Africa: Holy Grail or Waste of Resources?

[Cybvep]

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.

BTW can you provide any interesting articles/books about this issue?

 

[shri]

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

@ALL the North Africa theory guys not just RomanRuler.

The German general Staff did a lot of research before sending troops to Africa, their research (and this was a team headed by Halder and advised by Guderian himself) showed 3-4 Panzer divisions/Motorised divisions was what could be supplied easily, anything more and the entire supply infrastructure will collapse and Tanks and Trucks will run out of petrol.
In the end they send that minimum amount because the feasibility was only so much, there were Italian troops in Libya which had a first right on supplies.

 

[shri]

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.

Please refer to what the USSR did at Grozny and Maikop oil fields- destroyed all the plant and machinery and started a fire at the wells at the last moment, do you think the British wouldn't be able to do it, will require just a dozen crack SAS guys and the whole oil fields alongwith all that heavy machinery will be a wreck. Now how will Germany transport Heavy Machinery 3000 km from Tripoli without Railways and with the Sea Route guarded by the Royal Navy and RAF?
Also there is the whole problem of taking that oil (once it comes) putting it in barrels and sending it to Berlin. Berlin-Baghdad distance was huge and Turkey wouldn't have allowed transit, even if they had, their capacity to transport was not enough.

 

[Mannstien]

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.

I would agree for Vanilla but with hardcore BICE Mod the English are no push over and I've been rebuffed several times just landing in their rear so I need if anything to delay their divisions in the west before I land in their rear. It's not that the AI is different but lets face it even with some German Tank/TD brigades from a license production the English armor in 40' is not always something to easily triffle with and besides I do enjoy the immersion this provides of delaying actions while strategically positioning forces for landings in Syria and the Sinai. With the interesting changes they've added to this newest versions it will be fun to see if I can build some landing ships before 40' as Transports are no longer viable assault landing craft. Woohoo!! (Excited about the latest update)

 

[Jazumir]

Great plan to outtrick the british to abandon their home islands by an army in being threatening persia. Because conquering land stretches your enemy´s forces, not your own... Hint: When a books title is called ´how hitler could have won ww2´ only pick it up for the lulz - do not expect to learn anything from it, because Hitler could have not won WW2, unless his enemies lost it for him - and that is what this kind of books boil down to: If germany had done something different(ly), the allies would be too stupid to react accordingly and would probably still do, what they did IRL - and that would lose them the war. You know like 1917 - the sub-campaign will starve britian out of the war in 6 months - if they do not try to do what they always used to do in such a situation: run convoys. I can beat anyone in chess in just 5 turns - if that anyone is not allowed to move his pieces.

BTW - this is a game forum. There is a history forum. Just saying... cybvep nailed it, i think: the insignificance of north african land in HoI stems from it being so easily avoided. Just land a couple of divs at the key points (suez, gib, optionally malta), which can be done on a whim, and you are set. The question of the number of provinces in the area (1, 2 or 3 layers of provinces between coast and desert?) becomes entirely moot outside self-imposed restrictions, too, because of this.

 

[f1nalstand17]

Great plan to outtrick the british to abandon their home islands by an army in being threatening persia. Because conquering land stretches your enemy´s forces, not your own... Hint: When a books title is called ´how hitler could have won ww2´ only pick it up for the lulz - do not expect to learn anything from it, because Hitler could have not won WW2, unless his enemies lost it for him - and that is what this kind of books boil down to: If germany had done something different(ly), the allies would be too stupid to react accordingly and would probably still do, what they did IRL - and that would lose them the war. You know like 1917 - the sub-campaign will starve britian out of the war in 6 months - if they do not try to do what they always used to do in such a situation: run convoys. I can beat anyone in chess in just 5 turns - if that anyone is not allowed to move his pieces.

BTW - this is a game forum. There is a history forum. Just saying... cybvep nailed it, i think: the insignificance of north african land in HoI stems from it being so easily avoided. Just land a couple of divs at the key points (suez, gib, optionally malta), which can be done on a whim, and you are set. The question of the number of provinces in the area (1, 2 or 3 layers of provinces between coast and desert?) becomes entirely moot outside self-imposed restrictions, too, because of this.

