Allied response to the fall of Egypt

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Trigger Warning: Handwavery
What if everything that could possible go wrong for the British does in mid-1942 and the result is that they get rolled and Rommel gets to Alexandria no later than October. The Nile and Suez fall to the Axis, but they cannot move beyond Suez. Let's say that Operational Pedestal fails and Malta ends up surrendering and the extra supplies plus whatever else you want to throw in happens, perhaps Gott doesn't die and bungles El Alamein so badly that Egypt is lost.

So we are in October, the Axis is in Egypt, but can move no further. What now? How do the Allies respond to this? Is there still a Torch landing? Does what naval forces exist in Cyprus try and break out west? Can the Middle East be supplied via Iraq? Is there an attempt to mount a liberation offensive via the Red Sea/Italian East Africa? How do they cope? Might we see Operation Round Up in 1943?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Good chance if the UK has enough time to react, they will pull land and maybe sea forces out of Cyprus to try to hold the Suez. So the forces to to wherever the other UK Egyptian forces retreat to.

On the supply issues, you probably could use Iraq, but would not need to. You can either use the Eilat port to resupply or you can use Jeddah. These lines largely existed in 1914, and any missing segments will be easy to resupply.


I tend to lean towards any trapped UK ships moving to a port in Lebanon and suffering from supply shortages (think German ships in Norway IOTL), but they also might try to make a run to the Atlantic.

What you end up with is stalemate. The Germans have very long supply lines, but have largely neutralized the Royal Navy in the Med. Either they leave via the Suez, flee west out of the Med or are in ports in Lebanon. The remaining UK land units have enough supplies to defend, but not enough to attack. Very long supply lines.

I kind of thing Torch still happens. Where else will the USA land troops to begin to learn how to fight?
 

Pangur

Donor
Taking back Suez would have been a must for the Allies. There would be the troops driven out,to Palestine most likely as a starting point. It would not be expecting to much for Australian, NZ, Indian and South African troops to be used.
 
Strangely I am half way through "The Moscow Option" by David Downing (a good alt-history WW2 novel so far), and the British have been forced out of Egypt due to larger Panzer forces available to Romel. The novel has the Germans being stopped in Palestine due to the British reinforcing the 8th Army with Monty and units from Syria, Iran and the US and UK through an expanded rail link to Basra.

I'm not sure how plausible this is however I do think that in such a scenario where allied planners genuinely feared the extremely implausible German-Japanese link up strategy US forces would be committed to the middle east.
 
How far into Egypt? Because getting to Alexandria is fantasy and getting to Suez is downright delusional. The port capacity in Libya is simply too inadequate and the distances too vast regardless of the status of Malta or what forces Rommel has.
 
Handwaving away the improbability of the fall of the Delta, the Canal and all the rest the problem is overstretch like in Russia. Does Germany park itself on the canal, because the Allies can probably attack from the Sinai not to mention attacking up the Nile and from the Red Sea.
 
Handwaving away the improbability of the fall of the Delta, the Canal and all the rest the problem is overstretch like in Russia. Does Germany park itself on the canal, because the Allies can probably attack from the Sinai not to mention attacking up the Nile and from the Red Sea.

Suez is easily holdable as proved in 1915. The ability of the UK to support a serious offensive north from the Sudan is low. Honestly it depends on whether Egypt can be induced to join either side, though the chances of them being brought onto the Axis side are rather higher.
 
Strangely I am half way through "The Moscow Option" by David Downing (a good alt-history WW2 novel so far), and the British have been forced out of Egypt due to larger Panzer forces available to Romel. The novel has the Germans being stopped in Palestine due to the British reinforcing the 8th Army with Monty and units from Syria, Iran and the US and UK through an expanded rail link to Basra.

It doesn't sound very convincing. In the very unlikely event of Rommel reaching the Delta, then he'll have all the port facilities that he'll need, although it might take a while to get them up and running. Cyprus can be left to wither and attacks on Palestine can be supported using ports like Haifa and Tel Aviv. British forces would presumably have suffered heavily or this situation wouldn't occur, so I don't see how Palestine can be held really.

