Allied response to the fall of Egypt

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
QUOTE
Originally Posted by wiking
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/

The NW African option certainly makes sense from a strictly logistics stand point. But, we know considerable materials were sent from the US to Egypt in 1942, instead of being used for the Gymnast or Torch operations that year. In fact one of the reasons for postponing Gymnast multiple times was the diversion of mtl to Egypt, and to the Persian LL route.

The Persian LL route is another consideration. There was a plan in the WPD files for establishing a US Army Group in the Persian Gulf region, had it been necessary. A lot of complex reasons for that one, including the necessity for retaining the Red Army as a viable force. & it never went beyond a few pages of outline, but it was studied.

Unless there was a clear judgement by the senior Allied leaders that the Germans were at their limit in Egypt it is possible either Torch would be delayed due to further diversion of material to the ME, or Op Torch is reduced. Op Torch on the scale we know & at the same approx dates would look like a severe gamble to the leaders at the moment.

Since Pz Army Africa has been reinforced we might assume there is less to send to Tunisia if the Allies do land in Algeria. That could see Tunisia secured in December 1942, Allied air forces dominating the Sicilian Straits shortly after by February, & heavy bombing of Italian ports and air action vs the Axis sea route to Africa. Allied possession of the all weather airfields in Tunisia in December 1942 is a game changer.
 

Deleted member 1487

QUOTE
Originally Posted by wiking
How viable is it to have Torch forces in the Middle East instead?




The NW African option certainly makes sense from a strictly logistics stand point. But, we know considerable materials were sent from the US to Egypt in 1942, instead of being used for the Gymnast or Torch operations that year. In fact one of the reasons for postponing Gymnast multiple times was the diversion of mtl to Egypt, and to the Persian LL route.

The Persian LL route is another consideration. There was a plan in the WPD files for establishing a US Army Group in the Persian Gulf region, had it been necessary. A lot of complex reasons for that one, including the necessity for retaining the Red Army as a viable force. & it never went beyond a few pages of outline, but it was studied.

Unless there was a clear judgement by the senior Allied leaders that the Germans were at their limit in Egypt it is possible either Torch would be delayed due to further diversion of material to the ME, or Op Torch is reduced. Op Torch on the scale we know & at the same approx dates would look like a severe gamble to the leaders at the moment.

Since Pz Army Africa has been reinforced we might assume there is less to send to Tunisia if the Allies do land in Algeria. That could see Tunisia secured in December 1942, Allied air forces dominating the Sicilian Straits shortly after by February, & heavy bombing of Italian ports and air action vs the Axis sea route to Africa. Allied possession of the all weather airfields in Tunisia in December 1942 is a game changer.
If they don't take them what happens?
 
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.

If we ignore that 1/3rd of those stocks were all the way back in Benghazi because of Rommel's inability to move them forward to the front and that the British response to a German breakthrough would simply have been to erect a new defensive line east of El Alamein, then sure.
 
So Alex falls in October?

Hmm, I think by this point its way too late for poor Rommel. Here's why:

It will take the Germans at least a week or two to secure Cairo and the Canal (I'll assume the bulk of the British force was trapped and surrendered west of Alexandria, because otherwise this simply cannot work).

Even then, they're fucked. It will take weeks, if not months, to get Alexandria operational again (factoring in some modest Allied air attack to disrupt this effort). During that time, they can't really advance anywhere and will have almost zero fuel. OTOH, the British will still get supplies from 2 sources:

1. The port of Suez, at the southern end of the canal, located 138 km from Cairo and 350 km from Alexandria. It will be really hard for the Axis to push any meaningful force that far - but lets say they do - they capture some British fuel stockpiles or whatever, and they take Suez by the skin of their teeth.

In that case, we have:

2. Port Sudan. Neatly located far enough that not even LW twin engined bombers can reach it, with ample facilities and reasonably connected to Egypt - rail link to Wadi Halfa; from there barges to Aswan; and then rail link again all the way to Cairo.

IAF-EAfrica-1.jpg


There are also other minor alternatives, like Suakin, or the more closely located Hurghada, or even sending stuff via Kenya (can't find the link any more, but I distinctly remember reading that there was capacity for sending at least several hundred tons of supplies per week?month? via that route at the time, as Wavell was considering it in case the Red Sea got closed off), but I think we can ignore these for now.

What this means is that there are ample ways for the British to supply their forces in the area all the way to Karthoum and beyond, whilst Rommel is stuck with the port of Alexandria still closed for months. During this time, the armored forces the British sent to Egypt OTL will be able to wreak havoc on Rommels forward positions, since they will have fuel to maneuver and he will not.

Of course, the Axis can somewhat alleviate the situation via ample application of air power - the only problem is they don't have the planes for that, since both Torch and Stalingrad are bound to kick off shortly. OTOH, the British can and will deploy as many aircraft as possible in order to deny Rommel his logistics.

Bottom line - sometime in late winter '42/early spring '43 (at the latest), axis forces are kicked out of both Tunisia and Egypt.

At that point, the smart thing to do for the Allies would be to go for Sicilly, but the Allies being the Allies, they will probably want to secure Libya first, which will probably add another 1,5-2 months to their timetable.
 
I agree with the above. ITTL the British are much more bloodied (it's the only way to make it work), but the Axis are in a much more untenable position. They are stretched over the whole of North Africa, and instead of having the option of holding out in Tunisia, which is at least defensible, they're going to be expect to hold out at Alexandria and in Tunis. The likely result is that Tunis falls about a month quicker (because of Hitler demanding that Alexandria hold no matter what, diverting forces there) with the British nipping at Rommel's heels there. The Allies simply move ahead with Sicily and siege the Germans in Egypt. When Italy is knocked out of the war, the Germans are in the untenable situation of supplying Malta via air and diverting resources to Egypt, which proves to be a resource sink.

Hitler could get smart and withdraw units from Egypt to Greece my mid to late 43...or they can all get surrounded and surrender.

This is one of those PODs that don't help the Axis, as it proves to backfire on them because they are too stretched. It would sorta be like if AGC did reach Moscow in 41...the result could be no withdrawal and complete annihilation of AGC.
 

Deleted member 1487

If we ignore that 1/3rd of those stocks were all the way back in Benghazi because of Rommel's inability to move them forward to the front and that the British response to a German breakthrough would simply have been to erect a new defensive line east of El Alamein, then sure.
No, the fuel was on hand apparently. Much of it was used to retreat to Benghazi as it was, plus more would be captured if they won El Alamein.
 

Deleted member 1487

I agree with the above. ITTL the British are much more bloodied (it's the only way to make it work), but the Axis are in a much more untenable position. They are stretched over the whole of North Africa, and instead of having the option of holding out in Tunisia, which is at least defensible, they're going to be expect to hold out at Alexandria and in Tunis. The likely result is that Tunis falls about a month quicker (because of Hitler demanding that Alexandria hold no matter what, diverting forces there) with the British nipping at Rommel's heels there. The Allies simply move ahead with Sicily and siege the Germans in Egypt. When Italy is knocked out of the war, the Germans are in the untenable situation of supplying Malta via air and diverting resources to Egypt, which proves to be a resource sink.

Hitler could get smart and withdraw units from Egypt to Greece my mid to late 43...or they can all get surrounded and surrender.

This is one of those PODs that don't help the Axis, as it proves to backfire on them because they are too stretched. It would sorta be like if AGC did reach Moscow in 41...the result could be no withdrawal and complete annihilation of AGC.


So Alex falls in October?

Hmm, I think by this point its way too late for poor Rommel. Here's why:

It will take the Germans at least a week or two to secure Cairo and the Canal (I'll assume the bulk of the British force was trapped and surrendered west of Alexandria, because otherwise this simply cannot work).

Even then, they're fucked. It will take weeks, if not months, to get Alexandria operational again (factoring in some modest Allied air attack to disrupt this effort). During that time, they can't really advance anywhere and will have almost zero fuel. OTOH, the British will still get supplies from 2 sources:


There are also other minor alternatives, like Suakin, or the more closely located Hurghada, or even sending stuff via Kenya (can't find the link any more, but I distinctly remember reading that there was capacity for sending at least several hundred tons of supplies per week?month? via that route at the time, as Wavell was considering it in case the Red Sea got closed off), but I think we can ignore these for now.

What this means is that there are ample ways for the British to supply their forces in the area all the way to Karthoum and beyond, whilst Rommel is stuck with the port of Alexandria still closed for months. During this time, the armored forces the British sent to Egypt OTL will be able to wreak havoc on Rommels forward positions, since they will have fuel to maneuver and he will not.

Of course, the Axis can somewhat alleviate the situation via ample application of air power - the only problem is they don't have the planes for that, since both Torch and Stalingrad are bound to kick off shortly. OTOH, the British can and will deploy as many aircraft as possible in order to deny Rommel his logistics.

Bottom line - sometime in late winter '42/early spring '43 (at the latest), axis forces are kicked out of both Tunisia and Egypt.

At that point, the smart thing to do for the Allies would be to go for Sicilly, but the Allies being the Allies, they will probably want to secure Libya first, which will probably add another 1,5-2 months to their timetable.

Here's the thing I'm not necessarily saying this helps the Axis, I'm more curious about the strategic implications for the Allies and how they would react. That said if the British 8th army is pretty much destroyed as a result of the defeat, as you guys say is necessary for this to work, then what forces can the Brits put into play? The occupation forces in the Middle East can hold Sinai, but not counterattack, while forces in Africa aren't really up to the task of attacking given their occupation duties and the need to keep what Indian forces that are available, also the Anzacs, in the Far East due to Japan. So they can either divert Torch to the Middle East/East Africa and go from there or do OTL Torch, but not both. If they go for Torch then the Axis only really has to occupy Egypt and can use Italian infantry divisions for that. Maybe some of their armor/motorized troops too. Meanwhile the Afrika Korps and historical reinforcements from France plus maybe some Italian troops can go to Tunisia as per OTL, minus the 8th army being a threat. So the North African campaign then becomes a one front war and given that the Afrika Korps wasn't necessary to secure Tunisia IOTL initially then the Allies don't take Tunisia ITTL either and then have to face the Afrika Korps when it appears later as a reinforcement, plus whatever else the Axis throws in, but now they don't have Egypt or Malta to worry about.

Alexandria is unlikely to be totally sabotaged beyond all recognition and its also unlikely that Port Said or Suez would be totally taken down either, so getting supplies shipped in will be possible, as will shipping out the Germans from Egypt. Plus the stocks in Alexandria are unlikely to be wiped out either, so that will probably yield enough to keep Italian garrison forces going for a good long while.
 
The cascade from what comes out of it is the most important question to answer. Does the Axis come upon documents as the British flee Alex to lead them to believe their codes are compromised? Does this cause uprisings in the Islamic world with them sensing British weakness? Does Churchill survive the likely no confidence vote and if not who takes over?

It will mean the war in North Africa goes extra innings. It could mean that the WAllies are busy bombing Egyptian cities in 43 and early 44 instead of a main focus on Germany itself. It could alter the quantity of LL that comes to the USSR in 42-44 as more moves to Britain.

The end of the war in Europe might look fairly different, though if the WAllies, Germans and/or Soviet's don't agree to a peace with any conditions before the end it at most it ends a few months later once nukes come online though likely with the Soviet's and Germany fighting over Poland given Germany would be able to better prioritize the fight in the East and produce more war materials in any case.

The Cold War ends up very different if it even happens as Russia will be much more exhausted as a power in the late 40s and early 50s. China might not go red and the British Empire also collapses much faster after the war. The U.S. looks by 1950 like the world's sole super power.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The cascade from what comes out of it is the most important question to answer. Does the Axis come upon documents as the British flee Alex to lead them to believe their codes are compromised? Does this cause uprisings in the Islamic world with them sensing British weakness? Does Churchill survive the likely no confidence vote and if not who takes over?

It will mean the war in North Africa goes extra innings. It could mean that the WAllies are busy bombing Egyptian cities in 43 and early 44 instead of a main focus on Germany itself. It could alter the quantity of LL that comes to the USSR in 42-44 as more moves to Britain.

