Matrix Games Forums

I was meaning that Gibraltar could be easily taken provided that Spain was aligned by Germany. Else, it would be too costly, to the Spanish forces could be added a British expeditionary force, that would make it really costly and slow for the Axis. All the same, it would mean a source for partisans, a lot more of (sea) border to garrison, instead of a safe neutral mountain border, ...

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I was meaning that Gibraltar could be easily taken provided that Spain was aligned by Germany. Else, it would be too costly, to the Spanish forces could be added a British expeditionary force, that would make it really costly and slow for the Axis. All the same, it would mean a source for partisans, a lot more of (sea) border to garrison, instead of a safe neutral mountain border, ...

Unfortunately, the condition the Axis must meet in order to align Spain is that they must first occupy Gibralter. Back in the days of coup cells (WiF 5 and earlier), it was possible, but no longer, unless perhaps you play DoD.

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.

The Gulf of Finland ?
From whom did they block it ?
You're comparing apples to carrots.
The Russian navy is not the Royal Navy nor the US Navy, and blocking the Gulf of Finland from the Russian Navy must not be as difficult as blocking Gibraltar to the RN or the USN would have been.
Did Russian ships ever tried to sail into the Baltic past this blockade ?

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

mines and coastal artillery ....

then Gibratar is closed...

What blocked the straits is no only mines and coastal artillery.

It was not, but it could it have been...?

The width of the strait at Gibraltar is 14,4 km. If you mine it and have powerful artillery both sides maybe you could control it with a smaller Navy, no?

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

It was not, but it could it have been...?

The width of the strait at Gibraltar is 14,4 km. If you mine it and have powerful artillery both sides maybe you could control it with a smaller Navy, no?

According to conventional military doctrine at the time, yes, coastal artillery and mines would block the straits, and this could be done in a matter of weeks at most.

Presumably the immediacy of the action in game is assumed to be pre-planned along the actual invasion/conquest of Gibraltar. (I.e. the victorious units brought coastal artillery and mines along)

In real life, yes, a dedicated force could force their way through even this - but at unacceptable casualties.

In this game the English Channel is closed by the power who controls London. I fail to see how the Gibraltar straits could be tougher to mine and guard with short range AC from Gibraltar than the English Channel from London.

I do realise that it might not be entirely comparable but you have to remember that this is an strategic game with some simplifications.

If my memory serves there was a "Stuka zone" during WWII that the RN did not want to send capital ships into for the fear that they would be severly damaged by the dive bombers.

With no short range bombers protecting the coasts, no mines, no torpedo boats and no coastal artillery getting close to the coast in WIF (for shore bombardment for example) is relatively free of risk but during WWII it was considered very hazardous.

The Dieppe raid, for example, did not get any shore bombardment from any capital ships. RN found it to dangerous for a battleship to go that close to the French coast. Or so I have read somewhere.

So, in conclusion. All in all I find it fair that the Gibraltar straits should be closed by the power controlling Gibraltar. One could discuss if it should happen immediately or not but I do not think that at this level the possibility of forcing past an enemy controlled Gibraltar should exist.

ORIGINAL: Orm

In this game the English Channel is closed by the power who controls London. I fail to see how the Gibraltar straits could be tougher to mine and guard with short range AC from Gibraltar than the English Channel from London.

I do realise that it might not be entirely comparable but you have to remember that this is an strategic game with some simplifications.

If my memory serves there was a "Stuka zone" during WWII that the RN did not want to send capital ships into for the fear that they would be severly damaged by the dive bombers.

With no short range bombers protecting the coasts, no mines, no torpedo boats and no coastal artillery getting close to the coast in WIF (for shore bombardment for example) is relatively free of risk but during WWII it was considered very hazardous.

The Dieppe raid, for example, did not get any shore bombardment from any capital ships. RN found it to dangerous for a battleship to go that close to the French coast. Or so I have read somewhere.

So, in conclusion. All in all I find it fair that the Gibraltar straits should be closed by the power controlling Gibraltar. One could discuss if it should happen immediately or not but I do not think that at this level the possibility of forcing past an enemy controlled Gibraltar should exist.

The British navy was also very unhappy about having to shell Cherbourg following the Normandy invasion, because of the risk to their capital ships.

The 'Stuka Zone' is a good way to describe it. For the Axis, it could be considered the 'Swordfish Zone' I guess.

I think Gibraltar should call for several special rules to dial in the realism here but I doubt this will ever happen. There used to be an optional rule, "Sea Mines," to let you send your ships across Gibraltar or Copenhagen in spite of enemy control for a one-time hit of 50 surface factors against the moving force. But for cardboard commanders this was all too easy to do and that the disincentive wasn't strong enough, so this option was removed from the game.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The 'Stuka Zone' is a good way to describe it. For the Axis, it could be considered the 'Swordfish Zone' I guess.

I think Gibraltar should call for several special rules to dial in the realism here but I doubt this will ever happen. There used to be an optional rule, "Sea Mines," to let you send your ships across Gibraltar or Copenhagen in spite of enemy control for a one-time hit of 50 surface factors against the moving force. But for cardboard commanders this was all too easy to do and that the disincentive wasn't strong enough, so this option was removed from the game.

I nearly brought this up myself. What would be more realistic is a forced naval combat of some sort until one side has naval units left. Choke points kill ships. There is a rather famous battle in that involved Japanese BB's in a choke point...

Some day WIF will have ships with real movement factors, and aircraft cannot bomb ships 22 hexes away because they 2 movement points.

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 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.

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.

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

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_Aug ... 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.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

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_Aug ... 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.

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.

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.

ORIGINAL: ullern

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 [&o][&o]. 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 [:D]). 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.

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.

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.
...

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/milita ... /felix.htm