Gibraltar falling in 1940, then Malta, etc

[King Augeas]

If Gibraltar is gone and Malta is gone, I cannot see where US would like to invade.

They might still be able to land on the Atlantic coast of Vichy Morocco, just as OTL, assuming that we're not assuming German occupation of that also.

 

[ivanotter]

Helping Monty by a landing only on the Atlantic coast is a very long way from anything.

It is interesting to see how RN used the Med. Despite Italian navy and LW, they still managed to do as they pleased (to some extent). It re-inforces the notion that the Med should have been closed very early. 1940 would be a good time.

Also putting a bit of courage into the Italian Navy would be an idea.

The joker in the pack to me is still Greece. If Britain should decide to cling to greece, Crete is important.

However, the losses incurred in the Eastern Med around Crete were not good. Cunningham was nearly ending up with no nave at all.

(his famous words: it takes 3 years to build a ship but 300 years to build a tradition). Very brave of course, but in essence: he was running out of ships.

Let us now imagine that Malta is gone in 1940 (chuck in Crete and Gibraltar for good measure).

Will a British strategy be to recover Malta? A seaborne invasion of Malta by British forces in 1941 or 1942 could be another solution.

Torch does not seem realistic to me unless Malta is again in British hands.

Comments on that?

Ivan

 

[King Augeas]

A successful landing on the Atlantic coast of Morocco would give Allied forces the ability to neutralise Gibraltar and close the straits (is Spain in the war? If not, how did Gibraltar fall anyway?), then push east. If they have enough forces, of course, but it seems that such an attack would only occur after the invasion of the SU, whether it be 1941 or 1942 edition, meaning that German troops drawn to fight there are taken from the critical eastern front. It is a long way to Tunisia and I don't know what the railways are like, but forcing Germany to fight in North Africa still sounds like a good idea.

I suspect that in a situation where the British have the ability to retake Malta, they won't need to retake Malta, they'd just neutralise it via airpower and carry on to Sicily.

 

[BlondieBC]

in 1941 off Crete the RN operated for two days under air attack on the scale you mentioned. 650 planes - 1/4 of the luftwaffe, about right.

in those two days they could defeat any italian amphibious invasion, or carry reinforcemets tohelp defeat any airborne assault on malta, also they would be able to refuel and restock with AA amunition from Malta,

The Luftwaffe would also not benefit from specifically trained anti ship air groups and bombs - those SAP 250 Kg bombs that hit the warspite for example. -these were created after a the relative inefficiency of the Lufwaffe's attacks on shipping in the Battle of britain, here they would be discovering the defficiency.

The difference between the RN and the Regia Marina is that the RN does not turn away after been hit once.

NB Admiral Cunninghams wife was living on malta at the time being discussed I think he would be motivated to relieve malta at all costs

cheers Hipper

Again, you seem to miss the point. You have the RN just show up at exactly the right time to sink the transports. There are a lot of bad assumptions you are carry from OTL to this ATL.

1) Crete is a good bit farther from Alexandria than Crete. If you hold you forces in a safe location such as Alexandria and wait until you have confirmation that the amphibious forces have sailed, the battle will be over before you arrive. It takes a few hours to cover the 65 miles for the amphib forces. The RN is 1000+ miles away or about two days. This means that you are not showing up for a day or two battle here or there. The forces have to be permanently stationed in Malta to matter. And they will be attacked daily from the air.

2) While the RN does emphasis aggressive commanders, it is simply a myth they never retreat. The retreated from the Japanese in 1941/1942. The conceded surface control of the central Med for months at a time. They pulled their forces out of Scapa Flow for a while due to German threats. I understand that WW1 and WW2 were great struggles for the UK, but a lot of the stuff that comes out as "facts" is simply a myth vaguely based in reality. You have taken the fact the the UK admirals were generally more aggressive than the Italians but less aggressive than the Japanese and turned it into the myth of "the RN never turns away".

3) Malta is much closer to the Italian bases than Crete was to Italian/German. The airplanes will get many more cycles per day.

4) You mention bringing extra help. Convoys traveled at 8 knots, so you are probably looking at a 5-7 day delay from the go order to arrival at Malta. Very likely to be interdicted.

5) You comment that the Luftwaffe would not benefit from extra training or weapons development is simply absurd on its face.

6) When you take the this big ammo convoy and manpower convoy, it will be a one way trip. We can look at the resupply convoy from the west that was well planned where most of the freighters did not arrive. This will not be an operation at the time of UK choosing but one of the axis choosing. It likely goes much worse. All you do by loading say 2 divisions of men and supplies onto ships to reinforce Malta is convert them to to a regiment or two before landing due to drowning at sea. I understand you are having the UK doing a decisive sea battle here where they basically risk the bulk of the RN. This is a German dream, since the RN can be defeated and it takes 3+ years to build new capital ships. And the Germans at worse lose a division or two and some planes. Both which can easily be replaced.

