Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Gibraltar

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Gibraltar Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gibraltar - 10/21/2009 6:16:34 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 31
RE: Gibraltar - 10/21/2009 7:40:05 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
I agree with warspite.
It is so easy to pick holes in a complex game and to suggest solutions that are lead to more complexity.
I think to current rules regarding Gibralta are simply, easy to apply and about right.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 32
RE: Gibraltar - 10/21/2009 11:26:35 AM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

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 don´t 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.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 33
RE: Gibraltar - 10/21/2009 10:32:42 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki 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 don´t 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.


(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 34
RE: Gibraltar - 10/21/2009 11:04:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iñaki 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 don´t 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.



I believe the game captures the essence of the situation in WW II though: if Germany had focused all its effort on one objective, it could probably have achieved it during WW II. I am thinking of Moscow and Leningrad, as well as Gibraltar. Similarly, for Japan against Chinese cities. But the reality was that none of the major powers was really content to bear down as hard as they could to achieve just one objective - because it would have meant abandoning others. Getting back to my first sentence - WIF models this aspect of the war especially well.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 35
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 12:53:42 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I don't think the Germans would have even needed to take the actual Rock anyway. Just bring in a big wing of Stukas and Me-109s and enough artillery to close the runway at Gibraltar; put that all in the general vicinity and accept the inevitable surrender later on.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 36
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 1:20:41 AM   
Ullern


Posts: 1837
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

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.



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 37
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 7:23:07 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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.



Warspite1

Ullern - apologies as I`m not quite sure what point you are making re the British fleet based at Gib, so please bear with me if I have the wrong end of the stick.

The British "Fleet" was known as Force H; a troubleshooting force based at Gibraltar after the fall of France. The French fleet was tasked with guarding the Western Med before her fall in June 1940. When she surrendered, the British had to take over this responsibility (while maintaining their main Mediterranean Fleet at Alexandria). Force H was small as the Royal Navy was stretched to breaking point at that time in the war; its most famous line-up being the carrier Ark Royal, the battlecruiser Renown and the cruiser Sheffield. The only reason this force "did not venture far" from Gib was because of its role, which was to switch between the Western Med and the Atlantic as needs dictated - nothing to do with mines, nor Italian submarines which were hugely ineffective in restricting the activities of the fleet. Force H was absolutely crucial in ensuring the survival of Malta . It was also instrumental (thanks to Ark Royal`s Swordfish) in the destruction of the Bismarck.

Re blocking the straits without owning Gibraltar, I agree, if for example the Germans invaded Spain or had Spain as an ally and they had a large air presence on the south coast, then this could - in sufficient numbers - effectively block the strait. However, given its location, there is no doubt that this blocking task is easier if a side owns the port and the airfield on the rock and as I said above, I believe that owning the hex should reflect that in a strategic level game.

Finally, and to re-iterate my point in the earlier post, I just don`t think this should be a huge issue because in WWII you would not have a situation where the Italians tried to force the Strait, get their fleet out into the Atlantic - and then risk the surviving ships (if any) being stuck in France, as they could not return home. They would have to return to France where they would be sittting ducks for the RAF (back to the reasons for Cerberus again!), while the Mediterranean Fleet would roam free in the Med (Churchill`s Mare Nostrum ). It just would not happen and would be really gamey if WIF allowed it to. If the Germans owned Gib, then there would be no need for the RN to force the Straits (they would reinforce the Med fleet via the Cape route) but the fact that Gib has gone would mean them needing to husband more forces at home and in Freetown or Simonstown to protect trade routes that previously Force H had assisted with.





< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/22/2009 7:40:05 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Ullern)
Post #: 38
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 8:40:33 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
Nationalistic feelings apart :) I still think the info Froonp supplies overestimates the french-spanish power asigned to the siege.

- The spanish version of the Wikipedia speaks of about 33.000 soldiers instead. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitio_de_Gibraltar_de_1779

- The very English version Froonp directs us to, says 70.000 but later explains that only 40.000 were land soldiers, the rest belonged to the Navy and would not set a foot in the Rock.
quote:

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


- To be true, the number of soldiers that could have been is not important, once we are speaking of 20 or 30.000 onward, since there was no space to deploy them in the battlefied.

- The Rock had been proved to be untakeable by assault, that's why they tried to take it by siege. The siege was almost succesful twice, but the English managed to supply the garrison in the last minute, when hunger and illness were rampant.

- If there is a siege and not an assault it's not important the number of sieging soldiers as far as there are enough to serve the cannons and sharp shoot, except for a possible sortie (in fact, there was one).

