Brits don't get into Greek campaign, capture Libya in 1941 instead

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
my premise was that the Axis (DAK) does not attempt to advance as IOTL but hold in Tripolitania, it follows that the main supply route would be Tunis to Tripoli, not Tunis to Tobruk(?) thought the "dash" from Italy to Tunis (and back) could be made overnight and was much safer than to Tripoli? or certainly ports even further east?

Well Rommel's orders were to position his troops around Sirte and set up a defensive blocking force there to help support the Italians, easiest solution to meet your idea is for someone who is less aggressive and unwilling to ignore/disobey orders to be chosen as commander of the DAK. More conservative commander keeps the 5th Light Division in Tripoli to secure his base until the 21st Panzer Division is fully deployed towards the end of May/start of June and then moves them forwards to help defend Sirte, or if the intervening months have allowed the British to reorganise and make another limited advance from El Agheila too take Sirte then they deploy to Misrata instead.

that's pretty much the plan. along with advancing (mooted) agreement for base in Bizerte (May 1941) which would probably advance the arrival of u-boats to the Med.
 
a couple of questions pertinent to this scenario:
First, just what was the state of the British forces in NA after Beda Fomm? This battle is generally called the one that put an end to any real Italian resistance in Libya, but were the Brits in any state to continue the advance?

Second, just what would it take to make the Germans decide not to reinforce Italy's forces in Libya? Might more worries about the state of things in the Balkans sway Hitler into abandoning NA and concentrating more on 'things next door', maybe if the Italians do a lot worse there? It seems to me that the Brits aren't going to go on to conquer the rest of Italy if Rommel and the DAK are sent there...
 
a couple of questions pertinent to this scenario:
First, just what was the state of the British forces in NA after Beda Fomm? This battle is generally called the one that put an end to any real Italian resistance in Libya, but were the Brits in any state to continue the advance?

Second, just what would it take to make the Germans decide not to reinforce Italy's forces in Libya? Might more worries about the state of things in the Balkans sway Hitler into abandoning NA and concentrating more on 'things next door', maybe if the Italians do a lot worse there? It seems to me that the Brits aren't going to go on to conquer the rest of Italy if Rommel and the DAK are sent there...

'Wavells 30,000' which had inflicted such a stunning series of defeats on the Italians was exhausted and the equipment particularly of the 7th Armour Division was was worn out and needed a great deal of RnR and new equipment which would not arrive until Mid May 41 (Tiger Convoy).

Also Wavell was armed with intelligence of Rommels orders from Germany to act in a defensive manner (which Rommel ignored) so it was thought that keeping the relatively weak Cyr Force with its 2 'Divisions' (effectively 5 Weak relatively inexperienced Brigades and 3 battalions of worn out tanks) would serve until the Veteran Units could be rebuilt and have rested etc

This coupled with other commitments such as East Africa and the Middle east - in addition to Greece put quite a strain on Wavell's available resources.

So definitely not rolling up the Italians and knocking Italy out of the war by end of 41 :p

As for German commitments

Had they not reinforced the Italians then I can still see them bolstering the rest of the Balkans to some degree and possibly reacting to a British occupation of Crete?
 
so... if we can assume that the Germans decide not to send troops to NA... what next? The Italians are stomped, the Brits are exhausted... I assume that the Italians will still send reinforcements there, but without Rommel and the DAK, how effective are they?
 

Deleted member 1487

As for German commitments

Had they not reinforced the Italians then I can still see them bolstering the rest of the Balkans to some degree and possibly reacting to a British occupation of Crete?
Without a doubt if the British move into Crete. Nothing the Germans opt for is really changing in terms of other theaters then. Crete might well end up being a smashing success with far fewer losses if the Brits don't go beyond Crete. The real question is does the British not going into Greece also mean not going into Crete? So if the British opt out of Crete in November 1940 then does Hitler not order Greece invaded? It think not personally.

Likely then all the Germans do is overrun Yugoslavia assuming that still happens in March (which it probably will even without British intervention into Crete). So Yugoslavia is taken down as per OTL and delays Barbarossa FAR less, while the Axis can then properly garrison Yugoslavia and Hitler can potentially force Mussolini into an armistice with the Greeks provided the Greeks agree to keep the British out and stay neutral or join the Axis.

That opens up two different discussions then, what happens if the British move into Crete and what happens if they don't. If they do then Germany invades, but if they don't then perhaps Greece never is invaded by the Germans and the campaign peters out for the Italians and Hitler forces Mussolini to drop it after Yugoslavia falls.

So if no German Greek campaign and there is a ceasefire, Yugoslavia changes dramatically and so does Barbarossa. A neutral Greece is then an interesting wildcard in the Balkans, while Barbarossa can start on June 10th instead of the 22nd with two additional Panzer divisions (2nd and 5th aren't diverted by the Greek campaign) 300 more aircraft not lost in Greece/Crete, plus German paras. I wonder then if that is enough to get Moscow to fall. In that case strategically the Greek campaign for the British in 1941, despite the defeat, may have been a game changer in the long run and the right decision on Churchill's part. Libya then might also have been a strategic sinkhole for German resources that were more useful elsewhere, as if there is only a minor German commitment to keep Italian Libya from being overrun West of El Algheila there would have actually been a lot more resources for Barbarossa (an additional Panzer and motorized division in 1941 plus several thousand more trucks).
 

Deleted member 1487

so... if we can assume that the Germans decide not to send troops to NA... what next? The Italians are stomped, the Brits are exhausted... I assume that the Italians will still send reinforcements there, but without Rommel and the DAK, how effective are they?
The British it sounds like are logistically unable to conquer Libya before an Italian rally around El Aghelia, so the campaign bogs down until Benghanzi is opened as a port. That's a pretty tough bottleneck to force, so the success the British had in Egypt is hard to repeat against a WW1 style defense that the Italians would set up, because you need to go through it, can't go around it at that spot. IIRC they had 10 divisions to put into the fight by mid-1941 and if Hitler is able to force a ceasefire against Greece the Italians would have several more divisions to send, even if Yugoslavia is occupied in March. They probably could hold out until some time 1942 when the British have enough resources to put into the campaign to build up rail supply, Benghazi, and roads to break the Italian defenses. Once Tripolitania falls that creates a big problem for the Axis, as Tunisia and Vichy French Africa could be a major problem and cause Operation Anton to be put into effect if the British move in and the French join them.

Of course the net gain to the Axis for not having to potentially go full out in Greece and Libya may well yield more dividends for them strategically than the Brits gain in Africa. Having the German 2nd Air Fleet not transfer to the Mediterranean from Moscow right before the Soviet counteroffensive in December would have a large impact on the fighting in the East, while Rommel's corps might also have a significant impact on Barbarossa, especially if that is couples with X. Fliegerkorps not going to the Mediterranean in 1941, no Crete, and an easier Greek campaign without the British involved. X. Fliegerkorps, the German anti-shipping specialists, if sent to the Black Sea would cause the Soviet enormous problems in 1941 during the Odessa siege and Sevastopol, probably taking out a lot of the Black Sea Fleet and causing both Odessa to fall a lot earlier at a lot less cost and Sevastopol to fall in 1941 during the first assault attempt. That save the Germans quite a lot of resources in 1941-42 in the East even if X. Fliegerkorps moves to the Mediterranean or Norway in 1942. Depend on what Rommel does during Barbarossa Leningrad might fall or some other butterfly.

IMHO looking at this option its clear that getting involved in Africa was probably a bad idea for the Germans, even if it meant losing Libya.
 
53 of the 265 tanks from 7AD were refitted in Egypt and made an appearance in Brevity in May, which is a good indication of the state of the British after Compass: 3-4 months to refit 1/5 of the armour.

Without Lustre the only British armour between Feb and May would be the 2AD with ~100 light, ~100 cruiser and ~50 captured Italian tanks. IOTL without Benghazi the British couldn't supply half of these tanks, so getting Benghazi running is a must.
 
That opens up two different discussions then, what happens if the British move into Crete and what happens if they don't. If they do then Germany invades, but if they don't then perhaps Greece never is invaded by the Germans and the campaign peters out for the Italians and Hitler forces Mussolini to drop it after Yugoslavia falls.

my understanding, perhaps misinformed, was that Germans were aware of Italian plans or designs on Crete but full scale invasion of Greece was the shock? at any rate, THAT might have been smartest Axis move. once Italians move into Greece proper it does not seem likely Germans would force a truce on them? or it goes against everything done IOTL.

Libya then might also have been a strategic sinkhole for German resources that were more useful elsewhere, as if there is only a minor German commitment to keep Italian Libya from being overrun West of El Algheila there would have actually been a lot more resources for Barbarossa (an additional Panzer and motorized division in 1941 plus several thousand more trucks).

basically my scenario , stiffen Italian defense in Tripolitania, supplied through Tunisia. allows Italians to save face and keeps British away from Vichy territory. without Axis convoys to all points along Libyan coast it might change British calculus on Malta? would it be worth maintaining base there IF they were not sinking numerous Axis ships?
 
Without a doubt if the British move into Crete. Nothing the Germans opt for is really changing in terms of other theaters then. Crete might well end up being a smashing success with far fewer losses if the Brits don't go beyond Crete. The real question is does the British not going into Greece also mean not going into Crete? So if the British opt out of Crete in November 1940 then does Hitler not order Greece invaded? It think not personally.

I think that Germany is more likely to get involved in Greece if the British intervene - there are too many implications (Military and Political) of having the British establishing themselves in the Balkans.

As such an intervention cause the Italians to lose face I cannot see such an intervention happening if the British do not go to Greece.

This then would mean that - certainly in 1941 - there is no reason for the British to occupy Crete and subsequently no reason for the Germans to assault it.

Meanwhile the Battle for 'Greece' becomes very Static


Likely then all the Germans do is overrun Yugoslavia assuming that still happens in March (which it probably will even without British intervention into Crete). So Yugoslavia is taken down as per OTL and delays Barbarossa FAR less, while the Axis can then properly garrison Yugoslavia and Hitler can potentially force Mussolini into an armistice with the Greeks provided the Greeks agree to keep the British out and stay neutral or join the Axis.

I was under the understanding that the Balkans 'adventures' where not as much as a delay to Barbarossa as were the unexpected heavy rains that swamped the Forward Airfields in May and swelled rivers etc

I get the impression that the Greeks were having quite a good war vs the Italians - who had been bullying them for 2 Decades - right up to the point where the Germans and Bulgarians opened up a second front.

So until any intervention, its likely that the Greeks would fight on and Mussolini would lose too much face if he withdrew the Italian Army or agreed to any humiliating terms.

That opens up two different discussions then, what happens if the British move into Crete and what happens if they don't. If they do then Germany invades, but if they don't then perhaps Greece never is invaded by the Germans and the campaign peters out for the Italians and Hitler forces Mussolini to drop it after Yugoslavia falls.

If Germany intervenes despite no British deployment to Greece then I can see the British occupying Crete when the Greeks are defeated - if that still translates into a Parachute assault then I can see it failing as the British units sent to Crete would not be lacking Cohesion and reduced TO&E due to their defeat and rapid evacuation from Greece

So if no German Greek campaign and there is a ceasefire, Yugoslavia changes dramatically and so does Barbarossa. A neutral Greece is then an interesting wildcard in the Balkans, while Barbarossa can start on June 10th instead of the 22nd with two additional Panzer divisions (2nd and 5th aren't diverted by the Greek campaign) 300 more aircraft not lost in Greece/Crete, plus German paras. I wonder then if that is enough to get Moscow to fall. In that case strategically the Greek campaign for the British in 1941, despite the defeat, may have been a game changer in the long run and the right decision on Churchill's part. Libya then might also have been a strategic sinkhole for German resources that were more useful elsewhere, as if there is only a minor German commitment to keep Italian Libya from being overrun West of El Algheila there would have actually been a lot more resources for Barbarossa (an additional Panzer and motorized division in 1941 plus several thousand more trucks).

The failure to capture Moscow is not due to a lack of units/troops/tanks etc but a combination of Mission creep (as I understand it Moscow was not a primary objective at the start of the Campaign), Massive Logistical issues, poor terrain and General Winter - oh and the Red Army

And if the British are not fighting as hard or taking as many losses in North Africa then they would have more equipment to send to the Russians - as it was 1/5th of the 'Russian Tanks' defending Moscow that Winter where made by 'Communist Workers' in the British Midlands :D


53 of the 265 tanks from 7AD were refitted in Egypt and made an appearance in Brevity in May, which is a good indication of the state of the British after Compass: 3-4 months to refit 1/5 of the armour.

Without Lustre the only British armour between Feb and May would be the 2AD with ~100 light, ~100 cruiser and ~50 captured Italian tanks. IOTL without Benghazi the British couldn't supply half of these tanks, so getting Benghazi running is a must.

7th Armor Division formed a "Brigade group" using the runners it still had available - take in mind that a number of tanks had also been sent to Greece and likely sent to East Africa as well further weakening the numbers of tanks it had available in Egypt on the 24th March 1941

7th Armoured Brigade group - Op Brevity

A Company, 2nd battalion The Rifle Brigade

2nd Royal Tank Regiment (29 Cruiser tanks)

6th Australian Division Cavalry (~28 Light Tank Mk VIB)

7th Support Group (elements)

11th Hussars[4](Marmon-Herrington Armoured Cars)

One troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Regiment (2 Pounder Anti Tank guns)

22nd Guards Brigade Group also had 24 Matilda II of the 4th RTR

The Tiger Convoy arrived on the 12th May 41 - Brevity was launched on the 15th May 1941 so 3 days actually - not 3-4 months and elements of the Veteran units were still fighting to reduce bypassed Italian Garrisons right up to the 24th March so its not like they were sitting on their thumbs during this period!

Also I would seriously doubt that any of the Tiger Convoy tanks were involved as they would need to be unloaded, made serviceable etc and moved up to the front inside of 3 days!
 
so... if we can assume that the Germans decide not to send troops to NA... what next? The Italians are stomped, the Brits are exhausted... I assume that the Italians will still send reinforcements there, but without Rommel and the DAK, how effective are they?

Without the DAK I can see the British easily maintaining the Moral Ascendancy over the Italian Army.

Cyrforces 'Green' units hold the 'front line' with no assault from the Italians in the offing the veteran Divisions having rested and then refitted in May - attacking in the Summer of 41 with a much larger and better equipped army than Wavells 30,000 and with a starting point of El Agheila and with Benghazi open + improved logistics I could see them very likely handing the Italian Forces in Libya a very serious slap.
 
...snip...
7th Armor Division formed a "Brigade group" using the runners it still had available - take in mind that a number of tanks had also been sent to Greece and likely sent to East Africa as well further weakening the numbers of tanks it had available in Egypt on the 24th March 1941

7th Armoured Brigade group - Op Brevity

A Company, 2nd battalion The Rifle Brigade

2nd Royal Tank Regiment (29 Cruiser tanks)

6th Australian Division Cavalry (~28 Light Tank Mk VIB)

7th Support Group (elements)

11th Hussars[4](Marmon-Herrington Armoured Cars)

One troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Regiment (2 Pounder Anti Tank guns)

22nd Guards Brigade Group also had 24 Matilda II of the 4th RTR

The Tiger Convoy arrived on the 12th May 41 - Brevity was launched on the 15th May 1941 so 3 days actually - not 3-4 months and elements of the Veteran units were still fighting to reduce bypassed Italian Garrisons right up to the 24th March so its not like they were sitting on their thumbs during this period!

Also I would seriously doubt that any of the Tiger Convoy tanks were involved as they would need to be unloaded, made serviceable etc and moved up to the front inside of 3 days!

The tanks that fought in Brevity in May were those that were withdrawn with 7AD to Egypt for refitting at the end of Compass in Feb, 9 Feb to 15 May is 3 months and a week or so.

The tanks that were defeated during Sonnenblume were from the 2AD, ~50 light, ~50 cruiser and ~50 Italian tanks. If all of 2AD was in Libya rather than half in Greece that would add another ~50 light and ~50 cruiser tanks. These were all that was available in the timeframe between the end of Compass and the start of Brevity and the cruisers drove on their tracks to Libya and didn't arrive until March.

Of the 295 tanks in the Tiger convoy 57 (mostly Matildas) were lost when Empire Song struck a mine and sank. The rest of the convoy arrived on May 12 but the 238 tanks (~135 Matilda and 81 cruiser) it carried didn't go into battle for a month, which isn't surprising given the time it takes to unload, transport to railhead, mate up with crews, deploy to combat area and maybe do a bit of training.
 
The tanks that fought in Brevity in May were those that were withdrawn with 7AD to Egypt for refitting at the end of Compass in Feb, 9 Feb to 15 May is 3 months and a week or so.

The tanks that were defeated during Sonnenblume were from the 2AD, ~50 light, ~50 cruiser and ~50 Italian tanks. If all of 2AD was in Libya rather than half in Greece that would add another ~50 light and ~50 cruiser tanks. These were all that was available in the timeframe between the end of Compass and the start of Brevity and the cruisers drove on their tracks to Libya and didn't arrive until March.

Of the 295 tanks in the Tiger convoy 57 (mostly Matildas) were lost when Empire Song struck a mine and sank. The rest of the convoy arrived on May 12 but the 238 tanks (~135 Matilda and 81 cruiser) it carried didn't go into battle for a month, which isn't surprising given the time it takes to unload, transport to railhead, mate up with crews, deploy to combat area and maybe do a bit of training.

Yeah - I thought you meant that the 7th AD was partially refitted with tanks from the Tiger Convoy for Op Brevity!

So 7th ID is probably refitted by beginning June

The Tanks loaded on Empire Song lost were 50 Matilda II and 7 Light VI as well as 10 Hurricanes
 
Without the DAK I can see the British easily maintaining the Moral Ascendancy over the Italian Army.

Cyrforces 'Green' units hold the 'front line' with no assault from the Italians in the offing the veteran Divisions having rested and then refitted in May - attacking in the Summer of 41 with a much larger and better equipped army than Wavells 30,000 and with a starting point of El Agheila and with Benghazi open + improved logistics I could see them very likely handing the Italian Forces in Libya a very serious slap.

could they go so far as to conquer all of Libya?
 
could they go so far as to conquer all of Libya?

Militarily I think the British could defeat the Italians - however the real problem as always is the logistics - while the Brits had better logistics than everyone It still was not good enough in 41.

With the DAK having launched Operation Sonnenblume then assume that the Stronger than OTL British hold a line further West than OTL and by June are strong enough for a large Counter offensive

I would expect that this Battle eventually restores British control over Cyrenaica - say by Aug and the 3 principle Italian and 2 DAK Divisions that took part in Operation Sonnenblume (5th Light and 15th Panzer divisions along with the 27th Infantry Division Brescia (Brescia Division), 17th Infantry Division Pavia (Pavia Division) and the 132nd Armoured Division Ariete (Ariete Division) would be seriously mauled and would have lost a great deal of armour and equipment during the long retreat to Sirte.

Another halt by the Brits - this time to open Benghazi - more likely this time round as the DAF is stronger etc and their would be increased AAA than was the case at the beginning of 1941 and with further reinforcements the Brits make an attempt for Misrata late in the year......

I don't see them doing better than this in 41 unless the Italian forces totally fold
 
could they go so far as to conquer all of Libya?

If the British


  • Deploy all of 2AD in prudent positions
  • Conduct a reasonable fighting withdrawal so as to stop Sonnenblume from reaching Halfaya Pass
  • Still hold Tobruk
  • Keep maybe 1/2 of 2ADs tank strength intact (125+ tanks), perhaps in Tobruk
  • Keep the Brevity tanks intact as a force
  • Don't lose Empire Song from the Tiger Convoy.

Then the British would have 450+ tanks on strength in June and a start line of Tobruk. I believe that they then would have a good chance of defeating the DAK and such a victory would carry them at least to Al Agheila and perhaps even Tripoli itself.

But given the prerequisites and the tactical superiority of the Germans in particular it is probably asking a bit too much.
 
If the British


  • Deploy all of 2AD in prudent positions
  • Conduct a reasonable fighting withdrawal so as to stop Sonnenblume from reaching Halfaya Pass
  • Still hold Tobruk
  • Keep maybe 1/2 of 2ADs tank strength intact (125+ tanks), perhaps in Tobruk
  • Keep the Brevity tanks intact as a force
  • Don't lose Empire Song from the Tiger Convoy.

