Middle East Front 1942

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

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.
Its not as if there isn't a history of that, such as at Dunkirk or in North Africa in 1941-42. I mean Mersa Matruh the Brits could have won, but they bugged out. Plus the British were planning an fleeing Alexandria and were burning documents in 'the flap' in July 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
Regardless they were both evacuated for repairs by June 1942 before the POD, so they won't be present.
 

Deleted member 1487

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,
The Egyptian army had quite a bit of dissatisfaction after the February coup and frankly I don't know enough of their internal politics to know who the major leaders within might be. It doesn't have to be coordinated either, once Alexandria falls and the civilians start collaborating its not like there wouldn't be and in fact was some sort of planning for Axis occupation. Osprey's campaign book on Alamein references plans to meet with and hammer out a deal with the Axis when they arrived in Alexandria among the Egyptians, but they didn't list names.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
Its not as if there isn't a history of that, such as at Dunkirk or in North Africa in 1941-42. I mean Mersa Matruh the Brits could have won, but they bugged out. Plus the British were planning an fleeing Alexandria and were burning documents in 'the flap' in July 1942.

The situation at Dunkirk was somewhat different, and despite Mersah Matruh they did finally gain a decisive victory at the Battles of El Alamein. I suppose if the Americans had been at Dunkirk in 1940 the Germans would have lost?
 

Deleted member 1487

The situation at Dunkirk was somewhat different, and despite Mersah Matruh they did finally gain a decisive victory at the Battles of El Alamein. I suppose if the Americans had been at Dunkirk in 1940 the Germans would have lost?
No, the Americans were even less experienced and as the initial Tunisian campaign battles showed they'd be smashed even worse.
 

Deleted member 1487

It was a joke. I thought you seemed to be quite anti-British.
No, just saw what the situation was in 1942 in the Western Desert Campaign. Also the what if hinges on the British bugging out, so that's why I'm pushing it as the situation ITTL.
 
No, just saw what the situation was in 1942 in the Western Desert Campaign. Also the what if hinges on the British bugging out, so that's why I'm pushing it as the situation ITTL.


But 1st El Alamein was the British bugging out, here you have the Axis get all the luck in the world but the British would have simply mustered another defensive effort at a line based around El-Hamam. It is just another delaying action to the British but again it is another straw on the back of Rommel the camel.
 
But 1st El Alamein was the British bugging out, here you have the Axis get all the luck in the world but the British would have simply mustered another defensive effort at a line based around El-Hamam. It is just another delaying action to the British but again it is another straw on the back of Rommel the camel.

No, Mersa Matruh was the British bugging out. First Alamein was Rommel hitting defences with an inadequate force.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
So just random Egyptians decide to risk their lives against

The Egyptian army had quite a bit of dissatisfaction after the February coup and frankly I don't know enough of their internal politics to know who the major leaders within might be. It doesn't have to be coordinated either, once Alexandria falls and the civilians start collaborating its not like there wouldn't be and in fact was some sort of planning for Axis occupation. Osprey's campaign book on Alamein references plans to meet with and hammer out a deal with the Axis when they arrived in Alexandria among the Egyptians, but they didn't list names.

So just random Egyptians decide to risk their lives against the imperial power that has dominated Egypt for six decades, including managing to sucessfully defend the country against an Islamic power with an army in the field within a few days march of Cairo and for four years...

Okay, got it. General Ali Handwavi will lead the rebellion, with sanction from Sheikh Uno B'tanium. And the British special branch, secret police, and local irregulars (Christians, Jews, you know, all those people who make up much of the urban elite and middle classes in Egypt in the 1940s and wish nothing more than to be liberated by the Italians:rolleyes:) are led by General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, KCB.

Baah!

Best,
 

Deleted member 1487

According to this the acquiesence of the Egyptians to the February palace incident was planned due to British strength, but suggests that there were deeper threads of planning in case the British weakened and were vulnerable to being stabbed in the back.
http://homepages.force9.net/rothwell/Egypt.htm
 
According to this the acquiesence of the Egyptians to the February palace incident was planned due to British strength, but suggests that there were deeper threads of planning in case the British weakened and were vulnerable to being stabbed in the back.
http://homepages.force9.net/rothwell/Egypt.htm

Or rather had cut a deal with the Egyptians to stay out of it as per your source.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It would appear that the British had struck a deal with Nahas Pasha for the duration of hostilities and they were little troubled by Egyptian politics until the war’s end. The Egyptian military response to these actions seems to have been confined to the presenting of arms by the Royal Guards as the British drove through the palace gates. The failure of the Egyptian Army to intervene, perhaps justified given British strength, may have been contrived by its leaders and Egyptian politicians.


[/FONT]
 

Deleted member 1487

Or rather had cut a deal with the Egyptians to stay out of it as per your source.

