AR15.Com Archives
 The Germans in Africa in WW2
builttoughf250  [Team Member]
6/23/2010 1:35:54 PM
What was the main need for Zee Germans to go to Africa in WW2 ?

was it to have bases / ports for the military / Kriegsmarine /

or for any possible minerals / oil / natural resources in Africa?
Paid Advertisement
--
OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
6/23/2010 1:52:31 PM
Originally Posted By builttoughf250:
What was the main need for Zee Germans to go to Africa in WW2 ?

was it to have bases / ports for the military / Kriegsmarine /

or for any possible minerals / oil / natural resources in Africa?


Bail the Italians out after their invasion of Ethiopia.
ByNameRequest  [Team Member]
6/23/2010 3:00:27 PM
The Germans did a lot of bailing out of Mussolini's misadventures.....

Closing off the Suez Canal would have helped out the Axis powers as well.
beckman  [Member]
6/23/2010 4:52:24 PM
Basically, the Italians were getting their asses kicked by the Brits. It's funny how that goes. Haile Selassie became emperor in Ethiopia after the previous emperor was deposed. Then, the Italians invaded Ethiopia, the Italians kicked butt and Salassie fled. Then, the Brits beat back the Italians in their Libyan colony, and conquered much of Libya. Then Hitler sent a token force, led by Rommel, to help his Italian allies in Libya. Initially, Rommel was ordered to do little more than help the Italians to prevent a total collapse in Libya. The German high command didn't want to fight a major war in North Africa.

Instead of taking a defensive posture, Rommel attacked, and in the see-saw battles that followed, he advanced into the British colony of Egypt. Eventually, the Brits won, but only after they had obtained a massive numerical superiority for the final Battle of El Alamein, with aid provided by the USA.

Effectively, the German war effort was hurt by Rommel's initial success, because all it did was drain important resources away from the battle with Russia.
raizer  [Team Member]
6/24/2010 8:07:42 AM
Bail out your fascist ally was THE reason

then to support the general effort, the Crete fiasco, while Malta stood unmolested...would lead to a big time failure in 42/43
ByNameRequest  [Team Member]
6/24/2010 9:30:10 PM
Originally Posted By beckman:
Basically, the Italians were getting their asses kicked by the Brits. It's funny how that goes. Haile Selassie became emperor in Ethiopia after the previous emperor was deposed. Then, the Italians invaded Ethiopia, the Italians kicked butt and Salassie fled. Then, the Brits beat back the Italians in their Libyan colony, and conquered much of Libya. Then Hitler sent a token force, led by Rommel, to help his Italian allies in Libya. Initially, Rommel was ordered to do little more than help the Italians to prevent a total collapse in Libya. The German high command didn't want to fight a major war in North Africa.

Instead of taking a defensive posture, Rommel attacked, and in the see-saw battles that followed, he advanced into the British colony of Egypt. Eventually, the Brits won, but only after they had obtained a massive numerical superiority for the final Battle of El Alamein, with aid provided by the USA.

Effectively, the German war effort was hurt by Rommel's initial success, because all it did was drain important resources away from the battle with Russia.


Interestingly enough, there is a lot of contention that the US involvement in North African fighting was a draw on resources/ troops that could have been used elsewhere. I have been starting to read An Army at Dawn, and the author mentions that once FDR made the strategic decision to go into North Africa, a lot of his choices of what to do after that were severely narrowed.
OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
6/24/2010 11:40:34 PM
Originally Posted By ByNameRequest:
Originally Posted By beckman:
Basically, the Italians were getting their asses kicked by the Brits. It's funny how that goes. Haile Selassie became emperor in Ethiopia after the previous emperor was deposed. Then, the Italians invaded Ethiopia, the Italians kicked butt and Salassie fled. Then, the Brits beat back the Italians in their Libyan colony, and conquered much of Libya. Then Hitler sent a token force, led by Rommel, to help his Italian allies in Libya. Initially, Rommel was ordered to do little more than help the Italians to prevent a total collapse in Libya. The German high command didn't want to fight a major war in North Africa.

Instead of taking a defensive posture, Rommel attacked, and in the see-saw battles that followed, he advanced into the British colony of Egypt. Eventually, the Brits won, but only after they had obtained a massive numerical superiority for the final Battle of El Alamein, with aid provided by the USA.

