June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#601

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2010, 00:58

Rich...I know it's only Wiki. but...
Barrie Pitt makes the same point.
I know, but I'm thirty miles from my copy of "Wavell's Command" - I always try to do a cut and a paste of something that's available for all to see, rather than a laborious typing job :wink:
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 15 Oct 2010, 01:04, edited 1 time in total.
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...

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

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#602

Post by phylo_roadking » 15 Oct 2010, 01:00

Navy-wise, after Taranto, Italians were in no better shape that Cunningham's most optimistic expectations would have them after a Malta-battle. And Italians were able keep their North Africa campaign limping along even with that level of naval losses, would expect them to be able to do in case of utter disaster at Malta, too, especially when they don't have to support an offensive.
The situation "after" each event is different; soon after Taranto Cunningham began taking major losses, and got tied into events in Greece and after....whereas after "Malta" he has months to romp :D He had no real opportunity to exploit Taranto.
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...


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Malta vs. Compass. Available planes.

#603

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Oct 2010, 05:01

The_Enigma wrote:
RichTO90 wrote:I've got the exact numbers somewhere, but roughly 200 light and 80 medium tanks were lost by the end of January 1941.
Playfair places medium tank losses at 180; pretty heavy if one recalls the somewhat low output of them!
The Italians lost 35 light and 6 medium tanks during Graziani's advance 13-18 September. At Sidi Barrani 9-17 December they lost 45 light and 29 medium tanks. During operations at Bardia 18 December-5 January they lost 46 light and 12 medium tanks. During the seige and capture of Tobruk 6-22 January 7 medium tanks were lost. At El Agheila 22 January-7 February 6 light and 106 medium tanks were lost. So a total of 132 light and 160 mediums. In addition, 69 lights and 1 medium were in repair at Bardia, 32 light and 42 medium at Tobruk, and 6 light and 12 medium at El Agheila, all of which were lost, so another 107 light and 55 medium tanks. Grand total 239 light and 215 medium.

At least that was the count I came up with 11 years ago from Wavell's Dispatches, the records of the Western Desert Force (including captured Italian documents) and Escercito Corpo Di Stato Maggiore Ufficio Storico.

Total artillery losses were 1,209 and casualties from 9 December to 7 February were 5,021 KIA, 10,056 WIA/Captured, and 125,985 unwounded captured.

BTW, I was off earlier, prior to 9 December Italian casualties totaled about 3,500 or whom 361 were captured. In return British casualties were 59 KIA, 150 WIA, 18 MIA, and 8 captured.

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#604

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Oct 2010, 05:08

phylo_roadking wrote:War is not fought by offensives alone. Perhaps I should have said "goading" rather than pushing - but the initiative was NOT with the Italians, despite their huge superiority in-theatre through the summer as they prepared for September. The British, despite the titchy size of the Western Desert Force and its outmoded equipment, were prepared from Day One (literally!) to attack rather than wait and be attacked.
Fair that, although not quite from Day 1 since it was the result of their raids that gave Wavell confidence. The skirmishing went on through 12 September and was actually a fairly even exchange since it appears the worst Italian loss was during Graziani's advance when the British artillery had a field day shooting up the massed columns.
Meanwhile - the first of four large troop convoys for the Delta and the far East departed the UK on the 20-somethingth of August IIRC...not yet halfway through the BoB, which was my point in answer to BDV's assertion that the British would wait until AFTER the BoB was over...
Oh, no argument there at all. As usual the what if eventually ties itself in knots trying to deal with problems... :roll:

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#605

Post by David Thompson » 15 Oct 2010, 05:33

An off-topic post from JonS was removed by this moderator - DT.

JonS -- If you have any complaints about the moderation or the moderators, please PM Marcus Wendel.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Malta vs. Compass. Available planes.

