WI Rommela has the 10th Armored available at Kasserine Pass

What it says in the title. What if Von Arnin doesn't ignore Kesselrings orders and gives the 10th armored division to Rommel.

How far can his offensive go now? How big could allied and axis losses get before Rommel runs out of steam?
 
What it says in the title. What if Von Arnin doesn't ignore Kesselrings orders and gives the 10th armored division to Rommel.

How far can his offensive go now? How big could allied and axis losses get before Rommel runs out of steam?


Hang on, I thought that Rommel did have 10th Panzer at Kasserine Pass?
 
Hang on, I thought that Rommel did have 10th Panzer at Kasserine Pass?

You are right. What I meant was that the 10th armored had a few battalion sized on the flanks among them a heavy Panzer formation which Von Arnin withheld.
 
Not much different than OTL. This was a very complex event & badly understood. It was in fact a campaign, not a battle. It breaks down into almost a dozen seperate battles spread across a region larger than the Ardennes, & distributed over a week.

There are a lot of badly done treatments of this campaign. For something acessable I recommend the relevant chapters of Atkinson's 'Army at Dawn'. A carefull read of that & study of the maps can give a clearer understanding of what went on.
 
Not much different than OTL. This was a very complex event & badly understood. It was in fact a campaign, not a battle. It breaks down into almost a dozen seperate battles spread across a region larger than the Ardennes, & distributed over a week.

There are a lot of badly done treatments of this campaign. For something acessable I recommend the relevant chapters of Atkinson's 'Army at Dawn'. A carefull read of that & study of the maps can give a clearer understanding of what went on.

Thanks for the tip. Does Atkinsons only look at and explain the strategic, tactical and operational decissions of the allied side or does he explain and show the same of the axis side. From the amazon description it seems like it only focuses on the US miliatry side.
 
Does Atkinsons only look at and explain the strategic, tactical and operational decissions of the allied side or does he explain and show the same of the axis side. From the amazon description it seems like it only focuses on the US miliatry side.

Atkinson touches on the strategic aspects, but you have to read the other chapters to grasp them. The chapters concerning the missnamed Kaserine battle are part of a larger narrative & do not stand alone in terms of broad understanding.

And yes the focus is on the performance of the US Army Ground Forces. So the US AAF is As Thinly covered as the Brit or French.

I'd also take look at Jackson's The Battle for North Africa.
 
Not much different than OTL. This was a very complex event & badly understood. It was in fact a campaign, not a battle. It breaks down into almost a dozen seperate battles spread across a region larger than the Ardennes, & distributed over a week.

Uh... no. The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a battle as much as Ardennes, El Alamein, or Smolensk (to just pick a few examples). The campaign was the entirety of the US operations in North Africa from Torch all the way to Tobruk. What you refer to as "battles" are, in proper military terms, engagements. Your getting your definitions confused there.
 
Last edited:
Quite impossible. Its everyone else that is confused :p Whatever the definitions my point is the 'event' was far larger & far more complex than most discussion board folks like us understand, or professional historians make clear. Just that the entire German operation is commonly referred after a single engagement that was arguablly after the tipping point in the affair occurred suggests the level of misunderstanding.
 
Just that the entire German operation is commonly referred after a single engagement that was arguablly after the tipping point in the affair occurred suggests the level of misunderstanding.

That happens to a lot of battles though. Kursk wasn't just Citadel, for example, it was also Kutuzov and Rumyanstev.
 
True, but in the case of Operation Morning Air, or Morning Breeze, or whatever, the confusion goes a lot deeper than usual. If I had time to burn it would be interesting to read some German or Italian accounts or analysis.
 

Deleted member 1487

That happens to a lot of battles though. Kursk wasn't just Citadel, for example, it was also Kutuzov and Rumyanstev.
Technically Kursk was just the German offensive. The follow up Soviet offensives were grouped together by Soviet historiography to make the fighting around Kursk seem like smaller event than it was. The Soviet offensives weren't at Kursk they were the Orel offensive and the Belgorod/4th Kharkov.
 
Top