Could Rommel have taken Africa

If he had more troops and more support from Berlin. He was doing a brilliant job with what he was given he practically took over a situation that was rather dire. The Italian forces who were fighting down in Africa were not doing such a great job and were being pushed back when he came in with little aid or military support. He did what he could with what he had and almost beat a Montgomery led army that was much larger then his and had much more support. He was about 500 ft in the second battle of El Alamein from winning the battle. His tanks ran out of fuel so that is really the reason they lost they were dealing Montgomery a heavy blow but at a costly price. If they would have won El Alamein they were 60 miles from Alexandra and then would have proceeded onwards to capture the British supply routes in the Suez canal. After this they would have cut off American supply routes to Russia and from here on out they would have taken the oil fields of Iraq and the Middle East. I think it is quite a possibility that a win at El Alamein would have definitely stretched the Ally forces thin and forced them into a new form of war.

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010


If the Germans had taken Malta shortly after Crete, Egypt would have proven untenable. Rommel would have swept through and captured the Suez Canal long before El Alamein.

But Hitler lacked the stomach and nerve after the miscalculations in Crete. After the losses the Fallschirmjagers took there, he never again used them as they were meant to be used, wasting them as an elite ground force instead.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

 

If the Germans had taken Malta shortly after Crete, Egypt would have proven untenable. Rommel would have swept through and captured the Suez Canal long before El Alamein.

But Hitler lacked the stomach and nerve after the miscalculations in Crete. After the losses the Fallschirmjagers took there, he never again used them as they were meant to be used, wasting them as an elite ground force instead.

Yeah the Fallschirmjagers were definitely some of the best and elite troops in the German military structure. They were the most misused though. If he had used them properly Malta would have been taken with relative ease.

Not when you are up against Aussie diggers.
www.diggerhistory.info...

Too many fronts, and wasting money and resources on the internal "Jewish Extermination."

Could Rommel have taken Africa? Yes. He was moved to a corridor that was not a priority, and still did a pretty bang up job of it.

If the Nazis at home had instead not tried to exterminate the Jews and "undesirables," and in doing so wasting so much effort on a group that would have SUPPORTED them, then they wouldn't have needed to find somewhere to put Rommel out of the way.

Then they could have consolidated their fronts, and instead put Rommel up against Britain or Russia. Concentrated efforts to conquer in the usual "Empire Belt" in Europe, Near Russia, Balkans, Middle East.

Africa would have still been there. And the use of Rommel would have been way better on their behalf, and they wouldn't have wasted so much effort on something stupid.

Rommel could have taken Africa with the resources - he should never have been put in Africa to begin with.

[edit on 2010/5/19 by Aeons]

I doubt that since declaring war on Poland, Nazi Germany could ever win. Even if they never did any mistake - and they did lots of those. Nazi regime was harsh on occupied populations and it had much less resources and manpower then their enemies.
So even if Rommel had fuel for those 500 feet/meter/yard/miles or whatever - somebody else in Germany military would not have it and would stop 500 feet/.... from their target. And failed battle near Kharkov in Eastern front in 1942 due to not enough fuel ,for example, would have had more disasterous consequences.
There simply were not enough resources and manpower for all the fronts Hitler created for Germany.

reply to post by 12voltz


Hey. Cool link. Star for you

Did you know that the first time I heard of these Australian guerrilla tactics was on a on a console with a war game. And I used to watch all the documentaries on WW2.
________________________________________________________________________

Reply to OP.

Rommel was a brilliant general. A respectable general. He would have owned Britain with the right resources.
________________________________________________________________________

Reply to post by Zero knowledge

I'm still baffled by their manpower. They occupied and were fighting a war on multiple fronts. Germany is a big country but 20 years before they lost millions in the trenches of WW1. The Babyboom after could make up for the losses. How on Earth did they do it ?

Did they have 20 kids per family or something.

[edit on 5/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


They did it by better training and tactical brilliance.

At the military schools of the day, West Point, St, Cyr, Sandhurst, students were given problems on Monday and had to have solutions by Friday. At the German Staf War College, students were taken into the field and shown a problem, then given fifteen minutes to find a solution.

They were far better trained all through the ranks than their counterparts.

reply to post by apacheman


Yeah... The Germans are my neighbors. They do what they have to do and they do it quick.

