Gibraltar

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio
First, I will say I have not been to Giraltar myself, although I have been very close this very summer. But let me tell you that Gibraltar is a tiny area of under 7 square km, which means les that 3 square miles, they have a (very recent) short airport lane which has to cross the road itself and traffic is paralized when used.



Although it seems it has massive excavations (not so massive then) , I cannot imagine a way they could have resisted a serious attack from the spanish army in what is not more than a beach head, let alone be supported by luftwaffe, howitzers and commandos, no matter how much sea or (sea-based)aerial ground support they were given.

Nice picture, where does it come from ?

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.

WW2 weapons may be far more efficient than 18th Century guns and ships, but Stukas are not better than bronze guns for destroying limestone rock and affecting the troops that are dug-in in the tunnels and the honeycombed caves inside the mountain.


My opinion is that Gibraltar would not have been the piece of cake it is to take in WiF FE. Gibraltar is too easy to take as Germany.

Using the 2d10 CRT :
- The odd ratio you will achieve will be somewhere between +1 and +2, counting the OSB, DSB, fortifications, OC, etc... Rarely you will be below,
or above.
- You will flip the whole garrison one moment or another (whith hordes of 5 strength Stukas), gaining +5.
- You will paradrop 1-2 units on the rock, gaining +1 or +2
- You will use a HQ that will give you a HQ support of about +3.

So, you will end up making an assault with odds of +9 to +12.
The Rock is taken on a result of 20, so even with the worst odds (+9), you take it with a roll (2d10) of 11+, which means 55% of success. With odds of +12, you take it on a 8+, which means 79% of success.
If you manage to put the Brits oos, which is highly probable too, you'll rocket to odd ratios that give you the rock on a silver plate.

You can attack a minimum of once per turn, sometimes more by reorganizing the disrupted attackers with an HQ or an OC, so tell me what are the odds
for a 55-79% of success assault to fail 3+ times in a row ? I've even seen a German player who failed the first attack with losses and disrupted status
that did not hesitate to kill the HQ supporting HQ just to allow for another HQ to take his place and allow a second assault in the next impulse.

[Ullern]

I've seen Gibraltar hold out for a long time many times. So I don't really consider it "too easy." In my experience after Germany reaches the "Gibraltar area" it takes from 3 turns at best, till 9 turns at worst to take Gibraltar usually.

The very worst example was my own, when in one campaign I played Germany and had to give up Gibraltar completely after going through Spain and two failed attempts, because I've lost that many units the USSR would be able to break the pact soon, so I really needed to beat him too it. (Obviously I lost that game.)

Why does it take time?
The "worst" cases comes from a well planned defense of the areas just north of Gibraltar, so that Germany looses a lot just to reach Gibraltar in the first place. Then a CW fighter force in Er Rif and Morocco at parity with the Germans does make it difficult to flip both units at Gibraltar. Meaning it takes time.

.. and yes, I said "both units," because the third unit, the div, might just weaken the defense since a +1 for a possible flip is not worth the risk considering the div probably decreases the odds by -0.4 ish.

While the few CW bombers may be better spent on trying to flip German HQs or the stack just north of Gibraltar, than in support.

To get better than +9 you need to use a PARA, but if that attack fails the PARA is dead, and five turns till next try.

[michaelbaldur]

Gibraltar is a good place to use a offensive chit ..... you can double the attcking, invading and paradropping units .... and you can add double the shore bombardment

[brian brian]

you would probably need a whole nother game just to model the possibilities of a serious attack on Gibraltar. the 2d10 is a good development for taking the hex as Froonp points out. the whole thing works OK for me, but it reminds me of Bismarck's quotes about making laws and sausages; the way it gets done in the game isn't pretty. And, it's not going to change; Harry won't write special rules for just one hex. I don't think the British could stuff 7 divisions into the place, and definitely couldn't base three whole air-wings there. but then there is not a realistic chance that an Axis force invading by sea could have the Royal Navy fail to intercept them over the entire approach route and just start unloading on the beaches without a single scratch either. and aside from that, the coastal defense batteries and light coastal units just aren't part of this strategic game.