But what then? The Med was already closed to British shipping and Aden still block access to the Indian Ocean. The Persian Gulf is readily defensible and is another 600 km away and it will take a long time to build up the logistics for an attack on it. I think Torch will go ahead because it will put Rommel in an impossible strategic position - I doubt he has enough forces to hold Egypt and Tunisia, not without massive diversion of forces from Russia which is exactly the wrong thing to be doing.
 
Aircraft were sent across Chad to Egypt from Atlantic African ports. Light airborne troops could be transported this way. If Monty holds southern Egypt , Sudan, Madagascar, Ethiopia and Sinai there could be a Torch reinforcement instead of invasion by going around South Africa. Slow but sure, some supplies were taking that route anyway.
 
If Rommel beats the 8th Army, then their main targets next would be Alexandria and Cairo. While that's in progress the British are going two ways, some are going south down the Nile, others are going east to Palestine, with holding positions in Sinai.

Hard to what the US would do - after Torbruk fell, they sent Shermans, what this time? Torch could go ahead, though the French may co-operate even less, and no chance of linking with the 8th Army as per OTL, they have to not just take Tunis but Tripoli to!

If Rommel goes east again to Palestine, the counterattack from Sudan/southern Egypt may be better.

PS I also have the 'Moscow Option'.
 

Deleted member 1487

How far into Egypt? Because getting to Alexandria is fantasy and getting to Suez is downright delusional. The port capacity in Libya is simply too inadequate and the distances too vast regardless of the status of Malta or what forces Rommel has.
According to a respectable bio I have of Rommel his forces had enough fuel to make it to Alexandria during the 2nd El Alamein had they broken through. There they would have found more than enough supplies to continue on and could have used the port for further supplies.
 

Deleted member 1487

How viable is it to have Torch forces in the Middle East instead?
 
Good chance if the UK has enough time to react, they will pull land and maybe sea forces out of Cyprus to try to hold the Suez. So the forces to to wherever the other UK Egyptian forces retreat to.

Sorry to pull out a tangent, but do you have any good sources of what was garrisoned on Cyprus? I've looked before and come up empty.
 
Wouldnt Iran be the natural place to build up counter attack forces?

LL and the future Polish forces in the west are going through the country as well as Soviet and british occupation forces, perhaps even granting Iran Co-belligrent status?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Handwaving away the improbability of the fall of the Delta, the Canal and all the rest the problem is overstretch like in Russia. Does Germany park itself on the canal, because the Allies can probably attack from the Sinai not to mention attacking up the Nile and from the Red Sea.

The Canal would make a good defensive holding line. As long as the Germans hold part of the Canal length, the eastern Med will be much, much safer than OTL. The Germans can then probably run some ships straight to Alexandria, which will help supplies. The Sinai is a tough area to attack across. Also, if you want, you can send either merchant raiders or a very limited numbers of U-boats to operate in the Indian Ocean.

I really don't see how the Germans have the logistics to attack Palestine. And the UK will have enough other problems, that attacking will be a slow process. My bet is the UK will beef up Aden. Places it Middle East forces on the defenses, and we still do Torch. If you can roll up the Germans in western North Africa, you make the Egyptian forces irrelevant.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Aircraft were sent across Chad to Egypt from Atlantic African ports. Light airborne troops could be transported this way. If Monty holds southern Egypt , Sudan, Madagascar, Ethiopia and Sinai there could be a Torch reinforcement instead of invasion by going around South Africa. Slow but sure, some supplies were taking that route anyway.

Could? Sure


Likely? No. The war materials are being produced in the USA. The travel distance is much, much shorter to Morocco than around Africa. If you double the trip each freighter has to travel, you half the available logistics.
 

Deleted member 1487

If Torch comes off, could the Axis forces then hold Egypt and move their mobile units to Tunisia/Algeria to confront them quickly enough? Without the 8th army pushing up from the South could the Axis then hold Tunisia/East Algeria now that Malta and Egypt aren't an issue?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
How viable is it to have Torch forces in the Middle East instead?

