Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The Fall of Malta Decisive or not

Discussion in 'What If - Mediterranean & North Africa' started by StudentofWar, May 15, 2009.

  1. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Jul 11, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Well,Rommel always was claiming that he was short on supplies (the usual tactic of a front commander to blame supply forces for his failures/defeats ), but I like to see the proofs for his claims .
  2. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Jul 24, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Well to anyone that has actually looked even superficially at the situation it's pretty clear at times that he was short on supplies, at other times not so much. There is the serious question of how much holding Malta would have helped though, especially if the cost of taking it was high enough.
    USS Washington likes this.
  3. knightdepaix

    knightdepaix Member

    Aug 15, 2015
    Likes Received:
    If Italy was able to drag on for about half to just less than a year by concentrating on taking Malta at the onset of DoW on France, such shift of focus would indicate the importance of Italian North African coastal ports. In the ceasefire talks after the surrender, Germany might take an earlier but possibly game-changer note of the importance of dragging GB in fighting Italy -- Italian troops essentially would become British cannon-fodder; more French assets in the Mediterranean would have been secured onto Axis' control. Speculation beyond that is getting less meaningful than taking onto Malta itself.

    While I concur with Belasar ideas about keeping the British busy, Triton indicated that Italian and German fighting against the British could update their equipment and tactics. This idea holds a merit from the designing just after the fall of France and performance on North African battles of the Italian design Semovente 75/18 tank destroyer/self propelled gun from German stug3. 75/18 was capable of taking out British M3 Grant and M3 Stuart. With the combat dragging on regardless of outcome, German army might share some captured Soviet artillery pieces so the Italians could keep on fighting, including ZiS-3 field gun. The advantage of 75/18 and ZiS-3 was their effectiveness with respect to production costs. If ZiS-3 knocked out any German light and medium tanks, it could be able to knock out Shermans.

    In other words, as Italy was capable to manufacture 75/18, it would be even more capable in refitting captured and donated Allied and Soviet equipment -- which I think Triton's idea could be updated for describing Italian performance.

Share This Page