WI- Rommel manages to win in Egypt?

I think its also worth noting, at least where Rommel's reputation is concerned, that he was not present at the opening of Second El Alamein and was not there to command his forces until later. So to say its Montgomeris great victory over Rommel is a little bit of a misnomer.
 
Hmmm remember the disaster called Market Garden?

Montgomery is underated as the pompous prat he really was.
too many people believe the shameless selfpromotion of montgomery about his own greatness(the inflated ego's of montgomery & macarthur may be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe ;) ).

Hmm, remember the disaster called... the Axis being defeated in North Africa?
 
Hmm, remember the disaster called... the Axis being defeated in North Africa?

How much of that was Montgomery? As opposed to the other Allied generals (I'm counting "Montgomery's army" as "Montgomery" for convenience's sake)

I'm sort of in the middle here, erring on the generous side, I should note.
 
If we assume Rommel wins, that means he must defeat the British at 1st Alamein in July 1942. Winning that battle does not mean the British are driven from Egypt. It simply allows Rommel to keep proceeding. There will likely be additional battles as a desperate 8th Army seeks to preserve something of the British position in Egypt. Another possibility is winning at Alma Halfa in early September 1942 as someone mentioned.

Either win does not give Rommel much time. The Americans will be landing in Morocco and Algeria in November 1942 which will completely change the strategic situation.

Gaining Alexandria does not alleviate the German supply issue. The British Mediterranean Fleet still exists, even if it needs to be based somewhere else. The British Fleet should be able to intercept most supplies coming from Axis held Greece to Alexandria. The immediate sea area will have both land and carrier aircover for the Allies so concerns that Germany could achieve air superiority to neutralize the British fleet are probably minimal.

An Axis victory in late summer 1942 is not enough to change around the strategic situation in the Mediterranean. Panzerarmee Afrika will not be able to cross the Suez in the brief window of opportunity it has. Supply will still be a major issue, and the German & Italian forces will be ragged even if victorious.

I think it is only a manner of time before the 8th Army recovers and begins to push Rommel back just like they did IOTL. Especially after Operation Torch changes things for the Allies.

It will probably mean a longer African campaign of at least several months. This will end any American hope for a 1943 cross Channel invasion, which is a good thing. Husky may be pushed back several months, but probably not too much. The Americans likely get Tunisia by late winter 1943 and can begin preparations for the invasion, even if Allied armies still need to battle it out in Libya. Even more German forces might be captured if Hitler decides victory is still possible and throws in even more reinforcements.

In short, other than causing major panic, I don't see many butterflies.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
A lot will depend on why Rommel won. Rommel did as well as anyone could have been expected to do, with the resources he had. If he reaches the Suez Canal, he likely holds at this location. His forces are exhausted and he needs resupply. By November 1942, the Allies are landing in Algeria, and he will need to send forces west. He is unlikely to continue advancing.

To improve his supplies, Rommel needs help at sea. Such as

1) Malta falling.
2) Gibraltar falling.
3) No Taranto
4) Italian Navy decisively defeats British Navy in Med.
5) German Naval Codes are secure.

The butterflies from these events is likely as large as winning El Alamein.
 
Hmmm remember the disaster called Market Garden?

Montgomery is underated as the pompous prat he really was.
too many people believe the shameless selfpromotion of montgomery about his own greatness(the inflated ego's of montgomery & macarthur may be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe ;) ).

2 points,

1. everyone makes mistakes occasionally, even the best of the best (which Montgomery wasn't however good he was)

2. I would hazard a guess that all great generals and many not so great to damn awful generals were pompous prats with horrendously inflated egos. I believe it's part of the job description :D
 
How about this scenario:


Mussolini doesn't invade Ethiopia and instead accepts the French offer of gaining Djibouti and trading rights in Tunisia.

This will have big consequences for the Italian economy because:

1. They aren't spending on useless infrastructure in Ethiopia
2. They aren't administering Ethiopia and putting down the insurgency there
3. There are no economic sanctions by the League of Nations
4. The trading right in Tunisia also contribute a bit


Mussolini then uses the extra cash to build a railway from Tripoli to Tobruk as well as maybe enlarge harbor capacities here and there a bit.

This will have enormous consequences on the Axis ability to supply their forces in NA.


Is this feasible or has it been shot down long ago in a thread far far away ?
 
