Could Malta have been taken in Spring 1941?

[Deleted member 1487]

Apparently Admiral Raeder suggested the island be taken when pushing his Mediterranean strategy in 1940 and I'm curious, based on reading I did for my recent thread on no battle of Crete, whether it was doable in the Spring of 1941 when Rommel was first committed. The Luftwaffe was able to suppress the island pretty well in the Spring until it was drawn off to support Rommel moving up against Torbuk. Clearly a move against Malta would mean Crete is off the table, as it would require both the 7th Flieger division and 22nd Airlanding to even attempt Malta. Malta would be reinforced over the Summer and Autumn of 1941 leaving it in a strong position to resist in 1942, but it would seem that in early 1941 Malta was still pretty vulnerable to an invasion. Especially if more air power was siphoned off of the Blitz, which was pretty much going to end due to the Balkan operation and Barbarossa anyway before achieving anything more than harassment, would it have been possible to launch an airborne and naval invasion of Malta successfully in March-May 1941 as Rommel was going on the attack in Libya? If it were successful what would it mean for Rommel's options in Libya? I know he was highly frustrated that Benghazi wasn't being used very much due to the threat of Malta, so supplies had to be trucked in from Tirpoli, using much of them in the process. What say you all?

 

[perfectgeneral]

I'll be interested to hear the more learned view on this. Appalling or not the Italians had marine and para units that had been focused on this objective too, until put onto other projects in Russia.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'll be interested to hear the more learned view on this. Appalling or not the Italians had marine and para units that had been focused on this objective too, until put onto other projects in Russia.

The Italians didn't have paras in 1941 (other than one special battalion in Greece) and a regiment of marines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracadutisti#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marco_Regiment#History

 

[Shinsu]

Crete had the importance of not allowing British bombers to be used against Romanian Oil Fields which means that Greece would need to be occupied, Yugoslavia switched sides at the end of March and Greece wasn't occupied until the end of April.
The garrison consisted of 22,000 men, 104 guns, 112 heavy and 118 light anti-aircraft guns. The fighter strength was seventy-five hurricanes. (those are the only numbers I have around May of 1941. Correct me if I'm wrong please)
Having an airborne invasion of Malta would likely end up the same way that it did in Crete. Massive casualties. Especially if the Allies had warning like they did at Crete.
I'm not sure how effective an amphibious invasion would have been. I'm assuming that it would be done by the San Marco Regiment unless it would be an army affair. I vaguely remember reading that the Axis didn't have anything that could be used well as purpose built landing craft and never did during the war.
An invasion of Malta is possible but it would need to have been planned in advance of 1941 for it to be implemented. Once March came around then the focus was mainly on the Balkans with the Yugoslavian coup, and the push towards Greece being in affect. Rommel would likely have forces drawn off from to use against an invasion of Malta.
Having Malta being taken would allow Rommel to stay on the offensive for longer and possibly even keep his forces supplied enough to stay on the offensive. The problem in North Africa was that one side would advance, push the other back, then out-run their supply line while the other side is closer to their's etc.

 

[TFSmith121]

Probably not...

Apparently Admiral Raeder suggested the island be taken when pushing his Mediterranean strategy in 1940 and I'm curious, based on reading I did for my recent thread on no battle of Crete, whether it was doable in the Spring of 1941 when Rommel was first committed. The Luftwaffe was able to suppress the island pretty well in the Spring until it was drawn off to support Rommel moving up against Torbuk. Clearly a move against Malta would mean Crete is off the table, as it would require both the 7th Flieger division and 22nd Airlanding to even attempt Malta. Malta would be reinforced over the Summer and Autumn of 1941 leaving it in a strong position to resist in 1942, but it would seem that in early 1941 Malta was still pretty vulnerable to an invasion. Especially if more air power was siphoned off of the Blitz, which was pretty much going to end due to the Balkan operation and Barbarossa anyway before achieving anything more than harassment, would it have been possible to launch an airborne and naval invasion of Malta successfully in March-May 1941 as Rommel was going on the attack in Libya? If it were successful what would it mean for Rommel's options in Libya? I know he was highly frustrated that Benghazi wasn't being used very much due to the threat of Malta, so supplies had to be trucked in from Tirpoli, using much of them in the process. What say you all?

Probably not, since - as you point out - a 1941 version of HERKULES/C3 would have required the troops, shipping, and support that went into Greece and Crete, which given the potential threat to the Romanian oil industry, was pretty much going to be a given...

In the (historical) 1942 plan, the Axis expected they'd need a ratio of assault troops to defenders of roughly 6-1 (~90,000 to ~15,000) which suggests what realistically would have had to be detached from the Axis forces that fought in the Balkans ... With, of course, the knock-on effects on BARBAROSSA.

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Crete had the importance of not allowing British bombers to be used against Romanian Oil Fields which means that Greece would need to be occupied, Yugoslavia switched sides at the end of March and Greece wasn't occupied until the end of April.

That's being debated in my other thread right now, Crete probably couldn't be a bomber base against Romania until 1943 due to the state of infrastructure development and the fact that it was so close to Axis airbases.

The garrison consisted of 22,000 men, 104 guns, 112 heavy and 118 light anti-aircraft guns. The fighter strength was seventy-five hurricanes. (those are the only numbers I have around May of 1941. Correct me if I'm wrong please)

Not sure where they were at in April vs. May as April marked the start of the recovery after the Luftwaffe had smashed up defenses pretty good from January-April. In June they got a new and better air commander and were starting to get reinforcements in July that brought them back up to air strength.

That was possible because in April the German air units were shifted to the Balkan campaign and then to Russia after Crete. Had they opted not to launch Crete then Malta would never have gotten a breather and have been invaded in April. Interestingly between January-April despite launching over 2500 sorties they had only suffered 44 losses (1.76% loss rate) and managed to drop over 2500 tons of bombs on the island.

Having an airborne invasion of Malta would likely end up the same way that it did in Crete. Massive casualties. Especially if the Allies had warning like they did at Crete.
I'm not sure how effective an amphibious invasion would have been. I'm assuming that it would be done by the San Marco Regiment unless it would be an army affair. I vaguely remember reading that the Axis didn't have anything that could be used well as purpose built landing craft and never did during the war.
An invasion of Malta is possible but it would need to have been planned in advance of 1941 for it to be implemented. Once March came around then the focus was mainly on the Balkans with the Yugoslavian coup, and the push towards Greece being in affect. Rommel would likely have forces drawn off from to use against an invasion of Malta.
Having Malta being taken would allow Rommel to stay on the offensive for longer and possibly even keep his forces supplied enough to stay on the offensive. The problem in North Africa was that one side would advance, push the other back, then out-run their supply line while the other side is closer to their's etc.

Well the thing is that Malta for all of its difficulties was far more bombed into submission and closer even to far better Axis air bases in Sicily than Crete was to the inadequate facilities in Greece right after the invasion (the Luftwaffe had bombed everything to hell in April). Also the Italian navy could move in and provide fire support and suppression right next to Sicily that they couldn't do against Crete due to short notice and proximity to RN anchorage in Alexandria and Cyprus. Malta can be hit by a LOT of sorties per aircraft due to being 90 miles from Sicily (4 per day if needed) with the full weight of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica support from the Italian homeland (i.e. at full logistical support). Malta in 1941, while better than in 1940, was not really that equipped to handle a major invasion without support as it was in 1942.

The Germans did have landing craft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siebel_ferry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinefährprahm
Some were used for Greece and Crete.

As to drawing off air support for the Balkans, if the Germans were serious they could cut back even more on the Blitz and provide the necessary aircraft without impacting the invasion plans for Malta.

