Italians stop at Halfaya Pass in 1940?

[Cryhavoc101]

Lots of pontification, but little substance.
Who said put half of the artillery in front? 10% at most in camouflaged positions with orders to engage when close enough, having switch positions to move to after the battle to avoid getting plastered next go around. IOTL we have examples of the British using rather inflexible attacks on fixed positions and getting slaughtered at Halfaya Pass, which, given its compressed battlefield and the relative strength of each combatant in Operation Compass, its not hard to see that forcing it in 1941 is going to be hard; the British were able to exploit the gapping gaps in the Italian lines around Sidi Barani IOTL to wipe out their forces, but won't be able to ITTL, so will have to push right through and into much greater firepower than they themselves could muster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass


1,600 artillery pieces concentrated at Halfaya against 120 British guns is going to give them a lot of flexibility to use guns forward, while having 1,249 aircraft for use against the British; even if the artillery is totally ineffective bomb dropping aircraft, including dive capable biplanes, are going to be able to stop the British tanks if need be. The British did not yet have the logistics to move around the southern flank of the Pass, which was pretty far south considering the necessary detour:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/WesternDesertBattle_Area1941_en.svg

You assume that the British have been putting lead in their tea - why would they attack while so weak. The victories over the Italians was a battle of manoeuvre not a battle of attrition.

So in practice they could move as many guns as they liked....the British would not have attacked....enjoy the flies lads

 

[Deleted member 1487]

And whilst we're at it shall we have Benny have some kind of benificial stroke so this does not happen.

Benny "Attack Egypt"
Billy "But Sir...we have the advantage of a.."
Benny "Perhaps you didn't hear me, attack Egypt and if you refuse I can have you replaced."
Billy: "Yes Sir."

The moose is a dictator and he's got a 'vulnerable target' in the form of Egypt lying prostate before him. The problem starts with Benny, and unless you change him then re-arranging the deckchairs on the Invasion barges won't help.

*edit*

remember, Benny is an opportunist, he threw his country into the war thinking it was all over bar the shouting and wanted some nice easy land grabs from France. That door slammed shut on his fingers so next its Egypt and its small forces. Despite his Generals going "Uhh..Sir..." whilst sweating nervously, he ordered the attack thinking again it was going to be easy. We know the OTL result. The Italians got curb stomped and their teeth kicked in. He then looks at week and vulnerable greece...

Benny's overconfident and listens to one person. Himself. That's where the problem starts (well apart from being oh you know an Axis power...thats a problem too...) for the Italians.

Got it, but if you actually look into his words instead of dreaming up vaudville plays in your head, its clear by October 1940 he realized going further into Egypt was not an option for the time being, especially as Greece fall apart on him. Near as I can tell you're running on popular myths and basing your vignettes on assumptions without looking into details. Graziani IOTL pretty much was given free reign with Mussolini offering encouragement once the operation started, much like Lincoln with his generals in the US CW. But once the practical realities of the war set in Mussolini reacted rationally, its just that he was stuck with his stupid pre-war assumptions and actions and pretty much was trapped without recourse. Had Graziani not stayed in the vulnerable positions he himself recognized were a major danger due to thinking the British would stay put, he had the resources in spades to pull back and hold until his supply lines improved provided he had the desire to do so. Balbo would have been much more apt to behave more rationally on the supply issue and had the political standing to resist Mussolini's 'encouragement' and avoid sacking.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You assume that the British have been putting lead in their tea - why would they attack while so weak. The victories over the Italians was a battle of manoeuvre not a battle of attrition.

So in practice they could move as many guns as they liked....the British would not have attacked....enjoy the flies lads

That's just fine then. The British sit back and wait for resources. When do they turn up, mid-1941? Battleaxe had less troops used than Compass. Really until Italian East Africa is dealt with the British don't have the strength to push the Italians out of the Pass and even then it may well take until late 1941 to amass enough resources like they did for Operation Crusader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Battleaxe#The_failed_attack_on_Halfaya_Pass
Battleaxe foundered on Halfaya IOTL and that was after the horrible losses Italy already took in 1940-41; without those losses and several months to prepare, they could have held out for a long time if the British are repulsed after early attempts to breach it if they attack in mid-1941.

Plus about the Matildas, I totally forgot about the AT mines that were used IOTL to stop them. The 1941 attack on Halfaya saw Maltidas lost to these, so with 6 months to prepare AT minefields are going to be thick and dangerous for superior British tanks to attempt to traverse.

