OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: 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.
warspite1

But I have not said they didn't have the capability. I think a, properly planned and resourced surprise attack on 10 June 1940 (even without specialised landing craft) was very likely to have been successful - simply because there was little in the way of opposition. One never knows of course as no plan survives contact with the enemy and maybe British subs and (iirc a few destroyers) could have played havoc with the landing craft and their escorts - but if not then I think its game over.

But as I mentioned in a previous response to Ranger Joe, there was an element of the Italians over-estimating the defences, over-estimating the ability of the RN to counter and, knowing how thinly stretched they themselves were, why risk it for a war that is soon to end?

Having not launched a surprise attack and waited until it was evident the war was not ending soon, the chances of a successful attack start to lessen by the minute. A) Malta starts to get reinforcements and B) Mussolini starts gagging for Cairo. That means the RM and the RA is needed to escort their own convoys to North Africa, never mind escorting troops to Malta, and the forces needed for North Africa can't be in Malta too. The losses (especially in material in France need to be made good). So until help from Germany comes in early 1941 then things are decidedly more difficult.




Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch



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.
warspite1

But until the French had surrendered, the Italians couldn't pack up and go home. Mussolini had to attack the French as he needed his 'few thousand dead'. Otherwise what help could he say he was to Hitler? The only thing P.R.12 may have not been optimal on was Malta. But there was no choice but to go on the defensive elsewhere for reasons that we know full well - because of what came to pass when Mussolini got all excited an' ****... Egypt, Greece...
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19628
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by RangerJoe »

If the Italians would have attacked Malta instead of France, then they would most probably have been successful. That would have hurt the Allies more in the long run. That would have been better at any peace conference as well. Strategic planning, it would have made a better position for any Eastern Med and Middle East operations. That threat would also make a peace conference more of an option.

Okay, for Sorch. I switched a "Z" for an "S" so now maybe I should post a picture of a foot.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the Italians would have attacked Malta instead of France, then they would most probably have been successful. That would have hurt the Allies more in the long run. That would have been better at any peace conference as well. Strategic planning, it would have made a better position for any Eastern Med and Middle East operations. That threat would also make a peace conference more of an option.

Okay, for Sorch. I switched a "Z" for an "S" so now maybe I should post a picture of a foot.
Please! have you no decency, sir?
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Zorch »

(To Warspite) I think we agree that Italy had the capability to take Malta by them selves early in the war. What Italy did not have is the intention to try to take Malta by themselves. This was due to a failure of leadership, and a lack of strategic vision (Mussolini!). Where we differ is in our estimation of the probability of success. The Italians were operating under many constraints; but then, so were the British.

In 1942 Italy had the ability to take Malta, with Luftwaffe help and possibly needing German paratrooper help. They apparently did not insist on taking Malta. Even had they insisted, Hitler would have overruled them.

Taking Malta was the most impactful military thing the Axis could have done in the Med. It would have facilitated further expansion in North Africa, and made Allied operations more difficult. Axis decision makers lacked strategic vision.

Now if Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had sailed to Malta instead of back to Germany...
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19628
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If the Italians would have attacked Malta instead of France, then they would most probably have been successful. That would have hurt the Allies more in the long run. That would have been better at any peace conference as well. Strategic planning, it would have made a better position for any Eastern Med and Middle East operations. That threat would also make a peace conference more of an option.

Okay, for Sorch. I switched a "Z" for an "S" so now maybe I should post a picture of a foot.
Please! have you no decency, sir?

You zeem to forget yourzelf, I am a barbarian.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

(To Warspite) I think we agree that Italy had the capability to take Malta by them selves early in the war. What Italy did not have is the intention to try to take Malta by themselves. This was due to a failure of leadership, and a lack of strategic vision (Mussolini!). Where we differ is in our estimation of the probability of success. The Italians were operating under many constraints; but then, so were the British.

In 1942 Italy had the ability to take Malta, with Luftwaffe help and possibly needing German paratrooper help. They apparently did not insist on taking Malta. Even had they insisted, Hitler would have overruled them.

Taking Malta was the most impactful military thing the Axis could have done in the Med. It would have facilitated further expansion in North Africa, and made Allied operations more difficult. Axis decision makers lacked strategic vision.

Now if Scharnhorst and Gneisenau had sailed to Malta instead of back to Germany...
warspite1

I think that the Italians were likely to have succeeded with a surprise attack on the 10 June (or thereabouts) but only if the operation was properly planned and executed - and by that I mean operations in the Alps and/or troop levels in North Africa would need to be reduced.

The defenders would be thin at that time but the RN still had a small naval presence, including six submarines and a couple of destroyers. The attack would need to be successful and a foothold gained because the Mediterranean Fleet would have sailed. Cunningham was desperate to get to the Italians early in the war and this would have been his opportunity. We know the capabilities of the Italian aircraft against ships at the time and it would have to be expected that the navy would do all they could to ensure the invasion failed. But the island might have surrendered by the time they arrived so....

Bottom line, properly resourced, the island should fall. But....

As said, with each day the island is not taken, the probabilities of success lessen - unless of course Mussolini decides to keep a defensive posture in Libya. We know - it is not supposition - how the RN were able to supply Malta from Alexandria and Gibraltar in the early months. A big build up of troops on Sicily is not going to be unnoticed and reaction can be expected. If Libya is on defensive watch then some of Wavell's 30,000 would be available as reinforcements.

With the entrance of the Germans in early 1941 things change markedly. Suddenly the RN most certainly cannot sail to the rescue with impunity. The Germans could not do much initially as troops were desperately needed in North Africa to shore up the Italian mess and the RM were needed to escort Rommel and co to Libya. But the rest of 1941 was out because a) Hitler had a little project called Barbarossa to prepare for and launch, and b) the short-sighted British decision to assist Greece meant that the Germans were side-tracked with the Balkans and Crete....

So the opportunity was lost. And no, I don't think the Italians - having suffered the losses they did in Greece/Albania and Egypt/Libya - having suffered Taranto and Matapan - were gagging to invade Malta even if the Germans were interested.

Come 1942 and I believe the picture hasn't changed much. The Royal Navy are in trouble - there is no Mediterranean Fleet, but Malta is better defended - even a few tanks, there is an air force (strength is up and down). We agree that as a minimum German paratroopers and FliegerKorps II will be required. On that basis taking the island becomes likely once again, although by that point it really would have been a Pyrrhic victory.

Taking the island in 1942 would mean what exactly? The amount of Axis supplies NOT getting to North Africa were relatively small anyway (the submarines had left due to the bombing by Fliegerkorps II) so Rommel's supply situation isn't dramatically altered if at all and the loss of Malta in 1942 doesn't really help Rommel in terms of what he needs; it doesn't give him more troops, more tanks or more petrol*. Sure, Fliegerkorps II could be sent to North Africa, but then so would all those Spitfires, Beaufighters etc that can no longer be sent to Malta, all the RN ships sunk/badly damaged trying to keep Malta in the war in 1942 are suddenly very much afloat and heading elsewhere - Arctic, Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Alexandria/Gibraltar.

* The problem for Rommel in 1942 was that supplies were landed miles away not that they weren't getting through. It is true that after Fliegerkorps II left the RN submarines returned to Malta and supplies were hit - but we are talking August/September time that this happened. The damage had been done.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? Well it would have been interesting had they met Malaya coming in the opposite direction.... but assuming they missed each other, the three German ships squeezing through the Straits of Gibraltar could have been fun for the submarines in Gib. But suppose the did a Channel Dash through the Straits? What are they going to do now in the Mediterranean?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Alfred »

Not mentioned so far is the need for landing craft, specialised ideally but even converted to that status, is required.  This issue had not be "solved" by the Italians until Q2 of 1942.  One can't just plan an operation in the hope that the sheer luck of getting away with non specialised landing craft in Crete, will equally apply to Malta.  For one thing, Crete is a much bigger island and the slowness and vulnerability of disembarking from non specialist craft can be overcome to a certain extent by carefully choosing undefended locations.  Not possible on Malta where all the landing sites could be covered by British artillery.
 
Alfred
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 5068
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

Maybe one day someone will make a "War in the Med" as detailled and complex as AE to allow us to wargame the invasion of Malta under the conditions of 1940, 1941 and 1942, plus hypothetical scenarios involving Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.

Re the supply situation, the claim that more material is resting on the bottom of the Med is indeed exagerated. I have found statistic for military supplies on this site.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19628
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by RangerJoe »

There was a game called "Air Assault on Crete / Invasion of Malta" by Avalon Hill.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/304 ... malta-1942
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Not mentioned so far is the need for landing craft
warspite1

Please see post 101

ORIGINAL: Alfred

One can't just plan an operation in the hope that the sheer luck....
warspite1

Well to be fair, no one told the Germans this in April 1940 [;)]. Their plan to take Norway was sheer lunacy/hugely audacious (delete to taste) - and the events at the Oslofjord showed why. Remember the Germans sailed for Narvik expecting (because Quisling had told them so) that there were forts and batteries guarding Ofotfjord. They sailed regardless and were lucky Quisling was full of the brown stuff.

They believed there were forts guarding Oslo but they sailed up the fjord all the same... And they believed there were forts guarding Trondheim and Bergen too (and of course, like at Oslo, there really were) but of course were unaware that the Norwegians wouldn't lay mines, their gun batteries were only partially manned and not all torpedoes tubes were manned or armed. They knew the British were heading for Norway and could not be certain they would not get there first. But they trusted to luck and the plan - which consisted of sailing up tightly enclosed fjords with fingers crossed that the Norwegians wouldn't fire - worked (despite Oslofjord). Another example of typical Fuhrer luck in the early war years, without which the war really wouldn't have lasted that long.....

I agree that the lack of specialised landing craft for Malta would have been a consideration in 1940/41, but had Italian intelligence of the sheer paucity of Maltese defences been more up to the mark, there is an argument that they could have made an invasion work regardless especially if combined with paradrops. But this is why I say that even in a surprise June 1940 attack, the invasion would need to be properly planned and resourced. One can fully understand why the pre-war study never developed into a detailed plan....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Re the supply situation, the claim that more material is resting on the bottom of the Med is indeed exagerated. I have found statistic for military supplies on this site.
warspite1

But its so much easier to blame the Italians [:D]

The tables are too small for my eyesight but suspect they are from the same source as O'Hara?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 33313
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Orm »

I think that the Italian General Staff lacked the bold officers to suggest an ambitious plan to invade Malta with impromptu units, without the order from the higher echelon. What carrier prospects to you think such an officer would have had if they tried and failed? Or even if they didn't try. The high officers were still planning (or mostly planning) for a repeat of WWI...
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 33313
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Orm »

What was the policy, in Malta, regarding neutral merchant shipping before Italy entered the war? And neutral transport planes?

Couldn't the Italians just have sent two merchant ships loaded with soldiers and equipment into a harbour and begun the assault on Malta, and that were the start of the Italian entry of the war? With air support being launched at the same time. Perhaps with an "civilian" air transport beginning to unload a few troops in an attempt to secure the airport or reinforcements?

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Alfred

One can't just plan an operation in the hope that the sheer luck....
warspite1

Well to be fair, no one told the Germans this in April 1940 [;)]. Their plan to take Norway was sheer lunacy/hugely audacious (delete to taste) - and the events at the Oslofjord showed why. Remember the Germans sailed for Narvik expecting (because Quisling had told them so) that there were forts and batteries guarding Ofotfjord. They sailed regardless and were lucky Quisling was full of the brown stuff.

They believed there were forts guarding Oslo but they sailed up the fjord all the same... And they believed there were forts guarding Trondheim and Bergen too (and of course, like at Oslo, there really were) but of course were unaware that the Norwegians wouldn't lay mines, their gun batteries were only partially manned and not all torpedoes tubes were manned or armed. They knew the British were heading for Norway and could not be certain they would not get there first. But they trusted to luck and the plan - which consisted of sailing up tightly enclosed fjords with fingers crossed that the Norwegians wouldn't fire - worked (despite Oslofjord). Another example of typical Fuhrer luck in the early war years, without which the war really wouldn't have lasted that long.....

I agree that the lack of specialised landing craft for Malta would have been a consideration in 1940/41, but had Italian intelligence of the sheer paucity of Maltese defences been more up to the mark, there is an argument that they could have made an invasion work regardless especially if combined with paradrops. But this is why I say that even in a surprise June 1940 attack, the invasion would need to be properly planned and resourced. One can fully understand why the pre-war study never developed into a detailed plan....

One significant difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that the former generally did not interfere with the actual planning work of his officers whereas the latter, the more so as the war progressed did interfere in the minutiae of planning. Under Badoglio (a quintessential political General) the Italian senior staff was generally risk averse. For very good reasons. They knew their military deficiencies. Nor were they going to be pushed by Mussolini in 1940 who was much more preoccupied with egging on Graziani and the Tenth Army to Cairo. Once Cairo and Alexandria were in Italian hands, who cared if Malta remained British.

Alfred
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19628
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Alfred

One can't just plan an operation in the hope that the sheer luck....
warspite1

Well to be fair, no one told the Germans this in April 1940 [;)]. Their plan to take Norway was sheer lunacy/hugely audacious (delete to taste) - and the events at the Oslofjord showed why. Remember the Germans sailed for Narvik expecting (because Quisling had told them so) that there were forts and batteries guarding Ofotfjord. They sailed regardless and were lucky Quisling was full of the brown stuff.

They believed there were forts guarding Oslo but they sailed up the fjord all the same... And they believed there were forts guarding Trondheim and Bergen too (and of course, like at Oslo, there really were) but of course were unaware that the Norwegians wouldn't lay mines, their gun batteries were only partially manned and not all torpedoes tubes were manned or armed. They knew the British were heading for Norway and could not be certain they would not get there first. But they trusted to luck and the plan - which consisted of sailing up tightly enclosed fjords with fingers crossed that the Norwegians wouldn't fire - worked (despite Oslofjord). Another example of typical Fuhrer luck in the early war years, without which the war really wouldn't have lasted that long.....

I agree that the lack of specialised landing craft for Malta would have been a consideration in 1940/41, but had Italian intelligence of the sheer paucity of Maltese defences been more up to the mark, there is an argument that they could have made an invasion work regardless especially if combined with paradrops. But this is why I say that even in a surprise June 1940 attack, the invasion would need to be properly planned and resourced. One can fully understand why the pre-war study never developed into a detailed plan....

One significant difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that the former generally did not interfere with the actual planning work of his officers whereas the latter, the more so as the war progressed did interfere in the minutiae of planning. Under Badoglio (a quintessential political General) the Italian senior staff was generally risk averse. For very good reasons. They knew their military deficiencies. Nor were they going to be pushed by Mussolini in 1940 who was much more preoccupied with egging on Graziani and the Tenth Army to Cairo. Once Cairo and Alexandria were in Italian hands, who cared if Malta remained British.

Alfred

Except that by taking Malta would have made the North African supply lines more secure. That is why an imitation Frenchman paid someone who invented canned food - for long term storagable military supplies to help take care of the logistics.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Orm

What was the policy, in Malta, regarding neutral merchant shipping before Italy entered the war? And neutral transport planes?

Couldn't the Italians just have sent two merchant ships loaded with soldiers and equipment into a harbour and begun the assault on Malta, and that were the start of the Italian entry of the war? With air support being launched at the same time. Perhaps with an "civilian" air transport beginning to unload a few troops in an attempt to secure the airport or reinforcements?

warspite1

I believe there was no problem for Italian ships to enter Malta. In June 1940 when Il Duce declared war, 33 Italians merchant vessels were in UK or Commonwealth ports.

As far as using Italian ships as Trojan Horses was concerned, I guess it would have helped if Mussolini actually acted rationally and sensibly. Giving his armed forces more that a handful of days notice would have been good....

But I would be very surprised if there weren't searches of vessels - especially Italian vessels - before being allowed in the port. Even if not, how easy would it be for hundreds of troops, crammed into the hold of a merchant vessel quickly disembark said ship - together with equipment - in sufficient strength without being noticed, to form up and take over Grand Harbour? They would also have to be damn sure they could all offload before the ships were sunk by the destroyers, submarines or patrol craft in the harbour.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Well to be fair, no one told the Germans this in April 1940 [;)]. Their plan to take Norway was sheer lunacy/hugely audacious (delete to taste) - and the events at the Oslofjord showed why. Remember the Germans sailed for Narvik expecting (because Quisling had told them so) that there were forts and batteries guarding Ofotfjord. They sailed regardless and were lucky Quisling was full of the brown stuff.

They believed there were forts guarding Oslo but they sailed up the fjord all the same... And they believed there were forts guarding Trondheim and Bergen too (and of course, like at Oslo, there really were) but of course were unaware that the Norwegians wouldn't lay mines, their gun batteries were only partially manned and not all torpedoes tubes were manned or armed. They knew the British were heading for Norway and could not be certain they would not get there first. But they trusted to luck and the plan - which consisted of sailing up tightly enclosed fjords with fingers crossed that the Norwegians wouldn't fire - worked (despite Oslofjord). Another example of typical Fuhrer luck in the early war years, without which the war really wouldn't have lasted that long.....

I agree that the lack of specialised landing craft for Malta would have been a consideration in 1940/41, but had Italian intelligence of the sheer paucity of Maltese defences been more up to the mark, there is an argument that they could have made an invasion work regardless especially if combined with paradrops. But this is why I say that even in a surprise June 1940 attack, the invasion would need to be properly planned and resourced. One can fully understand why the pre-war study never developed into a detailed plan....

One significant difference between Mussolini and Hitler was that the former generally did not interfere with the actual planning work of his officers whereas the latter, the more so as the war progressed did interfere in the minutiae of planning. Under Badoglio (a quintessential political General) the Italian senior staff was generally risk averse. For very good reasons. They knew their military deficiencies. Nor were they going to be pushed by Mussolini in 1940 who was much more preoccupied with egging on Graziani and the Tenth Army to Cairo. Once Cairo and Alexandria were in Italian hands, who cared if Malta remained British.

Alfred

Except that by taking Malta would have made the North African supply lines more secure.
warspite1

Yes but it all gets a bit circular. What do we know?

- Mussolini was an opportunist who declared war so he could pretend he contributed to the German success that was about to end with French defeat and the British suing for peace

- This was done despite Mussolini knowing the country was in no way shape or form ready for even a short war

- A study into invading Malta was carried out pre-war but vastly overdid the strength of British defence. There was no appetite for it.

- The lack of Italian military assets - and an Empire that stretched from Milan to Mogadishu - meant that they could not do much other than adopt a defensive posture and wait for the surrender that was about to come... right?

- If the war was soon to be over, why risk her precious military assets on complex, risky air/sea/land operations that could invite disaster?

Yes we know the benefits of invading, we know the dearth of troops, artillery, AA, aircraft and yes, even naval assets on the island (although as discussed above, it would still not be entirely certain an invasion would not end in fiasco).

But it doesn't really matter what we know, its what that prize buffoon Mussolini thought he knew that is important, its what Commando Supremo knew to be their position in terms of ships ready for combat, reserves of aircraft, ammunition and oil.

Everything said attack the French to impress Adolf, and go on the defensive elsewhere, other than Malta which can be suppressed with air power....
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19628
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by RangerJoe »

They could have gone as tourists . . .

They could also have been in a "routine" convoy to North Afrika which could easily have been close to Malta, then diverted.

The airborne troops could have loaded elsewhere as if on a "training" exercise, refuel in Sicily, then take off for Malta. Or make it appear if a unit was being flown to North Afrika and if a suitable road was avalaible on Malta, or even try landing at an airbase using signaling flares and a smoke generator as if the aircraft was in trouble. Once you get an airbase, even bombers could have flown troops and equipment in. Again, it could have been set up as a training exercise with only the commanders and certain officers knowing what was planned. Malta may never have even gone into an alert status before the first troops would be on the ground after a formal declaration of war presented while El Duce was bloviating.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 42130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: OT: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

They could have gone as tourists . . .
warspite1

Well quite - I don't see how it can fail with The Rock (third from right) as part of the team.


Image
Attachments
fit1_widt.._Tourism.jpg
fit1_widt.._Tourism.jpg (94.77 KiB) Viewed 523 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”