What if the Suez was reached by the A.Korps?

[Petterson]

There were no Eight Army units anywhere near the Persian Gulf. Iraq was a British mandate territory but formally independent, and Persia was fully independent until 1942, where it was jointly occupied by Soviet and British forces.

The British also had the Ninth and Tenth armies in Syria and Palestine. In fact some of the largest British troop concentrations in one place at least until 1943.

Tel me a few thing! Wasn`t the British Tenth army mainly in Iraq an some elments of it in Iran? So therefore elements of the Ninth army were in Palestine and Syria.

[Von Schadewald]

Assuming that Suez falls and Rommel gets another division or even two. What do the Allies do next? What does the Axis do next?

(Post edited to remove off-topic elements. Tim Smith.)

[Petterson]

Assuming that Suez falls and Rommel gets another division or even two. What do the Allies do next? What does the Axis do next?

(Post edited to remove off-topic elements. Tim Smith.)

The Axis would of course their organise their supply lines. Although Rommel`s were from July to autumn 1942 in El Alamein their supplies came usually as far as from Western Libya. Therefore organising the supply lines would had been important.

[Roddoss72]

One thing everyone is forgetting, Egyptian General Anwar Sedat was a fervant supporter of the Axis, but for political and strategic reasons allied himself with the British, but say we throw this into the equation, General Anwar Sedat achieves a coup in Cairo by arresting the British High Command this is carried out with the Egyptian Army (but the forces under the command of Auchinleck/Montgomery evacuate through the Sudan and escape capture), who have now switched to the Axis, his incentive is that Germany and Italy have promised full independence of Egypt (which does happen in this time line), General Anwar Sedat orders that the Egyptian Armed forces join up with Rommel's DAK, and Vichy French Forces in The Lebanon and Syria throw thier lot in with the growing Axis forces, once the eastern Mediterranean is under the full control of Axis forces, i think that the growing senario is this

1, Italy (Army, Air Force & Navy), Vichy France (Air Force & Navy), Germany (Air Force & Army) begin a campaign to rid the rest of the Mediterranean of British influece 1, a co-ordinated assualt on Malta then 2, Gibraltar.

2, After a bloody campaign the Axis forces do indeed capture the western Mediterranean thus securing the entire Mediterranean and have a force of German, Italian, Vichy French & Spannish forces entrenched in Morrocco/Western Sahara.

To be continued.

[Von Schadewald]

If even 10% of the German Eastern front forces had been sent to Rommel, and assuming he took Palestine, Vichy Syria, and Cyprus by airborne assault, to what defence line would the surviving Allies have retreated: to the Turkish border or Mesopotamia? Were the Suez Abu Rudeis oil fields known about in 1942? Would Rommel have gone for the Kirkuk, Saudi or Gulf fields? A lot would have depended on the Japanese sealing off the Red Sea & Indian Ocean with submarines.

[Jon G.]

10% of German EF forces equals 15 divisions. The reasons why the DAK was not any larger than its historical size have been explained time and again on this forum, including page one of this thread. Why do you keep asking what would happen if Rommel had larger forces? You seem to treat the what-if forum as a playground of sorts, a place where everything goes and you can ask the same questions about what might have happened if only the DAK had been larger again and again.

[Von Schadewald]

Doesn't "shrek" mean "nightmare" in German? "He is just like his name" (I Samuel 25:25).
How about 2%? A measly 2% to win the war. Why was Hitler so parsimonious?

[Jon G.]

Almost. You didn't answer my question however. Yours has been responded to negatively several times, so why do you keep asking it?

[Tim Smith]

Even if the Axis took the entire Mediterranean it wouldn't be enough to win the war. Compared to the Eastern Front and later the Western Front in France, Africa was a sideshow. Germany only sent troops to prevent Italy exiting the war in 1941.

The Med theatre was always Italy's war, not Germany's. Best case scenario for the Axis is that the British offer Mussolini a separate peace and a major expansion of the Italian empire in return for an Italian ceasefire and the expulsion of German forces from Italian-held territory. After which the Allies remain at war with Germany.

[Roddoss72]

Even if the Axis took the entire Mediterranean it wouldn't be enough to win the war. Compared to the Eastern Front and later the Western Front in France, Africa was a sideshow. Germany only sent troops to prevent Italy exiting the war in 1941.

The Med theatre was always Italy's war, not Germany's. Best case scenario for the Axis is that the British offer Mussolini a separate peace and a major expansion of the Italian empire in return for an Italian ceasefire and the expulsion of German forces from Italian-held territory. After which the Allies remain at war with Germany.

True enough but with Egypt and its oil fields in Axis hands, and the eventual capture of the Palestinian/Syrian/Trans-Jordanian area, this would put great pressure on Turkey to enter the war on the Axis side, thus allowing the entraining of Axis forces through Turkey to launch a second offensive front through the Caucasus, and if the DAK can capture Iraq and its oil fields then the DAK can be supplied with the fuel it needs to head north to capture the Baku oil fields, and deprived of its main oil production and fuel supply the Soviets would find it difficult to keep the war machine going, and what of Britain, with the Mediterannean captured (and the eventual capture of Gibraltar and Maltar) and that supply route out of the equation, yes British supplies would have to come around the South African Cape, but if the Italian, Vichy and German Navies have bases located along the Western Sahara, that could effectivly block that route as well.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen Groscurth and the community as a whole. Well EVERYONE, in general reference to citizen Groscurth's introductory posting of Monday - March 15, 2004 - 1:19am, old Uncle Bob was wondering how the Germans and the Italians were going to permanently wrest control of the Suez Canal without leaving a sizable garrison to occupy the northern tier of Egypt. Such an Axis garrison would certainly have to be adequately equipped and supported to repel or contain a potential Allied ground and seaborne counterattack emanating from the Sudan and the Rea Sea. Assuming that the Axis is in tenuous control of the central and eastern Mediterranean Sea and is in a position to logistically support such a sizable Egyptian occupation force through the Port of Alexandria, then what HEAVY ground combat units would Germany and Italy have to spare to protect BOTH its geopolitical gains in Egypt AND the southern flank of the Axis invasion force slated for the crossing of the Suez Canal into Asia? Given their spotty combat record on the continent of Africa, could OR would the German armed forces entrust the Italian armed forces with the total security of northern Egypt? Finally, given the overwhelming demand for combat engineers and their specialized equipment on the Eastern Front, would the Axis invasion force slated for the crossing of the Suez Canal into Asia have the proper technical resources to assault and breech the Allied defenses on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal? I must AND will assume (rightly OR wrongly) that a considerable number of organic German and Italian combat engineers would have taken considerable casualties during the PREVIOUS assault and breeching of the Allied defenses on the Nile River. And remember folks, unlike the open-ended flank of the upper Nile River, the Suez Canal has a finite frontage to defend. In effect, it would be a rehash of the Battle of El Alamein (or Al Alamayn if you so prefer) with a banked water barrier thrown in for good measure. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt if the Germans and the Italians would have the wherewithal to successfully force the Suez Canal barrier. So, what say all of you - especially you combat engineer types who might be reading this little blurb? It's just some sobering food for thought. Well, that's my two initial cents, pence or pfennigs worth on this vintage topic - for now anyway. In anycase, I would like to bid the overall readership of this thread a copacetic day no matter where you just might happen to find yourselves on Terra Firma.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[Jon G.]

Uncle Bob, I think you are correct in identifying holding the Suez as an entirely different matter than taking it. Even if Rommel had been able to make it all the way to Cairo with the forces he historically had under command, odds are that he would have been pushed back again eventually. There were very considerable British and Commonwealth forces in Palestine and Iraq, not to mention the Indian army and forces from South and West Africa.

For Rommel to both take and hold the Canal zone, I think that the historical events of 1) Rashid Ali's coup in Iraq and 2) Japan attacking British possessions in Asia should happen in near-perfect synch with an Axis push on Egypt. That might tie down British and Commonwealth reinforcements at a time when they are needed the most - but here I am presupposing a most un-historical coordination of Axis war plans.

Probably, for this scenario to succeed, Japan should refrain from attacking Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, striving to avoid war with the US. Japan's war aims would then be to cut off the Burma Road and secure oil from the Dutch East Indies by coercion, or annexation following Britain's exit from the war, rather than by attacking the Dutch colonies directly.

Additionally, some non-historical events would greatly facilitate an Axis advance on Egypt, namely 3) Turkey joining the Axis, preferably followed by an Axis invasion of Cyprus, 4) The Vichy-held Levant siding fully with the Axis, and finally, 5) The Italian Navy gaining control of the Mediterranean sealanes. 3) may not be completely out of the question, but 4) would have to happen prior to June 1941 (probably in conjunction with 1) ), and 2) should be pushed forward in time so as to happen sometime in the autumn of 1941. Ousting the Royal Navy from the Med. would remain a problem with Malta and Gibraltar still on British hands, as well as naval bases at Haïfa and Aden.

If all five preconditions I mentioned here were met, I think the Axis might have had a legitimate shot at making the Mediterranean an Axis Mare Nostrum - but it would be such a large undertaking especially for the German air force that Barbarossa would have been out of the question in 1941.

[Von Schadewald]

An airborne drop by the Folfore & Green Devils on Haifa (glorious oil tanks) or Beirut might then have been of avail.

[Robert Rojas]

Greetings to both citizen von Schadewald and the community as a whole. Well V.S., in reference to your posting of Saturday - October 15, 2005 - 4:54pm, old Uncle Bob was (and is) curious over the technical practicality of your brief suggestion to launch twin airborne strikes on the municipalities of Haifa and Beirut. If, as if this WHAT IF scenario would infer, the Axis is to nominally control the central and eastern Medierranean Sea, then would it not be safe to assume that the island of Malta must be stormed before the Axis invasion of Egypt? And if this is the case, would not the Italian Falgore Airborne Division and the surviving remnants of the German Fallschirmjager Corps be fully committed to the storming of the island of Malta? And not unlike the previous Axis "victory" on the island of Crete, would Malta also be an operation which would inevitably result in a ghastly casualty rate for the attackers that are falling from the sky? In short, given their hypothetical casualty rate during the Malta operation, what Axis airborne forces would be available for your independent raids on the municipalities of Haifa and Beirut during the projected Axis invasion of the Sinai peninsula? Finally, will the Italian Navy have the wherewithal to extricate the Axis airborne raiders once their tactical objectives have been met? It's just some sobering food for thought. Well, that's my latest two cents, pence or pfennigs on this bizarre subject - for now anyway. As always, I would like to bid you a copacetic day over in your little corner of the historical powder keg of Europe.

Best Regards,
Uncle Bob

[TRose]

i remember reading that Admiral Raider had suggested Germany pursue a Southern(Mediterean) strategy to defeat the British commonwealth even befor the Battle of Britian. Now if we can asume that Hitler had taken Admiral Raiders advice( A really big iff, considering Goering would be yelling and screaming all the way) And had gotten the Africa Korp past Mussolini's ego to support the Italian 1940 ofensive I think that there would be a good chance to reach the Suez canal. And then you have a big if.The biggest advantage would be that Axis submarines would then have an easy and short trip to the Indian ocean further stretching the Royal Navy.Wether this would be the straw that broke the British at Sea I cant say.