Malta Garrison 1942

[Gooner1]

Are you sure? It seems a bit un-logical, since the battery is split in two troops serving on opposite ends of the island.

Quite possibly a mistake then.

Are you sure?

I have a 1942 primary source showing 13th Defence Battery RMA equipped with twenty-four 18-prs (dispersed in as many independent fire positions) and part of 26th Defense Rgt.

OTOH I have another (possibly not very reliable) source listing 5th Coast Rgt RMA made of 4th and 17th Coast Bty RMA.

No, speculation on my part. What is the primary source concerning?
Lt.Col. Weldon in 'Drama in Malta' gives the Royal Malta Artillery as two Coast Artillery Regts., two Heavy AA Regts., one Light AA Regt., a Searchlight Battery and a Defence Artillery Battery. Twenty-four 18pdrs seems too many guns for a single battery to handle, perhaps the coast arty. regt. manned some (or failing that infantry providing some of the gun crew?).

Colonel Weldon, who was on the staff of the Commander Royal Artillery Malta - Briadier Beckett, stated that in April 1942 there were one hundred and fourty-four Light AA guns on Malta (in addition to the 112 heavy guns), and that "Investigation proved that there was no point over Malta itself at which less than eighty Heavy AA guns could fire at one time, and the density of Light AA fire rose to proportionate heights in the vulnerable areas."

[Davide Pastore]

What is the primary source concerning?

The 1942 Malta defence plan, found in Malta archives

Lt.Col. Weldon in 'Drama in Malta' gives the Royal Malta Artillery as two Coast Artillery Regts., two Heavy AA Regts., one Light AA Regt., a Searchlight Battery and a Defence Artillery Battery.

According to the various sources (many conflicting with each other ) I have collected through the years, RMA batteries were:

1st (Coast) Bty - 1st Coast Rgt, RMA
2nd (Coast) Bty - 1st Coast Rgt, RMA
3rd (Coast) Bty - 1st Coast Rgt, RMA
4th (Coast) Bty - 5th Coast Rgt, RMA
5th (HAA) Bty - 2nd HAA Rgt RMA
6th (HAA) Bty - 2nd HAA Rgt RMA
7th (Searchlight) Bty - 4th Searchlight Rgt RA/RMA
8th (Searchlight) Bty - 4th Searchlight Rgt RA/RMA
9th (HAA) Bty - 2nd HAA Rgt RMA
10th (LAA) Bty - 3rd LAA Rgt RMA
11th Bty - ???
12th Bty - ???
13th (Defence) Bty - 26th Defence Rgt RA/RMA
14th (HAA, Relief) Bty - 11th HAA Rgt RMA
15th (LAA) Bty - 3rd LAA Rgt RMA
16th (Coast) Bty - 1st Coast Rgt, RMA
17th (Coast) Bty - 5th Coast Rgt, RMA
18th Bty - ????
19th Bty - ????
20th (HAA) Bty - 11th HAA Rgt RMA
21st (HAA) Bty - 11th HAA Rgt RMA
22nd (LAA) Bty - 3rd LAA Rgt RMA
23rd (HAA) Bty - 11th HAA Rgt RMA
24th Bty - ????
25th Bty - ????
26th Bty - ????
27th Bty - ????
28th Bty - ????
29th Bty - ????
30th (LAA) Bty - 3rd LAA Rgt RMA

Caveat: some of these entries are quite doubtful. Don't take this list at face value.

Twenty-four 18pdrs seems too many guns for a single battery to handle

They were all static weapons, requiring minimal manpower.

The sister (same regiment) 18th/71th Defence Battery RA manned eighteen more, four mobile plus fourteen static.

If you suppose a static gun needs half the manpower of a normal, mobile one, then numbers neatly fit (twelve mobile guns or twenty-four static ones, each battery).

there were one hundred and fourty-four Light AA guns on Malta

Exactly 12 weapons to each of the twelve batteries present.

IMHO the number looks a little too neat to fit into the real world

I believe it was the paper strength instead.

in addition to the 112 heavy guns

Italians photo recce identified 118 in 1942.

