warspite1
Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zorch
(To Warspite) I think we agree that Italy had the capability to take Malta by them selves early in the war. What Italy did not have is the intention to try to take Malta by themselves. This was due to a failure of leadership, and a lack of strategic vision (Mussolini!). Where we differ is in our estimation of the probability of success. The Italians were operating under many constraints; but then, so were the British.
In 1942 Italy had the ability to take Malta, with Luftwaffe help and possibly needing German paratrooper help. They apparently did not insist on taking Malta. Even had they insisted, Hitler would have overruled them.
Taking Malta was the most impactful military thing the Axis could have done in the Med. It would have facilitated further expansion in North Africa, and made Allied operations more difficult. Axis decision makers lacked strategic vision.
Now if Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had sailed to Malta instead of back to Germany...
warspite1
I think that the Italians were likely to have succeeded with a surprise attack on the 10 June (or thereabouts) but only if the operation was properly planned and executed - and by that I mean operations in the Alps and/or troop levels in North Africa would need to be reduced.
The defenders would be thin at that time but the RN still had a small naval presence, including six submarines and a couple of destroyers. The attack would need to be successful and a foothold gained because the Mediterranean Fleet would have sailed. Cunningham was desperate to get to the Italians early in the war and this would have been his opportunity. We know the capabilities of the Italian aircraft against ships at the time and it would have to be expected that the navy would do all they could to ensure the invasion failed. But the island might have surrendered by the time they arrived so....
Bottom line, properly resourced, the island should fall. But....
As said, with each day the island is not taken, the probabilities of success lessen - unless of course Mussolini decides to keep a defensive posture in Libya. We know - it is not supposition - how the RN were able to supply Malta from Alexandria and Gibraltar in the early months. A big build up of troops on Sicily is not going to be unnoticed and reaction can be expected. If Libya is on defensive watch then some of Wavell's 30,000 would be available as reinforcements.
With the entrance of the Germans in early 1941 things change markedly. Suddenly the RN most certainly cannot sail to the rescue with impunity. The Germans could not do much initially as troops were desperately needed in North Africa to shore up the Italian mess and the RM were needed to escort Rommel and co to Libya. But the rest of 1941 was out because a) Hitler had a little project called Barbarossa to prepare for and launch, and b) the short-sighted British decision to assist Greece meant that the Germans were side-tracked with the Balkans and Crete....
So the opportunity was lost. And no, I don't think the Italians - having suffered the losses they did in Greece/Albania and Egypt/Libya - having suffered Taranto and Matapan - were gagging to invade Malta even if the Germans were interested.
Come 1942 and I believe the picture hasn't changed much. The Royal Navy are in trouble - there is no Mediterranean Fleet, but Malta is better defended - even a few tanks, there is an air force (strength is up and down). We agree that as a minimum German paratroopers and FliegerKorps II will be required. On that basis taking the island becomes likely once again, although by that point it really would have been a Pyrrhic victory.
Taking the island in 1942 would mean what exactly? The amount of Axis supplies NOT getting to North Africa were relatively small anyway (the submarines had left due to the bombing by Fliegerkorps II) so Rommel's supply situation isn't dramatically altered if at all and the loss of Malta in 1942 doesn't really help Rommel in terms of what he needs; it doesn't give him more troops, more tanks or more petrol*. Sure, Fliegerkorps II could be sent to North Africa, but then so would all those Spitfires, Beaufighters etc that can no longer be sent to Malta, all the RN ships sunk/badly damaged trying to keep Malta in the war in 1942 are suddenly very much afloat and heading elsewhere - Arctic, Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Alexandria/Gibraltar.
* The problem for Rommel in 1942 was that supplies were landed miles away not that they weren't getting through. It is true that after Fliegerkorps II left the RN submarines returned to Malta and supplies were hit - but we are talking August/September time that this happened. The damage had been done.
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Well it would have been interesting had they met Malaya coming in the opposite direction.... but assuming they missed each other, the three German ships squeezing through the Straits of Gibraltar could have been fun for the submarines in Gib. But suppose the did a Channel Dash through the Straits? What are they going to do now in the Mediterranean?
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 6/17/2020 5:55:48 AM >
_____________________________
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805  |
Printable Version
RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau - 
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