Dave Bender wrote:can anyone see the Italian forces managing to achieve this without help?
If they can't then Italy has no business going to war with either France or Britain.
IMO, Italy could have taken Malta alone in June 1940, but it would take Italy being prepared to suffer very heavy losses in the process. Which historically Italy was not keen to do. Not because the troops lacked courage - Italian soldiers showed great courage in the Battles of the Isonzo in WW1) but because their senior generals and Mussolini showed incompetence and lack of resolve, which demoralised their troops.
Throwing Italian infantry divisions in a very hasty amphibious assault against British defences can work, if the Italians can mass an absolutely overwhelming numerical advantage at the point of contact (at least 3 to 1, preferably 6 to 1.) So at best in a Malta amphibious landing, it would take an Italian infantry regiment of three battalions to overwhelm a single defending British battalion. Worst case (very strong terrain advantage for the British plus very considerable confusion and disruption on the Italian side) it could take twice that. A whole Italian division to overwhelm one British battalion!
The British had five infantry battalions on Malta in June 1940, so it would take at least 2 entire Italian divisions to take the island (3 would be better) plus a battalion of paratroops (Italy only had 1 battalion trained up at that time.) And the landing would still be very costly, like Crete for the paratroops and like Omaha Beach for the amphibiously-landed infantry. Taking into consideration the complete Italian inexperience at opposed parachute operations and opposed amphibious landings.
This is not much fun for the Italians, even if they win. And that's assuming their invasion force doesn't get blown out of the water by the Royal Navy, as per Crete 1941.
Doable, but very costly and very risky, is my verdict.