Could Germany have taken Egypt? What could it do in Africa if:
- it did not plan for Barbarossa (only defensive plans perhaps)
- Malta was taken
- It commited significantly to Med. theatre
How would all this affect operation Torch?
Without Aircraft Carriers Germany had no means to hold any of its stakes in Africa anyways
There were too many logistics bottlenecks to supply more than was historically there. And even without Barbarossa most of Germany's 200 divisions had to stay in Europe to guard against the Soviets and to occupy France/ lowlands.
And then there's the fact that Operation Torch did not take place in Egypt, so I don't know what you are getting at.
>>28460736
LW aircraft could and did operate out of, get this, bases on land.
>>28460737
>And then there's the fact that Operation Torch did not take place in Egypt, so I don't know what you are getting at.
(theoretically) German divisions in Morocco, Algeirs, Western Sahara, Senegal, Gambia ...
>>28460762
>(theoretically) German divisions in Morocco, Algeirs, Western Sahara, Senegal, Gambia ...
So randomly spread out your forces mostly in areas that cannot be supplied and invite defeat in detail against an enemy that has 100% control of the seas.
Meanwhile the main reason DAK succeeded as much as it did was because British forces had been diverted first to Greece and Crete (during DAK's first surge) and then because the RN was pulled out to meet the Japanese (DAK's second surge). Without Barbarossa, these things are unlikely to happen.
>>28460791
Well, actually Greece and Crete still happen and RN gets pulled out to meet Japanese too. It seems to me that in this scenario, Brits face more LW airpower and captured malta means safe convoys from Italy to Africa.
Ability to process delivered supplies in target ports may be a problem. Also I do not see RN surface ships operating on German/Italian supply lanes with Malta bing taken by Axis.
>>28460807
Japan is unlikely to act without the Soviets committed. RN surface ships operated on German/Italian supply lanes while Malta was completely incapable of conducting anything but desperate defenses. In your opinion that may be impossible, but facts are rather more convincing.
>>28460818
Good points. Did not think of Japan not commiting to Pacific without Russians being occupied. Still, with US oil embargo and results of Khalkin Gol battles, I think Pearl Harbor still happens.
>>28460828
>results of Khalkin Gol battles
Why would this make Japan more likely to risk a Soviet invasion?
>>28460839
How is their risk of Soviet invasion any larger if they engage on the Pacific?
>>28460839
>Soviet invasion
>2015
>Still believing Stalin wanted to conquer the globe