"Investigation proved that there was no point over Malta itself at which less than eighty Heavy AA guns could fire at one time

I wonder why it took an investigation to discover that AA guns, unless placed below a bridge or beside a skyscraper , can freely fire against every point in the sky inside their range. It reminds me of some 'studies' US universities are famous for

[Andy H]

I would guess and guess only without delving into books that some of these units didn't all exist at the same time, were merged, borne out of others or even dummy/deception units, or even just paper units awaiting actual activation

Regards

Andy H

[Gooner1]

The 1942 Malta defence plan, found in Malta archives

Sounds very interesting, would you know if there is a copy in the UKs National Archives?
Also does the document detail changes made to the defence, an emphasis on becoming more mobile, after the appointment of Major-General 'Terrible' Beak at the end of '41?

The sister (same regiment) 18th/71th Defence Battery RA manned eighteen more, four mobile plus fourteen static.

If you suppose a static gun needs half the manpower of a normal, mobile one, then numbers neatly fit (twelve mobile guns or twenty-four static ones, each battery).

Even more guns! Your explanation could be a good one.

Exactly 12 weapons to each of the twelve batteries present.

IMHO the number looks a little too neat to fit into the real world

I believe it was the paper strength instead.

Oh yes but it was normal British Army practice to always have a stock of replacement equipments rather than deploying every available gun, so I doubt that figure of 144 LAA pieces would be far from the true one at any point ..

I wonder why it took an investigation to discover that AA guns, unless placed below a bridge or beside a skyscraper , can freely fire against every point in the sky inside their range. It reminds me of some 'studies' US universities are famous for

I don't know anything about those US University studies but that figure of 80 HAA guns neatly illustrates just how small Malta is and just how much flak there was to defend it.

[Davide Pastore]

would you know if there is a copy in the UKs National Archives?

This I don't know.

but that figure of 80 HAA guns neatly illustrates just how small Malta is and just how much flak there was to defend it.

That illustrations is only important if:

1) one blindly accepts the grotesquely overestimated gunners' wartime claims;

2) one cavalierly supposes that Axis men, being dumb and hard-headed (as proven by the fact they lost the war...) had not planned to destroy the guns;

3) one chooses to ignore the fact that the much stronger and much better German FlaK did not wipe off RAF and USAAF from Berlin sky;

4) one subscribes to the school of thought 'Britain is going to win, always, and Axis is going to lose, always (particularly if there are Italians around)'

[Spontoon]

If this thread is still active can anyone direct me to more information on the KV tanks intended for use in the invasion of Malta?

[Davide Pastore]

If this thread is still active

I was under the impression it is...

can anyone direct me to more information on the KV tanks intended for use in the invasion of Malta?

See this thread.

[Gooner1]

That illustrations is only important if:

1) one blindly accepts the grotesquely overestimated gunners' wartime claims;

'Grotesque' overclaiming? Maltas AA guns claimed twenty-eight aircraft in March and 50 or so in April 1942 not including any damaged, how does that compare with known Axis aircraft losses over Malta? Rather conservative claiming I bet.

2) one cavalierly supposes that Axis men, being dumb and hard-headed (as proven by the fact they lost the war...) had not planned to destroy the guns;

Oh I don't doubt the Axis 'planned' to destroy the guns - they had already tried - but their results were meagre. If you can excuse the (justifiable) pride shown by Colonel Weldon "Deliberate attacks against gun positions had been part of the German [sic] tactics and had been ruthlessly carried out. It was only the bravery of the gun detachments that saved the losses to men and equipment from becoming very heavy. On not one single occasion did a gun detachment take cover against diving 'planes. In every case the attacker was met with every weapon that was at the disposal of the defender. As a result, the percentage of guns that were destroyed on the island was very small."

3) one chooses to ignore the fact that the much stronger and much better German FlaK did not wipe off RAF and USAAF from Berlin sky;

Uh, the Allies were not dropping paratroopers on Berlin.

4) one subscribes to the school of thought 'Britain is going to win, always, and Axis is going to lose, always (particularly if there are Italians around)'

Or one looks at the matter in a calm dispassionate way

[Davide Pastore]

Rather conservative claiming I bet.

Dream on.

BTW your claim figures are wrong.