Then the British would have 450+ tanks on strength in June and a start line of Tobruk. I believe that they then would have a good chance of defeating the DAK and such a victory would carry them at least to Al Agheila and perhaps even Tripoli itself.

But given the prerequisites and the tactical superiority of the Germans in particular it is probably asking a bit too much.

I think that Tripoli could only be reached if a more powerful Brevity basically smashes the DAK and Mobile Italian Divisions in Cyrenaicia after they are strung out trying to besiege Trobruk and possibly still suffering from their supply issue caused by their long advance, woeful logistic situation and Benghazi still not open resulting in the effective Destruction of that Army group.

Denied their principle mobile formations the Italians once again crumble in Cyrenaicia - but this time with more modern equipment the Brits are able to advance faster for longer with the vanguard initially bypassing certain locations for follow up units to besiege.

But I suspect that having experienced the supply issues earlier in the year the 8th Army will be content to snip off Cyrenaicia and then with a much stronger covering force concentrate on opening up both Trobruk and Benghazi, improving roads, extending rail lines etc etc

Then using 'bite' operations to take Sirte, then Misrata then Tripoli (I suspect 1942 at the earliest)
 
I think that Tripoli could only be reached if a more powerful Brevity basically smashes the DAK and Mobile Italian Divisions in Cyrenaicia after they are strung out trying to besiege Trobruk and possibly still suffering from their supply issue caused by their long advance, woeful logistic situation and Benghazi still not open resulting in the effective Destruction of that Army group.

Denied their principle mobile formations the Italians once again crumble in Cyrenaicia - but this time with more modern equipment the Brits are able to advance faster for longer with the vanguard initially bypassing certain locations for follow up units to besiege.

But I suspect that having experienced the supply issues earlier in the year the 8th Army will be content to snip off Cyrenaicia and then with a much stronger covering force concentrate on opening up both Trobruk and Benghazi, improving roads, extending rail lines etc etc

Then using 'bite' operations to take Sirte, then Misrata then Tripoli (I suspect 1942 at the earliest)

Given the forces that were available how do you get a more powerful Brevity? The three options I can think of are saving 2ADs tanks to add to a May Brevity, delaying Brevity until June and using its tanks in a bigger Battleaxe of a combination of both which will yield the greatest strength.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I have read the international audience (i.e. US Congress) was one of the key motivations of Churchill for getting heavily involved in Greece i.e. to demonstrate commitment to the cause. Clearly if Greece was 'abandoned' and Lend-lease legislation failed as a consequence, the implications would have been rather significant.

I'm afraid my knowledge of US politics is somewhat limited (past and present).
 
Given the forces that were available how do you get a more powerful Brevity? The three options I can think of are saving 2ADs tanks to add to a May Brevity, delaying Brevity until June and using its tanks in a bigger Battleaxe of a combination of both which will yield the greatest strength.


Well the POD is W Force not going to Greece

2nd NZ Inf Division
7th AID
Br 1st Tank Brigade (IIRC 50 Matildas 50 Cruisers)

So all that for Starters might mean that the objectives of brevity are already in Allied hands so it does not happen as OTL - by end of May 7th Armoured Division is re-equipped and June sees an Assault aimed at thrashing the Axis in Cyrenaicia

Also with transport and other assets not having been squandered in Greece Cyrforce might be more mobile with improved transport and logistics.

Therefore less likely that the force gets mauled / vehicles break down/ run out of fuel etc while falling back in the face of the DAKs attack in April/May and instead acts as a cavalry screen - falling back on Benghazi and then Trobruk.
 
I have read the international audience (i.e. US Congress) was one of the key motivations of Churchill for getting heavily involved in Greece i.e. to demonstrate commitment to the cause. Clearly if Greece was 'abandoned' and Lend-lease legislation failed as a consequence, the implications would have been rather significant.

I'm afraid my knowledge of US politics is somewhat limited (past and present).

The only real thing delaying a full US "upto but not including war" support for Britain was the Nov 1940 presidential Elections - as both candidates had to pander to the isolationist minority in order to win the election (as it was FDR won by 55% to 45% - so you can understand his concerns) - after that the Lend Lease flood gates would open regardless of who actually won.
 
Top