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

Should the Axis have tried harder to take Malta?

Discussion in 'Naval War in the Mediterrean, Malta & Crete' started by 3ball44, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's entirely possible. Even during the war it helped justify their strategic approach. I'm not sure that they were wrong in that regards but if more fuel was available it would have been easier to critise them.
    Littorio class battleship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia states:
    I didn't find anything on the older battleships but looking at their ranges and horsepower I'd guess it would be between 2,000 and 5,000 tons. So very likely you could get enough fuel for 2 sorties from the battleships out of 40,000 tons and that's 3,000+nm sorties. In other conversations it was brought up that the Italian DDs weren't very fuel efficient I believe (at least as compares to Japanese DDs although it could have been the other way around I'll see what I can find on it). Of course that's also at cruising speed and battle speed burns a lot more fuel. At this point I certainly can't refute your conjecture.

    I was looking for others as well. No luck finding anything however.
    I'm not so sure of that. While their belt armor would be proof at most reasonable ranges the decks might not be. Problem is the reference I usually use is:
    Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
    Which lists stats for a 9.2" 47 caliber MK XII. But United Kingdom / Britain Naval Guns lists the MK XII as being 51 caliber and haveing a very long range. If the stats are for this gun then the older MK IX 47 caliber guns at Malta would threatend the decks of the older battleships in closer. This is also complicated by the presence of supercharges for these guns which the penetration tables don't seem to account for.
    That very much depends on whether it's just an airborne assault or not. If it's just airborne then the ships won't help that much in any case unless they are bringing reinforcements. If there's an amphibious component then it is very likely that it can be of some aid unless the airborne component has been spectacularly successful which I think is questionable.
    I'd want to see if I could trace things back a bit more before I put much weight in them. It's intersting info but without solid documentation ....
    I would expect combat losses to be high. Normally operational losses equalled combat losses but I'm not sure they would in this case. On the otherhand cumulative combat damage and stress may often be relegated to operational losses.
    Just that one post of JonS's had a lot to think about and follow up in it. I haven't traced it back to the other site or read much esle in the thread (actually reread I beleive but it's been a considerable while).

    Oh this book turned up while I was googleing. Sounds like it would be very useful in this discussion but I don't have it. It will go on the list though:
    http://www.amazon.com/Battleships-1928-1957-Illustrated-Technical-Reference/dp/1442121092
     
  2. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    werent the Italian BB's lighter on their armor. I understood that they were built more for speed and sacrificed armor.
     
  3. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Belt armour for the Cesare and Doria classes was 250mm, light by WW2 Battleship standards but a lot for a 9.2" to deal with.

    Bagnasco and Cernuschi in Le navi da guerra italiane 1939-45 give the following bunkerage/ranges for Itallian ships (unfortunately that book has not translated, contrary to the one on the Littorios, but IMO it's a very good successor to the rare Fraccaroli reference book (in English) on Italian ww2 warships.
    Cesare 5.200 miles at 18kts wirh 2.500t of fuel
    Doria 4.000 miles at 18kts wirh 2.530t of fuel
    Trieste (CA) 3190 at 25 knots wit 2,250t of fuel
    Gorizia (CA) 3.700 at 18 knots wit 2.400t of fuel (he gives two very differnt figuresfo the class, probably the sisters were different, erobably a lot less economical streamers than Trento due to the shorter hulls)
    Garibaldi (CL) 2.400 miles at 28 knots (5.360 at 14) for 1.650t of fuel
    Soldati class (DD) 2.340 at 14knots (682 at 34) for 506t of fuel (look not very economical stamers but a figure for 20 knots would be intersting)
    Navigatori class (DD) 5.000 miles at 18knots (1.200 miles at 28knots) with 560t of fuel
    Spica class (DE) 1.750 miles at at 15 knots with 200t of fuel
    Ciclone class (DE) 2.800 miles at 14 knots with 450t of fuel
    Gabbiano class (Corvettes) 3450 miles at 10 knots with 70t of diesel fuel

    So 40.000t looks like between one and two full loads for the full fleet.

    But Malta is something like 450 miles from Taranto (350 as the crow flies) so a sortie will not use up a full fuel load, if they go back to Augusta (a rather good base but in air range of Malta so major warhips were not stationed there normally) it's just 100 miles away. (sailing distance Taranto to Augusta is 237 miles).

