The Italians conquer Egypt in 1940

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

From the following:
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA367611
The Italian Army developed a new and revolutionary doctrine of combined arms warfare in 1938 based on the lessons learned from their experiences of the 1930s. The success from the use of Italian combined arm teams in Spain and in Ethiopia proved the concept of motorized forces and the natural follow-on of mechanization for the Italian Army. This doctrine was called the War of Rapid Decision. With this doctrine the Italian Army had developed a new and dynamic operational art of war. The Italian military in Libya had all the necessary elements to be successful utilizing this new doctrine. In addition it had a commander that already successfully used and demonstrated an applied motorized doctrine in the Italo-Ethiopian war where it proved victorious to him. Marshal Graziani didn’t utilize this new doctrine. The operational plan Marshal Graziani and his staff did execute was an advance in mass for the invasion of Egypt.

The operational plan Marshall Graziani and his staff should have developed was for a two-phase invasion, utilizing Italian mechanized doctrine, based on the forces available to him. This plan would have called for the stripping of all the trucks from the Italian 5th Army and using the just-arriving Italian M.11 medium tanks as the main mechanized striking force. The Italian army should have formed a mechanized force to invade Egypt, only followed by garrison troops to maintain the lines of communication. Based on the amount of transport available in Libya, his staff estimated they could have fully motorized two divisions and a brigade of Libyan troops (Knox 1982, 156). Combined with the available armor and motorized artillery forces, he would have had a potential mechanized force to invade Egypt with in August of 1940. The only realistic motorized formation that could have been formed is with the Comando Carri Armati della Libia, possibly three or four artillery Regiments, and one motorized infantry division.

The first phase of the operation would have been the Italian Army occupying the city of Sollum. This first phase would see them crossing the wire and occupying Sollum with the available infantry and artillery formations. This force would stay and garrison the city, protect the line of communication, and act as a reserve. This phase of the operation would see the Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions advance along the coast and attack through Halfaya Pass and occupy Sollum. This would have allowed the Italian army to control this strategic terrain and use it has the starting point for the second phase of the operation.

The second phase of the plan would see two primary forces advancing on two separate axes of advance to Mersa Martuh. Two separate forces attacking on two separate axes of advance would make this attack. The slow moving foot infantry could advance along the coastal road. This would allow the Italian binary nonmotorized infantry divisions to utilize the only road network available to them and have some use in the campaign. The Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions would advance along the coast and continue forward to an intermediate objective of Sidi Barrani and then on to the final objective Mersa Martuh. The southern column consisting of the Libyan Divisions and the armored Comando Carri Armati della Libia would advance on the Dayr al-Hamra–Bir ar Rabiyah–Bir Enba track to flank the escarpment, and the enemy, with the ultimate objective of Mersa Martuh. In this manner, the Italian army could have met the British at Mersa Martuh utilizing the non motorized Italian formations in a suitable role, and the motorized formations to flank their defense and cut the British line of communications defeating, them at Mersa Martuh.

This plan would have been an example of Italian mechanized doctrine utilizing the available forces. The combination of the advance of forces moving along the coast, pinning the enemy, and the Italian mechanized forces operating to turn the enemy’s flank followed Italian mechanized doctrine. This plan would have the Italian mechanized elements making long flanking movements through the desert. Such employment would have been ideally suited for the mechanized forces, according to Italian doctrine. Only under this concept and applying their mechanized doctrine would Italian forces have had a reasonable chance for success against the British. Since Marshal Graziani failed to apply Italian doctrine he was defeated in detail by a significantly smaller British force in the western desert.

Had the Italian Army and Marshal Graziani struck early in the desert campaign and in strength utilizing their new doctrine it is doubtful that the British could have stopped them short of the Nile river. Instead of pursing that goal the Marshal Graziani asked for more resources to accomplish that mission instead of acting. When Marshal Graziani was forced into action, the Italian Army in North Africa didn’t adopt a plan of an attack in depth but reverted to a plan utilizing an attack in mass. This failing caused the Italian army to be defeated during its invasion of Egypt. One can only speculate on the reasons for Graziani’s failure to employ the rapid decision doctrine. Surely one key factor was the Italian Army’s deficiency in the areas of the army leadership, training level of the different organizations, leadership of the organizations, unit cohesion, logistics, and armored vehicles. A combination of these factors made the Italian Army less effective then it could have been in the campaign.

