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

[kfbr392]

Shrek, you are assuming Rommel could not have reached El Alamein before July 1942, the historical date, when it was too late to conquer Egypt.

But you are ignoring the opportunities available to Rommel in the Battles of Operation Battleaxe (June 1941) and Operation Crusader (November 1941). Historically, Battleaxe was a draw, with high British losses but little territorial advantage to either side. Crusader was a British victory that relieved Tobruk, recaptured Cyrenaica, and drove the Afrika Korps all the way back to El Agheila, right where they'd started.

If Rommel had won both these battles then he might have taken Tobruk in July 1941 and reached El Alamein by September. The Battle of El Alamein could then take place in November 1941 - and if Rommel won that then he'd be in Cairo by Christmas 1941.

I wonder what the British would have done after an Axis capture of Suez, Cairo and Port Said...
Would they have
1.) withdrawn all naval assets to the Red Sea before Rommel got to Suez?
2.) withdrawn most forces from Palestine and Cyprus ... or tried to build a front in Gaza and supply it from Basrah?
3.) established their new main front on the Red Sea, much easier supplied than Palestine?

And how many Axis troops would have been freed on the Balkans with the entire eastern Med in axis hands?
Would this have been a major benefit to the Eastern Front?

[Roddoss72]

There is the mention of the difficulties in maintaining a military presence with Egypt with garrison units, this would not be the case when the Egyptian Army led By Gerneral Anwar el Sedat goes completely Axis, military law and order would be maintained by the Egyptian Army with the help of a small contingeant of German and Italian military police.

Once the Suez is under control, Britain can not continue to maintain RN bases in Palestine and Cyprus, they would have to be evacuated westward to either bolster Malta or Gibraltar, i see that eventually Malta would fall as it is to difficult to resupply her once the Axis curtain goes up. To which the Germans and Italians decide to take her and make her a strongly defended Axis naval base of operations.

Turkey is mentioned, i considered this option, but after thinking about i rejected Turkey's involvement, she can remain truelly neutral, once Axis forces have gained the central and eastern Mediterannean they can of course deploy troop convoys to Alexandria and other major ports.

[kfbr392]

I am certain that any Axis position in North Africa and Middle East was dependent on a German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Western Allies would have always be able to put more men and materiel at shore in Egypt, Iraq, Algeria etc. than the Axis.

But two torpedos worth 50.000 RM could sink an Allied ship and its cargo worth 25.000.000 RM and at that ratio the enormous indestructible US production capabilities would have been negated, even if the allies had built 19 million tons of shipping a year for a decade.

The U-boats of Type VII and IX were however hampered by their surface vulnerability (detection and attack from the air and detection by destroyers), slow underwater speed (in convoy approach and destroyer evasion) and low field of observation (finding the convoys optically)

That means:
Only through
- long range naval areal recon (FW200, Ju 290 or better) with ASV radar sets and preferably high speed and high altitude capabilities carrying in some cases guided weapons
- u-boats (preferably of a 700-900t, true fast underwater type like the Type 29B2) with secure encrypted communications
in sufficient numbers could any Axis victory over the Western Allies have been achieved.

[Roddoss72]

I am certain that any Axis position in North Africa and Middle East was dependent on a German victory in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Western Allies would have always be able to put more men and materiel at shore in Egypt, Iraq, Algeria etc. than the Axis.

But two torpedos worth 50.000 RM could sink an Allied ship and its cargo worth 25.000.000 RM and at that ratio the enormous indestructible US production capabilities would have been negated, even if the allies had built 19 million tons of shipping a year for a decade.

The U-boats of Type VII and IX were however hampered by their surface vulnerability (detection and attack from the air and detection by destroyers), slow underwater speed (in convoy approach and destroyer evasion) and low field of observation (finding the convoys optically)

That means:
Only through
- long range naval areal recon (FW 200, Ju 290 or better) with ASV radar sets and preferably high speed and high altitude capabilities carrying in some cases guided weapons
- u-boats (preferably of a 700-900t, true fast underwater type like the Type 29B2) with secure encrypted communications
in sufficient numbers could any Axis victory over the Western Allies have been achieved.

