WI Afrika Corps Focus instead of Barbarossa?
- Thread starter ryackov
- Start date
Quite so. There's also the issue that transport along the coast from Tripoli was pretty poor as well, IIRC there was no coastal railway line so Axis forces quickly outstripped their supply lines. Without a considerable investment of time, effort, and resources in augmenting the logistics infrastructure in North Africa, the Axis are going to struggle to get further than they did. It wasn't all that uncommon for Rommel to depend on captured British supplies in order to conduct his operations.
It would have helped if the Italian convoys got more cover, so more supplys actually land in Africa.
Building a coastal railway is a must.
Using Tunis (requires Germany to either persuade/force Vichy to allow, but Germany should have forced the permission when France fell - though did they know they would need it?)
So it would be possible...
Building a coastal railway is a must.
Using Tunis (requires Germany to either persuade/force Vichy to allow, but Germany should have forced the permission when France fell - though did they know they would need it?)
So it would be possible...
Not easy though, or quick. You might want to look at building up Benghazi a fair bit as well, at least make it capable of taking fuel and food. The whole thing really comes down to Tobruk and whether Rommel can figure out how to capture it in 1941. If he can, then he stands a reasonable chance of cutting off the British while they're still dug in at Mersa Matruh, but if not, then things probably aren't going to go much differently to OTL.
i think, perhaps more importantly, what would russia have done in this situation? iirc, IOTL stalin and hitler knew that they would go to war with each other eventually, and their peace treaty was just temporary until one of them decided to break it, and hitler just happened to be the one who broke it IOTL. if the germans arent prepared for a full-scale war with russia, will stalin try to take advantage of that?
Well, to say it simply : the more Stalin wait, the more Hitler is fucked. The main goal of USSR was to not looks like the agressor : they remembered the reaction during Winter War and if they wanted the help of UK or USA (I mean, collaborative help) they need to be attacked.
Of course, past some point (let's say 43) and before the unavoidable defeat in the sands and sea that Hitler would have against UK/US, maybe Stalin could do something like Manchuria in 45. But it would need an agreement with them to be efficient.
But, Hitler focusing on AK would be suicidal : the benefits wouldn't be really important and it would let the Red Army the time to be quite ready. If at some point, the soviet army have radio-communication worth of mention and working...It would be a slaughter.
For a while, yes, but it is by no means Arab.
Actually, part of the point of those mild pro-Axis attitudes was about Persians being "Aryans" as opposed to Arab "Semites". OTOH, to my knowledge the Shah never enforced any kind of Anti-Semitic policy and was actually quite friendly towards the Persian Jewish community.
It was more about nationalism and pride.
And IIRC the Persians saw the opportunity (if Germany wins) to get back territory lost to Russia.
Other threads have explored this idea, but...
Logistics is the real limiting factor. There was only so much force size the Axis could support in Libya, given existing harbor capacity, not to mention road and rail network. Improving the harbor facilities at Benghazi and Tobruk would help, but only so much.
One possibility is to make sure what cargo you are sending actually gets through. That suggests taking Malta out, e.g. Operation Hercules.
Another possibility is to make sure what cargo you are sending is of the highest quality. That points to making the mobile force all German, with the Italian Army reduced to bare minimum for garrison duties. Of course, there would be political repercussions from that in Rome.
Logistics is the real limiting factor. There was only so much force size the Axis could support in Libya, given existing harbor capacity, not to mention road and rail network. Improving the harbor facilities at Benghazi and Tobruk would help, but only so much.
One possibility is to make sure what cargo you are sending actually gets through. That suggests taking Malta out, e.g. Operation Hercules.
Another possibility is to make sure what cargo you are sending is of the highest quality. That points to making the mobile force all German, with the Italian Army reduced to bare minimum for garrison duties. Of course, there would be political repercussions from that in Rome.
Pretty much ASB unless Hitler has a magical change of heart. North Africa was always discussed through the prism of the wider war against Britain and as a means of keeping Britain busy while the Reich marched Eastwards. To shift focus to the Mediterranean to that extent, which the Nazis acknowledged was an Italian sphere of influence and therefore not worthy of serious investment - why spend German lives on Mussolini's Mare Nostrum? - would be out of character and would, above all, require a reason for the Germans to choose to do it. 'Oil' isn't enough. Germany felt comfortable with oil from Romania.
BlairWitch749
Banned
The objective is doable; it doesn't require much more ground forces than were committed in OTL... hell subtract out 2 of the italian line infantry divisions in favor of another german motorized division and you don't even have much of a net change in logistical demand but would still have a significant increase in capability
The main commitment would be airpower; to fly top cover for the convoys, give support to the panzer army africa, suppress malta, and suppress the RN.
The British were very very weak in 1941, nor could they reinforce the theater very fast... a sustained German effort would capture enough forward ports and airfields to make up for the lack of usable ports in Libya and drive the RN into the red sea, effectively removing much of the threat to transports
hitler has to see value in the campaign.... raeder should have couched it as opening up a southern front to pincer attack russia
The main commitment would be airpower; to fly top cover for the convoys, give support to the panzer army africa, suppress malta, and suppress the RN.
The British were very very weak in 1941, nor could they reinforce the theater very fast... a sustained German effort would capture enough forward ports and airfields to make up for the lack of usable ports in Libya and drive the RN into the red sea, effectively removing much of the threat to transports
hitler has to see value in the campaign.... raeder should have couched it as opening up a southern front to pincer attack russia
Actually there is no evidence that the Germans could have advanced rapidly enough to seize functioning ports from the British. The British had planned for such possibilities and would have left very little in terms of functioning port facilities behind them. Not to mention that there were no ports of any significance west of Alexandria until you reached Tobruk(in Libya), which is not a short trip.
A German motorized division's supply needs were substantially greater than two Italian infantry divisions and, again, supply needs were already maxing out the port facilities in Libya. Likewise this massive increase in Luftwaffe involvment also requires fuel supplies being available on a much larger scale.
A German motorized division's supply needs were substantially greater than two Italian infantry divisions and, again, supply needs were already maxing out the port facilities in Libya. Likewise this massive increase in Luftwaffe involvment also requires fuel supplies being available on a much larger scale.
What is the value in this campaign? Somehow they will fight through Egypt and the rest of the middle east and then invade through the Caucasus?
BlairWitch749
Banned
Bardia and Mersah Matruh could be used; hell the British staged a lot of supplies out of Mersah Matruh
The Germans seized ports from British control several times during the african campaign; airfields too for that matter; Bengahzi twice, Tobruk and Mersah... the problem was the ports took heavy losses from air strikes, and the Italian navy feared challanging the RN by sending the ships to the more forward ports; if you install a larger LW presence, it reduces those two factors, allowing the axis to take more advantage of the infrastructure they capture
Also, once the Germans are far enough forward, the RN leaves the area which conceeds a safer supply zone to north african ports; when Rommel reached Alemein, the RN ships in Alexandria were in range of stukas with fighter escort, making their position a dangerous one
The Italian line infantry divisions in Africa had enough trucks to theoretically lift half their men; and given that german motorized infantry divisions were fairly small; a strait 2 to 1 tradeoff would be supply net neutral
I don't disagree that Tripoli, and sometimes Bengahzi were loaded to the max; hence Tobruk and other forward ports need to be used to reduce congestion. The LW wouldn't have to base all of it's increased efforts in africa itself... ground support forces could be applied at the historical level, whilst the additional assets are used to supress Malta and Alexandria from the mainland and to fly top cover based on the mainland
BlairWitch749
Banned
That's a value he could maybe accept
IRL; no value and it was a pointless diversion of resources that could have been more forcefully applied against Russia