Hypothetically let's say the Italian army opted to prepare for a serious campaign along these lines leading up to their intervention in June 1940 and ran such a campaign to the Nile, prompting an Egyptian uprising against the British. This wouldn't like up Italian East Africa and Italian occupied North Africa, but would allow for naval shipping to operate in the Red Sea from the Mediterranean:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2009/10/italian_empire_1939_1024.jpg

What are the implications of the Italians successfully conquering Egypt on their own and effectively eliminating the British Mediterranean Fleet from the war? Would the British exit the war in 1940 with that defeat or try and dig in? Clearly they wouldn't be able to intervene in Greece when that happens and would be forced to do something about the Middle East and potentially face an Arab uprising if the Italians are able to get right to the Suez.
 
What are the implications of the Italians successfully conquering Egypt on their own and effectively eliminating the British Mediterranean Fleet from the war? Would the British exit the war in 1940 with that defeat or try and dig in? Clearly they wouldn't be able to intervene in Greece when that happens and would be forced to do something about the Middle East and potentially face an Arab uprising if the Italians are able to get right to the Suez.

The British would not leave the war, but it increases Mussolini's hubris. It will have tack-on effects in Greece, as the initial Greece attack would fail, but with Egypt sown up, Mussolini can husband his forces and take successful commanders from Africa and follow up with Greece. He would probably deny German assistance, so that he would have unquestioned sway over his sphere of influence.

The Yugoslavia coup never happens, being that Britain looks like real losers and Greece looks like they will fall to Italy.

The USSR is the wild card. Of course, this POD can radically change Barbarossa and turn it into a German victory with Rommel leading the charge to Leningrad.

However, Stalin would have to be a real moron to think the German build up in the East wouldn't result in an invasion now. IOTL, the Germans invaded Yugoslavia and Greece. It was reasonable for Stalin to think the Axis was sowing up the Med and leaving enough forces to pre-empt a Russian attack.

However, now it is clear the Germans have only one goal in mind--Russia. What does Stalin do?

1. Attack first? He loses the war before the Germans reach the Stalin Line.
2. Get surprised like OTL? He may lose the war, depending upon how the campaign unfolds. Good chance he does, as the Kiev diversion is sure not to happen.
3. Begin full mobilization and build strategic depth, settling upon "this is how we beat Napoleon" sort of strategy. Then Stalin not only devastates the Germans, but probably wins the war by 1944.

The last one gives ObsessedNuker a wet dream, but 1 and 3 are the likely choices, 2 being very unlikely. Knowing Stalin and Russian planning, ironically 1 is the more likely choice.

So, to answer your post, Britain sues for peace by early 1942, WW2 is over in Europe. The US fights Japan and there is a 2-way cold war.
 
Paradoxally could mean no Greece campaign.

OTL Mussolini decided to attack to show his power after the non brilliant results in Africa. ITTL the italian army is hugely succesful.

I think that an egyptian insurrection against the british is highly probable, even if is quite hard to predict if would be meaningful or not.

The british would probably fortify Suez and transfer their navy into the Red sea to safety. Malta is nigh insignificant, now.

The question for the italians is what to do now that they got Egypt. Try to pass into Palestine and then Syria towards the Iraq oilfields (quite a long way) or try to reteke Abissinia?
 

Deleted member 1487

The British would not leave the war, but it increases Mussolini's hubris.
Wouldn't it knock out Churchill, as he'd be PM and Malta would also fall, probably so too Cyprus, the loss of the Mediterranean Fleet, Syria/Lebanon potentially being an Axis entry point into the Middle East, an Arab uprising, a greater role for Italian East Africa, and the chance now of the Iraqi coup to work? It might cause a series of events to unravel the entire British empire in the area.

It will have tack-on effects in Greece, as the initial Greece attack would fail, but with Egypt sown up, Mussolini can husband his forces and take successful commanders from Africa and follow up with Greece. He would probably deny German assistance, so that he would have unquestioned sway over his sphere of influence.
Sure, plus he'd have a lot more prestige globally and in the alliance.

