German Tangier WWII

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

Re: German Tangier WWII

#61

Post by magicdragon » 20 Feb 2017, 01:24

OK, help me understand this: Germany is able to airlift a contingent of Fallschirmjager to guard an airfield that will be used to attack Gibraltar, which presumably requires even more airlifts to bring in ground crews, signals and controls, fuel and ordnance, and (most important of all) the actual attack aircraft -
Transit rights via Vichy territory could have included coastal shipping, rail and road routes which would have partly reduced the need for airlift capacity. Some of the supplies could have been sourced from Vichy stock? Some of the aircraft use by the Germans could have been captured French types so the spares could have been sourced from local stocks. Besides which if this operation was conducted between the fall of France and the invasion of Greece there would have been very few other large scale operations demanding lots of Ju52s. The other issue is using Vichy French territory invites another Mers-el-Kébir style attack and therefore retaliation by Vichy.
and England just sits by completely oblivious and unable to react?
Malta is the nearest air base and its 1,103 miles away? You can react very quickly but you are not getting there without the mother of all efforts?
What do you mean by "first attack" if not one mission?
Well I didn’t mean one mission but as the air element of the Gib garrison in late 1940 were one RAF (202) Squadron (flying boats and float planes) and the elements of Fleet Air Arm (FAA) Squadrons - it’s certainly not the Cactus Air Force nor the RAF Malta air defence force - you might be correct and one mission may have been sufficient .
Again I ask, how will a "small force" shut down an airfield when even larger forces with secured LOCs couldn't do it?
The Italians conducted 14 raids over a 3 year period with no raid involving more than 10 planes and the average raid involving 3 planes - this does not suggest overwhelming force effort. The Vichy French conducted 2 much larger air raids but left it at that. The proposed Tangier effort would be less than the Vichy effort but would be on a daily and on-going basis with a view to denying the RN and RAF unrestricted use of the Gib airfield.
Look at the effort expended against Malta, or better yet Henderson field. The IJN pumped almost a thousand battleship rounds into the airfield and the Americans were flying anti-ship missions from it the next day
Malta and Guadalcanal were success because RN and USN made a major effort to replenish and resupply both places. Plus the IJN had to deliver the shelling of Henderson largely at night because during the day the US could count on land and ship based air support and the intervention of a significant part of the US Pacific Fleet. If the Gib airfield can offer no organic fighter cover the RN would have to bring its own air support. The point of using of Tangiers is to force the RN to expend ships, planes and men in a campaign which would only weaken its efforts in the Atlantic and Mediterranean in late 1940 to accomplish absolutely nothing more than restore a position - not gain a strategic advantage. Even if the British invade Tangiers the Luftwaffe could get out it’s flyable planes, destroy its equipment and the rest of the German garrison walks into neutral Spanish Morocco and at worst interment - many ending up back in Germany in the coming months with a bruised ego and a suntan.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: German Tangier WWII

#62

Post by Kingfish » 20 Feb 2017, 15:09

magicdragon wrote:Transit rights via Vichy territory could have included coastal shipping, rail and road routes which would have partly reduced the need for airlift capacity. Some of the supplies could have been sourced from Vichy stock? Some of the aircraft use by the Germans could have been captured French types so the spares could have been sourced from local stocks.
I doubt the Germans would undertake an operation of this magnitude if it had to rely, even in part, on captured enemy stock. The Luftwaffe just swept across all of Europe on German air frames maintained with German parts and German ordnance. Why revert to inferior and unfamiliar equipment?
Besides which if this operation was conducted between the fall of France and the invasion of Greece there would have been very few other large scale operations demanding lots of Ju52s.
Apart from Seelowe, which would have called for the largest German airborne operation to date.
Malta is the nearest air base and its 1,103 miles away? You can react very quickly but you are not getting there without the mother of all efforts?
Air attack is not the only option available to the British. Distance between Scapa Flow to Narvik is over 1400 klicks, yet the allies managed to land over 24,000 troops to retake the port.

Do you think they would put in the same effort to protect a possession as strategically vital as Gibraltar?
Methinks yes.