Yes, the "army in-being" is a good strategy. It would not take an entire army(maybe 1 or 2 divisions) to keep the British in-check. Turkey would most definitely have given the Germans military access(they might even have gone so far as to join the Axis) since the entire Mediterranean would just be an Axis "lake".The whole German and Italian surface fleets were a complete waste of resources for both countries, but it successfully kept the Royal Navy deployed in the North Sea and the Mediterranean instead if being sent to take on the Japanese.

About the book. Again, I used it as a reference to the strategy that the author mentioned. It is a counter-factual history book, which means that the author examines what happened in history, and shows what can be learned from it. Now exactly how useful this is, is currently debated in academic circles.

Now finally regarding the OP. I think that Africa, particularly Northern Africa, should serve as a gateway to Southern Europe and Asia, as well as contain some recources. But in the end, it should'nt be the focal point of the war.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

@ALL the North Africa theory guys not just RomanRuler.

The German general Staff did a lot of research before sending troops to Africa, their research (and this was a team headed by Halder and advised by Guderian himself) showed 3-4 Panzer divisions/Motorised divisions was what could be supplied easily, anything more and the entire supply infrastructure will collapse and Tanks and Trucks will run out of petrol.
In the end they send that minimum amount because the feasibility was only so much, there were Italian troops in Libya which had a first right on supplies.

I don`t know how i got into this theory, i just added few more places to send supplies/troops from.

 

[Jazumir]

Yes, the "army in-being" is a good strategy. It would not take an entire army(maybe 1 or 2 divisions) to keep the British in-check. Turkey would most definitely have given the Germans military access(they might even have gone so far as to join the Axis) since the entire Mediterranean would just be an Axis "lake".The whole German surface fleet was a complete waste of resources for Germany(and Italy) but it successfully kept the Royal Navy deployed in the North Sea and the Mediterranean instead if being sent to take in the Japanese.

About the book. Again, I used it as a reference to the strategy that the author mentioned. It is a counter-factual history book, which means that the author examines what happened in history, and shows what can be learned from it. Now exactly how useful this is, is currently debated in academic circles.

Now finally regarding the OP. I think that Africa, particularly Northern Africa, should serve as a gateway to Southern Europe and Asia, as well as contain some recources. But in the end, it should'nt be the focal point of the war.

Suppose threatening persia would be feasable, why would the british priotize defending that over their home islands? In the end, what will happen if the germans do try to get to india via persia, is their lines stretching so thin, that the british could retake any point of interest along the coast at any time and with ease - not to talk about the soviets being served with a golden opportunity to seize the entire middle east and continental europe at a snatch.

In a game all of this might make sense to some extent - but it has little to do with reality and what could have happenend in the real world. In the real world, the germans sort of regreted not having asked for military access to french north africa in the armistice of 40 and wanted this rectified later - and got a ´no´ from an already defeated country which they could do little about. In reality they tried hard to sway franco into the war, but he adamantelly refused to. In reality they could not properly supply the units they did send to north africa even though they never left the coastal areas - a run for persia would put some 1,500 km between the closest harbor and the troops. They might be able to reach the persian border, living off of captured stuff on the way, but there is no way for a believable build-up of some force there, with the intention to march all the way through persia to india (and to the other side of that, too, i suppose - i mean dont go there to stop at its gates, uh?) - turkey or not (and not seems more likely to me, even under this what-if).

And all of this has little to do with the strategic importance of north africa in the game as no matter how far the european axis can supply its troops into asia ITG, it wont need libya to get there, if amphibious mechanics and the supply system work like they do in HoI3.

 

[keynes2.0]

Well if they could capture Alexandria they could get a lot of supply into africa. But then you are talking about sending so many transport trucks to africa that you are sacrificing multiple armies from the eastern front. You'd reaaaaally better hope that Stalin aint a warmonger.

