed by the paratroopers which would have been fighting alone, would have had the same problem of being too far away.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#43

Post by Graeme Sydney » 17 Dec 2015, 15:41

Yeah, what Puggies said.

Image

No where to land in numbers, no tactical, operational nor strategic surprise, no air supremacy, no way.

Crete was a near run success and then only because of under-preparedness and hesitation and confusion in the command and control of the defenders caused by operational surprise.

Even a well supported land attack probable would have ended as a protracted siege with advantage to the defenders.

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#44

Post by Ironmachine » 17 Dec 2015, 20:12

Graeme Sydney wrote:Even a well supported land attack probable would have ended as a protracted siege with advantage to the defenders.
A well supported land attack probably would have ended in the conquest of Gibraltar in a short period of time. However, it should be noted that even if it ended as a protracted siege, that would have rendered Gibraltar useless for the British. The Germans did not need to take the place to negate its value to the British, they could just let the garrison blocked and useless there, with all their "advantage".

Bryce2004
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 18 Dec 2015, 18:53
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Why did Hitler not take Gibraltar

#45

Post by Bryce2004 » 19 Dec 2015, 00:50

Hi. New to the forum, I am enjoying reading through the various posts.
I agree that taking Gibraltar made a great deal of sense but there were some issues that made taking it difficult.
Spain simply could not supply a German army, Spain was a poor country that was worn out after the civil war. Spain also depended on imports for food so it could not afford to openly support Hitler without Britain extending its blockade to include them. This why Franco wanted to wait for a British defeat before openly joining Hitler.
There is a narrow strip of land connecting the Spanish mainland and Gibraltar, making it easy to defend.
Finally, the British navy would prevent any ocean invasion and the wind currents prevented paratroop assault.
Jeff

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”