The Yugoslavia coup never happens, being that Britain looks like real losers and Greece looks like they will fall to Italy.
So what do the Yugoslavs do when Hitler strong arms them into the Axis?

The USSR is the wild card. Of course, this POD can radically change Barbarossa and turn it into a German victory with Rommel leading the charge to Leningrad.

However, Stalin would have to be a real moron to think the German build up in the East wouldn't result in an invasion now. IOTL, the Germans invaded Yugoslavia and Greece. It was reasonable for Stalin to think the Axis was sowing up the Med and leaving enough forces to pre-empt a Russian attack.

However, now it is clear the Germans have only one goal in mind--Russia. What does Stalin do?
Assuming that the Germans don't get involved in the Mediterranean and the British stay in the war Hitler could use his excuses IOTL about prepping for Sealion, while Stalin would also watch the May 15th invasion date he was warned about come and go, which IOTL convinced him that the intel was wrong.

1. Attack first? He loses the war before the Germans reach the Stalin Line.
It would be a bad idea as we established.

2. Get surprised like OTL? He may lose the war, depending upon how the campaign unfolds. Good chance he does, as the Kiev diversion is sure not to happen.
Yeah, having all the Balkan forces, a June 10th start date, and no Mediterranean commitments would make the Germans a lot stronger for the invasion, plus have a much weaker British enemy.

3. Begin full mobilization and build strategic depth, settling upon "this is how we beat Napoleon" sort of strategy. Then Stalin not only devastates the Germans, but probably wins the war by 1944.
Doubtful given the Soviet flawed understanding of how to defeat mass armored in 1941.

The last one gives ObsessedNuker a wet dream, but 1 and 3 are the likely choices, 2 being very unlikely. Knowing Stalin and Russian planning, ironically 1 is the more likely choice.
Probably a 4th option: be more prepared for the defensive, but still get somewhat surprised and waste his forces in pointless counterattacks like IOTL, which get chewed up by the increased German air and ground power.

So, to answer your post, Britain sues for peace by early 1942, WW2 is over in Europe. The US fights Japan and there is a 2-way cold war.
I'm not convinced the British don't quit the war in 1940 if they lost Egypt, Malta, their Mediterranean fleet and bases, and have to deal with Axis incursions into the Middle East and an Arab uprising they cannot handle.
 

Deleted member 1487

Paradoxally could mean no Greece campaign.

OTL Mussolini decided to attack to show his power after the non brilliant results in Africa. ITTL the italian army is hugely succesful.

I think that an egyptian insurrection against the british is highly probable, even if is quite hard to predict if would be meaningful or not.

The british would probably fortify Suez and transfer their navy into the Red sea to safety. Malta is nigh insignificant, now.

The question for the italians is what to do now that they got Egypt. Try to pass into Palestine and then Syria towards the Iraq oilfields (quite a long way) or try to reteke Abissinia?
Depending on what happens the Italians could make a lot more of their East African holdings (they weren't fully taken until November 1941 IOTL) with supplies able to reach them via the Suez or they could do landings in the Middle East in Palestine or Lebanon. Cyprus is going to be a big target and hugely useful base for Middle East operations. Vichy may be forced to let the Levant be used for Axis/Italian operations. The Iraqis are going to be able to get support and supplies now. Really the Italians could completely unravel British positions in the area if they played their cards right as stayed out of Greece. Greece would be there for the taking later. Really if the Brits pull out of the Mediterranean that sea belongs to the Italians nearly completely.

Frankly I think it may be enough to get the Brits to sue for peace before their empire entirely revolts/implodes.
 
Frankly I think it may be enough to get the Brits to sue for peace before their empire entirely revolts/implodes.

Depends, it's not so clear and cut. For example, I think that the british could save their fleet and repair to Aden, while the Suez region is a fairly good place to hold and fortify.

The British would also go on conquering Abissinia. Yes the italians there resisted till 1941, but frankly their was a lost battle from the very begin. And if the british have moved their fleet to Aden, Mussolini won't risk to send his fleet down the red sea (or better, his admirals won't risk...)