Effectively, the German war effort was hurt by Rommel's initial success, because all it did was drain important resources away from the battle with Russia.


Interestingly enough, there is a lot of contention that the US involvement in North African fighting was a draw on resources/ troops that could have been used elsewhere. I have been starting to read An Army at Dawn, and the author mentions that once FDR made the strategic decision to go into North Africa, a lot of his choices of what to do after that were severely narrowed.


The Germans were using something like less than 1% of their military resources in N. Africa.

So although it was a drain on them, it wasn't that big.

The US wasn't ready to land in mainland Europe in 11/42.

North Africa opened up the Mediterranean, and led to the invasions of Sicily, and Italy, drawing men, equipment, and supplies away from France.
beckman  [Member]
6/25/2010 2:41:49 AM
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
The Germans were using something like less than 1% of their military resources in N. Africa.
[...].
Do you have a source for that stat?

Even ignoring all of the German losses during Rommel's command in North Africa, when the Germans finally surrendered in Tunisia in 1943, the Allies collected some 230,000 German and Italian POWs. For purposes of comparison, when the German 6th Army surrendered at Stalingrad, the Soviets took 91,000 POWs.

Here's a general idea from Wikipedia of the German-Axis losses in the North African campaign and their losses in the Battle of Stalingrad:

North Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
Total Axis:[6]
950,000 total casualties
8,000 aircraft destroyed or captured
6,200 guns destroyed or captured
2,500 tanks destroyed or captured

Stalingrad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(battle)
750,000 killed or wounded
91,000 captured
Aircraft: 900 (including 274 transports and 165 bombers used as transports)[3]:122–123
Total: 841,000 casualties


Yes, Wikipedia isn't perfect, buti this is a general idea.
It should be noted that the Germans lost allot of supplies that were sunk in the Mediterranean because the Allied codebreakers knew when Axis ships would sail.

OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
6/25/2010 3:08:12 AM
Originally Posted By beckman:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
The Germans were using something like less than 1% of their military resources in N. Africa.
[...].
Do you have a source for that stat?

Even ignoring all of the German losses during Rommel's command in North Africa, when the Germans finally surrendered in Tunisia in 1943, the Allies collected some 230,000 German and Italian POWs. For purposes of comparison, when the German 6th Army surrendered at Stalingrad, the Soviets took 91,000 POWs.

Here's a general idea from Wikipedia of the German-Axis losses in the North African campaign and their losses in the Battle of Stalingrad:

North Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
Total Axis:[6]
950,000 total casualties
8,000 aircraft destroyed or captured
6,200 guns destroyed or captured
2,500 tanks destroyed or captured

Stalingrad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(battle)
750,000 killed or wounded
91,000 captured
Aircraft: 900 (including 274 transports and 165 bombers used as transports)[3]:122–123
Total: 841,000 casualties


Yes, Wikipedia isn't perfect, buti this is a general idea.
It should be noted that the Germans lost allot of supplies that were sunk in the Mediterranean because the Allied codebreakers knew when Axis ships would sail.



Count out the Italian prisoners captured, and the numbers get much lower.

There were about 10,000,000 German soldiers on the Russian Front, in 1943.

That doesn't include Luftwaffe, or Kreigsmarine.
raizer  [Team Member]
6/25/2010 7:24:21 AM
yah but your stalingrad figures are for only 6 months-one battle
The N. Africa campaign was almost 2.5 years-so you get a better picture of the totality based on the time lines

You are right about there being a significant amount of supplies that were sunk in the med that was going to rommel. What did rommel have 3 panzer divisions -this is off the top of my head....and the Italians had another 1 armored division. Rommel had I think 2-3 panzergren divisions as well-so total 6 top of the line german divisions. Paulas had an entire army of top of the line, top tier german divisions that were simply vaporized, probably 30-35 divisions that were destroyed
beckman  [Member]
6/25/2010 10:39:04 AM
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By beckman:
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
The Germans were using something like less than 1% of their military resources in N. Africa.
[...].
Do you have a source for that stat?

Even ignoring all of the German losses during Rommel's command in North Africa, when the Germans finally surrendered in Tunisia in 1943, the Allies collected some 230,000 German and Italian POWs. For purposes of comparison, when the German 6th Army surrendered at Stalingrad, the Soviets took 91,000 POWs.

Here's a general idea from Wikipedia of the German-Axis losses in the North African campaign and their losses in the Battle of Stalingrad:

North Africa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
Total Axis:[6]
950,000 total casualties
8,000 aircraft destroyed or captured
6,200 guns destroyed or captured
2,500 tanks destroyed or captured

Stalingrad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(battle)
750,000 killed or wounded
91,000 captured
Aircraft: 900 (including 274 transports and 165 bombers used as transports)[3]:122–123
Total: 841,000 casualties


Yes, Wikipedia isn't perfect, buti this is a general idea.
It should be noted that the Germans lost allot of supplies that were sunk in the Mediterranean because the Allied codebreakers knew when Axis ships would sail.



Count out the Italian prisoners captured, and the numbers get much lower.

There were about 10,000,000 German soldiers on the Russian Front, in 1943.

That doesn't include Luftwaffe, or Kreigsmarine.


A sizeable proportion of the Axis casualties at Stalingrad were non-German, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(battle)
Casualties
Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties (killed, disabled, captured) among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies, many of them POWs who died in Soviet captivity between 1943 and 1955. 400,000 Germans, 120,000 Romanians, 120,000 Hungarians, and 120,000 Italians were killed, wounded or captured.[21]:

You still haven't provided a source for your "1%" statistic., nor have you even defined it. Are you talking about manpower only, or a combination of both men and materiel? The Germans lost much materiel in North Africa, given that the campaign was highly motorized compared to other German fronts, and also given the long supply lines and high loss rate of supplies.

Most of the German losses were in reinforcements and materiel sent in '42-43 and lost in Tunis. The includes entire German divisions, such as 10th Panzer, sent at the end of 1942.

I don't know whether the Germans would have won in Russia had they not fought in North Africa, but the North African campaign didn't help the German effort in Russia.
OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
6/25/2010 3:32:17 PM
Originally Posted By beckman:



I read it in a book, a long time ago, and don't know the name.

If you think that 10,000,000 in the USSR, plus the forces occupying all of mainland Europe................

Africa Korps was extemely small 6-8 divisions, which is appx 60,000-80,000 men.
USMCRONIN  [Member]
6/25/2010 3:55:35 PM
first to save the itailians who had a gaint goat fuck going, second was to kick the Brits out of the suez canal. Oil fields...

Ameshawki  [Member]
6/25/2010 5:22:16 PM
15th Panzer, 21st Panzer, 90th Light, 164th Light, 999th Light, 334th Inf, plus the Ramcke Parachute Brigrade. None were ever at full strength, Rommel was constantly battling supply shortages. The last three units came to the campaign rather late. The first three were the real core of Rommel's army and scored most of his success.

Compared to the Eastern Front, it was really small potatoes.

As stated earlier, the initial impetus was to bail out the Italians, again. Turned into something more. Eventually there were grandiose plans about takiing the Suez Canal, the Mid East Oilfields, then unite with the German Army coming thru the Caucacus Mts and taking out India. Didn't quite work out.
dkstg44  [Member]
6/25/2010 5:46:15 PM
good books on the subject, these will answer most of the questions.

von Mellenthin, Major General F. W. (1971). Panzer Battles: A Study of the Employment of Armor in the Second World War.

Rommel's Desert War: The Life and Death of the Afrika Korps (Stackpole Military History Series) by Samuel W. Mitcham

Afrika Korps by Kenneth Macksey

Knight's Cross : A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel by David Fraser

OLY-M4gery  [Team Member]
6/25/2010 6:53:31 PM
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
15th Panzer, 21st Panzer, 90th Light, 164th Light, 999th Light, 334th Inf, plus the Ramcke Parachute Brigrade. None were ever at full strength, Rommel was constantly battling supply shortages. The last three units came to the campaign rather late. The first three were the real core of Rommel's army and scored most of his success.

Compared to the Eastern Front, it was really small potatoes.

As stated earlier, the initial impetus was to bail out the Italians, again. Turned into something more. Eventually there were grandiose plans about takiing the Suez Canal, the Mid East Oilfields, then unite with the German Army coming thru the Caucacus Mts and taking out India. Didn't quite work out.


Eastern Front, and occupation of France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark, Norway, and more than a few others with active ressistance fighters.

