Operation Hercules - would it have worked?

[alltoes]

Hello Csc001,
Interesting post. There have been numerous posts in regards to N. Africa. It always comes down to logistics. The port facilities did not have the capacity. It is like a hose. There is so much water that can travel through a hose. IMHO I believe the early capture of Malta WITH a true coordinated effort, Egypt could have been occupied. Once the Suez Canal is made inoperable, the British would leave the Med. There were British bases in Haifa, but logistics would be an issue. It is possible the Axis could have reached Haifa, but I am not sure they could have proceeded further. Again logistics is the main issue. You must remember British logistics around the cape to deliver men and material, which was enough to defeat the Axis. Besides there were a number of British bases in Eastern Africa with railroads.
If Turkey joined the Axis, it would require a tremendous amount of work to establish a railroad system throughout the country. During Barbarossa, the railroad foundation was already in place. Repairs and change of gauge was the only requirement.

[LWD]

If the Germans and the Italians had started planning as allies before the war started or perhaps as late as the first quarter of 1940 then perhaps but it's still far from certain. Of course it's not clear that Germany even wanted Italy in the war. They might have been far more useful as a "neutral" and source of supplies. There's also the question of what value North Africa really had if they couldn't get far from the Med. Defence of Italy perhaps. This is getting rather far afield though.

[BDV]

Capturing Alexandria would not have led to the fall of Egypt. RN can simply blockade Alexandria (is Regia Marina going to come out for a fight?!?) A big heave-ho across the Delta (maybe bypassing the Delta by way of Cairo, but that adds 250 km) to get to the Suez is needed.

A heave-ho supplied by truck all the way from Tripoli, with a trickle from Benghazi and Tobruk. And British, even in 1941, showed that they were fully able to beat back Rommel when overextended. If british decide to defend Egypt (which they did historically) the Axis cannot defeat them in 1941 except by ASBs.

[JAG13]

Hello Csc001,
Interesting post. There have been numerous posts in regards to N. Africa. It always comes down to logistics. The port facilities did not have the capacity. It is like a hose. There is so much water that can travel through a hose. IMHO I believe the early capture of Malta WITH a true coordinated effort, Egypt could have been occupied. Once the Suez Canal is made inoperable, the British would leave the Med. There were British bases in Haifa, but logistics would be an issue. It is possible the Axis could have reached Haifa, but I am not sure they could have proceeded further. Again logistics is the main issue. You must remember British logistics around the cape to deliver men and material, which was enough to defeat the Axis. Besides there were a number of British bases in Eastern Africa with railroads.
If Turkey joined the Axis, it would require a tremendous amount of work to establish a railroad system throughout the country. During Barbarossa, the railroad foundation was already in place. Repairs and change of gauge was the only requirement.

Turkey already had a working railroad in 1941:



In the decade prior to ww2 railroads were Turkey's largest single investment and buget expense during which in addition to almoust doubling its size, it bought out the foreign private companies thus nationalizing its network.

[JAG13]

Capturing Alexandria would not have led to the fall of Egypt. RN can simply blockade Alexandria (is Regia Marina going to come out for a fight?!?) A big heave-ho across the Delta (maybe bypassing the Delta by way of Cairo, but that adds 250 km) to get to the Suez is needed.

A heave-ho supplied by truck all the way from Tripoli, with a trickle from Benghazi and Tobruk. And British, even in 1941, showed that they were fully able to beat back Rommel when overextended. If british decide to defend Egypt (which they did historically) the Axis cannot defeat them in 1941 except by ASBs.

Again with Tripoli... :roll:

Tripoli is of the map re. Egypt, Tobruk and Marsa Matruh would be the ports handling the cargo, Benghazi would only serve as a hub for coastal shipping.

Then there are the Egyptians who were getting ready to welcome the Germans, an uprising centered around the 100.000 strong Egyptian army is a possibility that cant be ruled out.

With the Germans in the delta the canal is in tactical range exposing the British logistical throat.

The Brits could barely hold off a Rommel in a secondary theater with few resources, if the Germans actually commit and send 2 more German PzDiv instead of Ariete and other Italian divisions is a different matter. The Brits could have been beaten in 1941, but likely barbarossa gets delayed to 1942.

[csc001]

JAG13... that was good and very relevant information. Thank you for your contribution to the thread

BDV... the RN would not have been able to blockade Alexandria. They would have HAD to retreat down the Red Sea or risk being trapped in the Med by an Axis overland advance along the coast bordering the eastern Med which would have deprived them of any ports.

[JAG13]

JAG13... that was good and very relevant information. Thank you for your contribution to the thread

BDV... the RN would not have been able to blockade Alexandria. They would have HAD to retreat down the Red Sea or risk being trapped in the Med by an Axis overland advance along the coast bordering the eastern Med which would have deprived them of any ports.

Since the Italians were very unlikely to try and intercept the RN they could always leave through Gibraltar on their last full tank if need be, but as long as they have fuel available, which was easy with Haifa still working, there is no need.

The RN couldnt blockade Alexandria, so close to the front would be a very unhealthy environment to ANY shipping, it wiould be useless... but not blockaded.

Just remember Crete and what happens to ships when in Stuka range, but this goes both ways.

[csc001]

If the British had let themselves be trapped in the Med (highly unlikely given the strategic situation) and eventually without any friendly ports, they would have had to go through a relatively narrow body of water to get to Gibraltar... either between Italy/Sicily, Sicily/Malta, or Malta/Tunisia. The Italians still had a considerable number of ships (and submarines) that they could've concentrated in such a narrow bottleneck.

And most importantly, these ships would have been operating in full cooperation with powerful air assets that would've had a narrow search/operating area... allowing repeated and concentrated attacks on RN ships which had no room or fuel to maneuver and with no air cover themselves. I think the British may have had one small aircraft carrier, but its small contingent of aircraft (obsolete Swordfish and Gladiators) would've been quickly overwhelmed in this situation. The RN suffered heavily in similar situations off the coast of Crete and with the Arctic convoys.

The Italian Navy might of taken a brow beating at the Battle of Cape Matapan, but they would never have had a better chance at getting even with the RN.

[JAG13]

The RM did have several ocassions to just stomp a number of lightly defended RN convoys, yet they never did, they could, but never did. I doubt they could be arsed to try specially knowing that the RN HAD to make it through.

The Germans would take its toll, how big it would depend on stuka availability at the time since those had to be shared with CAS needs.

By mid 1942 the RM heavy units were confined to port due to lack of fuel, the Germans unwilling to waste any more fuel on them.

[sitalkes]

There's an interesting article about plans for a 1940 invasion of Malta here: http://www.avalanchepress.com/island_balbo.php

Avalanche Press have two boardgames Alamein and Island of Death that can be linked together so you can see if the island can be occupied and what effect it has - initially the withdrawal of forces for the Malta attack has a negative effect on the African campaign, and the British get a chance not to withdraw all the way to El Alamein. see http://www.avalanchepress.com/Island_Alamein.php

[LWD]

LWD... your supposed counterpoints to my argument are at best vague and inarticulate and at worst without any reasoned foundation... you make no argument. You simply say "Did they" or "Really" or "Perhaps" or "Or not". You say that the points I make are not "valid"... So what does this make your short retorts which you don't even explain?

Perhaps because your "points' were so lacking that there was little reason for me to do more than challenge them.

I used several books I've read (from authors of different nationalities and viewpoints... Mellenthin and Alexander to name just two), reasoned analysis (which is what any author would do to draw a conclusion), a good map of the area in question, and just common sense to make an argument. You don't do this... you simply take potshots at what someone else says without a well reasoned explanation for WHY you are right and WHY I am wrong.

If you used sources why not reveal them? Especially when asked and PLS no "shotgun" sourceing. From what I can see all of you have posted so far is opinion. There's certainly no "reasoned analysis" and much of what you consider to be fact seams to be either questionable or wrong.

Pot calling silverware indeed...

Indeed. Especially sense you have shifted the focus of your posts to the posters and away from what is posted. You are the proponent in this case and by the coventions of this board the onus is on you to support your position. So far you have failed to do so.

As for Hop... calling a person out on his/her objectivity and getting them to re-examine their viewpoint from another possible angle is hardly breaking the rules of this or any other board.

It can be considered a personal attack particularly when there is little evidence for it. Here you are suppose to "play the post and not the poster". You did nothing to refute Hop's points but tried to attack his credibility.

It is every respectable historian's job... amateur or professional... to examine history from different perspectives... including the loser's.

Indeed but it certainly doesn't look like what you are doing.

As for LWD... I could make counter - counterpoints to EVERYTHING you posted (believe me this is not an idle boast)

Then PLS do so.

but I honestly don't believe you are worth the time and effort. You obviously can't make a well reasoned argument (that is, when you attempt to make one) and I don't want to have an intellectual discussion with an unarmed man.

Statements like this add nothing to your credibility and ideed detract from it.

[David Thompson]

Two off-topic posts from csc001, containing insulting comments about another poster, were removed by this moderator - DT.

csc001 -- We don't permit posts containing insulting personal remarks about other posters. Please don't make that mistake again.

[alltoes]

Hello,
There was an earlier statement in regards to fuel in Haifa. I was under the impression Haifa was the end of 1 of 2 pipelines from Iraq. Was there a refinery in place in Haifa? Or was it only crude oil. If so, then no fuel for ships. I was under the impression most pipelines end at terminals for transport elsewhere.
Woop Woop

[JAG13]

Hello,
There was an earlier statement in regards to fuel in Haifa. I was under the impression Haifa was the end of 1 of 2 pipelines from Iraq. Was there a refinery in place in Haifa? Or was it only crude oil. If so, then no fuel for ships. I was under the impression most pipelines end at terminals for transport elsewhere.
Woop Woop

There were refineries at both Haifa and Tripoli.

[godfrey]

hello everyone

I have just joined the forum,
My question is. How possible is it to land 29,000 airborne troops using about 500 transport aircraft and about 500 gliders? When Malta is just 18 by 5 miles at its widest points, furthermore the only flat areas were the airstrips., the terrain is hilly and our fields are small with stone rubble walls to retain the soil.
Surely, thousand of troops would have landed in the sea or crash landed.

godfrey