Should the Axis have tried harder to take Malta?

Italy would have been better served by say 45 to 50 well equipped and full strength divisions rather than 70-90 poorly equipped and undersized ones. It also might have made Mussolini's ambitions far more realistic and achievable. Sometimes the stupidity of tyrants work in your favor.

 

From discussions I've seen on the topic (primarily over on the axis history forum) I've been pretty well convinced that it is unlikely that it even would have been close. Malta was going to be a very rough place to invade due to both the topography and the defence.

Between North Africa and Sicily Malta represents no real improvement in these functions for the Axis. If they take it the main benefit is in denial of Malta to the allies.

I'm not sure at all that this would be the case. Given the difficulty of invading and the limited utillity of the island given the increased airpower of the allies I would expect it to be bipassed just like many of the islands in the Pacific.

 

I believe this may be an example of what war on multiple fronts would cost the axis powers . With the majority of Germany's forces commited to the eastern front, Malta ( like most of the North African campain) represented a diversion of forces from Russia that they could not afford. When you consider that Germany was outnumbered and facing an enemy in the east that just kept getting stronger, it is not surprising that Hitler felt it may be easier just to wage a bombing campaign against Malta especially after the cost of the Invasion of Crete. Also I'm wondering if German/Itilian forces were to capture Malta how long would it be before the allies tried to take it back ?

 

While Axis ASW could cover the same area they did so at the limits of their range. With assets staging from Malta ASW coverage could be done at the lower end of their range, and therefor more effectively. Contol of Malta would allow convoys to keep close air cover for a greater length of time reducing the loss of irreplacable hulls and supplies.

It would in hindsight be a good idea to bypass an Axis controlled Malta and continue on to Scicly/Italy but would Churchill see it in this way. A stong proponent of Empire, he would likely want to 'reclaim' any lost pieces of empire rather than have them wither on the vine.

If the Axis struck Malta shortly after the fall of France, no diversion of forces would occur for Operation Barbarossa.

 

As shortly after the fall of France,there were no German airborne unts,an attack on Malta was improbable .

 

I suggest you take a closer look at a map. Try google Google Maps
If you go more than 30 miles or so north of Malta you are closer to Sicily than to Malta.
Go West more than about 75 miles and the same is true.
Go South about 100 miles and you are closer to North Africa.
The only direction you get much of a range advantage is SE from Malta but even there you are closer to Sicily or North Africa after something less than a couple hundred miles.

But what are they to strike with at that point? The German paratroopers and thier transport have been badly damaged by the assaults on Norway, Belgium, and Holland. The Italian paratroopers aren't ready yet nor do they have the transport. The RN has a huge naval advantage. Neither the Germans or the Italians have much if anything in the way of landing craft.

Oh and as to bypassing Malta by mid war the British were getting worried about the losses they were taken. There are some indications that one reason Monty for instance wasn't as aggressive at times as he could have been is that he was aware of these concerns. Churchill would also likely have realized that they would get Malta back after the war just like they did their possesions in the Pacfic. If they really need to take Malta they can wait until after Sicily when it's truly isolated.

 

In the summer of 1940, just how are the Germans going to get to the Med.? They can't breach the Armistice with France otherwise Weygand and his forces and the French Navy are back in the fight, something both Hitler & Mussolini greatly feared, and with good reason.

Malta was 93 km. from Sicily, 170 km. from Pantelleria, in the Straits of Sicily, and 250 km from Lampedusa, which is much closer to Tripoli than Malta is, we're talking distances comparable to the Germans taking off from their bases in France to attack positions in the UK i.e. nowhere near the limits of the range of Axis ASW.

The problem was with Axis ASW. As previously stated, Luftwaffe ASW was awful, I should now add the Regia Marina; when the war started the RM had no radar, or more importantly here, no ASDIC/Sonar and minimal ASW capability, they had completely neglected ASW. If the Med. wasn't so clear and relatively shallow, RN sub losses would've been few and far between.

Early on, Churchill had wanted to take Sicily and/or other various Med. Islands, fortunately he'd been talked out it. Like the Italians the British didn't need any more islands to garrison, feed and support.

 

As pointed out Italy is fairly close to Malta is it not? So no absolute need to stage from France or violate the new treaty. Fallshirmjaegers were being prepared for Operation Sealion, so some were available. The Italian Navy had a very close expiration date due to fuel considerations, so why not use them while you can for something of value rather have them rust in port as they did. Sealion demonstrated the axis ability to improvise a landing fleet, Malta would be a far easier target that the south of England. According to Wiki after the war the British wargamed a simulated invasion without total Luftwaffe control, and Germany could effect a landing, but not break out. Considering the size of Malta, not an issue. Not an easy task by any means, but not impossible either.

 

The Germans aren't anywhere near the Med. in the summer of 1940, they had no shoreline, no resources, no warships, only some trapped shipping that they owed the Italians for keeping. b, are you saying that they'll sail from the French Atlantic shore, the Fallshirmjaeger board their aircraft near Stuttgart? The Germans never just told the Italians what to do, how can they "just use" the Italian Navy?

 

Indeed but they and their transport were not available in all that great of numbers I believe. I seem to recall that Malta as a whole was pretty much unsuitable for glider landings as well.

So you have them rusting at the bottom of the Med rather than in harbor? Take a look at what they had available in this time period.

That is highly debateable. The Sealin "landing fleet" was a disaster in the making and would have been almost impossible to move to the Med in any case.

In some ways but not in others

If you are talkinga bout the wargaming of SeaLion they assumed that the Germans could successfully land an invasion force so they could wargame the land portion of the battle. That's a long way from Germany actually being able to make a successful landing.

It's not just the size of Malta it's the topography, structures, and defences.

 

About the FJ,I have seen the information on AHF(but sadly enough,I can't find it back)that after the campaign in the west,the Germans only had a few operational batallions of FJ,that they had lost 325 Ju52 with their crew,and were producing monthly only 25 Ju 52.

 

Never despair:the thread on AHF is :intended FJ role in Sealion
Some excerpts:
The airborne units (=7th Flieger division)with a strength of 4500 men,lost 2000 men,a maximum of 3500 could be ready in september.
The 22 ID (only one regiment took part in the airborne operations) also lost 2000 men
The training of the Ju 52 crew took 6 months .

 

I think they were repairing a fair number of those Ju52's although it's not clear if they are folded into the production numbers or not. The Germans sometimes did that with rebuilds from what I've read.

 

THe irony is that it was Rommel who convinced Hitler to give him the supplies thatwere to be used for an attack on Malta. With the supplies Rommel launched his attack that got him to El Alamain. Of course it was Malta that enabled the inderdiction of supplies that Rommel needed.

 

Question is wrongly put:"try harder"? they didn't try at all! you don't take an island by just bombing it!!!

 

There we not only the paratroopers,but the ships with troops from Sicily(150 klm)

 

You are correct we shouldn't leave out the losses that would be inflicted on the Italian navy, transports, and their passengers.

 

The question is :why should the German have tried to capture Malta ?

 

I'd say the Axis did all they could to subdue Malta. 70 years ago this month the siege of Malta was entering its critical phase, and the Island was about to become the most bombed place on earth, thanks to Kesselring's intention to neutralise it.

You can follow these events daily (and hourly) at maltagc70.com, a website created from official wartime documents including War Diaries and personal memoirs. (MaltaGC70 is a voluntary, non-profitmaking venture set up to mark 70th anniversary of the award of the George Cross, to be commemorated in the UK and Malta on 15 April 2012.)

 

There are two critical factors in not taking Malta, the first was the German navy convincing Hitler that Crete was more important for long term operations and Hitler was afraid of Crete as a British air base. The second was Rommel convincing Hitler to let him have the supplies intended for taking Malta so Rommel could launch the attack that led to El Alamain.