I checked on the search function, but couldn't find thread about this.
Having finally started reading van Creveld's book on logistics, I've gotten to the Rommel chapter and am struck by the ridiculousness of the Egypt invasion. Obviously Benghazi was too far to be logistically supported for a long period of time and Tobruk was insane. Invading Egypt, logistically speaking was pure fantasy, yet Rommel tried anyway.
What if he finally got the picture after taking back Benghazi and decided that falling back on Tripoli to shorten his supply lines and allow the Axis to launch operation Herkules to take Malta?
Obviously there would be a gap between the 1941 liberation of Benghazi and Rommel's retreat and the mid-1942 invasion of Malta, but wouldn't it have been far more logical and beneficial for Rommel to force the British to fight him close to his supply base, while the British were at the end of their supply lines?
Would the African campaign then have lasted longer, costing less, and give Rommel a much better chance of getting his forces out in 1943?