What If...Afrika Korps Rescued

[gavmeister13]

If the Afrika Korps had been brought back to Europe instead of being captured how would this have affected the war effort, if at all?

[Tom Houlihan]

In a few scattered instances, it would have had a big effect on the tactical situation. On all fronts, all commanders would have welcomed new men. In the long run, though, I doubt it would have made any difference in the final outcome.

[Dackelstaffel]

Hi,

What do you mean by Afrikakorps ? Just the german troops or both the german troops and the italian army of North Africa ? Because in the second case, politically maybe Mussolini could have kept the power after the 25th of july 1943.

[gavmeister13]

i mean both the German and Italian troops

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

I would suggest that there would have been an even bigger impact if the Afrika Korps had never been sent in the first place. Almost all Anglo-American combat experience (and their only successes against the Germans) had occurred in North Africa. Can you imagine Anglo-American problems mounting an invasion of mainland Europe if virtually none of their troops had had combat experience, and those few that did had only experienced defeat?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Colonel Christian]

As with all fronts Germany needed the manpoer. This same scenerio applies to Stalingrad, the Falise Pocket, Cherbourg any other positions that Hitler ordered held to the last man and square meter of ground. However, evacuating German and Italian forces from North Arfrica would have proven a disaster in its self due to the allied edfforts to effectively stop surface resupply movements from Italy to North Africa. Movement of these forces by naval surface units would have been a blood bath.

[LukeMiguez]

The Africa Corps wasn't that big anyways (if you count just the germans). But with the Italians, Mussolini might of held power longer with the Italian army capable possibly to fight in Italy, and historically armies have fought with more ferocity when fighting on their homeland. Perhaps the Invasion of Italy would of failed.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Luke Miguez,

I agree. Before the war, Italy had three armoured divisions and two motorised divisions. It lost them all in North Africa. Italy also lost other wartime-raised specialist units such as its only complete parachute and air landing divisions. Italy's military situation would probably have benefitted more from the rescue of these formations than Germany's would have from the rescue of the Afrika Korps.

Cheers,

Sid.

[LukeMiguez]

Italy seems to have had quite a large military before the war. If they had better tanks and the supply lines to support the army through out the Mediterranean. Italy could have captured Greece and Egypt in 1940 without much difficulty, then transfered a large army to support Hitler's invasion of Russia.

[sid guttridge]

Hi LukeMiguez,

The size of Italy's pre-war army was something of an illusiion.

For example, in the mid-1930s it adopted a "binary" infantry division structure that had only six infantry battalions. Other armies had "ternary" divisions with nine infantry battalions. Italian weaponry was also very outdated. Furthermore, when war broke out in 1939 Italy had three armoured divisions using almost useless tankettes but no modern tanks in service at all.

Italy had very real problems in 1940, but with wiser deployments and more forceful operational leadership I think it could have captured Egypt and Greece that year. However, I don't think this would have released many additional forces for the Eastern Front as there would probably still have been African and Middle Eastern battllefronts to maintain against the British and additional occupation duties. And even if Italian armoured divisions did reach the Eastern Front they would have been totally outclassed by Russian armour.

Cheers,

Sid.

[LukeMiguez]

Hello sid,

The german military itself at the time of the russia invasion was itself almost like a "2 era" army. Since the Panzer and Motorized Infantry Divisions were highly mobile, and the rest of the infantry divisions as well as the Romanian, Finnish and Hungarian were marching into russia on foot or by horse cart. I believe that even with the outmatched tankettes that the Italians had, more mobile troops would have helped Germany in destroying the ever increasing russian reserves.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Luke,

Even under optimum conditions, Italy's light tank forces probably lacked the capacity to create their own major breakthroughs on the Eastern Front. Even Soviet anti-tank rifles could knock out any of the 13/40, 14/41 or 15/42 light tanks the Italians could field.

I think that Italian mechanised forces would only have been of value during the exploitation phase of any operation on the Eastern Front, and then only so long as they didn't run into Russian T-34s or heavier. This would essentially mean exploiting German breakthroughs.

In short, I don't think that even if the entire five-division Italian mechanised force had been available on the Eastern Front on 22 June 1941 that it could have decisively influenced events. Of course, in practice this could not have happened even if they had been available, because Hitler did not tell Mussolini of his plans to attack Russia until days before the event.

Cheers,

Sid.

[KG_Cloghaun]

Estimates put the number of Germans who surrendered in Africa at 240,000.
Had these soldiers been evacuated, been given time to refit, etc,

Imagine if these soldiers had been evacuated;

1. They would've fit nicely into the defense of Italy, which in turn meant that Hitler might have let the Kursk offensive continue and not pulled forces out to defend Italy.

2. They also could've augmented the defenses at Normandy.

3. They could've significantly strengthened German reserves on any front, with seasoned veterans.

4. They could've been used to work on the Westwall line defences.

5. They might've been used to build significant pak-line fronts in the east to stall the Russian steamroller after the destruction of AGC in 44'.

These are plausable scenarios, but they are all subject to the insanity of Hitler, who would've probably misused them in some ridiculous scheme.

[sid guttridge]

Hi KG Cloghaun,

I think your figures are confusing the number of Axis prisoners in North Africa with German prisoners.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Qvist]

1. They would've fit nicely into the defense of Italy, which in turn meant that Hitler might have let the Kursk offensive continue and not pulled forces out to defend Italy.

Well, Italy was only one of the reasons why Zitadelle was aborted. Survival of the forces in Africa would of course have considerably assisted in the defense of Italy. On the other hand, it may have allowed the allies to attack Italy significantly sooner, and until late March 1943 the Germans were much worse pressed for such an eventuality than they were in July.

2. They also could've augmented the defenses at Normandy.

That would be 1 1/2 years later, by which time all of these forces would have long since been committed elsewhere.

3. They could've significantly strengthened German reserves on any front, with seasoned veterans.

Well, we are not really talking about forces that big here...

4. They could've been used to work on the Westwall line defences.

That would have been a monumental misuse of first rate combat troops!

5. They might've been used to build significant pak-line fronts in the east to stall the Russian steamroller after the destruction of AGC in 44'.

Again, by that time they would long since have been committed elsewhere. All in all, they would have added a relatively insignificant number of divisions to the German force pool. The main beneficiary, directly or indirectly, would almost certainly have been the Eastern Front, But it is difficult to see how this could have affected events there in any very fundamental way I think.

cheers