WI: Rommel takes Egypt?

Short and simple. The Battle of El Alamein is a smashing Nazi victory and the British Army is routed. Rommel's troops take Cairo, Alexandria, and the Suez Canal. What now?
 
Short and simple. The Battle of El Alamein is a smashing Nazi victory and the British Army is routed. Rommel's troops take Cairo, Alexandria, and the Suez Canal. What now?

Wouldnt the Brits bring troops across from India (maybe the Burma front) to hold the suez canal considering how important it is?
 
I am not too knowledgeable about this theater, but it seems to me that of Rommel broke out at El Alamein, he would race pell mell for the canal, throwing off enough of a force to besiege Alexandria; continuing east, he would send a spearhead forward to close off the canal, while the main force closed in on Cairo. However many men the British could muster in defense of the city, the sheer size of the population of the Nile Delta area will give Rommel some sort of logistical problems. Probably the best he can hope for is that there is an insurrection within Cairo, by disgruntled Egyptians, wanting to end British colonial rule. Was not Anwar Sadat in OTL somehow involved in something of this nature? Then if they took the canal area, and had the fuel and ammo to push on, I guess they head across Sinai for Gaza and Beersheba, the way the Brits did in 1917. After this, I don't know
 
Hopefuly this would lead to the axis stupidly throwing more divisions into some grand counquest of the Middle East which would drain their resources.
 
Short and simple. The Battle of El Alamein is a smashing Nazi victory and the British Army is routed. Rommel's troops take Cairo, Alexandria, and the Suez Canal. What now?

Polish Eagle

I presume your talking about 1st El Alamein when Rommel, with a small force at the limit of his logistics tried to break through the British defences there and lunge towards the Nile? Rather than 2nd El Alamein when a slightly stronger Rommel was hammered by the overwhelming forces built up under Alexaner and Montgomery.

In the later, presuming some collapse of moral and organisation its possible that he could break through and if there was a major uprising in the Nile valley you might see some sort of German presence in the area. Its doubtful his resources would stretch to an attack on the canal zone as that's another reach across desert whereas he already has lines stretched beyond capacity. To get further he would 1st have to restore order in the Nile valley, to secure what supply there was and repair damage/demolistion that British forces would have done to the port at Alexandria. [Then their got to find the shipping to transfer equipment and supplies to the new front]. All this time the British would be moving reinforcements to the canal zone as a priority. Probably less to use it to reach the Med as for a defencive position.

Steve
 

Markus

Banned
Hopefuly this would lead to the axis stupidly throwing more divisions into some grand counquest of the Middle East which would drain their resources.

If the Allies are not able to stop Rommel at El Alamein their forces have somehow been broken and beaten before. So the drain on the Axis resources will be limited. In case the Allies still have a force that requires more divisions to defeat, who did Rommel get through in the first place?
 
I had a discussion on another board with member who believed that given sufficient supplies (which didn't have to be that big so realistic POD) Rommel could have won Alam Halfa. I disagreed.

My point was that at Alam Halfa Germans were operating at the end of their reach. they operated far from their logistic base (which ment that even if supplies did get to NA and were not intercepted en route to units by RAF it burned fuel to deliver fuel). Also at Alam Halfa Germans faced superior number of enemy who were dug in and learning. Basically his arguments boiled down to: more supplies = better organised German flanking move = surrounded Brits = conquest of Egypt.

However IMO Germans simply lacked the strength do encircle and later destroy the British (either through direct attack or starving them) and push into Egypt at the same time. Their forces were simply too small to do all that. Direct assault on them would bring casualties that were practically impossible to replace, starving them out would take time and would run risk of breakout attempt (I would like to point out again Germans were numerically superior both in AFVs and infantry) while keeping only screen around them while some units (read motorised and armor) would race east would be inviting Brits to break out and destroy Germans as they were dispersed.

Now throw in RAF dominance which dramatically increases dangers of movement and resupplly operations and you realise that any German victory would be Phyricc and short lived and could easily lead to German rout (remember, Torch is short time away and British defeat could push it up).

Basically at that point, be it 1. EA or Alam Halfa odds were simply stacked too much against Germany to make any strategic victory possible.
 
Was the Suez Canal a particulary important target during that period of the war. Apart from its symbolic importance to the British Empire and Commonwealth that is. I imagine all the shipping that went through the canal pre war went round the Cape as soon as Italy declared war. So apart from that the canal would just be a useful defensive line to stop the Germans. Rommel was short of everything so I doubt he had the equipment to bridge the canal.
 
Was the Suez Canal a particulary important target during that period of the war. Apart from its symbolic importance to the British Empire and Commonwealth that is. I imagine all the shipping that went through the canal pre war went round the Cape as soon as Italy declared war.

The canal was the main supply route for the British forces in Egypt. In other words, capturing the canal would help Rommel in his attempt to conquer Egypt rather than being an end in itself.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
The canal was the main supply route for the British forces in Egypt. In other words, capturing the canal would help Rommel in his attempt to conquer Egypt rather than being an end in itself.


Nigel,

It what exact manner was it the "main supply route"? Did freighters in the canal off load their cargo while there? Did tankers in the canal off load their fuel while there? Did transports in the canal off-load their troops while there?

Sure vessels which had steamed around the Cape to avoid the dangers of the Med could pass through the canal to off-load in Alexandria, but they could off-load at smaller port of Suez too.

I don't see how parking a panzer on the banks of the canal somehow magically cuts the supply lines of British troops still able to use Egypt's Mediterranean and Red Sea ports.


Bill
 
It half seals the Med. The Italians can use their Navy for more agressive stuff, and some of the neutrals might be persuaded to join the Axis, namely Spain and perhaps Turkey.
 
It what exact manner was it the "main supply route"? Did freighters in the canal off load their cargo while there? Did tankers in the canal off load their fuel while there? Did transports in the canal off-load their troops while there?

Sure vessels which had steamed around the Cape to avoid the dangers of the Med could pass through the canal to off-load in Alexandria, but they could off-load at smaller port of Suez too.

I would have thought that the supplies would be more useful in Alexandra - especially if you want to maintain a naval presence in the Eastern Med. However, I'll bow to your superior knowledge that the British didn't use the Suez Canal during WWII.

I don't see how parking a panzer on the banks of the canal somehow magically cuts the supply lines of British troops still able to use Egypt's Mediterranean and Red Sea ports.

Neither do I. Still, being able to shell any shipping that uses the canal would have some effect on logistics.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 
Top