Africa: Holy Grail or Waste of Resources?

[TheRomanRuler]

Italy, Vichy France, where else?:rofl:

Former Yogoslvaia, Greece, former Albania, Bulgaria and Hungary perhaps?
And perhaps, secretly, from Spain.

 

[Secret Master]

I agree. It is difficult to see why Africa must be fight over if you dont think thta keeping your lines of communication with India is important, as that makes the trip far shorter, and shipping was the most important thing for the allies ( and the longer the voyage, the more ships you need, so the less shipping you had for other purposes, aka invading places). Or if you think, like Commando Supremo or Hitler, that keeping the allies fighting in Africa was better than having them fighting in Italy (which is what will happen if you let Africa fall)

Well, I will say this: one thing that is both liberating and problematic in HOI3 is the fact that you don't have to consider the ego of your head of state or the prestige of the regime if you are playing Italy or Germany. It's liberating, because you can just fight the war in empirical terms:

"Does region X contain vital port facilities, resources, IC, or manpower?"

"No, Fearless Leader."

"Then withdraw all troops and invade something useful."

"But it's our colony! The jewel of our colonial empire!"

"Who cares? Let the British garrison our colonies for us until the war is over. Save us the trouble for a few years, at least."

On the other hand, the questions of prestige of the regime were very real for the various great powers during the war. Mussolini, in particular, was politically vulnerable as Italy began to lose. Sure, it's just Italian Libya, but that's step 1 in a 12 step program that has Mussolini voted out of power by his own Council of Fascism.

Sure, it could really use modeling in the game, but it's very abstract for a game that revolves around the number of Panthers you build a month, and how you form divisions.

 

[Mannstien]

I always thought of it as he who controls North Afrika controls the fate of Italy and anything else in the Med. Because of it's proximity I've used it as a base for Strategic bombing, invasions, and a few other options. This is the reason why I fight for it as Italy with some of my best forces and try to open up the Suez in a case where I want to keep I.E.A. and perhaps use it as a spring board into the Soft Underbelly of the Middle East and on to India. Or if Germany is failing in Barbarossa at least having North Africa, Malta, and the fertile crescent gives me some peace of mind when helping the Germans.

 

[Porkman]

I think what is important is to make a mediterranen strategy war-winning for the axis. If Hitler had listened to Raeder's insistence on deploying several panzer divisions to Egypt before Crete(and Barbarossa), the Axis would have conquered: the Suez, Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar, as well as the middle east. Subsequently, the entire Mediterranean would've become an axis lake, thus protecting "the soft underbelly of Europe"). In addition, the Axis most definitely would've wooed Persia into the Axis (or just invaded them), therefore threatening the jewel of the British Empire: India. The British would've been stretched out thin, and if Hitler actually decided to really pursue Sea Lion(if the British were still resistant), they would be crushed due to the thin spread of the British troops.One must also keep in mind that the United States would not have entered the war, and Stalin would most happily fund the German War Machine with rare materials and oil, hoping to appease Hitler to buy enough time to strengthen the Red Army. After dealing with Britain, Hitler could have dealt with the Soviet Union. The result would be Hitler most probably finally having experiencing his dream of a German-colonized Lebensraum.

Of course the above scenario is only one of an infinite amount of plausible possibilities of what could have happened. For further references of the possible war-winning Axis Mediterranean strategy, please visit Bevin Alexander's book "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II".

How was Hitler supposed to get Gibraltar and why would the US stay out of the war...

Repeat after me... "Germany did way better in WW2 than they had any right to." If you refought the war a hundred times, Germany loses 9 times out of 10, if not more and they lose faster.

One of the amazon reviews of the book said it best,

What I continually was presented with, however, was how the Allies failed to exploit some tactical victory somewhere, or mis-used their armor in some minor battle - a sort-of Allied "bloops and blunders" which simply indicated to me that Germany would have lost sooner, if not for these Allied mis-steps.

The Attack on France, for example, was a huge gamble. It paid off, but the Allies would have been able to stop it if they had happened to deploy a bit diffrently. An extra infantry division with AT guns at Sedan and the whole thing is kaput.

The Allies could have invaded into Germany in 1939 during the invasion of Poland.

Rommel was fighting on a shoestring in North Africa and the supply situation down there was horrible. Panzer divisions will stop dead once they hit the mountains in Turkey and Iran.

Also, you know that the Middle East has these things called "people," these people might not obligingly roll over and submit to their new German overlords.

Furthermore, the German invasion of Russia and France was helped by this thing called the Northern European plain

It's very flat and ideal for mechanized and mobile operations.

This area also had railways up the wazoo.

Now let's look at the "simple" attack through the Middle East. There was one railway that connected the Levant to the oil fields in Iran and it went through Turkey. Furthermore, it's a very easy railroad, going through mountains with huge tunnels, to disable for years.

Also, a panzer, doesn't really matter which model, can only drive for a few hundred miles before it breaks down. In Europe, the Germans could move them around on rails and this helped lighten the load. There were also plentiful paved roads which reduced wear on the tanks considerably.


In the Middle East, they can't... none of those things exist. Rommel's tanks went 1800 km from Tripoli to El Alamein.

Cairo to the oil fields in Iran is 2500 km. A good bit further and a lot further from resupply. Meanwhile, the tanks are breaking down, the British are shipping stuff in from India, and the Oil isn't even usable because the Brits will have fired all the wells if the Germans ever got close.

 

[Secret Master]

This is the reason why I fight for it as Italy with some of my best forces and try to open up the Suez in a case where I want to keep I.E.A...

But you don't even need to hold Italian Libya to do this.

In HOI3, I've left Italian Libya completely unprotected while running off to grab the Suez and Gibraltar. With those two points under Italian control, Monty can have 500 divisions in Egypt for all I care. They will starve on the vine from lack of supply.

That's the thing. Italian Libya is worthless except for use as a staging ground for invading Italy. And even then, Alexandria (massive naval base), the Suez, and Gibraltar are way more important from the perspective of the Allies.

You can even skip invading Malta as Italy if you don't mind the RAF being annoying until they starve.

 

[wackazoa]

I think what is important is to make a mediterranen strategy war-winning for the axis. If Hitler had listened to Raeder's insistence on deploying several panzer divisions to Egypt before Crete(and Barbarossa), the Axis would have conquered: the Suez, Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar, as well as the middle east. Subsequently, the entire Mediterranean would've become an axis lake, thus protecting "the soft underbelly of Europe"). In addition, the Axis most definitely would've wooed Persia into the Axis (or just invaded them), therefore threatening the jewel of the British Empire: India. The British would've been stretched out thin, and if Hitler actually decided to really pursue Sea Lion(if the British were still resistant), they would be crushed due to the thin spread of the British troops.One must also keep in mind that the United States would not have entered the war, and Stalin would most happily fund the German War Machine with rare materials and oil, hoping to appease Hitler to buy enough time to strengthen the Red Army. After dealing with Britain, Hitler could have dealt with the Soviet Union. The result would be Hitler most probably finally having experiencing his dream of a German-colonized Lebensraum.

Of course the above scenario is only one of an infinite amount of plausible possibilities of what could have happened. For further references of the possible war-winning Axis Mediterranean strategy, please visit Bevin Alexander's book "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II".

But wasn't Hitler sick? It has been mentioned before how he might have had parkinsons. Put that together with his thinking of divine providence perhaps he was just trying to hurry the war along so he could see Germania built before he died.

 

[Centurion1973]

...... and the Oil isn't even usable because the Brits will have fired all the wells if the Germans ever got close.

Incorrect - I learned quite a lot about those oilfields and even if allies destroyed all the equipment, it would have been relatively simple for axis to start pumping oil few months later at worst.

 

[George Parr]

Also, you know that the Middle East has these things called "people," these people might not obligingly roll over and submit to their new German overlords.

Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest that you wrote, but this one seems to be a rather easy "yes" as an answer. They had been under British and French yoke (and that word actually fits, they were treated horrendously) for quite some time. For them, the Allies were evil overlords. While they may have eventually found out that the Nazis weren't any better, this actually depends on how much interest Hitler shows. He didn't particularly care about those areas, so interest in "clearing" them wasn't particularly high. In the meantime, those who would actually care one way or the other probably would support any Axis incursion into the area. Even more so if the Axis was actually able to waltz down everything in their path. They obviously wouldn't rise against the British until the final outcome (in that area) would have been clear, but they were all very much interested to get rid of the British and French.

 

[Cybvep]

In HOI3, I've left Italian Libya completely unprotected while running off to grab the Suez and Gibraltar. With those two points under Italian control, Monty can have 500 divisions in Egypt for all I care. They will starve on the vine from lack of supply.

Indeed. IMO it's always been far too easy to do that, just as it's far too easy to land behind the Italian lines in the NA when playing as the UK. These are the main reasons why the North African Theatre doesn't work so well in HOI3. Since this is strictly connected with amphibious invasions, logistics and the AI, it's hard to say how it will work in HOI4.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest that you wrote, but this one seems to be a rather easy "yes" as an answer. They had been under British and French yoke (and that word actually fits, they were treated horrendously) for quite some time. For them, the Allies were evil overlords. While they may have eventually found out that the Nazis weren't any better, this actually depends on how much interest Hitler shows. He didn't particularly care about those areas, so interest in "clearing" them wasn't particularly high. In the meantime, those who would actually care one way or the other probably would support any Axis incursion into the area. Even more so if the Axis was actually able to waltz down everything in their path. They obviously wouldn't rise against the British until the final outcome (in that area) would have been clear, but they were all very much interested to get rid of the British and French.

I am pretty sure the king of egypt was discussing some sort of pact with Germany along the lines of this. Just as the Japanese were viewed as liberators, especially in India and Burma (even Indonesia for a time,) it would have been rather similiar for Germany. With propaganda it would not have been a hard task at least turn some of the natives against their colonial rulers. Although Japan did create the illusion of independent states in those areas, which is not something Germany was doing (as far as I know.)

 

[TheRomanRuler]

But wasn't Hitler sick? It has been mentioned before how he might have had parkinsons. Put that together with his thinking of divine providence perhaps he was just trying to hurry the war along so he could see Germania built before he died.

Sick or not, longer Hitler waited, stronger allies got, while in comparison, weaker he became.

 

[Vonboe]

Just as the Japanese were viewed as liberators, especially in India and Burma (even Indonesia for a time,)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Indonesia was actually the most "independent" of all the Japanese occupied nations and even when Japan officially withdrawal from Indonesia a great number of Japanese soldiers stayed and helped the Indonesian people fight for their freedom over the Dutch?

 

[keynes2.0]

Italy, Vichy France, where else?:rofl:

Wrong continent dude... it's capacity at African ports that's the limit.

 

[potski]

Former Yogoslvaia, Greece, former Albania, Bulgaria and Hungary perhaps?
And perhaps, secretly, from Spain.

What's the relevance of these? The question about port facilities is directed at the receiving ports in Libya - Tripoli, Benghazi and Tobruk. Even with all three under control, Rommel could never have supplied a couple of more Panzer Divs.

The maths are very clear about this, even if Malta had been captured, and there was no interdiction of Axis shipping crossing the Med, the Axis could not keep the forces he had under command fully supplied, nevermind increase the size of these forces (and their supply requirements). The throughput of the ports was the main factor, and in reality they never even could use them at maximum throughput because of damage suffered during the fighting for the ports, especially Tobruk, which also remained in range of Allied bombers, and convoys to it were especially vulnerable to attack from UK bases in the Eastern Med.

So the proportion of throughput that could be used was lowest in Tobruk, yet it was the nearest of the three to Rommel's positions near El Alamein. He was positioned far too far away from those ports. He made a spectacular blunder strategically by advancing so far into Egypt. There was no railway linking Tobruk with his positions and everything had to be transported by truck. It was impossible to adequately provide the supplies he needed for any offensive capability. Especially when he had allowed the Allies also to occupy positions that were the most favourable defensively any where along the North Africa coast between the Nile and Tunisia. The Eighth Army could be provided with fresh units, retreated to well fortified positions with no possibility of being outflanked and short supply lines to their bases in the delta.

