Could Greece have been defended in 1941?

As usual,only blahblah .
There was no major base of the RN on Malta :the only important base was Alexandria.
Malta out or not:this would change nothing on the outcome of the war in NA.
The big problem for the Germans was not the convoys,but,once the supplies arrived in NA,to bring them to the front .And,the few aircraft and submarines operating from Malta were doing little harm to the Axis .
If Malta was that important for Britain,more ships and aircraft would be stationed at Malta .
BTW:Your attempt to bluf me with the argument :I was (years later) on Malta,and,I have spoken with Malta veterans,will not succeed:it is totally irrelevant .

How strange that all the major historians are wrong and you are right. Unlike you, I don't blahblah as you so eloquently put it.

How unusual, I see you have a complete lack of understanding of logistics as well as deployment of assets. I was involved with military logistics for 15 years, I reckon I have a far better understanding then you do.

230 ships lost in 164 days is doing little harm? Yes the Fleet was moved from Malta to Alexandria I suspect that it was known replenishing the fleet would have encountered major problems, which was proven to be correct when later convoys attempted to replenish Malta.

The British put all they could on Malta, Britain didn't have a never ending supply of aircraft, aircraft spares, pilots or ground crews, so your statement was not only foolish but stupid.

If the British were never based on Malta, Germany and Italy would have had a free ride getting supplies through to North Africa, possibly changing the course of the war. But for the Axis, the effectiveness of the interdiction campaign from Malta caused a chronic shortage of Axis munitions and fuel for long-lasting operations in Africa.

The Axis campaign in North Africa was characterised by a lack of supplies and an inability to provide any sort of consistent concentrated logistics support to their forces in the field. The failure to pay attention to logistical considerations was one of the primary reasons that Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Erwin Rommel could not win a decisive breakthrough against the British 8th Army throughout 1941—1942. Rommel, at points, had recognised Malta as a serious obstacle to Axis logistical lines between Axis-held Europe and their forces in North Africa. Malta lay across their lines of communication and, despite being under siege for two and a half years, it remained an active base for Allied naval and air forces to interdict Axis supply lines for much of this period. Yet Rommel failed to apply enough pressure on the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (German High Command, OKW) to launch a planned invasion of the island, Operation Herkules.

According to you Malta was unimportant yet it became the most bombed place on earth at that time.

For someone who supposedly has visited Malta and talked to Maltese veterans, you didn't learn very much did you. On holiday were you, drinking too much Ozo perhaps? BTW, I never try to bluff anyone
 
Last edited:
Totally wrong and of topic,as usual.
The following figures are from the Afrika Korps Forum:
Tonnage of supplies sent to NA:7.783.221 GRT
Lost :144 ships,with 615.642 GR(some 9 %),only a part of these losses were due to ships,submarines,aircraft stationed at Malta.Of course,you don't know(you never served at Alexandria:p),but there were also ships,submarines and aircraft stationed at Alexandria .
BTW:1) claiming that Malta was essential and 2) not being able to produce the figures of the "Malta" successes :that's something for under the bus .
Whatever,the following are the convoy losses
1)by submarines:attacks :195,ships lost :66 (293780 ton),damaged :15
one on three attacks had some succes
2) by aircraft:attacks :249,lost:52(236626 ton),damaged 36
One on 10 attacks had succes
3) By surface ships:12,ships lost 21 (78183 ton),damaged 6
4)By mines :lost 5 ships (7053 ton)
About Rommel :you are wrong,of course:when he was retreating at the end of 1941,he blamed the Italians and Malte(he was an expert in blaming) and LF II was transferred to the Mediterranean .
But,the problem was NOT Malte/the Italians :ENOUGH supplies were arriving at Tripoli (Rommel had no reason to complain),the problem was to transport the supplies from (mainly) Tripoli to the front,and,that was insoluble,due to the distances (2000km) and the absence of a road/rail infrastructure.
All this is well known,and can be found,amongst others,at Van Crefeld,who is the bible for logisticians.
But,as he is only a bloody civilian,who never served at Malta,his opinion will be neglected by the colonel Blimps.
Operation Hercules :chances to succeed:minimal,reason to execute :none .
Rommel had no reason to complain :enough supplies arrived in NA,the problem was to transport them to the front .
If some one was to blame for the defeat of Rommel :it is the 8th Army,but,the Rommel brigade prefers to search for scape-goats:Malta,the Italians,Hitler .
BTW:it is curious that you are unwilling to give the 8th Army the credit it deserves:to be the responsable for the defeat of Rommel .
 