If the Italians screwed the Germans chance for success in the conquest of the USSR, it was by invading Greece, and having to be bailed out there. Which delayed the invasion of the USSR 6 weeks.
Banditman  [Team Member]
6/25/2010 7:03:46 PM
My grandfather pulled this out of a destroyed German Tank in North Africa.
The handguard was burned so he carved a new one for it. You can see that
it is warped now. Simple rifle that I will not part with.



4v50  [Team Member]
6/26/2010 1:22:16 AM
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By builttoughf250:
What was the main need for Zee Germans to go to Africa in WW2 ?

was it to have bases / ports for the military / Kriegsmarine /

or for any possible minerals / oil / natural resources in Africa?


Bail the Italians out after their invasion of Ethiopia.


Actually, bail the Italians out after they were being beaten in Libya. The Italians invaded Egypt and the Brits were kicking the sh*t out of them.
staringback05  [Member]
6/28/2010 8:47:15 PM
as stated alot...first to save the italians...but after they got there, there was hope of closing the suez, nuetralizing the port at alexandria, putting more airbases in the med, and taking out malta...none of which happened when rommels supplies started getting jacked
alkapitano  [Member]
7/7/2010 1:00:10 PM
Originally Posted By Banditman:
My grandfather pulled this out of a destroyed German Tank in North Africa.
The handguard was burned so he carved a new one for it. You can see that
it is warped now. Simple rifle that I will not part with.


Nice rifle. Whats it chambered for? As i understand the Germans used carcanos and rechambered them for 8mm. Just wonderin' if that might be one of them.

Rick-OShay  [Team Member]
7/8/2010 1:31:55 PM
Originally Posted By Banditman:
My grandfather pulled this out of a destroyed German Tank in North Africa.
The handguard was burned so he carved a new one for it. You can see that
it is warped now. Simple rifle that I will not part with.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v655/banditman1/DSC_0320.jpg


...now we know who REALLY shot JFK.....

4v50  [Team Member]
7/9/2010 9:14:40 AM
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Originally Posted By builttoughf250:
What was the main need for Zee Germans to go to Africa in WW2 ?

was it to have bases / ports for the military / Kriegsmarine /

or for any possible minerals / oil / natural resources in Africa?


Bail the Italians out after their invasion of Ethiopia Egypt.


Fixed it for you. BTW, let's not forget the original Afrika Korps. Von Lettow-Vorbeck's Schtuztruppe in Tanganika (Tanzania). They gave the British Empire a run for the money.
Phocks  [Team Member]
7/30/2010 6:32:28 PM
North Africa ended up absorbing 3 out of 25 Panzer Divisions (8%) plus 1 Panzergrenadier division and 2 infantry divisions...plus a large chunk of the Italian Army including most of it's mechanized units. Also elements of the Fallschirmjager forces, including part of the Herman Goring Panzer division and a battalion of Tigers, as well as a huge percentage of the Luftwaffe, particularly the transportation elements, exactly when they would have been really handy to have in Southern Russia. In return, the Germans tied down a massive amount of Allied forces that otherwise would have been...doing nothing at all. Any Allied invasion of France in 1942 would have been a disaster at best (see: Dieppe) and the only realistic place they could have been used in the Med was where they were - the Luftwaffe was still capable of doing a number on any invasion out of range of land-based air. You can easily argue that the Italian Campaign after Sicily was a military boondoggle, but prior to the Summer of 1943, any Allied strategic flexibilty in the ETO, even at the expense of abandoning the Pacific, is largely illusionary. You can also argue that the Allied plans and execution in North Africa and Sicily were badly flawed, but given the fact that they managed to pull out a win even with all those mistakes tells me they probably made the only right choice by avoiding a invasion right into the teeth of Nazi-occupied Europe.
lew  [Member]
8/2/2010 12:11:32 PM
I'm currently reading "Das Afrika Korps" by Frank Kurowski. Good book on the subject.
Pavy  [Team Member]
8/3/2010 1:33:30 AM
To see why Hitler decided to send Rommel to Africa you have to go back to what the Allies did late in the war during WWI in the Balkans. After taking and holding Salonika in 1915 the Allies had a very successful drive in 1918 up through Greece which the Germans were not able to stop. During the planning phase of Barborossa Hitler was afraid of the threat of a Allied drive up through this area again and wanted to secure the Balkans before invading Russia. In fact, most people don't realize that Hitler planned invading Greece south of Bulgaria to an area called Thrace in 1941 (this is partly why the argument that his incursion in to Greece held up the invasion of Russia doesn't hold water) to prevent a repeat of what happened 30 years earlier. To do this he would use the German 12th Army.