I do think though that if the Axis had either conquered or somehow 'aligned' Spain (Franco drove a hard bargain that Hitler turned down; over the years this has been a part of the game at times, but even with a very high price many Axis players would pay it and the resulting game wasn't as interesting to play), it wouldn't have been too hard for them to take Gibraltar. The Luftwaffe (and with U-boats still mostly untamed at the likely point in the war such a battle could have happened) would have shut down access to the place quite thoroughly, probably far better than at Malta and keeping Malta Allied-controlled was a close-run thing. The RAF would have contested this for a while from North Africa if those bases were even available to them, but it wouldn't have been able to maintain this overseas campaign as easily as Germany could the same campaign supplied by rail and they would have withdrawn to focus once again on defense of England, with thoughts of a new Armada dominating the strategic thinking; the British carriers certainly wouldn't have been able to deal with the Luftwaffe close in-shore. Also in the 20th Century western commanders were more humane and a siege could not have been drawn out to the bitter end possibilities nearly as much. Corregidor would be a good analogy I think.

I would also say that I think a campaign in Spain would have been quite a struggle for the Axis, much moreso than France. When you are playing Days of Decision, if anyone is silly enough to declare war on Spain during the Civil War, they are rewarded by fighting the combined units from both the Nationalists and the Republicans. This has always made me think the Nationalist units you get during regular WiF seem a little lacking. They could well represent the Spanish armed forces if Spain had voluntarily entered the war, but if it were invaded I feel there should be more of them. Spain probably had the highest % of combat veterans in their population of any country in Europe on September 1st, 1939. At the least, the Partisan number and entries on the Partisan table should be the same as Yugoslavia, if not even higher. Maybe the population was worn out from the Civil War and I'm wrong on this thinking, I don't know.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: ullern

I've seen Gibraltar hold out for a long time many times. So I don't really consider it "too easy." In my experience after Germany reaches the "Gibraltar area" it takes from 3 turns at best, till 9 turns at worst to take Gibraltar usually.

The very worst example was my own, when in one campaign I played Germany and had to give up Gibraltar completely after going through Spain and two failed attempts, because I've lost that many units the USSR would be able to break the pact soon, so I really needed to beat him too it. (Obviously I lost that game.)

Why does it take time?
The "worst" cases comes from a well planned defense of the areas just north of Gibraltar, so that Germany looses a lot just to reach Gibraltar in the first place. Then a CW fighter force in Er Rif and Morocco at parity with the Germans does make it difficult to flip both units at Gibraltar. Meaning it takes time.

.. and yes, I said "both units," because the third unit, the div, might just weaken the defense since a +1 for a possible flip is not worth the risk considering the div probably decreases the odds by -0.4 ish.

While the few CW bombers may be better spent on trying to flip German HQs or the stack just north of Gibraltar, than in support.

To get better than +9 you need to use a PARA, but if that attack fails the PARA is dead, and five turns till next try.

It would be interesting to analyze if a Div is a liability more times then the attacker would get a 1/2 result.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I would also say that I think a campaign in Spain would have been quite a struggle for the Axis, much moreso than France. When you are playing Days of Decision, if anyone is silly enough to declare war on Spain during the Civil War, they are rewarded by fighting the combined units from both the Nationalists and the Republicans. This has always made me think the Nationalist units you get during regular WiF seem a little lacking. They could well represent the Spanish armed forces if Spain had voluntarily entered the war, but if it were invaded I feel there should be more of them. Spain probably had the highest % of combat veterans in their population of any country in Europe on September 1st, 1939. At the least, the Partisan number and entries on the Partisan table should be the same as Yugoslavia, if not even higher. Maybe the population was worn out from the Civil War and I'm wrong on this thinking, I don't know.

I agree with you, I think that the germans if they had invaded Spain it would have been much tougher than you can see in WiF. If you read what happened when another huge army did occupy Spain in the 19th century, i.e. the Napoleonic Grand Armee, you can see that it can get bad, at least after a certain time of occupation. The spanish army in itself would not be necessarily the greatest threat, but the austrian caporal could have face a common merging of the Nationalist and defeated republicans becoming friends in face of a common threat. And very possible that Salazar's Portugal would have help Spain too, recalling his troops in the colonies to face a very probable invasion of Portugal at this point. And being equipped with lend lease british and even american weapons.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

...



...


Nice picture, where does it come from ?

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.

WW2 weapons may be far more efficient than 18th Century guns and ships, but Stukas are not better than bronze guns for destroying limestone rock and affecting the troops that are dug-in in the tunnels and the honeycombed caves inside the mountain.


My opinion is that Gibraltar would not have been the piece of cake it is to take in WiF FE. Gibraltar is too easy to take as Germany.

Using the 2d10 CRT :
- The odd ratio you will achieve will be somewhere between +1 and +2, counting the OSB, DSB, fortifications, OC, etc... Rarely you will be below,
or above.
- You will flip the whole garrison one moment or another (whith hordes of 5 strength Stukas), gaining +5.
- You will paradrop 1-2 units on the rock, gaining +1 or +2
- You will use a HQ that will give you a HQ support of about +3.

So, you will end up making an assault with odds of +9 to +12.
The Rock is taken on a result of 20, so even with the worst odds (+9), you take it with a roll (2d10) of 11+, which means 55% of success. With odds of +12, you take it on a 8+, which means 79% of success.
If you manage to put the Brits oos, which is highly probable too, you'll rocket to odd ratios that give you the rock on a silver plate.

You can attack a minimum of once per turn, sometimes more by reorganizing the disrupted attackers with an HQ or an OC, so tell me what are the odds
for a 55-79% of success assault to fail 3+ times in a row ? I've even seen a German player who failed the first attack with losses and disrupted status
that did not hesitate to kill the HQ supporting HQ just to allow for another HQ to take his place and allow a second assault in the next impulse.

It comes from Wikipedia, and they explain in the spanish page on Gibraltar, that it is a digital image from NASA.

I think it is too easy in WIF, as for the balance of the game. If the german player wants, he can protect Morocco and use the same troops to attack Gibraltar from both sides. Using a chit, in several consecutive attacks (HQ nearby to restore) or even in one attack if the british (as usual) only leaves one unit inside, or there are several units but there is a "retreat" result.

If the german player selects a good moment, he can even unsupply the units and bomb them with a couple of stukas.

As for in the reality, it's true that howitzers cannot harm those deep under the stone, but can isolate them inside like no way the old times artillery could. It is true that the Rock showed untakeable before but with the means of those times.

Simply, the garrison would become cavemen until the surrender because of lack of water and food. Or they could dynamite the openings, ...

The natural or artificial lobstacles that in times were unsurpassable, like many castles in the middle ages, were of no help with the invention of the cannon. The same happens with Gibraltar, their only defense (like it was in the past) would have been at WWII the British Fleet, but I don't think it would have been enough provided that to the Spanish territorial advantage was added the luftwaffe support, not to speak if the Italian Mediterranean fleet helped...

[micheljq]

In terms of WiF, the british can risk it's fleet to help Gibraltar, provide supply, defensive shore bombardment or help with aircrafts from CV.

Facing land based naval bombers from Axis based in Spain is quite a threat. The Axis can easily have like 5 naval bombers there in 1940. Speaking of fighter support for the NAV in the sea areas Germany have some FTR3 who can go in the 2 box, later in 1941-42, some can go in the 3 box. The british has quite a lot of CV in the construction pools and those can go in the 3 box of Cape St-Vincent if coming from Britain, if I am correct.

Britain will probably lose some aircraft carriers or battleships, but I think Gibraltar is worth taking some risks for the Royal Navy, if it can save Gibraltar, or even delay Gibraltar's fall.