    Plunging fire that hits decks require high elevation shooting, this is required for long range but AFAIK no naval guns were ever designed to shoot at high angles/reduced charge in the hope of getting a deck hit, having low flight times is more important when shooting at a moving target and reloading big guns at high angles usually reduces ROF, coast defence mortars are a different story.
     
  4. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    154
    You may well have a case for calling Malta 'Difficult' IF the garrison present were in fine fighting trim.

    And they clearly were not.

    Uniforms in tatters, malnourished, water problems, lack of ammunition, (especially considering the isolated nature of the probable defense, each position an island unto itself with not much scope for co-operation between the four different brigades). Lord Gort was not the most conspicuous of commanders when it comes to battlefeild performance, something Crete did have, at least, with Gen. Freyburg.

    This island was too small to become much of a Stalingrad, more like an Arnhem in terms of space. Judging by the paras performance at Cassino, they would have done very nicely in street fighting, having just the equipment for it.

    The Italian Navy, in mid-1942, would have had PLENTY of fuel for this operation. Hitler would have allocated the resourses for an important operation like this.

    This is the entire point of Alfred Nofi. If the Axis were going to do it at all, their best chance was mid 1942, when they had gathered over 1300 Italo-German aircraft for the job.

    And Rommel selfishly threw it away.

    Hercules was cancelled for no better reason than to help pull Rommel's well toasted chestnuts out of the fire. And it didn't work anyway. He found himself doing the same thing as his 'Dash to the Wire' of the previous year. Remember, Rommel was not a General staff college graduate. Logistics was not his strong point. Neither were relations with his fellow Generals, or the Italians. von Runestedt, always a representative of the 'Old Guard', described Rommel as "Nothing more than a good divisional General.", something Rommel himself proved more than once, and particularly in mid 1942, when his judgement counted most.

    I might mention also that Vance von Borries design of 'Air Assault on Crete", gives consistently accurate gaming, and much excitement to boot. The British gaming critic and journalist Nicky Palmer lists it in his "Best of Wargaming" as a must have for any serious simulationist. Not sure if your familar with Nic, but thought I would mention this anyway. I have a couple of tricks up my sleve when playing the Axis in the Malta gamette, like holding back the Airborne drop until the invasion fleet arrives, then using the prospect of a drop to hold many elements of the garriosn in place. Until that air-drop arrives, they simply should not move! You then have a very good chance of the landing beaches caught with little or no defenses in place. Using your aircraft, it's then simple to suppress the coastal artillery while your Italian and German waterborne craft make the run in for a landing. You can do so much more when you have command of the air.

    Just thought I would mention that as well. Thats the beauty of a well designed wargame. It's a great historical tool!

    Christopher
     
  5. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    154
    Something else, for those that doubt the historical/practicle relevance of wargaming.....

    The Japanese Navy conducted a wargame. Their officers simulated a combined fleet carrier/assault of the island of Midway.

    The side playing the IJN lost all four large carriers.

    The umpires ruled otherwise, with the result officially changed to reflect a Japnese win. Excuses fell like cherry blossoms during the Kyoto festival.
    You'all know the real result at Midway.


    On June the 5th, 1944, German officers on the Western Front were attending a conference. The matter on hand was a 'Kriegspeil', (wargame) of the up-coming invasion by the Western Allies. The side playing the allies put their cardboard soldiers ashore at....you guessed it, the beaches of NORMANDY.....:)
     
  6. scipio

    scipio Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    122
    I am sorry to say Freyburg for all this admirable qualities made a mess of Crete. Both Gort and he were VC winners and whilst you could complain about Gort being overpromoted and lacking imagination for overall command of an Army group, he was at his best at a lower position. Backs to wall and brigade level with a sang froid attitude - perfect - he would have been just fine.

    Yes the British troops were undernourished and "browned off" but you can't simply infere they that they are not going to put a stiff resistance - reading the Cheshire War Diary, the battalion had just come from assisting the Australians taking Tobruk and very proud of their fitness in a 15 mile fighting long carry of their Vickers MMG (over 100 pounds per man). In any case, knowing through Ultra when the attack is coming, you surely start feeding those troops and support elemnets.

    In hindsight your war gaming is better than the German plan. This was simply to plonk as many paras on the centre of the island (in the teeth of the maximum AA the Island could bring to bear) to take the airfields and then to make a feigned sea landing and a real one both in the north of the Island. The British would likely know via Ultra if they had not already surmised this simple plan.

