Rommel Doesn't Invade Egypt, Successful Op. Herkules

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

In 1942, Rommel had driven the British out of Libya and Tobruk had fallen. He was eager to invade Egypt, smugly thinking he could take Cairo. But his supply lines were stretched to the limit already, and the invasion saw him beaten at El Alamein. What if instead, he is forced to take a break after Tobruk, as air support and enough supplies are denied him when Hitler finally okays the Operation Herkules? Let's say the invasion succeeds and the island is secured with moderate losses, finally allowing the return of full support to Africa in mid-August. Within months, the airborne units used in the invasion of Malta are brought up to strength and given to him (Ramcke Brigade and Folgore).

What happens in the mean time? Do the British attack or do they recover and wait for Rommel? Now that Malta is secure and all air support is given over to Rommel, does he try to invade Egypt? If so, does the delay give his troops enough of a chance to rest and resupply? Does it delay the fall of North Africa?
 
a lot of the hercules equipment was consumed by rommel during the gazalla battle.... taking malta only slightly improves hist supply situation since the brits and americans now had blenty of long ranged bombers and the benefit of ultra decyptions to know were his convoys were. it moves dday up since the allies wont take sicily while malta is in axis hands... dday in 1943 would be a disaster

rommel is still easily defeated... the parachute troops are more or less useless in the desert because they arent motorized and dont have any desert experience
 
Without Malta, the Axis supply situation in N. Africa improves because the available a/c at Gibraltar and in Egypt have to tavel longer distances to get to the convoys and have less chance of getting an assist from Malta based recon. At the same time Malta based Axis air will be much better situated to protect those convoys (and air transports). At the same time the Allied supply situation gets worse as everything has to go around Africa - you can't run convoys through the Med with Malta in Axis hands.

Gibraltar has a very limited airfield capacity, especially for large a/c. So, even if significant numbers of B-17 or B-24 were available, they would have to fly mostly out of Egypt. In any case, B-17's and B-24's had a very poor record against shipping, and if they would fly daylight raids against convoys with fighter coverage, losses could be a problem (for very little return).

Although developments in the med are certainly delayed in this scenario, odds are Rommel does not get to Suez/Alexandria. If he does, things change big time. One consequence of the "Malta falls" scenario may be that the "soft underbelly" concept does not fly. Torch happens & the Axis is pushed out of N. Africa, or at least compressed in to western Libya & Tunisia. Because Sicily, Italy are pushed back as Malta has to come first, the U.S. may put the med strategy out the door, and concentrate all forces on the invasion of France. Without Italy eating resources could it have happened fall 1943 vice spring 1944?
 

Deleted member 1487

I agree that the supply situation eases for the Axis once Malta is secured, it does not completely become safe, as the British can still run subs out of their bases on either side of the Mediterranean. When the Americans start basing their planes in Algeria, then things become tighter. In the mean time, the Italians, if they can avoid invasion/hold on to Libya, can actually stay Axis for another year or two with their manpower still on the side of the Germans, instead of creating yet another manpower sink for their former allies that they did OTL.

Even if the North African front remains, the army that surrendered OTL will still be in the field and not require the commitment of resources that Italy did OTL. If the Allies then launch Overlord in 1943, they will run into serious problems and the P-51 is not yet in service and the control of the skies of Europe is still contested. Plus, the experience gained in airborne ops and other engagements that happened OTL would not yet have occurred, meaning that an invasion is likely to fail, with corresponding effects to the morale of each side.

And without the sinkhole that the Western front became, the Axis is stronger than historical in the East. This means the war can drag on for longer, depending on butterflies.
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Would Rommel and his army end up like that WW1 African theater? Holding out even after the mainland surrenders? Because that would be so :cool:.
 
Taking Malta doesn't add a single mile of railroad track, a single mile of road, a single truck, a single boxcar, a single wharf, or any of the other important pieces of logistical infrastructure in North Africa that Rommel needs between his ports in Libya/Tunisia and his army on the border of Egypt.

Taking Malta will not allow Rommel to take Cairo, but it will allow him to resist the Allies in Africa longer.

Taking Malta does delay Allied plans in the Med later on, does allow Germany to reinforce Africa more easily after the Torch landing, and does allow Germany to withdraw assets from Africa more easily once the Allies close on Tunisia.


Bill
 
it really depends when it falls... in 1941 it would have made a difference since the british were still weak and america was still neutral in 1942 the war was allready lost in north africa

the british didnt run a whole lot of convoys through the central med anyway most took the safer longer route around the cape...if intense resources are lost taking malta rommel may actually perform worse
 
We had a topic about this maybe a month ago, and I agreed with the first posters it would help, before I has my ass kicked in a history debate. Like Bill said, it doesn't give Rommel the infrastructure he needs in North Africa. What would need to happen is a POD in the 1930's where Italy for whatever reason decides that Libya needs more railroads, roads and ports, and goes ahead with a plan to expand all of this, then when WWII comes around Malta is captured, but maybe in 1941 instead of 1942, swapping Crete for Malta, which would finally give the desirable effects. IOTL though, capturing Malta in 1942 would do next to nothing except give the allies one more island to liberate and push back Husky into late 1943 or early 1944 with time for the liberation of Malta and the extended African campaign.
 