It's a myth that Rommel almost captured Egypt.

One other factor that made the North African theatre so important at the time - the media focus on it. Neither side could afford to ignore it.

 

[Porkman]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the rest that you wrote, but this one seems to be a rather easy "yes" as an answer. They had been under British and French yoke (and that word actually fits, they were treated horrendously) for quite some time. For them, the Allies were evil overlords. While they may have eventually found out that the Nazis weren't any better, this actually depends on how much interest Hitler shows. He didn't particularly care about those areas, so interest in "clearing" them wasn't particularly high. In the meantime, those who would actually care one way or the other probably would support any Axis incursion into the area. Even more so if the Axis was actually able to waltz down everything in their path. They obviously wouldn't rise against the British until the final outcome (in that area) would have been clear, but they were all very much interested to get rid of the British and French.

I think you're over simplifying. Take a look at the current Syrian civil war, for example. In Syria, the majority Sunnis are against the government, by and large, but most of the minorities are with the government because they fear ethnic cleansing. Some of the locals would welcome the Germans, but you'd get a situation like Hmong in Vietnam helping the Americans or the Kachins in Burma helping the Allies against the Japanese. The Brits were very good at getting the locals invested in the current balance of power the Germans can't easily upset that and expect things to go well.

Incorrect - I learned quite a lot about those oilfields and even if allies destroyed all the equipment, it would have been relatively simple for axis to start pumping oil few months later at worst.

How would they ship it to Europe?

The railway is easy to destroy and is low capacity and the Brits can keep the Straits of Hormuz sealed because they hold Musandam.

 

[Smileyou]

have2agree with @george parr and not with @porkman.. If Axis gets any near liberating a country/nation like iraq,india a huge revolt against UK forces would happen overnight..
Actually UK had to stomp a big revolt of Iraqis during WW2 for those precise reasons..and Axis weren't even close to winning or landing their troops in iraq.. now imagine Nazis entering Mosul?
UK would have been routed by iraqis alone, same thing in India, Egypt etc..

about majority sunnis hating Assad is false, Syrian Arab Army consists of 70% SUNNI! yes, that is 70% sunni, .. if you fell for western propaganda its your problem but the decapitators of
ISIS who represent the hardcore terrorist SUNNI group does not mean ALL SUNNI in the world.. it means only those who for some reason get funded by japanese TOYOTA pick ups and
those who finance them do not get US sanctions and US drones can't pick up the white toyota pick-ups for the life of them for the past 6 months..

 

[Porkman]

have2agree with @george parr and not with @porkman.. If Axis gets any near liberating a country/nation like iraq,india a huge revolt against UK forces would happen overnight..
Actually UK had to stomp a big revolt of Iraqis during WW2 for those precise reasons..and Axis weren't even close to winning or landing their troops in iraq.. now imagine Nazis entering Mosul?
UK would have been routed by iraqis alone, same thing in India, Egypt etc..

about majority sunnis hating Assad is false, Syrian Arab Army consists of 70% SUNNI! yes, that is 70% sunni, .. if you fell for western propaganda its your problem but the decapitators of
ISIS who represent the hardcore terrorist SUNNI group does not mean ALL SUNNI in the world.. it means only those who for some reason get funded by japanese TOYOTA pick ups and
those who finance them do not get US sanctions and US drones can't pick up the white toyota pick-ups for the life of them for the past 6 months..

My point wasn't actually related to the proportion of Sunnis, my point was that groups like Syrian Christians and Alawites support the government because it protects them against the majority. One of the things the Brits did well was make agreements with majority groups and minority groups. Many of the minority saw British rule as a guarantor against sectarian violence and would not be happy to lose that protection.

Iraq revolted during the war and was put down. But to bring up some recent politics again... "We'll go into Iraq and be greeted as liberators!" seems to be a tad optimistic.

Look at the experience of Vietnam or Malaysia where the Japanese came in and "liberated" the oppressed colonials only to have those same colonials form resistance groups to the Japanese.