 

[Centurion1973]

Please refer to what the USSR did at Grozny and Maikop oil fields- destroyed all the plant and machinery and started a fire at the wells at the last moment, do you think the British wouldn't be able to do it, will require just a dozen crack SAS guys and the whole oil fields alongwith all that heavy machinery will be a wreck. Now how will Germany transport Heavy Machinery 3000 km from Tripoli without Railways and with the Sea Route guarded by the Royal Navy and RAF?
Also there is the whole problem of taking that oil (once it comes) putting it in barrels and sending it to Berlin. Berlin-Baghdad distance was huge and Turkey wouldn't have allowed transit, even if they had, their capacity to transport was not enough.

AFAIK, Kirkuk Field at that time produced oil with minimal impurities (like water) content and need for processing fefore dending oil to refinery. Oil extraction eqipment needed to extract oil from those fields wasnt anything high tech for that time - most of needed eqipment could be moved there in around 1 months depending on how much damage would have been caused by UK forces. Remember that Romania had lots of experience with oil extraction, so they would have required eqipment and experience.

In scenario we are talking about, germans have taken over north Africa and at least part of the middle east - so eqipment needed could be sent by ship to Latakia, which is around 670km from Mosul.

Regarding transport of oil back - germans would have option of using Mosul–Haifa oil pipeline and using tanker from there to europe. Another option (long term) would be oil pipeline via Turkey to europe.

 

[Centurion1973]

BTW can you provide any interesting articles/books about this issue?

Good book about history of big oilfields (especially in KSA) is: Twilight in the desert by Matthew R. Simmons

 

[Cardus]

Take a look at the current Syrian civil war, for example. In Syria, the majority Sunnis are against the government, by and large

Source?


Regarding Africa in HOI3 it is just a wasteland but

Africa’s known mineral wealth places it among the world’s richest continents. Its very large share of the world’s mineral resources includes coal, petroleum, natural gas, uranium, radium, low-cost thorium, iron ores, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, zinc, tin, bauxite, titanium, antimony, gold, platinum, tantalum, germanium, lithium, phosphates, and diamonds.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7924/Africa/37213/Nonmetallic-deposits

 

[Victor Cortez]

North Africa is super useful in roleplaying prosective: where are all those Germans going to sunbathe?

Well, Southern Spain or Italy maybe, but Africa is cheaper.

 

[potski]

Source?


Regarding Africa in HOI3 it is just a wasteland but

"Africa’s known mineral wealth places it among the world’s richest continents. Its very large share of the world’s mineral resources includes coal, petroleum, natural gas, uranium, radium, low-cost thorium, iron ores, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, zinc, tin, bauxite, titanium, antimony, gold, platinum, tantalum, germanium, lithium, phosphates, and diamonds."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7924/Africa/37213/Nonmetallic-deposits

How much of that was known about during WWII and there was the technology to extract it? Outside of South Africa were diamonds, gold and coal being extracted on a large scale?

Nigeria has significant oil, but Shell didn't start to explore for oil until 1938, and it took them until 1956 before the first commercialextraction took place from some of the many, but small oilfields on shore. Offshore drilling now accounts for a large proportion of production, but no-one had the capability to drill for oil in deep sea environments during WWII, even if they had known it was there. Offshore production began in 1976. Nigeria has considerable stocks of natural gas, but still no capability to export it or even use it domestically. All the gas produced from extracting oil is flared off.

Libya first allowed surveying for oil in 1953, and started selling licences to drill for oil in 1956.

About 15% of total world uranium production is from mines in Africa. Wikipedia lists five of them amongst the biggest 50 in the world. One mine in the desert in Namibia was discovered 1928, but did not start production until 1976. The two mines in Niger were discovered in the 1960s.

 

[Secret Master]

About 15% of total world uranium production is from mines in Africa. Wikipedia lists five of them amongst the biggest 50 in the world. One mine in the desert in Namibia was discovered 1928, but did not start production until 1976. The two mines in Niger were discovered in the 1960s.

Already covered in HOI3, though. Belgian Congo has the Uranium strategic resource.

 

[No idea]

Porkman, i basically agree with you, but there are some things i dont:

1. Regarding the US entry into the war, people seem to forget that it was Germany the one who declared war, not the other way around. I dont see the US declarind war on Germany (for starters, why, especially when your population cries for revenge against Japan?) anytime soon after the attack on Peral Harbor. If the UK would have been on the brink of being overrun, then perhaps, just perhaps, that might have provoked a declaration of war on Germany. But i dont see any other possibility when the US would already be locked into a big fight in the Pacific.

2. The allies (well, France) could have invaded Germany when Germany was fighting Poland, but i think your are taking benefit from retrospective here. If we see things like the French high command saw them, then keeping to your strong defenses was a reasonable decision, especially since from very early (before the first week of the war was spent) it was clear that Poland would fall sooner than later.

3. Regarding the populations of the Middle East, they were far more pro Axis than pro Allies. See the revolts in Irak and Persia, which was invaded by the Brithish and soviets to avoidit from going into the Axis camp. Same goes for palestinian leaders. They were firmly pro Axis. So, if any, population would have supported the Axis armies.

 

[Cardus]

How much of that was known about during WWII and there was the technology to extract it? Outside of South Africa were diamonds, gold and coal being extracted on a large scale?

Nigeria has significant oil, but Shell didn't start to explore for oil until 1938, and it took them until 1956 before the first commercialextraction took place from some of the many, but small oilfields on shore. Offshore drilling now accounts for a large proportion of production, but no-one had the capability to drill for oil in deep sea environments during WWII, even if they had known it was there. Offshore production began in 1976. Nigeria has considerable stocks of natural gas, but still no capability to export it or even use it domestically. All the gas produced from extracting oil is flared off.

Libya first allowed surveying for oil in 1953, and started selling licences to drill for oil in 1956.

About 15% of total world uranium production is from mines in Africa. Wikipedia lists five of them amongst the biggest 50 in the world. One mine in the desert in Namibia was discovered 1928, but did not start production until 1976. The two mines in Niger were discovered in the 1960s.

You can find the statistics here http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0271ah.pdf
Before WWII Africa was important for the following scarce material: manganese, copper, asbestos, silver, chromium, platinum, gold, phosphates

1. Regarding the US entry into the war, people seem to forget that it was Germany the one who declared war, not the other way around. I dont see the US declarind war on Germany (for starters, why, especially when your population cries for revenge against Japan?) anytime soon after the attack on Peral Harbor. If the UK would have been on the brink of being overrun, then perhaps, just perhaps, that might have provoked a declaration of war on Germany. But i dont see any other possibility when the US would already be locked into a big fight in the Pacific..

The USA was already at war versus Germany

In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making
took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted "shoot [Germans] on sight" convoys - convoys that might include British ships — in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked

http://mises.org/library/how-us-economic-warfare-provoked-japans-attack-pearl-harbor

 

[Porkman]

Porkman, i basically agree with you, but there are some things i dont:

1. Regarding the US entry into the war, people seem to forget that it was Germany the one who declared war, not the other way around. I dont see the US declarind war on Germany (for starters, why, especially when your population cries for revenge against Japan?) anytime soon after the attack on Peral Harbor. If the UK would have been on the brink of being overrun, then perhaps, just perhaps, that might have provoked a declaration of war on Germany. But i dont see any other possibility when the US would already be locked into a big fight in the Pacific.

2. The allies (well, France) could have invaded Germany when Germany was fighting Poland, but i think your are taking benefit from retrospective here. If we see things like the French high command saw them, then keeping to your strong defenses was a reasonable decision, especially since from very early (before the first week of the war was spent) it was clear that Poland would fall sooner than later.

3. Regarding the populations of the Middle East, they were far more pro Axis than pro Allies. See the revolts in Irak and Persia, which was invaded by the Brithish and soviets to avoidit from going into the Axis camp. Same goes for palestinian leaders. They were firmly pro Axis. So, if any, population would have supported the Axis armies.

1) I don't think I mentioned US entry, but the US doesn't have to enter the war formally to insure Germany's defeat. Material aide to the Soviets and the Brits would have been enough. Also, the US would have entered fairly quickly unless the Germans stopped firing on US flagged ships in the Battle of the Atlantic. It seems unlikely that they would stop just because America and Germany had yet to declare war on eachother. Germany declaring war made it easier, but the US was already fighting Japan and they would have declared on Germany fairly quickly. Whether a Europe first strategy would still be adopted is debateable.

2) All of the "Hitler could have won!" theories are far more " taking benefit from retrospective." As someone said, they require that the Axis performs differently while the Allies don't.

3) There's a big difference from being happy that the colonizing country is getting beat up and actually being happy with a new colonization. German forces in the Middle East would quickly wear out any welcome they had because they would have to rely on local supply. Part of why Germany had a good reputation in the Middle East was that it had no history of colonialism there. That goes away once German troops become the invaders. It's the Japanese experience where they liberated lots of colonial territory, probably moved the clock up on decolonization by a decade or two, but the locals still very quickly wanted the Japanese to get the hell out.

Shattering British power in the Middle East and a sort of exercise in "Area Denial" would be the best the Axis could hope for. Actually occupying or making use of the resources is not plausible.

 

[Smileyou]

@porkman, most of Arab land was previously under Ottoman empire(pre-WW1) and with the first "arab spring" financed by the British the
ottoman empire was destroyed in WW1, British took control of most of it and guess what, suppressed all rebelions by force and were not
in danger of loosing control (why? cuz UK is a first rate power and those ppl hardly had any power), same would go for Germans who
would swoop in to remove UK control of middle east. To say Germany would quickly loose sympathy from Arabs is not proven by historic
fact, Germans had high support of Western Ukrainians even as Nazi send millions of their own compatriots to certain death, you are
forgetting that hatred towards perceived or real oppressor is more big and important than the perceived "savior". Axis would do just
fine in middle east..

about US being greeted by flowers in iraq?) who said that?Bush? US invaded Iraq, they didn't liberated, if Iraq was under the chinese or
UK empire and US would "liberate" it then maybe, but US invasion was classic war of aggression .. for you to put this into same class
as Axis removing UK influence is not even close to comparison..

 

[Rubidium]

@porkman, most of Arab land was previously under Ottoman empire(pre-WW1) and with the first "arab spring" financed by the British the
ottoman empire was destroyed in WW1, British took control of most of it and guess what, suppressed all rebelions by force and were not
in danger of loosing control (why? cuz UK is a first rate power and those ppl hardly had any power), same would go for Germans who
would swoop in to remove UK control of middle east. To say Germany would quickly loose sympathy from Arabs is not proven by historic
fact, Germans had high support of Western Ukrainians even as Nazi send millions of their own compatriots to certain death, you are
forgetting that hatred towards perceived or real oppressor is more big and important than the perceived "savior". Axis would do just
fine in middle east..

about US being greeted by flowers in iraq?) who said that?Bush? US invaded Iraq, they didn't liberated, if Iraq was under the chinese or
UK empire and US would "liberate" it then maybe, but US invasion was classic war of aggression .. for you to put this into same class
as Axis removing UK influence is not even close to comparison..

While they might get some local support/collaboration, they would also certainly get some local resistance. Whether from former British collaborators/supporters (and there were some), minorities opposed to German rule (IYKWIM), or just people annoyed that the local garrison troops were harassing their daughters. Since you mentioned Ukraine, it's worth remembering the numerous partisan bands all over occupied Soviet territory. Even where there was local support, there were also resistance movements. And as recent events have shown, an insurgency can last for quite a while in that region.

And that would require significant garrisons, which in turn need to be supplied. All over a fairly large area, with terrible infrastructure. Meanwhile, the British can supply insurgents, threaten amphibious invasions wherever they want (requiring even more garrisons) and generally make a nuisance of themselves.

Not that any of it matters, because the logistics of the Axis actually making it into the Middle East are so atrocious as to render it all impossible anyway.