The key here is the british internal front. OTL the victories in Africa raised up greatly the population moral after a long series of defeats and the ordeal of the battle of Britain. ITTL they have lost an important piece of their empire, albeit not a fundamental one, and the british army is again fleeing.

Churchill could lose a no confidance vote at this point, but his successor (Eden?) could decide to go on with the war anyway. They had a huge reserve of men in India and the royal navy still ruled the seas after all. And then there's Roosvelt...
 

Deleted member 1487

Depends, it's not so clear and cut. For example, I think that the british could save their fleet and repair to Aden, while the Suez region is a fairly good place to hold and fortify.
How? There aren't ports in the Sinai, nor supply infrastructure to really fortify, as anything they fortify with with have to be shipped to Eilat at best and railed in. Not a lot of water infrastructure either.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/eastmed.jpg

The British would also go on conquering Abissinia. Yes the italians there resisted till 1941, but frankly their was a lost battle from the very begin. And if the british have moved their fleet to Aden, Mussolini won't risk to send his fleet down the red sea (or better, his admirals won't risk...)
Sure, but from Aden they'd have a hard time interdicting submarine supply and small unit raids on them. Plus the Red Sea Fleet was a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_II)#The_war_at_sea

The key here is the british internal front. OTL the victories in Africa raised up greatly the population moral after a long series of defeats and the ordeal of the battle of Britain. ITTL they have lost an important piece of their empire, albeit not a fundamental one, and the british army is again fleeing.
Indeed, but Egypt was actually quite an important part of the empire in peacetime and in war time it was critical to maintaining any sort of Mediterranean presence; without it they are shut out of a critical sector of the war especially as defending the Middle East is now impossible because the East Mediterranean coast is an Italian playground and Turkey is surrounded by Axis power projection without any British power in the area to counterbalance them. The fear of Turkish entry and collapse of British positions in the Middle East are now front and center.

Churchill could lose a no confidance vote at this point, but his successor (Eden?) could decide to go on with the war anyway. They had a huge reserve of men in India and the royal navy still ruled the seas after all. And then there's Roosvelt...
That's the question if they really would. With the Middle East falling apart India is far less stable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_Movement

Roosevelt was FDR's buddy and before the 1940 election he had to be much less interventionalist than he was in 1941. The RN is much more stretched than ever.
 
Wouldn't it knock out Churchill, as he'd be PM and Malta would also fall, probably so too Cyprus, the loss of the Mediterranean Fleet, Syria/Lebanon potentially being an Axis entry point into the Middle East, an Arab uprising, a greater role for Italian East Africa, and the chance now of the Iraqi coup to work?

Yes, I concede these things, but the blitz keeps Britain in the war. Ironically, all strategic bombing did was toughen the resolve of each respective country to continue the war to the bitter end.

So what do the Yugoslavs do when Hitler strong arms them into the Axis?
They say, "Ye, ye, yes sir!" Just like IOTL. The coup won't happen, as it would be clear that Yuoslavia would be alone, as Greece would not be in the equation (and possible British support.)

Assuming that the Germans don't get involved in the Mediterranean and the British stay in the war Hitler could use his excuses IOTL about prepping for Sealion, while Stalin would also watch the May 15th invasion date he was warned about come and go, which IOTL convinced him that the intel was wrong.

Well, it was credible considering Hitler did invade 2 countries during that span. It would be incredible ITTL.

Yeah, having all the Balkan forces, a June 10th start date, and no Mediterranean commitments would make the Germans a lot stronger for the invasion, plus have a much weaker British enemy.

I agree, they probably win it.

Doubtful given the Soviet flawed understanding of how to defeat mass armored in 1941.
If Stalin says no to a pre-emptive attack, it is very possible this becomes the de facto strategy, even if it is not intentional.

Probably a 4th option: be more prepared for the defensive, but still get somewhat surprised and waste his forces in pointless counterattacks like IOTL, which get chewed up by the increased German air and ground power.

Not possible. That requires a non-Stalin. It's like not-Nazis making peace with the slavs and invading the Russians together. Pure fantasy.
 
If Italians successfully conquering Egypt on their own and effectively eliminating the British Mediterranean Fleet from the war..well,the consequences can be many.

