Tobruk April-November 1941

spidge · 10-09-2007, 02:20 PM

How important was it that Rommel was unable to take Tobruk in 1941?

Kyt · 11-09-2007, 11:08 AM

9th Australian Division Versus the Africa Corps:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo.../9th_part1.pdf

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/downlo.../9th_part2.pdf

Antipodean Andy · 11-09-2007, 11:53 PM

Okay, have had a bit of a think about this and this is what I reckon. If Rommel took Tobruk in 1941, all of a sudden he has a port a lot closer to the front line. Fair enough the ships travelling to Tobruk would have the RAF and RN to deal with but no doubt they would adopt a similar scheme to how Tobruk was kept supplied by the Allies. With Tobruk in German hands, Rommel can push on towards the Suez canal. As he has not been held up with the siege, the Allies haven't had time to build up their forces so, given the way things were going at the time, it is quite likely the Germans would have captured the Suez.

With the Suez under their control, Alexandria negated as an RN base, the only Allied presence in the Med would be Gib, Malta and Palestine. Not sure about Turkey but Greece was under German control. I think the next move would have been to remove Malta as a threat. Air raids could also be launched from North Africa. I can't comment on North-western Africa but do know Tunisia and Algeria, as they are now, were Vichy French (evil sods too if you read Charles Lamb's War in A Stringbag). So, with most of the Med in German hands, other than Spain but I understand they were fairly pro-German, Germany would have been fairly well off. The Sinai Peninsula may have been taken to ensure the security of the other side of the Suez. I reckon the Germans may have spread down the coasts of Africa, taking trading ports and the like but this would have involved further confrontation with the Allies of course so who knows what might have been built up by then?

With the industrial might of America coming on line, I doubt the outcome of the war would have been any different but I do think Rommel's immediate seizure of Tobruk would have lengthened the war considerably. He was on a roll!

Havign said all of that, it could also be assumed that he didn't have to deal with the Rats!

OKay, these are just my thoughts since last night and they're far from complete! Don't be too harsh!

spidge · 12-09-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy in West Oz

Okay, have had a bit of a think about this and this is what I reckon. If Rommel took Tobruk in 1941, all of a sudden he has a port a lot closer to the front line. Fair enough the ships travelling to Tobruk would have the RAF and RN to deal with but no doubt they would adopt a similar scheme to how Tobruk was kept supplied by the Allies. With Tobruk in German hands, Rommel can push on towards the Suez canal. As he has not been held up with the siege, the Allies haven't had time to build up their forces so, given the way things were going at the time, it is quite likely the Germans would have captured the Suez.

With the Suez under their control, Alexandria negated as an RN base, the only Allied presence in the Med would be Gib, Malta and Palestine. Not sure about Turkey but Greece was under German control. I think the next move would have been to remove Malta as a threat. Air raids could also be launched from North Africa. I can't comment on North-western Africa but do know Tunisia and Algeria, as they are now, were Vichy French (evil sods too if you read Charles Lamb's War in A Stringbag). So, with most of the Med in German hands, other than Spain but I understand they were fairly pro-German, Germany would have been fairly well off. The Sinai Peninsula may have been taken to ensure the security of the other side of the Suez. I reckon the Germans may have spread down the coasts of Africa, taking trading ports and the like but this would have involved further confrontation with the Allies of course so who knows what might have been built up by then?

With the industrial might of America coming on line, I doubt the outcome of the war would have been any different but I do think Rommel's immediate seizure of Tobruk would have lengthened the war considerably. He was on a roll!

Havign said all of that, it could also be assumed that he didn't have to deal with the Rats!

OKay, these are just my thoughts since last night and they're far from complete! Don't be too harsh!

If Tobruk had fallen and the Suez taken, Malta would have fallen. Rommel (before his posting to North Africa) vehemently supported the plan that Malta should be the Axis priority. When things did not go to plan for him and he was unable to take Tobruk, resources that would have seen Malta fall were diverted to North Africa.

The failure to clear the RAF from the skies over Britain in 1940 (1st) and the inability to take Tobruk throughout 1941 (2nd) sealed the fate of the Axis in the Mediterranean.

Had Tobruk fallen, the whole face of that theatre would have altered. We must also remember that Pearl Harbor had still not occurred and Britain and her Commonwealth of nations were fighting a losing battle. El Alamein et al would probably not even be in the history books.