OPERATION PEDESTAL

[aurora]

He certainly is Byron; but now it has become Argumentum ad Nauseam.

[dunmunro]

.
Quote (Byron Angel) ;
"......... Tactical success? Let's look at it this way. Could Britain have afforded to mount this sort of operation on a regular basis in the face of such losses? The answer IMO is no. ......."
A false argument - Why would it have to mount such an operation on a regular basis ?
.

..... You're playing word games worthy of a classical sophist, Phil.

B

So D-day (Normandy) or the invasion of Germany proper was a only a tactical success because the Allies couldn't have sustained such losses in a series of similar invasions? The losses have to be weighed against the gains, and/or potential gains to be made, not whether they were sustainable over some indefinite number of repeats.

[Byron Angel]

So D-day (Normandy) or the invasion of Germany proper was a only a tactical success because the Allies couldn't have sustained such losses in a series of similar invasions? The losses have to be weighed against the gains, and/or potential gains to be made, not whether they were sustainable over some indefinite number of repeats.

..... Continental landings and invasions of major nation states are gigantic undertakings involving commitment of huge resources. You only get a limited number of shots in such cases. Gallipoli is a good example; the idea was good, but the cost was found to be too high. What would the attitude at SHAEF have been if they had suffered three Dieppes in a row attempting to land in Europe? My argument is that GB could not have afforded the rate of attrition if they had been forced to run successive Malta convoys under similar conditions for, say, a year or two. Your opinion may differ; that's OK with me.

B

[dunmunro]

So D-day (Normandy) or the invasion of Germany proper was a only a tactical success because the Allies couldn't have sustained such losses in a series of similar invasions? The losses have to be weighed against the gains, and/or potential gains to be made, not whether they were sustainable over some indefinite number of repeats.

..... Continental landings and invasions of major nation states are gigantic undertakings involving commitment of huge resources. You only get a limited number of shots in such cases. Gallipoli is a good example; the idea was good, but the cost was found to be too high. What would the attitude at SHAEF have been if they had suffered three Dieppes in a row attempting to land in Europe? My argument is that GB could not have afforded the rate of attrition if they had been forced to run successive Malta convoys under similar conditions for, say, a year or two. Your opinion may differ; that's OK with me.

B

Pedestal was planned with the knowledge that Torch would soon land a massive new Allied army into western Africa. Accordingly the RN planned Pedestal with a maximum commitment of force. The RN knew that they couldn't sustain the losses they were willing to sustain, but then again they knew that they probably wouldn't have to repeat the operation, using the same level of force commitment.

[alecsandros]

So D-day (Normandy) or the invasion of Germany proper was a only a tactical success because the Allies couldn't have sustained such losses in a series of similar invasions? The losses have to be weighed against the gains, and/or potential gains to be made, not whether they were sustainable over some indefinite number of repeats.

..... Continental landings and invasions of major nation states are gigantic undertakings involving commitment of huge resources. You only get a limited number of shots in such cases. Gallipoli is a good example; the idea was good, but the cost was found to be too high. What would the attitude at SHAEF have been if they had suffered three Dieppes in a row attempting to land in Europe? My argument is that GB could not have afforded the rate of attrition if they had been forced to run successive Malta convoys under similar conditions for, say, a year or two. Your opinion may differ; that's OK with me.

B

Pedestal was planned with the knowledge that Torch would soon land a massive new Allied army into western Africa. Accordingly the RN planned Pedestal with a maximum commitment of force. The RN knew that they couldn't sustain the losses they were willing to sustain, but then again they knew that they probably wouldn't have to repeat the operation, using the same level of force commitment.

... I doubt the RN expected to lose 70% of cargo and 2 fleet carriers out of action (1 sunk , 1 crippled).

[dunmunro]

... I doubt the RN expected to lose 70% of cargo and 2 fleet carriers out of action (1 sunk , 1 crippled).

I suspect that the RN felt they got off easy. They sustained similar losses during Harpoon and Vigorous and they had every reason to suspect Pedestal would meet similar opposition. Why would the RN expect less opposition during Pedestal? In any event, while the loss of life was tragic, Eagle was hardly a prime asset and damage to a fleet carrier, after the USN victory at Midway, was inconvenient but not crippling.

[alecsandros]

... I doubt the RN expected to lose 70% of cargo and 2 fleet carriers out of action (1 sunk , 1 crippled).

I suspect that the RN felt they got off easy. They sustained similar losses during Harpoon and Vigorous and they had every reason to suspect Pedestal would meet similar opposition. Why would the RN expect less opposition during Pedestal? In any event, while the loss of life was tragic, Eagle was hardly a prime asset and damage to a fleet carrier, after the USN victory at Midway, was inconvenient but not crippling.

You're right about Eagle...

But the losses during Harpoon/Vigorous were not that heavy - especialy in terms of carriers and FAA planes. Pedestal lost 1 carrier, another 1 crippled; 2 light cruisers, 1 destroyer...

[dunmunro]

... I doubt the RN expected to lose 70% of cargo and 2 fleet carriers out of action (1 sunk , 1 crippled).

I suspect that the RN felt they got off easy. They sustained similar losses during Harpoon and Vigorous and they had every reason to suspect Pedestal would meet similar opposition. Why would the RN expect less opposition during Pedestal? In any event, while the loss of life was tragic, Eagle was hardly a prime asset and damage to a fleet carrier, after the USN victory at Midway, was inconvenient but not crippling.

You're right about Eagle...

But the losses during Harpoon/Vigorous were not that heavy - especialy in terms of carriers and FAA planes. Pedestal lost 1 carrier, another 1 crippled; 2 light cruisers, 1 destroyer...

