The Italian Spear

[Jagdtiger14]

I'm not sure (probably not) that the Axis knew they had a 6 month advantage...but it existed non the less. The point I'm making is that the Axis could very easily have controlled the Med late '40. Take away the stupid "Battle of Britain" and the war on Greece, and replace that with Gibraltar and Malta, and then what ever in the eastern Med (Cyprus/Syria?) and on.

What naval assets would the Brits have sent around Africa and into Egypt to contest the eastern Med (if any)? Would that impact the battle for the Atlantic?...especially if the German fleet is rebased in Gibraltar?

As for Spain, its only choice was to do what it did...diplomacy and subterfuge (Canaris), and aiding the Axis to minor degree's. If Hitler had instead decided to push the issue, and had the Wehrmacht on the French side of the Pyrenees poised for invasion (or really just a move through because the Spanish organized military units would have been useless to resist even in mountainous terrain...the best the Spanish could have done is a longer term partisan resistance), Franco probably would have given in to Hitler and attempted to use the non-belligerent status (even though not international law) as a possible out with the Allies if things went badly for the Axis.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

I'll take a look but if i remember correctly, Italians didn't known Alexandria's operation was a success and so count the 2 BB as active.
Obviously this can't happens in MWIF.

Fin

warspite1

Yes, they sank in shallow water and iirc the Italian reconnaissance didn't pick up on the fact they were on the harbour bed.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

I'll take a look but if i remember correctly, Italians didn't known Alexandria's operation was a success and so count the 2 BB as active.
Obviously this can't happens in MWIF.

Fin

Part of that was a result of CW deception. The Royal Navy did everything they could to mislead the Italians as to the true state of the ships.

warspite1

Including using an old de-militarised battleship dressed as a KGV-class for convoy escort duty [:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I'm not sure (probably not) that the Axis knew they had a 6 month advantage...but it existed non the less. The point I'm making is that the Axis could very easily have controlled the Med late '40. Take away the stupid "Battle of Britain" and the war on Greece, and replace that with Gibraltar and Malta, and then what ever in the eastern Med (Cyprus/Syria?) and on.

What naval assets would the Brits have sent around Africa and into Egypt to contest the eastern Med (if any)? Would that impact the battle for the Atlantic?...especially if the German fleet is re-based in Gibraltar?

As for Spain, its only choice was to do what it did...diplomacy and subterfuge (Canaris), and aiding the Axis to minor degree's. If Hitler had instead decided to push the issue, and had the Wehrmacht on the French side of the Pyrenees poised for invasion (or really just a move through because the Spanish organized military units would have been useless to resist even in mountainous terrain...the best the Spanish could have done is a longer term partisan resistance), Franco probably would have given in to Hitler and attempted to use the non-belligerent status (even though not international law) as a possible out with the Allies if things went badly for the Axis.

warspite1

As said, I agree that a Mediterranean strategy would have been the best approach but I disagree with phrases like 'very easily'. Nothing is guaranteed in war, nothing is guaranteed in naval war - and NOTHING is guaranteed where the Italian armed forces were concerned [;)].

What would happen if the German fleet was at Gibraltar? Well first off you are assuming that the British have simply left the place usable? I doubt that very much - but if Spain is conquered by the Germans then they could use Ferrol or Cadiz etc anyway - again assuming that the Spanish have not taken measures to deny their use. You are assuming that the German fleet - and that did not amount to much in the autumn of 1940 - actually reaches Gibraltar. But if they did, it makes things very difficult...

Its conversations like this that should make people at least appreciate what Churchill was thinking re the attack at Mers-el-Kebir.....

Back to Spain, you can't be a little bit pregnant. Spain either resisted (to the extent it could) or it became a German ally with all that meant for it. Would Hitler really have declared war on a fellow fascist nation? Maybe... but contrary to popular belief, the Nazi-Soviet pact took some explaining as it was....

Remember too what happened to Napoleon when he stabbed the Spanish in the back. If history were to repeat itself, Spanish partisan activity would have been brutal. Would Franco have shrugged his shoulders, let out a wry grin, rolled his eyes playfully and said [adopts camp tone] Oh Adolf, you are a tease.....

As for take away the Battle of Britain and the war on Greece. There comes point at which this becomes a 'let's suppose the Germans never made a mistake and conducted the war as though Hitler had the power of hindsight' scenario.