- The 7.000 soldiers were in a Natural Fortress, improved by artificial means. In many of the "modern fortresses" of that age there was no way any number of besieging forces could take some of the fortresses along more than one year if they were garrisoned and had supplies. Although the "Trace Italienne" was more in fashion one or two centuries before...: http://books.google.es/books?id=AecOctan1D0C&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=%22trace+italienne%22&source=bl&ots=p9yfW8lMen&sig=qL3YGAI-fMwbe-71ZBpGHx2-fPY&hl=es&ei=CgjgSv6bMo3-4Aa3xbgg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15&ved=0CEIQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=%22trace%20italienne%22&f=false

- The means to take a fortress by assault are not the same in a different historic era. For example, one castle could be impossible to take by assault for a group of native americans of that age, but could be destroyed nowadays with (let's say) harpoon or other missiles with or without nukes. The german cannons of the II WW were slightly more powerful than the poor XVIII artillery, and could make it simply impossible to survive on the surface of the rock, which was unattainable by the spanish in the Great Siege.
...

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 10/22/2009 8:51:37 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 39
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 2:30:25 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline
The forces assembled by the Germans for Operation Felix, to be started by January 10 1941, are listed here
http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/militaris/batallas/felix.htm

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 40
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 2:31:34 PM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
The link is not working correctly.

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 41
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 3:24:05 PM   
csharpmao

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline
The link has just a 'l' missing :
http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/militaris/batallas/felix.html

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 42
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 4:55:42 PM   
ItBurns

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 1/3/2009
Status: offline
I think the taking of Gibraltar could be seen as roughly analogous to the taking of a much stronger Iwo Jima.  The US had utter control of the sea and air and pulverized the island for weeks before the invasion and still lost heavily when they landed.  Its tough to picture the Italians and Germans having that much control of the sea or the air on a purely amphibious invasion so the idea that they could take Gib through that route is ridiculous.

In the case of a land side invasion the results would likely match the US's success.  The German air domination would have kept the British fleet at bay and they could have kept throwing troops at the rock using massed artillery and bombs until they were able to raise their flag on the top.

(in reply to csharpmao)
Post #: 43
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 5:55:17 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
But at Iwo Jima, the USA wanted to use the air-strip as it was one of the few flat spaces within range of Japan, so they could hardly leave Japanese forces on adjacent high-ground. At Gibraltar, if the Germans controlled much of the nearby Spanish territory and Cadiz harbor, they would have little use for also controlling the few square miles of Gibraltar via a very costly assault. I like the analogy though and agree that an amphibious assault on Gibraltar just wasn't a very real possibility unless the CW was simultaneously being severely pressed on land in the UK itself, and only then.

I just read a book on Trafalgar, and it really makes Cadiz out to be a poor harbor. Was that only true in the days of sail? iirc, it is a major port in WiF?

(in reply to ItBurns)
Post #: 44
RE: Gibraltar - 10/22/2009 8:23:54 PM   
Ullern


Posts: 1837
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

warspite1: You got the info I didn't have. Good post.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 45
RE: Gibraltar - 10/23/2009 5:12:09 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Ullern)
Post #: 46
RE: Gibraltar - 10/23/2009 6:39:53 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
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.

Warspite1

Brian Brian, Ullern`s query I was answering was specifically to do with Force H and Gibraltar. When I said the Italian subs were ineffective against Force H, that was because...... they were. Yes, Italian subs in the wider Med had their successes, and this included a number of RN light cruisers, but that`s nothing to do with their efforts to stop Force H. German subs were a different kettle of fish and of course it was a U-boat that sank the Ark Royal. The reason the U-boats came into the Mediterranean was (surprise suprise) to assist the Italians who were struggling to cope. Their effectiveness is why I suggested in my earlier post that had the Germans captured the rock, a few U-boats supported by E-boats and aircraft would deny the Straits to the enemy (another argument in support of ADG`s rule).

When you say it was not capital ships at Gibraltar that kept the Italians in the Med, I don`t think anyone, least of all me, was suggesting that (see below). Keeping watch on the Italian Fleet in the Western Med was a role performed by the French who had a coastline to protect as well as three colonies in North Africa. For the British, when they took over from the French, they had to keep the supply route to Malta open as well as help defend the Rock from attack, and support convoys in the Atlantic.

The purpose of my original post was to give my 2 cents as to the question - Is the WIF treatment of who holds Gib (and the fact that the Straits are blocked to the other side) a sensible one or too simple? In support of my argument that for a Strategic level game, ADG`s rule is a sensible compromise , I made the point that the Italians themselves would have no wish, reason, desire to force the Straits. In the event that they did however, I think to say that the presence of Ark Royal would not be a reason for not doing so, is completely wrong. How many times did the Italians have the upper hand in naval battles, only to turn tail because of the presence of a carrier? Spartivento (Ark Royal), Matapan (Formidable) to name just two high profile examples.

On the wider Mediterranean point, Warspite was very badly damaged by an attack by three Me-109`s in the fighter-bomber role off Crete.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/23/2009 7:22:53 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 47
RE: Gibraltar - 10/23/2009 9:02:38 AM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
Long ago at conventions it was discussed that Gibraltar was the most important hex in the entire game. I suppose this is still true if you had to pick just 1 hex. It would still get my vote. Its the gateway to the Med. and the Atlantic. Its one of the few places that deserves a fortress hex-side or 2 as the CW. It depends on the loving care a CW player can afford.

Game wise, If Gibraltar is taken it doesn't end there. Its just another beginning.




_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 48
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Gibraltar Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.500