7) IMO, Admiral Cunningham will follow his orders from the Sea Lords.


Now to more specific on your scenario.

1) The forces listed on the 20th and 21st are simply too small too light to stay between Malta and Sicily for weeks on end. They will simply be sunk or damaged so badly they have to retire from constant air attacks.

2) On 22nd, notice the ammo is down to 66%. When you run low on ammo, you are talking about going back to port. If you take the ships to Malta where they will be attacked constantly, they will be lost. So you have to go back to Egypt or retire far to the east to resupply at sea. Either way you have given an opportunity for the assault to take place without naval interference.

3) Then you note how a BB was attacked by 3 fighters. Notice how one hit cause the loss of 69 men, took out a gun, and damaged the boiler. This is how smaller bombs work. If you drop the big bombs (or shells) that can penetrated deep into the ship, you tend to find get the catastrophic loss. Smaller hits degrade the ship until enough damage has been done that it needs a major port repair cycle, perhaps a dry dock. This illustrates why you can't keep this ships around Malta. Say each BB is hit about once per day by some type of bombs. This is very low estimate for the amount of hits they will take. Now think about the ship after it has been hit by 20 or so times over 14 days. There is a pretty decent chance one of them found something critical such as a magazine, rudder, or engine room that will result in the loss of the ship. This is not a small chance. But ok, the ship was lucky or unlucky depending on how one looks at it. The problems with bombs is they will normally go through the weather deck, but are likely stopped by main armor belt deep in ship. This means that you have had 10-15 hits like the one you lists. (Some will be duds, defeated by armor, or just hit something unimportant such as a previously hit location). The ship will have many guns out. It will likely have controlled flooding greatly slowing the ship. Some of the fuel tanks will likely be hit and have leaked full. In short, it will be a mission kill. All you are doing by doing this is putting the UK capital ships at the bottom of the Sea or in dry dock to easily replaced air power.

4) Then note they are low on ammo by the 4th day or so, and need to go home. So for you plan to work, you have to cycle new ships in every 3-5 days. This is why the Germans/Italians can get control of the sea around Malta. They bring down the units for the amphib assault and put them on 24 hour to go order readiness. Then either the UK sends up its capital ships for attrition, or it concedes the invasion. If it sends up its capital ships, then they will be lost/damaged, and then the invasion occurs anyway.

 

[BlondieBC]

Will a British strategy be to recover Malta? A seaborne invasion of Malta by British forces in 1941 or 1942 could be another solution.

Torch does not seem realistic to me unless Malta is again in British hands.

Comments on that?

Ivan

No, they will try to contain and then eliminate the North Africa forces, then use France as the main attack. As to Torch, without Gibraltar, the Algeria part is too hard, but can either use the sites used IOTL Morocco. Or if the Germans have fortified enough, go down and land farther south down the coast of Africa. They will still be able to contain and quite likely push back the Germans some and gain experience for D-Day. I suspect Sicily will never be attempted, mostly due to how the TL unfolds. We have delayed the Allied progress. At best, Monty will be months behind OTL for milestones. The USA will not land directly in Algeria but will land in Morocco or farther south, if they land at all. There is a lot more ground that has to be taken with worse USA logistics with a stronger Afrika Corp.

 

[ivanotter]

Would that not be realluy dangerous without Malta?

Admitted, Malta airfields will not ad a lot of mileage to LW attacks on shipping, but Malta as a naval base (German/ Italian in this case) is something else.

The Italian destroyer groups were quite active.

Could (more) any German subs have made a marked difference in 1940?

Ivan

 

[MattII]

Sicily will be a few months behind probably, due to having Pantellaria and maybe the Pelagie Islands as the only forward bases.

 

[BlondieBC]

Sicily will be a few months behind probably, due to having Pantellaria and maybe the Pelagie Islands as the only forward bases.

It can easily be in that range if the Allies still follow the same plan. I can see butterflies making it go slower and I can see a different USA strategy,but it is possible the USA just keeps the same plan and pounds away with the same or bit higher resource levels.

Would that not be realluy dangerous without Malta?

Admitted, Malta airfields will not ad a lot of mileage to LW attacks on shipping, but Malta as a naval base (German/ Italian in this case) is something else.

The Italian destroyer groups were quite active.

Could (more) any German subs have made a marked difference in 1940?

Ivan

Would what be dangerous without Malta? Not sure what you are asking.

The loss of Malta means the Med stays closed to the Allies for much longer. Once it falls, you will see the UK fall back to defend Egypt and Gibraltar to a very large extent. And I am not sure where you see the more submarines. So lets go back through some scenario.

1) Malta falls only. Italian fleet trapped in Med. Much easier supplies to Rommel. Rommel does better but possibly only little bit better. Rommel may do as well as achieve Nile line and shut down Suez to most traffic. Or he may stall about where he did IOTL with just much better supplies and hold a lot longer. There are some results that could be much better, but they are less likely and take some good butterflies for Axis. For example, perhaps the RN does contest Malta with capital ships and takes a pounding. Or maybe Taranto raid is butterflied. Or maybe Allied commander makes mistake or decides to pull back from Alexanderia. But it can also go worse. RN could massacre Italian Navy but still lose Malta. Or we could just butterfly away who goes to Libya and they could just go on the defensive. Now you likely see Germans send fewer U-boats to Med, so this helps the Atlantic war some.

2) Malta + Gibraltar. Now Italians can send main fleet to Atlantic, but won't as long as RN is in eastern Med. Now we will see merchant raiders leaking out and we may see some cruiser raids. We have Axis air power out of Gibraltar and Spain. RN has a lot more convoy miles to escort. Convoys will likely be routed much father west to minimize danger. Noticeably less supplies reach UK, but not war winner. Think either less calories for British civilians or delayed operations. Based on what goes through South Atlantic - Beef from Argentina, things from Aussies/NZ, it leans more towards food. If in the odd issue of too many war supplies (bullets, guns) building up in the ANZAC zone, the simple solution is to move more units to Egypt and cut down the shipping distance. A lot else will be like scenario #2 except we are much, much more likely to affect torch.

3) West African Plan - This is a major, major change in how resources are used. Very unlikely unless we cancel USSR in 41. And if not done big, it has small impact. Sure the Nazi may sneak a few Sea planes down there or some food/fuel/torps for U-boats. But how much difference will 40 Seaplanes and reloading 10 U-boats really make. In WW1 which is a war the CP should have won, any change is huge. In WW2 which is a curb stomping after the USSR makes it to mid 42, it just slows things down a bit.

4) Take #2 and close Suez. If you can drive RN from Eastern Med, then we can start thinking about the Italian main fleet in the Atlantic. The West African option becomes much more possible. Now just because we shut the Suez does not mean the fleet has to leave, it can be based and supplied out of ports such as Haifa. But most likely if forced to leave Alexandria, the fleet leaves the Med. Once we do these 3 large wins, we have lots of options and the Axis are helped greatly. If we have the Red Sea Coast, we can look at U-boats in the Indian Ocean, making the UK life much, much harder. If we have the full length of the Suez, the UK has to defend against surface ships for the Axis going into the Red Sea. The UK needs to keep ships at the Canaries to handle the main Italian battle line. Lots and lots of problems. But to be fair, so much has to go just right for the Axis to get here.

 

[MattII]

IIRC, the Regia Marina's ships had pretty short legs compared to those of the RN an Kriegsmarine.

 

[ivanotter]

Blondie: Always a pleasure reading your comments.

Let us somehow make the Med an axis lake: Gibraltar, Malta gone. Rommel closing down the Suez.

RN leaving the Med.

Will the Italian navy be called up for the Atlantic? as Matt mentioned, they tend to be a bit shorter legged than other navies. What would they really do in the Atlantic?

The convoy business round Africa insofar as Australia, NZ etc are concerned deserves a bit more I think.

How much came from Aus, NZ? war material? food only?

How important was the African West coast?

Would a Med in the hands of the axis be viewed as a European show stopper by the US after 7 December 1941? would it focus US efforts on Japan rather than Europe?

If US could not get to use land troops against Germany for 2 years, would the focus not shift somehow? Adm King was less than fond of Europe to begin with.

What abut the Black Sea if the Med is in axis hands?

Ivan

 

[King Augeas]

Blondie: Always a pleasure reading your comments.

Let us somehow make the Med an axis lake: Gibraltar, Malta gone. Rommel closing down the Suez.

RN leaving the Med.

Will the Italian navy be called up for the Atlantic? as Matt mentioned, they tend to be a bit shorter legged than other navies. What would they really do in the Atlantic?

The convoy business round Africa insofar as Australia, NZ etc are concerned deserves a bit more I think.

How much came from Aus, NZ? war material? food only?

How important was the African West coast?

Would a Med in the hands of the axis be viewed as a European show stopper by the US after 7 December 1941? would it focus US efforts on Japan rather than Europe?

