The Alexandrian Backdoor - to the Balkans

[Baltasar]

This thread is rapidly turning into the same sort of non-sensical Malta WI that gets dismissed again after 50 or 60 pages where EVERYTHING is discussed all over again...

Dismissed by certain people who do have an opinion before trying to gather all variables and facts.

[BDV]

So there are.

Not reliably useable for MFPS.

March? March.

Oh, and P.S. - that was the first MFPs...not the larger and heavier and deeper-drafted Type A1s actually developed for HERKULES!

So, no draught problems, ja?

"Otherwise, yes, Suda Bay" what?

- even with Malta taken at the expense of fallschirm-Opferlamm, if no Alexandria conquest and crossing of Nile to put Suez under direct threat, that is -

RN setting shop in the best anchorage in Eastern Med, and ATL Malta becomes only slightly better than "Merkur" as textbook example of quasi-inconsequential pyrrhic german victory.

[Baltasar]

None of the ones you quoted would be suitable and less so if faced with a number of ships.

You don't think 100+ plus Heavy AA guns would be any threat to amphibious forces?

It should come as no surprise that there were quite a lot of guns on Malta that would be deadly even to armoured warships

If you could provide calibres, available AP ammunition stocks and establish whether these guns were actually dual purpose guns... yes, they could potentially deal damage to warships. However, could they put them out of a fightt? I very much doubt so. Italian armored cruisers or heavier warships would also outgun and most likely outrange Maltese defense emplacements.

The major drawback in any Malta operation would be the lack of military landing vessels and the comparativly small size if the island, which in turn would favor the defender.

[phylo_roadking]

Oh, and P.S. - that was the first MFPs...not the larger and heavier and deeper-drafted Type A1s actually developed for HERKULES!

So, no draught problems, ja?

No - if the standard ones couldn't be relied on to get down the Rhine-Rhone Canal in dry weather at that time of year - the deeper draught ones would be even worse.

"Otherwise, yes, Suda Bay" what?

- if no Alexandria conquest and crossing of Nile to put Suez under direct threat, that is -

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

March? March.

So?

1/ if the water level wasn't reliably high enough in a European December...March isn't going to make much difference.

2/ IIRC the Spring Thaw in 1941 was late...and March might have been a bit early anyway in an average year. Normally, the second half of a month at the very earliest - except it wasn't a normal year; temperatures remained low as the La Nina event (1940-43) hosed down arctic storm after arctic storm across Scandanavia and Europe. This was the weather that two months LATER made the Rasputitsa that year longer than normal.

[BDV]

Smaller draught - fewer problems, but then even the larger draught were within channel specifications. Increasing rain and melting means there would be no problem.

OTOH, Alexandria is not taken and Nile crossed, RN will just move shop to Suda Bay and deny RM the eastern Med anyway.

[phylo_roadking]

Smaller draught - fewer problems, but then even the larger draught were within channel specifications.

So were S-boats - actually more within channel specifications as you put it - and yet at the end of 1941 the Canal WAS impassable to them!

Increasing rain and melting means there would be no problem.

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote???

We're supposedly talking about MARCH 1941 here; there was no thawing YET, and in fact the cold winter weather lasted longer in 1941...just as it had in 1940. It's not going to start at the very least until into April...

...at which point there are no spare air resources for the "sustained" attack on Malta - as much as possible was being readied for BARBAROSSA; this historically gave major problems for the LW in MERKUR...too few aircraft and airfield maintenance units, as many aircraft as possible being sent to Germany for servicing before being assmbled for June - Richthofen had to stop the majority of his fighter sweeps over Crete on only the third day of the invasion and send the aircraft north.

[phylo_roadking]

This thread is rapidly turning into the same sort of non-sensical Malta WI that gets dismissed again after 50 or 60 pages where EVERYTHING is discussed all over again...

Dismissed by certain people who do have an opinion before trying to gather all variables and facts.

I suggest you actually take a look at said threads again....where some of us gathered a HUGE swathe of said facts and variables...

...usually countered by the wieghty argument of "I say it will happen that way and I'll hold my breath until I turn blue or jump up and down until I'm sick"...

[Baltasar]

This thread is rapidly turning into the same sort of non-sensical Malta WI that gets dismissed again after 50 or 60 pages where EVERYTHING is discussed all over again...

Dismissed by certain people who do have an opinion before trying to gather all variables and facts.

I suggest you actually take a look at said threads again....where some of us gathered a HUGE swathe of said facts and variables...

...usually countered by the wieghty argument of "I say it will happen that way and I'll hold my breath until I turn blue or jump up and down until I'm sick"...

I did. The potential is there. I didn't say it'd be easy, just that it'd be plausible. And the potential benefit would be worth more than anything the Axis could gain on Crete.

[phylo_roadking]

I did. The potential is there. I didn't say it'd be easy, just that it'd be plausible. And the potential benefit would be worth more than anything the Axis could gain on Crete.

Such as?

Taking Crete removed the threat to the Italians on Rhodes and in the Dodecanese, closed the Aegean (and southern Adriatic) completely to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force (until Beaufighters arrived in-theatre)...thus removed any potential threats to German traffic seeking to use the Dardanelles, and threats to German forces on the Greek mainland - thus allowing the garrison there to be reduced further than otherwise. Ditto for air assets in the area. It forced the RN to build up coastal forces in the Eastern Med littoral, and retain a greater number of maritime patrol and other patrol aircraft in the Delta than otherwise.

