Could Malta have been taken in Spring 1941?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

TFSmith121

Banned
This has 1st Wake written all over it, actually...

So the answer is a pretty solid no then

Unlike the Imperial forces on Crete who had the disadvantage of poor comms and incomplete ToE and some serious loss of cohesion due to their hasty evacuation from Greece (for example they had virtually no Telephone cable and this resulted in poor communication between sub units) while in Malta this reinforced regular Division was operating from a fortified Island with a full ToE and stacks of AAA.

This has 1st Wake written all over it, actually...

Add the topo lines on the inset map provided above, and the photo of the southeastern Maltese coast, and it starts to look like 1st Wake crossed with Tanga and the mole at Zeebrugge.

Which, considering this would be the first time out for the Germans and Italians, are all pretty apt comparisons.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Looks like a debacle of biblical proportions, actually;

No question this is a tough draw for the Axis, for all the reasons given. It's an almost ideal size and terrain for defense - about a third smaller than Guam or Oahu, two islands whose remarkable defensibility has already been discussed in this forum ad nauseam, and over twice the size of Saipan. And we know how long and how expensive Guam was to take for V Amphibious Corps and Fifth Fleet to take (about 20 days) against a garrison of just under 20,000 men. And like Guam and Saipan, the British had years to prepare a defense in depth, unlike Crete. If the British fight hard for it (and they almost surely will), it will be a tough fight, and a long enough one to risk the intervention of the Royal Navy in force.

The advantage to the Axis, on the other hand, is that it's so close to Sicily for land-based air support and reinforcement.

All I can say is that taking it in 1940 sure as hell looks a lot more attractive.

Looks like a debacle of biblical proportions, actually, in 1941 or 1942. Even in 1940, unless the Italians dramatically improve their operational planning (and considering the records of the Italians during their invasions of Provence, Egypt, and Greece, one doubts they could or would in any realistic sense), it's going to be just as bad...

Even in June, 1940, from Joslen the British had seven infantry battalions on the island - 2nd Devon, 1st Dorset, 2nd R. West Kents, 2nd R. Irish Fus., 1st KOMR, 2nd KOMR, and 8th Manchester, with the 3rd KOMR being formed...

Best,
 
How Malta really doesn't matter as much as you think

First, in the masterfully researched "Supplying War", Creveld makes that overwhelming case that it is the huge distances from Tripoli to the front, along with the small port capacities of Benghazi and Tobruk that matter far more than Allied interdiction of the sea lanes from Italy.

second, while Malta was useful as a supply base for RN submarines, and sometimes was able to support bombers (during the periods of time it wasn't being continually bombed), the RN submarines could operate from Gibraltar with only a penalty in station keeping time. As it was, they usually ran out of torpedoes before they faced any fuel problems. So the RN operational tempo goes down a bit for a while.

third, Malta is essentially a couple of mountains sticking out of the sea. In terms of topography, Crete is almost a pool table in comparison. The only drop zones that would not inflict staggering injuries on the paras would be the airfields (which are the strongest defended positions on Malta in terms of AAA), and also the only generally flat terrain that would not result in spectacular crashes (very costly in terms of lives and equipment) for the gliders.

fourth, the Italians and Germans have almost no significant amphibious warfare experience (only the Japanese had much in 1941 to be fair), as was shown to horrifying effect in Crete. The amphibious landing attempt was a bloody and frankly horrifying fiasco for the troop laden caiques used there. While a bit shorter jaunt for the Italians, Malta actually has seacoast defenses, including minefields and anti shipping guns. Crete did not (it had RN destroyers instead).

fifth, as the United States and Royal Navies discovered later in the war, to destroy shore based defenses requires massive naval and air bombardment, and even then, as Tarawa and Corregidor demonstrated, losses to the assault forces are going to be severe as those defenses cannot be completely silenced (Corregidor is actually a pretty good analogy by the way.. which was taken by the US in a combined airborne and seaborne assault but with massive support).

sixth, the Italian Fleet in the Spring of 1941 simply does not have sufficient heavy ships to provide the needed bombardment AND covering force after the losses at Taranto and Cape Matapan. A similar sized objective in the Pacific War was given the attention of several old battleships, with limited results. The Italians do not have several battleships at this point.

seventh, airpower isn't going to be enough to silence those shore defense. It never was in all of World War II, and even with the US dropping literally megatons worth of bombs on similar sized islands the defenses were only reduced, not silenced.

Basically I just don't think the Axis in 1941 could do it. In 1942 they came within a hairsbreadth (one convoy) of starving Malta out. That is a far better option. But it is too soon for that in the Spring of 1941 as Malta is well supplied at this point.

So basically a hideously expensive gamble for an objective that ultimately would have been of little utility.
 

