Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "If the Spanish invaded Gibraltar, could the UK stop them?" video.

+Cesar Muroya Bombing cities is so effective at ending wars... -_- Just look at the British, they surrendered right away during the bombing of London... /sarcasm No, but seriously, you can bomb a city, but that really doesn't help much on its own in a war and often increase the will to fight instead of reducing it...
6
+Yuri Gagarin Britain might not have a chance against Spain on the Spanish mainland. But Melilla and Ceuta might be possible to take. Ceuta can then provide a helicopter base to attack Gibraltar from, and Melilla got an airport that can be used for the fighting in Gibraltrar. And both cities got ports that can be used for British warships.
5
+MrCastodian As already mentioned the Royal Navy is superior in its capabilities to their Spanish counterparts. Melilla can be cut off from Spain 100% by said navy, Ceuta is more difficult, but once Melilla is held It would be plausible I think. If cut off the troops already present there can be defeated. I'm not saying that it's easy, but it would be a possible jump off point to reclaim Gibraltar.
5
+MrCastodian Why do you think that the troops in Melilla would be superior to the British ones? This whole scenario hings on the assumtion that Gibraltar is attacked with little to no warning. If that's the case then Melilla would not have significant troop deployments yet and the Royal Navy would probably be able to stop any reinforcements from being moved to Melilla. Also, troops would be needed all along the Spanish coast to stop the UK from both invading Spain and stopping the UK from incursions, special ops missions etc. In short, troops would be tied up on the Spanish mainland for the most part. Also, any troops landing in Melilla would not be without air support, it just wouldn't be the full strength of the Royal Airforce. And the UK could do enough damage to the airfield to make landing fighters there a rather bad idea leaving Spain with the issue of not having fighters close by at a moments notice just like the UK. If the UK is able to surprise Spain they could get local air superiority for long enough to make the landing. And I doubt that such a small area would hold particularly long so the brits would probably be able to move their own fighters there fairly quickly. Basically the axioms you're stating that I don't believe to be the case is presence of significant Spanish forces. What's currently there is just these: Tabor Alhucemas I Tabor Rif II 1st Legion Tercio So three regiments... Or something along the line of 9 000-15 000 men. Since 2/3rds of that are local volunteers whose training is I suspect less rigid then their professional brethern from the Spanish mainland. So only 3 000- 5 000 troops that are high quality. I'm fairly sure that the UK can beat that. Especially if the regiments in question are on the smaller side of what a typical Spanish regiment tend to be. 3 000 professionals and 6 000 essentially "militia" should be easy enough to beat. 5 000 professionals and 10 000 "militia" on the other hand would be tougher, but not impossible to beat.
4
+MrCastodian Spain has little in access to spy satelites though while the UK has a decent number of them. So UK bombing would presumably be more efficient then the Spanish ones since they'd know what to target. And while you're right that the Spanish air defense is superior to the British ones the British ones does exist for one and the Spanish ones are not likely to stop the majority of those missiles. So I doubt Spain would end up with the upper hand if it comes to cruise missiles. As for Spain taking Gibraltar without too much trouble, you're right, they can. But in a long term war after such an action Britain would have plenty of options to make life difficult for Spain and retaking Gibraltar might even be possible even if it's not easy. With the help of locals (as well as probably many Spanish nationals who have worked in Gibraltar and might be inclined to want British controll over the area to continue) special ops attacks on the place would probably be possible after the Spanish occupation is started. And with Melilla and possibly Ceuta a proper landing and proper fighting would be possible. Britain might even manage to retake the most of Gibraltar before significant defenses can be put in place if the attack is surprising enough. Then Britain would just have to hold the ground they've made. Holding most of Gibraltar, all of Melilla and possibly Cauta or even the Canary Islands would give Britain a good negotiating position during the peace talks afterwards. Britain would probably regain Gibraltar. But I doubt they'd gain any territories... Don't get me wrong, Spain could probably make this costly for Britain. But there's no way that they'd give up Gibraltar, even if the costs are high.
4
+Bobby L It's in the interest of any nation in the world that's not landlocked that Gibraltar is held by as many countries as possible. And yeah, NATO would step in if that happend.
2
+Joaquin Andreu Their economy isn't in the greatest of shapes, but they're still doing better then Spain in this regard. In both cases significant forces can be fielded if the political will is strong enough, but that would have to happen at the cost of something else. The UK got significant military assets available but how long it'll take those to be ready for prime time is a open question.