And as for value - don't forget the role Crete played as a cargo nexus for the LW airborne support of the DAK when it was in the east of Libya and further on into Egypt.

The potential is there. I didn't say it'd be easy, just that it'd be plausible.

An attack that potentially costs the LW a large number of combat aircrat...let alone any Italian losses and the decimation of the FJ...on the "eve" of BARBAROSSA - is a cost I doubt Berlin would be prepared to pay. Hitler didn't really specialise in operations that were "just" do-able...he vastly preferred low-cost, high-return operations.

Malta wasn't Crete; as discussed elsewhere, it was Crete-plus. It entailed all the terrain and defensive issues of Crete, a smaller area to defend with better internal provision for the defenders to shift forces back and forth to "firefight" - PLUS an effective air defence net and capability...as opposed to Crete's decimated fighter defence that hadn't even been any cop BEFORE the LW drove the last of it away prior to the invasion.

Student was able to sell the idea of MERKUR as being low-cost and low-resource; a few weeks' softening up by Richthofen's fighters...then they could be taken away...and an invasion force that was made up of forces NOT initially needed for BARBAROSSA....and fishingboats. He doesn't have those same selling points for HERKULES.

[Gooner1]

If you could provide calibres, available AP ammunition stocks and establish whether these guns were actually dual purpose guns... yes, they could potentially deal damage to warships. However, could they put them out of a fightt? I very much doubt so. Italian armored cruisers or heavier warships would also outgun and most likely outrange Maltese defense emplacements.

10 x 6-inch and 7 x 9.2-inch coast defence guns, IIRC.

From the UK Forts Club:

"Coastal artillery represents a very refined state of the science of gunnery. The guns are positioned on a stable platform; optical range-finding (used before the days of radar) can be carried out using a very large base - and thus with great accuracy. The full history of each gun - and therefore the necessary correction for wear, etc, - is known; account can be taken of air temperature and barometric pressure, wind-speed and direction. With all these advantages, coastal artillery reaches the best achievable accuracy.

Any action between coast defence artillery and warships is heavily biased in favour of the former. As a target, the ship is easily defined, and its position predictable. A hit on any part of it will do some damage and reduce its effectiveness; there can only be limited protection for its magazines. On the other hand, viewed from the sea, the guns represent a very small and difficult target; only a direct hit on a gun or the Command Post will have any effect; the magazines are protected by many feet of earth embankment and concrete."

[Baltasar]

Even WW1 battleships did have higher calibre guns and whether or not the Forts Club likes the idea or not, the coastal guns would not be able to deal substantial damage to such ships. That is, if they could reach them in the first place. 17 guns, probably arranged around the port, would be rather little in the face of a serious Italian effort to take Malta.

[Marcelo Jenisch]

By the end of 1941 Britain had delivered 466 tanks out of the 750 promised.

A total of 699 Lend-Lease aircraft had been delivered to Archangel by the time the Arctic convoys switched to Murmansk in December 1941.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... ermans.htm

Relevant in this scenario?

[Gooner1]

Even WW1 battleships did have higher calibre guns and

Well no shit :roll:

whether or not the Forts Club likes the idea or not, the coastal guns would not be able to deal substantial damage to such ships.

Really? And precisely which ships in the Italian navy do you think could shrug off hits from 9.2-inch shells?

That is, if they could reach them in the first place.

You're just betraying your ignorance here. The 9.2-inch had a range upto 29,000 yards and the 6-inch a range upto 25,000 yards.

[Baltasar]

You're just betraying your ignorance here. The 9.2-inch had a range upto 29,000 yards and the 6-inch a range upto 25,000 yards.

The Italian WWI era battleships fielded 12" guns. Comparable German guns had a range of 35.000 yards, later about 45.000 yards.

"reaching" has something to do with being able to turn the gun into the direction of the enemy. Who, in this case, could as well be on the other side of the island, shelling anything else. The few guns you've pointed out could either be around Valetta or (much less likely) be scattered around the island. If the former is the case, they'd have a limited field of view (and thus fire), if the latter is the case, there'd be only one or two of them in any given position.

Really? And precisely which ships in the Italian navy do you think could shrug off hits from 9.2-inch shells?

Any of their battleships or heavy cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Mari ... d_War_II_2

[LWD]

You're just betraying your ignorance here. The 9.2-inch had a range upto 29,000 yards and the 6-inch a range upto 25,000 yards.

The Italian WWI era battleships fielded 12" guns. Comparable German guns had a range of 35.000 yards, later about 45.000 yards.

And what do you expect them to hit at those ranges? The Vittirio's could indeed have a max range well over 40,000 yards but they aren't likely to hit anything much smaller than Malta at that range at least without well trained observes with eyes on target. In any case if RN battleships are likely to show up you wouldn't want them with their magazines full of HE would you?

Really? And precisely which ships in the Italian navy do you think could shrug off hits from 9.2-inch shells?

Any of their battleships or heavy cruisers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regia_Mari ... d_War_II_2

The decks of their older battleships much less their cruisers were subject to penetration by 9.2 inch guns at longer ranges.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/Pe ... ritain.htm
And even without penetration they can do considerable damage and that's to battleships start talking cruisers and the situation is much worse for the Italians. Again as others have said we've gone over this in considerable detail in the various Malta threads.