Battle of Crete allied victory

What are the long and short term implications for an allied victory in Crete.

IMHO Crete was a very luckey break for the Germans and if Maleme airfield was just held then the battle is all but over for the Germans.

If the Commonwealth forces win Germany has no chance of invading for a while at least so Crete will just get stronger and harder to take.

How would this effect Barbarossa if at all?

How would the allies use Crete to attack the oil fields in Polesti?

What options do the allies have for an attack on south eastern Europe later in the war and how would it effect post war Europe.
 
I think the most immediate effect would be for Malta convoys, without Crete there would be no bomb alley when the Axis held the Cyrenacia bulge. Allied convoys could steam toward Crete to avoid being bombed in transit to Malta.
 

Redbeard

Banned
IIRC the oil fields and refineries at Ploesti in Romania will be in striking range from airfields on Crete. Although it proved more difficult to destroy an refinerey (or anything else) from the air than anticipated, this will be a severe problem for the Germans.

At this the time of Crete the British Empire practically was alone in the fight, but when the allies later have to decide on which "roll-back" strategy they shall choose, I guess the Balkans in general will provide a greater temptation.

With Crete on allied hands and as base for strong airforces, the axis positions on the Aegean Islands will not be easy. The failed British attempts in OTL 1943 to take various Aegean islands will have a decent chance to succeed, and maybe even at an earlier date.

The big test will come if/when the allies land on the European continent. In OTL the allies had big trouble at both Salerno and Anzio, and even with overwhelming air superiority could not stop the Germans from reinforcing the battlefields in Italy (over rail). That doesn't promise good things for an allied campaign in 1943 in the Balkans, where the risk of being outflanked ought to be greater than on the relatively narrow Italian front. Next a Balkan campaign will be in closer proximity to the main German commitment on the eastern front than France or Italy, and shifting forces thus could be much easier for the Germans. The allies already had the problem of the Germans being capable of much faster shifting their forces on their internal (rail) lines, than the allies could on their external (sea) lines. I have only superficial knowledge about the railway lines on the Balkans in WWII, but I doubt they would be worse than across the Alps.

OTOH, by 1944, when the allies have grown in skills and strength, the Balkans might be a real alternative to France. With Italy out as in OTL 1943 the Med. ought to be relatively safe as supply and deployment route for the allies. The drop to fill the cup could be the Turks feeling this being the occasion to go allied right away. In OTL there really wasn't any allied presense in strength to protect them if going allied until very late in WWII, but an allied victory on Crete, a later Aegean campaign and a realistic allied option of a major Balkan campaign ought to change the prespectives a lot for the Turks.

This would of course also be obvious, even for mediocre German strategists, and I wonder if they would occupy Thracia (Sp? - the part of Turkey on the European continent), just as a precaution. That would make the Turks allied, but an allied invasion more difficult (but not impossible), and would anyway tie up large German forces that will have to be taken from elsewhere.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
If I remember right from a TV show, Hitler rejected and the Americans accepted the idea of paratroopers based on the Cretan campaign. A failure at Crete would mean the Allies probably would not use paratroopers.
 
Guys

Two points:

a) I'm not sure how easy it would be to defend Crete. Think all the main ports that supplies could arrive by were on the north coast which means the RN have to run a gauntlet of German air attacks.

b) If it could be helped and supported I'm not sure Redbeard is right about the greater difficulties that the allies would face breaking out from there later in the war. True the terrain is a lot more rugged, making the breakout more difficult, especially with the sort of heavy motorised forces the western allies used. However the fact it is a broader front is favourable to the allies as they will have more and more mobile forces, along with control of the air. As such it would be easier to stretch and encircle German formations. Furthermore I could see the various Balkan Axis allies, being deeply conservative and anti-Soviet, being a lot more willing to swap sides and join the allies than they were to be conquered by the Soviets. As such both western and Soviet forces would be helped there by more rapid surrenders of the minor allies.

Also, from what I have read the Germans would have had more problems reinforcing the Balkans than France. Its closer in pure distance to where their main forces were on the eastern front. However, despite the OTL heavy bomber campaign, the transport infrastructure across northern Europe made it much easier to switch forces between eastern and western ones than between northern and Med. And this is without the pounding that the limited rail network would probably take if the main western armies were fighting the Germans there.

Steve
 
I would think that a victory for the allies in Crete could have important implications rather early. The 1st German defeat on land as well as lots of captured troops is going to lift the spirits of the UK and Commonwealth for the fight in Africa and show that the Nazis are not invincible.

Also the effect on the coming Russian campaign? Might be minor in the actual attack but the psychological effect that Hitler can be wrong could play on the minds of troops and generals alike.
 
More German troops are tied down in the Med in 1942 because they have to worry more about the Balkans. Otherwise the British and Americans just island hop to get more airfields.
 
More German troops are tied down in the Med in 1942 because they have to worry more about the Balkans. Otherwise the British and Americans just island hop to get more airfields.


Island hop? If you have Crete & Malta you don't really need to do any islanding hoping. Besides which, I'd dare say, whatever major offensive in the Med will have been already conducted by the British & Commonwealth forces, before the US arrives sometime in 1942, where we'd probably have the Axis forces cleared from North Africa by then.

