@Karl7:
The failure to take Malta was a real oversight.
I know the idea in the real war was to neutralize it by air attack, but any fool should have realized that wasn’t going to work.
How could the British have defended against a determined assault? The Italian navy/invasion force leaves Taranto en mass, the UK notices, but its fleet is either at Gibraltar or Alexandria… too far to intervene given how close Malta is to Italy.
The Germans/Italians with German air cover land, sweep the garrison and hold before the Royal Navy causes the Italian navy to withdraw.
Why wouldn’t that have worked? How big was the Brit garrison? I am assuming no more than a couple thousand?
I see something similar in my industry on occassion. Sometimes the known or expected cost of something is considered too high, when in reality, the ultimate cost of not paying the known cost is inevitably more; but many people still prefer the unknown “gamble”, as opposed to the fixed truth.
The axis knew taking Malta would be a nightmare, and after the experience in Crete, that many good men would die, not to mention they would likely lose many ships and aircraft, for what they incorrectly perceived as something they could probably detour around, or avoid.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, and the cost of blasting Malta would probably have been much less than the cost of constant air raids and an allied supply point of Malta/
It’s also important to remember that it’s a decision axis generals would have to make on their honor and name. Where it was perceived they were in full control. If it’s a disaster, they would wear it politically. Sometimes the “oh we lost 2 ships today, and 1 yesterday, but shot down an allied fighter” that is uncontrolled, is easier to use an “It’s not my fault” card.
