faolan@... wrote:
> Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>Gibraltar is neutralized pretty quickly. There was much
>>discussion at the time of how hard it would be to take
>>Gibraltar. I think this was based on image, not reality.
>>Within a short time, every above ground position on "the
>>Rock" would be suppressed by artillery from the
>>surrounding areas. Neither ships nor aircraft could get
>>in or out. The remaining firing positions would be
>>probed, a few would be knocked out by bombing or heavy
>>shells. Eventually a weak spot would be found, combat
>>engineers would get in and take out other positions,
>>and step by step the whole place would fall.
>
>This I have to disagree with however. The British did not just hold
>'The Rock'. They held, and still hold, a fairly significant piece of
>land all around it. The port in Gibralter is also big enough to handle
>any kind of importation of war supplies necessary.
Have you ever looked at a map of Gibraltar? Here's one.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&country=GI&addtohistory=&city=Gibr
The British enclave at Gibraltar is 1,500 meters wide
by about 5,000 meters long, about twice the size of
Central Park in New York City. Most of that is "the Rock".
>All or most of the BEF that had just run out of Dunkirk
>would land with both feet on Gibralter...
The British took 338,000 men off Dunkirk. If landed at
Gibraltar... The border between Gibraltar and Spain is
about 1,000 meters long. The "BEF", formed up shoulder
to shoulder along that border would be standing about
200 ranks deep.
Fortunately for this maneuver, most of them would have
no equipment taking up extra space. They were, as a
rule, taken off the beach with their clothes and little
more. Some brought their rifles. Vehicles and heavy
weapons were all discarded. Likewise tents, stoves,
radios...
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ | |
