Why the Med?

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Post Reply
Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Why the Med?

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

I've been reading Andrew Fields very interesting study of RN Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939. As time went on, from a strategy of sending virtually the entire battle fleet to Singapore, the plans were wound back and wound back until the only spare ships where a "flying squadron" comprising a battlecruiser and a carrier. The reason for this was clearly the build up of the German, but principally the Italian navy in the Med. Sat astride the trade route to the East via the Med and Suez, British strategists prioritized the Med over the East, basing a significant fleet there, able to swing west to the Atlantic, or east to India and the Far East. However, as the Italian threat emerged, the Med for its own sake took priority.

Why was this? I understand that once "in" the Med, the holding of Gib, Malta and Suez was vital. But what was in the Med worth fighting for in itself? Why did British planners and choose to hold the Med over and above sending the fleet East? Could not trade with India have been maintained via the (admittedly longer) route via the Cape, bypassing and neutralizing the Italian Navy entirely and giving Britain a free hand to deal with Japan?

How did the figures stack up? What was vital about India by the 1940's? Why did they fight the war they did?

Cheers!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is not always what "we" think, but what the opposition thinks.

Hitler (the likeliest opposition; Italy was not as steadfastly allied with Germany as it would seem from Mussolini's wartime propaganda) was obsessed with oil (and the more western - than his - analysts knew this as well to be the weakness of Germany's warfighting ability).

Past that end year of 1939 this manifested itself in the dash for oil:
- strategic objective shifted away from Russia's main cities and transportation hubs, and 157 divisions committed to a more southerly thrust, towards the Caucasus (and beyond: Iran was important in terms of oil fields in production)
- pincer movement by the couple of divisions Rommel ever got, plus bombers to Syria, to help the fomented uprising in Syria (and Egypt) to happen

Thanks to the RN presence the pincers were cut off (to a half, that then also failed) and the mere switching of objectives made Hitler's fear come true as the longer the war dragged on, the more the lack (relative to the Allies) of fuel weighed on German war effort.

Even Churchill was apparently impressed by a remark of von Thoma (Rommel's deputy in North Africa), since he quotes it twice in his WW2 memoirs (Volumes 4 and 5).

At this time Hitler made a crowning error in strategy and war direction.
[...] should have led him to concentrate and develop the most
powerful German army as a central reserve. In this way only could he use
the high qualities of the German command and fighting troops, and at the same time take full advantage of the central position which he occupied, with its interior lines and remarkable communications. As General von Thoma said while a prisoner of war in our charge, "Our only chance is [was] to create a situation where we can use the Army."

I can't now find the quote right after his capture at El Alamein, looking around at the destruction (including his own tank):

Where does this stand in relative terms as there are a hundred German divisions in the South of Russia, fighting to escape encirclement and destruction as we speak (no quotation marks as these are not the exact words).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

Hmmm! Must admit I had one of those "doh" moments after posting this query. In my defence I was thinking about economic value. If the RN had not taken the war to the Italians, the Italians may well have taken the war to Gibraltar and beyond into the Atlantic?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Why the Med?

Post by arfah »

............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Why the Med?

Post by GibMariner »

Sunk at Narvik wrote:Hmmm! Must admit I had one of those "doh" moments after posting this query. In my defence I was thinking about economic value. If the RN had not taken the war to the Italians, the Italians may well have taken the war to Gibraltar and beyond into the Atlantic?
The Italians did take the war to Gibraltar, as did the Germans, Vichy French and "neutral" Spanish. Gibraltar was vital to maintain British/allied control of the Med and played an important role in the Malta Convoys and the Club Runs - the Italians very much wanted Gibraltar's airfield and naval base out of action.

The Italian air force carried out long range bombing raids on Gibraltar several times from 1940-44 with mixed success but they did some damage to the town and sunk a few merchant ships, plus a near-miss of HMS Renown.

The Regia Marina's Decima Flottiglia MAS commando frogmen raids were more successful and they alone sank some thousands of tons of allied shipping in/near Gibraltar during the war. In May 1941 they fortunately missed Ark Royal, Renown and Sheffield because they had already left to hunt the Bismark.

Starting in 1940, Italian submarines operating out of Cadiz launched frogmen in manned torpedoes to attack both merchant and military vessels, but weren't very successful and one of the officers of the Decima Flottiglia subsequently rented a house on the shore near Algeciras (across the bay of Gibraltar), using his Spanish wife as cover, and from there several more successful raids were carried out by frogmen using limpet mines.

In the meantime, they were secretly refitting the Italian tanker Olterra at Algeciras, which had been partially sunk off Algeciras by the Royal Navy on the very same day that Italy declared war on France and the UK. In July 1942 they moved their HQ to Olterra, which also acted as an observation post, the manned torpedoes and other equipment was smuggled through Spain under the cover of them being materials for the repairs. One of the additions to the vessel was a concealed sliding hatch below the waterline where the manned torpedoes would sortie. Attacks took place throughout the war until the Italian armistice.

Fortunately they weren't as successful against the Royal Navy as they had been in Alexandria in December 1941, and partially due to the Raid on Alexandria and experience with the combat swimmers from Algeciras, security measures at Gibraltar were beefed up, with an underwater bomb disposal unit led by Buster Crabb - who in 1942 successfully caught or sunk 3 manned torpedoes and most of the frogmen which were launching an attack on HMS Nelson, Renown, Furious and Formidable during Operation Torch.

While suspected, no proof of the involvement of the Olterra was found until after the Italian armistice, when Crabb's diving team boarded the tanker and found spare torpedoes (despite the best efforts of the Spanish authorities, which had tried to get rid of the evidence).

A fictionalised version of these events, centred around Buster Crabb is portrayed in the 1950s film The Silent Enemy.

Image
Italian newspaper from 1942 depicting a Reggia Aeronautica raid on Gibraltar

Image
Olterra's concealed diving hatch

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Why the Med?

Post by GibMariner »

As for 'why the Mediterranean?', there were many reasons as ArmChairCivvy and arfah have pointed out.

To expand on that, both Italy and the UK aimed to cut off each other's supply lines through the Med while keeping their own supply lines open and especially supplies to Italy, as well as to diminish each other's naval power in the Med.

The Mediterranean was the lifeline of the British Empire, where most of the trade that kept the Empire alive running through it. Without the Mediterranean and the British bastions at Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and Egypt, it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible to redirect trade all around the West & East coasts of Africa and around the Cape - and especially for the overstretched Royal Navy to protect that trade.

Oil was a huge part of that trade, both for the global economy on which Britain depended as much as for the war effort. Italy was handicapped throughout the war due to a shortage of fuel and they were desperate to gain access to British-controlled oil.

Had France not fallen, Britain could have played a smaller role in the Mediterranean and possibly better reinforce Singapore. With the most powerful ally in the Mediterranean gone, Britain had to take measures to protect its lifeline to the Far East, setting up Force H at Gibraltar to fill in the vacuum left by the absence of the French. Malta was the linchpin and the most vulnerable of the British bastions in the Med, had Malta fallen to the Italians it would have been virtually impossible to keep supplies moving throughout the Empire.

Another aspect is that Churchill desperately wanted a victory against the Axis to encourage the Americans that Britain would not surrender and eventually persuade them to join in on our side. It wasn't possible to successfully attack Germany directly from France or further north, so he looked to the "soft underbelly" of Europe & North Africa, where it was believed Britain could be successful.

Without a strong British effort throughout the Mediterranean, Gibraltar and Malta would have fallen to the Axis. Then Egypt (and the Suez Canal), Palestine and beyond that the oilfields would also fall under Axis control. Britain would lose not only the vital lifeline that connected it to the Empire in the east, but also a huge source of its economic power.

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

Thanks for that Gib- fascinating! I had no idea the Italians were so active around Gibraltar, I have now determined to read up a great dal more on Med operations.

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

Hi all,

This question is still bugging me. I've taken delivery of Andrew Boyds "RN in Eastern Waters" which gives a "revisionist" account of the Singapore strategy- very interesting (but only about a quarter in so far!). Boyd tracks the development of policy between the wars and in particular the development of the idea from 37 onwards of a "flying squadron" comprising two capital ships and a carrier to be sent if a war in Europe was already taking place. Essentially he is saying that Force H was that flying squadron and was earmaked to go East. The reduction in commitment from a fully "competitive" fleet (ie able to take in the IJN north of Singapore) being due to a recognition that there were essential UK interests in the eastern Med afterall. Earlier plans had called for a substantial fleet in the Eastern Med capable of pivotting (to use todays terminology) from Eastern Med to Far East as required.

Boyd talks about those interests being Greece and Turkey. These may reveal themselves as I work through the book, but can any posters describe what these interests may have been?

It does seem rather extraordinary that the defence of India and Australisia were compromised for Greece and Turkey, with the Dominions left flapping in the wind after twenty years of British assurances.

Cheers!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sunk at Narvik wrote:compromised for Greece and Turkey, with the Dominions left flapping in the wind after twenty years of British assurances.
Well,yes, Churchill never gave up this Europe's soft belly idea, just chose a different place for his next Dardanelles, and the army that was just about to take all of N. Africa got thoroughly beaten in Greece, N. Africa was further weakened by shipping an ozzie division to Singapore so late that it had nothing else to do than capitulate, leaving "city soldier" volunteers (ozzie TA) to stop the Japanese on the Kokoda trail.
- which would not have worked without a little bit of help from Midway and the Coral Sea

There were ardent critics of the Greece adventure. Sir Arthur Longmore , the air commander in the ME, was sacked for his criticism. The commander of the Med Fleet complained about tilted force balance in the planning for the Op so many times that he was in the end ready to resign himself (as the criticism bore no fruit). Closer to the story is Admiral Tom Phillips. He criticised the diversion of troops and ships to Greece and Churchill had not spoken to his old friend and colleague (they were both "battle ship men") for 8 months when Phillips and the other 800 set sail to their rendezvous with fate.

How peripheral the theatre whereto he dispatched the "Flying Squadron" was to Britain's warleader is illustrated by the fact that the whole chapter on it and the wider Pacific in his "tome" - a good book, even though it really is 6 of them! - was copied from the works of a US naval historian... who after a long delay got compensated, but the plagiarism never made it to the wider "open domain".

And Churchill spent a disproportionate amount of time and effort to get Turkey to join the war - to no avail.

One needs to understand that Germany planned taking the M. East oil through (Vichy) Syria (by first igniting an uprising in Iraq) and when this came to nothing, Operation Blau was devised later (that got 157 divisions; what did Rommel have at the peak - 5?).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by abc123 »

IMHO, even if Britain could concentrate in Far East ( Fleet to Singapore ) that would just increase the number of British ships on the bottom of South China Sea, like PoW and Repulse.... Simply, Japanese Kido Butai was the strongest naval group in the world at the time, and I really don't see that a few British battleships/carriers more could do something meaningful there...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

Any views on historian Vincent O'Hara's works on the topic? Avoid or a well balanced and informative read?

Cheers (:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sunk at Narvik wrote: I've taken delivery of Andrew Boyds "RN in Eastern Waters" which gives a "revisionist" account of the Singapore strategy- very interesting (but only about a quarter in so far!). Boyd tracks the development of policy between the wars and in particular the development of the idea from 37 onwards of a "flying squadron" comprising two capital ships and a carrier to be sent if a war in Europe was already taking place. Essentially he is saying that Force H was that flying squadron and was earmaked to go East. The reduction in commitment from a fully "competitive" fleet (ie able to take in the IJN north of Singapore) being due to a recognition that there were essential UK interests in the eastern Med afterall.
Just bought the M Hastings book Op Pedestal (came out in March?) and it shares (before the detail starts) that the planning - Malta being on last legs - kicked off for real just days after the Battle of Midway. As that turn of events released Nelson and Rodney that were just about to become the mentioned Flying Squadron. They, all available carriers and plenty of destroyers (released from PQ17 induced suspending of Arctic convoys until darker days & nights) were then merged with Force H for the ' Malta rescue'
- putting this combined force at stake was a huge gamble; on par with the sending (earlier) of half of UK's tanks to N.Africa

Looks like a good read, and of course can use all the earlier publications as sources and x-reference which assumptions about decision making at the time can be supported by actual, accumulated evidence
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Lord Jim »

Operation Pedestal is a fascinating piece of history. The Navy's major surface units were never in any serious danger as they turned back outside of the range of aircraft from Sicily, but what happened to the convoy afterwards and its escort of Cruisers and Destroyers is both a show of great bravery and heart breaking for the losses in men and ships, especially when you see how many started the Operation and how many actually arrived in Malta. If Ohio hadn't made it Malta could have had to surrender as the Axis would have gained air superiority over the Island as its defending aircraft would have been without fuel and the island would also have had no electricity and so on. I have mush affection with Malta as I was born there and still think about moving there permanently and even taking up Maltese citizenship. :)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:even taking up Maltese citizenship.
I think it can be bought. Though the EU has been cracking on that practice - started by Cyprus (the Ruskies came to the help of their banking system, when it was teetering on the precipice... only that, very public act shone the light on the 'Why') and until then the trade had been flourishing 'under the radar'.

I like Malta, too. Had biz partners there - though the R&D project then did not get a follow-thru.
- not just the Brits (ably aided by the Maltese) but also the Knights have battled there... against all the odds, and with a good result
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by Lord Jim »

Checked the Maltese Embassy's web site a while ago and because I was born there, and my parentage, I am entitles to citizenship, but as always still have to pay for the privilege. Mind you it will give me an EU passport and if I can have dual citizenship I get the best of both worlds. But as for Malta I love the place, thing got a bit tatty when the Libyans were financing (or not) a lot of projects, but now Italian money has flooded in things have really picked up over the past couple of decades. 80% humidity takes some getting used to though.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Why the Med?

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Mind you it will give me an EU passport and if I can have dual citizenship I get the best of both worlds.
Much recommended; of course those with a blind faith in Brexit (excludes e.g. the father of Boris) need not bother
Lord Jim wrote: got a bit tatty when the Libyans were financing (or not) a lot of projects, but now Italian money has flooded in things have really picked up
unfortunately, there are other sources,too. The passports were not the only reason for the EU crack-down as for whether the rule of law was in place, or had been corrupted all through
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply