Hitler has a "smarter" 1941

[Julian]

Crevald is correct - Libya appears not to have had the logistics to conquer Egypt. But Libya and Tunisia combined did.

Which the Germams tried to exploit, getting permission from Darlan, but failed due to politics and logistics. In 1941 the political situation precludes seizing French territory and provoking rebellion, so the Germans relied on inadequate on French trucks and shipping. Darlan was hesitant to let the Germans make greater use of Tunisia due to the threat of British invasion, particularly after the occupation of Lebanon and Syria. Besides, the Gernans get to Alexandria and what next? The British cripple the port and retreat to new defenses while continuing to build up men and material in the region and reducing port capacity via bombing. The Germans are now more overextended than ever before with a useless port to show for it and an intact British opponent.

 

[I want to learn]

What kind of capacity did Egyptian/Allied ports have? Surely it's useful to consider the advantages a force that conquered Libya while based from Egypt when considering a Libya into Egypt invasion.

 

[Saphroneth]

Which the Germams tried to exploit, getting permission from Darlan, but failed due to politics and logistics. In 1941 the political situation precludes seizing French territory and provoking rebellion, so the Germans relied on inadequate on French trucks and shipping. Darlan was hesitant to let the Germans make greater use of Tunisia due to the threat of British invasion, particularly after the occupation of Lebanon and Syria. Besides, the Gernans get to Alexandria and what next? The British cripple the port and retreat to new defenses while continuing to build up men and material in the region and reducing port capacity via bombing. The Germans are now more overextended than ever before with a useless port to show for it and an intact British opponent.

It's also important, of course, that if the Germans DO invade Tunis then the Allied reinforcement route to French North Africa - to bring in more troops - is... actually really bloody short. It's Britain to Morocco.
So, they do that. The pieds-noirs, the local civilians with some military training, the formerly Vichy units in Morocco all rearm with British (and American) weapons, or their local weapon stocks, and suddenly Tunis isn't an easy target. (The Brits don't need to fear a Seamammal if the Axis is pouring their navy south and the RN is sinking it in Trafalgar II.)
OTL, the forces that would have helped prevent the German takeover of Tunis in 1942 or -3 were being rushed to the Far East because Japan. But ITTL this crisis kicks off before the Japan thing, so those forces are available.

 

[Saphroneth]

What kind of capacity did Egyptian/Allied ports have? Surely it's useful to consider the advantages a force that conquered Libya while based from Egypt when considering a Libya into Egypt invasion.

A number I got via the Axis History forum says, basically, ten times that of the Lybian ones. As per Dr. Enrico Cernuschi (original source):
The Lybian harbour capacity was, before the war, at best, no more than 100,000 tons. in a month. At war this total dropped to an half for simply logistic reasons, not considering the effect of bombers ect. The Suez, Port Said and Alexandria system was able to receive about 500,000 tons, not considering oil which was coming by pipeline. Quite heavier cargos (tanks, for example) could be managed in an easier and faster way in Egypt than in Lybia yet in 1940. It was a problem of docks, cranes, sea bottom, workers and so on which could not be changed, at war, in a brief time but would have need years of work during peace time.

 

[andyheong]

It could take anywhere from 3 to 6 months would be my guess.

.

Airpower.



Wouldn't matter either way - the Axis could take the major Iberian ports, and Gibraltar and Malta would fall.

a) 3 months to 6 months for a such a built up. No taking into effect infrastructure upgrades in NA plus redeployment of merchant marine assets. Quite a major undertaking. I guess in terms of pure manpower, it can be done. All of the pioneers and troops not marching into Russia can be used for this. Still, are there enough shipping capacity?

b) Airpower - That would mean a significant redeployment of the Luftwaffe esp Ju-88 for anti-shipping strikes. I think Ju-87s would be too short legged. Still a lot of materials tied up in this. Can the Germans cope with this and trying to massively expand the NA situation?

c) Malta I think is not that important. But Gibraltar falling would mean an Axis dominated Med. Would have major reprecussions for NA. Question would be do Germany have enough capability to 1) Reinforce NA 2) Invade or occupy Spain esp with a hostile Spain) 3) Invade and take Gibraltar. I guess Spain will have to come first. But then what about NA? Somehow I don't think the Brits will not be sitting passively while all of this was happening and neither would the Soviets. Uncle Joe who already see Hitler as a future threat would problem go nuts at the thought of an Axis dominated Med.

Personally, I think the logistics would be a bit too much for Germany to handle between the shipping needed, the assets needed for Spain and the expansion to facilities in NA. A lof of 'ifs' have to go right in your scenario.

 

[andyheong]

A number I got via the Axis History forum says, basically, ten times that of the Lybian ones. As per Dr. Enrico Cernuschi (original source):
The Lybian harbour capacity was, before the war, at best, no more than 100,000 tons. in a month. At war this total dropped to an half for simply logistic reasons, not considering the effect of bombers ect. The Suez, Port Said and Alexandria system was able to receive about 500,000 tons, not considering oil which was coming by pipeline. Quite heavier cargos (tanks, for example) could be managed in an easier and faster way in Egypt than in Lybia yet in 1940. It was a problem of docks, cranes, sea bottom, workers and so on which could not be changed, at war, in a brief time but would have need years of work during peace time.

I guess it's always easy to say... let's move this or let's expand that. But the time and effort in logistics is something easily overlooked. Didn't some general once said "I don't know what is that logistics but I want plenty of it"? hahaha And no one operates in a vacuum. I'm fairly sure the Brits will not be sitting idly by wacthing their strategic situation go down the toilet.

 

[Saphroneth]

I guess it's always easy to say... let's move this or let's expand that. But the time and effort in logistics is something easily overlooked. Didn't some general once said "I don't know what is that logistics but I want plenty of it"? hahaha And no one operates in a vacuum. I'm fairly sure the Brits will not be sitting idly by wacthing their strategic situation go down the toilet.

It's also noted by the same author that the Allies were the ones who exercised greater effort into improving their strategic situation. Tail, not teeth, IOW. (One general refused a division in favour of reinforcements and rear area personnel.)

 

[andyheong]

It's also noted by the same author that the Allies were the ones who exercised greater effort into improving their strategic situation. Tail, not teeth, IOW. (One general refused a division in favour of reinforcements and rear area personnel.)

OTL, the allies definitely exercised greater effort in making sure their tail could support their teeth. Given the scenario Glen envisions and the fact that the Germans didn't turn East, another German commander would be a much better choice than Rommel.

IMHO, I don't think the scenario Glen pictures is feasible. But, if it were to happen the success depends too much on the Brits not making any counterpunches. And eventually, Hitler would be screwed when Uncle Joe decides that he needs living space too esp with the German army spread all across Africa, Spain, the middle east and Turkey.