The other issue for Rommel having better supply is that Egypt was pretty vulnerable in 1941 due to the Greek adventure. If Crete is retained the British then have over 25k men and their equipment locked down defending Crete, plus a lot of naval support that would not be available to defend Egypt if Rommel invaded. The balance of forces was much more favorable then in Mid-1941 for the Axis than it would be in 1942 when the 8th army got built up. In December 1941 the Axis and British had roughly equal numbers during Crusader, but the Germans lacked air support (Barbarossa) and Malta interdicted their supply lines as they stood on the border with Egypt. With Malta out of the picture in April 1941 then its not inconceivable that Rommel could move on Egypt and leave Tobruk invested while the British were at the nadir of their strength due to Greece and being locked down in Tobruk. He'd have a much better shot in terms of balance of force than he did in 1942.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Probably not, since - as you point out - a 1941 version of HERKULES/C3 would have required the troops, shipping, and support that went into Greece and Crete, which given the potential threat to the Romanian oil industry, was pretty much going to be a given...

In the (historical) 1942 plan, the Axis expected they'd need a ratio of assault troops to defenders of roughly 6-1 (~90,000 to ~15,000) which suggests what realistically would have had to be detached from the Axis forces that fought in the Balkans ... With, of course, the knock-on effects on BARBAROSSA.

Best,

Crete wasn't a threat in 1941 to Ploesti and would require major upgrades to host long range bombers. Then by daylight unescorted British bombers were death traps against fighters (given the distance no fighters could escort that far), while at night they didn't have the accuracy or guidance system to sent to the Mediterranean until 1943.
Plus without Malta and due to British losses in Greece and need to garrison Crete the British had left Egypt vulnerable to invasion had Rommel the supplies to make it; without Malta interdicting him, he could effectively have an open shot if he left Tobruk besieged and captured supplies on the way as he overran British units.

In 1941 though the situation relative to 1942 was that the defenders were a lot weaker overall, had less time to prepare invasion defenses, and by April virtually had their air units completely suppressed. With the full weight of Fliegerkorps X put on it plus the Italians they'd have a much better shot than in 1942 when C3/Herkules was devised. Plus no one had yet tried an airborne invasion on an island, so it would be a surprise unlike in 1942 when both sides learned the lessons of Crete.

 

[TFSmith121]

And yet the Axis staged the invasion of Crete

Crete wasn't a threat in 1941 to Ploesti and would require major upgrades to host long range bombers. Then by daylight unescorted British bombers were death traps against fighters (given the distance no fighters could escort that far), while at night they didn't have the accuracy or guidance system to sent to the Mediterranean until 1943.
Plus without Malta and due to British losses in Greece and need to garrison Crete the British had left Egypt vulnerable to invasion had Rommel the supplies to make it; without Malta interdicting him, he could effectively have an open shot if he left Tobruk besieged and captured supplies on the way as he overran British units.

In 1941 though the situation relative to 1942 was that the defenders were a lot weaker overall, had less time to prepare invasion defenses, and by April virtually had their air units completely suppressed. With the full weight of Fliegerkorps X put on it plus the Italians they'd have a much better shot than in 1942 when C3/Herkules was devised. Plus no one had yet tried an airborne invasion on an island, so it would be a surprise unlike in 1942 when both sides learned the lessons of Crete.

And yet the Axis mounted the invasion of Crete with literally everything they could scrape together, and suffered the (historical) casualties to do it, so apparently they were slightly less sanguine about it then you are...

Having said that, considering the relative size of Crete vs. Malta, and the scale of the British fixed defenses on Malta, presumably a hasty Axis attack on Malta would have suffered even higher losses then the historical one on Crete did, so if anything - given the problems inherent in an Italo-German joint and combined operation in the spring of 1941 - it would become a debacle.

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

And yet the Axis mounted the invasion of Crete with literally everything they could scrape together, and suffered the (historical) casualties to do it, so apparently they were slightly less sanguine about it then you are...

Having said that, considering the relative size of Crete vs. Malta, and the scale of the British fixed defenses on Malta, presumably a hasty Axis attack on Malta would have suffered even higher losses then the historical one on Crete did, so if anything - given the problems inherent in an Italo-German joint and combined operation in the spring of 1941 - it would become a debacle.