1-Is possible that at this point other nations joins to axis
For exemple Spain,Yugoslavia and Greece?

2-With British out of Mediterranean,is possible that Turkey too joins to axis?

3-Which is the reaction of the United States public opinion in front this situation; can strengthen the neutralism?

4-In the case that all these countries (Spain,Yugoslavia,Greece and maybe Turkey) move in the axis faction,can UK resist to the Hitler proposals for a settlement of the war?
 
Speaking as someone who really wanted to get an Italian-conquered Egypt to work - I don't see how winning this big would be possible.

The problem is the Italian armoured force is severely outclassed by the British force in literally all categories:

1. the British had more armoured vehicles
- nominal strength of 306 tanks (of which ~200 were normally operational at any one time once actual fighting started) and 60 armoured cars; on the eve of the Italian attack, they had 275 tanks

vs

- 125 "tanks" at the start for Italy (actually 72 light tanks and the rest glorified armourd cars). Once operations commenced, Graziani was down to 37 serviceable M11 tanks

On 21 September there were still 68 M.11 tanks out of the original 72 shipped
to North Africa. From these 68 M.11 tanks 31 were unserviceable due to maintenance
and 37 serviceable between the two tank battalions. 1st medium tank battalion had 9
serviceable and 23 unserviceable. The 2nd medium tank battalion had 28 serviceable and
8 unserviceable (Ceva and Curami 1989, 307). Their medium tank strength would
increase because the next generation Italian tank would soon be arriving in North Africa.
This tank was the M.13 tank, which was much better in quality and performance than the
M.11 and was equal to the British Cruiser tanks. The medium M.13 tank had a hardhitting
47-millimeter gun in a rotating turret with two 8-millimeter machine guns in the
hull and had the same chassis as the M.11 medium tank. The II medium tank battalion
with 37 M.13 tanks arrived in Libya during the first days of October, followed by the V
Medium Tank battalion equipped with 46 M.13 tanks on 12 December 1940.


2. The British had better armoured vehicles

The M13 was comparable to the Cruiser (though not the Matilda), but otherwise everything else was inferior

3. The British were more experienced

7th armoured Div. was in Egypt for some time. In contrast, the Italian M11 (and later M13) tanks had literally just got there. This showed, as in preliminary actions like the fighting over Fort Capuzzo or the other British raids, the Italians made asses of themselves (even getting General Lastucci, their chief engineer, captured), and at one point the entire Maletti Group (with all the new M11s) got lost and started transmitting in the clear in order for friendlies to find them :eek:

True, the Italians have twice as many guns and three times as many infantrymen. BUT, if they try to go forward with only their mechanized force, I would bet every penny that they would get their asses handed to them.

Now, there are ways to try and correct some of this imbalance - you can stop the build-up in Albania and redirect the vehicles and equiment (not infantrymen) heading there to Libya; you can strip Abissinia of its quality troops (two veteran motorized divisions - Savoy Grenadiers and Cacciatori d'Africa; and a further 24 M11s). Even so, the British would still surpass the Italians in both quantity and quality of mobile forces.

--------------------

Initially, the Italians did plan to advance past the Halfaya Pass in two columns, one north and one south of it in a flanking move, like the author in the OP suggests. This was also what the British expected. According to Gen. Wavel's report, the fact that they only advanced in the north (on account of supply difficulties) actually caught the British by surprise, costing them a good number of vehicles and guns.

But lets say you get an even more powerful Italian force supplied - what then? Well, Wavel has no reason to fight anywhere west of Mersa Matruh, which is twice as far as the Italians got OTL. This will compound Italian supply problems greatly, making any chance of them defeating the British armoured force in a battle of maneuver exceedingly small. And without a defeat in the field, the Egyptians are not going to revolt.

However, lets say some miracle happens and Wavel suffers a narrow defeat at Mersa Matruh against the best Italy has to offer. This is then perfectly timed with an Egyptian revolt. With 30.000 armed Egyptians behind their lines of supply, concentrated around Cairo, Alexandria and the Nile Delta, the Western Desert force withdraws. How far though?

Normally, I would be willing to bet they withdraw to Cairo and Alexandria, crush the Egyptian uprising, and anchor their defenses along the Nile, a position the Italians have no hope of breaching anytime soon, given the distances.

However, since this a Brit-screw, let's say they give up trying to control the major urban centers. That means, at most, that their new line will be established west of the Suez and east of the Nile. With Port Suez, Ismailia and Port Said, they have ample space to bring in supplies, plus a railroad and two good roads heading west.

Meanwhile, the Italians will have to bring everything over from, at best Tobruk, over a 900 km distance, since gettng Alexandria operational in the face of probable British sabotage and certain British interdiction efforts will be impossible in the short term.

With the Egyptian army lacking armor and mobility, and the Italians facing impossible supply problems, the new British defense line west of the Suez certainly holds in the initial chaotic period. And once reinforcements arrive, they can counterattack with ease.

Iraq may very well revolt in the meantime, although the British dealt with them OTL exclusively with local forces, without the need to bring anything over from Egypt. But even if they don't - so what? Keeping Rashid Ali in his office a couple of extra months has little impact on the British war effort.

Sure, but from Aden they'd have a hard time interdicting submarine supply and small unit raids on them. Plus the Red Sea Fleet was a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Campaign_(World_War_II)#The_war_at_sea

The Red Sea flotilla was woefully inadequte for bringing the fight to the British in a sustained fashion - just look at their OTL performance. If by some miracle they start being viewed as a threat, Cunnningham can just have his main ships do a quick sortie into the Red Sea, sink the 6 destroyers that are causing so much trouble, bombard Massawa for good measure, and then head back.

And since all of this relies on Italy stripping East Africa of any decent formation for the drive into Egypt, having them commit even more ships to Massawa pre-war is not going to happen.


effectively eliminating the British Mediterranean Fleet from the war

The fleet would still be there, probably operating out of a number of locations, such as Haifa, Cyprus or even the ports of the Suez Canal.
 
Even with the Italians pouring everything into North Africa, do they actually have the logistics to put up a serious threat? OTL they ran into supply problems well short of Mersa Matruh, and made a camp at Sidi Barrani. With better supply lines, they might actually reach Mersa Matruh, and they they run into the British, who are packing Matilda II tanks amongst their other gear. Said tanks are utterly impenetrable to anything the Italians had, excepting possibly a few heavy AA guns (in 1940 all the Germans had to crack them were their own 88mm AA guns).
 
Even with the Italians pouring everything into North Africa, do they actually have the logistics to put up a serious threat? OTL they ran into supply problems well short of Mersa Matruh, and made a camp at Sidi Barrani. With better supply lines, they might actually reach Mersa Matruh, and they they run into the British, who are packing Matilda II tanks amongst their other gear. Said tanks are utterly impenetrable to anything the Italians had, excepting possibly a few heavy AA guns (in 1940 all the Germans had to crack them were their own 88mm AA guns).

I think it is clear from the discussion above that this POD is one of the most impressive axis-do-better and win the war POD's suggested.

Having said that. Could they do it? There is many "what if Rommel captures Egypt threads" that are usually labeled close to ASB for logistics reasons.
Don't know if the Mathilda is a game-changer. would it not be too slow, mechanically unrealiable and out of fuel in a scenario as this?
 

Deleted member 1487

Even with the Italians pouring everything into North Africa, do they actually have the logistics to put up a serious threat? OTL they ran into supply problems well short of Mersa Matruh, and made a camp at Sidi Barrani. With better supply lines, they might actually reach Mersa Matruh, and they they run into the British, who are packing Matilda II tanks amongst their other gear. Said tanks are utterly impenetrable to anything the Italians had, excepting possibly a few heavy AA guns (in 1940 all the Germans had to crack them were their own 88mm AA guns).
My understanding was that the Italians were able to take them out with field artillery, molotov cocktails, and a variety of other weapons, while for the Germans the Panzerjager I with 47mm Czech AT gun or the PAK38 were capable of killing the Matilda at normal combat ranges.
http://rommelsriposte.com/2010/04/27/german-firing-trials-against-the-matilda-ii/
 

Deleted member 1487

Speaking as someone who really wanted to get an Italian-conquered Egypt to work - I don't see how winning this big would be possible.

