Middle East Front 1942

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
The POD of the Axis troops getting into position on time and attacking on time is 'an extensive and multiple' POD?

The sunken British BBs were floated and shipped out to the US for repairs by July.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_%281914%29#World_War_II
Valiant went to South Africa and didn't return until 1943, QE went to the US for repairs; she left in June 1942 and didn't return until later, well after the POD.


Given that the entire point of the thread wasn't about 1st Alamein, it was about what the British would do if there was a Middle Eastern Front in 1942, I was curious about exploring strategy in that context, not getting into a pissing match with people that want to dismiss out of hand anything that they don't want to talk about.

Its not that unlikely things could come together that would disrupt the British ability to get defenses ready in time at Alamein and result in another defeat. Its in fact quite a bit different than the Germans somehow winning the BoB.

Also its not exactly unprecedented for the British to panic and retreat when they were in the power position. I mean Malaysia in 1942 is a prime example, plus the ridiculous numbers of defeats the British suffered in the Western Desert during 1941-42 due to terrible tactics, slipshod organization, and frayed nerves. They should have won Gazala and not lost Tobruk like they did, nor should they have lost Battleaxe in 1941. So its not unprecedented at all for them to screw the pooch in that theater.

The problem is that getting an Axis victory at 1st Alamein is in itself rather unlikely. It’s not just a question of the Imperial defences being in place, it’s the fact that Rommel’s attack was a mistake from start to finish. His men had been driven a long way ahead of their supplies, they were desperately tired, substantially outnumbered and above all critically short on all kinds of supplies. There was only so much that they could give Rommel and whilst it was enough to parry Auchinleck’s clumsy counter-attacks, they just didn’t have enough to break through.
A better question would be what would have happened if Montgomery had not been in charge at Alam Halfa, because I am not at all convinced in the Auk’s defensive plan, still less Dorman-Smith’s refinements. But I think that this has been discussed elsewhere.
 
Part of it was that if the Axis forces actually won at Alamein and took Alexandria due to the British panicking and bugging out (winning Alamein is the POD, the British freaking out is a butterfly), then the Egyptians, who were actually pretty anti-British at this point, are likely to start collaborating and rising up against the Brits, which unhinges their positions in Egypt. As it was the loss of Alexandria would reduce them to just bases in Cairo, which may be unusable due to Egyptian uprising, and bases in Palestine. Captured supplies in Alexandria will actually be quite huge and yes the Axis forces will have to take time to rest and work with the Egyptians to make their position stick. The Brits were planning on evacuating to Cyprus there naval forces and pulling back whatever air forces they could rescue too. At that point Alexandria is pretty much open to Axis shipping from Greece and the problem will only be bombing from Palestine. Axis forces taking time to rest after taking Alexandria, British forces pulling back to defend the Nile Delta, and potentially an Egyptian uprising make the entire situation pretty fluid and unfavorable to the British; I'm positing for the sake of argument that the situation unfolds in an anti-British manner so that there is Axis control of Egypt by August and a chance for a Middle East front then opens.

So assume the British do panic they still have the reinforcements coming in from Iraq which I noted that you also state are to be handwaved. Even here though you require not just panic but so much panic that the British allow all their stuff to fall to the Axis. Further but yes port demolitions do take a few days they won't be perfect but they don't have to be and then the Italians have to deal with the blockships sunk in the harbour approaches a feat which takes hours to effect and weeks and often months to clear up.

Even assuming that Alex is restored in weeks rather than months that enforces a hold up west of Suez which means that Suez at the very least becomes the new defensive line and Port Said is prepped for demolition which means that in the Sinai the Axis are in their best case scenario still reliant on supply from Alex.

Further we know the Palestine frontier is defensible because an awful lot of folks have tested it for us so you have the British building up from places like Aqaba which is not a great port but together with more distant traffic can do the job.

One option that opens up with the the DAK etc in Sinai is an Inchon at Port Tewfik by the Americans.
 
We sit and judge a POD based on our own take on history, it's not always the healthiest thing to do. That being said my own take on this situation is this...

It really isn't that hard to imagine a different result in this battle. The German attack on 1st July was delayed by a sandstorm allowing the RAF vital time to prepare ground attacks once the storm was over. The Indian troops had only just arrived and their defences not fully in place when the attack happened.

No sandstorm equals greater German penetration into the British lines and less time for the RAF to react and attack. A delay of just a day for the Indian troops means their defences are even weaker. The result of both could quite possibly mean a German breakthrough... either one puts a British victory in doubt.

The British were so concerned over this that they were preparing for evacuation from both Alexandria and Cairo, burning papers etc. and plans were in place to flood the Nile Delta. There is no mention however in any of the accounts I have read of addition defensive lines being prepared or of port facilities being rigged for demolition, the British just didn't think they had time. Militarily this was the last line of defence, the best the British could hope to do was delay the German forces from reaching the Suez Canal by using the geography of the land not by military force. My grandad was serving at this time in Palestine and they were preparing to muster themselves for the defence of the Suez from the Palestinian side of the bank.
 

Deleted member 1487

We sit and judge a POD based on our own take on history, it's not always the healthiest thing to do. That being said my own take on this situation is this...

It really isn't that hard to imagine a different result in this battle. The German attack on 1st July was delayed by a sandstorm allowing the RAF vital time to prepare ground attacks once the storm was over. The Indian troops had only just arrived and their defences not fully in place when the attack happened.

No sandstorm equals greater German penetration into the British lines and less time for the RAF to react and attack. A delay of just a day for the Indian troops means their defences are even weaker. The result of both could quite possibly mean a German breakthrough... either one puts a British victory in doubt.

The British were so concerned over this that they were preparing for evacuation from both Alexandria and Cairo, burning papers etc. and plans were in place to flood the Nile Delta. There is no mention however in any of the accounts I have read of addition defensive lines being prepared or of port facilities being rigged for demolition, the British just didn't think they had time. Militarily this was the last line of defence, the best the British could hope to do was delay the German forces from reaching the Suez Canal by using the geography of the land not by military force. My grandad was serving at this time in Palestine and they were preparing to muster themselves for the defence of the Suez from the Palestinian side of the bank.
Thank you, this is exactly what I'm getting at. Its not that the Germans were better than the British, it was just the situation was messy and there was a small chance of Axis victory if things played out better for them. If that happened then the British were not in a good position to stop them short of Alexandria, though as thoroughly pointed out getting much further is going to be highly problematic immediately and the offensive bogs down in Alexandria. That gives the Brits a chance to flood the Nile and set up defenses assuming the Egyptians don't revolt over the bombing of Alexandria by the USAAF/RAF and the flooding of the Nile. Personally I think they would if they think they had a chance to win and then present the Axis with a fiat accompli in terms of their independence and allied co-belligerent, rather than a vassal under the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_during_World_War_II#King_Farouk_of_Egypt
As it was the British had overthrown the government for a more favorable one in February and the Egyptian army wasn't very happy about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdeen_Palace_Incident_of_1942
On the night of 4 February 1942, General Stone surrounded Abdeen Palace in Cairo with troops and tanks, and Lampson presented Farouk with an abdication decree drafted by Sir Walter Monckton. Farouk capitulated, and Nahhas formed a government shortly thereafter. However, the humiliation meted out to Farouk and the actions of the Wafd in cooperating with the British and taking power, lost support for both the British and the Wafd among both civilians and, more importantly, the Egyptian military. In his memoirs, Muhammad Naguib, one of the two leaders of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and Egypt's first President, cited the incident as a major factor in the rise of revolutionary, anti-monarchical sentiment in the country that contributed to the Revolution 10 years later.

So if the Germans manage to capture the main anchorage for the British navy in the Mediterranean, then the Allies bomb it to disrupt German supply, its likely the Egyptian army, pissed off already and sensing British weakness, as well as further angered by their actions against Alexandria, might well rise up and take advantage of the situation, presenting the Axis with a major force multiplier that undermines Allied attempts to make a stand west of the Suez.
 

Deleted member 1487

So assume the British do panic they still have the reinforcements coming in from Iraq which I noted that you also state are to be handwaved. Even here though you require not just panic but so much panic that the British allow all their stuff to fall to the Axis. Further but yes port demolitions do take a few days they won't be perfect but they don't have to be and then the Italians have to deal with the blockships sunk in the harbour approaches a feat which takes hours to effect and weeks and often months to clear up.