If US could not get to use land troops against Germany for 2 years, would the focus not shift somehow? Adm King was less than fond of Europe to begin with.

What abut the Black Sea if the Med is in axis hands?

Ivan

Italy had problems fuelling her battleships in 1942, making Atlantic raids difficult. If we're talking 1941 and adding a few deliveries of German oil you can probably get away with it though. A bigger problem will be the Canaries. I think we can assume that the Spanish cooperation required to take/neutralise Gibraltar will immediately be met by implementation of the British plan to take the Canaries. Assuming that that goes to plan, you then have a hostile naval base and air base in a good location to engage any sortie into the Atlantic, as well as support the African convoy route.

I don't see Axis domination of the Med changing the Europe-first strategy. There was a very good reason for this strategy, and it was because Germany was more dangerous than Japan. An Axis Med means that Germany is even more powerful, further favouring Europe-first. The real problem is how to implement it and gain land experience. A Moroccan Torch might still happen - it would enable Gibraltar to be neutralised and the straits closed, bottling up the Italian fleet again. If not, then they just let the Med be and build up for Normandy as OTL, I suppose. With the lack of experience, attacking will be a messier, bloodier affair, but I can't see it being repulsed with the naval artillery and air support available.

I'm not convinced at all about this West Africa business, despite the mentions of the US studies. I don't see how it can be supplied, and fundamentally it represents a dilution of effort from the key Atlantic theatre, just like sending U-boats into the Med was. I suppose you can argue that it would deplete the Atlantic escort force by forcing redeployments, but, well, did that happen with the Mediterranean U-boats? Getting U-boats and the Italian fleet into the Indian Ocean might be a better idea, as I'm not sure that much convoying happened there, but Aden is well-placed to receive the Med fleet and to block the Red Sea. Massawa maybe too, assuming that the Italian colonies in East Africa collapsed as per OTL, demolitions notwithstanding.

 

[BlondieBC]

Will the Italian navy be called up for the Atlantic? as Matt mentioned, they tend to be a bit shorter legged than other navies. What would they really do in the Atlantic?

The convoy business round Africa insofar as Australia, NZ etc are concerned deserves a bit more I think.

How much came from Aus, NZ? war material? food only?

How important was the African West coast?

Would a Med in the hands of the axis be viewed as a European show stopper by the US after 7 December 1941? would it focus US efforts on Japan rather than Europe?

If US could not get to use land troops against Germany for 2 years, would the focus not shift somehow? Adm King was less than fond of Europe to begin with.

What abut the Black Sea if the Med is in axis hands?

The question you ask are largely political and depend on the scenario. For example, 70% of the Italian war fleet could be on the bottom on the ocean or Italy could have sunk 7 British Capital ships for the loss of two. The USA may or may not be in the war when Gibraltar/Suez Falls.

Italian Fleet: If writing TL, I would lean towards the capital fleeting being based in Malta with 1-2 trips out into the Atlantic. After all, with this much winning, Italy could well fell it could just hold back and wait for the peace treaty. I think the Italian submarines and some of the lighter ships do a lot of raiding. I can also see Italy trying to covert merchant ships into raiders. I would lean towards Italy thinking more in Colonial terms and fighting SE into the Horn of Afrika or trying to go into the Middle East. BTW, on the shorter legs, you have to whatever has enough legs.

Turkey: I can see them entering war if promised the right stuff (Lost Ottoman lands back (Iraq,Syria, etc). You will not see much more naval action in the Black Sea unless Turkey enters the war. Letting Axis ships into the black sea is a bridge too far. I would lean towards Turkey allowing Axis merchant ships into the Black Sea for later concessions by the Axis.

You get food and wool from the Aussie/NZ. I did my stuff on WW1, so I can't give you the war industries, but the major food producer role would be the same.

FDR still does Germany first. In 1941, we thought the USSR would fall. What it likely does is force the USA to have more forces in the Atlantic than OTL both pre and post Pearl. If we go easy on anyone, it is Japan. I would guess we would have fewer ships in the Pacific and I would not rule out them still being in San Diego. In any case, the war will flow much different in the Pacific. The big winner of the successful Med strategy is Japan. How big depends on the ATL.

FDR lands troops in October 1942 somewhere. Election politics + need for combat experience. And unless the Axis hold all of Africa, Europe and Asia, there will always be an "easy" flank to attack. So some choices.

1) Morocco.
2) Western Sahara.
3) Arabia
4) Horn of Africa.
5) Norway.
6) West Africa.