The question actually is, why did the other nations fall behind.

Originally posted by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010
If he had more troops and more support from Berlin. He was doing a brilliant job with what he was given he practically took over a situation that was rather dire. The Italian forces who were fighting down in Africa were not doing such a great job and were being pushed back when he came in with little aid or military support.

The real answer to this question lies in the mind of Adolf Hitler himself. Hitler did not see the British as his true enemies, and in reality always felt like he could win the British people over, even if he could not convince the leadership to surrender. This was part of his megalomania, but it also affected the war against Britain early on in WW2.

We see this reflected in his nonchalant reaction to the trapping of the British troops at Dunkirk. Not only did he call off Rundstedt, but he tasked the Luftwaffe with destroying the trapped and beleaguered British troops. The Luftwaffe was very adept at destroying vehicles, but by this time many of the men were on foot, and the aircraft of the Luftwaffe had no chance of annihilating those men left without ground support. Hitler would later on in the war, say that he was surprised that Churchill was unable to appreciate the fact that he had spared the British at Dunkirk.

Hitler also only chose to use the Luftwaffe against the UK, instead of opting for the proposed Sea Lion invasion plan. One can say that Germany was not even prepared for a naval invasion, but it could have shifted some of it's war production to transports. It could have then used a combined arms approach, utilizing submarines (the only time Churchill was truly scared to lose the war, was because of German U-Boats strangling their supply lines), their sparse surface fleet, and a massive Luftwaffe screening force to deal with the Royal Navy. Losses would have been heavy, and they would have only gotten one shot. But, one shot is all it takes if you could land 1-2 armored divisions, a few motorized and/or infantry divisions, with support coming from the 1st Fallschirmjager dropped into a key strategic point. The British didn't have very many troops at all in late '40, early '41, and their military might was spread thin amongst their colonies. A quick, decisive German invasion of the mainland would have proven fatal.

But, on to North Africa. Hitler became involved in Africa for one reason, and one reason only. He had to save Mussolini, who constantly reached for far too much, without giving his men the proper equipment. If you read The Rommel Papers, by BH Liddell Hart, you will find that Rommel actually praised many of the Italian units for their bravery. However, as I said above, they were outfitted with inferior equipment, and asked to do the impossible. Much of their artillery was still from WW1, and their tanks, although well designed, were always much smaller than other tanks of the time. In any engagement against enemy armor they were outclassed. And, even the pitiful British tanks of the time in North Africa, were more than enough to cause the Italians headaches.

But, again, this was Mussolini's fault. He knew his country was not ready for a modern war. They were simply not industrialized to the point that they could produce modern tanks, aircraft, and artillery to wage war.

Rommel could have easily taken North Africa, and it would truly have been devastating for the British to lose the Suez. That is where they should have focused on from the very beginning. But, Hitler really did not care for North Africa, or the British. His burning hatred of Communism is the real reason he started WW2, and he sent 99% of his resources into the preparations for Barbarossa. He wanted to wipe the Russian people off the face of the Earth, and truly did not care all that much about North Africa. It was only when it became a strategic nightmare, that he sent Rommel in to delay the inevitable.


[edit on 19-5-2010 by Yog-Sothoth]

I thank Mussolini for the defeat of the Nazis. The resources diverted to saving North Africa and later Italy itself might have proved crucial in tipping the scales against Russia in 1942 / 43. The kursk offensive may have ended favorably for Germany. Alternately, more units for the Western wall might have doomed the D day landings. That's the fun of studying wars - all the great "what if's?"

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by apacheman

 

Yeah... The Germans are my neighbors. They do what they have to do and they do it quick.

The question actually is, why did the other nations fall behind.

The other nations were only promoting and listening too the nobility and merchant class.

Germany was using everyone. They diversified their knowledge into more hands, and got more brain power working on things.

So while the other countries were stuck in a time warp of unchallenged ideas, Germany was not.

Renewal of the "thinking-doing" groups always leads to fast pace improvements. This is why classism and caste systems are not your friend.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by apacheman

 

The other nations were only promoting and listening too the nobility and merchant class.
Germany was using everyone. They diversified their knowledge into more hands, and got more brain power working on things.
So while the other countries were stuck in a time warp of unchallenged ideas, Germany was not.
Renewal of the "thinking-doing" groups always leads to fast pace improvements. This is why classism and caste systems are not your friend.