BTW, do you know how far an invasion force would have to travel inland to threaten the airfield at Tangier?
Image

My guess is the hardest part would be traversing around all the shell craters that the RN punched into the tarmac
The Italians conducted 14 raids over a 3 year period with no raid involving more than 10 planes and the average raid involving 3 planes - this does not suggest overwhelming force effort. The Vichy French conducted 2 much larger air raids but left it at that. The proposed Tangier effort would be less than the Vichy effort but would be on a daily and on-going basis with a view to denying the RN and RAF unrestricted use of the Gib airfield.
I was referring to the effort expended against Malta.
Malta and Guadalcanal were success because RN and USN made a major effort to replenish and resupply both places.
Are we assume Britain would not do the same with regards to Gibraltar?
The point of using of Tangiers is to force the RN to expend ships, planes and men in a campaign which would only weaken its efforts in the Atlantic and Mediterranean in late 1940 to accomplish absolutely nothing more than restore a position - not gain a strategic advantage.
How does retaining Gibraltar weaken the allies effort elsewhere in the Mediterranean? If anything the loss of that position would ensure the loss of Malta, and thereby gifting the Axis a secure LOCs from Europe to North Africa
Even if the British invade Tangiers the Luftwaffe could get out it’s flyable planes, destroy its equipment and the rest of the German garrison walks into neutral Spanish Morocco and at worst interment - many ending up back in Germany in the coming months with a bruised ego and a suntan.
I wonder how receptive OKW would have been to that suggestion
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb


magicdragon
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 28 Aug 2008, 00:50

Re: German Tangier WWII

#63

Post by magicdragon » 21 Feb 2017, 00:46

I doubt the Germans would undertake an operation of this magnitude if it had to rely, even in part, on captured enemy stock. The Luftwaffe just swept across all of Europe on German air frames maintained with German parts and German ordnance. Why revert to inferior and unfamiliar equipment?
The Luftwaffe extensively used captured French bombs in the early phases of Barbarossa. The planes less chance of them being used I agree. But until Dec 1940 the interdiction of Axis convoys to North Africa by British naval and air forces was not that impressive this suggests coastal shipping of the heavy stuff up the Algerian coast for disembarkation and a short haul flight to Tangiers was possible.
Apart from Seelowe, which would have called for the largest German airborne operation to date.

But Seelowe did not happen! There was zero risk initially as there were no fighters on Gibraltar so the issue would be wear and tear on men and planes but not a Crete like attrition of transport Gruppen.
Air attack is not the only option available to the British. Distance between Scapa Flow to Narvik is over 1400 klicks, yet the allies managed to land over 24,000 troops to retake the port. Do you think they would put in the same effort to protect a possession as strategically vital as Gibraltar? Methinks yes.
Methinks they would as well and that is the point. A relief force would most likely come directly from the UK in the form of a reinforced Force H in due course taking Tangiers however this force will not be at the same time carrying out any relief missions to Malta nor dealing with the Italian Fleet. Also without the anti-submarine patrols previously offered by 202 Squadron from Gib is more vulnerable to U Boat attack in the sea approaches to Gib . The chances of losing a capital ship would be great.
BTW, do you know how far an invasion force would have to travel inland to threaten the airfield at Tangier? My guess is the hardest part would be traversing around all the shell craters that the RN punched into the tarmac
Fair point but as you know most desert airfields of the period were not tarmac but rather a firm natural surface was mostly required. So an auxiliary strip could be built in another part of the international zone - albeit there was not much territory to hide in!
I was referring to the effort expended against Malta.
As far as I am aware there was more than one air base on Malta in 1940 - RAF Takali, RAF Luqa, RAF Hal Far, RAF Kalafrana (seaplanes) plus an auxiliary airfield at Safi (plus RAF Krendi being built). Plus Gib would have no fighters to act as a deterrent to bombers.
How does retaining Gibraltar weaken the allies effort elsewhere in the Mediterranean? If anything the loss of that position would ensure the loss of Malta, and thereby gifting the Axis a secure LOCs from Europe to North Africa
The RN would still have had use of Gib regardless (at a risk) but would not have tolerated for 5 minutes a German airbase 50km away that is the whole point of the exercise - you are guaranteeing a confrontation - almost like sending an invite to a punch up which no one is going to turn down.
I wonder how receptive OKW would have been to that suggestion
Not one bit but uncle Adolph may have gone for the idea? He was quite prepared for Dietl to walk into Swedish territory and interment to avoid surrender to the Allies at Narvik

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: German Tangier WWII

#64

Post by Kingfish » 21 Feb 2017, 04:20

magicdragon wrote:The Luftwaffe extensively used captured French bombs in the early phases of Barbarossa. The planes less chance of them being used I agree. But until Dec 1940 the interdiction of Axis convoys to North Africa by British naval and air forces was not that impressive this suggests coastal shipping of the heavy stuff up the Algerian coast for disembarkation and a short haul flight to Tangiers was possible.
To be fair there was very little activity west of Sardinia to interdict, so we can't accurately gauge the effectiveness of GB efforts against coastal shipping.
But Seelowe did not happen!
Check the OP for this thread, it calls for a German seizure of Tangier after the fall of France. The BoB didn't really kick off until August and Seelowe wasn't nixed until mid-October. For most of that time you have to account for Germany husbanding its air transport fleet for the obvious primary target.
Methinks they would as well and that is the point. A relief force would most likely come directly from the UK in the form of a reinforced Force H in due course taking Tangiers however this force will not be at the same time carrying out any relief missions to Malta nor dealing with the Italian Fleet. Also without the anti-submarine patrols previously offered by 202 Squadron from Gib is more vulnerable to U Boat attack in the sea approaches to Gib . The chances of losing a capital ship would be great.
You're getting ahead of yourselves here. Malta would not be in need of relief during the time frame of this WI. West bound reinforcement convoys from Alexandria were arriving as late as December, and East to West transits were still possible as evident by the sailing of HMS Malaya to GB.

