Just turn left at Suez! (.... ?)

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
mbravo
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Apr 2006, 18:58
Location: Greece/Cyprus

#16

Post by mbravo » 26 Apr 2006, 00:23

and lets not forget that even if egypt was lost, the island of cyprus in the north could had been used as a naval, air base by the british as it is still used today

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

#17

Post by Kingfish » 26 Apr 2006, 00:41

mbravo wrote:and lets not forget that even if egypt was lost, the island of cyprus in the north could had been used as a naval, air base by the british as it is still used today
How would the forces in Cyprus be supplied?


mbravo
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 19 Apr 2006, 18:58
Location: Greece/Cyprus

#18

Post by mbravo » 26 Apr 2006, 01:25

the same way malta was supplied i guess. what im proposing is that the royal navy still at large based in cyprus would had caused problems for rommel's supply lines. bringing supplies from italy or greece to alexandria with cyprus as a "thorn" like malta was would had not solved rommel's supply problems in africa

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

#19

Post by Kingfish » 26 Apr 2006, 01:52

mbravo wrote:the same way malta was supplied i guess. what im proposing is that the royal navy still at large based in cyprus would had caused problems for rommel's supply lines. bringing supplies from italy or greece to alexandria with cyprus as a "thorn" like malta was would had not solved rommel's supply problems in africa
The loss of Egypt would have meant the Axis would have controlled both sides of the Med. Any allied convoy making for Cyprus would have had to run the gautlet of Axis airbases from Lybia, Greece, Crete and Egypt.

Think of the losses the Royal navy sustained during the Crete campaign (and this with Alexandria still under British control) and then think of the number of convoys needed to sustain Cyprus as a major air and naval base.

Giovanni Acuto
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: 12 Apr 2006, 07:01
Location: Sible Hedingham, Essex

#20

Post by Giovanni Acuto » 26 Apr 2006, 03:12

I feel I must register some disappointment that this thread has been moved to the "what if" section.

Axis objectives in North Africa and the Mid East may have been ill-defined or unrealistic; but the plan to conquer Egypt and gain control of the Suez Canal was real. It seems to me that a discussion of what results could plausibly have been expected from the successful execution of this objective is quite germane to the real history of the war.

The intention (and I think it's been going along quite well) was a "Would Moscow have been decisive" sort of thread, rather than a "What if WW1 had broken out in 1890" sort.

Is it possible that this discussion could be restored to its original forum?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#21

Post by Tim Smith » 26 Apr 2006, 19:48

Giovanni Acuto wrote:I feel I must register some disappointment that this thread has been moved to the "what if" section.

Is it possible that this discussion could be restored to its original forum?
The what if forum is the right place to discuss the feasibility of something that never happened historically.

Also you refer to Axis plans AFTER the complete conquest of Egypt, when no such plans existed on paper AFAIK - only Rommel's vague dreams and ambitions of even greater glory. (If you have evidence to the contrary, post a link, and I'll reconsider.)

Feel free to repost in the original forum, but this time word your first post more carefully, restricting the discussion to events or plans which happened or existed historically, and recommending against extrapolations into the purely speculative.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

#22

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Apr 2006, 17:55

Had Rommel and his little force managed to take Egypt it still does not equate to taking the entireity of the Middle East. The British would still have a major naval base further south at Massawa in Ethiopia to base their fleet out of. With the lack of road and rail systems in the Sinai and eastward Rommel would still be very hard pressed just to supply his forces. No doubt that the British would add to this problem through raiding his rear areas as was historically done.
The lack of shipping, particularly for the Germans, would be an ongoing problem that isn't likely to be solved. The British would also still be able to operate submarines in the Mediterranian and likely be a continual thorn in the Axis' side regarding supplies.
Basically, the whole issue comes down, once again, to logistics. Rommel was about at the end of his rope, so to speak, at Alamein let alone adding another 500 + miles to the supply lines. While taking Alexandria would temporaily aleive some of this, ports further east run into Vichy French territory which Hitler is likely not to allow violated. Movement south takes the Axis away from their supply ports as well.
Then again, what happens if the US does Torch anyway? Rommel's forces are half a continent away this time. Do the Germans send more forces to block the US or simply give up on moving east?

User avatar
flying dutchman
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 14:52
Location: Netherlands

#23

Post by flying dutchman » 28 Apr 2006, 02:32

T. A. Gardner:
Then again, what happens if the US does Torch anyway? Rommel's forces are half a continent away this time. Do the Germans send more forces to block the US or simply give up on moving east?
I don't think Torch would have taken place in North-Africa if one of the entrypoints of the Med wasn't in allied hands anymore. Imagine; one daring attack by the Italians backed by the Germans and you lose Gibralter... Not that likely, but it's a (distant) possibility and one the allied planners would take into account.
Had Rommel and his little force managed to take Egypt it still does not equate to taking the entireity of the Middle East. The British would still have a major naval base further south at Massawa in Ethiopia to base their fleet out of.
Again if Rommel takes Egypt he'll also have taken the Suez-canal (at least that I presumed) so unless ships from Massawa decide to sail across africa to gibralter to enter the Med I don't think Massawa has any strategic importance (apart from controlling the Suez entry from the South) for the med with Suez in axis hands.
The lack of shipping, particularly for the Germans, would be an ongoing problem that isn't likely to be solved. The British would also still be able to operate submarines in the Mediterranian and likely be a continual thorn in the Axis' side regarding supplies.
Basically, the whole issue comes down, once again, to logistics. Rommel was about at the end of his rope, so to speak, at Alamein let alone adding another 500 + miles to the supply lines.
I think that if Rommel was able to function at El Alamein with a Med crawling with RN assets, I think he'll be able to manage his way, at least, into present day Israel with a Med without most major Allied shipping and with an enormous port(s) available for him in Egypt.
Furthermore with a victory in Egypt for Rommel who know's what will happen with Vichy/Turkey/Spain. It could be possible that one or more of these influenced by the german successes on every front including the Med will give up on neutrality. A Torch landing in 100% enemy territory won't be a walk in the park....
Anyways there are a lot of different things that could have happened if the axis had controlled Suez and I don't think anyone can predict them.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002, 22:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

#24

Post by Sam H. » 28 Apr 2006, 22:25

Its hard to imagine Rommel taking the whole of the Midleast in less than a year. Unless Spain and/or Vichy become active on the Axis side, Gibralter is safe.

If the allies still control Gibralter, it may be the wiser strategic move to strike with a Torch landing in November 1942 rather than ferry those troops around the Horn of Africa to face the Axis in Southern Egypt or Iraq.

User avatar
badenbaden
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 08:07
Location: U.S.

Map

#25

Post by badenbaden » 16 Feb 2007, 04:01

map
Attachments
el.jpg
The Battle of El Alamein
el.jpg (86.9 KiB) Viewed 1658 times
egypt.jpg
Rommel's route after El Alamein
egypt.jpg (112.56 KiB) Viewed 1659 times

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Map

#26

Post by Jon G. » 16 Feb 2007, 11:31

badenbaden wrote:map
With all respect, badenbaden, it looks conspicuously like a Google Earth screenshot with some bitmap dots drawn in :) There's no shortage of good Alamein maps - I think it must be one of the most frequently mapped battles in WW2. Your map of what Rommel's advance might look like in the event of an Axis victory at El Alamein also allows for some artistic license.

According to Greene and Massignani's book about the North African campaign, Rommel had envisioned three seperate thrusts toward the delta - a Gruppe Bismarck made up of the 21st Panzer and the 164th Infantry would advance on Alexandria, the Italian XX Corps (Trieste, Ariete and Littorio) would advance on Wadi el Matrun and further to Kafz el Zayat on the Nile, while the DAK, furthest south, would advance directly on Cairo with the 90th Light and the 15th Panzer. There it would be relieved by the X Corps (Folgore, Ramcke, Brescia and Pavia) and the DAK would split in two: one colum to advance on Ismalia on the canal, and one column to move towards Suez at the south end of the canal.

If that had succeeded, Rommel then foresaw three 'strategic columns' (G&M's term); one following the Nile south to recapture Ethiopia, another column moving down the Arabic peninsula towards Aden, and the last column to move north up through the British-held Middle East.

User avatar
badenbaden
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 08:07
Location: U.S.

Re: Map

#27

Post by badenbaden » 16 Feb 2007, 13:33

Jon G. wrote:
badenbaden wrote:map
According to Greene and Massignani's book about the North African campaign, Rommel had envisioned three seperate thrusts toward the delta - a Gruppe Bismarck made up of the 21st Panzer and the 164th Infantry would advance on Alexandria, the Italian XX Corps (Trieste, Ariete and Littorio) would advance on Wadi el Matrun and further to Kafz el Zayat on the Nile, while the DAK, furthest south, would advance directly on Cairo with the 90th Light and the 15th Panzer. There it would be relieved by the X Corps (Folgore, Ramcke, Brescia and Pavia) and the DAK would split in two: one colum to advance on Ismalia on the canal, and one column to move towards Suez at the south end of the canal.
I agree to that plan.
But I do not agree to the plan to drive for Ethiopia and Aden. Why must they march for the regions? They are nothing but 20Pz,15Pz,90Div,and Italian inf armies. I believe DAK must not split their weak troops further. So I have Rommel advance for more important regions Iraq just after the capture of Cairo and Suez. Of course, Germany needs to leave some troops in Egypt.