Remember, shutting the Suez does not isolate Palestine or Syria. You can land supplies at Jeddah and go up by rail. Or you can build a RR across from Baghdad to Damascus. Building a RR across open land at 1-2 miles per day is very doable. If I was writing TL, I would go with option 1 or 2.

 

[BlondieBC]

I'm not convinced at all about this West Africa business, despite the mentions of the US studies. I don't see how it can be supplied, and fundamentally it represents a dilution of effort from the key Atlantic theatre, just like sending U-boats into the Med was. I suppose you can argue that it would deplete the Atlantic escort force by forcing redeployments, but, well, did that happen with the Mediterranean U-boats? Getting U-boats and the Italian fleet into the Indian Ocean might be a better idea, as I'm not sure that much convoying happened there, but Aden is well-placed to receive the Med fleet and to block the Red Sea. Massawa maybe too, assuming that the Italian colonies in East Africa collapsed as per OTL, demolitions notwithstanding.

I think you may be overestimating the number of forces used. It is probably under 1 Infantry Corp and less than 200 airplanes and less than 12 U-boats. It is a classic strategy of trying to use X resources to tie up 3X to 10X enemy resources. With mostly non-mechanized infantry (not enough roads for armor), you greatly cut expendable consumption (fuel and parts). West Africa exported food, so the food is secured locally. You are basically looking at ammo and other items. I bet it takes less than 15% of the amount of supplies need for the equivalent sized unit on the Eastern Front. Most of the time, the land based forces will be idle, so even ammo consumption will be low. As a guess, the US G-2 probably saw a combination of desert convoys (camels?), sneaking a few merchant ships down, trying to sneak in a little merchant supplies from South America, and some air lift.

And if they get the forces down there, it will be the first target for the USA in Torch.

 

[hipper]

Again, you seem to miss the point. You have the RN just show up at exactly the right time to sink the transports. There are a lot of bad assumptions you are carry from OTL to this ATL.

1) Crete is a good bit farther from Alexandria than Crete. If you hold you forces in a safe location such as Alexandria and wait until you have confirmation that the amphibious forces have sailed, the battle will be over before you arrive. It takes a few hours to cover the 65 miles for the amphib forces. The RN is 1000+ miles away or about two days. This means that you are not showing up for a day or two battle here or there. The forces have to be permanently stationed in Malta to matter. And they will be attacked daily from the air.

a) This is the theory that Malta will fall in 24 hours, I disagree.

The Mediterranean fleet will arrive 24-36 hours after the arrival of the Italian fleet from Taranto. If this invasion happens after Greece joins the war then The RN will be able to forward base in Suda bay and intervene within a few hours of the arrival of the Italian fleet. The Italian navy will then be faced with the possibility of accepting action or abandoning any amphibious invasion. Signal intelligence will provide ample strategic warning of the decision to invade and the sailing of the Italian fleet.

NB the Italian fleet will have to attempt to suppress the costal artillery defenses before any amphibious assault is made or the risk of the assault suffering heavy casualties exist.

I do not think that the RN would attempt a forward defense of Malta by offering themselves up as aunt sallies to the assembled Luftwaffe and RA forces, they would however be expected to intervene once an invasion had started.

While the RN does emphasis aggressive commanders, it is simply a myth they never retreat. The retreated from the Japanese in 1941/1942. The conceded surface control of the central Med for months at a time. They pulled their forces out of Scapa Flow for a while due to German threats. I understand that WW1 and WW2 were great struggles for the UK, but a lot of the stuff that comes out as "facts" is simply a myth vaguely based in reality. You have taken the fact the the UK admirals were generally more aggressive than the Italians but less aggressive than the Japanese and turned it into the myth of "the RN never turns away".

b) Hmm Once a strategic decision to make to defend Malta then the RN could be expected to make considerable efforts to defend it.

Malta is much closer to the Italian bases than Crete was to Italian/German. The airplanes will get many more cycles per day.

c) An extra 10 minutes or so each way at 200 mph not important.

You mention bringing extra help. Convoys traveled at 8 knots, so you are probably looking at a 5-7 day delay from the go order to arrival at Malta. Very likely to be interdicted.

d) A important military convoy would travel at 14 knots.

In any case substantial reinforcements for Malta would be shipped once it was clear that substantial portions of the Luftwaffe and air landing troops were moving to Italy rather than Northern France.

You comment that the Luftwaffe would not benefit from extra training or weapons development is simply absurd on its face.

f) They would indeed benefit, However in August of 1940 Luftwaffe Stuka units that attacked the RN in Crete and damaged the illustrious had not attained the high degree of proficiency at naval attack that they reached in early 1941.