Even assuming that Alex is restored in weeks rather than months that enforces a hold up west of Suez which means that Suez at the very least becomes the new defensive line and Port Said is prepped for demolition which means that in the Sinai the Axis are in their best case scenario still reliant on supply from Alex.

Further we know the Palestine frontier is defensible because an awful lot of folks have tested it for us so you have the British building up from places like Aqaba which is not a great port but together with more distant traffic can do the job.

One option that opens up with the the DAK etc in Sinai is an Inchon at Port Tewfik by the Americans.

The British did try and blow up supply dumps in retreats, but Rommel routinely captured enough supplies to keep himself going repeatedly thoughout 1942. Tobruk, Bardia, Mersa Matruh, etc. I'd imagine some would be take at Alamein too. Frankly everyone left supplies behind, especially large dumps when they retreated; Rommel did it, the Italians did, the Germans and Russians repeatedly did so. Quick retreats don't allow for thorough sabotage of everything that should be destroyed on retreats. Plus if the Egyptians themselves rise up the British are truly fucked as they'd likely be unable to pull out in time if they are under attack by their 'allies' unexpectedly. You make good points about the obstacles of the Nile and Suez, which will be significant issues here.

As to the forces from Palestine that reinforced Alamein IOTL, the point is not that they are handwaved, but that the rapid Axis victory at Alamein (earlier than IOTL before they arrive) disorders them and in the panic of the breakthrough they get orders to retreat to the Nile or are unexpectedly overrun on the way to Alexandria.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
It occurs to me that a battleship can perform some pretty impressive port demolition as it sails off - as in, firing 15" AP shells into the docksides at point blank range.

And that if the delta's underwater it's not a port.
 
Thank you, this is exactly what I'm getting at.


Why are you thanking him, he just flooded the Nile Delta, Rommel is so screwed he is paddling a canoe looking for a friendly crocodile to put him out of his misery.

Yes the Egyptians will be pissed at the British...they will also be screwed.
 

Deleted member 1487

It occurs to me that a battleship can perform some pretty impressive port demolition as it sails off - as in, firing 15" AP shells into the docksides at point blank range.

And that if the delta's underwater it's not a port.
There weren't BBs there AFAIK. The two sunk were evacuated and weren't there in July.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Pretty much...

Basically this thread is a complete waste of time, isn't it?

Pretty much...

As it is, the logistics of the Meditteranean and North African campaigns have been reviewed pretty exhaustively from the official histories to van Crevald; given that it was a maritime theater where any effort by the Axis depended on the Italian merchant marine (one-third of which was outside the Med when the Italians entered the war) the conclusion is pretty much forgone.

The Axis waged a sideshow land campaign at the end of the longest supply line they ever attempted, in a maritime theater, against the Allies - whose greatest strength was sea and airpower - and in a period when the British were free to concentrate their land forces in Egypt.

Talk about putting one's head in a sack...

It's not quite as brilliant a strategy as those displayed by Imperial Japan in 1941-45 or the confederacy in 1861-65, but it's close...

Best,
 
There is no mention however in any of the accounts I have read of addition defensive lines being prepared or of port facilities being rigged for demolition, the British just didn't think they had time.


From Med Fleet Naval War diaries Monday 29th June 1942:

"Operation DISCRETION (N)

3. The Flag of the Commander in Chief was transferred to FLAMINGO. At Gabbari preparations were begun for the transfer of the Administrative Staff to Port Said and the Operational Staff to a combined headquarters at Villa Laurens near 201 Naval Cooperation Group.

4. A 117 was sent to Gabbari steps to embark office furniture and records for Port Said.

5. "Y" interception ceased during the move of Chief of Intelligence Staff and staff to Ismailia.

Operation HORNBLOWER

6. The demolition of Alexandria Harbour, Stage Two was brought into force. Depth Charges and explosives were dumped but not placed in positions in order that our intentions should be disclosed to the Egyptians.

Blockships

7. GLENROY, R.F.A. BRAMBLELEAF, and two merchant ships were earmarked as blockships; these ships were chosen as they were all immobilized due to damage."