I'd dare say two things may then follow. Either a British & Commonwealth invasion of Sicily or Churchill's favourate idea of invading Greece. Now they maybe able to establish a beachead at either location, but as Redbeard & stevep have said, breaking out, from the beachead, will be very hard to achieve given the mix of terrain & German resistence.

These actions will, though, (well the earlier ones, not the counter invasion of Greece or Sicily) effect German preparations for Barbarossa. So to answer your quesiton loz, just like the OTL German operations in the Balkans delayed the German invasion of the USSR, such setbacks, as a defeat in Crete, followed up by successful Anglo-Commonwealth counter offensives in North Africa, will further delay Barbarossa kicking off, IMHO, whilst the Southern European Theatre remains in flux - especially if there's an invasion of somewhere in Southern Europe by the Anglo-Commonwealth forces. In fact if this takes place, in mid to late 1942, then US forces would be involved as well, & Barbarossa could be delayed even further.
 
With Crete held, and it was a 'close run' battle - the sea invasion was defeated by the RN, but it was the airborne landing that won the day.

I would have sucked in the Luftwaffe to two points in the Med. not only Malta but also Crete. As a 'base' Malta was already developed, compared to Crete; but Crete was more fertile and could therefore be more self-sufficient - less likely to be starved out!

With Crete, it gives the Allies a better base to promote partisan activity in the area, and Commando raids.

I don't think it would initially effect Rommel in North Africa, but later support for Malta would be easier, without Crete based LW, and as a result earlier interdiction of Axis supplies to Rommel. Butterfly effect - if Eigth Army more successful earlier (because of lack of supplies for Rommel) would Montgomery get to North Africa!!
 
Island hop? If you have Crete & Malta you don't really need to do any islanding hoping. Besides which, I'd dare say, whatever major offensive in the Med will have been already conducted by the British & Commonwealth forces, before the US arrives sometime in 1942, where we'd probably have the Axis forces cleared from North Africa by then.

I'd dare say two things may then follow. Either a British & Commonwealth invasion of Sicily or Churchill's favourate idea of invading Greece. Now they maybe able to establish a beachead at either location, but as Redbeard & stevep have said, breaking out, from the beachead, will be very hard to achieve given the mix of terrain & German resistence.

These actions will, though, (well the earlier ones, not the counter invasion of Greece or Sicily) effect German preparations for Barbarossa. So to answer your quesiton loz, just like the OTL German operations in the Balkans delayed the German invasion of the USSR, such setbacks, as a defeat in Crete, followed up by successful Anglo-Commonwealth counter offensives in North Africa, will further delay Barbarossa kicking off, IMHO, whilst the Southern European Theatre remains in flux - especially if there's an invasion of somewhere in Southern Europe by the Anglo-Commonwealth forces. In fact if this takes place, in mid to late 1942, then US forces would be involved as well, & Barbarossa could be delayed even further.

DMA

I can't see the defence of Crete halting Barbarossa. Its too close to the date and Hitler wants it too much. If you do get large scale bombing of the Rumanian oilfields and especially if the western powers are more active in the Balkans as a result it could really come back to bite the Germans.

While the more rugged terrain in the region will make a breakout to the interior more difficult I actually pointed out that will also make it more difficult for the Germans to reinforce the region and establish strong defensive lines.

Steve
 
DMA

I can't see the defence of Crete halting Barbarossa. Its too close to the date and Hitler wants it too much. If you do get large scale bombing of the Rumanian oilfields and especially if the western powers are more active in the Balkans as a result it could really come back to bite the Germans.


Granted, it may not, as it depends upon how determined Hilter is in demanding Crete is taken. After all it'll be the Germans first major defeat & that may not go down too well in Berlin. It may also, as you've pointed out, be seen as a major threat to the oil fields, so attempts to take Crete first, before launching Barbarossa, may be put in place. Furthermore, it also depends how committed Hitler will remain in the Balkans region if Crete isn't taken. As I said, Barbarossa was delayed in the OTL, due to German intervention in the Balkans, so it isn't impossible that Barbarossa will be further delayed if Crete isn't taken & the Southern European Theatre is in constant flux.


While the more rugged terrain in the region will make a breakout to the interior more difficult I actually pointed out that will also make it more difficult for the Germans to reinforce the region and establish strong defensive lines.


Whilst I understand what you're saying, the same is also true for the Allies in 1941-42. After all they've got to bring in everything by ship.
 

Markus

Banned
Guys
a) I'm not sure how easy it would be to defend Crete. Think all the main ports that supplies could arrive by were on the north coast which means the RN have to run a gauntlet of German air attacks.

Actually not a big problem. Most bomber units were/will be withdrawn for the invasion of the USSR. The UK is in a good position to gain local air superioriy very soon.


Victory at Crete could be a poisoned chalice. A win could mean full preparation and on the part of the Allied troops on the island, knowing where the Germans would attempt to attack and exactly when. This came from breaking the German codes. Now the Nazis are smashed on Crete; Hitler looks to blame someone, and the Germans might discover earlier that the Allies are cracking their codes.....

No, the Allies greatly outnumbered the Germans and in spite of severe shortages of equipment and wrong troop deployment all but one airborne landings were quickly defeated or contained. A minor change, like a "hold at all cost"-order or a quick reinforcement and Malame will be held too.
The whole thig will be blamed on bad german intel... which actually was very bad.
 
Top