OPERATION PEDESTAL

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by alecsandros »

pgollin wrote:.

Pedestal, as with all the Mediterranean convoys - Italian or British, were all part of the North African war and, in the final analysis, the British moved sufficient materials to keep Malta in the game, whilst the Italians (with the help of a lot of German idiocy) failed to move sufficient (despite the revisionists' claims).

.
... many would argue that the Axis did not have sufficient supplies to move to North Africa in the first place, and they would have been defeated with or without the intervention of the Royal Navy.

Going to North Africa was a big mistake for the Germans.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by pgollin »

alecsandros wrote:
... Reading about the summer 1942 convoys (Vigorous, Harpoon, Pedestal) we see that the British drive was very powerfull, and they made every effort to deliver supplies, even in the face of heavy losses. In this context, Pedestal was a success (because Vigorous and Harpoon were blocked by the Italian/German forces ).
But losing 70% of cargo, 1 carrier , 2 cruisers and 1 destroyer can hardly be seen as a victory in the context of the war.



You contradict yourself.

.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by pgollin »

alecsandros wrote:
pgollin wrote:.

Pedestal, as with all the Mediterranean convoys - Italian or British, were all part of the North African war and, in the final analysis, the British moved sufficient materials to keep Malta in the game, whilst the Italians (with the help of a lot of German idiocy) failed to move sufficient (despite the revisionists' claims).

.
... many would argue that the Axis did not have sufficient supplies to move to North Africa in the first place, and they would have been defeated with or without the intervention of the Royal Navy.

Going to North Africa was a big mistake for the Germans.
.

AS I STATED ; " ....... (with the help of a lot of German idiocy) ......"

The Italians helped a lot by not having, or building, sufficient harbour facilities, escorts or merchant ships, and by using the ones they had inefficiently.

.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by alecsandros »

pgollin wrote:
alecsandros wrote:
pgollin wrote:.

Pedestal, as with all the Mediterranean convoys - Italian or British, were all part of the North African war and, in the final analysis, the British moved sufficient materials to keep Malta in the game, whilst the Italians (with the help of a lot of German idiocy) failed to move sufficient (despite the revisionists' claims).

.
... many would argue that the Axis did not have sufficient supplies to move to North Africa in the first place, and they would have been defeated with or without the intervention of the Royal Navy.

Going to North Africa was a big mistake for the Germans.
.

AS I STATED ; " ....... (with the help of a lot of German idiocy) ......"

The Italians helped a lot by not having, or building, sufficient harbour facilities, escorts or merchant ships, and by using the ones they had inefficiently.

.
... the Germans and Italians combined "helped" by not having the resources to move to Africa in the first place.
With the war in the east raging and with the gargantuan fortifications and air war rumbling in the west, plus needing a forcefull hand everywhere in occupied Europe to quell the masses, there weren't enough forces, supplies and equipment to be sent to Africa anyway.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by pgollin »

.

THAT is why I said "German Idiocy" - the supplies required to make some sort of difference (????) (*) were a pittance compared to what were used on the Eastern front, and also Germany made men and material available after the Torch landings (throwing good after bad).

(*) What "sort of difference" extra German men and material would have achieved is unknowable (at least to me) but with the Italian's lack of drive in the merchant navy war it is arguable about how much more could have been handled.

.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by alecsandros »

pgollin wrote:.

THAT is why I said "German Idiocy" - the supplies required to make some sort of difference (????) (*) were a pittance compared to what were used on the Eastern front, and also Germany made men and material available after the Torch landings (throwing good after bad).

(*) What "sort of difference" extra German men and material would have achieved is unknowable (at least to me) but with the Italian's lack of drive in the merchant navy war it is arguable about how much more could have been handled.

.
... as a rule of thumb, one shouldn't open other fronts until he is in control of those already engaged.
As it was, North Africa was a bridge to far for the Wehrmacht, and remained that way until the final surender in 1943.

Another way to look at it is: send all African troops (Rommell, 15th, 21st panzer, etc) to the Eastern Front and perhaps they would make a difference (or not). Anyway , it would have been probably better than to throw them away thousands of km away from their resupply bases, and all the time with very little resupplies available anyhow. That way, the Italians would have received the nice plastering they deserved (and continously searched for) much earlier than 1943, at least in Africa.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by pgollin »

.

The Afrika Corps in Russia would make a negligible effect, double the Afrika Corps in North Africa ( ASSUMING the Italians actually performed ) would have a huge effect.

The trouble is that the Italians never really understood how to supply North Africa ( and what command and control the Germans enforced probably hindered more than helped ).

.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by alecsandros »

pgollin wrote:.

The Afrika Corps in Russia would make a negligible effect, double the Afrika Corps in North Africa ( ASSUMING the Italians actually performed ) would have a huge effect.

The trouble is that the Italians never really understood how to supply North Africa ( and what command and control the Germans enforced probably hindered more than helped ).

.
... Possibly, but the problem of resources would still remain. If the Axis couldn't resupply 2 half-strength armored divisions, how would it resupply 4 or more ? And with what ? Hitler was obsessed with Russia and everything was poured in there. Add the man power and resources for building the Atlantic wall, mantaining security throughout Europe, fighting the air war agaisnt the Strategic Air Offensive, fighting the Atlantic War, and mantaining the Afrika Corps is already a stretch.

If they would redirect resources from the east to Rommell in early 1942, he could possibly fight more, but the end result would be the same: the Torch landings in the west + British strongpoints in the east (ie. Alamein) = Axis crippling.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by aurora »

Your comment makes a lot of sense to me Alex-I think the reasoning is very fair re the
"variables" that Hitler had to juggle-after El Alamein- it was downhill all the way, for the Axis forces in North Africa.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by aurora »

Returning to Pedestal- there were some events which could be described as intangible :
IMO the British were tripped up by their own propaganda re.the fighting qualities of the Italians.
1 Harwood's plan relied on the RM reacting too early or too late;when he received favourable, but quite inaccurate reports from aircraft and submarines-he expected the Italian Fleet to withdraw- based on past form.
2 Curteis did not reinforce Force X, because from past encounters,he believed that a 4" cruiser and five fleet destroyers were enough to stand up to and drive off a pair of Italian 6" cruisers and five destroyers.
3 (not connected to the above) refuelling at sea was not practised sufficiently in advance; to ensure the equipment worked properly and efficiently in action.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by pgollin »

.

NO. ( Yet again.)

The British knew there were going to be large losses after the main escort left ("Force Z"), and that is when the main losses occurred.

I don't know why you mention Italian larger surface forces. The major losses were to German U-Boats and aircraft.

Why mention refuelling (oiling) at sea ?

The British assessed, both during the war and afterwards, that the success of Pedestal, and in particular the aviation spirit in Ohio, meant that the Axis supply effort over the next 6 months lost over 25% of their supplies meaning that their operations in North Africa were seriously affected.

.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by aurora »

"I don't know why you mention Italian larger surface forces".

I'm not surprised at that- because I made no mention of "Italian larger surface forces"-I really think you are starting to imagine what I am saying!!!

"Why mention refuelling (oiling) at sea" ?

Why not -it was a factor which influenced this operation.

I appreciate your zeal in supporting the claim that Pedestal was a success but there was mixed sentiment about it's efficacy.The Naval Staff History comments :"Five arrivals out of a convoy of fourteen ships with a powerful escort is not a large score;especially at the cost to the escort of an aircraft carrier,a cruiser,an anti aircraft ship and a destroyer lost;besides an aircraft carrier and a cruiser damaged"
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
Mostlyharmless
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by Mostlyharmless »

I have been trying to think of a test for deciding if an operation or a campaign was a victory or a defeat (possibly better a success or a failure). I came up with the idea of imagining that the planners had been given full details of the outcome and asking whether they would they have gone ahead with their operation. Looking at Pedestal, the British would probably have gone ahead. They could look at the output of ships from American yards and know that their loses would soon be replaced whilst failure to supply Malta would give the Axis a victory. The continuation of air battles over Malta and later Sicily would wear down the Axis strength.

It is interesting that my test gives a result that depends on the strategic situation. The same loses for both sides would have been completely unacceptable for Britain in August 1940 and Malta would probably have been abandoned.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by dunmunro »

aurora wrote:Returning to Pedestal- there were some events which could be described as intangible :
IMO the British were tripped up by their own propaganda re.the fighting qualities of the Italians.
1 Harwood's plan relied on the RM reacting too early or too late;when he received favourable, but quite inaccurate reports from aircraft and submarines-he expected the Italian Fleet to withdraw- based on past form.
2 Curteis did not reinforce Force X, because from past encounters,he believed that a 4" cruiser and five fleet destroyers were enough to stand up to and drive off a pair of Italian 6" cruisers and five destroyers.
3 (not connected to the above) refuelling at sea was not practised sufficiently in advance; to ensure the equipment worked properly and efficiently in action.
It's plain to see that without the Luftwaffe to assist them, that the RM and RA was unable to interdict Malta. The hardest work for the RM revisionists, like O'Hara is to convince the reader that the RM was responsible for the Luftwaffe's successes.

1 and 2 refer to Vigorous and Harpoon, not Pedestal.

I don't know of any instance where refuelling at sea was a factor in a Malta Convoy. From operation Substance onward, refuelling at sea by the RN was done quite efficiently.
User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: OPERATION PEDESTAL

Post by aurora »

Thank you dunmunro-I stand corrected on points 1 and 2 mentioned above.It seems to me that there is a consensus that fervently believe Pedestal was a victory.I just do not see it that way-I think strategically the operation was minimally successful; but a fair sized tactical victory for the Axis-however coupled with strategic failure- without taking the final outcome in North Africa into account-purely judging Operation Pedestalas a naval action.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim
Post Reply