You have to remember that Hitler never did anything to help anyone. He did things only to help himself; he was a terrible egomaniac. This is the reason I have a hard time believing he went to help the Italians. Unless the British could be wiped out, or held in check, in Africa and the Middle East the threat to the Balkans always would be there. He sent them there to help keep the British from gaining control over the Mediterranean and his right flank free of trouble. The Italians missed a tremendous opportunity to neutralize the British in 1940 when they out numbered them 10:1 (though quality was obviously not equal) so when he finally did act it was going to be a much tougher fight.
Phocks  [Team Member]
8/3/2010 12:43:39 PM
Originally Posted By Pavy:
To see why Hitler decided to send Rommel to Africa you have to go back to what the Allies did late in the war during WWI in the Balkans. After taking and holding Salonika in 1915 the Allies had a very successful drive in 1918 up through Greece which the Germans were not able to stop. During the planning phase of Barborossa Hitler was afraid of the threat of a Allied drive up through this area again and wanted to secure the Balkans before invading Russia. In fact, most people don't realize that Hitler planned invading Greece south of Bulgaria to an area called Thrace in 1941 (this is partly why the argument that his incursion in to Greece held up the invasion of Russia doesn't hold water) to prevent a repeat of what happened 30 years earlier. To do this he would use the German 12th Army.

You have to remember that Hitler never did anything to help anyone. He did things only to help himself; he was a terrible egomaniac. This is the reason I have a hard time believing he went to help the Italians. Unless the British could be wiped out, or held in check, in Africa and the Middle East the threat to the Balkans always would be there. He sent them there to help keep the British from gaining control over the Mediterranean and his right flank free of trouble. The Italians missed a tremendous opportunity to neutralize the British in 1940 when they out numbered them 10:1 (though quality was obviously not equal) so when he finally did act it was going to be a much tougher fight.



Actually, the invasion of Greece probably never would have happened without the Italian attack in 1940. Before that, Greece was not really considered much of a threat (it's important to remember that a majority of the Allied troops in Salonika in WW1 were French). Then the Italians get thrashed by the Greeks, the British shipped in a few troops and planes thus 'endangering' the main Axis oil supply at Ploesti, and so the OKW was forced to plan an intervention in Greece, through Bulgaria. Then the Yugoslavs went and had a coup, the whole Balkans suddenly looked shaky, and boom now the Germans have to invade them too. The original Afrika Korps (only a reinforced division at first) was only designed to keep the Italians from losing entirely in Africa, only after all the Balkan trouble did the Germans decide that maybe eliminating the British from the Med entirely was worth considering - but by then, they were eyeballs deep in Russians, and they no longer had the means to do so.

So anyway, this is a classic example of how the Germans improvised, on-the-fly operational style of warfare had serious limitations when confronted with the lack of an integrated, decided strategy.
Pavy  [Team Member]
8/4/2010 10:52:29 PM
I think we agree for the most part, just on a couple of minor points do I have things differently. I think you are right that Hitler wouldn’t have invaded Greece if not for Italy, but it had more to do than just the fact that he wanted that area of the world ‘at peace’ for the oil you mention. The Balkans and Adriatic were in Italy’s ‘spheres of influence’, and once the Italians did invade, and had trouble, he really didn’t have a choice. Hitler couldn’t afford to have the British in Greece, nor Italy not succeeding.

The Germans didn’t fear the Greeks coming up through Thrace, they feared the British doing it, and with good reason. As was pointed out the Allies did this in WWI and if they repeated it could have opened another front (though in the rear of his armies?) during the Russia invasion. In fact a week after Italy invaded Greece Hitler decided to ‘participate’ in Greece, and a week after that the German High Command issued Directive 18 calling for the invasion of Greece, capture of Gibraltar and the Suez canal. At this point the British weren’t even in Greece though their bombers might have been able to hit the oil fields in Romania from Crete. Churchill, with visions of WWI dancing in his head, asked General Metaxas to allow British troops to help the Greeks. Metaxas declined saying it would provoke the Germans, so the British sent troops to Crete instead. In December of 1940 when Spain said no to German troops going through their country to invade Gibraltar Directive 18 was scrapped and Directive 20 was issued calling alone for the invasion of Greece, then given the title Operation Marita.