2
+Krešimir Koržinek For the most part you're right. However I do think that Melilla is a plausible target, possibly even the Canary Islands. And in the case of Gibraltar that would actually be a partial British home field advantage as the citizens of that area are aligned with Britain. An attempt at retaking the area might be more plausible then any other part of Spain. And the area is small enough that Britain might achieve local numerical superiority, especaially since Spain would need to defend all of the country while Britain would be free to make use of most of their forces abroad due to the superiority of their navy. My idea is simply to take Melilla, use the airport there to try to gain local air superiority over Gibraltar. If Britain can regain Gibraltar, hold Melilla, move enough planes to those two airports and station enough forces in Gibraltar it would be quite difficult for Spain to recapture the area even if both sides would probably lose a lot of troops and materials... And while Spain can without doubt get local numerical superiority and rush Gibraltar a sufficient defense of that area probably won't be sustainable through a long term war as Spain also have other territories to defend.
2
+Badger0fDeath To be fair, the premis of this whole video was to limit everything to just Gibraltar...
2
What about using such a war to take Ceuta and using that as a launching base to support the fighting in Gibraltar? While Spain can easily provide enough supplies to troops fighting in Gibraltar they'll probably struggle with Cauta if Britain sets their minds to it. Taking Cauta Britain would get a local base for helicopters, warships, infantery and supplies. And Melilla can also be invaded to provide a local airport allowing them to get most of their airforce into the air if needed. They'll have to fly a lot of fuel to Melilla and then store it there for a bigger push later on. But they could potentially get most of their own airforce into the air all at once and do a large scale air invasion of Gibraltrar then provide heavy weapons by ships afterwards when they're ready for more traditional warfare. A lot of supplies would probably have to be taken all the way around Africa and through the Suez channel. But Britain could spend some time to prepare the attack in Melilla.
1
+MrCastodian "First of all, Melilla are defended by several units. 1 Armoured group. 1 Spanish Legion Regiment. 1 Infantry Regiment. 1 Artillery group 1 Air defence group. 1 Engineer battalion. 1 logistic group." Where is your source of that? Because all I've see documentation for as permanent garrisons there is 9 -15 000 mainly infantery. I'm sure that air forces and tanks are frequently based there to support operations in North Africa, but I haven't seen any documentation of them actually being permanently based there. "This forces have heavier equipment and they are more numerical then all the forces U.K. can land in Melilla. U.K. do not have the landing capability to send more then 3-4000 troops, and to send them to Melilla would take a LONG time, all the way around Africa in to suez. It’s not like U.K. have a landing force near by." Also remember that if Spain is at war those troops might be needed on the mainland. And yes, you're right, the UK troops would have to be moved around Suez, that is my assumtion too. "You say that UK would block the path, but how? U.K. do not have a fleet in the Mediterranean sea, you have 1 ship, an that stop the Spanish Navy from sending reinforcement ? Obviously not." They don't need all that many troops nearby. The UK often have flees in the Mediterranenan sea and it varies how many they deploy there. In case of a war with Spain they'd have to send more via Suez but that shouldn't be a problem. They have bases further east in the Mediterranean sea that they can use for their ships as a base of operation. It's too far away for their air force to support from there but they can use their aircraft carrier with Harriers (and potentially buy and use F-35s on it if needed) They certainly have plenty of anti-air capability on their navy, while they won't be able to hold the Spanish airforce at bay long term they can do short term support of a surprise landing force and pose a significant risk to the fighters that Spain can scramble there at short notice. Remember, the UK don't need permanent air superiority, just local air superiority to support troops there while landing. If they're to capture the place they can then dig in and the anti-air capabilities of their ships becomes a more viable defense against the Spanish airforce and navy in the sense that the goal don't need to be to keep fighters and ground attackers at bay as much as just keeping paratroopers and other transport planes and ships at bay so Spain can't retake the those areas. "So, they can reinforce Melilla from mainland Spain, the closest base are 170 km distance, and that is the Spanish Legion Armoured Brigade and they can be transported by ferry faster then U.K. can send forces to cut the way to Melilla, and they are in no way any pushovers." Yes, if Spain is aware of the UK plan to take those areas they'd be able to send forces over faster then the UK would be able to react. But that is a big if. The UK does have other bases in the Mediterranian so deployment of UK troops through the Suez canal can't really be easily interprented. It could be intended as a invasion of the Spanish mainland in the northeast for instance in support of a landing in the northwest to cut off Spanish forces defending the coast. It could be a diversion to pull forces away from the northwestern coast before a operation there etc... Yes, I know just as much as you do that the UK wouldn't be able to take and hold a bridgehead on the Spanish mainland at all. But that doesn't mean that Spain can afford to not react to the *possibility*. Because the only thing that does make it impossible is said reactions. The UK would be able to bide their time. They have more spy satelittes, and probably more actual spies in both Spain, Gibraltar and possibly also Melilla etc too. Frequent raids against the Spanish mainland doing damage but always pulling back before the attacking troops get too harmed could help pull troops away from Mellila as Spain would need as many troops as possible on the mainland. Sooner or later a situation would form where those islands are weak, and if not then the Spanish mainland will probably have plenty of temporary