AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 1942

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 1942

#1

Post by KEVKEV » 05 Jan 2012, 14:01

I am new to this forum, so hello to everyone.

Enquiring about other points of views on this scenario and likely outcomes. This may have been covered before, if so my apologies.

In May 1941, all historical facts up until this date have not changed with the exception that Germany desires to knock Britain out of the war before the Russian campaign at a later date.

They increase the building of U Boats to allow for a concerted effort on convoys in the North Atlantic and no attempt to land in the UK or bomb cities into submission but concentrate on shipyards, ports and oil terminals. Main theatre of operations would be conducted in the Med and North Africa as follows:

1. German airbourne assault on Malta to be carried out by forces that were allocated for Crete with the support of increased Luftwaffe fighter and bomber squadrons plus Italian naval support. Leading up to this assault would also be a U boat campaign around Gibraltar to entice the Royal Navy away from supporting convoys to Malta and its protection.

2. On completion (if successful) in taking Malta, then the movement of 14 tank, 6 mechanized armour and 18 infantry
divisions along with 12 fighter, 5 dive bomber and 8 bomber squadrons into Tunisia . Build up of the forces will also take into account other units re-inforcing these units going to North Africa that were designated for Operation Barbarosa in 1941.

3. Invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece still go ahead in 1941, especially Greece to ensure Britain removes valuable resources from Africa and Middle East as did occure . Spain and Turkey are still expected to remain neutral at this point and peace overtures to America. Japan notified Germany will not declare war on the USA and join Japan until Britain is effectively knocked out through the loss of its oil supply and Middle East/African ports by mid 1942.

4. Main offensive under the command of Manstein with Rommel and Guderian to strike into Libya and Egypt. With Malta as no threat, forces receive regular supplies especially fuel. Again, during this period a concerted effort by U boats round Gibraltar and with pressure on Vichy France, airfields in Algeria and Morrocco to be used by Luftwaffe to drive the navy away from western Med. Would have the Vichy French have agreed to this ?. If so then the Luftwaffe can conduct regular air assaults on Gibraltar.

5. With these forces and plenty of reserves brought in............ Suez is taken early 1942. (???) I would have expected so. At this stage political new agreements with Russia for future operations in Iran late 1942. Stalin, i believe would still not go to war at this stage with Germany as there would still be sufficient Geman forces in Eastern Europe and Poland to stop any likely Russian pre-emptive strike.

6. More German reinforcements brought into North Africa (no plan to strike into Russia) with the sole purpose now to strike in two directions. South down the Nile with sufficient forces to prevent any British and Commonwealth forces moving north from Sudan, but the main strike will be into Jordan and Palestine with the support of Arab countries. Capture of ports to enhance supplies for then striking into Iraq to take oilfields. With the bulk of UK forces defeated or depleted, they are unable to prevent the oil fields from being taken.

In late 1941 and into 1942, from this possible scenario, the Med becomes an 'Axis Lake'. Gibraltar comes under seige, Axis forces having taken Iraqi oilfields with political agreements with the arabs then move into Iran, even allowing for Russia to move south to share the oil fields (???). Britain, i am sure would agree to peace terms by mid to late 1942 and effectively be out of the war. Spain then take back Gibraltar and continued U boat action against remaining UK and Commonwealth forces that refused to surrender after the fall of UK. Turkey then becomes a member of the Axis. Japan then roll up UK Far East colonies with the agreement of Germany.

Germany would then be in a position to declare war on the USA by increasing its UBOAT building programe and Navy without the RAF attacking its factories and bases to ensure that the USA would be unable to contemplate bringing troop convoys across the Atlantic for some considerable time, especially with US naval forces deployed in the Pacific war against Japan and their industrial war effort only just beginning. This would then allow Germany to attack Russia in April 1943 from Poland but also attacked from German AXIS forces in Middle East and Turkey. The result of that open to further debate but I believe Germany would be victorious as their industrial might wouldn't be destroyed by Bomber Command or split on different fronts.