 

[sharlin]

So they 'invade' by taking about 10 miles of Egypt, dig in after taking those 10 miles in the period after 13/09. They advance, reach the pass and dig in and then...do nothing. They wait for the British to attack them at a hugely defensive position like idiots (the Brits not the Italians).

Then after all this is done they then go and invade Greece and we know how well that turns out.

Now you've got 120k troops with tanks etc sitting on a defensive position, gobbling supplies but doing very little apart from getting a nice tan. Wavell and co can wait. If the Italians advance and dig in then they can happily resupply and add troops. You could then go 'Sorry Greece...' after the Germans get involved in 1941, not send any troops to Greece and throw them at the Italians.

And now the time table gone up to 6 months.... Another question. First take off your Axis thinking cap, a challenge I am sure. Now put your British thinking cap on, don't worry it won't burn you. Congrats you are now the British commander in the desert.

Do you A. Attack a huge defensive position thats been built up from anywhere between 2 - 6 months head on or B. Find another option.

*edit

Also just to point out. the British had issues at Halfaya Pass when Rommel and co were involved in the battle. This is an Italian show, the Germans are not there yet.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

That's just fine then. The British sit back and wait for resources. When do they turn up, mid-1941? Battleaxe had less troops used than Compass. Really until Italian East Africa is dealt with the British don't have the strength to push the Italians out of the Pass and even then it may well take until late 1941 to amass enough resources like they did for Operation Crusader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Battleaxe#The_failed_attack_on_Halfaya_Pass
Battleaxe foundered on Halfaya IOTL and that was after the horrible losses Italy already took in 1940-41; without those losses and several months to prepare, they could have held out for a long time if the British are repulsed after early attempts to breach it if they attack in mid-1941.

Plus about the Matildas, I totally forgot about the AT mines that were used IOTL to stop them. The 1941 attack on Halfaya saw Maltidas lost to these, so with 6 months to prepare AT minefields are going to be thick and dangerous for superior British tanks to attempt to traverse.

You are correct. Such an attack by a British force 25% the strength of the defending force would be doomed to failure which is why it would not be attempted.


Britain's primary Goal in this theatre 'at the time' was safeguarding the Imperial communication with the Empire - i.e. not letting the canal be captured / cut. Not capturing Libya or fighting a war of attrition for a million square miles of sand.

By sitting on their hands Italy is achieving that goal for them.

Later on when enough reinforcements had arrived they might very well seek to destroy the Italian presence in North Africa by attacking a fortified position

But only at a time of their choosing.

Historically, the Italians by attacking and later reinforced by Rommel and the DAK the British Empire was forced to fight.

The scenario here - no such pressure - certainly not in 1940/41.

Lots of other jobs for the then limited 'British' forces to be getting on with.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

You are correct. Such an attack by a British force 25% the strength of the defending force would be doomed to failure which is why it would not be attempted.


Britain's primary Goal in this theatre 'at the time' was safeguarding the Imperial communication with the Empire - i.e. not letting the canal be captured / cut. Not capturing Libya or fighting a war of attrition for a million square miles of sand.

By sitting on their hands Italy is achieving that goal for them.

Later on when enough reinforcements had arrived they might very well seek to destroy the Italian presence in North Africa by attacking a fortified position

But only at a time of their choosing.

Historically, the Italians by attacking and later reinforced by Rommel and the DAK the British Empire was forced to fight.

The scenario here - no such pressure - certainly not in 1940/41.

Lots of other jobs for the then limited 'British' forces to be getting on with.

Fair enough; the Italians would eventually attack when they could build up enough supply and rail support to successfully invade Egypt, especially when Greece is over and all supplies could come to them.

 

[sharlin]

Also I like my vaudville plays and bad attempts at humor. They are needed when one or more of The Four (sea)Horsemen Of The USM rides forth and makes another axis wank thread they are so droll and predictable.

 

[sharlin]

Fair enough; the Italians would eventually attack when they could build up enough supply and rail support to successfully invade Egypt, especially when Greece is over and all supplies could come to them.

Wait..WHAT!? Okay are we also assuming that whilst the Italians change what they did OTL both strategically, doctrinally and politically (10 miles of sand does not = conquest) that the British/Empire forces react as per OTL. With that many forces sitting in Egypt as a clear and present danger even the stubborn mule that is Churchill could go 'Oh fuck! Sorry Greece, we'd love to help you but...' *points at massive Italian army sitting in Egypt*.

Or are we assuming that the British are now retards and don't react to this threat to their supply line to the Far East/India and carry on as per OTL which they clearly would not.