The end of the war in Europe might look fairly different, though if the WAllies, Germans and/or Soviet's don't agree to a peace with any conditions before the end it at most it ends a few months later once nukes come online though likely with the Soviet's and Germany fighting over Poland given Germany would be able to better prioritize the fight in the East and produce more war materials in any case.

The Cold War ends up very different if it even happens as Russia will be much more exhausted as a power in the late 40s and early 50s. China might not go red and the British Empire also collapses much faster after the war. The U.S. looks by 1950 like the world's sole super power.

What effect would Churchill's fall really have at this point? IIRC wasn't Anthony Eden on deck to replace him? Functionally I don't think he believed much different from Churchill, except now the soft underbelly strategy is probably off and he might have been a bit different on the area bombing idea, especially as the defeat really reduces British influence in the US-UK alliance.
 
Here's the thing I'm not necessarily saying this helps the Axis, I'm more curious about the strategic implications for the Allies and how they would react. That said if the British 8th army is pretty much destroyed as a result of the defeat, as you guys say is necessary for this to work, then what forces can the Brits put into play? The occupation forces in the Middle East can hold Sinai, but not counterattack, while forces in Africa aren't really up to the task of attacking given their occupation duties and the need to keep what Indian forces that are available, also the Anzacs, in the Far East due to Japan. So they can either divert Torch to the Middle East/East Africa and go from there or do OTL Torch, but not both. If they go for Torch then the Axis only really has to occupy Egypt and can use Italian infantry divisions for that. Maybe some of their armor/motorized troops too. Meanwhile the Afrika Korps and historical reinforcements from France plus maybe some Italian troops can go to Tunisia as per OTL, minus the 8th army being a threat. So the North African campaign then becomes a one front war and given that the Afrika Korps wasn't necessary to secure Tunisia IOTL initially then the Allies don't take Tunisia ITTL either and then have to face the Afrika Korps when it appears later as a reinforcement, plus whatever else the Axis throws in, but now they don't have Egypt or Malta to worry about.

Alexandria is unlikely to be totally sabotaged beyond all recognition and its also unlikely that Port Said or Suez would be totally taken down either, so getting supplies shipped in will be possible, as will shipping out the Germans from Egypt. Plus the stocks in Alexandria are unlikely to be wiped out either, so that will probably yield enough to keep Italian garrison forces going for a good long while.

I suppose I envision in order to make the POD work, the British have experienced minor PODs that have not affected the war to the point that it still looks very similar, but the 8th army is less in size so that Rommel is able to defeat it. This means, that elements that were part of the OTL 8th army buildup are instead still somewhere in the world, and can be reconstituted into a force that will eventually build up big enough to force the Germans to have something more than a few Italian infantry divisions...

...Italian infantry outnumbered the British 4 to 1 in 1940 and found themselves completely outflanked and pushed back into Libya. So, the Germans wouldn't be able to keep a minor Italian screening force, because no matter how many Italians there are, even the most gutted 8th army can still kick them out operating out of Ethiopia and Sudan, and the Middle East. The Germans will have to provide some significant level of assistance to prevent this.
 

Deleted member 1487

I suppose I envision in order to make the POD work, the British have experienced minor PODs that have not affected the war to the point that it still looks very similar, but the 8th army is less in size so that Rommel is able to defeat it. This means, that elements that were part of the OTL 8th army buildup are instead still somewhere in the world, and can be reconstituted into a force that will eventually build up big enough to force the Germans to have something more than a few Italian infantry divisions...

...Italian infantry outnumbered the British 4 to 1 in 1940 and found themselves completely outflanked and pushed back into Libya. So, the Germans wouldn't be able to keep a minor Italian screening force, because no matter how many Italians there are, even the most gutted 8th army can still kick them out operating out of Ethiopia and Sudan, and the Middle East. The Germans will have to provide some significant level of assistance to prevent this.