The Germans would have a similar problem

 

[misterbean]

Congo had a lot of valuables (diamonds, among others), so there is some purely monetary value to holding on to it. Not sure what the rest of Africa had to offer, though, except as staging grounds.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Indonesia was actually the most "independent" of all the Japanese occupied nations and even when Japan officially withdrawal from Indonesia a great number of Japanese soldiers stayed and helped the Indonesian people fight for their freedom over the Dutch?

I cannot say if it was the most independent - but many of the Japanese soldiers that were left after the war did contribute to different wars (Chinese civil war, First Indochina war.)

When I said that even Indonesia saw them as liberators 'for a time' is because the Japanese exploited all of their resources and transported them elsewhere, like food and other materials. This lead to a rather widespread starvation and a famine of sorts as they did not leave the locals enough to sustain themselves. Whether it was intentional or not is another discussion. I think the most self-dependent state that the Japanese created though, was Burma. After the British began to push them back from India and into southeast Asia they lost significant influence and popularity (which was already dropping when they realized Japan had no interest to give them actual independence,) enough for Burma to change sides to the allies without conflict.

For all the bad they did during the war, it is rather interesting to see how Japanese intervention in those areas guaranteed their independence after the war. It would probably still have happened sooner or later even without them, but still.

This isn't really on topic of course, but still interesting.

 

[f1nalstand17]

How was Hitler supposed to get Gibraltar and why would the US stay out of the war...

Repeat after me... "Germany did way better in WW2 than they had any right to." If you refought the war a hundred times, Germany loses 9 times out of 10, if not more and they lose faster.

One of the amazon reviews of the book said it best,

The Attack on France, for example, was a huge gamble. It paid off, but the Allies would have been able to stop it if they had happened to deploy a bit diffrently. An extra infantry division with AT guns at Sedan and the whole thing is kaput.

The Allies could have invaded into Germany in 1939 during the invasion of Poland.

Rommel was fighting on a shoestring in North Africa and the supply situation down there was horrible. Panzer divisions will stop dead once they hit the mountains in Turkey and Iran.

Also, you know that the Middle East has these things called "people," these people might not obligingly roll over and submit to their new German overlords.

Furthermore, the German invasion of Russia and France was helped by this thing called the Northern European plain

It's very flat and ideal for mechanized and mobile operations.

This area also had railways up the wazoo.

Now let's look at the "simple" attack through the Middle East. There was one railway that connected the Levant to the oil fields in Iran and it went through Turkey. Furthermore, it's a very easy railroad, going through mountains with huge tunnels, to disable for years.

Also, a panzer, doesn't really matter which model, can only drive for a few hundred miles before it breaks down. In Europe, the Germans could move them around on rails and this helped lighten the load. There were also plentiful paved roads which reduced wear on the tanks considerably.


In the Middle East, they can't... none of those things exist. Rommel's tanks went 1800 km from Tripoli to El Alamein.

Cairo to the oil fields in Iran is 2500 km. A good bit further and a lot further from resupply. Meanwhile, the tanks are breaking down, the British are shipping stuff in from India, and the Oil isn't even usable because the Brits will have fired all the wells if the Germans ever got close.

Ok, let me clear this up one point at a a time:

1.) The Axis would've either gotten access from Franco (talks were underway when Hitler was somewhat serious of taking Gibraltar) or just have done some amphibious landings(yes, it would have been EXTREMELY costly).

2.) I never claimed the book to have been the holy grail of how the Germans could've won the Second World War. What I did use it for, is as a reference for the same exact scenario that I described, since you'll find it in the first few chapters of the book.

3.) I never said that the Germans would attempt to invade Persia and the Middle East as they did in France. All it would take is a "Army in being" strategy, which would leave the British high-command with not having enough troops to reinforce anything. Also, Hitler had no intent on treating the Muslims poorly anyways. If anything, they would treat the Germans as liberators while the SS would hunt all of the Jews. Have you ever heard of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar? It was a made up of primarily Muslim Bosniaks.

4.) About the middle eastern oil:

Incorrect - I learned quite a lot about those oilfields and even if allies destroyed all the equipment, it would have been relatively simple for axis to start pumping oil few months later at worst.

This sums it up perfectly.