WWII: What navy controlled the Mediterranean during the North African Campaign?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Inspired by the question about the Strait of Gibraltar, I wondered how Germany was able to get troops to North Africa, given the naval power of Britain? Based upon this question, I would doubt that they went through Turkey. The Wikipedia article was interesting, but did not mention how and where German forces arrived. Were they able to use ports in Italian controlled Libya? Even still, why didn't Britain, simply sink the German vessels? If Italy controlled the Mediterranean, how was Britain able land troops?
What navy controlled the Mediterranean during the North African Campaign?
world-war-two north-africa
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Inspired by the question about the Strait of Gibraltar, I wondered how Germany was able to get troops to North Africa, given the naval power of Britain? Based upon this question, I would doubt that they went through Turkey. The Wikipedia article was interesting, but did not mention how and where German forces arrived. Were they able to use ports in Italian controlled Libya? Even still, why didn't Britain, simply sink the German vessels? If Italy controlled the Mediterranean, how was Britain able land troops?
What navy controlled the Mediterranean during the North African Campaign?
world-war-two north-africa
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
3
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
1
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Inspired by the question about the Strait of Gibraltar, I wondered how Germany was able to get troops to North Africa, given the naval power of Britain? Based upon this question, I would doubt that they went through Turkey. The Wikipedia article was interesting, but did not mention how and where German forces arrived. Were they able to use ports in Italian controlled Libya? Even still, why didn't Britain, simply sink the German vessels? If Italy controlled the Mediterranean, how was Britain able land troops?
What navy controlled the Mediterranean during the North African Campaign?
world-war-two north-africa
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Inspired by the question about the Strait of Gibraltar, I wondered how Germany was able to get troops to North Africa, given the naval power of Britain? Based upon this question, I would doubt that they went through Turkey. The Wikipedia article was interesting, but did not mention how and where German forces arrived. Were they able to use ports in Italian controlled Libya? Even still, why didn't Britain, simply sink the German vessels? If Italy controlled the Mediterranean, how was Britain able land troops?
What navy controlled the Mediterranean during the North African Campaign?
world-war-two north-africa
world-war-two north-africa
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
asked 5 hours ago
Tom
241
241
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
3
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
1
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
3
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
1
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
3
3
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
1
1
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The British Navy by-and-large had control of the Mediterranean. However, there were some caveats.
- The successful German invasions of Greece and Crete showed that land-based command of the air trumped ship-based command of the seas. This meant the British could not safely enforce a naval blockade within easy reach of significant land-based airfields.
- With apologies to Douglass Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the ocean. Couple this with a less than limitless supply of ships, and its just not possible to make any blockade airtight.
What that in mind, it was quite possible for the Axis to keep a limited amount of troops supplied in North Africa by running the blockade with individual ships, and accepting the occasional loss. This was typically done as near as I can tell between Italian and Libyan ports (particularly Tobruk and Benghazi), with the main hazard being the need to skirt Malta and avoid British patrols.
Of course the more troops sent to North Africa, and the more offensive operations they engaged in, the more supplies would have to be run across, and the greater chance of the British being able to find and destroy most of them. So there would logically be a point of diminishing returns. Rommel was constantly running himself into supply problems, and there is a debate to this day about weather he would have been better off with a more defensive approach that didn't strain his supply chain so heavily.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The British Navy by-and-large had control of the Mediterranean. However, there were some caveats.
- The successful German invasions of Greece and Crete showed that land-based command of the air trumped ship-based command of the seas. This meant the British could not safely enforce a naval blockade within easy reach of significant land-based airfields.
- With apologies to Douglass Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the ocean. Couple this with a less than limitless supply of ships, and its just not possible to make any blockade airtight.
What that in mind, it was quite possible for the Axis to keep a limited amount of troops supplied in North Africa by running the blockade with individual ships, and accepting the occasional loss. This was typically done as near as I can tell between Italian and Libyan ports (particularly Tobruk and Benghazi), with the main hazard being the need to skirt Malta and avoid British patrols.
Of course the more troops sent to North Africa, and the more offensive operations they engaged in, the more supplies would have to be run across, and the greater chance of the British being able to find and destroy most of them. So there would logically be a point of diminishing returns. Rommel was constantly running himself into supply problems, and there is a debate to this day about weather he would have been better off with a more defensive approach that didn't strain his supply chain so heavily.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
The British Navy by-and-large had control of the Mediterranean. However, there were some caveats.
