The Rock

[JLPOWELL]

And for extra credit. Where is this and who vowed to come back....[:D][:D][:D]

[Chocolino]

JLPOWELL - very nicely put into perspective (I mean Gibraltar and the Channel vs the width of the Bosporus)

I am not an expert of naval guns or their effect. But I remember that passing the channel was already considered a daring adventure for German warships (i.e. channel dash by Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau in '42. That was with air cover and by surprise.) Gibraltar with 50% less distance may have been more perilous.

To get back to your initial question on How to handle it in ToF: I suggest to allow ships to pass Gibraltar at their own peril in ToF and assign some extra damage to them just for passing if enemy controlled, simulating the effect of various defenses. In good old ToF fashion this can be done randomly between reasonable min and max.

P.S. Were there not also large nets to prevent submarines to pass? I remember something form the movie "Das Boot" but am not sure if this was embellished. At least in the movie they made it - I believe - from the Atlantic to Italy.

[Razz1]

Sea zones can not be controlled.

The main fear is the enemy's Navy and air power.

They can easily spot you and then surround you on both sides. Then your also surrounded from the land. So all 4 sides can attack you.

[aspqrz02]

No nets across the Gibraltar/Ceuta straits. Too wide, for a start. The real problem for submarines is that the tidal race is so strong ... even when it's in the right direction for you, it is so strong as to overpower the submarine's engines, making the traverse of the passage very dodgy.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar) ...

"During the Second World War, German U-boats used the currents to pass into the Mediterranean Sea without detection, by maintaining silence with engines off. From Sept 1941 to May 1944 Germany managed to send 62 U-boats into the Mediterranean. All these boats had to navigate the British-controlled Strait of Gibraltar where 9 U-boats were sunk while attempting passage and 10 more had to break off their run due to damages. No U-boats ever made it back into the Atlantic and all were either sunk in battle or scuttled by their own crews."

That's almost a 15% outright loss rate and over 30% total loss/fail rate.

Not great odds ... for submarines, anyway.

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

Yea but 0% lost to coastal batteries [:D] Subs took pretty high losses anytime they went to sea the overall casualty rate for UBoat crew makes being a bomber crew on the allied side (VERY dangerous) look safe.

--- From http://www.uboataces.com (not exactly a primary source but looks about right to me)
Of the 1,155 U-boats Germany sent into combat, 725 had been sunk in the longest battle of the war. Lasting nearly six years, over 35,000 German sailors had put to sea, with 28,744 never returning – a death rate of 82 percent, the highest casualty rate of any armed forces of any conflict in the history of modern war.
---

(BTW nets in the harbor not across the straight...)

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

No nets across the Gibraltar/Ceuta straits. Too wide, for a start. The real problem for submarines is that the tidal race is so strong ... even when it's in the right direction for you, it is so strong as to overpower the submarine's engines, making the traverse of the passage very dodgy.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar) ...

"During the Second World War, German U-boats used the currents to pass into the Mediterranean Sea without detection, by maintaining silence with engines off. From Sept 1941 to May 1944 Germany managed to send 62 U-boats into the Mediterranean. All these boats had to navigate the British-controlled Strait of Gibraltar where 9 U-boats were sunk while attempting passage and 10 more had to break off their run due to damages. No U-boats ever made it back into the Atlantic and all were either sunk in battle or scuttled by their own crews."

That's almost a 15% outright loss rate and over 30% total loss/fail rate.

Not great odds ... for submarines, anyway.

Phil

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL
Yea but 0% lost to coastal batteries [:D] Subs took pretty high losses anytime they went to sea the overall casualty rate for UBoat crew makes being a bomber crew on the allied side (VERY dangerous) look safe.

Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either [:)]

Knives cut both ways [:)]

Phil

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either [:)]

Knives cut both ways [:)]

Phil

That could be that the reputation if Gibraltar worked to dissuade attempts by surface vessels, or more likely because there was no interest, the Germans having no spare surface units for the Mediterranean and the Italians had their hands full and no interest, or strategic need, to pass into the Atlantic.

The 'Channel Dash' showed that shore defences were completely ineffective, I know the Channel is wider than the Straits, but there guns were mostly out of date and would probably not perform well against moving targets. Both the Scharnhort and the Gneisenau were damaged in the dash, by mines laid by other forces. I maintain the point made earlier, Gibraltar its self has little effect, apart from in its own defence as a fortress, as with the 'Channel Dash', it requires other forces (air and naval) to close the straits.[:)]

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Or putting it another way, the Rock had a 100% success rate for preventing passage by major surface combatants ... probably not because of the deployment of anti-submarine assets, either [:)]

Knives cut both ways [:)]

Phil

That could be that the reputation if Gibraltar worked to dissuade attempts by surface vessels, or more likely because there was no interest, the Germans having no spare surface units for the Mediterranean and the Italians had their hands full and no interest, or strategic need, to pass into the Atlantic.

The 'Channel Dash' showed that shore defences were completely ineffective, I know the Channel is wider than the Straits, but there guns were mostly out of date and would probably not perform well against moving targets. Both the Scharnhort and the Gneisenau were damaged in the dash, by mines laid by other forces. I maintain the point made earlier, Gibraltar its self has little effect, apart from in its own defence as a fortress, as with the 'Channel Dash', it requires other forces (air and naval) to close the straits.[:)]

The Italians also didn't have the fuel to do anything much with their navy. They had stupidly started the war with no (or virtually no) fuel reserves and relied entirely on begging to Hitler for fuel to keep the Regia Marina's fleet units in bunkerage ... Hitler, who didn't have any fuel to spare, really, "gave" them fuel from the Kriegsmarine reserves ... which, of course, made the Kriegsmarine so happy that they delivered in full and on time ... not. [:D]

That's the real reason most of the RM's major fleet units did nothing but stay in port ... only enough fuel to keep maintenance levels of operation.

So, even if the Italians had had a reason for attempting operation(s) that required movement through the straits, they probably couldn't have fuelled it without willing assistance from the Germans.

As for the Germans and the Kriegsmarine ... well, they did pre-war reserves, but were basically at the end of the list for fuel supplies, of which Germany was always short.

After the initial wave of conquests, where the Germans captured enough from the strategic reserves of their opponents to replace the fuel they expended in capturing them, the Germans were always severely short of fuel.

It is my understanding that even operational level decisions regarding deployment of forces were being made based on fuel shortages as early as 1941 ... so, even if the Kriegsmarine had seen value in forcing the straits, what would be the Heer and/or Luftwaffe operations that would have to be short-changed to fuel it?

No easy answers.

Phil

[doomtrader]

The Fuel shortages, can be easily simulated by couple of events reducing the navy range.

[aspqrz02]

Not the same. My understanding is that the RM couldn't even fill the tanks of all the major combatants all at the same time (that is BBs/BCs or whatever the larger ships were classed as) and that even for the medium ones (CAs/CLs) it was difficult.

That's why most of the action in the Med was between the RN/Commonwealth against RM DDs/SSs and light combatants.

If, somehow, you could require regular PP costs by recurring events that can never be bought off for long for keeping the actual RM on map units *active* ... quarterly, say, maybe even monthly, or simply up their support cost multiplier massively, that would be a better representation of reality ... also, increasingly the purchase cost of any air unit, and all mech/armour units would also be realistic (and probably increase their support costs as well, though probably not as massively as for the RM units).

Or, perhaps, you could allow the Italian player to start with significant oil reserves, but at a massive cost in PP or, perhaps more realistically, a massive unrest percentage ... and with negative Diplomacy totals that would make it almost impossible to declare war on the historical schedule.

Phil

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
The Italians also didn't have the fuel to do anything much with their navy. They had stupidly started the war with no (or virtually no) fuel reserves and relied entirely on begging to Hitler for fuel to keep the Regia Marina's fleet units in bunkerage ... Hitler, who didn't have any fuel to spare, really, "gave" them fuel from the Kriegsmarine reserves ... which, of course, made the Kriegsmarine so happy that they delivered in full and on time ... not.

That's the real reason most of the RM's major fleet units did nothing but stay in port ... only enough fuel to keep maintenance levels of operation.

So, even if the Italians had had a reason for attempting operation(s) that required movement through the straits, they probably couldn't have fuelled it without willing assistance from the Germans.

As for the Germans and the Kriegsmarine ... well, they did pre-war reserves, but were basically at the end of the list for fuel supplies, of which Germany was always short.

After the initial wave of conquests, where the Germans captured enough from the strategic reserves of their opponents to replace the fuel they expended in capturing them, the Germans were always severely short of fuel.

It is my understanding that even operational level decisions regarding deployment of forces were being made based on fuel shortages as early as 1941 ... so, even if the Kriegsmarine had seen value in forcing the straits, what would be the Heer and/or Luftwaffe operations that would have to be short-changed to fuel it?

