Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could the Axis Powers have won in the Mediterranean and North Africa?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ljadw
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • CarpeDiem
    replied
    Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
    http://www.populstat.info/Africa/libyac.htm
    http://www.populstat.info/Africa/tunisiac.htm

    Tunisia population (1940) - 2.84 million
    Libya population (1940) - .861

    Tunisia's port capacity will therefore be higher and its infrastructure more evolved in 1940.
    That does not follow at all.

    Using your logic any country with a higher population has more evolved infrastructure and higher port capacity.. Currently Bangladesh has a higher population than Canada. Would you therefore argue that its port capacity is higher and its infrastructure is more evolved than Canada's?

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenn239
    replied
    Originally posted by broderickwells View Post
    The modern Port of Bizerte is the same approximate size as Tripoli, Tunis and Benghazi. The anchorage in Lake Bizerte is not port facilities...
    http://www.populstat.info/Africa/libyac.htm
    http://www.populstat.info/Africa/tunisiac.htm

    Tunisia population (1940) - 2.84 million
    Libya population (1940) - .861

    Tunisia's port capacity will therefore be higher and its infrastructure more evolved in 1940.

    Light on the gas consumption, about right on the round trip guestimate. But remember the average German truck was only 2.5T capacity.
    http://www.autogallery.org.ru/m/mblg63.htm

    This truck could carry 2,800kg plus a max 2,000kg by trailer, with a gas consumption of 30ltr per 100km (road) or 45/100 (offroad), which is 7.8 mpg
    on road.

    [

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenn239
    replied
    Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
    Oh go on G2 you are making jokes again, you are a one!!! lcm1
    Only a fantasist of the most determined sort could imagine the Gibraltar route would be usable should Axis airpower be established in Algeria.

    Leave a comment:


  • Glenn239
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The greatest danger to Italian Supply Ships was to the subs based in Malta and the Bombers, Fighter Bombers based in Egypt. The Italians would have had to extend the rail lines in Tunisia into the network in Libya. The project would have been far enough away from Egypt to keep the bombers away. Once built and running there would also be a net savings in fuel oil consumed to get to Africa as well. It would have also been easier to protect the shipping lanes from Sicily to Tunisia. Who would actually build them and pay for it is the interesting part..

    Pruitt
    Marseille to Tunis as well - if breaking up Vichy anyways, no point in not seizing the mother load of available neutral shipping.

    Leave a comment:


  • broderickwells
    replied
    Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
    Flip to satellite view and look again - the port facilities in Bizerte extend far into Lake Bizerte. They dwarf Tripoli. Now, if you're saying that Bizerte was not as developed in 1941, I'm all ears.
    The modern Port of Bizerte is the same approximate size as Tripoli, Tunis and Benghazi. The anchorage in Lake Bizerte is not port facilities, though there is a small secondary port on the south shore of the lake at Menzel Bourguiba (rated the same size as Tobruk or Derna). These two, Tunisia and Libya, give excellent comparative data and history.
    I used 10 mpg for the planning factor.

    1 trip per truck every six days is the planning factor.
    Light on the gas consumption, about right on the round trip guestimate. But remember the average German truck was only 2.5T capacity.
    For Great Britain the only relevant question was the addition of other allies; the USSR and USA. Should the USA join the war, the Allies did not need the ME and it was irrelevant whether Germany took Egypt or not; the USAAF did not require Egypt to bomb Germany.
    Britain had access to a huge manpower pool via the Commonwealth/Empire, as well as a reasonably large manufacturing base. It also needed to eliminate the minor Axis powers as they could threaten British trade/supply lines. You are aware of the scale and scope of the Italian empire in 1939?

    Leave a comment:


  • lcm1
    replied
    Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
    If the Axis had seized Vichy NA, Axis airpower would dominate Gibraltar and shut down the Atlantic route.
    Oh go on G2 you are making jokes again, you are a one!!! lcm1

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    What message did Vichy get after Dakar?

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Marmat
    replied
    That actually happened ...

    ... but Vichy got the message, and it stopped.

    Darlan and Raeder actually became quite chummy (based on correspondence, and items Raeder sent to Hitler on Darlan), when it came to North Africa it was largely Weygand’s doing that the Germans feared France might attack the Italians in the rear. Darlan was involved in the negotiations with Ambassador Otto Abetz for an actual peace treaty to replace the Armistice terms, which resulted in the Paris Protocols. He tried to obtain better terms for France and while he may not have actually traded the Navy, he did trade the use of French naval bases, and part of the merchant marine.


    For example, consideration was given for using French bases in the Med., German transit privileges to assist the Iraqis, AND using the ports in Tunisia to increase the tonnage going to Rommel, some supplies were indeed sent in French hulls. The British and Free French blocked the latter, then were sufficiently provoked and alarmed to attack and seize the Levant, which was lost to France, to prevent the former. Vichy got the message, they would lose the rest of the Empire if they persisted. The use of French bases and transit privileges through Tunisia were quickly revoked, not a large amount of tonnage for Rommel had been moved anyway.

    While an actual peace treaty was never reached, and the 4 Paris Protocols never ratified, it was largely fear of the British launching a TORCH-like operation (GYMNAST, or something like it) on their own that prevented Vichy & Darlan from snuggling even closer to their German overlords.


    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The greatest danger to Italian Supply Ships was to the subs based in Malta and the Bombers, Fighter Bombers based in Egypt. The Italians would have had to extend the rail lines in Tunisia into the network in Libya. The project would have been far enough away from Egypt to keep the bombers away. Once built and running there would also be a net savings in fuel oil consumed to get to Africa as well. It would have also been easier to protect the shipping lanes from Sicily to Tunisia. Who would actually build them and pay for it is the interesting part..

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    I fail to see how landing supplies even further away from the front lines will ease the supply problems
    The greatest danger to Italian Supply Ships was to the subs based in Malta and the Bombers, Fighter Bombers based in Egypt. The Italians would have had to extend the rail lines in Tunisia into the network in Libya. The project would have been far enough away from Egypt to keep the bombers away. Once built and running there would also be a net savings in fuel oil consumed to get to Africa as well. It would have also been easier to protect the shipping lanes from Sicily to Tunisia. Who would actually build them and pay for it is the interesting part..

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Your a bad man...

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Fraser
    replied
    Originally posted by redcoat View Post
    I fail to see how landing supplies even further away from the front lines will ease the supply problems
    Ask Draco.

    Regards
    Scott Fraser

    Leave a comment:


  • redcoat
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    If Italy had been given special transit rights through Tunisia, it would have eased the supply situation a great deal. They may have had to extend the French tail roads into Libya, though.

    Pruitt
    I fail to see how landing supplies even further away from the front lines will ease the supply problems

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    If Italy had been given special transit rights through Tunisia, it would have eased the supply situation a great deal. They may have had to extend the French tail roads into Libya, though.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Glenn239 View Post
    If the Axis had seized Vichy NA, Axis airpower would dominate Gibraltar and shut down the Atlantic route.
    It would not : the Axis had not the power to seize Vichy NA, there would be no axis airpower, and every one who can read a map knows that Gibraltar was irrelevant for the Atlantic route .

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X