Best,

Counterpoint: Hitler didn't decide to invade Crete until late April 1941, so if something happens to put him off of it, like getting better intelligence about how well defended it was, its not inconceivable that Malta, because of it becoming an increasing threat to supply lines, might get the hammer instead.

That said the small size of Malta makes it easier to suppress from the air and cover with naval bombardment in support of any invasion force. It certainly won't be easy to take, but a well suppressed island attacked by naval commandos and by airborne troops before the main naval invasion goes in would fall at significantly lower cost than Crete. Crete was not well suppressed, had virtually no naval landings or fire support, was for the most part further away than Malta from Axis bases, and was certainly not near an Axis homeland with its developed air and naval bases to support an invasion. Crete if anything was more difficult to invade, especially on short notice.

Now as to Italian-German cooperation, that wasn't that bad in 1941, remember they rolled right over the British in Greece and Libya in Spring without much friction.

 

[miketr]

The time to try to take Malta was 1940 when the defenses were weak to put it kindly.

Michael

 

[trajen777]

The attack in Malta would have been more valuable in the long run than Crete. However if you had diverted forces (1 Batt or so of Germans ) combined with Itialian Para troops -- and sea born troops -- with strong air unit support Malta should have been able to be overcome


Article taken from the magazine in summary Belgian AMILITARIA March 1988

During the Second World War, the Italian Armed Forces included a number of elite units, including paratroopers, they are unfortunately used against common sense as regular infantry units in many areas.

Therefore, para Italians have advanced training and have equipment and uniforms at least comparable to that of their counterparts in Germany and Britain. Do not you find anything better than to send the Folgore Division in North Africa without a parachute, while Division Nembo will essentially fight, weapons at the foot against malaria, the two elite divisions could be used for an attack against airborne ' island of Malta.



Currency winter full mod. 41 of a Major-Doctor of Folgore, hat and coat with the Italian military parachute was born in 1938, a series of tests that will lead to the establishment of two units located both in Libya: the "1st Regiment Fanti Air" and the National Parachute Battalion "made up of Libyans (1). These are the only airborne unit in Italy in the opening of hostilities in 1940, in the meantime, the "Parachute School, created under the auspices of the Royal Air Force and passed under the control of the Royal Army, form a series of battalions, as grouped into regiments.

The first act of war occurs paratroopers during the occupation of the Ionian Islands (Cephalonia, Zakynthos, Ithaca) in April 1941; jump operating the 2nd Battalion is taking place without any loss because of weak resistance of the Greeks and the British.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The time to try to take Malta was 1940 when the defenses were weak to put it kindly.

Michael

No doubt, but for this what if we're assuming that that wasn't an option until the Germans showed up and could come up with priorities.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The attack in Malta would have been more valuable in the long run than Crete. However if you had diverted forces (1 Batt or so of Germans ) combined with Itialian Para troops -- and sea born troops -- with strong air unit support Malta should have been able to be overcome


Article taken from the magazine in summary Belgian AMILITARIA March 1988

During the Second World War, the Italian Armed Forces included a number of elite units, including paratroopers, they are unfortunately used against common sense as regular infantry units in many areas.

Therefore, para Italians have advanced training and have equipment and uniforms at least comparable to that of their counterparts in Germany and Britain. Do not you find anything better than to send the Folgore Division in North Africa without a parachute, while Division Nembo will essentially fight, weapons at the foot against malaria, the two elite divisions could be used for an attack against airborne ' island of Malta.



Currency winter full mod. 41 of a Major-Doctor of Folgore, hat and coat with the Italian military parachute was born in 1938, a series of tests that will lead to the establishment of two units located both in Libya: the "1st Regiment Fanti Air" and the National Parachute Battalion "made up of Libyans (1). These are the only airborne unit in Italy in the opening of hostilities in 1940, in the meantime, the "Parachute School, created under the auspices of the Royal Air Force and passed under the control of the Royal Army, form a series of battalions, as grouped into regiments.