Totally wrong and of topic,as usual.
The following figures are from the Afrika Korps Forum:
Tonnage of supplies sent to NA:7.783.221 GRT
Lost :144 ships,with 615.642 GR(some 9 %),only a part of these losses were due to ships,submarines,aircraft stationed at Malta.Of course,you don't know(you never served at Alexandria:p),but there were also ships,submarines and aircraft stationed at Alexandria .
BTW:1) claiming that Malta was essential and 2) not being able to produce the figures of the "Malta" successes :that's something for under the bus .
Whatever,the following are the convoy losses
1)by submarines:attacks :195,ships lost :66 (293780 ton),damaged :15
one on three attacks had some succes
2) by aircraft:attacks :249,lost:52(236626 ton),damaged 36
One on 10 attacks had succes
3) By surface ships:12,ships lost 21 (78183 ton),damaged 6
4)By mines :lost 5 ships (7053 ton)
About Rommel :you are wrong,of course:when he was retreating at the end of 1941,he blamed the Italians and Malte(he was an expert in blaming) and LF II was transferred to the Mediterranean .
But,the problem was NOT Malte/the Italians :ENOUGH supplies were arriving at Tripoli (Rommel had no reason to complain),the problem was to transport the supplies from (mainly) Tripoli to the front,and,that was insoluble,due to the distances (2000km) and the absence of a road/rail infrastructure.
All this is well known,and can be found,amongst others,at Van Crefeld,who is the bible for logisticians.
But,as he is only a bloody civilian,who never served at Malta,his opinion will be neglected by the colonel Blimps.
Operation Hercules :chances to succeed:minimal,reason to execute :none .
Rommel had no reason to complain :enough supplies arrived in NA,the problem was to transport them to the front .
If some one was to blame for the defeat of Rommel :it is the 8th Army,but,the Rommel brigade prefers to search for scape-goats:Malta,the Italians,Hitler .
BTW:it is curious that you are unwilling to give the 8th Army the credit it deserves:to be the responsable for the defeat of Rommel .

I suppose proving you wrong would be regarded by you as going off topic.

Of course there were ships, submarines and aircraft in Alexandria, it was after all a major British base.:roll:

Of course I give the 8th Army credit for defeating Afrika Korps, one of my uncles served there with the Long range Desert Group. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, admitted that the LRDG "caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength" I also give a lot of credit to the Desert Air Force who did an amazing job.

I don't care where your so called facts (and I use the world loosely) came from, the vast majority of informed historians will disagree with you.

Rommel blamed the Italians? I really don't know where you get your information from.

January 1942 The month has started well for the United Kingdom in the Western Desert as the Africa Corps slips away back to Rommel’s chosen holding line at El Agheila on the Gulf of Sirte. The Eighth Army had hardly distinguished itself during Operation Crusader and an air of cynical wariness has settled on the Desert Army. They know that they have been out-fought by a smaller army with much better tanks and guns and that it is only Rommel’s lack of supplies that has enabled the British to advance once more across Cyrenaica.

Tripoli was the main Axis supply port for forces operating in North Africa. With a capacity of 1,500 tons per day, Tripoli was capable, according to Van Creveld, of handling "under ideal conditions . . . five cargo ships or four troop transports simultaneously." The other significant ports in the area of operations, Benghazi and Tobruk, had nominal throughput rates of 2,700 and 1,500 tons per day, but administrative difficulties and attacks by the Royal Air Force (RAF) limited their actual capacity to 750 and 600 tons per day, respectively. According to you the RAF was ineffective.

The opening of a new front in North Africa in mid-1940 increased Malta's already considerable value. British air and sea forces based on the island could attack Axis ships transporting vital supplies and reinforcements from Europe. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, in command of Axis forces in North Africa, recognised its importance quickly. In May 1941, he warned that "Without Malta the Axis will end by losing control of North Africa"

The Allies were able to launch offensive operations from Malta. Some 60% of Axis shipping was sunk in the second half of 1941. The DAK and its allies needed 50,000 short tons (45,000 t) of supplies a month, but were not receiving that much, and as a result were unable to resist a strong counter-offensive by British forces in Operation Crusader.

For example, in July 62,276 tons of supplies was landed by the Axis in July, half of the figure in June. In September 1941, the No. 830 Naval Air Squadron sank or damaged the ships Andrea Gritti (6,338 tons) and the Pietro Barbaro (6,330 tons). Ultra intercepts confirmed that 3,500 tons of aerial bombs, 4,000 tons of ammunition, 5,000 tons of food, one entire tank workshop, 25 Bf 109 engines and 25 cases of glycol coolant for their engines were lost. Further success was had later in the month, though British losses from anti-aircraft fire from Italian ships were sometimes heavy. One reason for accepting heavy losses was the difficulty in bombing accurately. Lloyd asked his bombers to attack at mast-height, increasing accuracy but making them easier targets for anti-aircraft defences. Losses averaged 12 percent during this time. No. 38, 40 and 104 Squadrons equipped with Wellington bombers hit Axis convoys in Tripoli doing some damage to shipping.

In concert with Royal Navy submarines, the RAF and FAA sank 108 Axis ships (300,000 grt) between June and September. In September one-third of the 96,000 tons of supplies dispatched was lost to British submarine and air attack. In October 18,800 tons of Axis shipping was sunk. During November, submarines cut Axis supplies to Africa by 62 per cent of the total sent that month. In June, the Italians unloaded 125,000 tons (37,000 for the Germans). But that figure fell to 83,000 tons (27,300 for the Germans) and by November it was just 29,843 tons (5,100 tons for the Germans), from 79,208 sent out.

Your inane comment that the importance of Malta was a myth was not only wrong but complete and utterly stupidity. I suggest that you stick with your video games.
 
Last edited:
All wrong figures,and,not ONE that is indicating how much harm was done by Malta .
Some exemples:
March 194 ( No Kesselring);102000 ton was sent to NA,93000 ton arrived
March 1942 (Kesselring present):58000 ton was sent,48000 ton arrived.
Thus,the presence of Kesselring was irrelevant.
Mostly,what was arriving in NA depended on what was sent,not on what was lost .
And,for some one who is claiming to be the expert on the war in the Middle East,and not knowing that ,from the first day he was arriving in NA,Rommel blamed the Italians for everything,...that's something for under the bus .
In 1941,the average monthly losses because of Malte were some 4000 tons :2 ships,that's what you are calling essential .
 
Last edited:
All wrong figures,and,not ONE that is indicating how much harm was done by Malta .
Some exemples:
March 194 ( No Kesselring);102000 ton was sent to NA,93000 ton arrived
March 1942 (Kesselring present):58000 ton was sent,48000 ton arrived.
Thus,the presence of Kesselring was irrelevant.
Mostly,what was arriving in NA depended on what was sent,not on what was lost .
And,for some one who is claiming to be the expert on the war in the Middle East,and not knowing that ,from the first day he was arriving in NA,Rommel blamed the Italians for everything,...that's something for under the bus .
In 1941,the average monthly losses because of Malte were some 4000 tons :2 ships,that's what you are calling essential .

Of course the figures are all wrong according to you as they do not comply with your b******te. As I said, the vast majority of credible historians would disagree with you. But then again, you are a legend in your own mind.
 
As always,I have to do everything myself,because,you only are parotting WWII Radio Berlin and Radio London .
The following are the Malta RAF strength figures:
14 march 1941:35
2 may 1941:56
9 september 1941:116
2 janury 1942:153
1 may 1942:48
4 september 1942:209
25 decembe 1942:220
And ,now the corresponding loss figures of the Axis convoys ,of which these caused by Malta only were a part
1941:march :9000 ton
april:2000
august :8000
december 9000
1942:
april:8000
augustus:25000
december:7000
In march 1941,there were 35 aircraft at Malta,and the Axis lost 9000 ton
In december 1942,there were 220 aircraft at Malta,and the Axis lost 7000 ton
Maybe that your imaginary historians (probably those of the History Channel) can explain this ?
Probably,these historians are the .....who are claiming that Crusader only was possible,because Rommel had not enough supplies?
 
Last edited:
As always,I have to do everything myself,because,you only are parotting WWII Radio Berlin and Radio London .
The following are the Malta RAF strength figures:
14 march 1941:35
2 may 1941:56
9 september 1941:116
2 janury 1942:153
1 may 1942:48
4 september 1942:209
25 decembe 1942:220
And ,now the corresponding loss figures of the Axis convoys ,of which these caused by Malta only were a part
1941:march :9000 ton
april:2000
august :8000
december 9000
1942:
april:8000
augustus:25000
december:7000
In march 1941,there were 35 aircraft at Malta,and the Axis lost 9000 ton
In december 1942,there were 220 aircraft at Malta,and the Axis lost 7000 ton
Maybe that your imaginary historians (probably those of the History Channel) can explain this ?
Probably,these historians are the .....who are claiming that Crusader only was possible,because Rommel had not enough supplies?

Do everything yourself? Is that because the vast majority of credible historians don't agree with your clap trap so you have to search out so called research that agree's with you?

As it happens there are some very knowledgeable historians on History Channel, people who are a damn site more knowledgeable then you, people who have actually been in battle. Even Mike Brewer a civi has been under fire while on board Bravo November, have you?

I am not wasting my time and money trolling through the internet just to prove you wrong time and time again. As I said, I have spoken to people who were there at the time, both in Malta and in North Africa both 8th Army and Afrika Korps. As I said, if Malta was so unimportant why was it the most bombed place on earth, instead of simply bypassing the Island? Don't bother answering the question, you will only come up with more rubbish.

Once again you are minimising or calling the extreme courage of the RAF pilots and ground crew who fought and died fending off German and Italian attacks, a myth. The courage those men showed and the job they did was not a myth.

The only imaginary historians here sunbeam are you and yours. As I said, stick to video games, you might do better.

By the way aren't you the one who said that Hugh Dowding fought the Battle of Britain all wrong?
 
Last edited:
Very knowledgeable historians at the History Channel :you should change your name in Brit the Joker.
Now,everything becomes clear :your information comes from the History Channell,and probably from Basil Liddell Hart,Halder,Guderian,Manstein,and other disreputable individus .
And, I challenge you to give one exemple where I was attacking the courage of the RAF pilots and ground crews :you will find none .
How should we call someone who is telling lies ? Yes. a .......
And,no :I never criticized Dowding:IMHO,he did the right thing during the BoB,and,his opponents (the big wing boys) were wrong .
 
Very knowledgeable historians at the History Channel :you should change your name in Brit the Joker.

Most of them on History Channel has a damn site more knowledge then you, including Mickey Mouse and he's on the cartoon channel. You should change your name to numbnut, it would be more accurate.

Now,everything becomes clear :your information comes from the History Channell,and probably from Basil Liddell Hart,Halder,Guderian,Manstein,and other disreputable individus .

Actually you are quite wrong, my information doesn't come from the History Channel, I learned to do proper research, it clearly shows that you don't.

And, I challenge you to give one exemple where I was attacking the courage of the RAF pilots and ground crews :you will find none .
How should we call someone who is telling lies ? Yes. a .......

I accept your challenge, you are attacking the courage of RAF pilots of ground crew when you said and I quote, "The whole Malta story is a typical WWII myth." The only liar here is you, your so called research has been disproven time and time again. Again I will say, Malta was not unimportant as you try to portray it to be, it if was as unimportant as you reckoned the Germans and Italians wouldn't have bombed the crap out of it.


And,no :I never criticized Dowding:IMHO,he did the right thing during the BoB,and,his opponents (the big wing boys) were wrong .

I am actually surprised you got something right for a change.

I am certain you are still a fan of Biggles and Mrs Miniver

Of course I'm a fan of Biggles, it was one of my favourite books as a boy, Mrs Miniver was a golly good film I must say.