So we have a plan to evacuate the Fleet: Discretion and a plan for Naval demolitions: Hornblower and we have the Blockships. The preparations were there just some of them were being handled delicately so as to not alert the locals ahead of implementation.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Plus if the Egyptians themselves rise up the British are truly fucked as they'd likely be unable to pull out in time if they are under attack by their 'allies' unexpectedly. You make good points about the obstacles of the Nile and Suez, which will be significant issues here.

Given the way the British dealt with the Iraqi uprising, I think they would definitely put down an Egyptian one. They have far more troops in Egypt, better equipment, and Egypt is strategically and politically much more important.
 

Deleted member 1487

From Med Fleet Naval War diaries Monday 29th June 1942:

"Operation DISCRETION (N)

3. The Flag of the Commander in Chief was transferred to FLAMINGO. At Gabbari preparations were begun for the transfer of the Administrative Staff to Port Said and the Operational Staff to a combined headquarters at Villa Laurens near 201 Naval Cooperation Group.

4. A 117 was sent to Gabbari steps to embark office furniture and records for Port Said.

5. "Y" interception ceased during the move of Chief of Intelligence Staff and staff to Ismailia.

Operation HORNBLOWER

6. The demolition of Alexandria Harbour, Stage Two was brought into force. Depth Charges and explosives were dumped but not placed in positions in order that our intentions should be disclosed to the Egyptians.

Blockships

7. GLENROY, R.F.A. BRAMBLELEAF, and two merchant ships were earmarked as blockships; these ships were chosen as they were all immobilized due to damage."





So we have a plan to evacuate the Fleet: Discretion and a plan for Naval demolitions: Hornblower and we have the Blockships. The preparations were there just some of them were being handled delicately so as to not alert the locals ahead of implementation.

I suppose the big question is what the Egyptians do. If they act to stop them things could get very hairy.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Do you know much about the Egyptian Army, especially in

I suppose the big question is what the Egyptians do. If they act to stop them things could get very hairy.

Do you know much about the Egyptian Army, especially in 1939-45?

Best,
 

Deleted member 1487

Given the way the British dealt with the Iraqi uprising, I think they would definitely put down an Egyptian one. They have far more troops in Egypt, better equipment, and Egypt is strategically and politically much more important.

The difference is that Axis forces weren't in country and the British weren't bugging out as they were defeated after several crushing battles. As it was they had to bring in reinforcements to reconquer Iraq and that won't necessarily be the option if they are trying to also hold a line against significant Axis ground forces while also having a major uprising at their back.
 

Deleted member 1487

Do you know much about the Egyptian Army, especially in 1939-45?

Best,
Its not just the Egyptian army, its also the populace at large, plus police force, and all that combined with Axis troops in country as the British administration is bugging out.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Its not just the Egyptian army, its also the populace at large, plus police force, and all that combined with Axis troops in country as the British administration is bugging out.

The difference is that Axis forces weren't in country and the British weren't bugging out as they were defeated after several crushing battles. As it was they had to bring in reinforcements to reconquer Iraq and that won't necessarily be the option if they are trying to also hold a line against significant Axis ground forces while also having a major uprising at their back.

You have a bit of a thing about the British 'bugging out' don't you? British commanders in the Middle East had Churchill leaning over their shoulder most of the time, which helped to prevent panic.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Here's a question: why is it the British were able to

Its not just the Egyptian army, its also the populace at large, plus police force, and all that combined with Axis troops in country as the British administration is bugging out.

Here's a question: why is it the British were able to keep control of Egypt until the final withdrawal in the early 1950s?

You may want to consider the realities of Egyptian society in the 1940s while you're at it.

Who, for example, is going to coordinate the Egyptian resistance to the British you are positing in July, 1942?

The Free Officers (Nasser, etc.) were not founded until 1949 (and Nasser was in the Sudan in 1942); the king and his government were firmly under the control of the British, obviously; al-Misri had been court-martialled in 1941 when he tried to join the Axis; etc...

Rebellions generally need some sort of leaders: where are you going to get them? From the Italians?

Best,
 
Postwar, having decided that Israel is too close to other assholes to be a safe haven for Jews, the Zionist movement begins construction of the Martian colony.
 
Valiant and Queen Elizabeth weren't sunk: they both stayed afloat, both were capable of steaming at reduced speed, and one of them was considered capable of fighting. It's a myth that they touched bottom.
 
Top