OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

[RangerJoe]

The best time for Italy to have attacked Malta was the 10th of June, 1940. The island was lightly defended and only Faith, Hope, and Charity were available for air defence if I remember correctly.

[fcooke]

Around that date I am pretty sure not much of the RN was around.

[RangerJoe]

The French were the ones who were supposed to counter the Italian fleet at that time.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The best time for Italy to have attacked Malta was the 10th of June, 1940. The island was lightly defended and only Faith, Hope, and Charity were available for air defence if I remember correctly.

True. If Benito had emulated the Japanese he could have achieved a lot.

[CV10]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

In Germany older folks used to tell a joke about Hitler receiving the message that Italy has joined the war. "Damnit, like in the last war - this will cost us 10 divisions!" he exclaimed in rage. His aide tries to calm him down: "But my Führer, this time they have joined the war on our side!" Hitler replies: "That's even worse - this will cost us 20!"

I've heard a story that before the war, Churchill was at a dinner party attended by Ribbentrop when Ribbentrop was ambassador to the UK. When Ribbentrop made some sort of veiled threat/warning that if there was a war, Italy would be on Germany's side, Churchill replied "That's only fair-we had them last time"

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch



As I said, 'IIRC, the island of Gozo was lightly garrisoned and could have been taken easily, and then used as a base for invading Malta. Malta's defenders were short of ammo, and hampered by the need to feed the civilian population, too. The Italians would not have needed much assistance in mid-42.'

Taking Gozo first would have made Malta a much easier nut to crack. Troops could have landed on Malta's NW beaches under air cover. Once the Axis gets a solid beachhead the writing would be on the wall. The best time for this would have been in April or May 42, before the Spitfires came. I blame Rommel for using his clout with Hitler. Rommel, it seems, didn't get logistics.

warspite1

The Mmmmm was in response to "The Italians would not have needed much assistance in mid-42". That comment rarely, if ever, applies to Italian operations in World War II [;)]

After Hitler abandoned the idea of an invasion, the Germans supporters of the invasion asked the Italians if they could mount the operation independently. Leaving aside the lack of fuel for the ships for a moment, the Italians admitted - and this is mid 1942 - that their air force could not do all that was needed of it.

You say the best time was April or May before the Spitfires came - but Spitfires came to the island beginning in early March (However, the attentions of Fliegerkorps II meant that they were short lived) but that is only one side of the coin. The Italian air force weren't ready at that time either.

Don't get me wrong, just a look at the map and the location of Malta, shows that any properly planned and resourced operation with substantial German involvement, would very likely have succeeded. The island was too close to Sicily, too vulnerable to air attack, too far from Gibraltar and Alexandria and the Royal Navy, and the troops on the ground too few (about 4 brigades). The counter to that would be the period of notice Ultra gave perhaps, but just having Ultra was no substitute to actual troops, ships and planes!

But the problem was that often the best time (in terms of limitations of the defenders) was not optimal for the attackers for a whole host of reasons. No, the history of the Mediterranean War proved conclusively that whenever the Italians were left to their own devices, the Commonwealth forces soon gained the upper hand. The fact was that the German air force was pulled all over the place - North Africa, the USSR, defence of German airspace, Central Med, Eastern Med, the Arctic, Western France - and they simply didn't have enough units (and certainly not enough equipped to undertake anti-shipping operations) to be everywhere at once - and the Mediterranean was simply not Hitler's focus.

Hitler had let Mussolini run his parallel war in 1940 and disaster simply followed disaster. By 1942 he wasn't in the mood for any more Italian fiascos.

By 'without much support', I mean ground support. I am assuming the continued involvement of Fliegerkorps II.

warspite1

...and so hence my Mmmmm when you mentioned without much support [;)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The best time for Italy to have attacked Malta was the 10th of June, 1940. The island was lightly defended and only Faith, Hope, and Charity were available for air defence if I remember correctly.

warspite1

Yes, but again this assumes that Mussolini had planned with great care exactly how and when he would enter the war in order to maximise surprise and hurt the enemy. And to ensure that, you know, things like a large chunk of his merchant marine weren't overseas at the time.....

But then 'planning' and 'care' aren't really two words associated with Mussolini are they? He was a totally buffoon who plunged his country into a war they didn't want and weren't prepared for because he thought it was as good as over, and he needed 'a few thousand dead' to be able to sit at the peace table.

Having a plan to take out Malta ready and waiting? Yeah sure..... what a 24-carat twat.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The French were the ones who were supposed to counter the Italian fleet at that time.

warspite1

The French were responsible for the Western Basin and the British the Eastern Basin, so countering the Regia Marina would depend on where the Regia Marina was.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The French were the ones who were supposed to counter the Italian fleet at that time.

warspite1

The French were responsible for the Western Basin and the British the Eastern Basin, so countering the Regia Marina would depend on where the Regia Marina was.

So no one was responsible for the central basin or was that left for the Italians? [;)]

Anyway, there should have been a plan that could have been implemented within a week or two of Italy entering the war. There were two paratroop battalions with about 800 paratroopers besides the training unit. Have a light/mountain infantry unit ready for air transport if a suitable landing spot was captured.

Get a Italian marine unit or its equivalent to land somewhere, possibly capturing a small port or suitable beach. Have some armour ready to offload from ramped lighters if a suitable landing area was secured and free from direct enemy observation and fire.

There would have been no need for any German assistance and Italian cruisers and destroyers could have been used for any initial seaborne landings.

If gliders were needed, they probably could have been secured from the Germans along with any pilots needed but that should have been it for German aid.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The French were the ones who were supposed to counter the Italian fleet at that time.

warspite1

The French were responsible for the Western Basin and the British the Eastern Basin, so countering the Regia Marina would depend on where the Regia Marina was.

So no one was responsible for the central basin or was that left for the Italians? [;)]

Anyway, there should have been a plan that could have been implemented within a week or two of Italy entering the war. There were two paratroop battalions with about 800 paratroopers besides the training unit. Have a light/mountain infantry unit ready for air transport if a suitable landing spot was captured.

Get a Italian marine unit or its equivalent to land somewhere, possibly capturing a small port or suitable beach. Have some armour ready to offload from ramped lighters if a suitable landing area was secured and free from direct enemy observation and fire.

There would have been no need for any German assistance and Italian cruisers and destroyers could have been used for any initial seaborne landings.

If gliders were needed, they probably could have been secured from the Germans along with any pilots needed but that should have been it for German aid.

warspite1

That there should have been a plan is not in dispute. That there wasn't and that one wasn't drawn up suggests it was either a) not as easy as you think or b) it was, but the Italians simply didn't realise how lightly Malta was defended or mis-judged how quickly the RN would be able to counter.

I suspect there may have been an element of both, after all we know how ineffective the Italian air force was pre the Germans arriving in Sicily, we know they had their hands full getting whipped in the Alps, we know how much they had to build up before Graziani would allow a crossing into Egypt.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The best time for Italy to have attacked Malta was the 10th of June, 1940. The island was lightly defended and only Faith, Hope, and Charity were available for air defence if I remember correctly.

warspite1

Yes, but again this assumes that Mussolini had planned with great care exactly how and when he would enter the war in order to maximise surprise and hurt the enemy. And to ensure that, you know, things like a large chunk of his merchant marine weren't overseas at the time.....

But then 'planning' and 'care' aren't really two words associated with Mussolini are they? He was a totally buffoon who plunged his country into a war they didn't want and weren't prepared for because he thought it was as good as over, and he needed 'a few thousand dead' to be able to sit at the peace table.

Having a plan to take out Malta ready and waiting? Yeah sure..... what a 24-carat twat.