Or again must we assume this because 'reasons'.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Wait..WHAT!? Okay are we also assuming that whilst the Italians change what they did OTL both strategically, doctrinally and politically (10 miles of sand does not = conquest) that the British/Empire forces react as per OTL. With that many forces sitting in Egypt as a clear and present danger even the stubborn mule that is Churchill could go 'Oh fuck! Sorry Greece, we'd love to help you but...' *points at massive Italian army sitting in Egypt*.

Or are we assuming that the British are now retards and don't react to this threat to their supply line to the Far East/India and carry on as per OTL which they clearly would not.

Or again must we assume this because 'reasons'.

How soon can Britain build up enough resources to breach the Halfaya pass or try and move around it well to the South, which would also be well defended by a fort IOTL, but ITTL supported by Italian field forces?
Operation Crusader would be the earliest point IOTL (November 1941). They would go for the less well supplied Southern option, but that would give the Italians a year to build up their supply lines and defenses.

 

[Magnum]

snip

1. We all know the Italians are drooling idiots of unimaginable incompetence who were hardly capable of pointing a rifle in the right direction, so any and all mention of them doing something right must obviously assume their enemies are probably drinking lead paint...

2. The British were not above attacking dug-in Italian positions - see the Battle of Keren, were Italian forces repulsed British and Commonwealth offensives twice before finally giving way in the face of superior allied firepower two months later

however....

3. If Italian forces do not move deeply into Egypt and only occupy the Halfaya Pass, there is no reason for the British to begin a counteroffensive against them anytime soon. Most likely, East Africa, Syria and Iraq (should it even come to it in the latter two cases) are taken care of before any serious operation is undertaken against Graziani's men.

4. As mentioned before, attacking Egypt was a political goal of Mussolini. However, he wasn't really expecting to march all the way to the Suez. I remeber reading a quote (which i can't find right now) of him saying something to the effect of "I'm not asking you take the Suez, however desirable that may be, or Alexandria, or even Mersa Matruh. I am merely asking that you advacne and egange the enemy in front of you". This is all closely linked with his belief that a peace conference was just around the corner (the very reason he joined the war in the first place)

that said...

5. it is not impossible to engineer a situation that sees a more defensive Italian attitude WRT Egypt, such as a longer-lasting western front, a French North Africa that sticks with the British, a devastating defeat at sea for Italy's battleships or an all-out invasion of Greece or Yugoslavia attempted earlier.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

1. We all know the Italians are drooling idiots of unimaginable incompetence who were hardly capable of pointing a rifle in the right direction, so any and all mention of them doing something right must obviously assume their enemies are probably drinking lead paint...

2. The British were not above attacking dug-in Italian positions - see the Battle of Keren, were Italian forces repulsed British and Commonwealth offensives twice before finally giving way in the face of superior allied firepower two months later

however....

3. If Italian forces do not move deeply into Egypt and only occupy the Halfaya Pass, there is no reason for the British to begin a counteroffensive against them anytime soon. Most likely, East Africa, Syria and Iraq (should it even come to it in the latter two cases) are taken care of before any serious operation is undertaken against Graziani's men.

4. As mentioned before, attacking Egypt was a political goal of Mussolini. However, he wasn't really expecting to march all the way to the Suez. I remeber reading a quote (which i can't find right now) of him saying something to the effect of "I'm not asking you take the Suez, however desirable that may be, or Alexandria, or even Mersa Matruh. I am merely asking that you advacne and egange the enemy in front of you". This is all closely linked with his belief that a peace conference was just around the corner (the very reason he joined the war in the first place)

that said...

5. it is not impossible to engineer a situation that sees a more defensive Italian attitude WRT Egypt, such as a longer-lasting western front, a French North Africa that sticks with the British, a devastating defeat at sea for Italy's battleships or an all-out invasion of Greece or Yugoslavia attempted earlier.

or 6. Balbo lives and resists pressure to invade once the Italians cannot supply an advance that keeps them in contact with the British, instead building up his supply lines first.

 

[sharlin]

But you're assuming that the British don't alter their plans at all and just stick to OTL script. Would they send troops to Greece if the Italian army in Libya had not been defeated? Probably not. Would the Italians have to get troops out of their defensive positions in Egypt to either provoke the UK into doing something or helping out in Greece whilst the Greeks are merrily kicking the Italian army in the stomach? Probably.