Deleted member 1487

fifth, as the United States and Royal Navies discovered later in the war, to destroy shore based defenses requires massive naval and air bombardment, and even then, as Tarawa and Corregidor demonstrated, losses to the assault forces are going to be severe as those defenses cannot be completely silenced (Corregidor is actually a pretty good analogy by the way.. which was taken by the US in a combined airborne and seaborne assault but with massive support).
Or we could go with a Mediterranean example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Corkscrew
Surrendered to bombing and bombardment alone. I wonder what the tipping point for Malta would be?
 
Or we could go with a Mediterranean example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Corkscrew
Surrendered to bombing and bombardment alone. I wonder what the tipping point for Malta would be?

lookup how many sorties were flown by B17s... aircraft that the Axis could not match in terms of bomb loads. (679 sorties according to this

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090529-104.pdf

Corrigedor was bombed routinely for 4 months (less so earlier), and heavily bombarded by heavy guns for a solid month. It surrendered because of a very costly Japanese assault. It could have only lasted a few more weeks in any event due to water and food shortages.

Note that the Japanese still did not risk heavy ships (or even destroyers) against the seacoast guns available to the American garrison.

Pantellera (Operation Corkscrew) was a unique event in the history of warfare. The Allies had total air supremacy and naval supremacy. That Axis would likely gain air superiority, but would face a contested sea when attacking Malta.

But Malta did almost run out of supplies but the costly Pedestal Convoy brought in just enough in literally the nick of time. Without it, Malta might have had to surrender in 1942 to spare the civilian population (who really earned that Cross of St George)
 

Deleted member 1487

lookup how many sorties were flown by B17s... aircraft that the Axis could not match in terms of bomb loads. (679 sorties according to this

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090529-104.pdf

Corrigedor was bombed routinely for 4 months (less so earlier), and heavily bombarded by heavy guns for a solid month. It surrendered because of a very costly Japanese assault. It could have only lasted a few more weeks in any event due to water and food shortages.

Note that the Japanese still did not risk heavy ships (or even destroyers) against the seacoast guns available to the American garrison.

Pantellera (Operation Corkscrew) was a unique event in the history of warfare. The Allies had total air supremacy and naval supremacy. That Axis would likely gain air superiority, but would face a contested sea when attacking Malta.

But Malta did almost run out of supplies but the costly Pedestal Convoy brought in just enough in literally the nick of time. Without it, Malta might have had to surrender in 1942 to spare the civilian population (who really earned that Cross of St George)

What was the tonnage dropped? That's more important than sortees. IOTL there were over 2500 trons dropped on Malta in 1941, but Malta was 3-4x the size of Pantellera. In 1942 the Germans dropped even more tonnage on the island.

Supposing the Germans called off the Blitz in January 1941 then and used double the number of bombers and increased sorties to 1942 levels or more perhaps Malta could be bombed into submission?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege...rns_.28December_1941_.E2.80.93_August_1942.29

In February and March 1942 they flew nearly 2500 sorties and reduced the island to 28 fighters.

In 1941 from January to early may they flew over 1400 bomber sorties.
 
What was the tonnage dropped? That's more important than sortees. IOTL there were over 2500 trons dropped on Malta in 1941, but Malta was 3-4x the size of Pantellera. In 1942 the Germans dropped even more tonnage on the island.

Supposing the Germans called off the Blitz in January 1941 then and used double the number of bombers and increased sorties to 1942 levels or more perhaps Malta could be bombed into submission?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege...rns_.28December_1941_.E2.80.93_August_1942.29

In February and March 1942 they flew nearly 2500 sorties and reduced the island to 28 fighters.

In 1941 from January to early may they flew over 1400 bomber sorties.

the link I provided, which is the official US Army Air Force report, states 5400 sorties (2/3rds bombers) dropping 6,202 tons of bombs in 10 days of intensive attacks. It doesn't mention tonnage of bombardment ammunition from the cruisers and destroyers, but that was a relatively small force so probably at most another 200 tons of medium caliber (4.7 to 6 inch) shells.

It also states that morale collapsed because of the increasing intensity of the assault (which is demonstrated in the report on page 109)

The Luftwaffe never had that kind of firepower. The Japanese used artillery for their most effective results at Corregidor
 
Malta could possibly be taken, but it would be a hellish battle. See, Malta is small and densely populated (est. ~271k people or ~750 people/km^2), as compared to Crete (even today the population density is only ~75 people/km^2), so the German tactic of dropping troops and weapons separate will make things difficult, as many of their weapons will fall into local hands. In addition, the garrison is better organised than that of Crete, and more familiar with the terrain.
 

BooNZ

Banned
No doubt, but for this what if we're assuming that that wasn't an option until the Germans showed up and could come up with priorities.

If the Italians had focused on British assets early instead of kicking off against the Greeks, there would be less need to prioritise, because Crete would be off the table (through either a Neutral or Axis leaning Greece).

In the OTL I would suggest Malta was "probably" doable in 1941, but 1940 would have created more colourful butterflies. The outcome in the Mediterranean was a forgone conclusion after Lend-Lease was passed.
 
Top