#606

Post by The_Enigma » 15 Oct 2010, 09:24

RichTO90 wrote:
The_Enigma wrote:
RichTO90 wrote:I've got the exact numbers somewhere, but roughly 200 light and 80 medium tanks were lost by the end of January 1941.
Playfair places medium tank losses at 180; pretty heavy if one recalls the somewhat low output of them!
The Italians lost 35 light and 6 medium tanks during Graziani's advance 13-18 September. At Sidi Barrani 9-17 December they lost 45 light and 29 medium tanks. During operations at Bardia 18 December-5 January they lost 46 light and 12 medium tanks. During the seige and capture of Tobruk 6-22 January 7 medium tanks were lost. At El Agheila 22 January-7 February 6 light and 106 medium tanks were lost. So a total of 132 light and 160 mediums. In addition, 69 lights and 1 medium were in repair at Bardia, 32 light and 42 medium at Tobruk, and 6 light and 12 medium at El Agheila, all of which were lost, so another 107 light and 55 medium tanks. Grand total 239 light and 215 medium.

At least that was the count I came up with 11 years ago from Wavell's Dispatches, the records of the Western Desert Force (including captured Italian documents) and Escercito Corpo Di Stato Maggiore Ufficio Storico.
Ouch, even heavier!! 8O

In regards to British troop movements during the BOB, i have always found this to be a very intresting situation; just how serious did the CIGS take the threat of German invasion?

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Malta vs. Compass. Available planes.

#607

Post by RichTO90 » 15 Oct 2010, 17:31

The_Enigma wrote:In regards to British troop movements during the BOB, i have always found this to be a very intresting situation; just how serious did the CIGS take the threat of German invasion?
Quite seriously since it was a serious threat. IIRC there was quite a bit of back and forth within CIGS and with the War Cabinet regarding the Mideast convoys? But, by August most of the important emergency coastal batteries were in place along the east and southeast coast, along with pillboxes, wire, mines, and beach obstructions, with the most vital points best defended. From there it was a process of thickening the defenses. Pretty much all the existing units had been equipped, organized, and trained to one degree or another and industry was taking up the slack with some gaps filled by expedient shipments from the US.

Cheers!
Richard Anderson
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day
Stackpole Books, 2009.

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#608

Post by John T » 17 Oct 2010, 15:23

phylo_roadking wrote:
I tries to say is that RN will have to react to Italian within an area well defined as within artillery range of the Beach head and the routes between the beach head and Italian harbours.
That Defines the Area RN has to be in to direct influence an Italian Landing (ok?)
If the RM ties themselves to supporting the landings even when the RN approaches, and denies themselves sea room - then they've almost certainly lost the action before it has begun. The RN doesn't need to shell the Italians onshore to influence the outcome of the landings - just driving off the RM is enough. The RM can pick which direction it goes - towards home at top speed or out to meet Cunningham - but either affects the landings.
The Time is then reduced to a point in time that is within the time window before Italians set sail, if RN would be able to pre-emt and the window will close when enough Italians and supplies will have been landed at Malta.
No - the window to support the landings closes when the RN gets within range - NOT when the Italians land "enough". Aas I said before - how many days/ weeks will it take to land "enough" via ships boats and manhaul it up cliffs?
So Italians sets the boundaries and RN would have to act within those boundaries.
No. The Italians can set up various sets of circumstances and how they can and will react...to whichever one happens - but they cannot force the RN to act within those boundaries. They can only prepare for every set of circumstances they can conceive - (tho' 95% of the resolution actions will probably state" run away!" :lol: )
I don't see how your arguments falsifies my point and I also fails to see how we could proceed.
I just leave it at that.
phylo_roadking wrote:
1. I wrote
This is one of the few times where the Italian Navy could have a set piece battle. And for once be able to get her light forces to bear on RN.
So if RN intends to go into a gun battle against submarines and MTB I think the most probable outcome would be something like Pedestal.
Ahem - the RN didn't actually get into a gun action against submarines or MTBs in PEDESTAL.
According to Hollands "Fortress Malta" page 325
It was a dark night, but suddenly motor launches where heard rapidly surging towards the Allied armada, and the sky lit up with tracers and fire and explosions
And during this action HMS Manchester where sunk.
phylo_roadking wrote:
Meanwhile - as noted previously - the KM didn't manage too well off Norway, did they? 8 submarines lost for how many Allied naval units?
As long you ignore the the German torpedo crisis as an explanation why KM did not cause more damage to the British landings your argument might seem valid but you mix up cause and effect.
One could on the other hand compare Royal navy submarine success against German naval vessels returning from Norway.
phylo_roadking wrote: And as noted before, submarines engaging naval units tends to be problematic in an action where one side is prepared for the other like a fleet engagement Something like PEDESTAL, where the RN was tied to close escort of slow moving freigthers, is NOT what the RM will enounter off Malta...
If we look at an earlier posts in this thread,by Mescal on 20 Aug 2010, 17:17. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... C#p1498787
Royal Sovereign's top speed was around 18 knots.
So I think it's safer to assume 2.5 days to travel from Alexandria to Malta (with an average speed of 13 knots, which let a little bit of margin for zig-zaging and maneuver).
And Pedestal did keep an average speed Very close to 13 knots. (from the map plot in Holland)
So speed isn't the issue.
phylo_roadking wrote: None at all; right through this thread I've said that the RM has a range of options -