What was your favourite film "Billy Liar" or "101 Dalmations?"
 
Last edited:
I see that you are still very adept at falsifying the posts of other peoples.
You know very well that "the whole Malta story is a typical WWII myth" means that the importance of Malta as naval and air force base has been inflated by the wartime propaganda.
And,all intelligent people know that the air attacks on Malta do not prove that Malta was essential ,only the fans of the H CH(and Biggles) think otherwise.

Number of civilian casualties at Malta between 11 june 1940 and 31 december 1944(btw:the Germans joined already in january 1941,they were not waiting till the arrival of Kesselring in december).
Killed :1190
Died of wounds:296
missing:54
wounded :3768

Does this prove the importance of Malta? Of course :NOT .Is this attacking the heroism of the population of Malta : of course not .
Only the fans of the H CH would think so .

V2 attacks on Antwerp (=the number of V2 that fell on Antwerp):1610
Civilian losses:1736 dead,4560 wounded
V2 Attacks on London:1358:civilian losses:dead:2754,wounded :6523

Does this prove anything? No,unless the heroism of the inhabitants of Antwerp and London ,but,only the H CH fans will say that this proves that Antwerp,or London,were essential,while the truth is that the importance of the harbours of London and Antwerp was marginal,very marginal (the importance of the port of Antwerp was also a WWII myth),AND,it is the same for Malta:The fall of Malta would not improve at all the situation of Rommel .
 
Last edited:
I see that you are still very adept at falsifying the posts of other peoples.
You know very well that "the whole Malta story is a typical WWII myth" means that the importance of Malta as naval and air force base has been inflated by the wartime propaganda.

I don't falsify anything old chap, I check my research from various sources and recheck

And,all intelligent people know that the air attacks on Malta do not prove that Malta was essential ,only the fans of the H CH(and Biggles) think otherwise.

Intelligent people? Well that leaves you out for a start. If only one ship was sunk, that's one ship load of munitions, tanks, trucks or whatever that won't be used against Britain's and Commonwealth troops. Not only munitions, tanks and trucks were lost but also vital equipment such as a complete tank workshop was lost. Now what effect do you think that might have. Now think very carefully.

Number of civilian casualties at Malta between 11 june 1940 and 31 december 1944(btw:the Germans joined already in january 1941,they were not waiting till the arrival of Kesselring in december).
Killed :1190
Died of wounds:296
missing:54
wounded :3768

What on earth is the point you are trying to make here?

Does this prove the importance of Malta? Of course :NOT .Is this attacking the heroism of the population of Malta : of course not .
Only the fans of the H CH would think so .

You have really lost the plot gungadin.

attacks on Antwerp (=the number of V2 that fell on Antwerp):1610
Civilian losses:1736 dead,4560 wounded
V2 Attacks on London:1358:civilian losses:dead:2754,wounded :6523

You really need to give up and keep to playing video games

Does this prove anything? No,unless the heroism of the inhabitants of Antwerp and London ,but,only the H CH fans will say that this proves that Antwerp,or London,were essential,while the truth is that the importance of the harbours of London and Antwerp was marginal,very marginal (the importance of the port of Antwerp was also a WWII myth),AND,it is the same for Malta:The fall of Malta would not improve at all the situation of Rommel .

You really are so blinkered its unbelievable. Then why did Rommel say without Malta the Afrika Korps would fail? Apart from the battle for North Africa, Malta proved to be a vital jumping off point for the invasion of Sicily and Italy under the command of Keith Park.

I am sure there is a video game store near you, they might have some good titles for you to play, then you may not keep making a fool of yourself.
 
Last edited:
The invasion of Sicily is irrelevant and of topic for the discussion if Malta was essential for the outcome of the war in NA.
About the civilian losses at Malta :YOU were saying
1°that the LW was bombing the crap out of Malta
2°that this was proving that Malta was essential
Both statements are questionable:
the numbers of civilian losses of London and Antwerp in 1944/1945 were higher than those of Malta ,and in a shoter period :Malta :44 casualties a week for 2 1/2 year,Antwerp 200 casualties a week for 8 months,London:300 a week for 8 months.
If the air attacks on Malta proved that Malta was essential,than should the air attacks on London and Antwerp also prove that these were essential (even more than Malta),and,they were not essential .
About Rommel:what he was saying is irrelevant :it only was a lie,an excuse,a search for a scape-goat,to explain his defeats.
Rommel always was blaming other people for his defeat:Malta,the Italians,the OKW,Hitler,etc...He never admitted that he was twice defeated (late 1941 and late 1942) by the eight army .
 