Harpoon/Vigorous resulted in the loss of 1 cruiser and 5 destroyers with 4 cruisers and 4 destroyers damaged, and these losses didn't deliver nearly the same tonnage as Pedestal.

OTOH, the Axis lost about 60-80 aircraft in attacks on these 3 convoys and the RM lost a cruiser, with damage to a battleship and 3 other cruisers, so it wasn't a completely one side affair.

[alecsandros]

Harpoon/Vigorous resulted in the loss of 1 cruiser and 5 destroyers with 4 cruisers and 4 destroyers damaged, and these losses didn't deliver nearly the same tonnage as Pedestal.

OTOH, the Axis lost about 60-80 aircraft in attacks on these 3 convoys and the RM lost a cruiser, with damage to a battleship and 3 other cruisers, so it wasn't a completely one side affair.

There were heavy losses for the Axis also -
During Pedestal alone the Axis lost at least 50 bombers due to all causes... For the 3 operations combined, the losses amounted to 90-100 planes...

My impression is that the Royal Navy's losses during Pedestal were larger than in the 2 previous operations... Eagle alone had 25000 tons. Manchester 9000 tons. Cairo 5000 tons.. Foresight 1500 tons. Plus Indomitable, Nigeria, Kenya badly damaged...

[aurora]

At 18.30, still on the 12th August, aircraft badly damaged "Indomitable" putting her out of action and destroyer "FORESIGHT" was torpedoed by an Italian bomber and scuttled next day. The main Royal Navy cover force next turned back at the entrance to the 100 mile wide Strait of Sicily. The convoy carried on, still with 13 of the original 14 merchantmen afloat and its close escort of four cruisers and 12 destroyers. Disaster struck soon after 20.00 to the northwest of Cape Bon.

Three out of the four cruisers were put out of action by Italian submarines. "Axum" and "Dessie" hit cruisers "Nigeria" and "Cairo" and the vital tanker "Ohio". "Alagi" torpedoed the "Kenya". "CAIRO" was scuttled and "Nigeria" headed back to Gibraltar. Around this time aircraft sank two transports. Cruiser "Charybdis" and two destroyers left the the main cover force and returned east to replace the lost ships. In the early hours of the 13th, the convoy was hugging the coast south of Cape Bon when Italian MTBs struck. Four merchantmen were sent to the bottom and the last of the original close escort cruisers, "MANCHESTER" was hit and scuttled.

Air attacks later that morning accounted for one more merchantman and disabled another which was finished off in the evening. And to add to the torpedo hit, "Ohio" loaded with its highly inflammable cargo was now damaged by bombs and a crashing Ju87 Stuka. Including her, just five ships were left. Now into the afternoon of the 13th, three reached Malta. The fourth struggled in next day, but the crippled "Ohio", lashed to destroyer "Penn", only made port on the 15th. (Capt Mason was awarded the George Cross.) By now the close escort had just returned to Gibraltar.

Earlier, an Italian cruiser force set out to add to the convoy's miseries, but turned for home. North of Sicily on the 13th it was sighted by submarine "Unbroken" (Lt A. C. G. Mars) and heavy cruiser "Bolzano" and light cruiser "Attendolo" torpedoed and damaged.

Only five out of fourteen transports had got through to Malta for the loss of one aircraft carrier, two cruisers and a destroyer sunk, and a carrier and two cruisers badly damaged. But the supplies delivered - and especially "Ohio's" oil - were enough to sustain Malta as an offensive base at a time critical to the coming Battle of El Alamein. More was still needed however, and only two days after "Ohio's" arrival, "Furious" flew off more Spitfires while submarines continued to make supply trips.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsRNMed2.htm

[pgollin]

.

So, Pedestal managed to provide sufficient supplies to keep Malta fed and her fighter and reconnaissance squadrons flying.

The Italian fleet failed to intervene.

-------------------

The RN KNEW there were going to be losses - but they went ahead anyway. You seem to think that war is about always inflicting losses and never suffering any - which is just weird.

Pedestal, despite the Italian revisionists' claims DID WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO. There is no doubt about that.

One of the reasons the success in getting the crippled Ohio through was regarded as "a miracle" was that without her the aircraft squadrons would have been reduced to minimal flying hours. BUT, Pedestal managed to get enough fuel through (the same applies although less marginally to the flour and AA ammunition which arrived).

There is no doubt that "it was a close run thing" - BUT that does not equate to a tactical defeat, despite revisionist claims.

.

[aurora]

QUOTE
"But the supplies delivered - and especially "Ohio's" oil - were enough to sustain Malta as an offensive base at a time critical to the coming Battle of El Alamein. More was still needed however"

Manxman and her sister ship plus submarines brought in further supplies to mitigate the shortfall.

[alecsandros]

But the supplies delivered - and especially "Ohio's" oil - were enough to sustain Malta as an offensive base at a time critical to the coming Battle of El Alamein. More was still needed however

Manxman and her sister ship plus submarines brought in the shortfall.

... And other subsequent carrier missions were required to deliver more Spitfires to the island.

[dunmunro]

Malta was an island. Even before the war it needed regular resupply...

[dunmunro]

QUOTE
"But the supplies delivered - and especially "Ohio's" oil - were enough to sustain Malta as an offensive base at a time critical to the coming Battle of El Alamein. More was still needed however"

Manxman and her sister ship plus submarines brought in further supplies to mitigate the shortfall.

I've already shown how this was a drop in the bucket compared to Pedestal. You're really grasping at straws here.