allsirgarnet
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 14:12
Location: UK

Re: Map

#28

Post by allsirgarnet » 21 Feb 2007, 01:58

badenbaden wrote:
Jon G. wrote:
badenbaden wrote:map
According to Greene and Massignani's book about the North African campaign, Rommel had envisioned three seperate thrusts toward the delta - a Gruppe Bismarck made up of the 21st Panzer and the 164th Infantry would advance on Alexandria, the Italian XX Corps (Trieste, Ariete and Littorio) would advance on Wadi el Matrun and further to Kafz el Zayat on the Nile, while the DAK, furthest south, would advance directly on Cairo with the 90th Light and the 15th Panzer. There it would be relieved by the X Corps (Folgore, Ramcke, Brescia and Pavia) and the DAK would split in two: one colum to advance on Ismalia on the canal, and one column to move towards Suez at the south end of the canal.
I agree to that plan.
But I do not agree to the plan to drive for Ethiopia and Aden. Why must they march for the regions? They are nothing but 20Pz,15Pz,90Div,and Italian inf armies. I believe DAK must not split their weak troops further. So I have Rommel advance for more important regions Iraq just after the capture of Cairo and Suez. Of course, Germany needs to leave some troops in Egypt.
Your comments over the sense of this plan are well founded. Infact they more resemble Auk's own plan of withdrawal should there be a German breakthrough. One 'half' of 8th army would withdraw south to the Sudan while the other move NE into Palestine.

The problem with all these plans of Rommels is that they are pure speculation and in some cases a misrepresentation of the situation at the time. For example take the position of the DAK after it had crossed the minefields at Alam Halfa. Rommel himself decided that an extended drive to the east to outflank the entire 8th army position just wasnt feasable because of his limited fuel and supply situation. How then could he at the same time be considering even bigger thrusts to the delta on such limited means?.

Those who promote his strategy also ignore a fundamental flaw in that it depended on the 8th army repeating its tactics of the previous year... all out counter attacking in mobile brigade groups...which even 8th army staff recognised as a recipe for absolute disaster. This 'apathy' towards the 8th armies capabilities eventually led to Rommels defeat at Alam Halfa, Alamein and all the subsequent battles.

The quote during Alam Halfa as recorded in a DAK war diary says it all...

'The swine arent attacking...............'

ASG

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#29

Post by fredleander » 21 Feb 2007, 13:11

Brian Ross wrote:While there was little co-ordination with the Japanese, it does open interesting possibilities of a joint thrust against India but I suspect that would have been a nation too far for the IJA based in Burma. Perhaps the seizure of Ceylon would have been more likely, as part of a sustained IJN thrust into the Indian Ocean?
One point to consider in this respect is the political situation in India. I believe there was quite a bit of unrest there in 1942. Which might have been amplified by a British downfall in Egypt and a German thrust into Iraq. As others have implied here this might also have induced the Turks to take sides.

Would the loss of central Egypt (Nile delta) have necessitated a complete British withdrawal from the area..? In my opinion......most probably. With several hundred thousand personell to take care of a withdrawal eastwards into Sinai/Palestine would complicate the supply situation enormously. Theoretically, they might be supplied by ships along the south-western coast of the Sinai, or through Aqaba. But any shipping in this area would be within reach from German air bases in Egypt. Would it be feasible/possible to withdraw southwards along the western side of the Red Sea...?.... Anyway, a Dunkirk-like evacuation in this direction would obviously take time with so many people involved - and the transport resources available.

Certainly, a German break-in into the Delta would have led to a lot of confusion for the British rear troops, many trying to get away. Probably also southwards, up the Nile. A reversed three-pronged British withdrawal might still give the German a headache. Eastwards into Sinai, south-eastwards along the Red Sea and south along east bank of the Nile....If British fighting forces could have been upheld in these three areas. Or would there have been a second Singapore.....?

In that case assets meant for the Middle East could have been diverted to reinforce Malta and Gibraltar. While Malta probably could have been taken by assault in '42, Gibraltar, at that time, had been very much reinforced. In the worst case Malta might have to be given up. Gibraltar would be relatively safe as long as Franco kept to the "neutral" line.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#30

Post by fredleander » 22 Feb 2007, 14:48

One important point in this equation is the status of the Suez Canal itself after a British withdrawal. With the Canal in working order an Eastward Axis expansion towards Iraq/Soviet/India could be much easened with supplies going through the Red Sea/Persian Gulf instead of through the desert.....

Post Reply

Return to “What if”