    I have been trying to find a New Zealand commander's assessment who had been at Crete and he felt that the Paras would be contained and the critical development then would be whether those landings would be successful. His final assessment had been that it could take weeks to achieve the final reduction of the Island at a crippling cost of Axis aircraft and high grade troops.
     
  7. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Im not sure why its believed that the British would simply sit by and allow the Paras to land. There is a clip of German troops having a duck shoot at Arnhem, when the reinforcements tried to land. I dont care what shape the defenders are in if they can just stand around and shoot at guys slowly coming down and I still havent heard how many and if there are suitable landing spots. Even if the gliders can land at an airfield there still has to be a way of reinforcing and considering the likely losses of the transports how long can they be reinforced. Finally counting on the Italian navy to fight its way to a landing sounds like a guaranteed losing bet.
     
  8. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    290
    Steve, no one has said or thought that the British troops would have done nothing than sitting around and sipping on their Tea till the Germans shouted " Hands up!" There were many battles fought where no one would have believed that they could be won but it worked. What i want to say is only that it could have worked out for the Axis. With high casualties in men and machines but there was a chance to do it, a little one but a chance. Thats the same like D-Day it have worked for some failures at the German side. If those mistakes hadn´t happened the Landing would have been a catastrophy!
     
  9. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Volga....war games are good...we in Nato..blue forces always had a wintex exercise every 2 years...paper...ww3...we got slaughtered by Orange forces after long build up...Then war...but funny enough...we always won in the end...Fairy dust was spread liberally and we on the game fringes laughed heartilly...games like first battles change tack once the first bullets fly.
     
    Bolshevik likes this.
  10. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    Although I posted to a considerable extent in the 1940 thread on AHF linked to earlier here, I haven't posted on this subject yet here. However, there's a few issues I want to pick up on.

    Resupply by landing loaded aircraft is perfectly doable...but it DEMANDS control of a functioning airstrip or airfield; more on this to follow...

    Resupply by para drop in an environment like Malta is EXTREMELY problematical, both for over dropping taking supplies to the defender (it happened both accidently AND "intentionally" on Crete, when Commonwealth troops used captured FJ ground markers :p)...and because of the terrain -

    Terraces yes...but the reason they show up so well on aeriel pics and Google Earth is that they're divided by sunken trackways maybe a few feet below the level of the fields, and the "walls" themselves, maybe only a few stones tall, usually have a ditch on the field side. In other words...the terrain is absolutely crisscrossed with ready-made defensive "trenches" like Crete but tenfold more :eek:...but there's a better than evens' chance that airdropped canisters will ACTUALLY fall in the fields themselves I.E. in effect in the "no mans' land" BETWEEN attackers and defenders!

    This terrain also of course adds to a problem that plagued the FJ on Crete in the first wave....the number of FJ lost or incapacitated to injuries landing! There's quite simply a far greater percentage of "raised" stone features, or "depressed" stone features for FJ to fall onto than even on Crete...with the associated high number of crippling injuries.

    The FJ were only in late 1942 starting to experiment and train widely with controllable/steerable 'chutes; prior to that only the smaller "specialist" units had used them. By 1942 therefore, the large numbers of FJ deployed to Malta would STILL be using the old-small-of-the-back harness that meant they had absolutely no control of where they landed....or ANY ability to avoid obstacles and threats on the ground.

    Going back to the airfield issue mentioned above...outside the airfields, the terrain on Malta was a bollix for gliders. You're looking at

    1/ EITHER a very high rate of loss, along the lines of Crete, for glider complements...OR

    2/ they're landed on airfield aprons in an attempt to take the field by main force in the "classic" FJ way.

    But THAT creates even MORE issues for the attackers! :eek:

    1/ Luqa had ZERO apron - a few feet each side of the runway the ground fell away into very rocky terrain! Space was at a premium SO much that the RAF had to use the main road linking it to Hal Far as the only practical apron for Luqa! Aircraft were parked all along the length of the side of the road between the two fields :p

    2/ It maybe looks like a minor issue - but those aircraft would still be there, even if only as wreckage!, so the widest road on the island is not available :(

    3/ That leaves only Ta'Qali and Hal Far....and the first of these was situated in an old dried lake bed - that the defenders were ONLY too aware of the risk of gliders landing on! In 1940 before the field could be improved and used, they'd blocked it by trucking cut stone blocks from the quarries at Luqa and scattering them ALL over the lake bed! I don' know what happened to them after that...but they certainly didn't go back to Luqa...the area they freed up at the quarries was what BECAME RAF Luqa!!!

    4/ even if by chance the attackers should "take" an airfield...their problems will not end there! Look at the issues throughout the history of the FJ of taking airfields that were too crowded with wreckage to use efficiently! It happened at Stavanger-Sola...and it happened at Maleme; they ONLY thing that allowed them to use the flightline at Maleme was they used Commonwealth POWs to manhandle crashed and broken Ju52s out of the way - while under Commonwealth shellfire from behind Hill 107!

    On Malta however - the field(s) is/are going to be covered with A/ crashed and damaged Ju52s B/ landed gliders C/ destroyed/damaged RAF aircraft! On Crete, the remaining flyable RAF aircraft were evacuated from the island up to a week or so before the actual invasion IIRC; that won't happen on Malta.

    Quite honestly - once the attack preparations are recognised for what they are - an hour's work with whatever tanks/tractors are available covers the flightlines with RAF aircraft! No gliders are landing through those obstacles.....nor Ju52s; not UNTIL the airfields are taken and the areas around them pacified to the extent that the attackers CAN clear the flightlines.

    Moving on....I was very suprised at this comment :eek:

    FJ chutes were smaller than their Allied counterparts; they didn't act as quite as much of an airbrake...so the weight of each jumping FJ had to be reduced to an absolute minimum; those who DID jump with personal weapons and a grenade or two ran a much greater risk of injury on landing :p As well as THAT aspect....because landing speeds were thus higher AND landings weren't controllable, the FJ jumped wearing ALL sorts of rubber rings and other shock absorbing and padding! :eek: That's why JUST so few, a stick of 12, could be accommodated in a Ju52....space as well as weight! Look at the available videos - that's why they look like Teletubbies when they exit their Ju52s!

    I checked this some years ago...and the answer is no; apparently only an empty Ju52 could tow one or two DFS230s, otherwise there was no power to spare. It's why there were tests done with aircraft like He111s, and BF110s as tugs for the DFS, or in multiple arrays for the Gigant.



    Basically - for a WIDE range of factors - the attackers are looking at

    1/ a higher rate of loss and incapacity on landing than even on Crete;

    2/ a higher rate of airdropped supplies going astray or falling into the hands of the defenders;

    3/ no airlanded resupply until an airfield is taken and cleared and made useable for turnaround operations;

    4/ space issues greatly restricting the landing of gliders or troopcarrying Ju52s on the island's airfields in the initial assault.
     
    scipio likes this.
  11. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    What I meant was due to the small size of the island the British would have a field day with any Para jump unless absolute surprise was achieved. One of the main reasons the Normandy jump worked was the wide spaces.
     
    Gebirgsjaeger likes this.
  12. scipio

    scipio Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    122
    Excellent post Phylo. So if you have a very low chance of resupply by air, you are dependent on the sea landings.

    Now you are totally dependent upon the Italian Navy. I have seen posts which indicate that they had enough for the first the lift but nothing if that went wrong.

    So then its attrition on the beaches which the Axis eventually win - a very Pyrrhic victory.
     
  13. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    290
    Somethings aren´t to explain with rationalism. Take the british Dieppe-Raid as a example. Lots of lives and a ship were lost and for what a questionable success?
     
  14. Volga Boatman

    Volga Boatman Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    154
    Jaeger, I firmly believe it was no small chance....but 50/50...well...75/25 really, depending on what each side does.

    Now you know why it was turned into a game to begin with. Such an even contest always makes for a good one!

    Incidently, Vance Von Borries named his published intro article for 'Air Assault on Crete', "Creating A Paratroopers Hell.....& Jumping Into It".
     
  15. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Leros is smaler than Malta, British toops there were fresh, the Germans didn't have the sort of troop, air or naval superiority they would have at Malta but the result was a German victory. At Crete the Germans had 1:2 inferiority in troops and placically no naval support, though the Italians did land the equivalent of a reinforced batallion and some tanks during the later stages, same result.
    I find it had to believe putting 12 men in a Ju 52 would leave no space for cannisters. I've been to Malta just once but I know the Central Med quite well, the rocky terrain is far from ideal for paras but it's also pretty awful for organizing counterattacks, IMO attemting a counterattack with troops worn out from the siege is likely to end in disaster as they would have to leave the defesive position and may be unable to reorganize it the attack fails. The axis forces have huge reserves compared with the defenders, so if they gain some sort of foothold the defenders are in big trouble and I don't see 6000 paras failing to do that. The British problem is that they need to hold 3 airports and a considerable amount of beaches and they just don't have enough troops to cover everything, The German tactics were brute force but against a weakened and mostly immobile defender with no chance for reinforcements they have a very good chance of success.
     