Not to say he was a bad general - Rommel is overrated and Montgomery underrated - but I think given Rommel's lack of supplies, the first phase of El Alamein requiring all out commitment on the German's part isn't quite as much to Montgomery's credit as you do.

To be fair to Rommel he was in the hospital in Germany when the battle started. Hitler called the phone in his hospital room and Rommel's illegitimate daughter who was visiting picked up the phone and asked who is it Hitler growled 'The Fuhrer'. Her eyes went as wide as saucers and she handed over the phone to her father.

Funny story, but the point is Rommel wasn't leading in the run up or early on in the battle. It's very possible if he was in the field before and early on the Afrika Korps may have reacted differently.
 
How about this scenario:


Mussolini doesn't invade Ethiopia and instead accepts the French offer of gaining Djibouti and trading rights in Tunisia.

This will have big consequences for the Italian economy because:

1. They aren't spending on useless infrastructure in Ethiopia
2. They aren't administering Ethiopia and putting down the insurgency there
3. There are no economic sanctions by the League of Nations
4. The trading right in Tunisia also contribute a bit


Mussolini then uses the extra cash to build a railway from Tripoli to Tobruk as well as maybe enlarge harbor capacities here and there a bit.

This will have enormous consequences on the Axis ability to supply their forces in NA.


Is this feasible or has it been shot down long ago in a thread far far away ?

I like this one. On the other hand... Mussoliny? Developing colonies? But if we'll assume he decide to vastly improve the infrastructure of Lybia (Ports, Railroads, ect) that actually might do something. So let's imagaine Tactically-superior Rommel marching with a good supply line behind him... He may actually make it to Suez and beyond.
 
If Rommel did beat Montgomery at El Alamein and force a British retreat then to be crude, he would be sticking his dick even further into the sausage mincer. Logistics are everything and Rommel's were pathetic
Well, there's always the Five Graves to Cairo scenario. Although what the POD would be to get the Germans burying huge quantities of supplies in Egypt pre-war I can't even begin to imagine. There's never an ASB around when you want one, is there? :rolleyes:
 
To be fair to Rommel he was in the hospital in Germany when the battle started. Hitler called the phone in his hospital room and Rommel's illegitimate daughter who was visiting picked up the phone and asked who is it Hitler growled 'The Fuhrer'. Her eyes went as wide as saucers and she handed over the phone to her father.

Funny story, but the point is Rommel wasn't leading in the run up or early on in the battle. It's very possible if he was in the field before and early on the Afrika Korps may have reacted differently.

Rommel had an illegitimate daughter?

Wow, the things you learn at random...

Um, anyway. Its possible, but possibly not very much different.

I think El Alamein is a no-real-win situation for him. If you really and truly want Africa Korps driving to Suez, it needs the reinforcements and supplies before the battle.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I consider the idea of Rommel winning the Battle of El Alamein unlikely for logistical reasons, even with an Axis capture of Malta. But even if it did happen, the British would fall back to another defensive position, forcing Rommel to advance even farther and therefore stretch his supply lines even farther. Winning at El Alamein is no guarantee that Rommel takes Egypt.

Furthermore, even if Alexandria falls, it doesn't cut the Royal Navy off from the Mediterranean. The Suez Canal is considerably farther to the east, and there are ports in Palestine and Syria which could have served the Royal Navy if Alexandria became unavailable.
 
I think El Alamein is a no-real-win situation for him. If you really and truly want Africa Korps driving to Suez, it needs the reinforcements and supplies before the battle.

I didn't mean it would have made a difference in beating the 8th Army. At this point he was fighting a defensive war and not trying to get to the Suez. Preserving the fighting strength of his forces and preventing the attacking force from kicking them all the way back across North Africa would be considered a success for that that battle for the Africa Korps.

In order to take Egypt it would have had to have been at an earler time with a different set of circumstances, probably including more tanks for the Afrika Korps and some big mistakes by the 8th Army.

Rommel had an illegitimate daughter?

Yes, he did.

daugher-1.jpg


Her name was Gertrud above and of course the older lady is Rommel's legitimite wife.
 
I didn't mean it would have made a difference in beating the 8th Army. At this point he was fighting a defensive war and not trying to get to the Suez. Preserving the fighting strength of his forces and preventing the attacking force from kicking them all the way back across North Africa would be considered a success for that that battle for the Africa Korps.

True.

In order to take Egypt it would have had to have been at an earler time with a different set of circumstances, probably including more tanks for the Afrika Korps and some big mistakes by the 8th Army.

