BlairWitch749, feel free to offer evidence supporting that claim, in contrast to the historical record where Italy, even backed by Germany, was never willing to give an invasion of Malta a try.
Mussolini does not invade France, but invades Malta and Tunisia instead.
- Thread starter Archytas
- Start date
BlairWitch749
Banned
even if they can't get out of their own way they win the battle in 1940
the british can't resupply
the british are severely numerically limited
the british will be attacked from the air and by naval artillery if they move in day light
the british don't have any credible armor
absolutely none of the back drop that created operation compass exists in this scenario (except the Italians being largely green)
Snake Featherston
Banned
Again, why didn't this happen in the 1940 invasion of Egypt by Graziani or in France in 1940, both scenarios where the Italians had much easier logistics and equal imbalances of force? And in a related question, as this did not happen there, why will it here? You can say this 15 times without evidence and it will be no more convincing on the 16th time than it was on the 1st.
BlairWitch749
Banned
the claim of the size of the support force?
When Herkules was planned in OTL it called for 4 battlewagons, 12 cruisers, 20 destroyers... there hasn't been a raid on Taranto yet in the proposed scenario; so the RM is at relatively full strength
The cold feet on Malta later were the Germans who didn't trust the Italians and were bitter over their experience at Crete (the Germans were totally wrong in this situation)
BlairWitch749
Banned
The British Desert Army had big force multipliers in their logistics, motorization, and quality of armor that made up for their numerical inferiority
This doesn't exist in the 1940 Malta attack since the British are isolated, have nowhere to maneuver, and no invulnerable armor
I'm not saying man for man the Italian army could take on the British in this period because it couldn't I'm saying an Italian brigade backed up by a massive naval escort, several dozen tanks and hundreds of aircraft could defeat 2 isolated British battalions with no armor or hope of reinforcement or resupply
The only reason the Brits defeated the Italians in Libya was that they had more planes and better tanks, neither of which were available to the ridiculously small garrison in Malta.
Sicily is extremely close to Tunisia (much closer than to Lybia), a surprise air and naval attack from western Sicily with planes and ships on any of the Tunisian ports has high probabilities of success, just like a surprise attack on Malta from eastern Sicily (less than a 100 km away). With a bridge head in place that at the same time precluded French reinforcements from reaching Tunisia by sea and threatens French border defenses from the rear at the same time that the Lybian army attacks with air and naval support is unbeatable.
The Soviets (not known for brilliant logistics at the time) invaded northern Iran in weeks, I doubt the Axis would have had more trouble invading Baku. Moreover, consider that they can also use the Black sea and Turkey, since once Britain is out of the Med, and the axis in the Middle East (they were already near Turkey in Bulgaria), Turkey will have no option but to join the axis.
Sicily is extremely close to Tunisia (much closer than to Lybia), a surprise air and naval attack from western Sicily with planes and ships on any of the Tunisian ports has high probabilities of success, just like a surprise attack on Malta from eastern Sicily (less than a 100 km away). With a bridge head in place that at the same time precluded French reinforcements from reaching Tunisia by sea and threatens French border defenses from the rear at the same time that the Lybian army attacks with air and naval support is unbeatable.
The Soviets (not known for brilliant logistics at the time) invaded northern Iran in weeks, I doubt the Axis would have had more trouble invading Baku. Moreover, consider that they can also use the Black sea and Turkey, since once Britain is out of the Med, and the axis in the Middle East (they were already near Turkey in Bulgaria), Turkey will have no option but to join the axis.
Last edited:
Snake Featherston
Banned
Again, we've seen how the Italian army of WWII acted in this kind of situation when it was theoretically incapable of losing: it got curbstomped by the people theoretically unable to win. Why, precisely, against an opposed landing would even this guarantee them a win?
So how did the Greeks do it, given the Greeks had nothing of the sort by comparison? I think people are underestimating how bad the Italian army of WWII was at any serious military engagement. They were good enough to use mustard gas on people with spears and oxhide shields, but in anything approaching an enemy who was able to shoot back equally, fuggedabout it.
BlairWitch749, yes, you've repeatedly made the statement and we eagerly await your first effort to support it.
Where does Italy acquire the landing craft, not to mention the doctrine and training?
Does Italy strip the border with Egypt or the war in Greece(or both) for air support to use against Malta?
What happens when the French fleet and RN units in the Med, more than double the entire RM in strength, including many submarines intervenes?
Great. Another vision of how the Turks were frantic to join the Axis and held back from doing so only due to the cruel menace of the British Empire.
Where does Italy acquire the landing craft, not to mention the doctrine and training?
Does Italy strip the border with Egypt or the war in Greece(or both) for air support to use against Malta?
What happens when the French fleet and RN units in the Med, more than double the entire RM in strength, including many submarines intervenes?
Great. Another vision of how the Turks were frantic to join the Axis and held back from doing so only due to the cruel menace of the British Empire.
BlairWitch749
Banned
BlairWitch749, yes, you've repeatedly made the statement and we eagerly await your first effort to support it.
Where does Italy acquire the landing craft, not to mention the doctrine and training?
Does Italy strip the border with Egypt or the war in Greece(or both) for air support to use against Malta?
What happens when the French fleet and RN units in the Med, more than double the entire RM in strength, including many submarines intervenes?
Great. Another vision of how the Turks were frantic to join the Axis and held back from doing so only due to the cruel menace of the British Empire.
They employed landing craft numbering in high dozens in Albania and Corfu... Italy could land a brigade... they had even staged a huge exercise with their San Marco Marine regiment in the context of preparing a landing against France
So landing craft check... trained troops (San Marco Marine Regiment) check, previous landing experience check
The OP suggested this landing be made at the French surrender; so lets say no Marine Nationale intervention
That leaves the RN which has to contest the landing from Alexandria or Gibraltar which at that point has 1 old carrier, 1 modern carrier 3 old battleships 1 newish battleship 1 old battlecruiser 8ish cruisers and 20ish destroyers between the two forces
Assumbly the Italians cordon both sides of the island with submarines and blanket the area with bombers... that's an awfully big risk to try and push a reinforcement convoy through and or open a general engagement which will see the RN exposed to daylight bombing
What the hell can even the most fearsome British garrison do against airplanes and naval guns? Even the Göring division's Tiger tanks in sicily fell prey to the puny 5" guns of American destroyers. Malta is not expecting an Attack, the British are scared out of their wits in France and have nothing that can stop an attack.
Taking Malta in 1940 is a million times easier than taking Crete in 1941 with entire divisions in it. Crete fell to a few poorly equipped paratroopers because the Brits had no planes, very few cannon, no working tanks and were exposed to bombing but almost to no naval bombardment. At least in Crete there were AAA but in malta there is a handful of ill equipped men.
Taking Malta in 1940 is a million times easier than taking Crete in 1941 with entire divisions in it. Crete fell to a few poorly equipped paratroopers because the Brits had no planes, very few cannon, no working tanks and were exposed to bombing but almost to no naval bombardment. At least in Crete there were AAA but in malta there is a handful of ill equipped men.
Last edited:
Why would Turkey join the Axis? They have absolutely no reason to do so.
Axis troops capturing the Middle East, and then continuing on to Baku would have been unreasonable. You can't simply supply them.
The OP suggests invading Malta and Tunisia on June 10, 1940, when France is sure to fall but is still fighting.
Turkey has every incentive to join the axis, since it faces pro German and occupied Iran, Iraq and Bulgaria and cannot expect any supplies to arrive to it or any military help from anybody in the world, since the Med is the axis' playground. If Turkey joins it has access to trade, oil and supplies and may recover some territory from the USSR, Syria, etc, if it doesn't its situation is untenable against the axis.
It is much easier to supply axis troops in Iran and Iraq in friendly territory with little British opposition than it was supplying the thrust from the Ukraine into the oil fields in enemy territory with thousands of enemy planes and tanks.
Turkey has every incentive to join the axis, since it faces pro German and occupied Iran, Iraq and Bulgaria and cannot expect any supplies to arrive to it or any military help from anybody in the world, since the Med is the axis' playground. If Turkey joins it has access to trade, oil and supplies and may recover some territory from the USSR, Syria, etc, if it doesn't its situation is untenable against the axis.
It is much easier to supply axis troops in Iran and Iraq in friendly territory with little British opposition than it was supplying the thrust from the Ukraine into the oil fields in enemy territory with thousands of enemy planes and tanks.
Last edited:
The Axis have occupied Iraq and Iran with an imaginary logistic base, while Stalin does nothing and Turkey suddenly discovers a devotion to the Axis which weaker and more vulnerable neutrals somehow avoided...
The Axis had huge problems supplying their troops by the time they hit El Alamein. The thought of them occupying Iraq and Iran simply doesn't cut it...
Also there is this issue of Turkey not having enough arms, and Germany lacking the needed means to supply them with it. And we haven't even mentioned that low-infrastructure mountanous border with the USSR...
No. By El Alamein the Axis were at the end of their supply line. They simply couldn't go any further.
Please, check the map. Notice the infrastructure and population density in Ukraine. Now look Iraq and Iran and you see what? Desert virtually devoid of infrastructure or even human settlements. And lots and lots of sand. Which tends not to support plant life. Other than copious amount of unrefined oil Axis troops would not find any sort of resources here. Even water would for the large part needed to be brought by trucks. Any advance beyond the Alexandria is highly unlikely without wholesale defeat of Royal Navy.
In your suggestion you overlook one simple fact. Italians did not want to get into war. They entered the war unready and in headlong way for single reason. Mussolini thought that war is ending and Italy was missing "an oportunity that only presents itself once in thousand years" if I am quoting correctly. Hitler and company failed to notify him that they meant business in Poland crisis. He even snubbed Mussolini's attempt to mediate the crises. Other than Benny himself, hardly anyone in Italy wanted to go to war. Many were surprised by the announcement. Graziani refused to advance into Egypt until Mussolini threatened to demote him. Italy was not ready for war. Period. They attacked across the French border for simple reason that they had troops ready there and they thought French would just roll up and surrender. The fact that even the crumbling French army stopped Italians cold at the moment when Paris fell, tells a lot.
I admit, once more, that I do not see why they couldn't take Malta in 1940. The only explanation I can come up with is that the thought has simply not occured to them. Maybe British wouls sail the kitchen sink to save Malta. Given the Italian pitiful record in naval battles under anything approaching fight, this would probably be very bad news for Italians. I don't think they ever inflicted major defeat on British naval forces in the Med, so why would they now? In my opinion they saw what they thought easier and more important pickings in Egypt and decided Malta could be taken in peace settlement.
In your suggestion you overlook one simple fact. Italians did not want to get into war. They entered the war unready and in headlong way for single reason. Mussolini thought that war is ending and Italy was missing "an oportunity that only presents itself once in thousand years" if I am quoting correctly. Hitler and company failed to notify him that they meant business in Poland crisis. He even snubbed Mussolini's attempt to mediate the crises. Other than Benny himself, hardly anyone in Italy wanted to go to war. Many were surprised by the announcement. Graziani refused to advance into Egypt until Mussolini threatened to demote him. Italy was not ready for war. Period. They attacked across the French border for simple reason that they had troops ready there and they thought French would just roll up and surrender. The fact that even the crumbling French army stopped Italians cold at the moment when Paris fell, tells a lot.
I admit, once more, that I do not see why they couldn't take Malta in 1940. The only explanation I can come up with is that the thought has simply not occured to them. Maybe British wouls sail the kitchen sink to save Malta. Given the Italian pitiful record in naval battles under anything approaching fight, this would probably be very bad news for Italians. I don't think they ever inflicted major defeat on British naval forces in the Med, so why would they now? In my opinion they saw what they thought easier and more important pickings in Egypt and decided Malta could be taken in peace settlement.
Esopo
Banned
Its not so easy. In north africa the problem was that the italian army was completely unprepared to stop a tank attack, in greece the problem was weather (mussolini attacked in the worst moment possible), numbers (thanks to Visconti Prasca, italian invading forces had no where the numerical superiority they had in north africa. Actually, when the offensive began, the greeks were roughly the same number of italians. In november, the greeks were MORE than italians, and in december the italians were more than greeks), crappy logistics and most of all terrain. The italian army in albania was qualitatively just a bit better than the greek one, but it was forced to fight a offensive war while insufficiently supplied and on a difficult terrain. When the regio esercito had to fight a defensive battle in albania, it fought actually well, like it did during ww1. Trench warfare was what the italian army in ww2 was able to do. In france, it was actually impossible to overcome a defense line like the alps.
Esopo
Banned
basically the fleet was scared of the Royal Navy. They didnt try to take malta because they feared that the royal navy was going to destroy the whole italian fleet if they tried to land troops there.
There were never 300,000 Italians in Libya and Wavell had little to do with the success, which was more due to O'Connor. Italian cannon could not pierce the Matida and the Brits used heavy naval guns and dominated the air. How many Germans did it take to dominate over a half million Brits and French in Dunkirk, thanks to air superirority. There were 100,000 Brits against 30,000 Japs with 200 tanks and air and naval superiority in Malaya and they bit the dust. Planes ruled, since they covered the ships artillery and destroyed fortifications, supply lines, etc, and at the time tehre were 4 Gladiators iand a couple of Hurricanes in transit n Malta.
With the Italian and German planes suggested, the fleet was secure. Radar would eventually render the fleet 10 times more effective, enabling it to fight at night.
I think most of you are underestimating the effect of surprise in Malta and Tunisia, which the Duce wasted completely attacking France. Italian ships and planes could have approached unchallenged, much like the Japs did in PH. Declaring war in London a few minutes before the attack. Mussolini could have even held negotiations with the allies considering joining them as in 1915.
With the Italian and German planes suggested, the fleet was secure. Radar would eventually render the fleet 10 times more effective, enabling it to fight at night.
I think most of you are underestimating the effect of surprise in Malta and Tunisia, which the Duce wasted completely attacking France. Italian ships and planes could have approached unchallenged, much like the Japs did in PH. Declaring war in London a few minutes before the attack. Mussolini could have even held negotiations with the allies considering joining them as in 1915.
Last edited:
Since the Germans failed to stop the evacuation at Dunkirk obviously the number needed was substantially more than they actually had present OTL.
The axis stopped at el Alamein not for lack of Supplies, but because of millions of mines, tens of thousands of troops, over a thousand tanks and planes and thousands of cannon.
In 1940 the Brits were very poorly equipped with few and obsolete planes, the axis could have easily captured Mersa Matruh to use it for some supplies and captured Alexandria then ports along the route to Iraq.
In 1940 the Brits were very poorly equipped with few and obsolete planes, the axis could have easily captured Mersa Matruh to use it for some supplies and captured Alexandria then ports along the route to Iraq.