The situation in Egypt in 1940 was quite a bit different than one where they are sitting on the Suez in 1942. Then it was a mostly foot infantry force that was well beyond its supply lines' ability to support it, in a serious of unconnected outposts that the Brits drove through; the Italians had learned a lot since then, would have ports to support them and a LOT of captured supplies from the 8th army and in Egypt's ports and cities. Even a reconstituted British force would take time to assemble and sort out its supply situation (the Sinai was not well set up for a force to occupy its side of the canal), as well as deal with the defeat. So there is breathing room before Egypt becomes a 2nd front again, especially given the shipping shortage in 1942 meaning its either Torch or an Egyptian front in terms of supply after the fall of Egypt.
 
So they can either divert Torch to the Middle East/East Africa and go from there or do OTL Torch, but not both.

I think they can. The British had 500 tanks at the Battle of Alam Halfa vs the 193 Axis medium tanks.

OTL, they lost 68. Also OTL, they had brought up their total force to 1029 tanks by the time of El Alemain (part of the reason Rommel rushed into Alam Halfa was he was trying to preempt the arrival of a huge British convoy). This means they added 597 medium tanks between September 5th (end of Alam Halfa) and 23rd October (start of second El Alemain).

Lets assume a worst case scenario, where General Gott loses ALL of his 500 tanks at Alam Halfa. Lets also assume he loses half of the rest of his later arrivals trying to hold Alexandria.

Even this worst case scenario still leaves the British with around 300 !!!! tanks to play with in lower Egypt once Rommel's fuel runs out (at the start of Alam Halfa, he had enough, barely, to reach Cairo assuming none of it was lost to Allied action, which obviously didn't go according to plan).

Leaving static Italian infantry division to defend will result in another Op. Compass. Keeping the DAK there might work in the short term (i.e. a couple of months until the British get their shit together), but it will require a huge commitment by the Ju-52s.

Then December comes, the Ju-52s have all been either shot down or sent to save Stalingrad or to deploy forces to Tunisia, and Rommel is left with zero operational tanks in Egypt on account of lack of fuel, whilst the British will have at least 300, if not more.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think they can. The British had 500 tanks at the Battle of Alam Halfa vs the 193 Axis medium tanks.

OTL, they lost 68. Also OTL, they had brought up their total force to 1029 tanks by the time of El Alemain (part of the reason Rommel rushed into Alam Halfa was he was trying to preempt the arrival of a huge British convoy). This means they added 597 medium tanks between September 5th (end of Alam Halfa) and 23rd October (start of second El Alemain).

Lets assume a worst case scenario, where General Gott loses ALL of his 500 tanks at Alam Halfa. Lets also assume he loses half of the rest of his later arrivals trying to hold Alexandria.

Even this worst case scenario still leaves the British with around 300 !!!! tanks to play with in lower Egypt once Rommel's fuel runs out (at the start of Alam Halfa, he had enough, barely, to reach Cairo assuming none of it was lost to Allied action, which obviously didn't go according to plan).

Leaving static Italian infantry division to defend will result in another Op. Compass. Keeping the DAK there might work in the short term (i.e. a couple of months until the British get their shit together), but it will require a huge commitment by the Ju-52s.

Then December comes, the Ju-52s have all been either shot down or sent to save Stalingrad or deploy to Tunisia, and Rommel is left with zero operational tanks in Egypt on account of lack of fuel, whilst the British will have at least 300, if not more.
In this case though with all of those tanks the Axis will capture a massive amount of fuel from the British not just the 8th army but also in Egypt (like how the Germans captured enough fuel in the West in 1940 to run their war effort for a year).

So where are these 300 British tanks going to appear and how many were serviceable? I was just reading today about how poor British serviceability rates were:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=1970704#p1970704
From ‘Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II’:

berry.jpg
 
In this case though with all of those tanks the Axis will capture a massive amount of fuel from the British not just the 8th army but also in Egypt (like how the Germans captured enough fuel in the West in 1940 to run their war effort for a year).