Benito was a Class 1 Grade A buffoon, but that doesn't excuse the War Plans Division of the Italian General Staff for not having ready-to-execute orders upon war breaking out. Just look at how speedily the US forces in the Philippines reacted after Pearl Harbor...oh never mind...[8|]

Edit: The Italians had 25 days (counting from Sedan on May 15) to plan for the outbreak of war.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

The French were responsible for the Western Basin and the British the Eastern Basin, so countering the Regia Marina would depend on where the Regia Marina was.

So no one was responsible for the central basin or was that left for the Italians? [;)]

Anyway, there should have been a plan that could have been implemented within a week or two of Italy entering the war. There were two paratroop battalions with about 800 paratroopers besides the training unit. Have a light/mountain infantry unit ready for air transport if a suitable landing spot was captured.

Get a Italian marine unit or its equivalent to land somewhere, possibly capturing a small port or suitable beach. Have some armour ready to offload from ramped lighters if a suitable landing area was secured and free from direct enemy observation and fire.

There would have been no need for any German assistance and Italian cruisers and destroyers could have been used for any initial seaborne landings.

If gliders were needed, they probably could have been secured from the Germans along with any pilots needed but that should have been it for German aid.

warspite1

That there should have been a plan is not in dispute. That there wasn't and that one wasn't drawn up suggests it was either a) not as easy as you think or b) it was, but the Italians simply didn't realise how lightly Malta was defended or mis-judged how quickly the RN would be able to counter.

I suspect there may have been an element of both, after all we know how ineffective the Italian air force was pre the Germans arriving in Sicily, we know they had their hands full getting whipped in the Alps, we know how much they had to build up before Graziani would allow a crossing into Egypt.

The Italian air force was well trained and motivated. The equipment . . .

But the Italians did not need much against Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Considering a simple espionage system, it would not have been hard to deduce how lightly held Malta was. The aircraft could have been taking off with the ships on their way when Bennie was talking. Even a simple, thrown together plan could have worked.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Edit: The Italians had 25 days (counting from Sedan on May 15) to plan for the outbreak of war.

warspite1

25 days? How many days does it take to complete mobilisation of an army that - even for those mobilised already - most units are understrength, undertrained, and woefully under-equipped? How many days does it take to rectify the deficiencies in the air force? How many combat ready aircraft did the Italians have compared to paper strength? How much aviation fuel and ordnance? The best army divisions would need to face the French and the British in North Africa, there would not be much available for Malta and still keep guard on the French in Tunisia and the Greeks and Yugoslavs. Army leadership was a problem too. Even the navy - who got a relatively decent level of funding - started WWII without the Littorios (still working up) and two of the modernised battleships.

Plans are 10 a penny, having the units to carry out those plans... a little bit more harder to come by.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Even a simple, thrown together plan could have worked.

warspite1

Indeed it might - who knows? So why didn't they try it if it was so simple? Their pre-war study into assaulting the island was hardly a lesson in detail and suggested that the forces required were beyond Italian means (given all their other commitments). The lack of co-operation between the navy and air force was no doubt a factor.

Quite simply Mussolini only entered the war because it was as good as over, so why risk the fleet and other precious assets on something entirely unnecessary - even if it was possible?

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Edit: The Italians had 25 days (counting from Sedan on May 15) to plan for the outbreak of war.

warspite1

25 days? How many days does it take to complete mobilisation of an army that - even for those mobilised already - most units are understrength, undertrained, and woefully under-equipped? How many days does it take to rectify the deficiencies in the air force? How many combat ready aircraft did the Italians have compared to paper strength? How much aviation fuel and ordnance? The best army divisions would need to face the French and the British in North Africa, there would not be much available for Malta and still keep guard on the French in Tunisia and the Greeks and Yugoslavs. Army leadership was a problem too. Even the navy - who got a relatively decent level of funding - started WWII without the Littorios (still working up) and two of the modernised battleships.

Plans are 10 a penny, having the units to carry out those plans... a little bit more harder to come by.

I didn't say 25 days was enough to do all of those things. 25 days was enough to be able to hit the ground running when BM declared war. Ask the British or French how much they got done in the first 25 days of war in September 1939.

The Italians certainly had a gap between capabilities and intentions. And BM had a gap between his ego and reality.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Even a simple, thrown together plan could have worked.

warspite1

Indeed it might - who knows? So why didn't they try it if it was so simple? Their pre-war study into assaulting the island was hardly a lesson in detail and suggested that the forces required were beyond Italian means (given all their other commitments). The lack of co-operation between the navy and air force was no doubt a factor.

Quite simply Mussolini only entered the war because it was as good as over, so why risk the fleet and other precious assets on something entirely unnecessary - even if it was possible?

Mussolini wanted something (African colonies) for almost nothing. Per Wikipedia, Mussolini said to Marshal Badoglio: "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought." That doesn't excuse the Italian military from not preparing for war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

I didn't say 25 days was enough to do all of those things. 25 days was enough to be able to hit the ground running when BM declared war.

warspite1

Understood, but to the Italians they did hit the ground running. They adopted their largely defensive pre-war plan P.R.12, amongst which was the neutralisation of Malta using the air force on Sicily.

Given the limited assets available to the Italian armed forces this was considered the best plan - and as said - the idea was that it would not be for long because the war would soon be over.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Even a simple, thrown together plan could have worked.

warspite1

Indeed it might - who knows? So why didn't they try it if it was so simple? Their pre-war study into assaulting the island was hardly a lesson in detail and suggested that the forces required were beyond Italian means (given all their other commitments). The lack of co-operation between the navy and air force was no doubt a factor.

Quite simply Mussolini only entered the war because it was as good as over, so why risk the fleet and other precious assets on something entirely unnecessary - even if it was possible?

Mussolini wanted something (African colonies) for almost nothing. Per Wikipedia, Mussolini said to Marshal Badoglio: "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought." That doesn't excuse the Italian military from not preparing for war.

warspite1

But they did - please see post above. Yes I mentioned Mussolini's wonderfully humanitarian rationale for entering the war when he did, in post 87. Wonderful human being wasn't he?

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

I didn't say 25 days was enough to do all of those things. 25 days was enough to be able to hit the ground running when BM declared war.

warspite1

Understood, but to the Italians they did hit the ground running. They adopted their largely defensive pre-war plan P.R.12, amongst which was the neutralisation of Malta using the air force on Sicily.

Given the limited assets available to the Italian armed forces this was considered the best plan - and as said - the idea was that it would not be for long because the war would soon be over.

The Italians weren't the first country to be surprised by the duration of an expected short war. That doesn't mean they didn't have the capability to take Malta. This was recognized by the pre-war British planners who regarded Malta as indefensible.

Grammatical Note: Please change your 's' to 'z' as appropriate, per Mr. Webster. My spellcheck keeps complaining about them...

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Indeed it might - who knows? So why didn't they try it if it was so simple? Their pre-war study into assaulting the island was hardly a lesson in detail and suggested that the forces required were beyond Italian means (given all their other commitments). The lack of co-operation between the navy and air force was no doubt a factor.

Quite simply Mussolini only entered the war because it was as good as over, so why risk the fleet and other precious assets on something entirely unnecessary - even if it was possible?

Mussolini wanted something (African colonies) for almost nothing. Per Wikipedia, Mussolini said to Marshal Badoglio: "I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought." That doesn't excuse the Italian military from not preparing for war.

warspite1

But they did - please see post above. Yes I mentioned Mussolini's wonderfully humanitarian rationale for entering the war when he did, in post 87. Wonderful human being wasn't he?

Did the Italian war plan 'PR12' assume that France was in the process of surrendering? Perhaps a defensive plan was not the best choice in the situation.