  16. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    290
    Thats a good description of the job they did! They always had to be aware that they jumped into a area where AA-guns, Machine guns and rifles waited for the few seconds( very long seconds for the FJ´s) where they ´ve been defenseless to fire at them.
     
    Bolshevik likes this.
  17. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    155
    Picking up on these....

    Twelve men in the seating racks installed for FJ, two trained FJ dispatchers that didn't drop...they stayed in the aircraft, manned any defenisve weapons, and pushed the stick's supply canisters/baskets/crates out the door after the stick jumped; that's what the dispatchers were there for ;)

    The FJ didn't just use the classic "canister" - they dropped supplies in large wicker baskets, and padded crates! :eek: Thus a Ju52 carrying a stick of 12 FJ actually carried 14 FJ...only 12 of whom were "combat" troops...and the canistered weapons/food/munitions/medical supplies for the stick; there wasn't much space/extra weight available for extra supplies on the combat drops.

    (The dispatcher requirement was one of things that hit the FJ HARD after Holland and Norway in 1940; every downed/crashed Ju52 not only took its aircrew with it to injury or death - it took the two trained FJ dispatchers too!)

    You need to look again at Crete; that's not how the British/Commonwealth "did" medium to large counterattacks - they didn't "abandon" positions to move forward, they "stepped forward" troops into the positions while the counterattacking forces moved forward; what otherwise happened on Crete was sheer stupidity, like "stepping forward" FRESH troops and using them to hold positions rather than using THEM for the counterattack! :rolleyes: And moving the stepping forward troops far too slowly so that counterattacks happened hours or days too late ;) (But don't rely on them making the SAME mistakes TWICE! ;) )

    By the way - I'm differentiating these sorts of "counterattacks" from simply getting out of your trenches/positions and "policing up" the dropzone I.E. hitting the FJ as they landed and before they could reach their weapons. As noted several times previously, the FJ were horrendously vulnerable at this point except for very limited personal weapons - where the Commonwealth troops did this on Crete they were successful....where they hid in their prepared defences and didn't do it - like Maleme - they eventually came off worst. The non-reaction at Maleme was one of the many mistakes made in Crete - don't bargain on them being repeated ;) Especially after such an object lesson!

    No, they don't need to "hold" the airfields....they only need to stop the Germans using them ;) And THAT can be done by any number of ways of blocking flightlines; even just disabling any plant necessary for clearing wrecked German aircraft and gliders, let alone removing any British obstacles, delays this.

    (Just as a note - it's not a great idea to compare the re-opening of Maleme for example with any of the three main airfields on Malta; Maleme was a bumpy sh1thole that filled it's own boneyard with RAF aircraft even before it became filled with Ju52s! :eek: It had a luxuriously wide flightline/apron that only Ti'Qali compared to it...but there was NO earthmoving equipment or any plant at Maleme; the flightline had been laboriously "levelled" by handtools across six months, and as soon as the new field on the other side of the Tavronitis could have been open, Maleme would have been relegated to being a diversion field for it! The use of the Norwegian fields in April 1940, specifically Stavanger-Sola, is a better comparison of what might happen on Malta; it was SO crowded with wreckage that IIRC the Germans had to pull squadrons out of Sola again after a couple of days!)

    Also - see the AHF thread; only three of Malta's beaches would have allowed and easy debouchement, the rest required laborious trekking up narrow paths wide enough for one man at a time. An infantry section could "hold" them by preventing troops leaving them for days :p

    Overall, yes - but not always in the specific areas where they dropped ;)
     
  18. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    290
    As to the transport canisters for equipment, my Grandpa told me that they often threw them out of the Ju´s during a low level flight. That guarnteed them that the right soldiers got the stuff. The equipment was normally packed in a way that it wasn´t damaged after the landing.
     
  19. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    How well would Crete have gone if the troops had not been on the beaches but near the drop zones? Crete worked because the Para's had the time they needed. Due to the terrain and size of Malta I just dont see the Germans getting enough troops on the ground and where they need to be. Too with the AA can the JU's get in with out their own casualties.
     
  20. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    I would like to ask once more did the Italians even have landing craft that could land heavy equipment on a beach and could tanks even get to the LZ's. I would imagine the streets being very narrow and if the Italians use bombardment wont that ruin what streets and roads that might be available.
     

Share This Page