I don't think we can compare the spoils from the Battle of France with what might be gained in Egypt. Also, maybe I didn't exactly spell this out, but getting to the Suez Canal requires capturing enemy fuel, just like at the Bulge - Rommel only had enough at Alam Halfa for a one-way trip to Cairo; no more, no less. Of course, the British proved quite adept at hitting even that:

The night brought no respite for the Axis forces, as the Albacore and Wellington bombers returned to the attack, concentrating on the Axis supply lines. This added to Rommel′s logistic difficulties as Allied action had sunk over 50% of the 5,000 long tons (5,100 t) of petrol promised to him by Mussolini.[35] Accordingly, on the following day (1 September), the 21st Panzer Division was inactive (probably because of a lack of fuel)

On 2 September, the situation continued to deteriorate for the Axis. Armoured cars of the 4/8th Hussars (of the Fourth Armoured Brigade) broke into the Axis supply echelons near Himeimat and attacked a group of 300 lorries, destroying 57 of them. As a result, Italian armoured units had to be moved to protect the supply lines and prevent further attacks.

Fighting a prolonged battle that sees most of 8th Army encircled, then another battle outside Alexandria against the British reserves plus later arrivals, then a drive south towards Cairo (plus likely encirclement); then driving towards the Suez Canal, aiming for either Port Said or Port Suez (or even worse - both), followed by 2 months of playing cat and mouse against the at least 300 British tanks due to arrive would eat up Rommel's reserve several times over (not counting enemy action), so capturing fuel is a must. During this whole time, supply lines from Tobruk, Benghazi, or, God forbid, Tripoli, have gotten absurdly long - exactly how much fuel do you expect the British to leave behind?


So where are these 300 British tanks going to appear

In my last post, I outlined the possibilities open to the British for supplying continued action in Egypt. And THEY WILL fight in Egypt, because Churchill should be acutely aware of the political consequences of completely losing the place.



and how many were serviceable? I was just reading today about how poor British serviceability rates were:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=1970704#p1970704
From ‘Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II’:
Poor as they were, they were still more than enough to kick Rommel's ass all the way to the Mareth Line.
 

Deleted member 1487

Poor as they were, they were still more than enough to kick Rommel's ass all the way to the Mareth Line.
I'd say the entire strength of British supply, air power, artillery, and numbers was far more important; Monty made sure they couldn't lose and with the US in there was no way for Rommel or von Arnim to fight effectively in a two front war with their supply lines interdicted. The US and British also had the benefit of pretty much devoting 90% of their resources to the fight against the Germans, while the Germans were at most putting 10% into North Africa and the Italians were marginally helpful.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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?

At 10 knots, it is 4 days, 9 hour trip. I don't know how long it takes to load a freighter and then to unload it, but I would guess the total redeployment time from the go order is 10-20 days. This would include traveling to the port of Alexandria, loading the ship, travel by ship, and to begin the unloading time in the port of Tunis.

I have trouble giving a good opinion on Tunisia land battles since I have not studied in details. If we are having an arm chair debate, I lean towards the Tunisian/Algerian lines generally holding. The USA builds up troops, but does not break thru. As the winter of 1943/44 approaches, the USA rotates out veteran divisions for D-Day and rotates in new green divisions.

But there are so many unknowns. Here we have almost a 100% chance both sides do major changes to where they put their forces. And based on these changes, you can get a huge range of results.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
QUOTE
The NW African option certainly makes sense from a strictly logistics stand point. But, we know considerable materials were sent from the US to Egypt in 1942, instead of being used for the Gymnast or Torch operations that year. In fact one of the reasons for postponing Gymnast multiple times was the diversion of mtl to Egypt, and to the Persian LL route.

The Persian LL route is another consideration. There was a plan in the WPD files for establishing a US Army Group in the Persian Gulf region, had it been necessary. A lot of complex reasons for that one, including the necessity for retaining the Red Army as a viable force. & it never went beyond a few pages of outline, but it was studied.

Unless there was a clear judgement by the senior Allied leaders that the Germans were at their limit in Egypt it is possible either Torch would be delayed due to further diversion of material to the ME, or Op Torch is reduced. Op Torch on the scale we know & at the same approx dates would look like a severe gamble to the leaders at the moment.

Since Pz Army Africa has been reinforced we might assume there is less to send to Tunisia if the Allies do land in Algeria. That could see Tunisia secured in December 1942, Allied air forces dominating the Sicilian Straits shortly after by February, & heavy bombing of Italian ports and air action vs the Axis sea route to Africa. Allied possession of the all weather airfields in Tunisia in December 1942 is a game changer.

