Slitherine

OK fellow Generals. Just for fun (the boards have been a little slow lately) and in anticipation for the upcoming Afrika Corps expansion I would like to pose this question-

You are General, it is January 1st 1941, and assuming relatively little political interference from Berlin, how would you have conducted the African Campaign? What would you have done differently, if anything? Would you have even sent forces at all, or would you think it was a sideshow distracting you from the real prize?


I will start off by saying that I would have still sent forces to Africa to help my allies. Russia is still my prize though, and I would probably have not sent much more than German High command sent in reality. I would have made a few strategic changes however.

My first priority would be changing my codes. That is just a no-brainer. I am always amazed the Axis did as well as they did considering their codes had been compromised very early in the war. It boggles my mind how they had so much hubris that they never figured this one out.

Second, without the benefit of hindsight, I would probably have ignored Gibraltar and Malta for a little while. Malta seemed rather harmless in the beginning. However, as soon as they became a threat to my shipping lanes I would have made Malta mine very quick. Honestly, I would have probably left Gibraltar alone unless my Malta invasion was a resounding success.

Third, if the campaign turned sour, like it did historically, I would have pulled my forces from Africa much quicker.

Taking Cairo and the Suez would have been good enough outcome for me. At that point I would have just consolidated my position and worked just enough to deny England and it's colonies. I still would have fallen victim to Torch, but with new codes, more secure shipping lanes and my back against the suez, I hope I would produce a victory.

Other than that I really can't think of much. I would like to think that those three little changes would have produced a better outcome for the Axis than what historically happened.

Do you see any flaws in my plan and what would you do?

Its a bit of a catch 22 for the axis. If they could have taken Africa then the landings and troubles in Italy during late 43 would have been far less likely (so it did have some strategic importance) but it would have taken much more resources from the three military arms to finish the job. This would have delayed the russian campaign even more than it did and still leaves England undefeated.
As i see it the conquest of North Africa will not win the war for Germany, only prolong it.

I would have not sent any troops to Africa. Russia was the decisive theater (on the ground) for the Germans. Those tanks and troops might have been just enough to allow the Germans to take Moscow in 1941, or allow Manstein's rescue attempt to break through to Stalingrad in 1942. While neither of those would have been decisive, they would have made the Germans situation much better. Africa was a sideshow and a resource sinkhole.

Here's an interesting what-if: The invasion of the Soviet Union is postponed until 1942. In the meantime, Germany establishes control over the Mediterranean theater and captures the oil production facilities in Persia. Britain is effectively knocked out of the land war. If the United States can be kept out (a big "if," since this depends upon Japan's policy in the absence of an invasion of Russia), then the "peace party" within the British parliament grows stronger. Even if Britain does not conclude a separate peace with Germany prior to the spring of 1942, it no longer has any platform from which to launch any truly damaging attacks against the German war machine, and the United States public is finally convinced that the British won't fight. Then, in 1942, Germany can turn its full attention against the Soviet Union, which presumably is no better prepared than it would have been a year earlier. This is about the only scenario I can imagine in which Germany avoids a two-front war in its quest for Lebensraum in the east.

When the Italian and Vichy French troops stand with their backs against Tunis, the Germans finally decide to intervene in North Africa with their new PzIVG tanks. Onwards to Suez! (might make a mod of that idea ).

I'd use cheat codes

Hard to say but if germany didnt send troops italy might have been knocked out of the war much sooner.German plans were to meet in the caucaus.If italy would have used there big fleet alot better maybe things would have been better.Italy had a big navy,Iwould have sent more tanks to help rommel he was very good at what he had,if he had more just think what he could have done.But if they didnt send germans to africa they could have used rommels tactics in russia.Idont really think italian soldiers wanted to fight i feel every 4 german soldier match 1 italian not trying to put italians down dont get me wrong they didnt want to fight my guess.But again the key role if italy navy played a better role in medditeeran things could have been better for axis.I know russia was main focus but even the big german generals didnt want that.if they waited a year bigger better tanks were coming and that couldve helped.and to take the oil fields of iran was a good option.concentrate in africa first then turn tide towads russia.more oil for your army.Then you could have a 2 prong attack coming up from buka and the german army south couldve met.But again hard to say russia could have invaded never know with stalin.

With the available resources I'm not sure what could be done differently. Assuming from the original post that no more resources are available I dont think Rommel had a lot of choices. However many times he beat the Allies, simple attrition and the supply situation meant that superior resources were always going to beat superior tactics. For all Montgomery's limitations as a general he did actually work out the key to winning the desert war, i.e. build up the Allied preponderance of supplies rather than fritter them away as previous generals had done (although the constant interfering of Churchill has to take a portion of the blame).

So, this means that there is virtually no way that Rommel can win in the long term, the attrition of the Western Powers will out. The only alternatives I can see would have been an attack on Malta in June 1942 and halting the advance and setting up defensive positions around Tobruk. Would this have won the desert war? Doubtful and with the Torch landings the chances are that Rommel would have had to retreat from Libya anyway. But, if a successful defence of Libya was fought then a more managed withdrawal may have been possible and then Rommel could have taken over a combined force in Tunisia with him as commander. Perhaps giving the Americans more of a bloody nose at Kasserine?

If if he was again successful here I still think it would have delayed the inevitable. With the preponderance of Allied shipping in the Med by late '43 the supply situation would always be on a knife edge.

So the only difference I can see in a better overall German strategy would be a delaying of the inevitable Allied triumph, this would obviously have affected and delayed (abandoned?) any Italian invasion and possibly D-Day as well. So the winners end up being the Russians.