warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Leandros
Another of many Axis mistakes - not to go for Malta.
Fred
warspite1
I would have to question that assertion.
Any students of O’Hara here would, I imagine, not agree with it either. According to him the Italian Navy did a pretty good job of delivering supplies to North Africa.
He has a point. The exposed location of Malta meant that, as a naval base, the island was relegated in favour of Alexandria and Gibraltar as homes for the Mediterranean Fleet and Force H respectively. Malta was, for a very short time, a home for the cruisers of the Malta Striking Force, and these cruisers – together with a few submarines – cost the Axis convoys massively in late 1941.
But this did not last – a combination of RN losses and the Luftwaffe (Fliegerkorps X) moving in meant that Malta was once more too dangerous to house RN vessels. In any case it is said that the biggest problem the Axis had in North Africa was getting the supplies from Tripoli to the front and not from Italy to North Africa.
So if the supply of Rommel was – for a time in late 1941 and possibly late 1942 aside – not instrumental in the defeat of Rommel, what was so important about Malta – and moreover, what would the effect on the RN be if the British had decided to abandon the island?
Well the first part is relatively easy. Malta became important because the island became a symbol of defiance. Was there a more bombed piece of real estate than Grand Harbour and environs in the first half of the ETO? Malta's propaganda value as a George Cross winning bastion (in 1942?) was out of all proportion to her strategic value.
The second part is harder to answer for the simple reason that no one knows what the RN would have done with all the ships freed up and not lost. As seen above, the decision to keep Malta in the war probably didn’t hurt Rommel and co that much (they had myriad other problems….) but it sure as hell cost the RN.
How many warships, from carriers through battleships, cruisers, destroyers and submarines (not to mention fighter aircraft) were lost or badly damaged in the defence and supply of that island? Answer one helluva lot! Ark Royal, Eagle, Neptune, Manchester, Southampton to name five off the top of my head sunk – and the number of ships damaged provides a very long list indeed.
Of course Malta may have hurt the Axis had they tried invading. Especially if the Italians had the lead role in any such adventure…… Its difficult seeing the island holding out to a determined, co-ordinated attack - I just don't think such an occurrence would have made a difference for the Allies in a negative sense - (apart from propaganda value) there was only upside for the over-stretched air force and navy.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/25/2017 7:50:54 PM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: OT: Use of Capture Equipment - 
But at least, whilst it went off topic, it remained on topic from a WWII point of view at any rate 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread