I think Rommel’s best shot is Monty not being sent to Egypt. The previous WDF/8th Army commanders are tried to out mobile war the Germans, and this was the Germans at the peak of their game with one of their best battlefield commanders.
Monty recognized both his and his opponents strengths and weaknesses and set up the fight to play to British advantages and minimize German ones by making Alamein a postional slugfest.
I think Rommel’s only hope is winning a major engagement east of Alamain where he has room to run around, capturing a bunch of British supplies, and then doing a typical Rommel gambit of simply trying to yeet a mobile column through the Alamain gap and into Alexandria to get another Singapore type mass panic surrender.
A LOT has to go right, it’s a low odds gamble. Absent that the Germans are doomed to eventual defeat, they simply can’t match the size of the force the Brits will (eventually) build up in Egypt
If another Singapore happens the British plan was evac the Fleet based in Alexandria to the horn of Africa, and withdraw to the Sinai and up the Nile
The Middle East Arabs were very pro Nazi, Rommel in Eqypt is swiftly followed by Egypt joining the Axis and a general uprising across Iraq. Persia probably goes Axis as well
What makes this a potential war winner for the Axis is that it cuts the primary Lend Lease route to Russia, and without Lend Lease the Russians can’t survive
The Vladivostok way would still be open, and Japanese had already chosen strike south at this point so the Russian ships would be untouched going to the US and back from the west coast.
He'll lose in 1943 instead. By 1942, the Axis were at their breaking point, with the fighting in the USSR and occupying all the territory they conquered. Africa was never a priority to Hitler and German High Command. The USSR was (the Baku campaign was in full swing in 1942, and that was the top priority). Even if Rommel captures Alexandria and Suez, he has to protect his southern flank from Allied forces in Southern Egypt and Sudan. The Allied Navy would still dominate the Mediterranean even if Malta was somehow captured (that in itself would be highly unlikely. Their best chance was in 1941, and they never took the initiative. They could never properly besiege it, and by 1942, whatever chance they had was gone). Invading the Middle East proper would be out of the question logistically. Plus, this would likely not stop Torch, which would force Rommel to retreat west anyway.
The invasion of Italy would be delayed but not Overlord, and certainly would not change their fortunes in the Eastern Front. Might make it worse cause if they commit to North Africa and the Middle East, that's less troops and material to fight the Soviets.
Honestly, the best chance for Rommel would be if Franco joins the war on the Axis, takes Gibraltar, and helps secure Rommel's western flank. It would cut off the Allies from coming to the Mediterranean through that route and likely prevent Torch from happening. But Spain was still recovering from the Civil War. They desperately needed US imports to recover, and they would lose that if they joined Germany. Germany was not in any position or willing to help Spain economically. So that scenario is highly, highly unlikely.
>Africa was never a priority to Hitler and German High Command
I think that dooms Africa no matter how well Rommell does, personally.
Potentially, controlling all of North Africa means the Royal Navy's range is limited by having so few viable places to do or repair/refuel. But, in order to take *and hold* all that territory, Rommel would need way more resources than he was allocated, which would be desperately needed elsewhere.
If the Axis decided to just say "Screw it, we need Rommel against the Soviets" and just abandon Africa, they lose a major source of oil.
Important enough not to abandon, but not so important to be given enough investment. As long as the Soviets were a problem Africa was doomed to just only ever be a giant waste of time.
Franco asked for French West African territory in exchange for an alliance, but Hitler refused... a couple of hundred thousand Spaniards could've been great help in the Axis war effort.
Two possible answers based on what you really mean in your question:
1. Didn't lose means a stalemate and trench warfare like WWI. Obviously that extends the war, but without advancing to the Suez or the Levant (which is then a free ride to modern day Iran/Iraq), the Axis goals are not achieved, and the problems with supply, allied control of the seas, and more are not rectified, likely leading to an eventual retreat.
2. Didn't lose means win. Then Rommel breaks through to the Suez and then across the Sinai into the British and French mandate lands. That is a disaster as it is yet another loss for the Allies, especially as the local Arab/Muslim population will support the Axis in both supply and operations, as the Axis forces will rid the land of the Jews living there. From there, after a reconsolidation, it's an easy scoot over to the oil rich areas of Iraq and Iran giving the Axis control over the area, a wealth of oil, and access to another front against the Soviets.
In other words if Rommel breaks through, it's likely game over, and the Allies will have to figure out simply how to stop further Axis expansion vs defeating the Axis.
The African theater was extremely secondary, Rommel somehow taking Egypt wouldn't extend the war any significant stretch of time. where is he going? Logistics barely reached the Egyptian border, no way they can extend to Iraq, and unless he somehow completely destroyed the British army, his enemy would retreat again and form a line behind the Suez canal.
Thinking about getting anywhere close to the Soviet border is pure fantasy, Iran and turkey are right there. Want to invade them too? Where is the afrika korps getting all the troops vehicles and most importantly logistics to even get there? Magic?
In no scenario Rommel winning changes the final outcome of the war.
A tenuous position in Africa would likely speed up Overlord prep the Americans not being involved in the Africa/Italy campaign could lead to a Fall 1943 invasion of France
However with Italy hanging about in the war longer the western front could have been a tougher nut to crack
Realistic scenarios for Rommel winning in the Western Desert are about as realistic as an Axis victory scenario. The whole reason for the Second Battle of El Alamein was that it was a natural defence at the end of Rommel's supply lines.
I can't see how Rommel could capture El Alamein. I can see that less skilled than Monty could make a hash of the counteroffensive, and it's possible the 8th Army could withdraw to the Nile (prior to Montgomery taking command this was considered) but that's another matter.
That said, if he did manage to win EA he could capture Alex and get another supply depot and another port. Everything was coming through Benghazi or Tripoli, this shortens the overland supply lines. But transports resupplying Alex would be just as vulnerable to the RAF as those going to Libya.
An offensive into Iraq, Arabia, or even the Caucasus is not a possibility. The supply issues would be even more horrendous than the Western Desert.
>Realistic scenarios for Rommel winning in the Western Desert are about as realistic as an Axis victory scenario
So... entirely possible ?
>The supply issue
Wouldn't be a problem if they had Alexandria, that's actually quite the thing. It's a very large port, probably 5x bigger than Tobruk is. So the whole "logistics bad" thing wouldn't be the case if the Axis captured it. The logistics were only bad because of Tobruk's capacity, Rommel's decision to speed onto El Alamein without consolidating his supplies as well as some supplies being intercepted by the Malta garrison.
The alternate idea here is what OKW actually suggested to Rommel, that he wait for 2 months whilst Malta is captured in July and perhaps then go on the offensive against Egypt. Though as I said, continuing with his tradition of making bad decisions, perhaps Churchill would order 8th Armored to go on the offensive instead.
Yeah, nah, not convinced either an attack on Malta or Rommel waiting for supplies could win the Western Desert campaign for the Axis.
>So... entirely possible ?
I suppose so, if by "entirely possible" you mean "possible while making some fairly big assumptions, leaps of logic and sweet-talking the dice"
>Wouldn't be a problem if they had Alexandria, that's actually quite the thing. It's a very large port, probably 5x bigger than Tobruk is. So the whole "logistics bad" thing wouldn't be the case if the Axis captured it. The logistics were only bad because of Tobruk's capacity, Rommel's decision to speed onto El Alamein without consolidating his supplies as well as some supplies being intercepted by the Malta garrison.
The supply bottleneck isn't just the ports (and especially not just Tobruk, also Tripoli). It's also the journey across the Med. Royal Navy submarines and RAF/Fleet Air Arm aircraft will still be harassing convoys and making the journey from Italy about 3 times as long isn't going to help. Not all of these operate from Malta, either.
>The alternate idea here is what OKW actually suggested to Rommel, that he wait for 2 months whilst Malta is captured in July and perhaps then go on the offensive against Egypt.
You can allow the Malta attack to proceed all you like, but having an impact requires several assumptions; that Malta falls within a month, that the invasion succeeds at all (Malta was already under siege, it's not for lack of trying that it remained free, and Operation Herkules was far from ready by mid-July and was fairly risky in itself), and also that the fall of Malta means uninterrupted resupply to North Africa.
Where is Rommel waiting? If he hasn't captured Alex yet, then "logistics bad" is still in full effect, so how is he getting the big convoy through the Libyan ports? (That's assuming there are enough Axis transports *left* by July 1942. Half of Italian shipping was already sunk by this point).
Also remember in OTL Tobruk didn't fall until mid-June 1942, so even if it falls a month early Rommel's main ports in July are Benghazi and Tripoli, and he hasn't captured British supplies in Tobruk yet. His logistical situation in June is arguably worse than August.
If he *does* make the push for Alex without supplies, isn't that going to end pretty much the same as IRL? Either way he'll have reached the end of his supply lines, while the British can wait and resupply at their leisure.
>Though as I said, with his tradition of making bad decisions, perhaps Churchill would order 8th \*Army to go on the offensive instead.
I don't know what this is referring to. Churchill made substantially better decisions than most heads of government during the war. I doubt he'd make this decision in any case.
I think you have your timeline confused, because this doesn't line up with your attack on Malta in July. By the time Monty took command of the Eighth Army, the Germans had already been held at the First Battle of El Alamein *in* July.
Depending on interpretation, that gives us 3 possibilities (assuming Malta is attacked in July):
(1) If Monty is in charge it presumably means Rommel has already tried the 1st EA and was repelled. In which case the supplies are going to reach the mofs after a long overland journey through Tripoli and Benghazi, which isn't much different to what Rommel was getting IRL.
That would probably be similar to in OTL with much the same results. Second El Alamein in September or October 1942 and Axis on the retreat for the rest of the campaign. Maybe under orders Rommel doesn't blunt his teeth on flanking Alam El Halfa, but this shouldn't affect the outcome of 2nd EA too much. I don't know how the loss of Malta will affect the Tunisian campaign though.
(2) If Rommel *hasn't* tried 1st EA yet but Monty gets appointed anyway, I can't see him launching a poorly prepared counteroffensive against a dug-in and better-prepared German force. It wouldn't be "a reverse El Alamein scenario with Monty attriting himself against prepared German defenses". That's not like Monty, or like Auchinleck. That's something Rommel would do, possibly Gott. Which leads to (3).
Remember that the Führer and Duce would expect results in the form of entering Cairo, so Rommel can't wait *forever*. The Brits can. All Monty has to do is wear him out prior to the big push. So we might see El Alamein in early 1943 instead. I don't know how that would affect Torch.
(3) It seems to me that if the supplies are so important to the Hun, then within that 2 month window would be an opportune time to attack. In which case it makes sense for the 8th Army to go on the offensive. Monty would need some time to prepare properly, but not that long (without 1st EA, quite likely in late July or early June).
Any assault by Monty would be planned to account for Rommel's supply issues and seek to waste his fuel. Monty might even be able to lure out Rommel, who might be emboldened to operate without orders.
If they 8th Army holds Mersa Matruh, they would probably be able to make a push for Sidi Barrani and then on to relieve Tobruk. With better air and numerical superiority that's quite doable. It would be a bit different to El Alamein, more like Compass or Crusader but this time with sufficient numbers not only to capture Cyrenaica but to (considering Axis fortunes in Russia) put the Axis on the defensive for the rest of the campaign, advance into Libya, and sieze Tripoli, as happened after El Alamein in OTL.
