Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#31

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 04:55

Anchor Steam wrote:Pausing for Malta to fall would have given the 8th army all the time it needed to stop Rommel at the Egyptian border once again
I agree about not trying to take Malta before Gazala. Malta was useless so long as the LW was dominant in the Central Med, which is why Rommel received >5x his average supplies in May '42. But IMO it would have been wise to rein in Rommel around, say, Sidi Barrani after Gazala. In the following months - when 8th Army is not a threat to Rommel - solve the Malta problem one way or another (surrender or conquest) and then use your better sea logistics and shorter land logistics to stage "Alam al Halfa" 200 miles west. Axis might win that battle with massive strategic pain for the Allies.

This is not, btw, to set up Axis for winning in the Med somehow. Torch will still happen, leading eventually to Tunisgrad. The war is decided in the East. But no Malta makes the Tunisian campaign longer and more painful. As part of a broader ATL involving Russia's defeat the Gozo move would figure.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#32

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 05:05

Anchor Steam wrote:I don't think you will be able to get anything heavier than 17cm or 21cm guns ashore, and even those only because they break down into two loads.
Agreed.
Anchor Steam wrote:Evading counter-battery fire could be a serious problem, so it would do you some good to look up what Malta had.... other than guns emplaced under cover to fire out to sea. Those you don't have to worry about, its the mobile army field guns and the heavy guns in open-pit emplacements that will be your primary foes here.
Yes, as I said I didn't put a ton of time into this - unlike some of my other ATL's. The details of Malta's mobile guns and - most importantly - shell supply would dictate how long it would take for Gozo to establish artillery dominance over Malta. But unless there's a massive reinforcement of Malta that is problematic for the Allies on several axes, Gozo's eventual dominance is IMO assured by the respective logistical outlooks. So the details relate to timeline rather than outcome.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942


daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#33

Post by daveshoup2MD » 28 Jan 2022, 05:17

T. A. Gardner wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 00:41
daveshoup2MD wrote:
27 Jan 2022, 23:21
So split it 3-4 ways for a company, that's still about 25-30 construction vehicles, which given state of the art in US yellow gear in the early 1940s, is probably close to equivalent to the same number of light tanks, at least ... so, a half dozen or more LCM/LCT equivalents, probably.
It's also more heavy construction machinery than you'd find in a corps worth of German construction engineer units...

With the US construction units, the heavy machinery is mostly in a pool for the battalion and handed out to the companies as required for a mission. The dump trucks double as motor transport for the men in the unit. Not included on that list were the HQ, administrative, supply, and maintenance vehicles in the unit.
Undoubtedly.

This always comes to mind when this sort of comparison comes up:

https://youtu.be/LyZK8k4gzyg

... "Hey, you! That's right, you stupid Kraut bastards! That's right! Say hello to Ford, and General fuckin' Motors! You stupid fascist pigs! Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking? Dragging our asses half way around the world, interrupting our lives... For what, you ignorant, servile scum! What the fuck are we doing here?" ...

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#34

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 09:27

AnchorSteam wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 03:55
I don't think you will be able to get anything heavier than 17cm or 21cm guns ashore, and even those only because they break down into two loads.
The one exception being the 24cm K3. This can break down into 6 loads, range is 23mi. It can hit all Malta from behind the first ridge on Gozo, which means - combined with air superiority - it can shell without being accurately counter-battery'd (you'd array field artillery around to create a "wall of sound" blocking audio-ranging, as with the Paris Gun).

Image

Germany had at least six operating with three batteries. It was wasteful of manpower and logistics in the East but would have been useful on Gozo.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#35

Post by Aber » 28 Jan 2022, 10:47

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 03:27
Part of the resistance stems from the sacred cow dynamic, part from a psychological disposition to deeply resent - and feel threatened by - the notion that somebody else thought of something. Standard internet dynamics.
Or perhaps many board members have seen the idea, and its dismantling, before. :)

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#36

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 11:03

Aber wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 10:47
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 03:27
Part of the resistance stems from the sacred cow dynamic, part from a psychological disposition to deeply resent - and feel threatened by - the notion that somebody else thought of something. Standard internet dynamics.
Or perhaps many board members have seen the idea, and its dismantling, before. :)
Then obviously you can cite those arguments/threads.

I suspect you can't; I suspect you're talking about an attack on Malta in general or something else only superficially relevant to the discussion. If you can, I will be grateful to see (amidst flotsam) other serious attention paid to the possibility.

-------------------

Edit: A forum search turns up extensive discussion only of a 1940 landing on Gozo done entirely by the Italians. For several reasons only marginally relevant to this discussion.

Not discussed, but tantalizing in mention, is another member citing Malta, 1940 - 1943: la storia inconfessabile. He relates that in Summer 1942 the RM recommended taking "undefended" Gozo and using Italian guns to shell the Grand Harbor and defenses. Sounds familiar. If I could read Italian maybe I'd have taken the idea from there.

I always assume that if I'm smart enough to think of something then they were too. Nice to be confirmed again in this assumption.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#37

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jan 2022, 13:26

In general, a prolonged artillery duel or any form of active combat would favor the party that had better supplies, in this case, the Axis.

