So, the last two posters in this thread do not believe that over time the Germans could establish the logistic base necessary to defeat the British in the Med? This seems a bit silly, if the British can do it, what is stopping the Germans?
That Britain is not Germany, and Egypt is not Libya?
It's that recurring fallacy of 50-50 chances: every factor that decided the war is assumed to be a nearly-even chance that came down for the allies. A lot of the factors were the ole' Grim Economic Realities. There were plenty of open chances, of course (that's the point of AH) and most of them came down for Axis, so there you are.
Granted though, it wouldn't be easy and would take time, but it could be done. To say otherwise is rubbish imo and a gross underestimation of the capabilities of Germany.
Underestimation? These guys
sent an equipped armoured formation to a dusty desert and used it to cause serious concern for their enemies, quite apart from knocking out one of the world's main military powers in weeks, utterly mauling a massive army, and getting all the way to the outskirts of Russia's capitals and the Volga. Who'd have believed that if you'd told them in 1939?
But the fact is, the Germans did an
incredible (and I do mean in the proper sense of the word: impossible to credit were it not true) amount with an economy which was still something like 25% agrarian and an army that was in large part horse-drawn
already. They got far further than anyone would have expected. And they were pretty damn lucky all the way.
Why, therefore, must we assume that it's "underestimation" to question whether they could go
even further?
Nobody's presented any facts, it's all just "Germans can do it! They're Germans!" Facts are, Tripoli and Benghazi had very limited capacity. Rommel is fighting us up at the front. Rommel is guzzling parts, petrol, and ammunition. Parts, petrol, and ammunition must therefore constantly be offloaded to keep him fighting. You've already met the capacity of the ports to do that, but you don't have enough lorries to get them to him.
If you instead send lorries, and the considerable resources necessary to build expanded ports and railways, where's he getting his petrol? Monty's not just going to sit on his bum forever.
However, if by the time the logistical infrastructure required has been added the Americans have entered the war against Germany, that could seriously complicate things for Germany. Then, I would have to wonder if it would even be worth pursuing any more gains down there. As I understand it, there wasn't anything of significant enough value to justify fighting the Americans down there.
The PoD is apparently Barbarossa, so we can assume the Germans start committing all the resources they supposedly have to North Africa in June '41. That was when Rommel neatly parried our Battleaxe attack - and could advance no further thanks to his critical supply situation. Big surprise.
So, Rommel (or rather the supply-minded commander who has somehow taken over Rommel's command, as AG has pointed out more than once) can now make use of all these magical resources in the lull over the Autumn to build up his logistical infrastructure - and this is going to do him a fat lot of good when Crusader hits him between the eyes. I see no reason it should be any less succesful than OTL, since if anything building railways has reduced Germany's ability to actually re-enforce and resupply Rommel.
And by the end of Crusader, the Americans are in.
North Africa was always an ill-considered adventure for the Germans. They basically got dragged in to pull Mussolini's fat out of the fire, and stayed because they were hypnotised by the prospect of a canal that a) they were supremely unlikely to capture and b) wouldn't have done them much good if they had. They let themselves be steadily crushed between British local superiority on one hand and the overwhelming resources available to America on the other.