quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

[

I would like to cite the only real attempt ever made at conquering Gibraltar from the Brits, which was made between 1779 and 1783 by Spain and France. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar) has it that it pitted tens of thousands Spanish and French troops against the defending garrison of 5,000-7,000 mens (the book even cites an assaut with 100,000 troops), and that 4 years of siege and assault never allowed to take it. The Osprey book about this battle (Campaign #172 - Gibraltar 1779-1783 - The Great Siege) even show an attack by floating artillery batteries which was repelled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I would like to cite the only real attempt ever made at conquering Gibraltar from the Brits, which was made between 1779 and 1783 by Spain and France. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar) has it that it pitted tens of thousands Spanish and French troops against the defending garrison of 5,000-7,000 mens (the book even cites an assaut with 100,000 troops), and that 4 years of siege and assault never allowed to take it. The Osprey book about this battle (Campaign #172 - Gibraltar 1779-1783 - The Great Siege) even show an attack by floating artillery batteries which was repelled.

I donīt know where do you get the 100.000 figure, the Franco-Spanish army was never over 35.000. If you have the Osprey book you can check that, and that there was never an assault, just a bombardement from land and floating batteries. It was hoped that the fire of floating batteries would be enough to cover a disembark of troops from the fleet, but that never happened. To sum up, Gibraltar was besieged and bombarded , but an assault was never tried, so in fact the number of troops is rather irrelevant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iņaki Harrizabalagatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
I would like to cite the only real attempt ever made at conquering Gibraltar from the Brits, which was made between 1779 and 1783 by Spain and France. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar) has it that it pitted tens of thousands Spanish and French troops against the defending garrison of 5,000-7,000 mens (the book even cites an assaut with 100,000 troops), and that 4 years of siege and assault never allowed to take it. The Osprey book about this battle (Campaign #172 - Gibraltar 1779-1783 - The Great Siege) even show an attack by floating artillery batteries which was repelled.

I donīt know where do you get the 100.000 figure, the Franco-Spanish army was never over 35.000. If you have the Osprey book you can check that, and that there was never an assault, just a bombardement from land and floating batteries. It was hoped that the fire of floating batteries would be enough to cover a disembark of troops from the fleet, but that never happened. To sum up, Gibraltar was besieged and bombarded , but an assault was never tried, so in fact the number of troops is rather irrelevant.

It seems that I have exagerately rounded the figure, they were 70,000 not 100,000 thanks for correcting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Augustus_Eliott,_1st_Baron_Heathfield show that, as well as the book I believe), but the facts show that even the greatest assault that Spain & France were capable of at this time failed utterly against less than 7,000 British soldiers.

The numbers shown on the Wikipedia site for the siege are nearly insulting for the French and Spanish armies. How would 70,000 mens, 650 guns, and 50 ships failed to take a place defended by 7,000 British soldiers with 100 guns ??? A 10 to 1 odd battle and 4 years of time, and you fail ??? In WiF FE this is about a 2 to 1 or a 3 to 1 battle in sheer numbers, and you win 50-70% of the time at the first try, and you can try at least 2-3 times in 4 months.

What happened in the late 18th century makes me doubt that the Germans in the 40s would have taken the rock so easily after having conquered Spain. For me it looks impossible. The odds that you gain in WiF FE against Gibraltar are far from "impossible". That's my point, and that's why I say it is too easy. It should be half harder. I have memories that it was harder in WiF5, it was considered impossible, but now it's not a gamble, it is a real possibility that you will have a hard time to miss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would agree with Orm on this point. This is a strategic level game, and without adding a load of additional, complex rules for each hex(es): Gibraltar, English Channel etc, what ADG have done is a sensible compromise.

Sure, a determined attempt at forcing the straits could work (although is just as likely to end in disaster) but then look at the detail:

English Channel - The only time the Kriegsmarine got surface units (cruiser and bigger) through the Channel was Cerberus in Feb 42. This caught the British napping because the Germans did not do what the British expected i.e. they timed their sailing to reach the narrowest point in daylight. This one element of the plan caused a ripple effect in British reconnaissance plans such that the Germans were not detected until they had got halfway up the Channel. I think it fair to say the British would not have fallen for that twice. However, the main point, is the operation was a desperate attempt by the Germans to get their three ships home without running the risk of meeting RN capital ships in the Atlantic/North Sea. It was a strategic retreat. Although the British were seen to be humiliated by the Germans daring plan, both battlecruisers were mined during the journey back (Scharnhorst twice). This goes to show that while breaking through the Channel was possible, it was never going to be adopted as an offensive measure. Nor was it highly likely to have suceeded more than once.

Gibraltar - I think the above proves that it is always possible in war, to wrong foot an enemy. But why would either Axis or Allies (if Gibraltar had fallen) try and breakthrough the Straits? If in British hands, the only likely scenario was for the Italian or French Fleet (assuming the Germans got their hands on it) trying to get into the Atlantic to commerce raid. But a) the risk of damage getting through was very great and b) if they succeeded, then what? What are the chances of getting back, now the British are alerted.....?

If the Axis held the Rock and guarded the Strait with E-boats, a few subs and aircraft then this would be a huge deterrent. But more to the point, why would the Allies try and breakthrough? A one-off attempt to reinforce the Med Fleet in Alexandria perhaps? Why risk it? With Gibraltar (and by definition) Malta gone, the last thing the RN need is a banzai charge through the Straits of Gibraltar, that if a failure would result in heavy loss of men and ships.

IMO I think ADG treatment is sensible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ullern

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would agree with Orm on this point. This is a strategic level game, and without adding a load of additional, complex rules for each hex(es): Gibraltar, English Channel etc, what ADG have done is a sensible compromise.

Sure, a determined attempt at forcing the straits could work (although is just as likely to end in disaster) but then look at the detail:

English Channel - The only time the Kriegsmarine got surface units (cruiser and bigger) through the Channel was Cerberus in Feb 42. This caught the British napping because the Germans did not do what the British expected i.e. they timed their sailing to reach the narrowest point in daylight. This one element of the plan caused a ripple effect in British reconnaissance plans such that the Germans were not detected until they had got halfway up the Channel. I think it fair to say the British would not have fallen for that twice. However, the main point, is the operation was a desperate attempt by the Germans to get their three ships home without running the risk of meeting RN capital ships in the Atlantic/North Sea. It was a strategic retreat. Although the British were seen to be humiliated by the Germans daring plan, both battlecruisers were mined during the journey back (Scharnhorst twice). This goes to show that while breaking through the Channel was possible, it was never going to be adopted as an offensive measure. Nor was it highly likely to have suceeded more than once.

Gibraltar - I think the above proves that it is always possible in war, to wrong foot an enemy. But why would either Axis or Allies (if Gibraltar had fallen) try and breakthrough the Straits? If in British hands, the only likely scenario was for the Italian or French Fleet (assuming the Germans got their hands on it) trying to get into the Atlantic to commerce raid. But a) the risk of damage getting through was very great and b) if they succeeded, then what? What are the chances of getting back, now the British are alerted.....?

If the Axis held the Rock and guarded the Strait with E-boats, a few subs and aircraft then this would be a huge deterrent. But more to the point, why would the Allies try and breakthrough? A one-off attempt to reinforce the Med Fleet in Alexandria perhaps? Why risk it? With Gibraltar (and by definition) Malta gone, the last thing the RN need is a banzai charge through the Straits of Gibraltar, that if a failure would result in heavy loss of men and ships.

IMO I think ADG treatment is sensible.

I agree completely about the need for simple rules.

But I think that the Channel was much easier to close than the Rock, because it's not just about artillery or mines, but about aircraft and also about ample time to respond. The way I see it the single example about the Germans darting the channel was primarily because the surveillance was to lax, the way I read you.

Mines was used all over the world to block passage, but I think that Gibraltar would be one of the few places mines didn't really have much impact, because anchored mines is limited to places with depth less than X feet, and drifting mines would be completely unpredictable in such heavy torrents and therefore block the straight also for own use.

If I am not mistaken CW did have quite a strong fleet that never ventured far from the Rock throughout the war just because of this. And this fleet was essential.

I didn't really check any of this now. It's just from memory so please check someone.
(The Wikipedia article on the subject is unfortunately not precise about what fleet was stationed where.)

Finally I would note that I was arguing with the presumption that you could use artillery and air craft from Gibraltar only. If you can station aircraft and artillery also on Spanish areas on both sides of the straight, my arguments would be different.

I agree with those that said that you could block the straight with access to Spanish territory on both sides without controlling the Rock.

I also think it's fair that in a strategic game the rule is as simple as to give control to a single hex. But you can't make the hex invincible at the same time if you have this rule, even if it was in real life. Since anyone would rate blocking the straight more important than controlling the hex for winning the game, the opponent must have a chance to block the straight that's proportional to his chance to block the straight, and whatever the chance to take hex in real is, is of less importance.

But if the Rock really was invincible it would be more of a both sides blocked issue at once the Germans were in place. So a rule tweak, but still keeping the rule very simple would be to say that's the straight is blocked to both sides after Gibraltar is lost the first time.

quote:

On land an army of 40,000 which consisted of nearly a third of the entire Spanish metropolitan army

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The Italian subs weren't very effective against the major capital ships but they did get several British light cruisers. And the German subs took out two carriers in the West Med that could be considered Force H losses perhaps. But I don't think capital ships stationed at Gibraltar kept the Italians in the Med. I think their spies ( including a squad of Frogmen based inside a Spanish freighter that just weren't as lucky as the ones who struck in Alexandria) probably kept them well informed of the Royal Navy heavy assets in the port. There just wasn't any compelling reason (or enough fuel perhaps) to try and move ships in to the Atlantic.

While reading through the British capital ship losses just now I learned that the Fiji was actually sunk by an Me-109, of all planes, with a single lucky 500 pound bomb hit. I did not know that. Also looking at the total list of British cruiser losses makes me appreciate the new optional to double the combat results on cruisers (when you add the light cruisers) seem like a wise one.