The problem is the Italian armoured force is severely outclassed by the British force in literally all categories:

1. the British had more armoured vehicles
- nominal strength of 306 tanks (of which ~200 were normally operational at any one time once actual fighting started) and 60 armoured cars; on the eve of the Italian attack, they had 275 tanks

vs

- 125 "tanks" at the start for Italy (actually 72 light tanks and the rest glorified armourd cars). Once operations commenced, Graziani was down to 37 serviceable M11 tanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
According to this the Italians had ~600 tanks and tankettes that were captured or destroyed.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
[wiking] defending the Middle East is now impossible because the East Mediterranean coast is an Italian playground and Turkey is surrounded by Axis power projection without any British power in the area to counterbalance them. The fear of Turkish entry and collapse of British positions in the Middle East are now front and center.


Wiking this is the opposite of what you said to me. To be clear I never ruled out an Italian advance from Egypt. This could have triggered an early Iraqi uprising, too soon for AVM Smart at Habbaniyah to get round to fitting his ancient aircraft with bombs. vichy is still in its early days, bitter against Britain after Mers El Kebir, and could well be jointly influenced by Germany and Italy to be more active against the British in Iraq/Jordan/Palestine.
 

Deleted member 1487

[wiking] defending the Middle East is now impossible because the East Mediterranean coast is an Italian playground and Turkey is surrounded by Axis power projection without any British power in the area to counterbalance them. The fear of Turkish entry and collapse of British positions in the Middle East are now front and center.


Wiking this is the opposite of what you said to me. To be clear I never ruled out an Italian advance from Egypt. This could have triggered an early Iraqi uprising, too soon for AVM Smart at Habbaniyah to get round to fitting his ancient aircraft with bombs. vichy is still in its early days, bitter against Britain after Mers El Kebir, and could well be jointly influenced by Germany and Italy to be more active against the British in Iraq/Jordan/Palestine.
How is this the opposite? You were talking about the 1941 OTL situation where Egypt was not conquered and the British had won the OTL Operation Compass campaign. With Egypt lost then the Axis can dominate the Eastern Mediterranean because the British will have to either evacuate or lose their fleet before the Axis take over their naval bases, which means Cyprus is lost to the Italians, who then use it as their base for operations including the Levant coast. That was not the situation we discussed in 1941.

In this scenario with a 1940 victory Vichy can be more likely to be leveraged into active or at least passive participation, as a British defeat at this point ends the horrible armistice terms and gets the post-war final peace agreements, giving them incentive beyond the extreme bitterness post- Fall of France in 1940.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
According to this the Italians had ~600 tanks and tankettes that were captured or destroyed.

I think the majority were L3s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L3/35

To put that into context - in the initial clashes the British Cavalry units in North Africa were able to 'dominate' that particular 'tank' with 1924 pattern Rolls Royce Armoured cars armed with a .303 Bren Gun and a .55 Boys Anti tank rifle.

I read that 'thesis' (?) - it was interesting reading but I do not accept that what he describes as 'Italian Mechanised Doctrine' was actually practised.

While they may have had success against the Ethiopians and Sunessi (sp?) I don't accept that that was evidence of a working Doctrine that would work against the very mobile British

Given that the mass of the 10th Army and 5th Army for that matter was non motorised foot infantry - at best I think the Italians could have thrown a few 'Armoured' divisions where the Majority of the tanks were the quite awful L3s in late 1940 - and this was probably their best chance of 'capturing Egypt' - although that chance is probably on par with the proverbial Snow ball in Hell.

Although at the time the British were probably at their weakest at this time - I still think they would have run rings around the Italians and the 10th Army would get no where near the East of Egypt mainly due to the inability of their Support echelons to robustly support such an advance.

By the time they started getting better tanks and sorting out their logistics - the British were getting more Cruisers and Matilda II as well as significant reinforcements.

This is due to the relatively poor industrial situation in Italy in the late 30s as well as the crippling costs of the Wars Italy had fought during that time which used up over 2/3s of the Military budget and in some years almost matched what the Italian Government took in Taxes - this all conspired to seriously impact their ability to rearm in the late 30s.
 
Top