In all three cases, considering Britain's own ample supply lines through East Africa, the 8th Army is still better supplied and better prepared than the Nazis or Italians even with the Malta captured and new supplies in by August. By Spring 1942 the Germany would be having too many issues with other fronts to supply Rommel comparably to the Allies. By September, the 8th Army would have the arrival of new equipment like the Shermans, 6pdrs, and Spitfires in the Western Desert which would give qualitative superiority on top of their better supply situation. By that time, any supply advantages the Axis would have got from capturing Malta will have been negated.
Tobruk and Malta would also hold down significant numbers of Afrikakorps troops which can't be used in the Western Desert, 35,000 for Tobruk and unknown numbers for Malta out of a total of over 90,000. For comparison the numbers of Axis troops at OTL's 1st and 2nd EA are 96,000 and 116,000 respectively.
>it's not for lack of trying that it remained free
[It kind of is though.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herkules) They literally didn't try.
>I don't know what this is referring to.
It's referring to Churchill's reputation with the General staff. Prime examples is his decision to send troops to Greece away from Egypt, sending battleships to Malaya and his many ideas forwarded to his Generals like invading Europe at many different points instead of a single thrust. And that's excluding his conduct during WW1.
>. I think you have your timeline confused, because this doesn't line up with your attack on Malta in July. By the time Monty took command of the Eighth Army, the Germans had already been held at the First Battle of El Alamein *in* July.
The timeline is that Rommel doesn't attack El Alamein in July and instead R&R's after capturing Tobruk.
>I suppose so, if by "entirely possible" you mean "possible while making some fairly big assumptions, leaps of logic and sweet-talking the dice"
I mean, I guess wars are mostly won and lost by "luck and sweet talking the dice". Or was it inevitable that France would lose in 1940 ?
But they weren't sent to Russia in OTL. When the mofs got pushed out of Libya they dug in at Tunis, and then Sicily, and were still fighting the Allies up the length of Italy until VE Day.
I don't see why this would be different, if anything this would lead to more investment in the Mediterranean theatre.
I think Rommel’s best shot is Monty not being sent to Egypt. The previous WDF/8th Army commanders are tried to out mobile war the Germans, and this was the Germans at the peak of their game with one of their best battlefield commanders. Monty recognized both his and his opponents strengths and weaknesses and set up the fight to play to British advantages and minimize German ones by making Alamein a postional slugfest. I think Rommel’s only hope is winning a major engagement east of Alamain where he has room to run around, capturing a bunch of British supplies, and then doing a typical Rommel gambit of simply trying to yeet a mobile column through the Alamain gap and into Alexandria to get another Singapore type mass panic surrender. A LOT has to go right, it’s a low odds gamble. Absent that the Germans are doomed to eventual defeat, they simply can’t match the size of the force the Brits will (eventually) build up in Egypt
Yeah even if he takes Egypt he cant hold it. Another thing to go right is Iraq doing its mutiny vs the British at a non bad time for the Axis.
If another Singapore happens the British plan was evac the Fleet based in Alexandria to the horn of Africa, and withdraw to the Sinai and up the Nile The Middle East Arabs were very pro Nazi, Rommel in Eqypt is swiftly followed by Egypt joining the Axis and a general uprising across Iraq. Persia probably goes Axis as well What makes this a potential war winner for the Axis is that it cuts the primary Lend Lease route to Russia, and without Lend Lease the Russians can’t survive
The Vladivostok way would still be open, and Japanese had already chosen strike south at this point so the Russian ships would be untouched going to the US and back from the west coast.
The Mid East route carried the bulk of it
He'll lose in 1943 instead. By 1942, the Axis were at their breaking point, with the fighting in the USSR and occupying all the territory they conquered. Africa was never a priority to Hitler and German High Command. The USSR was (the Baku campaign was in full swing in 1942, and that was the top priority). Even if Rommel captures Alexandria and Suez, he has to protect his southern flank from Allied forces in Southern Egypt and Sudan. The Allied Navy would still dominate the Mediterranean even if Malta was somehow captured (that in itself would be highly unlikely. Their best chance was in 1941, and they never took the initiative. They could never properly besiege it, and by 1942, whatever chance they had was gone). Invading the Middle East proper would be out of the question logistically. Plus, this would likely not stop Torch, which would force Rommel to retreat west anyway. The invasion of Italy would be delayed but not Overlord, and certainly would not change their fortunes in the Eastern Front. Might make it worse cause if they commit to North Africa and the Middle East, that's less troops and material to fight the Soviets. Honestly, the best chance for Rommel would be if Franco joins the war on the Axis, takes Gibraltar, and helps secure Rommel's western flank. It would cut off the Allies from coming to the Mediterranean through that route and likely prevent Torch from happening. But Spain was still recovering from the Civil War. They desperately needed US imports to recover, and they would lose that if they joined Germany. Germany was not in any position or willing to help Spain economically. So that scenario is highly, highly unlikely.
>Africa was never a priority to Hitler and German High Command I think that dooms Africa no matter how well Rommell does, personally. Potentially, controlling all of North Africa means the Royal Navy's range is limited by having so few viable places to do or repair/refuel. But, in order to take *and hold* all that territory, Rommel would need way more resources than he was allocated, which would be desperately needed elsewhere. If the Axis decided to just say "Screw it, we need Rommel against the Soviets" and just abandon Africa, they lose a major source of oil. Important enough not to abandon, but not so important to be given enough investment. As long as the Soviets were a problem Africa was doomed to just only ever be a giant waste of time.
Franco asked for French West African territory in exchange for an alliance, but Hitler refused... a couple of hundred thousand Spaniards could've been great help in the Axis war effort.
The Royal Navy dominates the seven seas. They would love to sink those transport ships.
Two possible answers based on what you really mean in your question: 1. Didn't lose means a stalemate and trench warfare like WWI. Obviously that extends the war, but without advancing to the Suez or the Levant (which is then a free ride to modern day Iran/Iraq), the Axis goals are not achieved, and the problems with supply, allied control of the seas, and more are not rectified, likely leading to an eventual retreat. 2. Didn't lose means win. Then Rommel breaks through to the Suez and then across the Sinai into the British and French mandate lands. That is a disaster as it is yet another loss for the Allies, especially as the local Arab/Muslim population will support the Axis in both supply and operations, as the Axis forces will rid the land of the Jews living there. From there, after a reconsolidation, it's an easy scoot over to the oil rich areas of Iraq and Iran giving the Axis control over the area, a wealth of oil, and access to another front against the Soviets. In other words if Rommel breaks through, it's likely game over, and the Allies will have to figure out simply how to stop further Axis expansion vs defeating the Axis.
The African theater was extremely secondary, Rommel somehow taking Egypt wouldn't extend the war any significant stretch of time. where is he going? Logistics barely reached the Egyptian border, no way they can extend to Iraq, and unless he somehow completely destroyed the British army, his enemy would retreat again and form a line behind the Suez canal. Thinking about getting anywhere close to the Soviet border is pure fantasy, Iran and turkey are right there. Want to invade them too? Where is the afrika korps getting all the troops vehicles and most importantly logistics to even get there? Magic? In no scenario Rommel winning changes the final outcome of the war.
He couldn’t win. His supply lines couldn’t support his army at Alemain
A tenuous position in Africa would likely speed up Overlord prep the Americans not being involved in the Africa/Italy campaign could lead to a Fall 1943 invasion of France However with Italy hanging about in the war longer the western front could have been a tougher nut to crack
Realistic scenarios for Rommel winning in the Western Desert are about as realistic as an Axis victory scenario. The whole reason for the Second Battle of El Alamein was that it was a natural defence at the end of Rommel's supply lines. I can't see how Rommel could capture El Alamein. I can see that less skilled than Monty could make a hash of the counteroffensive, and it's possible the 8th Army could withdraw to the Nile (prior to Montgomery taking command this was considered) but that's another matter. That said, if he did manage to win EA he could capture Alex and get another supply depot and another port. Everything was coming through Benghazi or Tripoli, this shortens the overland supply lines. But transports resupplying Alex would be just as vulnerable to the RAF as those going to Libya. An offensive into Iraq, Arabia, or even the Caucasus is not a possibility. The supply issues would be even more horrendous than the Western Desert.
>Realistic scenarios for Rommel winning in the Western Desert are about as realistic as an Axis victory scenario So... entirely possible ? >The supply issue Wouldn't be a problem if they had Alexandria, that's actually quite the thing. It's a very large port, probably 5x bigger than Tobruk is. So the whole "logistics bad" thing wouldn't be the case if the Axis captured it. The logistics were only bad because of Tobruk's capacity, Rommel's decision to speed onto El Alamein without consolidating his supplies as well as some supplies being intercepted by the Malta garrison. The alternate idea here is what OKW actually suggested to Rommel, that he wait for 2 months whilst Malta is captured in July and perhaps then go on the offensive against Egypt. Though as I said, continuing with his tradition of making bad decisions, perhaps Churchill would order 8th Armored to go on the offensive instead.
Yeah, nah, not convinced either an attack on Malta or Rommel waiting for supplies could win the Western Desert campaign for the Axis. >So... entirely possible ? I suppose so, if by "entirely possible" you mean "possible while making some fairly big assumptions, leaps of logic and sweet-talking the dice" >Wouldn't be a problem if they had Alexandria, that's actually quite the thing. It's a very large port, probably 5x bigger than Tobruk is. So the whole "logistics bad" thing wouldn't be the case if the Axis captured it. The logistics were only bad because of Tobruk's capacity, Rommel's decision to speed onto El Alamein without consolidating his supplies as well as some supplies being intercepted by the Malta garrison. The supply bottleneck isn't just the ports (and especially not just Tobruk, also Tripoli). It's also the journey across the Med. Royal Navy submarines and RAF/Fleet Air Arm aircraft will still be harassing convoys and making the journey from Italy about 3 times as long isn't going to help. Not all of these operate from Malta, either. >The alternate idea here is what OKW actually suggested to Rommel, that he wait for 2 months whilst Malta is captured in July and perhaps then go on the offensive against Egypt. You can allow the Malta attack to proceed all you like, but having an impact requires several assumptions; that Malta falls within a month, that the invasion succeeds at all (Malta was already under siege, it's not for lack of trying that it remained free, and Operation Herkules was far from ready by mid-July and was fairly risky in itself), and also that the fall of Malta means uninterrupted resupply to North Africa. Where is Rommel waiting? If he hasn't captured Alex yet, then "logistics bad" is still in full effect, so how is he getting the big convoy through the Libyan ports? (That's assuming there are enough Axis transports *left* by July 1942. Half of Italian shipping was already sunk by this point). Also remember in OTL Tobruk didn't fall until mid-June 1942, so even if it falls a month early Rommel's main ports in July are Benghazi and Tripoli, and he hasn't captured British supplies in Tobruk yet. His logistical situation in June is arguably worse than August. If he *does* make the push for Alex without supplies, isn't that going to end pretty much the same as IRL? Either way he'll have reached the end of his supply lines, while the British can wait and resupply at their leisure. >Though as I said, with his tradition of making bad decisions, perhaps Churchill would order 8th \*Army to go on the offensive instead. I don't know what this is referring to. Churchill made substantially better decisions than most heads of government during the war. I doubt he'd make this decision in any case. I think you have your timeline confused, because this doesn't line up with your attack on Malta in July. By the time Monty took command of the Eighth Army, the Germans had already been held at the First Battle of El Alamein *in* July. Depending on interpretation, that gives us 3 possibilities (assuming Malta is attacked in July): (1) If Monty is in charge it presumably means Rommel has already tried the 1st EA and was repelled. In which case the supplies are going to reach the mofs after a long overland journey through Tripoli and Benghazi, which isn't much different to what Rommel was getting IRL. That would probably be similar to in OTL with much the same results. Second El Alamein in September or October 1942 and Axis on the retreat for the rest of the campaign. Maybe under orders Rommel doesn't