The first act of war occurs paratroopers during the occupation of the Ionian Islands (Cephalonia, Zakynthos, Ithaca) in April 1941; jump operating the 2nd Battalion is taking place without any loss because of weak resistance of the Greeks and the British.

AFAIK the Italians had no divisional paratrooper units ready in 1941, only in 1942. They did have a number of smaller special units according to the Folgore wikpedia article I posted earlier, they were battalion sized at most IIRC (perhaps regimental sized?) that were both army and airforce units (the naval paras didn't come until 1942 IIRC).

So if we assume a May-June 1941 invasion of Malta to allow for the Greek campaign to wrap up and the transfer back of both German and Italian units to Sicily in lieu of Crete then maybe a regimental or more sized unit of Italian paras is available along with the German 7th Fliegerdivision. Supporting them are the X Fliegerkorps, Italian air force, Italian navy, Italian marines, any infantry trained for naval invasion, and various commando groups. The invasion would have to be planned prior to Greece, say in January when Rommel is tapped to fight in Africa.

That would end the threat of Malta, but not allow for the invasion of Egypt as I thought before. It would seem that Tobruk would be needed for that. Taking Malta though improves supply to Benghazi which then could allow for the taking of Tobruk before Operation Crusader, which then would allow for the necessary forces to be built up to defeat Crusader and then invade Egypt in December 1941-January 1942.

 

[TFSmith121]

How much did the Italian navy support the Crete invasion?

Counterpoint: Hitler didn't decide to invade Crete until late April 1941, so if something happens to put him off of it, like getting better intelligence about how well defended it was, its not inconceivable that Malta, because of it becoming an increasing threat to supply lines, might get the hammer instead.

That said the small size of Malta makes it easier to suppress from the air and cover with naval bombardment in support of any invasion force. It certainly won't be easy to take, but a well suppressed island attacked by naval commandos and by airborne troops before the main naval invasion goes in would fall at significantly lower cost than Crete. Crete was not well suppressed, had virtually no naval landings or fire support, was for the most part further away than Malta from Axis bases, and was certainly not near an Axis homeland with its developed air and naval bases to support an invasion. Crete if anything was more difficult to invade, especially on short notice.

Now as to Italian-German cooperation, that wasn't that bad in 1941, remember they rolled right over the British in Greece and Libya in Spring without much friction.

How much did the Italian navy support the Crete invasion?

I rest my case.

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How much did the Italian navy support the Crete invasion?

I rest my case.

Best,

Malta and Crete are radically different situations, not least of which being that Malta is only 90 miles from a Italian naval base in Sicily.

But even at Crete the Italian navy did operate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete#Italian_landing_at_Sitia

And:

At anchor in Suda Bay, northern Crete, the heavy cruiser HMS York was badly damaged by Italian explosive motor boats and beached on 26 March and later wrecked by demolition charges when Crete was evacuated in May.[118]


To support the German attack on Crete, eleven Italian submarines took post off Crete and the British bases of Sollum and Alexandria in Egypt.[26][a]

 

[TFSmith121]

MAS boats against one cruiser at anchor OR

Malta and Crete are radically different situations, not least of which being that Malta is only 90 miles from a Italian naval base in Sicily.

But even at Crete the Italian navy did operate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crete#Italian_landing_at_Sitia

And:

MAS boats against one cruiser at anchor OR a) the merchant shipping necessary for an actual amphibious operation in (presumably) corps+ strength and b) the warships necessary to support said landing against the British coastal defenses and c) the warships necessary to provide the covering forces to try and ward off the Mediterranean Fleet...

It's almost like there wasn't a major fleet action between the British and the Italians in the spring of 1941 as a point of comparison, or something...

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

MAS boats against one cruiser at anchor OR a) the merchant shipping necessary for an actual amphibious operation in (presumably) corps+ strength and b) the warships necessary to support said landing against the British coastal defenses and c) the warships necessary to provide the covering forces to try and ward off the Mediterranean Fleet...