If Rommel said that without Malta,the AK would fail,WHY did he oppose Hercules (the invasion of Malta)?
 
The invasion of Sicily is irrelevant and of topic for the discussion if Malta was essential for the outcome of the war in NA..

According to you everything is irrelevant and no its not off topic. Malta became a forward airbase for the invasion of Sicily and therefore vital.

About the civilian losses at Malta :YOU were saying
1°that the LW was bombing the crap out of Malta
2°that this was proving that Malta was essential

Both statements are questionable:
the numbers of civilian losses of London and Antwerp in 1944/1945 were higher than those of Malta ,and in a shoter period :Malta :44 casualties a week for 2 1/2 year,Antwerp 200 casualties a week for 8 months,London:300 a week for 8 months.

There you go again, talking absolute crap. Its fact that Malta was the most heavily bomb place on earth at that time not only by the German's but also by the Italians. I never said anything about Maltese civilian casualties, its in your muppet mind. The reason why Maltese casualties were so low was the very good system of air raid shelters, including caves at Għar Dalam.


If the air attacks on Malta proved that Malta was essential,than should the air attacks on London and Antwerp also prove that these were essential (even more than Malta),and,they were not essential .

You really are an idiot, can't your peanut brain comprehend why London and Antwerp were attacked. If you don't know I'm not wasting my time telling you.

About Rommel:what he was saying is irrelevant :it only was a lie,an excuse,a search for a scape-goat,to explain his defeats.
Rommel always was blaming other people for his defeat:Malta,the Italians,the OKW,Hitler,etc...He never admitted that he was twice defeated (late 1941 and late 1942) by the eight army .

Of course everything that Rommel said was irrelevant according to you. Rommel was a gentleman and a true soldier, he refused to comply with Hitlers orders regarding Jews or Special Forces captured. He did ignore the Italians, but he certainly did not "blame" them as you so stupidly claim.

Rommel was a skilled tactician, but some allege that he had little sense of logistics or military strategy. They consider as an example of this his proposal to postpone Operation Herkules, the invasion of Malta in favour of the immediate advance to the Suez Canal, which would cut the island off from the western Mediterranean. In the event, the operation did not take place, and he ran out of supplies in Egypt, principally because Malta-based forces were sinking Axis supply ships.

Now go away and play somewhere else, you are starting to become annoying.
 
Last edited:
I think just to play the game I am going to at least partially agree with him, Malta's importance was rather spotty and it only really came into it after operation Torch however by that stage Allied material superiority made the result in North Africa a foregone conclusion anyway.

Just as an interesting aside I have looked through various books on this subject and I can only find records for less than 50 AFV's sunk in route to Tripoli and Benghazi quite honestly the amount of supplies used to transport supplies to and from the front was far greater than was actually destroyed in route, it is known that over all 86% of all the supplies shipped to the Afrika Korps arrived.

This does not mean to say that the loss of material was insignificant but I am not sure it was the reason for Rommel's failure you only have to look at the capture of Tobruk to see that Malta was not the primary problem for Rommel's supplies as Tobruk is on sea routes that avoid Malta altogether and any ships sunk there had to have been by aircraft from Alexandria.

With regards to Rommel there is a fairly considerable amount of evidence that he would use any excuse to deflect the fact that he was an awful logistical officer which I suspect was more the reason he failed in North Africa and the failure to take Malta was just one more excuse.
 
Last edited:
I think just to play the game I am going to at least partially agree with him, Malta's importance was rather spotty and it only really came into it after operation Torch however by that stage Allied material superiority made the result in North Africa a foregone conclusion anyway.

Just as an interesting aside I have looked through various books on this subject and I can only find records for less than 50 AFV's sunk in route to Tripoli and Benghazi quite honestly the amount of supplies used to transport supplies to and from the front was far greater than was actually destroyed in route, it is known that over all 86% of all the supplies shipped to the Afrika Korps arrived.