It is not. Baltimore to Morocco is 14 days at 10 knots. Baltimore to Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) is 47 days. We will need 3.5 times as many freighters as OTL torch. What other operations are cancelled to support this operation? When you take away freighters, you have to take away active military campaigns.

And then we get to issues such as if the USS Wasp is damage, where does she sail for repairs?


Below is the link to calculate port to port times.

http://www.sea-distances.org/
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If Torch comes off, could the Axis forces then hold Egypt and move their mobile units to Tunisia/Algeria to confront them quickly enough? Without the 8th army pushing up from the South could the Axis then hold Tunisia/East Algeria now that Malta and Egypt aren't an issue?

Don't really know enough to say for certain. Here is what I kind of expect, assuming the 8th Army survives and is not capture.

The Germans will be supply Egypt from the Port of Alexandria. They will change the forces structure to lessen supply needs. So we see a lower % of tanks and fewer trucks. We might even see a reduction in total manpower. Maybe also try to recruit up some "Aryan" Egyptian divisions to help out. I doubt the force will be mobile enough to make it back to Tunisia. Less sure on what is kept in Tunisia, but it will operate like a separate army/command from Egypt.

BTW, I think the 8th Army reinforcements of men and units will largely go to Torch. Supply reasons. I think the same things happen to the Axis North African forces. A lot of OTL supply, men, and material go to Russia.

So just for discussion purposes, I could see a German commander in Egypt with most of the German units removed. We would be down to the base Italian units. Second class infantry works fine for occupation. The German mobile units likely end up in Tunisia or in Russia. Hard to say.

So torch happens. I can see TL where the Germans hold Tunisia much longer. I can also see TL where Tunisia falls, and Egypt is much like Norway. The Nazi units surrender at the end of the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Don't really know enough to say for certain. Here is what I kind of expect, assuming the 8th Army survives and is not capture.

The Germans will be supply Egypt from the Port of Alexandria. They will change the forces structure to lessen supply needs. So we see a lower % of tanks and fewer trucks. We might even see a reduction in total manpower. Maybe also try to recruit up some "Aryan" Egyptian divisions to help out. I doubt the force will be mobile enough to make it back to Tunisia. Less sure on what is kept in Tunisia, but it will operate like a separate army/command from Egypt.

BTW, I think the 8th Army reinforcements of men and units will largely go to Torch. Supply reasons. I think the same things happen to the Axis North African forces. A lot of OTL supply, men, and material go to Russia.

So just for discussion purposes, I could see a German commander in Egypt with most of the German units removed. We would be down to the base Italian units. Second class infantry works fine for occupation. The German mobile units likely end up in Tunisia or in Russia. Hard to say.

So torch happens. I can see TL where the Germans hold Tunisia much longer. I can also see TL where Tunisia falls, and Egypt is much like Norway. The Nazi units surrender at the end of the war.

Assuming the Axis takes Egypt by October they are busy occupying Egypt for the month until Torch materializes. Then Tunisia is reinforced as per OTL with 5th Panzerarmee, checking the Allied advance. How long does it take Rommel to embark at Alexandria and unload in Tunis? I imagine the Italian armor divisions do the same later, leaving foot infantry behind, while Ramcke flies in. Without interdiction from the East and Malta what sort of supply interdiction offensive could the Allies launch out of Gibraltar and Algiers? At this point there is no need to defend Sicily/Italy, so the large air defense establishment there could be used in North Africa. How much combat power could the Allies mass in Algeria then compared to OTL nutcracker strategy of squeezing in from both sides? Here the 8th army at least is badly mauled and out of serious combat, held on the Suez, while at least 7 Panzer/Italian armored divisions are available for use in Tunisia, as are several motorized divisions. OTL Sicily/Italy reinforcements can then be used there too.

Given that can the Allies then be held and if so what do they do then?
 
Top