If nothing can save Gibraltar, I suggest that the Commonwealth's player really garrison Egypt because Suez is the last entry in Mediterranean he has. Later Commonwealth with USA can return in Spain or Portugal and advance on Gibraltar trying to retake it, but good luck, Axis will probably have the time to garrison it with white print mountains units, and even build a fort. Which remind me that maybe it should not be allowed to build a fort there.

I faced this situation in a game as british player. I did choose not to risk my fleet and lost Gibraltar by ND40. I do regret my decision, faced with that situation again I would build more carriers and send them to support Gibraltar. I would be willing to lose 2-3 even 4 carriers.

[cantona2]

I am from Gibraltar, born and bred!

Its actually six square miles in size. The attack of the floating batteries furing the Great Siege (1179-83) was repulsed by the use of 'hot potatoes' by the garrison. Basically red hot shot. I have been in the tunnels many times and I have always wondered that Operation Felix would have had a hard time to gain an initial bridgehead. The tunnels had excellent fields of fire on the airfield and the proposed landing beach, Eastern Beach. Naval and aerial superiority would have been a necessary prerequisite to any invasion. Likewise, complete Spanish cooperation, which was not forthcoming in 1940, in order to site heavy artillery batteries in the Spanish hinterland across the Bay of Gibraltar around Algeciras.

If anyone need extra info droip me a PM.

[NBC_man]

Another option for fire support is the German railroad guns. There is the Dora 800mm of which there is counter for, and the 280mm (Anzio Annie) rail artillery. However I do not think there is a counter for the 280mm railroad artillery. Dora came on line late 40 or sometime in 41, and the 280 was ready for the invasion of France.

[Joseignacio]

Also, the wide of the railway in Spain (and Portugal) was (is) different from the French since the XIX century, it seems that to pevent invasions (there are debates about the real reasons, some say because of technical reasons.

[Nikolai II]

I think the width of a railway is called Gauge, but let me google for it

Ok, it seems as if Portugal and Spain both got their own gauges initally, then later have adapted their nearly similar gauges to one common standard.

As for the why - there is a common excuse that Spain and Russia would have gotten wider gauges just to make problems for invasions. (Can't prevent invasions with differing gauges, but can make resupply trickier)
However, one greater use for the wider gauge is that you can put heavier trains on it, with more powerful locomotives that can go further between refills of water and coal.
Germany, f.ex., had to have special units changing the gauge of the russian rails, and then build a watering station approximately halfway between each soviet station, just to be able to use their own trains there.

..

Aaand back on topic - yes, against Gibraltar one would probably have needed either super-heavy artillery, or a proper siege. But even with the supreme defensive positions, there doesn't seem to be a lot of defensive depth, so if a beachhead is formed it would seem to be hard for the defenders to dislodge it?

[Incy]

I don't know how difficult a siege of gibraltar would be, but with forces on spansh mainland I think Gibraltar could easily be left largely irrelevant?

The mountain could hold 10K troops, but there would be no usable airfield or port. Forces on the mainland could set up heavy guns, torpedo batteries and airpower west of gibraltar (in Tarifa) that could block the straits quite effectively.

So without taking gibraltar I think strait access could be blocked, and the straits opened to own shipping (as long as a little care would be taken).
The only drawbacks would be that such a position would be that strait-blocking forces would be more vulnerable to overland attack and air attacks, and that the port would be unusable for either side.

For realism:
-place a fort between mainland and Gibraltar
-move the Gibraltar port (and the sea boundary) to the hex NW of Gibraltar
-let the moved port control passage rights (instead of Gibraltar)
-add a special rule that allows holder of Gibraltar to use the port (as a port and for strait control, but not for stacking troops) if Spain is neutral.
-The owner of Gibraltar can refuse use of the port.

Not suggesting to do this, but it would better model reality.