This does not mean to say that the loss of material was insignificant but I am not sure it was the reason for Rommel's failure you only have to look at the capture of Tobruk to see that Malta was not the primary problem for Rommel's supplies as Tobruk is on sea routes that avoid Malta altogether and any ships sunk there had to have been by aircraft from Alexandria.

With regards to Rommel there is a fairly considerable amount of evidence that he would use any excuse to deflect the fact that he was an awful logistical officer which I suspect was more the reason he failed in North Africa and the failure to take Malta was just one more excuse.

The RAF on Malta was never given proper credit who did a sterling job with what they had. As Rommel withdrew to the east, the RAF continued to attack his supply convoys in the Mediterranean. Only 30 tons of Axis supplies were shipped to North Africa in November 1941, and 62 percent of them were lost en route. Hitler reacted by shifting Fliegerkorps II from Russia to Sicily and ordering the German navy to send 10 U-boats into the Mediterranean.

The key to British success in interdicting the Axis' Mediterranean convoys was the island of Malta, situated just west of the principal Axis sea lane. German and Italian aircraft pounded the little island, dropping some 9,000 tons of bombs during a two-month period.
 
According to you everything is irrelevant and no its not off topic. Malta became a forward airbase for the invasion of Sicily and therefore vital.



There you go again, talking absolute crap. Its fact that Malta was the most heavily bomb place on earth at that time not only by the German's but also by the Italians. I never said anything about Maltese civilian casualties, its in your muppet mind. The reason why Maltese casualties were so low was the very good system of air raid shelters, including caves at Għar Dalam.




You really are an idiot, can't your peanut brain comprehend why London and Antwerp were attacked. If you don't know I'm not wasting my time telling you.



Of course everything that Rommel said was irrelevant according to you. Rommel was a gentleman and a true soldier, he refused to comply with Hitlers orders regarding Jews or Special Forces captured. He did ignore the Italians, but he certainly did not "blame" them as you so stupidly claim.

Rommel was a skilled tactician, but some allege that he had little sense of logistics or military strategy. They consider as an example of this his proposal to postpone Operation Herkules, the invasion of Malta in favour of the immediate advance to the Suez Canal, which would cut the island off from the western Mediterranean. In the event, the operation did not take place, and he ran out of supplies in Egypt, principally because Malta-based forces were sinking Axis supply ships.

Now go away and play somewhere else, you are starting to become annoying.
Prove it ,that Malta was the most bombed place on earth:compare the the tonnage of bombs that was dropped on Malta,with that that was dropped on Liverpool,London,Berlin .......
Prove it that the civilian protection on Malta was better than that in London .
You are not at the barracks where you can bully the recruits.
Prove it that he ran out of supplies because the Malta-based forces were sinking his supply ships .
And your claim that an advance of Rommel to the Suez canal would cut of Malta from the western mediterranean,is the usual nonsens .
Your claim that Rommel was a gentleman,is proving again that you are still at the Biggles level:there was no place for gentlemen in WWII,and a true soldier could not be a gentleman .
And what about the V1 and V2 attacks on London and Antwerp,I know 100 times more about this subject than you:I doubt that have any knowledge of these things .
How much supplies did Rommel receive in 1942?
January :66000 ton
february:59000
march:48000
april:150000
may:86000
june:32000
july:92000
august:52000
september:78000
october:47000
These figures do not prove that Rommel ran out of supplies,and,that this was caused by the Malta attacks .
AS you not have been able to give figures for sinkings by Malta attacks,the obvious conclusion is that,as usual,you are talking from your rear end .
 
Last edited:
Unbelievable (but,sadly it is reality) that almost 70 years after the war,a former soldier is capable to write such enormities:
About the Jews :the few Jews in Libya were Italian citizens,and the Germans had no authority over them.
When Rommel arrived in France,the Jews were already transported to Auschwitz,etc.
There were some Jews in Tunisia,but,Rommel had no authority there.
Besides :before writing such enormities,you should first search for a proof that Rommel received an order to kill the Jews/transport them to the East :the Jews were the business of the Sipo/SD.

About the commandos:Hitler's order to kill them dated from 10 october 1942,when Rommel was in Germany (sick leave).BEFORE claiming that Rommel disobeyed the commando order,you first have to prove that in the regions were Rommel had authority,allied commandos were landing,and,on the order of Rommel,were not executed,but ,taken prisoner,otherwise,it is again a prove that you are not talking with your mouth .
 
The RAF on Malta was never given proper credit who did a sterling job with what they had. As Rommel withdrew to the east, the RAF continued to attack his supply convoys in the Mediterranean. Only 30 tons of Axis supplies were shipped to North Africa in November 1941, and 62 percent of them were lost en route. Hitler reacted by shifting Fliegerkorps II from Russia to Sicily and ordering the German navy to send 10 U-boats into the Mediterranean.

The key to British success in interdicting the Axis' Mediterranean convoys was the island of Malta, situated just west of the principal Axis sea lane. German and Italian aircraft pounded the little island, dropping some 9,000 tons of bombs during a two-month period.

There is no doubt that Axis supplies arriving in Tripoli suffered losses when the Luftwaffe was not keeping Malta under control and supply losses decreased when Malta was suppressed by the Luftwaffe but it should be noted that at no stage was there ever a shortage of supplies in Tripoli the shortage was at the front, the German problem was not getting supplies to Tripoli it was getting them the 800km from Tripoli to Benghazi and the further 600-ishkm to Al Elamein.

I have little doubt that Malta was a thorn in the German side but it was just a thorn and not a dagger wound, in my opinion Malta's importance has been blown up out of all proportion much like the David and Goliath story sure a Jew may have killed a Philistine but neither of them are the characters 3000 years of myth has turned them into.
Malta could not prevent the Germans winning in North Africa and had Malta been captured it would not have guaranteed a German victory in North Africa it did however make a German win in North Africa more difficult.

Here is a section from the paper published in 1990
BRITISH AND GERMAN LOGISTICS SUPPORT DURING THE WORLD WAR II NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN AN INDIVIDUAL STUDY PROJECT:
by
Lieutenant Colonel John D. Caviggla. QM
Colonel John E. Brown (Project Adviser)

In discussions with General Hadler he asked Rommel how he was goinq to supply his troops during his planned offensives and he replied, *That's quite Imnaterial to me. That's your pigeon.*, he failed to understand that the distance from Tripoli to Alexandria was twice the distance of Brest-Litovsk to Moscow and there were almost no towns,cities, roads or rail of any note to shift the supplies along, great for tanks lousy for trucks.

A motorized force of one division, such as the 5th Light which the Germans sent to Libya. required 350 ton of supplies per. day.
To transport this quantity over 300 miles of desert (the distance from Tripoli to the front) required 39 columns of trucks with 30 two-ton trucks In each column (1170 trucks).

Taking the offensive In April. He drove the British out of Libya, invested Tobruk (which he was unable to eliminate) and
finally came to a halt at Sollum on the far side of the Egyptian frontier.
His strategic blunder failed for two reasons - he failed to bring decisive victory, and it added another 700 miles to his already overextended line of communication.
From February to May. Rommel and his Italian allies received a total of 325,000 tons of supplies or 45,000 more than current consumption, but he was unable to bridge the enormous gap from Tripoli to the front. so his supplies piled up on the wharves while shortages arose in the front line.

His conclusion:
The lessons of the period of the Libyan campaigns proper seem clear.
First Rommel's supply difficulties were at times due to the limited capacity of the North African ports, which not only determined the largest number of troops that could be maintained, but also restricted the size of convoys, making the business of escorting them impossibly expensive in terms of the fuel and shipping employed. Hitler's eventual decision to fore go the invasion of Malta in favor of supporting Rommel's thrust to Egypt was a primal cause of the Axis' disastrous supply situation.

More significant were the distances that had to be overcome inside Africa even though coastal shipping was employed on a limited scale in 1942, It was virtually ineffective due to the Royal Air Force's domination of the air. The nearer the (Axis) front a port lay, the more exposed to attack it became by (British) air.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top