Would love to debate this further if anyone is interested.
Cheers.

sjashford
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 17 Aug 2006, 09:12
Location: Kent, UK

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#2

Post by sjashford » 05 Jan 2012, 20:12

Actually I find this scenario all too convincing!
The only issue that I see to question is that of the US reaction. AS i understand it, the President was quite pro UK, but felt heavily constrained by isolationism - the Pearl Harbour attack pretty much totally nullified this pressure, but whether the President could have overcome this resistance without the attack, well I just do not know.


KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#3

Post by KEVKEV » 05 Jan 2012, 21:49

I feel that the isolation movement to keep the USA out of conflict remained strong and in some areas gaining more support, hence the USA would have not been capable of removing Hitler as the Atlantic would prove to be too much of a barrier so long as Germany increased and concentrated on its U Boat development.

After this, war between Russia and Germany in 1944................... interesting one as not too sure of the outcome should the Russians between 1941 and 1944 improved its Army units to the standards it had achieved between 1941 and 1944 for real.

Thanks for your reply and look forward to further debates.
Cheers

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#4

Post by LWD » 05 Jan 2012, 22:00

KEVKEV wrote:...
1. German airbourne assault on Malta to be carried out by forces that were allocated for Crete with the support of increased Luftwaffe fighter and bomber squadrons plus Italian naval support. Leading up to this assault would also be a U boat campaign around Gibraltar to entice the Royal Navy away from supporting convoys to Malta and its protection.
So you are giving up Crete for Malta? This makes the British position in the Eastern Med significantly stronger than historical and may produce even worse supply problems for the Axis forces in the eastern part of North Africa. The forces defending Malta are also better organized and the terrain is much more difficult for paratroopers. There are a couple of long threads on invasions of Malta that you may want to look at.
2. On completion (if successful) in taking Malta, then the movement of 14 tank, 6 mechanized armour and 18 infantry divisions along with 12 fighter, 5 dive bomber and 8 bomber squadrons into Tunisia .
It is very doubtful that the axis could come anywhere close to supporting a force of this size in North Africa espeshally if it is in an offensive posture any distance from the main port cities. See the thread on North African railroads for some more information on this or almost any of the numerous threads on Rommel in North Africa.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#5

Post by mescal » 05 Jan 2012, 22:00

This may have been covered before, if so my apologies.
Yes, for example :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=168777
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=152069
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=178671
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=45415
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=113911
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=102636
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=63008
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=62039


If you dig through these threads, you'll see that there are a huge lot of problems with the strategy you propose - in all military, logistic, political, diplomatic spheres.
And then, even if all problems to kick UK out of the Middle East can be overcome there is the classical question : "so what ?" -as there is nothing really vital for the British Empire there.

I'm short of time right now, but I'll try to make more specific comments later.
Olivier

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#6

Post by LWD » 05 Jan 2012, 22:03

sjashford wrote:Actually I find this scenario all too convincing!
The only issue that I see to question is that of the US reaction. AS i understand it, the President was quite pro UK, but felt heavily constrained by isolationism - the Pearl Harbour attack pretty much totally nullified this pressure, but whether the President could have overcome this resistance without the attack, well I just do not know.
If you look at the Gallup polls from that period you'll find that FDR may well have been able to get a declaration of war in 41 although it likely would have been close and not as well supported as desired. If it is clear that Britian is going to loose without US help it becomes even easier. Even in early 41 the US populace realized that a German victory over Britain was not in the US interest they just believed that Britain would triumph so there was little need for the US to get involved. Again this has been discussed on quite a few threads here on this forum.

KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#7

Post by KEVKEV » 05 Jan 2012, 22:32

Hi,

Thanks for the threads and look forward to reading them. As found this site today, look forward to doing a lot of research and reading at the expence of DIY........... ooops be in trouble with my wife !!!.

I've had a close look at the proposed Airbourne landing grounds in Malta on two recent holidays (again missus not happy) and still feel that the Germans would have been successful in taking Malta through seige so long as no reinforcements arrived from Gib so long as they had landed in 1941 and not 1942.

Cheers

Cheers.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#8

Post by LWD » 05 Jan 2012, 22:51

WWII transport aircraft dropped paratroopers at fairly low levels. They pretty much had to as the chute's were inflated via a static line. Drop from to high and you don't know where they are going to land. This is a serious problem especially over a fairly small island. On the other hand you don't want to be in a big slow plane flying at low altitude when there's a fair amount of heavy AA defending the position. You also don't want to be in said planes if there are enemy fighters around.

KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#9

Post by KEVKEV » 05 Jan 2012, 22:57

Agree with you, thats the risk of Airbourne assault especially as so new in World War 2. But British gun positions and numbers sited near the drop zones were so few and far between. Also the Luftwaffe would have cleared the skies of the RAF before softning up the areas around the proposed drop zones for several days before the landings. Ans also certain heavy guns in VALETTA would have been unable to re-point and provide fire support inland. The Germans should have chanced it in 1941.... lost chance

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#10

Post by LWD » 05 Jan 2012, 23:07

KEVKEV wrote:Agree with you, thats the risk of Airbourne assault especially as so new in World War 2. But British gun positions and numbers sited near the drop zones were so few and far between.
Not from the maps I've seen. There is at least one good one posted in one of the Malta threads.
Also the Luftwaffe would have cleared the skies of the RAF before softning up the areas around the proposed drop zones for several days before the landings.
That's rather telegraphing an invasion isn't it? Sounds like a good reason to station some DD's just north of the Island.

I'd suggest looking through the relevant threads.

KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#11

Post by KEVKEV » 06 Jan 2012, 00:22

mescal wrote:
This may have been covered before, if so my apologies.


Yes, for example :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=168777
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=152069
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=178671
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=45415
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=113911
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=102636
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=63008
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=62039


If you dig through these threads, you'll see that there are a huge lot of problems with the strategy you propose - in all military, logistic, political, diplomatic spheres.
And then, even if all problems to kick UK out of the Middle East can be overcome there is the classical question : "so what ?" -as there is nothing really vital for the British Empire there.

I'm short of time right now, but I'll try to make more specific comments later.


Olivier,

Merci for listing the threads for this debate, very interesting.

Cheers
Kevin

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#12

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 Jan 2012, 01:40

KEVKEV wrote:Agree with you, thats the risk of Airbourne assault especially as so new in World War 2. But British gun positions and numbers sited near the drop zones were so few and far between.

Not from the maps I've seen. There is at least one good one posted in one of the Malta threads.
Ans also certain heavy guns in VALETTA would have been unable to re-point and provide fire support inland.
The AA guns wouldnt have to repoint as such, they are on 360° mounts for the most part, and the area of coverage over Malta is excellent for guns like the 3.7" as almost everywhere is in range. There might not be a nice battery of quad 2pdr AA guns around the drop zones to engage the troops in the air, but there is sufficient AA on Malta to make it a very costly thing to attempt.

Similarly to things I and others noted in at least one of the other threads, Malta is a rocky little island with lots of small stone walls, gullys, fortifications, and with cliffs along much of its coastline. In short it is very good defensive terrain.

With regards Gibraltar, Spain may well have liked to take the place, but God help the poor sods given the task of attacking the place! It might be possible to take it, but the best option would be a siege, and to be honest I dont think Franco would be convinced to declare war and join the Axis, after all if he had been inclined to do so mid 1940 would have been as good a time as any - ie before Germany failed to knock out Britain and had lost a lot of planes in the attempt.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#13

Post by phylo_roadking » 06 Jan 2012, 01:56

Similarly to things I and others noted in at least one of the other threads, Malta is a rocky little island with lots of small stone walls, gullys, fortifications, and with cliffs along much of its coastline. In short it is very good defensive terrain.
As I called it before - Bocage without the hedges. A battle for every postage-stamp sized field or sunken road...with drystone walls replacing the hedges. And unlike the hedges in France - the walls are bullet-and splinter-proof, like the walls and terrain on Crete was... 8O
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

KEVKEV
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 05 Jan 2012, 12:48

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#14

Post by KEVKEV » 06 Jan 2012, 08:39

Regarding Gibraltar, i understand from German High Command documents relating to Spain that should Franco had agreed to joining the Axis shortly after the fall of France, that the German High Command were to order heavy artillery but notably three seige guns through Spain. Then 'pound' the Fortress over a period of time, as the Luftwaffe would have little effect on its fortifications but to ensure no naval support occured, with German mountain troops to assault and take 'The Rock'. So long as Spain was willing to support Hitler and allow airbases close to Gib and other areas of Spain be given to the Luftwaffe, then eventually, and over a long period of time, Gibraltar would have fallen.