As for the loss of 202 squadron this won't happen until (or *if*) the Germans assemble enough aircraft at Tangiers, and that assembly is still very much in question. Tangier is what, 2 hours sailing time from GB?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2065
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
Location: Israel

Re: German Tangier WWII

#65

Post by Von Schadewald » 10 Mar 2017, 17:12

I wrote this thread 10 years ago:

Rommel strikes West: "Vorwaerts nach Tangiers!"

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... l#p1085948

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: German Tangier WWII

#66

Post by sitalkes » 05 May 2017, 06:41

The Germans flew the Nationalist army from north Africa to Spain during the Spanish Civil War, what if they do that, then decide to fly back with their own troops and take Tangier? Solves many of the above mentioned problems with naval transport etc. They also don't need to transport the whole railway gun equipment there, if they just want to put the guns into gun emplacements. I love reading arguments like "we didn't need Gibraltar, the ships could just sail around Africa" - if it was so unimportant, it would have been given up long ago. Denying use of Gibraltar to the RN would free the Italian navy to operate in the western Med, take Malta, and allow them to move to the Atlantic. It would also make British fleet operations in the Atlantic more difficult, reducing the range of ships in that region and increasing the time taken for repairs. If Tangiers was a naval base for German and Italian submarines they would have been an even greater menace than they were. Perhaps the Germans could engineer some sort of Rif wars incident or simply say they were going there to guarantee the international status for the duration of the civil war.

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

Re: German Tangier WWII

#67

Post by Ironmachine » 05 May 2017, 08:15

1) To simply cross the Strait as the "Nationalist" (sic) forces did in the SCW (by the way, the Spanish air forces were already
doing it before the German planes arrived) is very different to fly all the way from France to Tangier. Leaving aside the problem of crossing Spanish air space, could the flight be made by the available German transport aircraft models? There are 1,100 km from Bordeaux to Tangier, or about 930 km from Bayonne to Tangier, as the crow flies.
2) I don't understand what you are trying to say with "They also don't need to transport the whole railway gun equipment there, if they just want to put the guns into gun emplacements."
3) IIRC, no one has said in this thread that Gibraltar was not important, only that it was not necessary to keep the British forces in Egypt supplied. And it wasn't.

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: German Tangier WWII

#68

Post by sitalkes » 10 May 2017, 05:01

But the Germans already had forces in Spain during the Spanish civil war, they wouldn't need to fly them from Bordeaux. They transported the whole nationalist army in Ju 52's to Spain from North Africa so I'm sure they could transport a German army in the opposite direction. I mentioned the railway carriages because that's what other people seemed to be saying it was necessary to move them as well as the guns, but you don't need them if you are transporting the ships by sea to put them into emplacements.

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

Re: German Tangier WWII

#69

Post by Ironmachine » 10 May 2017, 08:12

sitalkes wrote:But the Germans already had forces in Spain during the Spanish civil war, they wouldn't need to fly them from Bordeaux.
Yes, but as you say that was during the SCW. This thread is about Germany sending forces to "Tangier in 1940 after the fall of France" and by then there were no German troops in Spain.
sitalkes wrote:They transported the whole nationalist army in Ju 52's to Spain from North Africa so I'm sure they could transport a German army in the opposite direction.
No, they did not transport the whole nationalist (sic) army in Ju 52's to Spain from North Africa. They only transported forces of the Ejército de África, which was mainly a light infantry force with no heavy artillery at all, and even then a significant part of that army crossed the Strait by sea.
Of course, the Germans could carry forces from Spain to North Africa by air in the scenario proposed in this thread, but that would imply Spanish cooperation or a German invasion of Spain, and neither solution is going to be easy for the Germans.
sitalkes wrote: I mentioned the railway carriages because that's what other people seemed to be saying it was necessary to move them as well as the guns, but you don't need them if you are transporting the ships [sic] by sea to put them into emplacements.
Well, building the emplacements is not going to be easy, either. But the real problem is moving the ships through the British-dominated seas.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”