weaknesses. "And you say they need forces all over to protect the shores, but they do not, if it was USA they would, but not U.K., you have 5 landing ships, max capacity is about 3-4000 troops, so really no fear of an invasion, that amount of troops without air support wouldn’t stand a chance invading my Spain." "3-4 000" to begin with, if there's not troops all over then those could then create a bridge head where regular transport ships (that all costal countries have thousands of) can operate and transport in essentially the whole UK army. Yes, Spain can easily crush those 3-4 000 troops, but that's not the point, Spain has to be ready to crush those 3-4 000 troops everywhere at all times fast enough to stop the UK from moving in more troops with regular shipping. And the UK could use a hit and run approach with those 3-4 000 landing ships too and build more landing ships while doing so. Frequently attacking random parts of the Spanish coastline, doing as much damage as they can then withdrawing before Spain can deploy enough troops to crush them. Sending in special operation forces at night to sneak past Spanish defenses and move into the mainland to prepare an attack from behind on a new location etc. Won't be easy at all, but it can be done. "And no, you would not have air support, you have a carrier, not fighters to deploy on them, even Spain have more carrier fighters then U.K.." Yes and no. They got Harriers and they could buy a few vtol capable F-35s midwar for anti-air duty to protect the harriers and helicopters, it would take the Spanish airforce a little bit of time to get there and the British navy could intercept quite a bit of their fighters with anti-air missiles. And while the harrier is inferior to the fighters that Spain can field between local superiority of harriers, helicopters and ship based anti-air missiles they could take and hold local air superiority for a little while as Spain would have to scramble and group up a large enough fighter force to take them down even after losses from the ship based anti-air missiles before they can move in to attack. Don't get me wrong, once they do it'll be a massacre in the air. But for a short while they could hold local air supperiority and support the troops on the ground. "And the “local volunteers” in Melilla, are no militia...They are highly trained forces, exactly as the rest of the Spanish army, same training, same equipment and they are just like the rest of Spanish army professional soldiers, they are local by the name, just like U.K. regiment have names from different areas, like the scotch guards." "Scots Guards" as they're from Scotland and not just a group of raving alcoholics ("Scotch" is a drink). But fair enough, if you say so. Do you have any documentation on what kind of equipment they have? "Most people here missing that U.K. do not have an significant landing capability, 5 ships, that’s all, and the Royal Marines are light infantry, grate soldiers, but they can’t land in a territory controlled by an superior enemy force without a massive air superiority, it’s not militarily possible to do." True, but they can get air support for a short while, and if they can take the harbor then regular transport ships can be used to deliver the rest. Also, while the landing crafts probably do most of the job don't forget that those are not the only ships that can be used to land some forces. For instance we here in Norway practice deploying troops from submarines underwater. Yes, fine, I admit that the number of troops that's trained well enough to do so is small, but it can be done, and the UK certainly have plenty of submarines that can do just that and probably a fair share of troops trained to do that kind of things compared to us here to the north, especially if they draft people who might otherwise have retired. Also even regular ships can land a small number of forces with things like Inflatable boats. The UK would easily be able to use that kind of impromptu approach to significantly boost their landing capabilities if needed for an attack like that. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would work. They can use the remaining L9A1 51 mm light mortars and the new M6 mortars with their infantery. And the AT4 and MBT LAW can be used vs the tanks. And there's plenty of other anti-tank weapons on the market that can be purchased fairly quickly and cheaply at a relativly low cost. For instance the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle would probably be quite usefull for such a landing as it can be used against both tanks, armored vehicles and personell, is reusable and if needed can be used as a rocket launcher with the rocket boosted projectiles for a effective range of up to 1 km against stationary targets (although 3-500 m is optimal vs tanks etc). Granted, the very newest tanks out there probably can't be taken out with the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, but if you take out the infantery supporting those tanks you can get close enough to finish them off with other weapons. Training to use such a rifle wouldn't take all that long time, and could easily be done within the scope of such a war. Listen, I'm really not saying that something like this would be easy to pull off, or that it can be done without significant casualities. But I do believe that it is possible to pull off. Extremely difficult, yes. But possible.
1
+Guaire Fernandez Amil Most Catalonians didn't want independence before the Spanish central goverment went overboard... Now they do however because of Spanish actions...
1
+si68 First of all NATO. Either Spain or the UK attacking the other would bring down the wrath of the whole alliance on the agressor including the US... Secondly the economic, political and diplomatic cost would be *huge*... No, a invasion is impossible in the current political enviroment. Spain does maintain its claim on Gibraltar though meaning that if the situation ever changes they'll have a plausible causus belli for an attack.
1
+Johnny When have NATO faught? "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." That's the exact formulation in the treaty. Neither side can safely attack the other without risking being on the recieving side of the wrath of NATO. Granted the treaty doesn't specifically state what actions NATO need to take, but it's assumed that it in most cases would involve a war vs the agressor even if the agressor is another NATO member.
1