At one stage during the later stages of the fall of France, requests were submitted to Hitler to allow 2 armoured and two infantry divisions to drive on south through Spain and attempt to force Franco's hand.

As it was Admiral Cannaris convinced Franco that Germany would ultimately lose the war and that Spain would highly likely lose The Canaries to the Royal Navy should any attempt by Spain enter with Germany.

Should Spain have joined the Axis in 1940............. would Gib have fallen or how long would it have taken to capture ?.

User avatar
mescal
Member
Posts: 1415
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 15:46
Location: France, EUR

Re: AIRBOURNE ASSAULT ON MALTA/ DEFEAT UK IN N AFRICA BY 194

#15

Post by mescal » 06 Jan 2012, 15:16

Hello,

As stated above, much is to be found in other threads on this forum.

Here are just a few remarks on the 6 points you list in your initial post

1- Malta instead of Crete : as noted above an assault on Malta is probably more difficult than on Crete. Moreover, even assuming it works, it leaves Crete in Allied hands. Thus even without Malta, the RN can still conduct interdiction operations in the Central Med from Suda Bay. Sure they will not be able to attack the supplies sent to Tripoli, but from there they can challenge the convoys going to Benghazi and interdict any Axis shipborne supply to harbors East of Benghazi. As a result, most of the (putative) increase in supply wil land at Tripoli. And then there is the gigantic problem of bringing those supplies forward.
With regard to the Uboats, remember that the first Uboats entered the Mediterranean only in the fall of 1941. The reason is quite simple : before that there were too few boats. Any diversion of Uboats to the Med in early 41 only means a full stop to the commerce interdiction against UK (for reference, the number of active Uboats in the first half of 1941 : Jan: 22; Feb: 28; Mar: 33; Apr: 42; May: 56; Jun: 68)
Note also that in 1940-41, most of the convoys which supplied Malta came from Alexandria, not Gibraltar (MW and ME series)

2- Sending 38 divisions (20 of them motorized/panzer) in Tunisia is simply a no go. You're stripping Barbarossa or its future equivalent of most of its armored complement, to send them where they have no influence whatsoever on any theater.
The von Thoma report of Oct 1940 evaluated the logistically sustainable forces as four panzer (or motorized) divisions to fight in Eastern Lybia

3- But if Germany/Italy invades Greece, the British Empire gets Crete in the process.
On the "Britain kicked out of the war through losses of Midldle East oilfields", remember that almost all oil used in UK during the war came from Americas, not Middle East. Thus the argument is irrelevant.
On the absence of German DoW against the US, remember Kearny and Reuben James. How many more incident would it need for Roosevelt to make his own DoW ? Note also that if there is no war, the US will continue its military buildup unhindered by the OTL uboat campaign.

4- "With Malta as no threat, forces receive regular supplies especially fuel.". Not necessarily. The Axis will probably land more supplies in NAfrica, but this does not necessarily imply that these supplies can be delivered to the front where they matter.
As for Luftwaffe assets in Algeria/Morocco, there were OTL negotiations for basing LW aircraft at Dakar which came to naught - why would it change here ?

5- You should detail how the Italo-German take Suez.
Political agreement with USSR seems extremely difficult. The Ribentrop-Molotov pact was quickly falling apart in early 1941.
Sufficient German forces in the East to prevent a Soviet pre-emptive strike ? Far from sure if you've sent ~40 divisions in Africa.

6- What's the strategic value of Sudan ? How do the German sustain an offensive in Jordania from Alexandria (at best, that is if the harbor is taken more or less intact and clear of obstructions)


And all those strategies which emphasize joint Axis offensives in the Mediterranean have three implicit failings:
* As said above, victory in the Med does not imply victory over UK;
* They have to assume that Uncle Joe plays nice (and/or dumb)
* Above all, they assume a unity of command and strategy between the different Axis partners which was utterly lacking OTL.
Olivier

Post Reply

Return to “What if”