Why was North Africa important? Why was Tobruk?

[Avimimus]

Did it impact resources available for use against Russia in 1941-1942?

Were these large battles?

What would have happened if the Axis captured Tobruk?

Did it impact tactics? Why should we remember?

[Buzzsaw]

The Mediterranean was secondary to the East Front in the demands it placed on the Wehrmacht land forces during 1941-42, but it did take a significant proportion of the Luftwaffe's air resources.

 

It also required the majority of Italy's resources... in Naval and Air as well as land forces.

 

Tobruk was important because the Rommel could not advance on Egypt and the Suez Canal until he captured it.  He could not leave a powerful and intact fortress in his rear as the soldiers inside could sortie and cut his supply lines.

 

The Battles between April of 1941 and June of 1942 were focused on Tobruk as an objective for both the British and Germans.  The Germans wanted to capture it, the British to relieve it and drive Rommel back.  Battles included 'Brevity', 'Battleaxe', and 'Operation Crusader'... the last of which relieved Tobruk and drove Rommel back.

 

Rommel then temporarily retreated, then moved forward again and launched the Gazala series of battles, following which he captured Tobruk in June of 1942.  Rommel then was able to use Tobruk as an supply base and advance to the El Alamein front, (which is not include in DESERT WINGS - TOBRUK) and attempt to storm this line in the first battle of El Alamein/Ruweisat Ridge in July/August of 1942, and later in November, he experienced defeat at the 2nd Battle of El Alamein at the hands of Montgomery.

 

Prior to the Afrika Korps arriving, Tobruk was the key supply port for the Italians and their position in Libya and supported their initial advance into Egypt.

 

DESERT WINGS - TOBRUK covers the period December of 1940 to June of 1942.

 

Details:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Desert_campaign

[DD_Arthur]

What would have happened if the Axis captured Tobruk?  Hmmm....do you want me to speculate? Okay I’ll take a guess and say eventually the Axis forces would have advanced to somewhere further east until their supply lines and vehicles were so over-stretched that the Commonwealth forces would have been able to hold them up at some handy natural feature on the borders of Egypt. How does that sound so far....??

[Cybermat47]

46 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

supply lines

Are you suggesting that the Wehrmacht understood the concept of logistics and supply lines? 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Did it impact resources available for use against Russia in 1941-1942?

Were these large battles?

What would have happened if the Axis captured Tobruk?

Did it impact tactics? Why should we remember?

 

Main supply constraint for Germany throughout the war - oil. Biggest and best area for oil extraction in Eurasia - Abadan. It is in Iran, but right on the Iraq border near Basra.  If the Axis could have cut the Suez canal and turned the Eastern Med into an Axis lake, they might have been able to undermine the whole British position in the Middle East, perhaps bring Turkey into the war and causing revolts in India and Iraq, grabbing a secure oil supply and forcing Britain out of the war.  You might think this is far-fetched, but the British did not. Arguably it was a more realistic strategic goal for Hitler then taking the oilfields around Baku on the Caspian where the entire distance had to be covered overland through the SU. 

 

Once Hitler decided that he would rather attack the Soviet Union, the theatre became peripheral, but it still produced some important tactical lessons for the Allies that were very important in the NW Europe campaign. The coordination of air and ground efforts using forward air controllers was pioneered by the Desert Airforce and Eighth Army, which the US later built on.   This is also where the Allies learned to handle armour/artillery/infantry/air to beat the Germans by attrition.  If D Day had been launched without this build up of operational experience the results might not have been so good.  

 

 

 

 

[Buzzsaw]

59 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Main supply constraint for Germany throughout the war - oil. Biggest and best area for oil extraction in Eurasia - Abadan. It is in Iran, but right on the Iraq border near Basra.  If the Axis could have cut the Suez canal and turned the Eastern Med into an Axis lake, they might have been able to undermine the whole British position in the Middle East, perhaps bring Turkey into the war and causing revolts in India and Iraq, grabbing a secure oil supply and forcing Britain out of the war.  You might think this is far-fetched, but the British did not. Arguably it was a more realistic strategic goal for Hitler then taking the oilfields around Baku on the Caspian where the entire distance had to be covered overland through the SU. 

 

Once Hitler decided that he would rather attack the Soviet Union, the theatre became peripheral, but it still produced some important tactical lessons for the Allies that were very important in the NW Europe campaign. The coordination of air and ground efforts using forward air controllers was pioneered by the Desert Airforce and Eighth Army, which the US later built on.   This is also where the Allies learned to handle armour/artillery/infantry/air to beat the Germans by attrition.  If D Day had been launched without this build up of operational experience the results might not have been so good. 

You are correct, this was all about oil.

 

There were even closer oilfields in Iraq which the British controlled and used as a source after the US.

 

The Nazis tried to stage a takeover of Iraq in 1941 by supporting a coup:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Iraqi_coup_d'état

 

Luftwaffe flew in Heinkel bombers, Italians flew in Biplane fighters, Vichy French in Syria supported transit of these forces.

 

British squashed the rebellion very quickly with landforces from India, Jordan and Palestine...  and subsequently invaded Vichy Syria for supporting the coup.

[Dutch2]

Some interesting documentary about this

 

[danielprates]

14 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

What would have happened if the Axis captured Tobruk?  Hmmm....do you want me to speculate? Okay I’ll take a guess and say eventually the Axis forces would have advanced to somewhere further east until their supply lines and vehicles were so over-stretched that the Commonwealth forces would have been able to hold them up at some handy natural feature on the borders of Egypt. How does that sound so far....??

 

Hehe.

 

@Avimimus, the Germans did eventually take Tobruk. At the time it was felt as a shameful defeat by the English. Churchill was at the time at the White House in Washignton, where he was handed by Roosevelt himself the telegram communicating the fall of Tobruk. I don't remember the exact words but he said it was the most somber time of the war for him, and that defeat was one thing but shame was another and that was it. 

 

Anyways, as time proved, that didn't help the Germans too much. At the time though, they made much fuss of it. The African campaign, which wasn't too much of Hitler's liking anyway, for a while got some decent attention, as german high command started speculating of feats worth of Alexander (of Macedonia, not the british general) - such as Rommel advancing towards India and assaulting Russia from the south. However as @DD_Arthur said, supplies and logistics and an overall lack of means meant that Rommel couldn't reach Suez, the real meaningful goal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_capture_of_Tobruk

 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by danielprates

[kestrel79]

Love learning more about the desert theater of WW2 thanks! Playing IL2 got me into the Eastern Front 20 some years ago, wish there were more desert campaign games to do the same. Now we have one!

[Buzzsaw]

3 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Hehe.

 

@Avimimus, the Germans did eventually take Tobruk. At the time it was felt as a shameful defeat by the English. Churchill was at the time at the White House in Washignton, where he was handed by Roosevelt himself the telegram communicating the fall of Tobruk. I don't remember the exact words but he said it was the most somber time of the war for him, and that defeat was one thing but shame was another and that was it. 

 

Anyways, as time proved, that didn't help the Germans too much. At the time though, they made much fuss of it. The African campaign, which wasn't too much of Hitler's liking anyway, for a while got some decent attention, as german high command started speculating of feats worth of Alexander (of Macedonia, not the british general) - such as Rommel advancing towards India and assaulting Russia from the south. However as @DD_Arthur said, supplies and logistics and an overall lack of means meant that Rommel couldn't reach Suez, the real meaningful goal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_capture_of_Tobruk

 

 

Churchill was more responsible for the fall of Tobruk and other setbacks there than anyone.

 

His hasty and ill advised decision to strip N Africa of men and aircraft and send them to Greece in March of 1941 threw away the progress which had been made with the Italian defeat in December of 1940 and January of 1941. 

 

Without those troops, the British were unable to continue their advance to Tripoli, and the Germans were able to reinforce North Africa in April 1941 and continue the campaign for another two years.  And meanwhile the British divisions and air resources committed to Greece were mauled by the Germans.

 

Churchill was responsible for many poor decisions in both WWI (think Gallipoli) and WWII.  He was an inspirational leader, but his strategic understanding was poor.

 

He was subject to a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons after Tobruk fell and managed to squeak out a vote in favour of him continuing as PM.

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, Buzzsaw said:

Churchill was more responsible for the fall of Tobruk and other setbacks there than anyone.

 

His hasty and ill advised decision to strip N Africa of men and aircraft and send them to Greece in March of 1941 threw away the progress which had been made with the Italian defeat in December of 1940 and January of 1941. 

 

Without those troops, the British were unable to continue their advance to Tripoli, and the Germans were able to reinforce North Africa in April 1941 and continue the campaign for another two years.  And meanwhile the British divisions and air resources committed to Greece were mauled by the Germans.

 

Churchill was responsible for many poor decisions in both WWI (think Gallipoli) and WWII.  He was an inspirational leader, but his strategic understanding was poor.

 

He was subject to a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons after Tobruk fell and managed to squeak out a vote in favour of him continuing as PM.

 

Oh yeah. That is a great sidestory of ww2 that not so many people know. I have Alambrooke's memoirs and boy, do they shed new light over Churchill! 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

Oh yeah. That is a great sidestory of ww2 that not so many people know. I have Alambrooke's memoirs and boy, do they shed new light over Churchill! 

 

Actually,  his strategic understanding was very good indeed.  Much superior to all the other wartime leaders with the exception of de Gaulle.

 

 Alanbrooke's diaries?  Absolutely fascinating but the work of a very large and very bruised ego too.  As far as Alanbrooke was concerned Churchill's two biggest mistakes of the war were not getting for Alanbrooke the job Eisenhower got and then not making Alanbrooke Governor General of Canada at wars end.

[Avimimus]

Part of a reason why I asked this is because a lot of people don't have answers to these questions.

 

Speaking of Churchill, when he spoke he had a habit of making every operation the critical turning point, the event upon which the entire course of the war might hinge. For all his faults he was good at that kind of overstatement.

 

Unfortunately, the historical importance in North Africa, the struggles, the role in diverting resources from the eastern front... all of that tends to get ignored and forgotten. So much of what got me into flight-simulators was reading biographies and first person accounts (and meeting vets). But I doubt young people today have similar opportunities.

 

With attention on other theatres (especially for Americans, where the Pacific, D-Day, and the Bulge are usually the only stories) I wonder how many people can actually get excited about fighting in Africa. So I'm interested in what people say for when I pitch the sim to friends.

[jollyjack]

Well, if you think it all through, WW1 was about steel, and WW2 about oil.

[DD_Arthur]

7 hours ago, jollyjack said:

Well, if you think it all through, WW1 was about steel, and WW2 about oil.

 

Presumably the Austro-Hungarian empire felt threatened by the Serbian steel industry and Hitler couldn't resist grabbing all those Polish oilfields?