June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

[narwan]

Ahh, could be you mentioned it somewhere. No one seemed to have to have picked up on that either. The big difference with Crete that as bad as they had it on Crete, there still was some water to find there. Even if it were dirty puddles. On Malta that too was absent. The human body can endure much longer with just a little bit of water then it can without any at all. Once cut off the water supplies would run out in hours. As you said, there's a limited amount of cargo that can be delivered and any additional water means less ammo, food, weapons or men. Can't have it both ways.

I've tried to make the point earlier but you really can't compare Malta to other islands. It has a whole array of characteristics that make not only the island unique but also makes the challenges for the invaders unique. People do tend to think that 'islands' is just a subset of terrain which can be dealt with by a standard subset of solutions; too much wargaming maybe. Each island needs its own solutions.

Basically this thread asks us to rate the chances of what was arguably the country the least capable of mounting complex operations to succesfully pull off one of the most difficult types of operations against one of the hardest possible targets for such an operation. I rate it at zero.

Narwan

[RichTO90]

Narwan, IIRC I mentioned it obliquely ...

Just as a BTW since I'm not going to scout out this silly thread again, but ISTR that someone said there was no radar on Malta in this timeframe. That is wrong, See Louis Brown, "A Radar History of World War II: Technical and Military Imperatives", New York: Taylor & Francis, 1999, 207, there was a 7.5 meter Mobile Radar Unit atFort Dingli that was installed in April 1939...

[PeterOT]

Ahh, could be you mentioned it somewhere. No one seemed to have to have picked up on that either. The big difference with Crete that as bad as they had it on Crete, there still was some water to find there. Even if it were dirty puddles. On Malta that too was absent. The human body can endure much longer with just a little bit of water then it can without any at all. Once cut off the water supplies would run out in hours. As you said, there's a limited amount of cargo that can be delivered and any additional water means less ammo, food, weapons or men. Can't have it both ways.

I've tried to make the point earlier but you really can't compare Malta to other islands. It has a whole array of characteristics that make not only the island unique but also makes the challenges for the invaders unique. People do tend to think that 'islands' is just a subset of terrain which can be dealt with by a standard subset of solutions; too much wargaming maybe. Each island needs its own solutions.

Basically this thread asks us to rate the chances of what was arguably the country the least capable of mounting complex operations to succesfully pull off one of the most difficult types of operations against one of the hardest possible targets for such an operation. I rate it at zero.

Narwan

Narwan,

This thread has been a tribute to the ability of people to ignore the big & blindingly obvious obstacles to an event. Instead we have been presented with fantasy, absurd speculation, arguments over minutae & proof that there are people in this world who think that repetition can make the untrue true. Your points about water & the lack of useable beaches are well made. Add them to issues relating to the quality & capabilities of the Italian military & the risks posed by the Royal Navy & you have a 'What If' that no reasonable person could sustain an argument in favour or.

If it makes you feel any better the more rational amongst us have noted your contributions & appreciated them.

[phylo_roadking]

Just as a BTW since I'm not going to scout out this silly thread again, but ISTR that someone said there was no radar on Malta in this timeframe. That is wrong, See Louis Brown, "A Radar History of World War II: Technical and Military Imperatives", New York: Taylor & Francis, 1999, 207, there was a 7.5 meter Mobile Radar Unit atFort Dingli that was installed in April 1939...

Rich, yep I noted earlier it was there...in the context of it giving the islands some considerable advanced notice of raids forming up over Sicily. The comparison again is with Crete - there the defenders were rapidly able to work out the timetable of Richthofen's aircraft shuttling back and forth to the mainland, and them arriving x-hours after local dawn each day for the "Morning Hate"...they could minimise casualties from air attack and keep defences hidden for the big day. And all that without radar...

Imagine the advantage radar gives Malta then - where they can SEE aircraft in the air over Sicily...!

IIRC on Crete the defenders were by Day Two able to use German ground marking to have the LW drop supplies to THEM, and on occasion to strafe FJ positions! Shouldn't be too hard for the defenders on MNalta to have men and materiel under cover given the advance notice provided by radar....and have the occasional Italian air raid pointed at the poor suffering Alpini...

[John T]

Hmm, funny how an absolutely crucial factor in this scenario has been consistently overlooked. I did mention it once but the implications don't seem to sink in.

In the unlikely event the Italians do manage to get the troops ashore to establish a beachhead they can hold they absolutely need to stay in supply. Once out of supply they have 2 days. That's it. They (that includes the RM) can not allow them to be cut off by the RN. After about 48 hours of being out of supply the landing force would literally begin to die. Malta has no natural water sources. No rivers. No streams. No lakes. No ponds. Nothing. Drinking water is imported, rainwater captured in cisterns or desalinated (not sure when they started doing the latter though). Talk about living of the land being hard...
Every drop of water that the Italian forces need they would have to bring ashore themselves. You can safely assume that the British wouldn't be leaving any water behind for them. And it's a very hot summer.

Narwan

The problem with What If scenarios we not only might use different sources describing the same event as in regular history we also have to asses the options open to both sides, and make guesses on what actions they would take given the scenario.
In this case I think it is a bit rough to say "You can safely assume that the British wouldn't be leaving any water behind for them." - Wouldn't that also mean that any civilians behind the Italian lines would be doomed too?
And I am not that definite that British commanders would poison wells and demolish water tanks during a retreat.

And secondly, You have got the basic fact wrong.
Malta does consumes more water than the ground produces, so desalination is needed, but there is natural water resources on the Island.
check second page of the PDF:
http://www.l-ikel.org/vigilo_oct_2008_g ... rticle.pdf


cheers
/John

[Dunserving]

John T - your last paragraph regarding Malta consuming more water than it produces has a major problem in it.

You are referring to water consumption on Malta today, and have given a link to an article written a few years ago describing water supply problems in the future.

However, what really matters is what the water supply situation was 70 years ago, when the demands for water were so very different. Agriculture was different then and the population was rather lower. Water demand per capita was much lower as, for example, water hungry devices like washing machines and dishwashers had yet to come into general use.

What evidence can you offer to prove there were water shortages at the relevant time?

[LWD]

.... You can safely assume that the British wouldn't be leaving any water behind for them. And it's a very hot summer.

The problem with What If scenarios we not only might use different sources describing the same event as in regular history we also have to asses the options open to both sides, and make guesses on what actions they would take given the scenario.
In this case I think it is a bit rough to say "You can safely assume that the British wouldn't be leaving any water behind for them." - Wouldn't that also mean that any civilians behind the Italian lines would be doomed too?

There's a big difference in the required amount of water for someone who is trying to just stay alive and someone who is trying to conduct offensive combat operations. Typically the civilians will flee areas where combat is taking place in any case. On Malta I believe you can find a number of areas that would be away from the invasion beach heads and the strategic targets.

And I am not that definite that British commanders would poison wells and demolish water tanks during a retreat.
...

They probably wouldn't. They likely would haowever drain the water tanks and draw down the wells just as a matter of course. The Italians probably would find small supplies of water if they managed to take over any signficant inhabeted areas. However they couldn't plan on it nor could they have much of a plan to distribute it. An intact well would also be a good spot to have artillery zero'd in on as well as mgs and even rifles.

[BDV]

If Italians invade Gozo, I guess they would find enough water there. I doubt the colonial/local authorities would remove/poison all the water on Gozo, lest Malta proper be also faced with a wave of thirsty refugees. Although never say never, it would make an ironic example of Scorched Earth policy.

The trouble in water supply would come to head with the arty on Comino and the beachhead on Malta proper, but could be a two edged sword - "Take Saint Paul Bay, and you'll find enough water there!"

Desperate Italians were the only unit to escape Soviet encirclement in 1942.

[LWD]

.... Desperate Italians[/url] were the only unit to escape Soviet encirclement in 1942.

During that same period they didn't seem to have much problem surrendering to the British when things got desperate.

[BDV]

During that same period [Italians] didn't seem to have much problem surrendering to the British when things got desperate.

It depends how the encounter goes down atrocity wise. If atrocities (real, imagined, or drummed up) start, things can get ugly fast, and then there would be little desire to surrender.

Atrocities appear as one of the chief motivators for East Front survivors. And they did play a role in Crete.

[phylo_roadking]

And they did play a role in Crete

But not necessary between the major uniformed combatants

[John T]

John T - your last paragraph regarding Malta consuming more water than it produces has a major problem in it.
You are referring to water consumption on Malta today, and have given a link to an article written a few years ago describing water supply problems in the future.