1/ Continue to support the beachead with the RN bearing down
2/ Run for home;
3/ Advance to meet the RN.

How many of those leads to EITHER an engagement with the RN OR the removal of RM support for the beachead?

Oh that's right - all of them :wink:
Simplifying a naval action of this size to such a degree that "RM" acts as a singular entity is just a waste of time.

The only way to proceed is to go down into a much more detailed description of this scenario.

cheers
/John T.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

The forest or the trees? Only one of these is important.

#609

Post by JonS » 18 Oct 2010, 00:09

John T wrote:The only way to proceed is to go down into a much more detailed description of this scenario.
Not really, since that's already led us to the edifying spectacle of an amphibious assault being launched up cliffs, the Italians imprisoning themselves on off-shore islands, torpedoes being used to levitate Alpini up cliffs, merchantmen being described as APs, creation of fictional marine and airborne units and capability, absurd assumptions about the capabilities of level bombers against warships, creation out of thin air of dive bombers and naval attack squadrons, and the list goes on and on and on.

Your better bet is to look at capabilities. For starters, the Italians had no amphibious capability. Secondly, they had no aerial torpedo capability. Also, their navy was ineffective in any fleet action against the RN. They also had only a tiny airborne capability, and an even smaller and less well supported marine capability. And, of course, the Italian Army consistently failed to acheive modest objectives, even when the Italians held odds of up to 10:1. There are others, but that's most of the really big ones.

Your only way to proceed is to start honestly addressing those capability gaps. Explain how the Italians can overcome them in the two-three week window that is the proposed basis of this what if.

Perhaps then we can start talking about whether the RM steams clockwise or anticlockwise around Malta, whether they seperate into independant divisions or remain as a single mass, whether they steam at 13 or 18 knots, or any other of the minutae of a fleet action that you care to discuss.

But bothering about any of that like it matters, when they can't even find their arse with both hands? Nah.

User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 20:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: The forest or the trees? Only one of these is important.

#610

Post by sallyg » 18 Oct 2010, 02:27

JonS wrote: But bothering about any of that like it matters, when they can't even find their arse with both hands? Nah.
Almost a fact of life on WTF threads, though.

I was reading on a nameless thread this evening that an "hours long" jaunt in a river barge across the Channel was a cakewalk, whereas a 21 hour trip in a destroyer from Scapa was debilitating.

Apparently being a Landser who may never have even seen the sea before prepares you for rolling your guts out in a storm, while being a seaman for a few years does not. And those incidentals on a ship, meaningless. Showers, hot meals, a vessel designed for open water, a bunk to sleep in? Far better to sit, crouch or lie in the bilges.

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

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#611

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Oct 2010, 02:44

Apparently being a Landser who may never have even seen the sea before prepares you for rolling your guts out in a storm
Let along the Alpini son of some Piedmontese mountain goatherd who hasn't been below 1000 feet above sea level in his life... :P
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...

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Malta vs. Compass. Available planes.

#612

Post by John T » 19 Oct 2010, 23:37

RichTO90 wrote:
That's the only area where they could create any sizeable advantage.
No, that's the only area where a wargamer can create such an advantage by shuffling counters about...that's rather a difference. For one thing, the Italian Regia Aeronautica was simply not designed or organized to be shuffled willy-nilly about like that. Their air forces were integrated units of fighters and bombers with their own reconnaissance assets and simply weren't conducive to being re-organized a la wargamer style.
What would you say to be a reasonable number of aircrafts that could reinforce the Italian air force in Sicily, Sardinia and southern Italy?