Thank you that sounds really logical actually.

So the allied nations were stuck, living in reasonable wealth and without a true purpose.

Germany was in poor shape and created a common enemy. The masses wanted things to change and more then willing to help towards this goal.

One people focused on a single goal.
If the Nazi's didn't invade Poland and Hitler waited 5 years and then started a war they would have been invincible.

If I remember correct Hitler was addicted to amphetamines and a mental wreck which aided to his decline of proper judgment. This could have been the reason for their defeat all together.( I'm not sure if this is true. I've seen it in a documentary once.)

reply to post by Yog-Sothoth


My understanding was that Hitler needed the resources from the Caucasus because Germany's resources were small.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I thank Mussolini for the defeat of the Nazis. The resources diverted to saving North Africa and later Italy itself might have proved crucial in tipping the scales against Russia in 1942 / 43. The kursk offensive may have ended favorably for Germany. Alternately, more units for the Western wall might have doomed the D day landings. That's the fun of studying wars - all the great "what if's?"

Honestly, in the overall scheme of things, those theaters didn't receive all that much help. A few divisions here or there did not amount to much of anything when placed on the strategic map of the Soviet Union. It would have helped a tiny bit, but not decisive in the end, for the war in the East.

That being said, they should have just ceded North Africa away, if they weren't going to go in full bore to take the Suez. They could have simply defended Italy with very few divisions, as Kesselring showed, and saved those lives lost in North Africa, and Sicily.

Kursk was never going to be won, anyway. The Red Army had a counter intelligence coup when it got the whole plan of attack in the first place. The Germans still gave them fits, because a plan is only as good as the first shot. But, the Soviets had so much time to build up their defenses, and amass a counter attack force that it was over before it started.

And, just as Rommel stated, defending the beaches was insane. Hitler is the one who poured resources into Fortress Europa, and sent way too many divisions in to just get slaughtered by overwhelming Allied superiority. They should have done as Rommel said, and lured them in for a pincer movement with armor. After cutting off and annihilating the first wave or two, the Allies may have called off the D-Day invasion. It could have been another Dieppe.

@Sinter Klaas: You are correct, they did need resources. But, they went to war with Russia more for land (Ukraine) to feed their people, and to destroy the inferior (in Hitler's mind) Russian people.

At the beginning of the war, they were in a fairly good position as far as resources go, with the invasion of Norway, and by trade with Sweden and Romania. It could be argued that by expending huge amounts of gasoline in Barbarossa, to the end of the war, they completely nullified any gains of oil rich lands in the Soviet Union. Of course, this is why Hitler thought he could break the USSR quickly...if he had thought it would last 3-4 years, he may have never invaded in the first place.

Also, as I said earlier, if the Germans had taken the Suez...maybe they could have gotten a more receptive Persia, and Saudi Arabia, with which to barter for oil.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Yog-Sothoth]

Not wiht our guys there

Rommel personally said that our guys were the toughest opponents he had ever come up against. Pretty impresseive coming from Hitlers number 1 general.

Rats of Tobruk- Lest We Forget

Just found this too

Role of the Rats of Tobruk

At this time, Rommel's Afrika Korps had never been defeated. During the first phase of the offensive the Rats were mostly concerned with constructing and reinforcing their defenses and observing the enemy. After a few months, however, purely defensive operations gave way to patrols. These forays outside friendly lines were broken into two categories: reconnaissance and fighting.

[edit on 20/5/2010 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by EarthquakeNewMadrid2010


The only way I see Rommel could have taken Africa is if instead of invading the Soviet Union reinforcements had been sent to North Africa before American involvement . Rommel rightfully held Australian troops in high regard between them and the Kiwis the theater could not have held on without the Anzac troops .

Cheers Luke .

There simply were not enough resources and manpower for all the fronts Hitler created for Germany.

That right there, is the most boiled-down explanation one could ever give for how Germany lost WWII.... Sums it up well...

a reply to: EarthquakeNewMadrid2010

Rommel had no chance of winning Second Alamein. No chance at all. He was outnumbered, out-gunned and was fighting under hostile skies.