[JasonF]

My opinions. I don't consider Gibraltar too easy to take. First the Germans have to fight through Spain whilst maintaining a garrison vs Russia. In one of our previous games the garrison came perilously close to being broken and the German barely had enough forces to get to Gibraltar.
Secondly, if the German player really wants a hex he can always send in 3 stukas to ground strike, a paratroop or two and put his best HQ in the attack to get his best odds. If this results in a better than even chance of success then fine, what's the problem? Should Gibraltar be invincible? I think not. Given that the CW can park huge amounts of shore bombardment off Gibraltar and put a transport under the carriers to help with supply, not to mention keeping supply open from the med as well I don't consider Gibraltar easy at all. Sure, Germany can get out into the sea area with NAVs and fighters but this all takes time and effort, and if the brits put fighters in gibraltar with an hq and eng then that's up to FIVE fighters they can send out to cover the carriers with. If there was a way in which the CW could make Gibraltar effectively invulnerable then the game would be somewhat boring.

If the germans set up for spain then russia should fly to the polish border and really press germany hard - try it!

My experience is that if the Germans go for Spain and Gibraltar and the russians stuff the bordergarrison then germany is forced into a defensive game. And I don't know many allied players who are displeased with that. There is always an answer to every move the germans make which will make taking gibraltar harder but ultimately if they want it they can get it IF they commit enough resources to it, and I think that's right.

To complete the picture of our game - the CW fought a strong defensive battle all the way to Gibraltar at which point the attack on the rock was successful. However, the Germans were then unable to mount a strong attack on Russia due to the strain on their resources and the high russian garrison value. Spain was not conquered because the CW had heavily defended the NW mountain area including the factory. The CW slowly built up its forces there, being unable to break out initially. Eventually the US arrived and drove south to Gibraltar from that NW mountain area whilst the CW drove east through spain to the coast. Pretty soon the US and CW had overwhelming forces in the pyrenees and once the elastic broke paris was taken the turn after the initial attacks on th axis from spain had been made. In the meantime russia had taken the romanian oilfields and the game was called before '45.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: JasonF

My experience is that if the Germans go for Spain and Gibraltar and the russians stuff the bordergarrison then germany is forced into a defensive game. And I don't know many allied players who are displeased with that. There is always an answer to every move the germans make which will make taking gibraltar harder but ultimately if they want it they can get it IF they commit enough resources to it, and I think that's right.

Yes I agree, in the game I played the germans were forced into a defensive game on the east front, while taking Gibraltar.

To complete the picture of our game - the CW fought a strong defensive battle all the way to Gibraltar at which point the attack on the rock was successful. However, the Germans were then unable to mount a strong attack on Russia due to the strain on their resources and the high russian garrison value. Spain was not conquered because the CW had heavily defended the NW mountain area including the factory. The CW slowly built up its forces there, being unable to break out initially. Eventually the US arrived and drove south to Gibraltar from that NW mountain area whilst the CW drove east through spain to the coast. Pretty soon the US and CW had overwhelming forces in the pyrenees and once the elastic broke paris was taken the turn after the initial attacks on th axis from spain had been made. In the meantime russia had taken the romanian oilfields and the game was called before '45.

In our game the loss of Gibraltar, together with the loss of Egypt, was a disaster for the allies. The germans were on the defensive in the east, the war there broke in the summer of 1943 only.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: JasonF

My experience is that if the Germans go for Spain and Gibraltar and the russians stuff the bordergarrison then germany is forced into a defensive game. And I don't know many allied players who are displeased with that. There is always an answer to every move the germans make which will make taking gibraltar harder but ultimately if they want it they can get it IF they commit enough resources to it, and I think that's right.

Yes I agree, in the game I played the germans were forced into a defensive game on the east front, while taking Gibraltar.

To complete the picture of our game - the CW fought a strong defensive battle all the way to Gibraltar at which point the attack on the rock was successful. However, the Germans were then unable to mount a strong attack on Russia due to the strain on their resources and the high russian garrison value. Spain was not conquered because the CW had heavily defended the NW mountain area including the factory. The CW slowly built up its forces there, being unable to break out initially. Eventually the US arrived and drove south to Gibraltar from that NW mountain area whilst the CW drove east through spain to the coast. Pretty soon the US and CW had overwhelming forces in the pyrenees and once the elastic broke paris was taken the turn after the initial attacks on th axis from spain had been made. In the meantime russia had taken the romanian oilfields and the game was called before '45.