Double the number of squadrons at each base?

In my humble experience, basic readying of air crafts would simply be a problem of turn around time, given the ground crews where familiar with the type. While a/c's needing more labor demanding "real" maintenance and repair would line up on the apron awaiting proper attention. Had RA sufficient number of ground crews to keep the normal complement air worthy, given Italian aircrafts reputation as unreliable?
(On the other hand the only CR-42 Mechanics I have met personally said that rumors where worse than actual performance, "you just had to be careful")

But this only works as long the base can resupply.

Cheers
/John

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#613

Post by John T » 20 Oct 2010, 00:21

Gooner1 wrote:
John T wrote:
But as I want it to move on -

Let's assume it needed 250 tons of bombs to hit a ship by level bombing the way Italians did it during 1940.
If RA where able to fly two sorties a day with 250 bombers each carrying 1 ton RN will be hit twice a day.

How long would RN maintain such a damage rate?
You want to move the discussion "on" by stating complete bollocks? Par for the course I guess.
No, I had the Naive expectation that if I quantified, it would be simpler to discuss capabilities rather than the standard chant repeated soo many times in this tread
"Italians can" -"They can't" Perpetuated by faith rather than hard facts.

And I assumed a number of sorties per hit that was rather conservative on Italian capacity.

Gooner1 wrote: Anyway, Taranto night
" a force consisting of the cruisers Orion, Sydney, Ajax and the destroyers Nubian and Mohawk, under the command of the Vice-Admiral, Light Forces, was raiding the convoy route between Albania and the Italian mainland. Keeping his force concentrated on account of the bright moonlight, Admiral Pridham-Wippell steered up the middle of the Straits of Otranto, crossed the Brindisi-Valona line, and at 1 a.m. turned to the southward. A few minutes later a convoy of four merchant vessels with two escorts was sighted about eight miles away on the port bow, steaming in line ahead towards Brindisi. In the short engagement which followed, all four merchant vessels (totalling 16,938 tons) was sunk, though the escorts managed to escape." Playfair.
The Italian escorts where AMC Ramb III and an old DE (torpediniere) ,Nicola Fabrizi, built 1919, 635 tons and 4*102mm guns. So the outcome where no surprise.

The worst thing from Italian side where that RN could get there without being spotted. Both this smaller task force and the main carrier group aimed at Taranto.
One important reason where HMS Illustrious, with radar directed fighters managed to Anti-scout
- shooting down three Italian recon planes when the carriers where close to Taranto.
This created a black hole around the RN task force keeping the Italians ignorant of the threat.

Cheers
/John

narwan
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 04 Mar 2004, 00:06
Location: Nijmegen

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#614

Post by narwan » 20 Oct 2010, 02:19

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. In that NW corner you have no trees to shelter under. Almost no buildings for cover. A rock ground you can't dig shelters in. And while they could probably hide from direct fire from British forces much of the time, there would be no hiding from the sun. And they are supposed to be human mules too to lug the heavy stuff and supplies around.
48 Hours after being cut off dehydration will have weakened them to the point of being barely able to fight and from then on they'll be dropping like flies.

So if the RN intervenes the RM and RA have two days to get a decisive win. Anything less means the end of the operation. Or does anyone seriously believe the supply ships can keep moving through the same waters the RN is operating in during those days?

Narwan

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

Re: June 1940. Italy invades Malta.

#615

Post by phylo_roadking » 20 Oct 2010, 02:49

Narwan, IIRC I mentioned it obliquely in connection with the difficulties the FJ encountered on Crete in the first 48 hours without effective resupply. They suffered terribly - for they dropped well past the end of the Spring thaw when the rivers would be in spate, and the seasonal river beds were dry again. They were rapidly reduced to drinking out of puddles etc. with all the problems that meant - there were also terible shortages of food, ammunition....and medical supplies for the great number of casualties.

And as noted before several times - given the scenario suggested about the Italians assaulting cliffs rather than beaches - everything they got ashore would have to be got up those cliffs 8O In 48 hours or so - every gallon of water carried up a cliff is a hundred rounds of ammunition NOT carried up :wink: Or food....
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...

Locked

Return to “What if”