[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]It would appear that the British had struck a deal with Nahas Pasha for the duration of hostilities and they were little troubled by Egyptian politics until the war’s end. The Egyptian military response to these actions seems to have been confined to the presenting of arms by the Royal Guards as the British drove through the palace gates. The failure of the Egyptian Army to intervene, perhaps justified given British strength, may have been contrived by its leaders and Egyptian politicians.


[/FONT]
Yeah because IOTL they stopped the Axis at Alamein. If they hadn't and Alexandria fell its a different ball game.
 
Yeah because IOTL they stopped the Axis at Alamein. If they hadn't and Alexandria fell its a different ball game.

Not really, as per your source the Egyptian army was not terribly effective (I shaded that rather politely don't you think :D) and not likely to be any more keen on their new (and likely brief)occupiers either.

Also yes Alexandria falling was something of an if...Auchinleck had trouble convincing anyone else he could hold at El Alamein and certainly the average British soldier seemed to have regarded it as only a temporary reprieve, a point about which Montgomery was scathing to the verge of incandescence but the fact remained that in the midst of panic it somehow went wrong not for the British but for the Germans. However because they assumed they were losing the British were indeed making preparations for stands at fall back positions.
 
Yeah because IOTL they stopped the Axis at Alamein.

And they were always going to stop the Axis roughly at Alamein. Practically every time. Only in a geographic sense were they near Alexandria - in reality his Afrika Korps culminated well and truly short. As any decent analysis of the stratigic situation of the Mediterranean and Germany at large should have told Rommel it would.

Rommel's attack on Egypt was never anything more then a foolish waste and again shows the total failure of the German system of strategic planning and means/ends analysis.
 
Last edited:

hipper

Banned
And they were always going to stop the Axis roughly at Alamein. Practically every time. Only in a geographic sense were they near Alexandria - in reality his Afrika Korps culminated well and truly short. As any decent analysis of the stratigic situation of the Mediterranean and Germany at large should have told Rommel it would.

Rommel's attack on Egypt was never anything more then a foolish waste and again shows the total failure of the German system of strategic planning and means/ends analysis.

Actually the German system of strategic planning and analysis, they sent a general officer (Paullus?) to North Africa just after Operation Compass, who recommended that a blocking force be sent to preserve The Italian empire in Lybia but that the logistics were impossible for a campin of conquest in Egypt.

Rommel of course ignored that and proved him correct.

Looking at the battles of First Alemein a few points come to mind,

One is that it was not an unflankable position as the 8th army had too few troops to defend the whole front. However Rommel had too little petrol to attempt a wide outflanking manoeuvre, so the battle settled into attritional warfare around The various Ridge lines.

Rommel had lost his Edge which was the " good source". Colonel Bonner Fellers messages.

Finally Alexandria as a port

The main constraint on axis supply operations assuming the capture of Alexandria is that British air power would make it unsuitable for use.
Or only by small costal craft .

Regards Hipper
 
To be fair to the OP, all of this arguing about HOW the Axis reaches the Suez is somewhat pointless considering that their question was about a Middle Eastern Front due to the Axis reaching the Suez.

I think that the Axis has a chance of pulling off an operation to cross the Suez and take the Sinai, but they would probably have a narrow window of time to launch it before large British reinforcements arrive. If they do so I think the most logical move would be to stop at a line from Arish-Eilat or Gaza/Eliat before continuing their advance. The Jewish Brigade will be formed much earlier, The Allies may redirect some of the forces intended for Operation Torch to the Middle East or maybe cancel it altogether (likely IMO if the Germans take Stalingrad, Astrakhan, and reach Tiblisi). Operation Herkules will probably be executed, and it could succeed. More Axis troops will be sent to Egypt in preparation for new offensives, possibly including some SS sent by Hitler to destroy Jewish Holy Sites.
 
More Axis troops will be sent to Egypt in preparation for new offensives, possibly including some SS sent by Hitler to destroy Jewish Holy Sites.


How?

You see this is why people are trying to explain the problems involved in conquering Egypt and what Rommel would get it he did. The logistics situation would not magically improve for the Axis in fact the odds are greatly in favour of it getting much much worse.
 
How?

You see this is why people are trying to explain the problems involved in conquering Egypt and what Rommel would get it he did. The logistics situation would not magically improve for the Axis in fact the odds are greatly in favour of it getting much much worse.

Through capturing Malta. This would greatly improve logistics.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You know, so would capturing London...

Through capturing Malta. This would greatly improve logistics.


You know, so would capturing London, which is only slightly less doable in 1942 than Malta would have been, all else being equal.

It's also worth noting that as early as the summer, there were USAAF units in squadron+ strength operating as part of the Desert Air Force, and even the tiny number of long-range B-17s and B-24s in be theater were capable of further crimping what little the Axis were getting past Malta and into Benghazi as it was...

http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/egypt/egypt.htm

By the autumn, there were two USAAF bombardment groups (one heavy and one medium) and a fighter group active in support of the DAF.

So the question was asked and answered, historically.

Best,
 
Top