And yet at one point in time of WW2 they almost brought Britain to her knees, the main fault of the Germans was that they actually persisted with Z-Plan way past its used by date. Hitler was a coward in regards to the sea, even he aknowledges this, from the get go, once Germany was preparing for war Hitler should have scrapped Z-Plan before it got off the ground and allowed Großadmiral Karl Dönitz to build at least three times more U-Boats ready at wars beginning imagine the Germans had approximately 100 U-Boats out in the Atlantic ready to go onto full unrestricted sea war, like Blitzkrieg of the sea with hundreds of thousands of sea tonnage being sunk in the opening months of the war, not only that but we have dozens of U-Boats laying in wait off the vital home ports sinking thousands of tonnes of ships of the Royal Navy, imagine say inthe first few monts alone Britain loses up to 100 destroyers and light cruisers, plus throw in two or three aircraft carriers and half a dozen batleships to boot and this is kept up as the British at the time havent got the technology to render the U-Boat menace dead. Can you imagine the German ship yards at the start of the war pumping out U-Boats at the rate of say 15 a week, in due to no capital ship building programmes.

[Jon G.]

...Can you imagine the German ship yards at the start of the war pumping out U-Boats at the rate of say 15 a week, in due to no capital ship building programmes.

Can you imagine how long it would have taken to make all those U-Boats operational? Specifically, the Z Plan (which still made allowance for U-Boats) was approved in January 1939, and scrapped again in December 1939.

[Roddoss72]

...Can you imagine the German ship yards at the start of the war pumping out U-Boats at the rate of say 15 a week, in due to no capital ship building programmes.

Can you imagine how long it would have taken to make all those U-Boats operational? Specifically, the Z Plan (which still made allowance for U-Boats) was approved in January 1939, and scrapped again in December 1939.

Yes i can Germany, can you imagine the Z-Plan being killed off before it was approved and that Germany concentating on the destruction of Britains commerce via the sea at the get go, and within one year having 400 boats in service by mid 1940 150 in the north atlantic and another 120 off Britains coastal waters, while having another 130 in reserve.

[Jon G.]

So it is your contention that ~11 months of no Z-Plan would leave Germany with about then times as many oceangoing submarines as she historically had in mid-1940? I'd be interested to see that contention underpinned with, to paraphrase you, 'facts and figures'; as an exercise in thread necromancy, the re-raising of this topic could be interesting, but at least try and keep it on-topic, yeah?

[Tim Smith]

See: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17055&hilit=surface+ships+submarines
thread on extra U-boats early in the war by not building several large German warships.

Germany would have to cancel not only the Z-plan ships, but earlier ships like Bismarck.

[LWD]

And it does not address the number of slips or the British reaction to this program.

[Roddoss72]

See: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17055&hilit=surface+ships+submarines
thread on extra U-boats early in the war by not building several large German warships.

Germany would have to cancel not only the Z-plan ships, but earlier ships like Bismarck.

Yes in my assertions it would meaning the cancellation of all capital ships after January 1939, and scrapping those already in the slipways, this would be offset by the building of up to 100 U-Boat slipways throughout Germany. With all that steel that will not be going to the capital ship prgrammes it is redistributed to the U-Boat slipways. So in effect their is no Bismarck, Tirpitz, Graf Zeppelin Hitler sees the folly of the German High Sea Fleet Mark 2, Hilter want's a pure unrestriced commerce war against Britain and decides that blockading Britain with several hundred U-Boast it the way to go.

[PeterOT]

There is the mention of the difficulties in maintaining a military presence with Egypt with garrison units, this would not be the case when the Egyptian Army led By Gerneral Anwar el Sedat goes completely Axis, military law and order would be maintained by the Egyptian Army with the help of a small contingeant of German and Italian military police.

Who????

[Tim Smith]

See: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17055&hilit=surface+ships+submarines
thread on extra U-boats early in the war by not building several large German warships.

Germany would have to cancel not only the Z-plan ships, but earlier ships like Bismarck.

Yes in my assertions it would meaning the cancellation of all capital ships after January 1939...

Actually the decision to concentrate on U-boat production would need to be taken as far back as January 1936 in order for Germany to have sufficient U-boats 4 years later. Bismarck was laid down on 1 July 1936, and Tirpitz on 20 October 1936.

A four-year time period allows time for the slips to be built, Type II training boats to be built first, then the Type VII U-boats to be built, and also lots of time for the training programme redirected from surface ships to U-boats, and to train the crews.

[kfbr392]

I'd be interested to see that contention underpinned with, to paraphrase you, 'facts and figures'; as an exercise in thread necromancy, the re-raising of this topic could be interesting, but at least try and keep it on-topic, yeah?

So whats wrong with thread necromancy? Nothing! It is preferable to starting a second thread with the same topic. The necromancer has at least thoroughly searched the forum...
But, yeah, lets try to stay on topic, and I apologize for talking the thread into the Battle of the Atlantic.

So, again:
I wonder what the British would have done after an Axis capture of Suez, Cairo and Port Said...
Would they have
1.) withdrawn all naval assets to the Red Sea before Rommel got to Suez?
2.) withdrawn most forces from Palestine and Cyprus ... or tried to build a front in Gaza and supply it from Basrah?
3.) established their new main front on the Red Sea, much easier supplied than Palestine?

And how many Axis troops would have been freed on the Balkans with the entire eastern Med in axis hands?
Would this have been a major benefit to the Eastern Front?

[Roddoss72]

I'd be interested to see that contention underpinned with, to paraphrase you, 'facts and figures'; as an exercise in thread necromancy, the re-raising of this topic could be interesting, but at least try and keep it on-topic, yeah?

So whats wrong with thread necromancy? Nothing! It is preferable to starting a second thread with the same topic. The necromancer has at least thoroughly searched the forum...
But, yeah, lets try to stay on topic, and I apologize for talking the thread into the Battle of the Atlantic.

So, again:
I wonder what the British would have done after an Axis capture of Suez, Cairo and Port Said...
Would they have
1.) withdrawn all naval assets to the Red Sea before Rommel got to Suez?
2.) withdrawn most forces from Palestine and Cyprus ... or tried to build a front in Gaza and supply it from Basrah?
3.) established their new main front on the Red Sea, much easier supplied than Palestine?

And how many Axis troops would have been freed on the Balkans with the entire eastern Med in axis hands?
Would this have been a major benefit to the Eastern Front?

I.) i agree with this, but i think with an expanded Luftwaffe and Royal Italian Air Force the Royal Navy would have to relocate to the Persian Gulf.
2.) i have to say that in this the British would have to evacuate Cyprus of face the real posibility of being trapped and no chance of resupply, even setting up a front in Gaza means nothing, the Axis now in control of the Eastern Med can bypass Gaza and land Axis forces further up into Asyria and then form a pincir of those allied troops in Palestine, but they can begin to lay massive minefields within the Sinai (sic), thus at least slowing the advancement, but not stopping it.
3.) Red Sea becomes the great Red Sea Turkey Shoot, Luftwaffe and RA aircraft based along Egypt's coast line virtually can attack any shipping there at their whim, the Red Sea is far to narrow to have any large naval units. No the Red Sea is out of the question.

Well IIRC that up to 25 to 35 divisions can be spared, they being the German 1st (Southern France), 12th (Balkans) and 19th (Southern France) Armies, then we have the Italian 10th and 11th Armies (Both Balkans) and by this stage if they can be spared with available transports at least 4 airborne divisions, in this there would be no fewer than 10 axis panzer/panzer-grenadier divisions. These units were not on the Eastern Front and as so would not be missed.

But the Axis won't need that many, Rommel pleaded with Hitler that with 1 extra panzer and 3 infantry divisions he could eradicate the British out of North Africa permanently, and once this has been achieved the Italians can effectively re-supply the eastern med without interference from the RN and RAF.

What i am saying is that the Axis can land troops in Assyria and then once in place they and Rommel cut off the allies in Palestine, destroy them and then mop up whats left in Saudia Arabia, while Iraq freeed from the British goes over to the Axis, the British are under so much strain that it has no choice but to pull back to Iran, but then again we have the situation of the Russians being there, but in such small numbers that Rommel just pushes them aside and roll on into the Caucasus, seizing every oil installation that the Soviets have and after several months when the Italian and Roumanian engineers have brought them on line, Hitler has a major oil supply under his belt, Soviet Union is now fighting on two fronts, one comming in from underneath east of the caspian Sea and swinning into the rear echelon of the Soviet front lines, while the Axis on the main eastern front has eliminated all resistance west of the River Volga.

Then with no access to oil the Soviet war machine gradually grinds to a halt. Soviet Union can not be supplied in the north as Murmansk and Archangel are both taken, and supply through the middle east is cut off, now in axis hands. Once this has been achieved then the Axis begins to rectify a major sore and that is to eleiminate the British once and for all in the western Med, although no real match the Italian Navy throws everything it has against Force H, at the same time the Germans and Italians begin moving troops into NW Africa.

