Rommel never launches Sonnenblume

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

When Erwin Rommel launched Sonnenblume, despite the seemingly impressive results, Halder was unimpressed. Rommel has disobeyed orders not to launch an offensive and wait for supplies. What were actual German plans for North Africa and how would they play out? What would World War 2 in North Africa play out?

[Carl Schwamberger]

The only intent I've seen presented is the Germans intended to preserve the Italian position in Lybia. Hitler still seems to have had the idea the Brits would negotiate in 1942, after the USSR was destroyed. A few months earlier the recommendation to Hitler had been to not support the Italians in Africa.

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

The only intent I've seen presented is the Germans intended to preserve the Italian position in Lybia. Hitler still seems to have had the idea the Brits would negotiate in 1942, after the USSR was destroyed. A few months earlier the recommendation to Hitler had been to not support the Italians in Africa.

If Axis stayed on defensive in North Africa I can see a repeat of the bloody trench warfare carnage of World War 1, something the British desperately tried to avoid

[Kingfish]

The only intent I've seen presented is the Germans intended to preserve the Italian position in Lybia. Hitler still seems to have had the idea the Brits would negotiate in 1942, after the USSR was destroyed. A few months earlier the recommendation to Hitler had been to not support the Italians in Africa.

If Axis stayed on defensive in North Africa I can see a repeat of the bloody trench warfare carnage of World War 1, something the British desperately tried to avoid

Given the wide open terrain and mobility of Commonwealth forces how would that be possible?

Both sides went on the defensive during the campaign, and with the exception (IMO) of Tobruk and 2nd Alamein every position was turned by flanking maneuvers through the open desert. Tunisia was a different matter as the hilly terrain tended to funnel each side's advances, but even then mobility made sure the front line was in constant motion.

[maltesefalcon]

Both sides made extensive use of earthworks, dugouts and slit trenches or foxholes. That being said the static/stalemate trench situation of the Western Front in the Great War was unlikely.
First, there were simply not enough troops on either side in N Africa to reinforce the lines sufficiently to (somewhat permanently) prevent a breakthrough or flanking manouvre somewhere.
Second, the availability of large numbers of powerful tanks and aircraft somewhat reduced the power of dug in troops. There would always be attack, retreat, counterattack, but the Allies had much better logistics and would likely prevail in the end.

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Both sides made extensive use of earthworks, dugouts and slit trenches or foxholes. That being said the static/stalemate trench situation of the Western Front in the Great War was unlikely.
First, there were simply not enough troops on either side in N Africa to reinforce the lines sufficiently to (somewhat permanently) prevent a breakthrough or flanking manouvre somewhere.
Second, the availability of large numbers of powerful tanks and aircraft somewhat reduced the power of dug in troops. There would always be attack, retreat, counterattack, but the Allies had much better logistics and would likely prevail in the end.

Maybe. I think the war in North Africa will last much longer as Rommel doesn't waste all his supplies

[maltesefalcon]

Time was on the side of the Allies after the fall of 1942. Even if Rommel managed to hold out until 1944, the OKH would need to keep supplying him with arms, supplies and manpower.
Africa was an ideal ground for the Allies to bleed off badly needed Axis resources. Of course the Allies would have to have some expenditure as well, but they had more to work with.
In any case, the war could be neither won nor lost over control of the North African frontier.

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Time was on the side of the Allies after the fall of 1942. Even if Rommel managed to hold out until 1944, the OKH would need to keep supplying him with arms, supplies and manpower.
Africa was an ideal ground for the Allies to bleed off badly needed Axis resources. Of course the Allies would have to have some expenditure as well, but they had more to work with.
In any case, the war could be neither won nor lost over control of the North African frontier.

I think the Axis can make the Allies bleed for taking North Africa

[maltesefalcon]

Time was on the side of the Allies after the fall of 1942. Even if Rommel managed to hold out until 1944, the OKH would need to keep supplying him with arms, supplies and manpower.
Africa was an ideal ground for the Allies to bleed off badly needed Axis resources. Of course the Allies would have to have some expenditure as well, but they had more to work with.
In any case, the war could be neither won nor lost over control of the North African frontier.

I think the Axis can make the Allies bleed for taking North Africa

Agreed, but they did so IRL as well. Plus Sicily/Italy. Different side of the Med, but same outcome really....
The Allies were not unwilling to take casualties if it got the job done.

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

Time was on the side of the Allies after the fall of 1942. Even if Rommel managed to hold out until 1944, the OKH would need to keep supplying him with arms, supplies and manpower.
Africa was an ideal ground for the Allies to bleed off badly needed Axis resources. Of course the Allies would have to have some expenditure as well, but they had more to work with.
In any case, the war could be neither won nor lost over control of the North African frontier.

I think the Axis can make the Allies bleed for taking North Africa

Agreed, but they did so IRL as well. Plus Sicily/Italy. Different side of the Med, but same outcome really....
The Allies were not unwilling to take casualties if it got the job done.

One of the reasons why the British invested so much in commando missions was to avoid a repeat of the bloody World War 1 carnage while remaining on the cult of the offensive

[kfbr392]

there is another similar threat you may enjoy reading:

What if no Rommel, no DAK, and no German troops would have been sent to Africa in 1941 or later?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=172297

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

there is another similar threat you may enjoy reading:

What if no Rommel, no DAK, and no German troops would have been sent to Africa in 1941 or later?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=172297

Not sending the DAK to North Africa would have been stupid. It allows the British to hold Malaya and probably hit Japan harder. Italy would probably be invaded in 1943.

[Erwinn]

There is no possible scenario for Rommel to hold out until 1944. Especially while Malta in British hands. They would just sunk every supply ship going to NA. Which also happened in OTL as well and forced Germans to do Air Supply, which also resulted in the destruction of the Transport Arm of the Luftwaffe.(+Germans lost over 2k Planes in just a 6 month period in Mediterrenean)

[thaddeus_c]

to me Sonnenblume was a logical, productive operation, leaving the Axis in a much better position. just IMO, everything up to the Battle of Gazala is likewise beneficial to the Axis, after that is when they went off a cliff, or more appropriately escarpment?

after June 1942, the US was arriving soon (somewhere), if they had no respect for US forces, they should have had respect for the amount of resources.

they could have staged a fighting withdrawal all the way to Tunis, without the huge 1943 reinforcements, and lasted about as long?

[T. A. Gardner]

The only intent I've seen presented is the Germans intended to preserve the Italian position in Lybia. Hitler still seems to have had the idea the Brits would negotiate in 1942, after the USSR was destroyed. A few months earlier the recommendation to Hitler had been to not support the Italians in Africa.

That's about the extent of it. The Germans didn't have any clear strategic plan for N. Africa, it was simply a holding operation.