By the summer of 1942, the FJs were at their best shape ever. Their training, numbers and doctrine were all good, and there were hundreds of crews experienced in the MTO. Their equipment improved tremendously compared to Crete, and the Germans realized that they could squeeze in all kind of stuff into the gliders and the Ju 52's. Also parachute drops of weapons were conducted, albeit with mixed results.

Gozo is a rough terrain indeed, but not impossible to drop on (obviously the landscape changed a lot in 80 years, but I had my good fortune to be there). I can easily imagine a regiment of FJs taking the island at sunrise after a stunning bombing raid. But now comes the trick, because the reinforcements could not be airlifted in.

So the trick is whether the Brits could either hold their ground, which I think is unlikely, or counterattack effectively before the naval reinforcements would arrive. This raises the question of the naval battle, that I think would be decisive. Because if the Axis can land enough heavy equipment, the Brits would be in real trouble. They could not easily get through to Malta at this time, tho I have no doubt that Cunningham would try to do it anyway.

And if the artillery duel commences, the Axis would be in a superior position to take the rest of Malta. It was rather a choice made by Hitler and not so much the lack of means to ignore Malta in the summer of 1942. In a larger picture, however, an Axis presence in Africa was a mistake in general, thus wasting any resources on taking Malta was a bad idea to begin with.

The biggest risk factors, I think, are beyond the scope of rational speculation. Because things like delays and dust at airfields were more or less impossible to predict, but they had a huge impact on combat effectiveness.

In general, this is a good idea on a tactical level.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#38

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jan 2022, 13:31

As for the runway, it is a stupid idea, because a few well-placed artillery shells would destroy any Axis aircraft.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#39

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 13:41

Peter89 wrote:So the trick is whether the Brits could either hold their ground, which I think is unlikely, or counterattack effectively before the naval reinforcements would arrive.
I'm throwing out the possibility of a British counter from Malta only to be aware of possible contingencies - I just don't see how it could happen. Any amphibious capability would have to built up; this would be identified ("hey there's landing craft in the Grand Harbor") and interdicted/defeated.

Why do you assume there's a lag between naval and air forces? I'd expect near-simultaneous air/sea assault. Meanwhile the RM and LW are blasting at Malta, seeking to prevent the island's mobile artillery from redeploying to fire on the gathering Axis forces. If the landing is in February/March as I suggest then Force K is still around to sortie. But that seems a momentary annoyance to the concentrated RM and LW.

I see the most difficult Axis period being after the departure of the RM's main body: It's probably infeasible to land and place sufficient artillery to dominate Malta in the few days that RM can stick around. That means the Axis takes the worse of an attritional artillery dual for a week or so, which seems tolerable given the strategic stakes.
Peter89 wrote:As for the runway, it is a stupid idea, because a few well-placed artillery shells would destroy any Axis aircraft.
Nobody likes this idea.

...nonetheless I'm not willing to surrender quite yet. :milsmile:

The airfield is, to repeat, not a base with planes lined up around it at all times. It's a place for planes damaged over Malta to land, and for fighters to pick up enough fuel for the 60 mile hop back to Sicily (after an extended dwell over Malta enabled by the airfield).

As it's situated outside of Malta's line of sight, and only used when Axis is exercising aerial dominance over Malta, there's no way for Malta's gunners to spot shellfire on a few planes briefly stopping by. If the garrison wants to use its scarce shell supply on low-probability blind firing against an area target, that alone might justify building the airfield.

As you can see, the benefit I envision from this airfield is a very small element of the Gozo plan so feel free to ignore it. Or to rebut my above suppositions regarding its vulnerability.
Last edited by TheMarcksPlan on 28 Jan 2022, 13:53, edited 1 time in total.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#40

Post by Gooner1 » 28 Jan 2022, 13:46

If I was the Germans and wanted to shell Malta into submission, I wouldn't bother with pissant 17cm and 21cm guns.

What you need is Schwerer Gustav!

Image
:o

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#41

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jan 2022, 14:09

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 13:41
Peter89 wrote:So the trick is whether the Brits could either hold their ground, which I think is unlikely, or counterattack effectively before the naval reinforcements would arrive.
I'm throwing out the possibility of a British counter from Malta to aware of possible contingencies but I just don't see how it could happen.

Why do you assume there's a lag between naval and air forces? I'd expect near-simultaneous air/sea assault. Meanwhile the RM and LW are blasting at Malta, seeking to prevent reshuffling the island's mobile artillery from redeploying to fire on the gathering Axis forces. If the landing is in February/March as I suggest then Force K is still around to sortie. But that seems a momentary annoyance to the concentrated RM and LW.

I see the most difficult Axis period being after the departure of the RM's main body: It's probably infeasible to land and place sufficient artillery to dominate Malta in the few days that RM can stick around. That means the Axis takes the worse of an attritional artillery dual for a week or so, which seems tolerable given the strategic stakes.
Peter89 wrote:As for the runway, it is a stupid idea, because a few well-placed artillery shells would destroy any Axis aircraft.
Nobody likes this idea.

