Little Hawk:

My father served in the Royal Navy in WW2 on LSTs (the 3,00 tonne tank landing ships). He was present at all the major opposed landings in Africa, the Med and NW Europe, and at many smaller affairs that were never reported. He never talked about his experiences until late in life. The bits he told me suggest that seaborne landings are never ever a pushover and are far bloodier, more expensive and messier affairs than any of the news/propaganda, current or historical, would have us believe.

The first landings were completely chaotic and even by the end of the war with loads of experience, better support and a weakened enemy, there was a very high attrition rate in men and ships.

Dad served on a relatively modern (for its day) american-built ship with at least a token level of escort and air cover at the big landings, though usually not at the smaller ones. Although built in america the defensive armament was to Admiralty spec, consisting of an ancient 1914 Canadian Pacific 4" gun and about 4 small anti aircraft guns. They regularly got hammered on the beaches and on their way there and back. Forget the opposing artillery air forces and naval units, the passive beach defences (which could never be cleared effectively) probably did most damage. Beaching was very like the charge of the light brigade, going at full ahead toward hurdles of obstacles and mines, watching sister ships blow up alongside in the race to the beach, whilst the proper warships sat safely out to sea (as they must) bombarding farms and cattle and the occsional enemy. Dad (and the ship) were very lucky to survive the war.

With this in mind I can't believe that the Germans could have pulled off a successful seaborne invasion of Malta in 1941 with the levels of equipment, training and protection they then enjoyed.   

I never entirely believe what military historians tell us.

AB