Deleted member 1487

We had a topic about this maybe a month ago, and I agreed with the first posters it would help, before I has my ass kicked in a history debate. Like Bill said, it doesn't give Rommel the infrastructure he needs in North Africa. What would need to happen is a POD in the 1930's where Italy for whatever reason decides that Libya needs more railroads, roads and ports, and goes ahead with a plan to expand all of this, then when WWII comes around Malta is captured, but maybe in 1941 instead of 1942, swapping Crete for Malta, which would finally give the desirable effects. IOTL though, capturing Malta in 1942 would do next to nothing except give the allies one more island to liberate and push back Husky into late 1943 or early 1944 with time for the liberation of Malta and the extended African campaign.

I remember, that topic is what was the inspiration of this thread. While you are right about the infrastructure in the respect that it doesn't allow for Rommel to invade Egypt, there is enough to sustain a better defense of Libya than the historical end of 1942. It all hinges on whether Rommel does try to invade, which I am not sure of. If not, then the North African campaign lasts significantly longer, which means a massive change to operations from 1943 onward.

Malta was crucial in interdicting Axis build up in Tunisia, which allowed the Americans to race forward and get within striking distance of Axis supply. If the Axis can now keep a decent buffer with the Americans, then they can hold out for longer, which makes the invasion of Italy moot, probably pushing the invasion of France forward. If that fails, there is a massive slew of consequences, most of which is unfavorable to the Allies. If they try Dragoon without first securing parts of Italy/all of North Africa, then the invasion force comes under much more attention by Axis aircraft/u-boots/e-boots based out of Sardinia or Italy, which makes that an uglier proposition.

Really, holding Malta makes a difference to the defense, not offense, with corresponding difficulties to the allies. This could all make a difference on the Eastern front too, but that all depends on the specifics. I wonder whether the assassination attempt of Hitler would occur with a failed allied invasion and what the consequences would be after that.
 

Scott ward

Banned
Operation Herkules successful, on the El Alamein

New to this discussion board, let me throw a new wrinkle at this old thread. What if the GErmans not only launch and succeed with Operation Herkules, the planned invasion of Malta, but in the course of a very closely run invasion also tumble to something they missed throughout the whole war. What if they also finally figure out, or deduce at least that the British are reading the German signal traffic? If the Germans even have a strong suspicion, strong enough to act upon, that their Enigma codes are compromised they would suddenly have a chance to reverse the edge that ULTRA gave Britain. Churchill's fixation on Malta would have assured the British pulled out all stops to try to save the island, once ULTRA tipped them off the invasion was imminent. Speed and strength of British response, maybe even captured documents or equipment ( the British 'Y' service operated a major installation on Malta ) could finally have led the GErmans to the realization that Enigma was broken.


MOD EDIT to eliminate SPAM e-book.
Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without Malta, the Axis supply situation in N. Africa improves because the available a/c at Gibraltar and in Egypt have to tavel longer distances to get to the convoys and have less chance of getting an assist from Malta based recon. At the same time Malta based Axis air will be much better situated to protect those convoys (and air transports). At the same time the Allied supply situation gets worse as everything has to go around Africa - you can't run convoys through the Med with Malta in Axis hands.

British convoys rarely ran through the Med except to supply Malta, the vast a majority went around the Cape.

Also I don't see how having Malta is going to magically creaye unloading facilities, railroads and trucks in North Africa which is what Rommel's problem was.
 

Scott ward

Banned
"OPERATION HERKULES" Alternat History Novel on Amazon.

On the other hand, what supplies were sent to Rommel arrived in N. African ports in small percentage vs. what had left Italian harbors.
Especially true of fuel. The British used Enigma intercepts to great effect, sinking many cargo and tanker ships, one while in the very harbor mouth at Tobruk carrying 1,500 tons of fuel. With Malta unable to interdict supplies and with the ULTRA secret lost ( or at least suspected by the Germans ), the first Battle of El Alamein might have gone differently.
If the GErmans take Alexandria ( even assuming it to be wrecked by the British as they leave ) or even Port Said, the Axis supply problem in N. Africa eases mightily. The Brits naval presence in the Eastern Med is limited to small craft bases like those at Haifa or on Cypress. Take away the intelligence bonanza of Ultra and things might have gone very differently. MOD EDIT to eliminate SPAM
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
This Board does not exist for you to flog your E-book. Since you have pretty clearly only joined to Spam about your book your work here is done.

BTW: NO sale from me. Sorry.

BANNED

I also eliminated your ad. :D
New to this discussion board, let me throw a new wrinkle at this old thread. What if the GErmans not only launch and succeed with Operation Herkules, the planned invasion of Malta, but in the course of a very closely run invasion also tumble to something they missed throughout the whole war. What if they also finally figure out, or deduce at least that the British are reading the German signal traffic? If the Germans even have a strong suspicion, strong enough to act upon, that their Enigma codes are compromised they would suddenly have a chance to reverse the edge that ULTRA gave Britain. Churchill's fixation on Malta would have assured the British pulled out all stops to try to save the island, once ULTRA tipped them off the invasion was imminent. Speed and strength of British response, maybe even captured documents or equipment ( the British 'Y' service operated a major installation on Malta ) could finally have led the GErmans to the realization that Enigma was broken.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Cheers!
 
Now the smart way to take Malta would have been in summer '40.

Of course that would have rquired Il Duce to have an actual plan with his declaration of war and to have prepared for that...
 
Top