No easy answers.

Phil

Both the KM and the RM carried out some significant operations, so you have to assume that they had some fuel. The 'Channel Dash' could have gone south and tried to break into the Med, various forays by the Italian battle fleet could have been directed instead past Gibraltar. There are a million reasons (I hate exaggeration[:D]) why they didn't do this and Gibraltar was never seriously challenged.

But for the game, do we say that the Axis never had passage of the Straits, therefore it is not a game option, or, the player should have an opportunity to challenge the blockade, it's up to them whether it leads to a viable strategy.

It's not a game breaker, but I favour the latter, at least Axis submarines should have the opportunity to run the Straits. You can set this up as easy, if there are no air, or naval units at Gibraltar, or in adjacent sea areas, to very hard if the Allies have forces and have achieved high tech levels (it's already been noted that it may be impossible to make the run westbound, because of the currents). There is a problem of how we squeeze air and ground units into a single hex site like Gibraltar, maybe we can have a 'virtual' CV anchored in the port able to carry out air operations (it could be destroyed by bombing, like an airfield, or lose all it aircraft in combat and be reinforced, as it is already in port.

As for surface ships, I still maintain that Gibraltar itself would have little effect, but there could be combat odds for the passage, depending on the forces each side has. There would be little chance of sneaking through and an attempted passage would always result in a combat to be resolved.

The next problem in mixing national forces in the Med, can German naval forces draw supply from Italian bases and the same for RM units that get into the Atlantic, from German controlled bases. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

To expand the discussion, what happens if the Axis captures Gibraltar, I have never got to that position, but do the Allies get to pass the straits, what effect does an axis Gibraltar have.[:)]

[Razz1]

No, both sides of the strait must be controlled.

In your case no one may pass.

[aspqrz02]

I never said the RM or KM did nothing [:)]

I merely indicated that the RM operated under severe constraints and indicated, further, what those constraints meant in real world operational terms.

Likewise, I indicated that, from as early as 1941, KM (and, indeed, all Heer and Luftwaffe operations as well) were constrained because of fuel shortages.

Note: Again, this does not mean that either or both did nothing - you only have to look at what they managed in the "real world" (tm) (c) [:D]

However, consider all those wishful thoughts all wargamers, computer, miniature figure, and board, have had from time to time of "if only ..." and consider that there may well have been non-obvious, and certainly non-"sexy" constraints that prevented the "what if" you want to try ...

Wishing for a 100% motorised German army in 1940-41 is fine, and you could probably do it with the excess of PPs you seem to get, but, in real life, you'd still have been limited to what it could do by fuel availability ... so, at any given time, only around 15% would be operational, as in real life [:-]

Phil

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

To expand the discussion, what happens if the Axis captures Gibraltar, I have never got to that position, but do the Allies get to pass the straits, what effect does an axis Gibraltar have.[:)]

In real life, to do this requires Spain to either be invaded or come over as a willing ally. The former is actually more likely than the latter (I believe it's been discussed here in other threads why this is the case).

The consequences? Starvation (railways run the wrong ways and to the wrong places, and Spain imported her food from overseas, in, guess what, non-Spanish Hulls ... all stopped with an RN Blockade, and neither the Germans nor the Italians had the food to spare for Spain, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel themselves) and a rerun of the Spanish Civil War cross with the Peninsular Guerilla campaign of the Napoleonic period ... note, and most people don't, that the word "guerilla" is, in fact, Spanish, and, in fact, dates from the period of the Napoleonic wars ... and, well, read something like CS Forester's "The Gun" or some histories of the period and place to get an idea of why Napoleon referred to it as the "Spanish Ulcer" ... then read up on the fun and games that was the Spanish Civil War and, indeed, Franco's Spain ... to understand just what "setting Europe ablaze" would mean in Spain, for the Nazis

So, Spain offers almost nothing of value in comparison to what it would cost to take and hold.

The usual argument for taking Gibraltar is that the Italian fleet can sortie into the Atlantic and combine with the Kriegsmarine, making lots of trouble for the RN and allies in general.

Well.

Maybe.

Or maybe ...

not so much

There are several problems.