...nonetheless I'm not willing to surrender quite yet. :milsmile:

The airfield is, to repeat, not a base with planes lined up around it at all times. It's a place for planes damaged over Malta to land, and for fighters to pick up enough fuel for the 60 mile hop back to Sicily (after an extended dwell over Malta enabled by the airfield).

As it's situated outside of Malta's line of sight, and only used when Axis is exercising aerial dominance over Malta, there's no way for Malta's gunners to spot shellfire on a few planes briefly stopping by.

As you can see, the benefit I envision from this airfield is a very small element of the Gozo plan so feel free to ignore it. Or to rebut my above suppositions regarding its vulnerability.
As for the airfield, there is no such thing as "an airfield" :milsmile: I mean the Germans themselves used 3-5 different categories (at least: Fliegerhorst, Flugplatz, Landeplatz) and of course these categories covered very different stuffs. What you are talking about here is basically a Landeplatz, maybe with a forward repair workshop (Fliegende Werkstatt). However, the most likely type of damaged aircraft over Malta would be that of a bomber, so it can not be a too short runway. On the other hand, paving was not needed because leveling the local rocky soilstuff was good enough (btw just check out what kind of runways the Axis used in the MTO).

In my opinion, it would make much more sense to use BV 222s and other sea-landing aircrafts to bring in some reinforcements and rescue the crews. Their runway could not be demolished, and is built already, you see. Also the air-sea rescue service should have been operational; it was not deadly per se to land in the warm water of the Mediterranean sea in summer.

The problem with the naval operation is that the Brits would know that the RM left harbour and they had superior skills in battle. I can see a counterattack at night that negates the Axis air superiority and puts the RM into an inferior position. Cunningham would go into battle nevermind the risks of the air attacks. And if that happens and the Germans are counterattacked before they could entrench themselves, the whole operation might end up in a disaster.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#42

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jan 2022, 14:19

Gooner1 wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 13:46
If I was the Germans and wanted to shell Malta into submission, I wouldn't bother with pissant 17cm and 21cm guns.

What you need is Schwerer Gustav!

:o
A few batteries of 17 K 18 would be enough to deliver some punches to Valletta I think, but not to put a whole island into submission. Think about the implications of Valletta harbor being shelled, even if the Allied convoys get through.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#43

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 28 Jan 2022, 14:26

Peter89 wrote:The problem with the naval operation is that the Brits would know that the RM left harbour and they had superior skills in battle. I can see a counterattack at night that negates the Axis air superiority and puts the RM into an inferior position. Cunningham would go into battle nevermind the risks of the air attacks. And if that happens and the Germans are counterattacked before they could entrench themselves, the whole operation might end up in a disaster.
That's certainly a big risk... Then again, the Axis haven't risked all that much in the Gozo assault, unlike C3/Herkules. A few thousand in the first wave...

Was there a contingency plan to that effect? I.e. are we certain the Med Fleet would have bum rushed Malta in the event of a landing? If so, that's almost sufficient grounds to launch the operation. It's ~1,000 miles from Alexandria to Malta, pretty much all major RN movements were spotted in OTL 1942 (certainly in this case aerial and sea recon would be beefed up). By the time RN is approaching Malta at night they've been heavily attrited by LW/RA/RM/KM (the last being by submarines). They can cover maybe 200 miles in a night so they're getting hit by aircraft as they approach Malta.

Worst case scenario for Axis? RN eats some losses on the way to Malta but doesn't turn back, arrives around midnight. RM can probably abandon the area for the night, assuming amphibious assault from Malta is not a formidable possibility. Come sunrise either the RN has left or it gets slaughtered by combined air/sea attack.

Almost makes me think of using the Gozo operation as bait to destroy the Med Fleet.
Peter89 wrote:not to put a whole island into submission. Think about the implications of Valletta harbor being shelled, even if the Allied convoys get through.
Exactly. It's not necessarily a storm the ramparts siege, rather a starve-them-out siege.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#44

Post by Peter89 » 28 Jan 2022, 15:30

It is also possible for the Allies to relocate their airfields to the eastern part of the island and maybe offload stuff outside of the range of that sporadic artillery fire. Now that I think about it, the whole idea is good because it can create an asymmetrical situation where the limited German artillery can place shells on a few key points upon which the whole island depended. If it is not so, the whole idea probably doesn't work.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Taking Gozo as a siege warfare alternative to C3/Herkules

#45

Post by Aber » 28 Jan 2022, 18:02

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 11:03
Aber wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 10:47
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
28 Jan 2022, 03:27
Part of the resistance stems from the sacred cow dynamic, part from a psychological disposition to deeply resent - and feel threatened by - the notion that somebody else thought of something. Standard internet dynamics.
Or perhaps many board members have seen the idea, and its dismantling, before. :)
Then obviously you can cite those arguments/threads.
I could, but as easily found by using the search function, most ideas have floated through this or other discussion boards in the past.

The problem with Gozo (or similar suggestions involving the Isle of Wight, or the Friesian Islands :) ) is that if you are strong enough to take Gozo, you are almost certainly strong enough to take the main target; why bother with a complex 2-stage plan, when a simpler single stage plan will work.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”