About the remaining part of the post: after having spent the better part of the last ten years researching, I am tired of having to argue with people who wants to lecture me about a topic I know much better than them.

The only advice I can give you is: don't but my book. Because you are not going to like it.

[Gooner1]

BTW your claim figures are wrong.

Not according to Colonel Weldon.

About the remaining part of the post: after having spent the better part of the last ten years researching, I am tired of having to argue with people who wants to lecture me about a topic I know much better than them.

Who's lecturing? :roll: Smart not to ignore inconvenient facts though ..

The only advice I can give you is: don't but my book. Because you are not going to like it.

Nah, I'll look forward to it, even the parts of pure fiction As to the possibility of a successful invasion of Malta I don't think that post-Crete analysis by New Zealand military staff can be improved upon -
"If, therefore, the Germans decide to attempt to capture Malta, the success of their enterprise will depend upon the amount of force they are prepared to expend on it. They could undoubtedly mount an attack from Sicily and Southern Italy of the same type as they launched against Crete from Rhodes and Greece. Their losses would be a good deal heavier than they sustained at Crete, but if they decided to maintain their attack day after day regardless of loss for perhaps a period of several weeks, they would probably in the end be successful. There is good reason to suppose, however, that the cost of this success might be the crippling of a large portion of the German short-range air force. Conversely, the losses which the Germans would sustain in the attack might be so great that they could not face them. It is this thought which may have deterred them from making the effort before now."

[waterloo]

does anyone know what tanks the 11th hussars and the 7rtr had on malta.
about to fight a campaign , operation hercules, and Im abit short on what kit the ground forces had.

[JonS]

"Investigation proved that there was no point over Malta itself at which less than eighty Heavy AA guns could fire at one time

I wonder why it took an investigation to discover that AA guns, unless placed below a bridge or beside a skyscraper , can freely fire against every point in the sky inside their range. It reminds me of some 'studies' US universities are famous for

Assuming you're interested in something other than snide comments, you should probably take it as read that the investigation looked at the distribution of the guns across the island, drew the engagement/range circles around each, modified the circles for any cresting-type issues, then counted the amount of overlap, then adjusted bty or gun position to get the required density. Alternately, assuming a green fields site, you could use the same approach to figure out where to put the guns/btys in the first place.

I've seen such maps for other places where AA density was deemed important (eg MULBERRY), and similar ones for A-Tk coverage (eg, Medinine) and field artillery coverage (eg, El Alamein).

[waterloo]

Although I have not studied this for ten years It does seam very obviouse that were as Crete had limited AA spread out over a large area. Malta has an abundance of the stuff and if fired at ground level would have problems not hitting each other!

As I see it it is not an island to airborne assualt, your only realistic chance of a landing (alive) is in the area of north beach or st pauls beach and then you have to fight across the island to the ports.
anywere else is going to be death.

Were as the prequisites for invasion, mastery of the air and control of the seas could have been acheived , the raf had no hardened shelters for its aircraft and cunninghams navy was holding on with bluff and and a prayer. An invasion would have been a bloodbath. There is no way the italians were upto assualting defended beaches - technically , thier was no shortage of bravery in the italian army. And hitler would have a fit at the paratrooper losses - (he did not understand paratroops, they expect to take take high casualties, 30% just landing is ok by them.)

I don't suppose anyone has done a "what if " study of how an invasion would have faired.

ps - still need to know what tanks the brits had.

[nedz]

The British tank strenghts were posted earlier in this thread.

It would be interesting to see someone do a simulation as to how an invasion would have fared. It should even be possible to evaluate the whatifs, to determine which would have been significant.

[waterloo]

Hi
this time I will ask a question that hasn't already been answered.

does anyone know the sailing time from italy (sicily) to malta.
only in terms of half a day, a day, that sort of thing. Im trying to work out when ships would set off off to land at certain times.

and of course does anyone know of the alocated naval escort to any such flotillas in operation Herkules.
I can't imagine after the sinking they got trying to get to crete they would send unescorted ships again.

and what sort of ships landing craft did the italians employ?

any feedback much apprieciated.

The planes have taken off and are rumbling towards the island as we speak!"!

peter