Only when Metaxas died did Churchill get his wish and in early March British troops were in Greece. That was months after the Germans had issued orders for the invasion of Greece. The British had already moved bombers to Crete a few days after the Italian invasion and Hitler sent Luftwaffe units to Romania to protect them. What set Hitler off was the coup in Yugoslavia you mentioned. Yugoslavia had reluctantly signed in to the Tripartite Pact before the coup, but after it Hitler was convinced they would join the Allies. This lead to him wanting “to destroy the country”. A few weeks later he invaded Greece and Yugoslavia on April 6.

The threat to the oil fields in Romania didn’t come from the British alone. Russia had wrestled Bessarabia and Bukovina from Romania in June 1940 which took them all the way to the Danube. This created the ability of the Russians to choke off their supply line from the east. As a result of this Hitler moved forces from Poland in to Romania. And this wasn’t a small force, it was 10 infantry and 2 armored divisions.
0331_usmc  [Member]
11/6/2010 11:40:53 PM
One word: OIL!!! They needed the oil fields in the mid east
Phocks  [Team Member]
11/7/2010 9:21:27 AM
Originally Posted By 0331_usmc:
One word: OIL!!! They needed the oil fields in the mid east


Actually, no. Hitler was focussed on the Caucasian and Balkan oil fields. Libya's oil wasn't discovered until after the war and the Iraqi/Arabian fields were simply too far away to be much use- the Axis simply wouldn't have been able to move the crude oil to refineries. Crude oil, by itself, is not all that useful. While there was one pipeline from the Gulf to the Med, it was wholly under British control, and they had extensive, thourough plans to completely demolish it at even the first hint of any Axis threat. Even if, by a miracle, it was captured intact and functioning, getting the oil to Syria wouldn't be all that useful due to the fact that the Axis had virtually no tankers to carry it further, and taking it through Turkey via train would have been, at best, a very limited route. In the end, a neutral Greece would have probably been far more useful to the Axis than an occupied one, and a neutral Yugoslavia probably even more so. Thanks, Il Duce!
gaweidert  [Team Member]
11/9/2010 7:18:21 AM
I believe that during the Munich conference that turned the Sudetenland over to Germany that Mussolini backed Germany. It was the tipping point of the conference. Hitler never forgot that support and remained intensely loyal to Mussolini from then on. This explains a lot of his later actions regarding support for Italy and Mussolini in particular.

The US got involved in North Africa because there was intense pressure to do "something" in the European theater. The American public could not understand the lack of support for the Pacific theater while "nothing was happening in Europe. At the time of Operation torch we had been at war Germany fro almost a year and had no ground combat troops actively engaged against them. We were getting out butts kicked in the Pacific for most of 1942. We only devoted about 15% of our military resources to the Pacific theater at that time. Operation Torch was considered a good "low risk" operation to give the Army the chance to work the kinks out. Did a pretty good job of it too. Plus, once the Axis powers were removed from Africa it was a pretty base to bomb parts of Europe from.
raizer  [Team Member]
11/9/2010 9:05:26 AM
Yah Torch, Husky and Buffalo were simply dress rehearsals for the Overlord. We had no idea what we needed or how to conduct operational/strategic amphibious landings in 1942. Atkinson's books are so good on this
4v50  [Team Member]
11/11/2010 6:07:10 AM
Originally Posted By 0331_usmc:
One word: OIL!!! They needed the oil fields in the mid east


Nope. It was Rommel's dream to cross the Suez and enter Russia from the Caucasus. Hitler wanted only a holding action to keep the Italians from losing any more ground.

Another good book is David Irving's, Trail of the Fox.
BD1a  [Team Member]
12/12/2010 9:20:06 AM
Originally Posted By lew:
I'm currently reading "Das Afrika Korps" by Frank Kurowski. Good book on the subject.


Ive been told by several folks, who are incredibly educated in the matters of ww2, that Franz has an active imagination in some of his books. I cant speak for Das Afrika Korp, but all of his 'Aces' books arent exactly truthful as to events that actually did or in some cases never took place.

Just some food for thought.
Paid Advertisement
--