Why would the war on Greece not happen? Remember Mussolini undertook that largely out of a feeling of umbridge because Hitler wouldn't let him in on his plans. Why would the inclusion of Spain suddenly make Adolf treat Italy like a partner and the Axis form a coherent plan of action known to all? The Italian half-hearted 'advance' into Egypt has already happened - an advance that leads to disaster.

No Greece may actually help the Commonwealth. One of the reasons the British never kicked Italy out of Africa in 1941 is because Churchill ordered the cream of Wavell's command to Greece. So suppose he doesn't and Compass does not stop short of Tripolitania? Instead the Commonwealth forces keep going and Mussolini's 5th Army joins the 10th Army as POW's?

So many possibilities open up - nothing is ever a given in war....

[Klydon]

I don't think there is any way the Germans could have declared war on Spain after supporting them in the civil war. It would have been political suicide on a world scale.

What was left of the German surface fleet was in dry dock for most of the summer and fall of 1940. Most of the German heavy units were damaged during the Norway campaign and the lack of most any surface fleet figured heavily into the decision to cancel Sea Lion.

The issue for the Axis in 1940 in the Med was the lack of air bases and aircraft that didn't have sufficient range for the most part to impose their will on the sea area of the Med. The Germans still have the same issue they had with the Battle of Britain. The Stuka may be a fine dive bomber, but any fighter opposition and they are meat and the Axis simply didn't have a fighter with any range. The Axis could not directly attack Gibraltar without going through Spain and they could not directly attack the CW bases around Alexandria. They could not even stop the CW from sending a lot of troops and material to Greece.

Had the Germans been given permission to enter Spain with the objective of taking Gibraltar, I don't think there would be anyway for the British to stop them longer term. It is one thing to defend someplace that enemy air can't easily reach nor can their artillery, but quite another to try to defend someplace that enemy artillery and aircraft are right on the door step. Gibraltar would have eventually been starved out. The other issue would have been what type of defense could have been mounted against a airborne attack ala Eben Emal?

I don't think there is any doubt that the Axis could have taken Malta in 1940. Doing so would not likely be decisive by itself. It would have only made the Axis supply routes to Africa more secure, although still subject to interdiction by Royal Naval forces operating from both ends of the Med.

[Jagdtiger14]

Sorry, I didn't mean "very easily" in that it would have been an easy task (tactics), I meant "very easily" that from a strategic sense, it could very easily (high chance of success) have happened IF the Axis had taken Gib/Mal and dedicated the mandatory resources (which they had) to the task. You are correct, nothing is ever guaranteed in war. As for the Italians, I think the Germans would have requested and probably gotten the special tools Italy had.

In my opinion, the Brits would have begun to destroy critical things in Gibraltar once the Germans cross over into Spain. I would assume everything possible would be destroyed and the Brits simply abandon Gibraltar by the time the Germans arrive. There would not even be a fight (it would be suicide to stay there). After Germany repairs and builds what it needs in Gibraltar, I think the Germans could very well have reached Gibraltar with their fleet under heavy air cover and close to shore...jumping from port to port...taking into account enemy subs and mines (mine sweepers, destroyers and x-craft). Anything the Brits throw at them has the very high likely chance of being destroyed themselves. I also understand the German fleet was not much to speak of in the Fall of '40, but still useful and a threat...enough in my opinion to keep the vast majority of the Brit fleet in the Atlantic and not in Egypt...more and more of the German fleet as it comes on line gets down there the same way.

I completely agree with what Churchill did at Mers-el-Kebir. In my opinion he was the greatest leader in WWII, and this took real leadership to make this decision.

Ok, role play Franco...and not from your Brit perspective. Someone who worked very hard to become the dictator of Spain. With the German army on the border, not wanting to fight you, but wanting to get at what Spain has always wanted since? Do you run to England in exile, and do the Brits restore you if the win the war?...or do you do what Hitler wants...the guy that got you into your position? I highly doubt Franco would have resisted Hitler.

As for Napy, his problem was he didn't fully commit the proper resources to Spain before his war with Russia(probably not worth it monetarily?). His big problem was going to war with Russia while still fighting in Spain...more accurately going to war with Russia, period. If he had brought le Grande Armee and stationed it in Madrid...

As for supposing no mistakes, I think its a no brainer to have limited the Battle of Britain to only the English Channel, and perhaps the coastal stations. There were respected voices advising against an air war into Britain...such as Adolph Galland...who pointed out very logical reasons to not do it. Greece...even Hitler didn't want to do that. If the Med strategy had played out Fall/Winter '40, perhaps the whole Greek issue would not even have been a blip...the Brits would not have wanted to get trapped on Crete, and the Germans might (should have) control of the eastern Med.

[AlbertN]

Brits evacuated Malta when Italy declared war, deeming it non tenable.

Mussolini, convinced of the impending surrender of both France and UK, did not bothered to have it assaulted.

Then the Brits, seeing that the Italians "forgot" of Malta, got back there.

[warspite1]

Ok, role play Franco...and not from your Brit perspective.

I would like to think that my posts are not from any ‘Brit’ perspective but from an historical perspective.

The issue for the Axis in 1940 in the Med was the lack of air bases and aircraft that didn't have sufficient range for the most part to impose their will on the sea area of the Med.

I would agree with this – unless the Germans/Italians adopted the kind of Mediterranean strategy being discussed (remember the lack of airbases is a British problem too). I don’t mean some half-hearted response, shoring up the Italians here, and sending the Fliegerkorps X there and letting Supermarina do what it wanted (all as per real life), I mean a proper co-ordinated Axis Mediterranean strategy which Hitler would have to understand would likely postpone Barbarossa until 1942 (this is of course the big obstacle but we will assume Hitler sees the big picture more clearly and determines not to make the same mistake as Napoleon i.e. turning on Russia before those pesky British are defeated).

Taking Gibraltar would help immensely – but as we have discussed, Franco was not for playing ball – and Hitler was not going to attack his Fascist counterpart. So without Gibraltar was a Mediterranean strategy winnable?

It would be good to discuss this on this thread. So the situation is:

It’s mid-October 1940. Hendaye has happened and Spain is not going to join the Axis yet.

Everything that has happened in the war so far has happened.

The Italian attack on Greece has not started and Hitler can avoid this calamity by bringing Mussolini into the fold and treating him like a proper ally (again this stretches reality as the Germans never trusted their Italian counterparts to keep anything secret) but for the purposes of this scenario, Hitler realises he needs to lean heavily on the Italian fleet and naval air units.

The two leaders and their staffs meet in Vienna to discuss Operation Kick the British out of Egypt.

Discuss…….

[Jagdtiger14]

I think first we should agree on the premise that mid-October or some other time should be the starting point. I think we can all agree how stupid the NAZI's were in their strategy. Can/should we use logic without 20/20 hindsight? Why would it be logical for Germany to sit around for 4 months and do nothing (or little) in the way of major obectives? If we are looking at a Med strategy for the Axis, lets look at what they can do.

1. Hostilities cease in France June 25. Goal #1 I assume would be Gibraltar followed by Malta. Question: How long would it take for the Wehrmacht to move to the Spanish-French border including the tools it needs to take Gibraltar? Necessary to the task German forces begin their move in the direction of the Pyrenees June 26.

2. When the move to the Pyrenees is completed, Germany gives Franco 24 hours to make up his mind (which should take about 5 seconds in my opinion).

3. Franco's answer will determine what happens to Franco and if the Germans need to A) conduct hostile actions on their way to Gibraltar, B) clear the supply path of partisans (on-going), and C) clear the rest of Spain.

Out of curiosity: Did Hitler make an appearance with Franco in a French border town?...not sure when that happened. I remember seeing a photo of that meeting...both sitting at a table, Franco having a weird look on his face (not looking at Hitler) while Hitler was smiling looking at him. Its funny how leaders' body language and looks on their face communicate things...we saw some of that recently (Obama/Putin)...Putin was all smiles, Obama not so much.

[warspite1]

Hendaye - October 23rd 1940.

The Nazis wouldn't be sitting around doing nothing.

France falls so fast there is hardly time to grasp the enormity of what's happened, let alone have decided on what course the war takes from here on in.

So....

1. Hitler still wants peace with Britain and makes one last generous offer of peace [8|]

2. Churchill tells Adolf very politely where he can stick his offer - ouch! [X(]

3. Hitler, knowing the British have suffered an enormous defeat at Dunkirk and 'knowing' (thanks to Goering bending his ear) that the RAF can be easily crushed, goes for the obvious. A quick war ending move against Blighty, allowing him to move against the Soviet Union without fear of fighting on two fronts.

4. The Battle of Britain starts. Well, who'd a thought it? Turns out that genius Goering was talking sloblocks and the British were not so easily beaten.

5. Without control of the air, Sealion is beginning to make the Charge of the Light Brigade look like a sensible military operation. Hitler, now with a large and ever growing hard on for the USSR, decides to turn his attention east.

6. He still worries about the UK though and seeks out his ol' mucker Franco for a bit of a chin wag and to find out his price for joining the war.

7. Ouch part II! [X(] Well he was rubbish wasn't he boys and girls?
Hitler realises Spain is more trouble than she's worth, gets bored, and turns his attention to where its at..... Lebensraum.

I think that as it is, Hitler deciding on a potentially long term Med strategy is pushing plausibility. The idea that he would choose such a strategy straight away is too much I think. But that's just my tuppence.

[Jagdtiger14]

By Hendaye October 23 1940, you mean the Germans make it there at that date with the army?

I'm not really interested in what Hitler and the Nazi's decided to do...they chose, and that is history. We all know from history that political decisions in war are a bad idea. The Nazi's actual decided on plan to pursue the belligerent Brits post France was based on politics while they ignored able commanders' advise. The logical choice is to listen to those able non-political commanders and that is the direction I'm sure you would take as well. Lets assume Hitler is assassinated post France and an able commander acceptable to the Nazi party is appointed new leader (Rundstedt?).

Diplomacy can occur while the army marches.

Your number 3 is not at all obvious to able non-political commanders, and the idea that Hitler would even listen to Goering after Goering's failed Dunkirk operation is just crazy. If your air commander promised you something on a very important and critical mission and he embarrassingly failed at it, would you trust him a second time (even right after that failure) with a very big and important operation?...no you would not. You would have sacked him post Dunkirk.

The Germans hardly stood a chance at any kind of Sea Lion with no lift...sorry, but Dutch canal scows were not going to do it for Germany. Germany's only chance (assuming we are in command) would have been if they had captured those Brits at Dunkirk, got the US involved in diplomatic talks with the Brits for the return of those troops, including fair and free international monitored elections for the nations recently conquered (Poland Mosavian rump, Alsace Loraine from France with a 5 year withdrawl and some demilitarizing program). If the Brits reject the offer, Germany continues to go after their strategic possessions within Axis grasp (clearing and controlling the English Channel, and the Med strategy) with the above option remaining on the table.

What I would like to look at is what was realistically possible after June 25 '40 (ie...what would 'you' do) and what the British response could/would have been and how far the Axis could have taken it using the tools that were available to each side as the time table moves along. Try to divorce 20/20 hindsight by taking the advise of rational commanders comments and objections in real time to what actually happened.

[warspite1]

No, you asked where and when the meeting was.

I think the problem is, if reality is suspended too much it no longer becomes an interesting exercise that explores the outer limits (but still within the limitations of the personalities involved) but just an Axis wet dream.

So Germany defeats France and then:

- No Battle of Britain with none of the losses to the Luftwaffe that incurred.
- The Axis deciding to work together in an organised, thought out logical manner - so no half-arsed premature 'invasion' of Egypt.
- Spain joining Germany (whether by choice or forced choice - makes no difference).
- No half-arsed ridiculous invasions of Greece.

In the meantime what mistakes are the Commonwealth allowed to rectify? [;)]

[Jagdtiger14]

What mistakes did CW make post June 25'40? Can you give me a list?

I thought this discussion was about Spain, Franco, Gibraltar, and what that could/would have meant going on from there.

The mistakes you list:
1. Battle of Britain was argued against when it went beyond the English Channel...by valued commanders with tactical experience. I'm ok with a limited Battle of Britain that at most goes to the British shore line perhaps knocking out (daily?) the radar towers (even though the Germans didn't know what they were, but did know there was some kind of military significance to them).
2. I don't have a problem with Italy making their historical bone head moves, so long as they agree to lend Germany useful tools the Germans can use to good effect at the time they need it.
3. Franco being forced to make a decision asap is a no brainer and where I thought this discussion was headed.
4. Go ahead with the historical Greece invasion.

I agree with anyone that after the historical Battle of Britain, its pretty much over for Germany with the time/pilots/resources lost doing something suicidal and idiotic that clear minded commanders knew was a mistake. Germany was not ready for a 1941 Barbarossa...its amazing they did as well as they did. Forget Spain and Franco...too much lost time and resources, and the Med/Italy/Africa would eventually be lost without Gibraltar in Axis hands even if Rommel had taken Egypt. This outcome can be directly traced to the Battle of Britain. And what would the Battle of Britain result in if Germany had "won" it? Still no invasion without the proper lift...Battle of Britain/Sea Lion was lost 1. without long term prep, and 2. Allied troops evacuated from Dunkirk (plus other parts of France after Paris fell). So, if you want to include the historical Battle of Britain, I will agree with what ever negative German/positive CW outcome you want to get at.

[warspite1]

What mistakes did CW make post June 25'40? Can you give me a list?

No - there was a smiley there.

I thought this discussion was about Spain, Franco, Gibraltar, and what that could/would have meant going on from there.

Yes it is. But in so doing I cannot see how its reasonable to expect Franco to accept Germans on Spanish soil - and that means invasion. But I simply don't see Hitler invading his fellow fascist for a project that he really has little interest in.

Look at it from Franco's point of view.

As said, the country is one %^&&*^% mess thanks to 3-years of civil war. His position is not exactly the strongest.

His 'friend' Hitler meets him to seek Spain's price for joining the war. Franco's response is not just about military hardware - Spain also needs little luxuries like food! Then there is the thorny issue of French Morocco.

So, having had the meeting, Hitler decides (quite reasonably) that Spain is too much trouble for what he gets back and leaves well alone - albeit with a promise by Franco to join the war when Spain is in a position to do so, and in the meantime will do whatever he can e.g. U-boat bases, Spanish Blue Division and resources.

So what happens in this alternative scenario? Hitler says 'to hell with that - I'm invading'.

Franco being forced to make a decision asap is a no brainer

The point has been made - and not just by me, what does any country do when threatened with invasion?, not only invaded but invaded by a friend? (shades of 1809.....) Franco meets Hitler as a friend and an equal and suddenly he gets threatened with invasion. This is anything but a no brainer. There is honour, even amongst thieves...

But....Suspending belief and assuming Hitler makes that decision:

With the army the Spanish have I have no idea how difficult the Spanish could make life in the Pyrenees mountains for the invaders, but the Germans are going to take losses - and use up time - and Gibraltar is a long way from the French border.....

As said, if the Germans invade Spain, Gibraltar is gone - the questions are only:

- How much time does it take?
- How much loss can the CW/Spanish inflict on the Germans in marching down the peninsula and attacking the rock?
- How much do the CW put into the defence - using airbases in Spanish Morocco?
- Do the Germans or Italians try and bring their fleets into play? Do the Germans get through? Does the appearance of the RM finally give Cunningham or Somerville the chance to smack Campioni into the next world without the Italians running away?

I will see if I can track down a Spanish OOB - but not hopeful.

Any other thoughts out there?

[Orm]

Is this a historical 'what if' discussion or a discussion about a strategy in MWIF?

[Klydon]

A couple of things to add to the conversation.

First, in historical terms, the Axis would have faced a lot of logistical issues in Africa even if Malta was taken. The issue is the port capacity available. According to a book I have, General von Thoma went to Africa after the Italians joined and did a study along with inspecting the Italian installations/troops. He came to the conclusion that with the logistical limits about the max that could be supported would be 4 panzer divisions and that force should be just big enough to get the job done against the CW. He insisted on using the highest quality of troops and that meant no Italians, which was not acceptable to the Italian government. In MWiF, the logistical limits are not really that closely reigned in, but just some back ground.

No Battle of Britain for the Luftwaffe (or at least a reduced version more over the coast and channel) would have been huge for the Axis. The early Luftwaffe was a heavy short puncher with a glass jaw. The Germans had over 2500 aircraft to start with and by the time it was done, they had lost almost 1900 planes along with the cream of their aircrew and pilots. Given German aircraft production during this time period, those losses were never made good and it was never really made good on the aircrew-pilot side either in terms of quality and quantity.

When the Germans invaded Russia, they had maybe 2700 aircraft committed to the eastern front. (So barely more than what was available for the Battle of Britain). By 5 July 1941, the Germans had suffered the loss of nearly 500 aircraft with another 300 damaged.

One can only imagine what another 1000 aircraft would have meant to the Eastern front along with having a sizeable reserve for employment elsewhere (say the Med).

[Centuur]

I agree on the analysis of Klydon regarding the German Luftwaffe. But there is another, not well known fact also. During the paradrops in the Netherlands, the Germans lost 50% of the Ju-52's they had at the time (mainly due to AA fire over the The Hague airfields).

This hampered the build up of the Fallschirmjäger for almost a year due to aircraft shortages. Also, these losses might have been avoided if the German Luftwaffe command wasn't so stubborn again. They had already seen high losses of the Ju-52's in Norway before, so they should have learned to prevent this...

[Jagdtiger14]

Orm: Historical what if.

Klydon: I agree with everything you wrote. Thanks for the info, and what is the name of the book?

Warspite: Oh, ok on the smiley...I didn't think the Brits made many if any mistakes after the fall of France. Kinda hard to do anyway when you can read your opponents orders in real time.

I agree with you concerning Hitler, and I am divorcing Hitler from this discussion since we already know his decisions. If I'm the Fuhrer, and I hear Franco needs food...I got him. I'll be happy to help feed his people, and if its French Morocco he wants to clinch the deal, he's got that too! Spain with German help could probably defend it better than Vichy did anyway.

Please, if it could mean the difference between possibly winning or losing a war (or improving the chances for each), to hell with honor. F that! Are you telling me if you were faced with this decision, you would choose to give up going after Gibraltar because Franco was your political buddy and you are filled with honor about it? After everything Germany and Italy did to bring him to power (blood and treasure), Franco is complaining about this "tough" decision? I would have been tempted to pull out my pistol and shoot Franco in the head right then and there. Suspending belief for me would be the actual decision and outcome Hitler came to. Perhaps I'll chalk it up to my American "sensibilities", but Hitler was a psychopathic idiot, and this decision of his is another point proving that was true.

Tracking down the OOB and as you mention the capabilities of the Spanish armed forces at that time would be big. I will add that there are other factors to look at as well: Morale...the Germans coming fresh off their victory in France...and its not just any victory, but the one sought a quarter century prior and everything that would entail (1919, revenge, euphoria, etc...) vs the Spanish morale...tired and weak after the civil war, facing a powerful foe that just kicked the hell out of two powerful nations in just several weeks. Then there is also propaganda: Hey Spain...we just want to come through your country to take Gibraltar from Britain and eventually give it back to you...you know...that rock you've been complaining about not having since the 1700's? We don't want to fight you...just let us come down there and take it...we wont stay long after that...by the way...here is food and French Morocco.

I think for this discussion it would be more interesting to assume Franco says no to the Axis, and the Axis invade. You bring up good points on the questions if Germany invades. On the last one (naval) I think we should assume no naval activity by Germany or Italy since I think that would be suicidal and unnecessary...besides, Gibraltar is more valuable when you can base a real fleet there afterwards.

On your other points, I think the first one (time) is the most important. The second point (German losses), keep in mind the CW lost a lot of its equipment at Dunkirk. What did they escape with after they evacuated France after Paris fell?, and what does Wavell have in Egypt and would CW bring that out (maybe the tools and numbers they brought to Crete)? The third: I think the CW knows how critical this is and puts maximum effort into putting air power in Spanish Morocco...what ever airbase capacity Spain has there plus how much more capacity could be increased in the time it takes Germany to get to Gibraltar. I think CW would make this a big priority and try to work as fast on this as they could...but they cant send everything they have there...there is still the threat and air war over the English Channel. Also, do we assume CW attacks the French fleet on July 3, and if so, how pissed are the French at the CW and are they a threat to revenge attack the CW in Spanish Morocco from French Morocco?...Vichy can not be set up yet, unless there is an agreement to allow German forces and supply through the France part.

[AlbertN]

Raeder was the one pushing for the Mediterranean policy, to help Italy; to seize Canaries or Azores (I think the latter) for a forward submarine base; and push through Egypt for the oil rigs of the Middle East.

In general Raeder's point was that Germany / Prussia always tried to avoid to have 2 fronts at once, and he was firmly against an invasion of Russia until the UK would have surrendered.

With insight both the Vichy Government and Franco did not gave much hopes to the Germans, Vichy defended itself - but also never truly reacted (two minor bombing raids with like 8 bombers each on Gibraltar after the attack of Dakar) to the many aggressions the Brits did, including landgrabs (Syria for example.
But Hitler sought the riches of Ukraine - and his burning desire was to defeat the communism; a political movement he had to quell down in Germany during his ascent to power.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

A couple of things to add to the conversation.

First, in historical terms, the Axis would have faced a lot of logistical issues in Africa even if Malta was taken. The issue is the port capacity available. According to a book I have, General von Thoma went to Africa after the Italians joined and did a study along with inspecting the Italian installations/troops. He came to the conclusion that with the logistical limits about the max that could be supported would be 4 panzer divisions and that force should be just big enough to get the job done against the CW. He insisted on using the highest quality of troops and that meant no Italians, which was not acceptable to the Italian government. In MWiF, the logistical limits are not really that closely reigned in, but just some back ground.

warspite1

Yes. The problems of the Germans were twofold - Egypt was of secondary importance and Rommel wouldn't obey orders. He suffered losses the Germans could not afford to replace - and even if they could AND build up his fighting strength - supplies for those units was always the limiting factor.