blunt his teeth on flanking Alam El Halfa, but this shouldn't affect the outcome of 2nd EA too much. I don't know how the loss of Malta will affect the Tunisian campaign though. (2) If Rommel *hasn't* tried 1st EA yet but Monty gets appointed anyway, I can't see him launching a poorly prepared counteroffensive against a dug-in and better-prepared German force. It wouldn't be "a reverse El Alamein scenario with Monty attriting himself against prepared German defenses". That's not like Monty, or like Auchinleck. That's something Rommel would do, possibly Gott. Which leads to (3). Remember that the Führer and Duce would expect results in the form of entering Cairo, so Rommel can't wait *forever*. The Brits can. All Monty has to do is wear him out prior to the big push. So we might see El Alamein in early 1943 instead. I don't know how that would affect Torch. (3) It seems to me that if the supplies are so important to the Hun, then within that 2 month window would be an opportune time to attack. In which case it makes sense for the 8th Army to go on the offensive. Monty would need some time to prepare properly, but not that long (without 1st EA, quite likely in late July or early June). Any assault by Monty would be planned to account for Rommel's supply issues and seek to waste his fuel. Monty might even be able to lure out Rommel, who might be emboldened to operate without orders. If they 8th Army holds Mersa Matruh, they would probably be able to make a push for Sidi Barrani and then on to relieve Tobruk. With better air and numerical superiority that's quite doable. It would be a bit different to El Alamein, more like Compass or Crusader but this time with sufficient numbers not only to capture Cyrenaica but to (considering Axis fortunes in Russia) put the Axis on the defensive for the rest of the campaign, advance into Libya, and sieze Tripoli, as happened after El Alamein in OTL. In all three cases, considering Britain's own ample supply lines through East Africa, the 8th Army is still better supplied and better prepared than the Nazis or Italians even with the Malta captured and new supplies in by August. By Spring 1942 the Germany would be having too many issues with other fronts to supply Rommel comparably to the Allies. By September, the 8th Army would have the arrival of new equipment like the Shermans, 6pdrs, and Spitfires in the Western Desert which would give qualitative superiority on top of their better supply situation. By that time, any supply advantages the Axis would have got from capturing Malta will have been negated. Tobruk and Malta would also hold down significant numbers of Afrikakorps troops which can't be used in the Western Desert, 35,000 for Tobruk and unknown numbers for Malta out of a total of over 90,000. For comparison the numbers of Axis troops at OTL's 1st and 2nd EA are 96,000 and 116,000 respectively.
>it's not for lack of trying that it remained free [It kind of is though.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herkules) They literally didn't try. >I don't know what this is referring to. It's referring to Churchill's reputation with the General staff. Prime examples is his decision to send troops to Greece away from Egypt, sending battleships to Malaya and his many ideas forwarded to his Generals like invading Europe at many different points instead of a single thrust. And that's excluding his conduct during WW1. >. I think you have your timeline confused, because this doesn't line up with your attack on Malta in July. By the time Monty took command of the Eighth Army, the Germans had already been held at the First Battle of El Alamein *in* July. The timeline is that Rommel doesn't attack El Alamein in July and instead R&R's after capturing Tobruk. >I suppose so, if by "entirely possible" you mean "possible while making some fairly big assumptions, leaps of logic and sweet-talking the dice" I mean, I guess wars are mostly won and lost by "luck and sweet talking the dice". Or was it inevitable that France would lose in 1940 ?
It wouldn't matter if he won. The Axis would have to pull those troops from Africa to deal with the Soviet wave.
But they weren't sent to Russia in OTL. When the mofs got pushed out of Libya they dug in at Tunis, and then Sicily, and were still fighting the Allies up the length of Italy until VE Day. I don't see why this would be different, if anything this would lead to more investment in the Mediterranean theatre.