It's almost like there wasn't a major fleet action between the British and the Italians in the spring of 1941 as a point of comparison, or something...

Best,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan
You mean this? A badly outnumbered/gunned Italian fleet detachment is defeated? Had the Axis made a full blooded push on Malta for one thing it would be closer to home and have at least 3 BBs and a lot more firepower plus landbased air support against perhaps a similar British fleet that would have taken days to get to Malta, by which time the issue would have been decided.

 

[TFSmith121]

Days to get from Alexandria to Malta?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan
You mean this? A badly outnumbered/gunned Italian fleet detachment is defeated? Had the Axis made a full blooded push on Malta for one thing it would be closer to home and have at least 3 BBs and a lot more firepower plus landbased air support against perhaps a similar British fleet that would have taken days to get to Malta, by which time the issue would have been decided.

Yes, because it is the one example of the RM actually getting to a position in this same period where it had to fight the RN, rather than steaming away...

And days to get from Alexandria to Malta?

The Italians and Germans cooperated so well for Crete the Italians didn't even participate in the assault, and - according to your own link earlier - were not called on until the Germans were in serious trouble...

Look, there was one alliance that managed to actually sucessfully practice coalition warfare in 1939-45, and it was not the Axis...

And you're suggesting the Italians and Germans are going to carry off a hastily-planned corps-sized amphibious operation against the most strongly defended bastion in the Med, relying on the Italian navy and merchant marine, in the spring of 1941?

Yeah, good luck.

Best,

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yes, because it is the one example of the RM actually getting to a position in this same period where it had to fight the RN, rather than steaming away...

And days to get from Alexandria to Malta?

The Italians and Germans cooperated so well for Crete the Italians didn't even participate in the assault, and - according to your own link earlier - were not called on until the Germans were in serious trouble...

Look, there was one alliance that managed to actually sucessfully practice coalition warfare in 1939-45, and it was not the Axis...

And you're suggesting the Italians and Germans are going to carry off a hastily-planned corps-sized amphibious operation against the most strongly defended bastion in the Med, relying on the Italian navy and merchant marine, in the spring of 1941?

Yeah, good luck.

Best,

Depends on your framing of the Crete situation, why would the Germans take the help they didn't think they needed? They took it when they needed it. They also had Italian ships escorting their own failed landing attempts and were working well together with convoys to Africa at the same period while the Luftwaffe and Italians were working together in Africa and in Sicily, while Rommel and the Italian troops he worked with and commanded were doing just fine rolling the British back to Egypt in March-June. Later Crete based air transports worked with cut off Italian garrisons on the Egyptian border to supply them.

 

[Amelikite]

Apparently Admiral Raeder suggested the island be taken when pushing his Mediterranean strategy in 1940 and I'm curious, based on reading I did for my recent thread on no battle of Crete, whether it was doable in the Spring of 1941 when Rommel was first committed. The Luftwaffe was able to suppress the island pretty well in the Spring until it was drawn off to support Rommel moving up against Torbuk. Clearly a move against Malta would mean Crete is off the table, as it would require both the 7th Flieger division and 22nd Airlanding to even attempt Malta. Malta would be reinforced over the Summer and Autumn of 1941 leaving it in a strong position to resist in 1942, but it would seem that in early 1941 Malta was still pretty vulnerable to an invasion. Especially if more air power was siphoned off of the Blitz, which was pretty much going to end due to the Balkan operation and Barbarossa anyway before achieving anything more than harassment, would it have been possible to launch an airborne and naval invasion of Malta successfully in March-May 1941 as Rommel was going on the attack in Libya? If it were successful what would it mean for Rommel's options in Libya? I know he was highly frustrated that Benghazi wasn't being used very much due to the threat of Malta, so supplies had to be trucked in from Tirpoli, using much of them in the process. What say you all?

So Rommel just ends up with more supplies in Tripoli yes? And all he has to do to use them is to advance to Tripoli? Where he already has a surplus of surpples.