Spain goes Axis and, well, the Canaries and Azores (yes, I know it's Portugese, but UK-Portugese alliance is one of the oldest in the world, dating back to the 14th century and, Fascist government or not, the Portugese did tell HMG that, if pushed, they would come in on the UK side, but really, pretty please, don't ... I'd say, even with an occupied Spain, they'd probably "nudge, nudge, wink, wink: a UK occupation, YMMV) are seized by the UK, and become LRB bases for ASW patrols, closing the mid-Atlantic gap and making the U-Boat campaign a non-starter much earlier than historically.

So, no real benefit from, say, Italian or German sub bases along the Portugese or Spanish Atlantic coasts.

As for the RM breaking out ... well, yes, maybe ... fuel problems magically solved by sending more KM reserves to them ... but all that does is give the Axis more ships that it really can't use to full effect as they couldn't use the ones they already had in the Atlantic to full effect because of less bad fuel problems.

Then there's the fact that RM ships were designed for the Mediterranean ... short legs and not Atlantic-seaworthy ... which further reduces their effectiveness.

None of this means they would be useless ... but constrains all the "usual suspects" of "what ifs" in ways most people don't appreciate.

Phil

[Razz1]

Well.. let's add to the fire.
You forgot Bordeux in France. An indestructible Submarine base that was used for the Atlantic War.

No need to risk invasion of Gibraltar or Spain.

People also forget that it takes several months to repair ships. So Damaging a few vessels or loosing a few is very risky.

Taking Gibraltar will not cut off the Med. The Luftwaffe already cut off the Med and force the British to sail around the horn to supply Malta.

Your better off enforcing Operation Herkules to take Malta.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

I never said the RM or KM did nothing [:)]

I merely indicated that the RM operated under severe constraints and indicated, further, what those constraints meant in real world operational terms.

Likewise, I indicated that, from as early as 1941, KM (and, indeed, all Heer and Luftwaffe operations as well) were constrained because of fuel shortages.

Note: Again, this does not mean that either or both did nothing - you only have to look at what they managed in the "real world" (tm) (c) [:D]

However, consider all those wishful thoughts all wargamers, computer, miniature figure, and board, have had from time to time of "if only ..." and consider that there may well have been non-obvious, and certainly non-"sexy" constraints that prevented the "what if" you want to try ...

Wishing for a 100% motorised German army in 1940-41 is fine, and you could probably do it with the excess of PPs you seem to get, but, in real life, you'd still have been limited to what it could do by fuel availability ... so, at any given time, only around 15% would be operational, as in real life [:-]

Phil

That's the real reason most of the RM's major fleet units did nothing but stay in port ... only enough fuel to keep maintenance levels of operation.

You have great career in politics waiting. [:)]

Whatever happened in history, this game allows players to something different, you could decide to scrap your armoured forces, build and supply a huge navy, should you then still not be able to pass a Gibraltar.

Historically the Axis did not try to force the straits with surface ships, I don't think they had the strategic power, or need to do that, with the priorities they had set. However, the game is about having the ability to set different strategic priorities, so why keep the limitations applying to a strategy your'e not using. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Razz
Well.. let's add to the fire.
You forgot Bordeux in France. An indestructible Submarine base that was used for the Atlantic War.

No need to risk invasion of Gibraltar or Spain.

People also forget that it takes several months to repair ships. So Damaging a few vessels or loosing a few is very risky.

Taking Gibraltar will not cut off the Med. The Luftwaffe already cut off the Med and force the British to sail around the horn to supply Malta.

Your better off enforcing Operation Herkules to take Malta.

You forget the the original post is about how effective Gibraltar is in blocking the Straits, it isn't about whether taking Gibraltar is a good idea, or not. Warships are built to be put in harms way, otherwise why do we spend PPs on them, taking risks is what the game's about.

If you're not taking risks you're not having fun, terrible when a plan fails, but great when it works.

The question I'm asking is if Gibraltar is Axis controlled, whether, or not, it's a good idea for that to happen, can the Allies force a passage through the Straits.[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Razz
No, both sides of the strait must be controlled.

In your case no one may pass.

This is the case for free passage of the Straits, but the discussion is about forcing a passage past an enemy controlled Gibraltar.

So this comes back to the point, should these fortifications alone be enough to close the Straits to either side, or should it possible for the opposing side to force a passage, for at least submarines and possibly surface ships.

Can the game system permit combat resolution, over a contested passage of the Straits, but opposing forces. [:)]

[Rasputitsa]

The reason why this issue is worth some thought, is that I understand Doomtrader is looking for ways to make the naval aspects of the game more interesting. The possibility of a contested passage of the Straits is an factor that could contribute to a more interesting naval war, for both sides.[:)]