What if the Italian army had managed to reach the Nile in WW2 ?

[zarkov]

I would say to you LordKalvan that despite a victory at at the Nile. The Italian army hasn't killed off the pro war factions within the British Parliment. Unless Churchill loses all support. He will still try to fight on, he will send another commander with reinforcements around South Africa, all the way to Kuwait.

Well this further complicates matters for the British then. If and when they get the reinforcements through to the Middle East. They will be dealing with a more aggersive Italian army. Preparing to cross the Nile with a german commander who will try and conquer the Middle east or he might turn south.


The question for option one is that if the Italian Army with reinforcements attmepts to cross the Nile River. What will they face and if they break through and push into Sinal. Will they succeed in taking Palestine and push into Iraq ?

Or if they decide to take option two and push south. What will they face and will they succeed in reaching into Central Africa and cripple the British Operation in the Middle East ?

 

[Croesus]

Stodge:
1. notes that Malta can fall 1940.
2. suggests that WSC will be forced out in the event of a Dunkirk disaster.
3. suggests that SA could declare neutrality.
4. notes the campaign in Italian East Africa (IEA).
5. mentions Middle Eastern nationalism.
6. notes Hitlers emphasis on Barbarossa.

Alberto:
1. points out Graziani's incompetence.
2. notes the implications of Punta Stilo [a well developed point elsewhere].
3. notes the impact of Greece on Italian military fortunes.
4. mentions the Macchi line of aircraft (culminating in the 205) as an example of Italian technical skill.
5. notes the WWI doctrine of the Italian army.

Larrikin:
1. suggests that DAK is not despatched.
2. suggests diversion of Australian divisions to the theatre.
3. suggests strategic withholding of materiel by WSC.

LordKalvan:
1. concurs with Alberto (1) & (3)
2. cautions Alberto (2)

In earlier posts I developed Zarkov's base assumptions into:

A. Logistic: a limited 'sudden advance' provides an economic boost that is not decisive but does increase investment into Italian war industry, primarily the army.
B. Technical: Italian tank procurement develops from the Fiat 3000 line and that an unspecified level of cooperation between Italian and German armoured interests results in earlier innovation of Italian tank design and tactical deployment.
C. Doctrinal: the clique around Generals Baistrocchi and Pariani achieves predominance within Italian military circles.

At this stage I don't think I'm getting too wishful with the my assumptions (though I'm certainly open to debate on this) and I'll be developing my analysis along these three lines. Consequent to the above I note;

Stodge (1), Alberto (2) & LordKalvan (2) raise issues and opportunities around Italian naval fortunes in the early war period. I suggest that the increased investment into the Italian war industry is prioritised as army then air force then navy. Punta Stilo has clearly captured imaginations before and as far as this TL goes all I would say is that the Italian Navy has no increased assets and that any POD must be tactical in nature. Malta is an important point and most of us seem to assume it can fall earlier if a siege is prosecuted better (more work here): the main implication of Malta on TTL also seems to be on supply matters for Tenth Army.

Stodge (2) and Larrikin (3) are mutually exclusive and I must confess I'm not convinced as to certainty around Stodge (2). It does bear some analysis: however this shifts the entire TL into familiar territory raised by Grey Wolf in 'What Happens to the Mid East if GB Surrenders in 1940'. To avoid not being able to play with my new toy, I'm going to assume that WSC survives in office, or that Britain remains in the war (though am happy to debate this further).

Larrikin (2) & (3) are of similar nature and is similar to my initial point of a diversion of 2nd NZ (more work here) I would initially caution against any desire to strip out the Far East at this stage, but certainly recognise that redeployment of some nature will come from that region.

Alberto (1), (4) & (5) is developed to some degree by my Doctrinal assumption (more work here).

Stodge (3), (4) & (6) and Alberto (3) are all really important points (more work here).

Finally as to this post I note that Zarkov is looking further afield. While I'm very keen to look at assault crossings of Nile/Suez, and implications for IEA, I hope he'll have patience with my much slower progress (I'm a tortoise, not a hare).

Croesus

 

[zarkov]

Take your time with that but as I was saying the problem is what dangers would the Italian army would face. When they either cross the Nile or they push South ?

Also I want to askthe comminty to come up with an idea or a timeline for option 1. The Nile Crossing. If they can keep to one rule please/ that the British don't surrender just because of losing Eygpt.

Apart from that, keep going with the idea.

If you want to try out Option 2 which is going down South, then remember, be semi realsitic and tell the community the outside effects on the world becuase of these events.

 

[The Dean]

Hmm, interesting, let the Germans carry on to the east and strike out through Sudan and Ethiopia to Kenya?

 

[Croesus]

Doctrine

There are few silver linings in the angry cloud that is the Italian military establishment.

General Baistrocchi can get in place as Chief of the General Staff earlier than OTL (1934 - 36) and we can have him instead of General Bonzani's long tenure (1929 - 34). Given that Baistrochhi installed the new doctrinal concept OTL, then it is reasonable to suggest that Bonzani was the last scion of the old doctrinal concept, so the new broom comes in sooner. This places Baistrocchi before the Corpo Truppe Volontaire (CTV) is despatched to Spain and it can be suggested that the conflict is seen more as a test bed for operations than OTL; particularly it places the CTV in relation to the Condor Legion.

Interestingly we can see in the Battle of Guadalajara the relative performances of the regular Littorio with the Blackshirt units: given that Blackshirt units were (yet another) drain on Italian war industry we can suggest, in light of both the new doctrine and the demonstration of modern war, that the Commando Supremo began to cool as to the military role Blackshirts would play. This of course speaks to how willing Mussolini is to let his Blackshirts take a back seat, but that can play out later.

Lessons on the battlefield are digested in the military academies. Given the generally accepted parlous state of Italian officers in the war it's too big an ask to make fundamental changes to the output of Modena leading up to the Libyan/Egyptian campaign. However, its fairly plausible to assume that *some* lecturers take the spirit of the Baistrocchi doctrinal reforms, apply them to the lessons learnt by the CTV and small numbers of officers graduate with ideas other than 'lots of troops win battles'.

Some of these graduates may have had exposure to the CTV, and some may end up in the armoured forces. So while the loaf of the Italian military is on the whole stale and unappetising, there are softer bits in the middle. And some of those soft bits end up being dipped in the couscous of Libya [ok, enough of the bad metaphors]

What of our pal Graziani? Well, we can have him appointed to Fifth Army rather than Tenth and bring in Gariboldi. Not much change, but Gariboldi's future campaigning in Russia indicates a somewhat better degree of military skill. Perhaps a more important POD is to prevent Governor Balbo being shot down. The combination of Balbo/Gariboldi, 'new' Modena graduates, ten years of Baistrocchi doctrine and an overall increased awareness of the lessons learned by the CTVnow make for a more capable leadership structure to confront O'Connor (and you can be sure that I'm replacing General Maletti with a New Modena counterpart).

I think that's about all that can be done here; the overall situation was just too crappy to make huge changes. Counter-analysis, esp. of the Spanish component is welcome.

Croesus

 

[zarkov]

I think that you are right in saying the Italian army no matter how much you change it, will still be a second rate army to Germany. However, witht he improvemrmts. I think they could make it to Cairo. They would lose a lot of froces and they would have to take Malta as well but if they reach the Nile. Then they can prepare to jump to either the Middle East or East Africa.


The question is, what happens when they cross the Nile, assuming that Rommel is transfred to command the German Expeditionary Army in North Africa

 

[The Dean]

they can prepare to jump to East Africa.

This would give the Axis potential naval bases in the Indian Ocean which would threaten the routes to India and Australasia around Cape Town.

 

[LordKalvan]

Assume that everything goes as per Mussolini's dream: Malta falls on schedule; the Italian army in Lybia is better prepared, and supplied; most important, they have a better commander than Graziani (now, it would not take a major miracle for this ); Balbo is not shot down by friendly fire over Tobruk, and can run political interference to leave the hands of the commanding general (Gariboldi is likely to be a good choice). Most importantly,
the Italian navy has been used to full effect and has forced an engagement with the British fleet of Alexandria (and what remains of the units based in Malta). This engagement may have occurred south of Greece (maybe during the hypotetical amphibious operation against Crete): at best losses have been high, but I am not really interested in the tactical outcome of the battle (I'm sure that there are a lot of naval experts here who can make an educated guess to the possible outcomes). The really important thing is that what remains of the British fleets in the Mediterranean has steamed off to Aden. Now on the 28 October 1940 (the 18th anniversary of the March to Rome) Mussolini has his parade in Cairo, riding his famous white horse, and raising the sword of Islam. The problem is what to do now (assuming that Churchill is still PM, and has not been sent packing - which IMHO is one of the most likely scenarios under these assumptions).

Let's have a look at Italian forces in Eastern Africa: there are about 90,000 Italian servicemen of all arms and some 200,000 indigeneous troops (ascari),
under the overall command of the viceroy for AOI, HRH Amedeo d'Aosta (see this link for the organization of the armed forces: http://www.niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/40-06-10_army/army_aoi.html

It is a significant force, but quite light in terms of heavy weapons and tanks, and mostly spread out in garrison duty. However during these first months of the war, the Italians have been on the offensive, taking British Somaliland and Kassala in Sudan, and skirmishing in Northern Kenia.
In OTL, the Italian disasters in Lybia precluded any possibility of linking with these forces, and Amedeo d'Aosta was ordered to engage as many possible British troops on his own: the predictable outcome was that Amedeo d'Aosta was besieged at Amba Alagi, where he had to surrender at the end of May 1941, and the last organized forces surrendered at Cheren in November 1941.
ITTL, the strategic options are quite different: there is no need or reason to sacrifice these troops, and an easy link can be built along the Nile.

It would be both too ambitious and useless to plan an offensive in Eastern Africa, however. Logistics would be very complex and difficult, and the strategical benefits close to zero (in a way, the losses of the Italian navy would be beneficial in putting off any dream of confronting the british in the Indian ocean). It would make eminently more sense to plan an offensive in Palestine, which could further develop into a number of strategical objectives of convenience:

• the minimum objective is to push back the British from the eastern bank of the channel, and stabilize a defensive line anchored between Gaza and the desert
• after this objective has been achieved, the next step would be to connect with Vichy troops in Syria
• further on, there might be a push into Iraq, taking advantage of a local insurrection (but I'm somehow skeptical about the real chances of such a thrust: the british would have better supply lines through the persian gulf, and such an offensive is not likely to happen before September 1941, IMO)

Thoughts?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Correct. Suez is east of the Nile.

Even tough it is connected to the Nile, I belive it is not considered a part of it.

The Canal is not connected to the Nile, except by a small fresh-water canal that is not useable by anything but very small boats.

 

[Oddball]

The Canal is not connected to the Nile, except by a small fresh-water canal that is not useable by anything but very small boats.

Like I said:

Conected, but not considered a part...

I admit tough that the word connected should have been in exclamations, but I tought the context would be enough

Argh, I hate it when my geography knowledge (wich I take pride in) get picked upon...

 

[zarkov]

However, even with the victory over the Nile, the Italians will still have to push into Sinai and beyond. Now here's the next question. How far will the Italian army travel before the British are driven out of Palestine ?

 

[zarkov]

What about the Middle East

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

However, even with the victory over the Nile, the Italians will still have to push into Sinai and beyond. Now here's the next question. How far will the Italian army travel before the British are driven out of Palestine ?

Why? With control over Suez, Palestine is cut off. The British will quickly run out of supplies and can just be leisurely picked up.

With Suez and Gibraltar under Axis control, what should the Italian fleet do? Massive Italian raids into the Atlantic could be a serious problem for the RN...

 

[LordKalvan]

Palestine might still be supplied through Aqaba, unless the Axis gains a supremacy in the Red Sea too (which might be not as easy as it looks: the british after steaming out toward the Indian Ocean will do their best to make Suez unusable, and as i postulated this scenario requires a very aggressive stance by the regia marina, which is quite likely to result in significant losses of capital ships. Still if the Italians manage to get a few modern submarines in the Red Sea, the British supply line would become unworkable).

I do agree that in any case the British position in Palestine would range from difficult to impossible. The key to a complete Axis success in Middle East goes through Iraq, though: here the logistic situation is quite reversed, with the Breitish enjoying much better and shorter communication lines. I do not consider a thrust to Baghdad and Basra impossible - in particular if we assume the high likelihood of local insurgency against the British, with the Vichy French in Syria at least friendly toward the Axis. It would however require a very strong preparation, a gifted commander (Rommel?) and some degree of air supremacy in the theatre (parity would not be sufficient, IMO): I would anticipate at least 10 months for all of this. The other question is what is going to happen on the Eastern front: does Barbarossa starts on schedule (May-June 1941, without the distraction of the Balkans)? Or does Hitler decide to go for ME before tackling Russia?

I would expect that with the British expelled from Mediterranean neither Greece nor Yugoslavia would make any trouble for the Axis. What about Turkey? IMHO, German pressures would increase sharply, since Turkey would be in the position of making quite a difference in both Iraq and the Caucasus.

The Regia Marina might be re-deployed in the western Mediterranean (Gibraltar, Casablanca, even the Canary islands if Spain jumps the gun): again we should consider the losses resulting from the mediterranean operations, but it would be in a position to harass shipping from South America to UK, and would make a TTL Operation Torch quite a risky proposition.

 

[The Dean]

Once they have the Suez Canal, Kenya and the Indian Ocean are the obvious targets for the next step.

Oh and by the way Zackoff or whoever the hell you are STOP HIGHLIGHTING EVERYTHING. We will post when we are ready, not before.

 

[LordKalvan]

Once they have the Suez Canal, Kenya and the Indian Ocean are the obvious targets for the next step.

Let me guess: the Indian Ocean will be conquered with the 6 aircraft carriers being secretly built in the dwarven kingdoms under the Dolomiti, and Kenia is necessary in order to get the source of the Nile

 

[Faeelin]

Let me guess: the Indian Ocean will be conquered with the 6 aircraft carriers being secretly built in the dwarven kingdoms under the Dolomiti, and Kenia is necessary in order to get the source of the Nile

Clearly the British are paper tigers. On to Bombay!

I think victory disease might be plausible, in this setup.

 

[The Dean]

Let me guess: the Indian Ocean will be conquered with the 6 aircraft carriers being secretly built in the dwarven kingdoms under the Dolomiti, and Kenia is necessary in order to get the source of the Nile

No, but some UBoats based at Djibouti, Moqdishu and Mombasa would cause considerable disruption of normal services in the Indian Ocean, the few that did get there around the Horn and supplied by merchant raiders caused enough trouble as it was.

 

[Croesus]

Zarkov:

1. asks what happens when Italian Tenth Army crosses the Nile, assuming the presence of Rommel-led DAK.

The Dean:

1. suggests establishment of (varying sized) Axis naval bases in Indian Ocean

LordKalvan, establishing a best-case scenario:

1. suggests no continuation of Italian operations in IEA.
2. suggests a push into Sinai, followed by joint operations with Vichy, thence an attack into Iraq.
3. notes British Palestine can be supplied through Aqaba.
4. queries OKW priorities between Barbarossa and Middle East.
5. queries sustainability of Axis naval operations

Abdul Hadi Pasha:

1. suggests no need to push into Palestine given British exposure.

Faelin:

1. concurs with LordKalvan (5)

All the above accepts that Tenth Army is reinforced by DAK under Rommel or similar General. OTL at June 1940 Rommel was the commander of 7 Pz and was appointed commander of DAK February 1941 in response to Italian setbacks vs O'Connor in December 1940.

In either the null or alternative best-case scenario of TTL Italian Tenth Army is victorious over O'Connor and reaches the Nile/Suez [fwiw, I consider the Nile 'connected but not a part' of the Canal, but at this stage it's much of a muchness imho ]. Therefore there are no Italian setbacks for Rommel to reinforce, so I don't consider it a given that Rommel ends up in the desert.

If Rommel is fated to clean up Italian military setbacks, then Greece is next in line. Assuming that Mussolini is neither 'more patient nor less reckless' [thanks Robertp1615 ] then he is in trouble by Nov 1940. German planning to clean up the Balkans flank to cover for Barbarossa commences from this time.

Recall that Rommell conducted many mountain operations during his WW1 career; he has just made his name with tanks in the Battle of France. I suggest that we should either expect Rommel to replace Stumme (which would be ironic as it would be the second time Stumme was replaced by Rommel) as commander of XL Panzer Corps (note that OTL he was given a corps command following France, and the same here); to be withdrawn completely to prepare for Barbarossa; and only then be considered as a reinforcement for the victorious Tenth Army at Nile/Suez.

Surely there are implications for Barbarossa with both 5th Light/21st Pz (Feb 1941) and 15th Pz (Apr 1941) not being committed to Libya/Egypt. Abdul Hadi Pasha's point becomes crucial to any analysis of what happens next. Why push into Sinai when you can cut the Suez, the simple and passive act of which is in itself strategicly decisive?

The question becomes, does OKW consider it sufficiently important to reinforce victory if it means taking force away from Barbarossa? If they do, what forces do they commit given the German military is starting to creak - and who commands it? There are also significant Axis command issues to consider: are the Italians in charge of strategic operations in Egypt/Sinai/Middle East or the Germans?

Is this actually a scenario where we see Vichy France looking to extend it's influence and get some payback for Oran/Mers-el-Kebir? What the heck are the Turks making of all this? And the spectre of Pearl Harbour is looming. An interesting scenario.

I'm still avoiding the naval stuff but obviously can't for too much longer...

Croesus.

 

[LordKalvan]

Clearly the British are paper tigers. On to Bombay!

I think victory disease might be plausible, in this setup.

There was a short story by Harry T. where the Germans conquered India, and Gandhi was executed, but I think it was a bit of a stretch

In TTL Mussolini's megalomania is being kept under reins, and strategic priorities have been dutifully dealt with. Why ruin everything now?
Besides the fact that the British should be a lil under the weather by now, and I'm quite sure that Churchill is having interesting days in parliament.

Mind, if Suez can be quickly re-opened, I'd have no objection to send a few commerce raiders and U-boats to Djibouti. Maybe even a lil adventure in Yemen, to threaten Aden (maybe something can be get out of the Grand Mufti in Jerusalem, and a sort of puppet kingdom can be set up in Egypt under Italian tutelage): all side shows, though. Priorities are different, if the Axis want to win the war: protecting Morocco is number one, getting Turkey on-board is number 2, and "liberating" Iraq is number 3. My list of to-do things is full, thank you very much.