[kfbr392]

I.) i agree with this, but i think with an expanded Luftwaffe and Royal Italian Air Force the Royal Navy would have to relocate to the Persian Gulf.

I concurr. The RN will probably bombard Rommel from El Alamein to Alexandria. After Rommel pushes past Alexandria, the RN will move all ships into the Red Sea. Because if the Admiralty doesn't, it will have to run the gauntlet of ALL Axis naval and air forces from Crete to Gibralta (even the Italian Navy might be inclined to fight this one) only to sail around Africa to Aden to defend the Red Sea - and that is just an unnecessary risk.

2.) i have to say that in this the British would have to evacuate Cyprus of face the real posibility of being trapped and no chance of resupply, even setting up a front in Gaza means nothing, the Axis now in control of the Eastern Med can bypass Gaza and land Axis forces further up into Asyria and then form a pincir of those allied troops in Palestine, but they can begin to lay massive minefields within the Sinai (sic), thus at least slowing the advancement, but not stopping it.

Without RN assets in the Eastern Med, Cyprus is not defendable. Thus, it would likely be abandoned before the RN goes to the Red Sea.
I would imagine the British to set up a front in Gaza, though, because you want to make Rommels drive to Mosul as hard as possible. Palestine, Jordan and Iraq will be defended, and supplied via Basrah, with supplies going by river boats up the Euphrates to the RAF base in Al Habbaniyah.
Rommel will take Palestine, thanks to supplies being brought from Italy much more plentifull now without the RN present, but then have a hard time pushing east from Palestine, with the LRDG attacking his supply lines throughout Jordan.

3.) Red Sea becomes the great Red Sea Turkey Shoot, Luftwaffe and RA aircraft based along Egypt's coast line virtually can attack any shipping there at their whim, the Red Sea is far to narrow to have any large naval units. No the Red Sea is out of the question.

Italian RA certainly would not be a major factor, as it wasn't in other battles.
I would imagine the British Army to establish a definsive line as close to Suez as possible, keeping the pressure on northern Egypt.
Red Sea will be under total RN control (ideally suited to be blocked by RN at certain chokepoints by minefields). RAF will be very present.

Well IIRC that up to 25 to 35 divisions can be spared, they being the German 1st (Southern France), 12th (Balkans) and 19th (Southern France) Armies, then we have the Italian 10th and 11th Armies (Both Balkans) and by this stage if they can be spared with available transports at least 4 airborne divisions, in this there would be no fewer than 10 axis panzer/panzer-grenadier divisions. These units were not on the Eastern Front and as so would not be missed.

I don't understand. Are you saying there were 10 PzDiv & PzGrenDiv and 4 FschJgDiv tied up in the Med in early 1942?

But the Axis won't need that many, Rommel pleaded with Hitler that with 1 extra panzer and 3 infantry divisions he could eradicate the British out of North Africa permanently, and once this has been achieved the Italians can effectively re-supply the eastern med without interference from the RN and RAF.

What i am saying is that the Axis can land troops in Assyria and then once in place they and Rommel cut off the allies in Palestine, destroy them and then mop up whats left in Saudia Arabia, while Iraq freeed from the British goes over to the Axis, the British are under so much strain that it has no choice but to pull back to Iran, but then again we have the situation of the Russians being there, but in such small numbers that Rommel just pushes them aside and roll on into the Caucasus, seizing every oil installation that the Soviets have and after several months when the Italian and Roumanian engineers have brought them on line, Hitler has a major oil supply under his belt, Soviet Union is now fighting on two fronts, one comming in from underneath east of the caspian Sea and swinning into the rear echelon of the Soviet front lines, while the Axis on the main eastern front has eliminated all resistance west of the River Volga.

Then with no access to oil the Soviet war machine gradually grinds to a halt. Soviet Union can not be supplied in the north as Murmansk and Archangel are both taken, and supply through the middle east is cut off, now in axis hands. Once this has been achieved then the Axis begins to rectify a major sore and that is to eleiminate the British once and for all in the western Med, although no real match the Italian Navy throws everything it has against Force H, at the same time the Germans and Italians begin moving troops into NW Africa.

Well, on this I need to quote Goethe:
"Die Botschaft hör' ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube"