What if Germans reached Alexandria during late 1940

[GoldenState]

1939 and 40 progress much as OTL with two exceptions. Hitler persuades Mussolini to seize Malta immediately i.e. within hours of entering the war (better positioning for demanding new territory at a peace conference) and to allow a German participation in the invasion of Egypt in exchange for allowing an Italian invasion of Yugoslavia in September 1940 (a far higher priority for Italy).

As part of the plan - Bulgaria, Hungary and Germany demonstrate along the Yugoslavian border to keep Yugoslavian units tied down. Bulgaria and Hungary (and as evants unfold it, it seems perhaps the Greeks as well) plan to actually invade if they face a relative vacuum. The Italians are actually rather well suited to this campaign and might actually prevail on their own. If not Germany is still there to save them.

By September 1940 the Germans have deployed a force comparable to Rommel's OTL initial strength and by December a Panzer Corps somewhat stronger than OTL. In addition the Germans deploy a full Luftflotte made possible by an earlier abandonment of the battle of Britain. Perhaps even more important, the Germans dedicate an even larger number of supply trucks than OTL to be deployed ASAP.

The British were not particularly strong on the ground at this point in the war. Under these circumstances, I don't think they could have kept DAK out of Alexandria. And if the Germans took that Port, I think they would take Egypt to the Suez canal.

What happens next? It's a long supply chain from the Persian Gulf to Suez. Would the palestinian ports be of much use in this situation? Could the British mount much of an offensive or even defensive from Sudan? Could the Axis push down the Nile to save Italian East Africa and would that even be worth the trouble?

[pugsville]

How is Malta to be taken? While not defended that well, landing on the Island is hard very few beaches overlooked by cliffs mostly, and the Italians don't have landing craft. Rowing ashore in small boats is pretty dicey. The Royal Navy would also still be supported by the French Navy and still have a large advantage of the Italian Navy. The british Carriers also provided a significant edge. Relying on the Italians to win an aggressive Battle near Malta is iffy. Malta is not an easy target. A protracted air campaign or even a strong one would require building of airfields in Scilly and building up large fuel dumps.

The Over large Italian Army in North Africa was barely able to survive on the supply capacity of the Axis network (port capacity was the critical bottle neck). How do German troops get shipped in? All the boast and ports are creaking just supplying the Italian Army (it's destruction and capture would create the excess for Rommel to get shipped over as well as create the Political acceptance of the Italians. The Germans are unable to do anything inNorth Africa without the Italians, and until they get mauled they will not accept German help) The Italians are going to ship troops out of North Africa to create supply room coming in?

The time line is very Tight. The Panzers needed a refit after France, need to be shipped over, conditioned for the desert (air filters and such will break down quicker without it) and be driven 1,000 kilometres to the front line in Egypt needing another refit as the stress is large of driving tanks such a long way over bad ground. And need a large build up of supplies. All this takes time.

The British actually have quite a few troops hanging around the Middle East, a threat to the Suez would see more troops diverted there from around the place. Rommel's initial success was against a weakened over extended British forces at the End of a very long supply chain. If the Germans reinforced the Italians in late 1940 the better British forces reinforced fighting much near their own logistical base against the Italo-German forces fighting at the end of their much longer supply chain is a different proposition. Throughout the North African campaign there was signifiant advantage in fighting close to your base and far from your opponents.

If the Germans take Egypt and the Suez they will most likely have some large ports (some allied demolitions can be expected but there are a few ports so they will likely have some good capacity ). Projecting a large force across to the Gulf has numerous problems. The Ports of Palestine are not great, but would shorten the supply chain significantly.

The British could run a number of flank/guerrilla operations to damage Axis supply lines. There was a fair bit of co-operation with the Zionist forces in Palestine and preparation for guerrilla operations in the event of Axis forces arriving. Highly motivated and prepared they would have required a fair garrison of troops to deal with them. The LRDP and the Arab Legion would be Ideal forces to harass any truck convoy system running across the desert towards the Gulf. Unlike the Coastal highway along the North African coast there are lots of British bases north and south.

The Sudan was logistically incapable of supporting large forces. The British would struggle to support a large force operating against Egypt but it would have annoying value, it would be incapable of supporting a large Axis force going the other way (the British just have so much more shipping resources) Italian East Africa was worthless. In the Event of a threat to the Suez, British forces would likely be redeployed to defend the Suez.

distances.
Tripoli --> Cairo is 2000 kms
Cairo - Bagdad - 1800 kms
Haifa - Basra - 1600 kms.
Brest-Livosk - Moscow - 1000kms.

The Effective range of a truck logistics system was reckoned at 500kms. Beyond that it's increasingly marginal returns as more and more of the load capacity is absorbed carrying fuel for the trucks. North Africa and the Middle East truck lifespan was shorter than Europe the Roads were very bad. Maps were highly inaccurate.

[BDV]

My 2 cents on the topic is that if Adolf and Benito sit down in early July 1940, somehow having acquired a much better understanding of their predicament, and hammer a real alliance going forth, rather than the loose historical partnership, the Axis could have had a better showing than historical.

Whether this means Christmas in Alexandria, or on the Suez, is details. Without significant changes up top, and early, leading to changes in actions at a continent level, there can be no significant changes in historical outcome.

[GoldenState]

How is Malta to be taken? While not defended that well, landing on the Island is hard very few beaches overlooked by cliffs mostly, and the Italians don't have landing craft. Rowing ashore in small boats is pretty dicey. The Royal Navy would also still be supported by the French Navy and still have a large advantage of the Italian Navy. The british Carriers also provided a significant edge. Relying on the Italians to win an aggressive Battle near Malta is iffy. Malta is not an easy target. A protracted air campaign or even a strong one would require building of airfields in Scilly and building up large fuel dumps.

The Over large Italian Army in North Africa was barely able to survive on the supply capacity of the Axis network (port capacity was the critical bottle neck). How do German troops get shipped in? All the boast and ports are creaking just supplying the Italian Army (it's destruction and capture would create the excess for Rommel to get shipped over as well as create the Political acceptance of the Italians. The Germans are unable to do anything inNorth Africa without the Italians, and until they get mauled they will not accept German help) The Italians are going to ship troops out of North Africa to create supply room coming in?

The time line is very Tight. The Panzers needed a refit after France, need to be shipped over, conditioned for the desert (air filters and such will break down quicker without it) and be driven 1,000 kilometres to the front line in Egypt needing another refit as the stress is large of driving tanks such a long way over bad ground. And need a large build up of supplies. All this takes time.

The British actually have quite a few troops hanging around the Middle East, a threat to the Suez would see more troops diverted there from around the place. Rommel's initial success was against a weakened over extended British forces at the End of a very long supply chain. If the Germans reinforced the Italians in late 1940 the better British forces reinforced fighting much near their own logistical base against the Italo-German forces fighting at the end of their much longer supply chain is a different proposition. Throughout the North African campaign there was signifiant advantage in fighting close to your base and far from your opponents.

If the Germans take Egypt and the Suez they will most likely have some large ports (some allied demolitions can be expected but there are a few ports so they will likely have some good capacity ). Projecting a large force across to the Gulf has numerous problems. The Ports of Palestine are not great, but would shorten the supply chain significantly.

The British could run a number of flank/guerrilla operations to damage Axis supply lines. There was a fair bit of co-operation with the Zionist forces in Palestine and preparation for guerrilla operations in the event of Axis forces arriving. Highly motivated and prepared they would have required a fair garrison of troops to deal with them. The LRDP and the Arab Legion would be Ideal forces to harass any truck convoy system running across the desert towards the Gulf. Unlike the Coastal highway along the North African coast there are lots of British bases north and south.

The Sudan was logistically incapable of supporting large forces. The British would struggle to support a large force operating against Egypt but it would have annoying value, it would be incapable of supporting a large Axis force going the other way (the British just have so much more shipping resources) Italian East Africa was worthless. In the Event of a threat to the Suez, British forces would likely be redeployed to defend the Suez.

distances.
Tripoli --> Cairo is 2000 kms
Cairo - Bagdad - 1800 kms
Haifa - Basra - 1600 kms.
Brest-Livosk - Moscow - 1000kms.

The Effective range of a truck logistics system was reckoned at 500kms. Beyond that it's increasingly marginal returns as more and more of the load capacity is absorbed carrying fuel for the trucks. North Africa and the Middle East truck lifespan was shorter than Europe the Roads were very bad. Maps were highly inaccurate.

Yugoslavia was a much higher priority for the Italians as evidenced by the resources they dedicated to military preparations there at the expense of North Africa. As they demonstrated in Greece, there's not much limit to the cost Mussolini would pay for European real estate. Plenty of political capital to buy into a role in the battle in the desert.

Though reflecting a shocking lack of insight, Malta had obvious value to the Italians as a prestige target. By most accounts, at that point the Italians could pretty much have sailed destroyers into the harbor and unloaded. Remember that during this period the British considered the island indefensible and had written it off under such circumstances. And to clear up any misunderstandings, I envisioned that invasion to take place within hours of a declaration of war (no time for the British or French to effectively react with naval forces).

Indeed, the timeline on the ground was tight. So even with a more substantial commitment, in the early stage (IIRC Rommel was in Libya making himself ready for limited operations about three months after the initial decision to send a "blocking force much smaller than DAK became) Rommel has about what he did at the start of the 1941 campaign.

Remember we're talking about a large fraction of a division at the start. And a corps at the end. Cherry picking an adequate number of tanks from the factories and existing equipment (especially after a few weeks of maintenance) would not be a big challenge.

Ports and transport are of course a big challenge in the desert. People don't consume much in comparison to a mechanized force, so a substantial number of Italian infantry divisions were with and quite useful to DAK in OTL and would also be in OTL. Bottom line, if necessary to make a deal the Italians would move some divisions out of North Africa to make the deal. It just didn't rate much next to Yugoslavia or even Greece in OTL.

As I recall, in December the British had about three divisions in Egypt (including Indian) with a battalion of Matilda II's, one in Palestine and maybe three divisions in Iraq (that's probably a little high). Considerably less in September.

Even the British did not think that was a great line up, even against the Italians alone. It took some genius for the Italians to get beaten that badly. I believe it was Paulas who assessed that one panzer division would assure Italian success at that point in the war. I think he was right.

Even if we assume the Axis would have needed the benefit of inordinate luck, it does lead to an interesting scenario that I hope we can get some feed back on.

[AJFFM]

The British had enough forces (as well as allied forces including the Turks who had a treaty with the British and had territorial ambitions that the British would have not mind giving) in the middle east to stop anything the Germans through at them which would have been little since Hitler had one priority in the Autumn of 40, the USSR.

Plus the logistics of the campaign meant a long preparation, at least 1 year (which actually ended up being the case) during which the British brought in more troops from fortress Britain.

[GoldenState]

The British had enough forces (as well as allied forces including the Turks who had a treaty with the British and had territorial ambitions that the British would have not mind giving) in the middle east to stop anything the Germans through at them which would have been little since Hitler had one priority in the Autumn of 40, the USSR.

Plus the logistics of the campaign meant a long preparation, at least 1 year (which actually ended up being the case) during which the British brought in more troops from fortress Britain.

The Turks??? No way. No how. Especially not right after the fall of France. It doesn't matter what treaty you're alluding to.

As a matter of fact, the Turks were determined to remain neutral. However if this early in the war, you combine the Axis conquering Yugoslavia with a Greece possibly on the way to joining the axis and the Germans on the road to Alexandra with Suez and possibly beyond perceived to be in their grasp - and you have a Turkey that might join the Axis out of the instinct for self preservation.

A year of preperation? No one had a year. The British were on the offensive is December. Rommel was on the offensive with his initial forces a couple of months after that. If there wasn't so little in Britain to move over during September, they would have sent more. Next to defending Britain on the ground and in the Atlantic, North Africa was their highest priority.

[AJFFM]

The Turks were still bitter about Mosul and Aleppo both of which they considered a part of their original homeland so a sweet deal like that that gave them Alexandretta would turn them towards the allies which throughout the war they were very helpful to their cause.

And while there was not enough infantry in Egypt the British still had the sea and the sky as well as forces in Palestine and Iraq that can be transported to the front within days.

[pugsville]

Hmm the British had about 4 Divisions in Egypt in JUNE 1940. If threatened they could easily have had 7 or 8,
http://homepages.force9.net/rothwell/NA300640.htm

Egypt - 4 Divisions.- 7 Armored, 4th Indian, 6th Australian and bits of the 1st Calvary and 8th Infantry about a division with the odds and sods,
Palestine had the rest of the 1st Cavalry and 8 infantry, and 9th Australian another 2 divisions.
In Africa they had another 5 Divisions (2 African, 1 South African , 2 Indian)
the 8th Indian in the general middle east

Early in 1941 3 Other Divisions, 2nd Armored Division (jan) 7th Australian (feb) 10th Indian. If the Battle of Britain is called off, early with no invasion threat the 2nd Armored and 7th Australian would be released earlier. If pressed a division or two could be released form east Africa,

[Old_Fossil]

The problem with this WI is that it involves two separate PODs requiring both Hitler and Mussolini to act quite differently from what they did historically. Especially in the case of Mussolini who was envious of Hitler's successes and wanted glory for Italy (and himself). Allowing German troops to use Italian territory and logistical resources to affect a conquest of Egypt would be an admission of terrible weakness by Mussolini. Only the disasters of Greece and Operation Compass forced him to request German assistance. I have my own WI thread where I speculate that the earliest the Germans could intervene would be after the fall of Bardia on January 5th, 1940 with a suitable POD that gives the Germans the resources to save Tobruk from falling the British on January 22nd.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ave+tobruk

[pugsville]

The British forces are also at full strength well organized and supplied at the start of the Axis offensive in this What-if. A large part of the reasons for Rommel's early success was the exhausted and poor organization of the British forces at El Aghelia, In this what if the British have none of those disadvantages. Rommel just does not automatically win for being Rommel.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The problem with this WI is that it involves two separate PODs requiring both Hitler and Mussolini to act quite differently from what they did historically. ...

Acting quite differently includes both the Italians and Rommel managing their logistics with supernatural ability. The difficulty in automotive transport transporting supplies beyond 500 km has already been pointed out here. That diffciulty occurs where the automotive transport is already prepared and trained. In June 1940 the Italians were grossly underprepared for such a thing, and the Germans only a little better. The pause in the battle of France had a lot to do with restoration of the rail transport to resupply the armies assembling to attack south to Paris and beyond. Another logistics problem this runs up against is the abrupt DoW by Italy left the Italian cargo fleet in chaos. A very large portion was caught outside the Mediterranean including a large part of the most modern and fastest ships. The remaining fleet in the Med. was wholly unorganized for large scale miltiary support. The fast track proposed by this WI depends on the Italians performing a shipborne logistics feat that would have challenged the Brits at the peak of their skill.

Following all that Rommels short term approach to supply adds further friction and opportunity for failure.

[pugsville]

OK I have concerns that the POD is realistically achievable, but I made that piont and I'lll move on to what follows.

So the British are forced back to Palestine, with the 7th Armored, 4th Indian, 6th Australian Division , 2nd NZ mauled with vast losses of supplies and heavy weapons and supporting troops in hurried evacuation. The 9th Australian Division holds the Axis forces briefly at the canal but is pulled back. The British have 3 semi intact divisions (1st Cav, 8th Infantry and the 9th Australian) and 4 badly mauled (7th Arm, 6th Aus,4th Indian, 2nd Nz)

They still have 5 Divisions in East Africa and 4 divisions say in Iraq (2nd Arm, 7th Aus, 10th Ind, 8th Ind)

The forces in Palestine are in a bad spot, logistically Palestine is not a good area for rest and refit, They will be pulled back to the Gulf as a much better logistical base.

There is little threat in Iraq as the troops otherwise would have gone to Egypt would be building up and is plenty to cover Iraq (the short lived coup was quickly put down in real life , had no real support and just isnt a threat at all once substantial formations are in the region.

The East Africa campaign would continue and may be reinforced to reduce any threat to Aden (while there is no threat by sea or land, aircraft could be ferried from Egypt and pose a threat to shipping around Aden). This campaign took 6 months and around 7 allied divisions (and many extras) but from early 1941 the writing was on the wall pretty quickly that the Italian forces were doomed (though many fought well) A significant it intervention from Egypt would buy time, but I dont think likely to change much, Sudan isnt a great logistical base but the with vigour an d early success the British might be forced to abandon Sudan and redeploy the forces elsewhere in East Africa. Which could establish a small lifeline to Italian East Africa, but highly a high volume logistic link,

Does the Commonwealth take Syria now? It's a political question, real life 2-3 divisions 1 month for the campaign so ,militarily it could be accomplished before any threat from Egypt could develop and there are plenty of troops to do it. I dont think there is much prospect of the Syria Vichy working with the Germans, they noisily refused all help during the campaign. I also think they would resist fiercely any Axis move into Syria, (the pretext for the Allied invasion and occupation was allowing German aircraft to land and refuel on the way to Iraq)

The Axis have choices to make do they advance into Palestine, Sudan to "save" Italian East Africa (most likely delay), do they pressure Vichy Syria and seek to occupy it (unlikely)

[BDV]

Reach Alexandria does not mean take Alexandria. Experience at Dunkirk (and Warsaw prior, and later on Tallin, Sevastopol, Stalingrad) demonstrates that the germans had limited proficiency in city/built up area combat, while British had demonstrated reasonable ability to thwart the Wehrmacht.

After/if Alexandria is taken by ItaloGermans, Alexandria will be blockaded by the Royal Navy. Regia Marina will have to come out to fight, leading to a bloodbath.

[steverodgers801]

Considering how small the Axis forces were do they really have th manpower and logistical capacity to advance beyond Egypt??

[ljadw]

The answer is : not in a hundred years .It was excluded that they could cross the canal,and,there was also no reason for crossing the canal .