- The successful German invasions of Greece and Crete showed that land-based command of the air trumped ship-based command of the seas. This meant the British could not safely enforce a naval blockade within easy reach of significant land-based airfields.
- With apologies to Douglass Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the ocean. Couple this with a less than limitless supply of ships, and its just not possible to make any blockade airtight.
What that in mind, it was quite possible for the Axis to keep a limited amount of troops supplied in North Africa by running the blockade with individual ships, and accepting the occasional loss. This was typically done as near as I can tell between Italian and Libyan ports (particularly Tobruk and Benghazi), with the main hazard being the need to skirt Malta and avoid British patrols.
Of course the more troops sent to North Africa, and the more offensive operations they engaged in, the more supplies would have to be run across, and the greater chance of the British being able to find and destroy most of them. So there would logically be a point of diminishing returns. Rommel was constantly running himself into supply problems, and there is a debate to this day about weather he would have been better off with a more defensive approach that didn't strain his supply chain so heavily.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The British Navy by-and-large had control of the Mediterranean. However, there were some caveats.
- The successful German invasions of Greece and Crete showed that land-based command of the air trumped ship-based command of the seas. This meant the British could not safely enforce a naval blockade within easy reach of significant land-based airfields.
- With apologies to Douglass Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the ocean. Couple this with a less than limitless supply of ships, and its just not possible to make any blockade airtight.
What that in mind, it was quite possible for the Axis to keep a limited amount of troops supplied in North Africa by running the blockade with individual ships, and accepting the occasional loss. This was typically done as near as I can tell between Italian and Libyan ports (particularly Tobruk and Benghazi), with the main hazard being the need to skirt Malta and avoid British patrols.
Of course the more troops sent to North Africa, and the more offensive operations they engaged in, the more supplies would have to be run across, and the greater chance of the British being able to find and destroy most of them. So there would logically be a point of diminishing returns. Rommel was constantly running himself into supply problems, and there is a debate to this day about weather he would have been better off with a more defensive approach that didn't strain his supply chain so heavily.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
The British Navy by-and-large had control of the Mediterranean. However, there were some caveats.
- The successful German invasions of Greece and Crete showed that land-based command of the air trumped ship-based command of the seas. This meant the British could not safely enforce a naval blockade within easy reach of significant land-based airfields.
- With apologies to Douglass Adams, the ocean is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to the ocean. Couple this with a less than limitless supply of ships, and its just not possible to make any blockade airtight.
What that in mind, it was quite possible for the Axis to keep a limited amount of troops supplied in North Africa by running the blockade with individual ships, and accepting the occasional loss. This was typically done as near as I can tell between Italian and Libyan ports (particularly Tobruk and Benghazi), with the main hazard being the need to skirt Malta and avoid British patrols.
Of course the more troops sent to North Africa, and the more offensive operations they engaged in, the more supplies would have to be run across, and the greater chance of the British being able to find and destroy most of them. So there would logically be a point of diminishing returns. Rommel was constantly running himself into supply problems, and there is a debate to this day about weather he would have been better off with a more defensive approach that didn't strain his supply chain so heavily.
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
answered 2 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
72k9157292
72k9157292
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
Tripoli was, and remains, a much more substantial port than either Benghazi or Tobruk.It was also much less vulnerable to Allied air power, as only perpetually undersupplied Malta could interdict supplies to and from it. "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, ...."
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
The British were far less dominant in the Central Med, particularly after the Luftwaffe started patrolling it. Operation Pedestal is a dramatic example. It was a late 1942 attempt to resupply Malta. The obsolete carrier Eagle flew off aircraft, and was sunk by a submarine. The convoy took serious losses, and the vital tanker arrived in Malta lashed to a destroyer.
– David Thornley
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Tom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tom is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49226%2fwwii-what-navy-controlled-the-mediterranean-during-the-north-african-campaign%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Interesting question - thanks! Just a quick knee-jerk comment... air power played a key role in the North African Campaign and control of the Mediterranean , not just naval surface power.
– Kerry L
5 hours ago
3
Recommended reading : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Mediterranean . Question should be closed, because very little prior research was done.
– rs.29
4 hours ago
1
@rs.29 Tom did show some research by reviewing the North Africa Campaign Wiki, he just missed the boat (sorry) a bit by failing to search further for Mediterranean topics. The See Also section of the North African Campaign wiki could be improved with a link to the Battle of Mediterranean article you pointed out. But to your point, yes - simple search to find that, so VtC.
– Kerry L
4 hours ago