But for gods sake if you're going to make a blatant wank at least give the opposing side some brains unless you just want to 'heil, heil, all over the furhers face'.

Also my grandad (on my Dads side) was a Desert Rat, he always said that the jokes about the Italians were utterly undeserved, they fought bloody hard.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Fair enough; the Italians would eventually attack when they could build up enough supply and rail support to successfully invade Egypt, especially when Greece is over and all supplies could come to them.

By waiting, you allow the British to build up forces in the region - a lot faster than Italy can manage and a lot larger than Italy can logistically support.

Also by 1941 - East Africa is sorted as far as the British and free French are concerned (probably faster as no fighting in NA frees up units/resources).

 

[sharlin]

By waiting, you allow the British to build up forces in the region - a lot faster than Italy can manage and a lot larger than Italy can logistically support.

Also by 1941 - East Africa is sorted as far as the British and free French are concerned (probably faster as no fighting in NA frees up units/resources).

Yep as you've got forces coming from the UK and India, Australia and New Zealand, and those three forces are coming from the East, up the Suez Canal, not the UK.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

By waiting, you allow the British to build up forces in the region - a lot faster than Italy can manage and a lot larger than Italy can logistically support.

Also by 1941 - East Africa is sorted as far as the British and free French are concerned (probably faster as no fighting in NA frees up units/resources).

But if the Italians cannot logistically actually reach British forces in Egypt and sitting on their side of the border is sucking up supplies for no gain, wouldn't it make more sense just to hold like Balbo and Graziani wanted to do in the first place? Building up the Benghazi rail line was in progress pre-war, just wait for it to be finished; the British were able to lay much more rail in several months during their offensives, so its not hard for the Italians to just continue their work to like Tripoli to Benghazi by rail and make an offensive possible by mid-1941.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

But if the Italians cannot logistically actually reach British forces in Egypt and sitting on their side of the border is sucking up supplies for no gain, wouldn't it make more sense just to hold like Balbo and Graziani wanted to do in the first place? Building up the Benghazi rail line was in progress pre-war, just wait for it to be finished; the British were able to lay much more rail in several months during their offensives, so its not hard for the Italians to just continue their work to like Tripoli to Benghazi by rail and make an offensive possible by mid-1941.

Yes of course. But their advantage in numbers is then lost and logistically they cannot match the British Empires position which is stronger the closer it gets to Cairo.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yes of course. But their advantage in numbers is then lost and logistically they cannot match the British Empires position which is stronger the closer it gets to Cairo.

Well then hey are in a catch 22 and are better off for staying on the defensive and letting the British attack them first. Overall they would come out ahead by tying British forces down in Africa, while not losing all those men and that equipment in 1940-41. By mid/late 1941 when the British do go on the offensive the logistics upgrade enable the Italians to fight far more effectively and prevent the British from just running away with the campaign. It keeps the Germans out of the area too until and unless the Italians fall apart later. Even then the logistics upgrades help whomever the Germans send to stabilize the situation.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Well then hey are in a catch 22 and are better off for staying on the defensive and letting the British attack them first. Overall they would come out ahead by tying British forces down in Africa, while not losing all those men and that equipment in 1940-41. By mid/late 1941 when the British do go on the offensive the logistics upgrade enable the Italians to fight far more effectively and prevent the British from just running away with the campaign. It keeps the Germans out of the area too until and unless the Italians fall apart later. Even then the logistics upgrades help whomever the Germans send to stabilize the situation.

Again -the British are only attacking when they have the 3 + : 1 advantage.

They had much less than that at El Alemain but were obliged to fight for Strategic and Political reasons. ie defence of the Canal

Those reasons are not going to be as valid regarding this situation.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Again -the British are only attacking when they have the 3 + : 1 advantage.

They had much less than that at El Alemain but were obliged to fight for Strategic and Political reasons. ie defence of the Canal

Those reasons are not going to be as valid regarding this situation.

So Africa bogs down until one side or the other decides to attack; by 1943 the British will have the ability to dominate, but until then it can be held with existing resources and perhaps even allow for the attack on Malta in 1941 or 1942. Germany commits nothing until 1943 or never, effectively waiting until Sicily is threatened to intervene. The British in the meantime don't gain the necessary combat experience fighting Rommel, so when they overrun the Italians and finally start fighting the Germans again in Sicily they may have some trouble, same with the US if they don't fight the Germans in Tunisia.

 

[sharlin]

and perhaps even allow for the attack on Malta in 1941 or 1942

BINGO! *waves pen in the air*

Are we going to need a med version of..