However, what really matters is what the water supply situation was 70 years ago, when the demands for water were so very different. Agriculture was different then and the population was rather lower. Water demand per capita was much lower as, for example, water hungry devices like washing machines and dishwashers had yet to come into general use.

What evidence can you offer to prove there were water shortages at the relevant time?

Dunserving, I fully supports your comments.
But I like to point out that my post should be read as an a comment on Narwans earlier post.

Below I have edit out the most important parts to make it clearer:

Hmm, funny how an absolutely crucial factor in this scenario has been consistently overlooked. I did mention it once but the implications don't seem to sink in.
..
Malta has no natural water sources. No rivers. No streams. No lakes. No ponds. Nothing. Drinking water is imported, rainwater captured in cisterns or desalinated (not sure when they started doing the latter though).
...
Every drop of water that the Italian forces need they would have to bring ashore themselves.
...
Narwan

...
And secondly, You have got the basic fact wrong.
Malta does consumes more water than the ground produces, so desalination is needed, but there is natural water resources on the Island.
check second page of the PDF:
http://www.l-ikel.org/vigilo_oct_2008_g ... rticle.pdf

cheers
/John

[phylo_roadking]

Malta does consumes more water than the ground produces, so desalination is needed, but there is natural water resources on the Island.

Yes....but resources dependent on soakage from above to recharge.

Malta's pumped water in the last few decades from MSLAs - Mean Seawater Level Aquifers - come from TWO aquifers....that do not underlie the islands/Meditarranean. Instead they are manmade aquifers in the rock of the island. In other words the water in the aquifers is what has soaked into the rock of the island into small freshwater "lenses" between rock layers, while the SURFACE runoff collected in cisterns etc. is what didn't get a chance to permeate downwards I.E. it ALL originates from Malta's rainfall. The MSLAs are not an off-island resource...and in fact today are being severely encroached on by seawater seeping beneath Malta because the balance in the aquifers has been disturbed by pumping TOO much for agriculture.

That article is very simplistc, given that it totally ignores the PAs, and instead is written to attribute the water flowing into Valetta to the MSLAs. It also seems to ignore the human input into developing the MSLAs in the last decades - they previously consisted of a whole mess of very small freshwater lenses, and galleries were dug in each cluster to draw water from these lenses in quantities sufficient to be worth pumping. Again, it's worth noting that the major Ta'Kandja Pumping Station for pumping water from the artificial MSLA gallery created AFTER the war under Luqa airfield....was only completed in 1963....

However - there are TWO types of aquifer on Malta - MSLAs as discussed above, and PAs or Perched Aquifers. It's the perched aquifer under the Dingli-Rabat Plateau that is pumped into Valetta by the aqueduct mentioned in your article - but the PAs too are charged by groundwater seepage. AFAIK, historically on Malta the PAs were only exploited in their immediate locality, apart from the Wignacourt Aqueduct. It's of course worth noting that the water from the perched aquifer at Rabat is highly polluted and can only be used for irrigation UNLESS filtered. Historically this happened at the Valetta end....NOT at source at the Rabat Plateau aquifer end!

In other words - yes there was pumped groundwater around during the war...it was the polluted groundwater from the Rabat Plateau that flowed into Valetta and was THEN filtered to make it drinkable. The MSLA galleries were not yet dug to make exploitation of the small frweshwater lenses scattered around the rest of the island practical...leaving the aforementioned cisterns, tanks etc. to supply the island with potable water.

Nowadays - desalination actually provides 57% of Malta's annual needs, at three VERY large reverse osmosis plants. They don't pump from the sea - they pump from the previously-mentioned seawater that's encoaching on the MSLAs below ground!

[John T]

...
AFAIK, historically on Malta the PAs were only exploited in their immediate locality
...
In other words - yes there was pumped groundwater around during the war...it was the polluted groundwater from the Rabat Plateau that flowed into Valetta and was THEN filtered to make it drinkable. The MSLA galleries were not yet dug to make exploitation of the small frweshwater lenses scattered around the rest of the island practical...leaving the aforementioned cisterns, tanks etc. to supply the island with potable water.

Thank you Phylo for this Essay of 2299 letters and 447 word but I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that
"leaving the aforementioned cisterns, tanks etc. to supply the island with potable water."
When you already said "PAs were only exploited in their immediate locality"
Doesn't "immediate locality" means a Village or a farm?
While researching did you find no references to natural springs or man made wells scattered around the country side, used to supply drinking water?
And from what source does support your point that in general, ground water where not usable as drinking water?
That water from Dams that flow down an aqueduct had to be "distilled" is one thing I can understand, but not that ground water in general is unsuitable as drinking water. At least I have not seen any such generalizations in what I read so far.

And from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/co ... /index.stm

Groundwater abstraction is administered and regulated by WSC and the law states that nobody is allowed to sink shafts to exploit the groundwater since this is used as potable water. However, before this legislation, which was enacted in 1943, several farmers had sunk shafts to abstract water. The thousands of sunk shafts are the property of the farmers themselves and though, under the law, the abstraction of water is controlled by WSC, the shafts are administered individually by farmers. Each shaft may irrigate only a hectare or two, depending on the area cultivated by the farmer when the shaft was sunk some 60 or 70 years ago. But individual records of present water abstraction are not kept and these shafts are scattered over all rural areas, but predominantly in the north of the country. The number of private wells officially registered by WSC is about 2800, to which an important number of unregistered wells should be added.

and a official document:

http://www.mra.org.mt/Downloads/Publica ... Review.pdf

the map labeled figure 21 shows Springs and wells in Malta and Gozo.(page 37)

cheers
/John

[phylo_roadking]

That water from Dams that flow down an aqueduct had to be "distilled" is one thing I can understand, but not that ground water in general is unsuitable as drinking water.

John, I really hope you misread what I said AGAIN, as opposed to trying to establish a strawman AGAIN....

I very specifically did NOT say that water in general from ground sources was undrinkable and needed distilling -

It's of course worth noting that the water from the perched aquifer at Rabat is highly polluted and can only be used for irrigation UNLESS filtered. Historically this happened at the Valetta end....NOT at source at the Rabat Plateau aquifer end!

In other words - yes there was pumped groundwater around during the war...it was the polluted groundwater from the Rabat Plateau that flowed into Valetta and was THEN filtered to make it drinkable.

I was referring specifically to Valetta's water source - and to lands watered from the perched aquifer on the Rabat Plateau.

Moving on...

but I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that
"leaving the aforementioned cisterns, tanks etc. to supply the island with potable water."
When you already said "PAs were only exploited in their immediate locality"

Let's see - waht did I say? Oh yes...

...historically on Malta the PAs were only exploited in their immediate locality, apart from the Wignacourt Aqueduct.

Strangely enough - water on Malta is not only DRUNK....it's exploited for other uses, such as to WATER CROPS (weird that, eh?) - and for that purpose didn't need the excess lime filtered out. The water coming from the perched aquifers....in limestone - were contaminated with lime; this could be filtered out...but was done AFTER it arrived in Valetta.

And from what source does support your point that in general, ground water where not usable as drinking water?

So - apart from the postwar MSLAs, and the PAs, what ground water WAS there? YOU have posted up this...

However, before this legislation, which was enacted in 1943, several farmers had sunk shafts to abstract water. The thousands of sunk shafts are the property of the farmers themselves and though, under the law, the abstraction of water is controlled by WSC, the shafts are administered individually by farmers. Each shaft may irrigate only a hectare or two, depending on the area cultivated by the farmer when the shaft was sunk some 60 or 70 years ago.

...which is NOT talking necessarily about POTABLE water - but water that was used for crop irrogation - as I described above

I'm sure your reply will be, "but look at THIS" -

"...the law states that nobody is allowed to sink shafts to exploit the groundwater since this is used as potable water."

Yes, "used" as potable water - doesn't say anything about it coming out of the ground potable!

The number of private wells officially registered by WSC is about 2800, to which an important number of unregistered wells should be added.

By the way, I DO love your source. But I think that maybe you're indulging in selective exerpting again; strangely enough you seem to have missed SOMETHING ELSE on Page 37...

However, in the last decade, a large number of “illegal” boreholes have been dug, particularly in the main LCL aquifers. New and more accurate data regarding the extent of irrigated lands are expected to be available with the completion of the agricultural land registration currently being conducted by the Agricultural Department.

And Figure 21 IS indeed interesting - what is it you said about it? Oh yes...

the map labeled figure 21 shows Springs and wells in Malta and Gozo.(page 37)

Hmm, just look at all that red....

red dots – new boreholes registered for the first time in 1997

"In the last decade"...."new boreholes" as of 1997 - please try and remember we're talking about 1940...