When you take the this big ammo convoy and manpower convoy, it will be a one way trip. We can look at the resupply convoy from the west that was well planned where most of the freighters did not arrive. This will not be an operation at the time of UK choosing but one of the axis choosing. It likely goes much worse. All you do by loading say 2 divisions of men and supplies onto ships to reinforce Malta is convert them to to a regiment or two before landing due to drowning at sea. I understand you are having the UK doing a decisive sea battle here where they basically risk the bulk of the RN. This is a German dream, since the RN can be defeated and it takes 3+ years to build new capital ships. And the Germans at worse lose a division or two and some planes. Both which can easily be replaced.

See d) However admiral Cunningham is seeking battle with the Italian fleet. An amphibious assault on Malta gives him his best chance to achieve this.

IMO, Admiral Cunningham will follow his orders from the Sea Lords.

g) A strategic decision had been made to defend Malta

to more specific on your scenario.

1) The forces listed on the 20th and 21st are simply too small too light to stay between Malta and Sicily for weeks on end. They will simply be sunk or damaged so badly they have to retire from constant air attacks.

See a)

On 22nd, notice the ammo is down to 66%. When you run low on ammo, you are talking about going back to port. If you take the ships to Malta where they will be attacked constantly, they will be lost. So you have to go back to Egypt or retire far to the east to resupply at sea. Either way you have given an opportunity for the assault to take place without naval interference.

h) I see no problem with ammunition resupply overnight in Malta. This is the biggest difference between an attack on malta and one on Crete.

Then you note how a BB was attacked by 3 fighters. Notice how one hit cause the loss of 69 men, took out a gun, and damaged the boiler. This is how smaller bombs work. If you drop the big bombs (or shells) that can penetrated deep into the ship, you tend to find get the catastrophic loss. Smaller hits degrade the ship until enough damage has been done that it needs a major port repair cycle, perhaps a dry dock. This illustrates why you can't keep this ships around Malta. Say each BB is hit about once per day by some type of bombs. This is very low estimate for the amount of hits they will take. Now think about the ship after it has been hit by 20 or so times over 14 days. There is a pretty decent chance one of them found something critical such as a magazine, rudder, or engine room that will result in the loss of the ship. This is not a small chance. But ok, the ship was lucky or unlucky depending on how one looks at it. The problems with bombs is they will normally go through the weather deck, but are likely stopped by main armor belt deep in ship. This means that you have had 10-15 hits like the one you lists. (Some will be duds, defeated by armor, or just hit something unimportant such as a previously hit location). The ship will have many guns out. It will likely have controlled flooding greatly slowing the ship. Some of the fuel tanks will likely be hit and have leaked full. In short, it will be a mission kill. All you are doing by doing this is putting the UK capital ships at the bottom of the Sea or in dry dock to easily replaced air power.

I) The RN proved it had the capacity to persist at sea in the face of intensive air attack for sufficient time to force the abandonment of any amphibious assault on Malta they would indeed take damage while doing this.

Then note they are low on ammo by the 4th day or so, and need to go home. So for you plan to work, you have to cycle new ships in every 3-5 days. This is why the Germans/Italians can get control of the sea around Malta. They bring down the units for the amphib assault and put them on 24 hour to go order readiness. Then either the UK sends up its capital ships for attrition, or it concedes the invasion. If it sends up its capital ships, then they will be lost/damaged, and then the invasion occurs anyway.

Or the RN waits for the assault to occur forces the Italian fleet to give battle or flee, and forces the Italian/German amphibious assault to be abandoned. Leaving the initial landing forces to their fate.


In truth I am not saying that an Invasion of Malta is Impossible meerly more difficult then the italians and germans were prepaired to accept.

I suggest that to make it possible it depends on a number of assumptions unstated in the initial POD

1) The Italians recognize the inability of their armed forces to achieve anything on their own and ask for German help with their declaration of war.

2) A specialized German anti shipping force is created pre war.

3) The Italian Battle fleet is prepared to accept battle with a royal navy force that includes battleships and aircraft carriers.

4) The Italian navy creates an amphibious assault capacity.

cheers Hipper

 

[BlondieBC]

First, how do you explain the inability of the RN to defend Crete IOTL? Or for that matter Denmark or Norway? Exactly when did the UK stop an amphibious or airborne assault between 1938 and 1946? I keep reading these incredible projections of RN performance that don't match OTL performance. The RN was not the best Navy in the world in 1940. Ship for ship the Japanese are better. Ship for Ship the USA is better. Italy basically fought them to a draw until USA help arrived. Yes the UK had success, but so did the Italians. The Germans did pretty well in in the limited surface battles with the RN.

a) This is the theory that Malta will fall in 24 hours, I disagree.

I do think the beach head will be established, and even if you happen to be right on the response time, the troops will be ashore. And unless the RN keeps continuous control of the sea for several weeks. Guadalcanal clearly shows that once ashore, temporary interruptions of sea based supplies does not lead to inevitable defeat.

The Mediterranean fleet will arrive 24-36 hours after the arrival of the Italian fleet from Taranto. If this invasion happens after Greece joins the war then The RN will be able to forward base in Suda bay and intervene within a few hours of the arrival of the Italian fleet. The Italian navy will then be faced with the possibility of accepting action or abandoning any amphibious invasion. Signal intelligence will provide ample strategic warning of the decision to invade and the sailing of the Italian fleet.

Once you make it to Suda, you are less than halfway there. Sure, if everything goes perfect and you have good intel, you might get Suda setup in 36 hours. Then it will be another 36 before the UK forces begin to influence the battle. By then, the Germans/Italians will have a strong beach head and have accomplished a good number of their mission objectives. Unless for some odd reason the Malta garrison is actually defeating the Axis and driving the back into the sea, the arrival of the fleet on day 4 is too late to save Malta, even if the RN wins a big naval victory. Crete only took a couple of weeks. It is a lot bigger island with a lot more troops defending it.

NB the Italian fleet will have to attempt to suppress the costal artillery defenses before any amphibious assault is made or the risk of the assault suffering heavy casualties exist.

It will be mostly suppressed with air power. It is doable, but yes, all amphibious operations risk heavy casualties. In the big scheme of things, a few thousand are not a big deal. Do you expect it to be more expensive in German lives than Crete? Just like the Allies had to IOTL or the Germans did in other amphibious operations, the guns will be suppressed enough to allow it to work. They will also likely use airborne or commandos to help suppress.

b) Hmm Once a strategic decision to make to defend Malta then the RN could be expected to make considerable efforts to defend it.

Do you have any evidence they actually intended to do a max effort with the Navy to defend Malta? I have already addressed why I believe they would fail, especially if it was done earlier in the war with heavy German support. If just the forces likely to be in Malta and the naval forces in the Med from OTL, they are simply too weak to defend the Island. It would take committing the home fleet to have a chance of stopping the attack, and I can't see this happening.

d) A important military convoy would travel at 14 knots.

Still arrives to late to determine the battle. Still likely to be interdicted.

In any case substantial reinforcements for Malta would be shipped once it was clear that substantial portions of the Luftwaffe and air landing troops were moving to Italy rather than Northern France.

From where? How fast? The Germans have the interior lines of communication. IMO, the UK will not make a major reaction to the Germans moving a couple of airborne divisions and maybe one infantry division from the coast of France. The Germans can get the airborne troops ready to stage in days. It will takes weeks to months to get forces to reinforce. And this presents the issue for the UK. If they decide to move a large share of the UK forces to Egypt/Malta, the Germans can spend a few days moving back north and have a 60-120 day window of opportunity against England. I just can't see this happening.

f) They would indeed benefit, However in August of 1940 Luftwaffe Stuka units that attacked the RN in Crete and damaged the illustrious had not attained the high degree of proficiency at naval attack that they reached in early 1941.

You took my quote out of context. I was responding to an assertion that a POD with better German naval aviation training provide no benefit.

See d) However admiral Cunningham is seeking battle with the Italian fleet. An amphibious assault on Malta gives him his best chance to achieve this.

Yes he can force a battle. And he may just do that. But he will be too late to save Malta, unless he wants to base the fleet at Malta, and I have been over the issues of doing that against 1/4 of the Luftwaffe. Now if he reacts as you suggest, he will face the Italian Fleet, the Italian Airforce, and a large share of the Luftwaffe versus the surface ships and aircraft on carriers of the RN. The Italians have to go about 100-200 miles to get back to a port, the RN has to go 500 miles to 1000 miles. The odds heavily favor the Axis in this battle.

h) I see no problem with ammunition resupply overnight in Malta. This is the biggest difference between an attack on malta and one on Crete.

I do.

1) Was the ammo even there? In quantity?
2) You have to clear mines on the way in and out each night.
3) The Germans/Italians will have submarines waiting for the ships to come out of port.
4) The Germans will be able to shell the port with land based artillery since you arrive several days after the battle begins.
5) Germany had night bombing capability. While inaccurate, you have ships loading up ammo with crates of ammo on the docks as the Germans shell and bomb each night.

I) The RN proved it had the capacity to persist at sea in the face of intensive air attack for sufficient time to force the abandonment of any amphibious assault on Malta they would indeed take damage while doing this.

Really? How many days within 100 miles of the enemy coast where the enemy has air superiority border on superiority? Dunkirk is the only thing that comes close, and it had over 30% ships lost (241 of 861). The UK will have a small fraction of the airpower covering the operation. And the nearest major friendly base will be 1000 miles away not 10's of miles away. The UK often talks about how few warships were sunk, but skips the part that the Germans were shooting mostly at transports. Simply put, the RN did not keep ships stationed right off of enemy coast that are strongly defended by airpower because they would lose too many of them.

In truth I am not saying that an Invasion of Malta is Impossible meerly more difficult then the italians and germans were prepaired to accept.

I don't get the point of your objection. The Axis lost over 8 million soldiers. They lost 7000 in Crete. IMO, they lose less than t 7000 for Malta. I don't have the exact strength of land forces for Malta, but early in the war we are talking battalions worth of combat effected. Crete had 24,000 defenders and was half the distance from Alexanderia. The Italians/Germans will simply overwhelm the defenders with numbers and firepower even if the operation has major flaws.

I just can't see Hitler being deterred by a few thousand potential casualties. The man happily shed German blood.

 

[ivanotter]

There are several ways all of this could unfold, based on all the quality comments received on this topic.

Let us try to refine it a bit:

Germany (Hitler) gets around to define a Britain-first strategy. Overall plan is to skip the BoB and the sea creature.

Building on Raeder's plans, but refine them a bit, acknowledging that the Med will suck resources and become a theatre if not handled immediately.

Britain in 1940 is not the Britain in 1944. A lot of new aircraft, etc etc are simply not in place.

So, Germany and Italy get it together:

1) Gibraltar and Malta gone in 1940.
2) Stalemate in Egypt, closing Suez.
3) RN gone from Alexandria

It brings me back to Greece and Crete. I freely admit I have a problem fully understanding Crete.

Will Britain intervene in Greece when they at the same time are busy losing Gibraltar, Malta and the Delta? Can they?

Will Crete have any significance in this scenario?

Is it even possible to leave Crete alone? I think not.

Ivan

 

[Shaby]

Will Britain intervene in Greece when they at the same time are busy losing Gibraltar, Malta and the Delta? Can they?

Will Crete have any significance in this scenario?

Is it even possible to leave Crete alone? I think not.

Ivan

As for British intervention in Greece in a scenario where Egypt is threatened it is no longer an option. The British thought their 'desert flank' at Agheila was secure and diverted their troops to Greece, leaving only a token force to guard against wholly improbable Italian excursion from Tripolitania into Cyrenaica. They expected that Axis forces will take much longer time to build up and prepare for all out assault than they actually needed.

If British intervention in Greece does not happen, then at least two or three divisions are available to react against Rommel.

IF Med is closed, Crete loses all significance. It is only significant if it could be used as an outpost for Bomber Command, from where they could target Ploesti. Without control of the Eastern Med, you cannot base bombers and supply them on Crete, posing no danger.

 

[Michele]

I
Malta: Indeed possible in 1940 and without too much grief.

Care to describe the assets used?

 

[Michele]

BLINK BLINK

Are you seriously suggesting that the British have their BB's hang out around Malta in range of aircraft operating out of Sicily?

Michael

Why not? The Regia Aeronautica's standard tactics is bombing from altitude by level bombers - largely unsuccessful.
The Germans may deploy Stukas to Sicily. But these will be B Stukas, not the Ds that sank british warships in 1941. Compare the two versions and you'll see that they are really two different aircraft, not to mention the lack of anti-naval training in 1940.

The Royal Navy only has to carry out a couple of fleet raids to wreck the attempt on Malta. People seem to assume that once there are a handful of paratroopers there, the battle is over and the Axis won't need to send in supplies in the old-fashioned way.

 

[Michele]

First, how do you explain the inability of the RN to defend Crete IOTL?

There are numerous differences between Crete and Malta:

Or for that matter Denmark or Norway?

Dude, Denmark borders with Germany, a land border.

As to Norway, the Royal Navy was pretty efficient in defending Narvik up there. The Germans were going to lose that battle, being pushed into internment in Sweden. The reason why the thing didn't end that way, was the Battle of France.

Exactly when did the UK stop an amphibious or airborne assault between 1938 and 1946?

Uh, in 1940 they stopped the invasion of Britain, and throughout the war they stopped the invasion of Malta.

You see the actual history we all see, and conclude that the Germans could carry out landing operations when they wanted.

The opposite would show a better understanding:

they wanted to carry out landing operations when they could. When they could not, they wanted not.