I agree what you say is possible. After all, the big decisions in history are often hard to understand in hindsight. I have not idea what FDR, Marshall, or Ike would really do. I am not sure if you gave them the scenario as a hypothetical in 1942, these men would correctly predict their own actions.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So Alex falls in October?

Hmm, I think by this point its way too late for poor Rommel. Here's why:

It will take the Germans at least a week or two to secure Cairo and the Canal (I'll assume the bulk of the British force was trapped and surrendered west of Alexandria, because otherwise this simply cannot work).

Even then, they're fucked. It will take weeks, if not months, to get Alexandria operational again (factoring in some modest Allied air attack to disrupt this effort). During that time, they can't really advance anywhere and will have almost zero fuel. OTOH, the British will still get supplies from 2 sources:

1. The port of Suez, at the southern end of the canal, located 138 km from Cairo and 350 km from Alexandria. It will be really hard for the Axis to push any meaningful force that far - but lets say they do - they capture some British fuel stockpiles or whatever, and they take Suez by the skin of their teeth.

In that case, we have:

2. Port Sudan. Neatly located far enough that not even LW twin engined bombers can reach it, with ample facilities and reasonably connected to Egypt - rail link to Wadi Halfa; from there barges to Aswan; and then rail link again all the way to Cairo.


There are also other minor alternatives, like Suakin, or the more closely located Hurghada, or even sending stuff via Kenya (can't find the link any more, but I distinctly remember reading that there was capacity for sending at least several hundred tons of supplies per week?month? via that route at the time, as Wavell was considering it in case the Red Sea got closed off), but I think we can ignore these for now.

What this means is that there are ample ways for the British to supply their forces in the area all the way to Karthoum and beyond, whilst Rommel is stuck with the port of Alexandria still closed for months. During this time, the armored forces the British sent to Egypt OTL will be able to wreak havoc on Rommels forward positions, since they will have fuel to maneuver and he will not.

Of course, the Axis can somewhat alleviate the situation via ample application of air power - the only problem is they don't have the planes for that, since both Torch and Stalingrad are bound to kick off shortly. OTOH, the British can and will deploy as many aircraft as possible in order to deny Rommel his logistics.

Bottom line - sometime in late winter '42/early spring '43 (at the latest), axis forces are kicked out of both Tunisia and Egypt.

At that point, the smart thing to do for the Allies would be to go for Sicilly, but the Allies being the Allies, they will probably want to secure Libya first, which will probably add another 1,5-2 months to their timetable.

Ok, to run with your scenario. I don't see the German position as horrible, they will just rapidly run into logistical issues.


British have bulk of forces trapped, others retreat in order to disengage and setup new lines. The Germans take Cairo and Port Said. A few weeks to a few months to quiet the area is reasonable. UK is now on defensive because they lost the bulk of their equipment. Maybe the men retreated at higher rate, maybe not. They lost their logistical dumps. Now here is the key, it will be AT LEAST 47 days before new supplies arrive at the ports for the UK. Probably more like 60. We are talking about different dates in this thread, but this means the supplies begin to arrive for the UK in late December in the ports. January for the front lines. The battered units need to rebuild. It will be April of 1943 before we see any attack with existing units. Even if we divert the Torch forces and assuming there are enough tankers, freighters and the like, they will not arrive til Mid-January 1943. Again at the earliest.

Now yes, Rommel has supply issues too. He may well be in a position where he will NEVER be able to attack into Palestine or Southern Egypt or Arabia. So it is pretty clear what we have here. A stalemate. Much like in the Pacific war where at one point, the USA is too weak to do major attacks, and the Japanese are too weak to do major attacks. Roughly Midway til the Central Pacific fleet gets going in mid-1943. And it does not matter too much if one side gains a little. Port Suez might fall. UK might retake Cairo. Still a draw. Much better than OTL for the Germans.

IMO, we see German/Italian forces in Egypt in January 1944.

And BTW, it involves massive planning issues to divert the Torch forces from NW Africa to the middle east. And it would be well know that a Torch landing in November 1942 will do more to relieve pressure on the 8th army than a February 1943 attack on Egypt.
 
Top