Yeah. Ideally both.

Yes, he did.

Her name was Gertrud above and of course the older lady is Rommel's legitimite wife.

Huh. I don't know why I'm so surprised, but I am.
 

iddt3

Donor
How about this scenario:


Mussolini doesn't invade Ethiopia and instead accepts the French offer of gaining Djibouti and trading rights in Tunisia.

This will have big consequences for the Italian economy because:

1. They aren't spending on useless infrastructure in Ethiopia
2. They aren't administering Ethiopia and putting down the insurgency there
3. There are no economic sanctions by the League of Nations
4. The trading right in Tunisia also contribute a bit


Mussolini then uses the extra cash to build a railway from Tripoli to Tobruk as well as maybe enlarge harbor capacities here and there a bit.

This will have enormous consequences on the Axis ability to supply their forces in NA.


Is this feasible or has it been shot down long ago in a thread far far away ?
Ironically, this means far less tension between the allies and Italy, making it much more likely that Italy sits out the war entirely, or intervenes to stop the annexation of Austria (which historically he had been doing). You need something else to poison allied relations with the Italians.
 
Yeah. Ideally both.

Yes, there are some timelines I could imagine where it happens, but they all seem to require some of both.

Changes earlier on in the war would effect the battle in Africa a fair bit like Dunkirk doesn't go quite as well for the Allies, Germany gets involved in Africa sooner and FDR has more problems getting Congress to pass Lend Lease, thus delaying it.

Huh. I don't know why I'm so surprised, but I am.

They told Manfred she was his cousin to explain why she stayed at the house so much.

He had a girlfriend during the early years of WW1 and that led to Gertrud, but his father disapproved of the relationship and told him not to marry her and he didn't. His father also was responsable for him going into the military, he wanted to be an engineer, but his father told him it wasn't a good enough profession for him so he joined the Army.

I guess that is why they call it the Fatherland. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yes, there are some timelines I could imagine where it happens, but they all seem to require some of both.

Changes earlier on in the war would effect the battle in Africa a fair bit like Dunkirk doesn't go quite as well for the Allies, Germany gets involved in Africa sooner and FDR has more problems getting Congress to pass Lend Lease, thus delaying it.

That could be interesting. Dunkirk turning out as the pessimistic predictions feared isn't grounds for we all know what, but it might seriously hinder Britain's ability to meaningfully do anything - it has to replace more than OTL, with all the effort spent on that being unavailable for other things.

They told Manfred she was his cousin to explain why she stayed at the house so much.

He had a girlfriend during the early years of WW1 and that led to Gertrud, but his father disapproved of the relationship and told him not to marry her and he didn't. His father also was responsable for him going into the military, he wanted to be an engineer, but his father told him it wasn't a good enough profession for him so he joined the Army.

I guess that is why they call it the Fatherland. ;)

Interesting.
 
That could be interesting. Dunkirk turning out as the pessimistic predictions feared isn't grounds for we all know what, but it might seriously hinder Britain's ability to meaningfully do anything - it has to replace more than OTL, with all the effort spent on that being unavailable for other things.

It would certainly cause a man power crisis and much weaker British officer corps as a large chunk of their best and brightest would be gone. Decient soldiers and officers aren't made overnight.

It would very much effect their ability to wage a real land war in Africa and the Far East in 1941 and 42. The fall of Singapore and the Suez combined would probably lead to a successful no confidence vote in Churchill.
 
So if Infarstructure in Lybia was far better, or Dunkerque evacuation would fail, can we safely say Rommel would have a far better chance in Egypt?
 
Not so easy. Good infrastructure in Lybia means nothing if no supplies are coming because ships end up on the bottom. If entire BEF is destroyed, Brits would still have forces in the Desert to defeat Italians. Greece might be left to dry. What would probably be felt is lack of officers for replacement, trained soldiers and such. Equipment lost was lost anyway, so no big difference anyway. In the desert, British used mostly dominion troops anyway - South Africans, ANZAC and Indian troops. 2nd armored was shattered the first day of Rommel's offensive and disbanded. I do not see why Brits would keep equipment in UK? What is the point? Not that Germans could invade. Only question is would lack of officers be felt. IMHO it wouldn't but that is without enough of research. I think that Rommel's success in Africa was simply not possible given most things and without major PODs. Maybe more successful Iraq and Iran rebellions, large scale uprising in India, stuff like that.
 
Top