In our game the loss of Gibraltar, together with the loss of Egypt, was a disaster for the allies. The germans were on the defensive in the east, the war there broke in the summer of 1943 only.

Warspite1

I played in numerous 5th Edition games about a dozen I reckon - and only twice did Gibraltar fall, and one of these efforts spelt doom for the German, who put too much effort into Spain and subsequently lost the game. Just based on my experience of the game (admittedly a previous version) I think that Gibraltar`s vulnerability (or otherwise) is about right.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I played in numerous 5th Edition games about a dozen I reckon - and only twice did Gibraltar fall, and one of these efforts spelt doom for the German, who put too much effort into Spain and subsequently lost the game. Just based on my experience of the game (admittedly a previous version) I think that Gibraltar`s vulnerability (or otherwise) is about right.

You'll see that when it will fall on you on some games.
It have changed in WiF FE, because there are more rules and units that favor this strategy.

The hex is attackable from 4 sides, including 2 for regular units (one halved because of straits) and 2 for MAR units. There is nothing that can help the hex from flipping totaly with a 5 & a 4 ART on the NE hex of Gibraltar.

As I said, the attack is all about bonuses, with +5 for everyone flipped, +2.5 or +2 for HQ support, and maybe +1 for a para.
With initial odds of about +2, this is a +9 attack, maybe +10 that have more than 50% chances of being successfull. And if it fails, you can try it a couple more times, killing the supporting HQ in failures and replacing it with a new one.

My experience is that an experienced German player going for it and reaching the hex will get it. It's just a matter of time (1-2 turns are enough normaly). The only way to fail is to loose time in taking Spain (which in my experience is either a result of bad German play or stroke of bad luck), and be delayed enough for either the Russian or the US to enter the war and not reaching the hex, or reaching it with not enough time left to take it before having to face bigger problems.

My opinion is that :
- Spain is too much a benefit to have (when in real life it would not have been because the economy was in ruins after 3 years of civil war, maybe even on the contray it would have had been a costly adventure)
- that Gibraltar is too much cost effective for the axis to have (I believe that the axis would not have been able to make the same shipping blocking use of the Rock as the CW was able to have after x centuries of owning it, in in a mere few months period of time)

[Nikolai II]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- that Gibraltar is too much cost effective for the axis to have (I believe that the axis would not have been able to make the same shipping blocking use of the Rock as the CW was able to have after x centuries of owning it, in in a mere few months period of time)

Why not?
Germany and Finland closed off the Gulf of Finland in about a month, for the entire war.

I could agree with a "not blocked until end of turn" clause, since it would probably take more than a couple of days to get stuff in order, but on the other hand that could be messy. Perhaps Gibraltar closes passage for the opposite side next impulse, if you own it at the start of your impulse.

But that'd be a house rule anyway.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Nikolai II

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- that Gibraltar is too much cost effective for the axis to have (I believe that the axis would not have been able to make the same shipping blocking use of the Rock as the CW was able to have after x centuries of owning it, in in a mere few months period of time)

Why not?
Germany and Finland closed off the Gulf of Finland in about a month, for the entire war.

I could agree with a "not blocked until end of turn" clause, since it would probably take more than a couple of days to get stuff in order, but on the other hand that could be messy. Perhaps Gibraltar closes passage for the opposite side next impulse, if you own it at the start of your impulse.

But that'd be a house rule anyway.

I agree that the Gibraltar is too cost effective. But for both sides really. Gibraltar can't control the straight by itself. There isn't that much fire power, and if there's fog, or just bad weather, there's no way of telling if there's an enemy passing by. I believe Gibraltar would only be able to control the straight if there is a fleet present in addition to the Rock.

[michaelbaldur]

mines and coastal artillery ....

then Gibratar is closed...