If Rommel actually had taken Cairo and the Suez Canal, would it have significantly changed the outcome of the war?
If Rommel actually had taken Cairo and the Suez Canal, would it have significantly changed the outcome of the war?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
Cairo is pretty meaningless. The Egyptian colonial government had been pretty much entirely displaced by the military once the war got hot in North Africa. The Suez Canal is conditionally meaningful. If they can open it up the Italians can raid out into the Indian Ocean, assuming they can get past whatever airbase/garrison the British will inevitably try to set up in Aden.
It opens up a set of new possible strikes, but personally, I don't think that the Regia Maria is going to have the fuel or the ability to make serious dents in the Commonwealth Indian Ocean shipping. And of course, you have to actually take and hold Suez, which is a hell of a lot easier said than done. Even taking Alexandria is likely a pipe dream, what with the severe imbalance in favor of the British in terms of ability to ship supplies to the point of contact.
Not really militarily but politically the impact could have been huge if they liberated muslim colonies and turned them against the allies.
Why would it be? And that's assuming that once the Germans take over, they can actually mobilize the "liberated" colonies. Given the German track record on expropriation of food and fuel from local populations, that's not exactly likely.
They never stole from muslims. They were good boys.
Why are wehraboos so delusional?
lmao at Hitler doing a photo op in front of the pyramids
yes if they countinued into iraq/ saudi arabia and take the oil
Through the extensive railroad network that didn't connect Egypt to either place?
taking the suez canal would basically have ended the presence of allied ships in the mediterranean so they could use ports in egypt/ palestine. Anyway the axis would have a shorter supply line than the british
>would have ended the presence of allied ships in the med
anon, the allies weren't relying on the Suez for shipping or entering the med
How would this happen?
Supply lines needed to be improved in order for Rommel to continue his initial success and this needed to be done rapidly during wartime which posed a monumental industrial and engineering challenge. It was like a pyramid, you not only need the materials and machinery to build the port rapidly, you need to expand the facilities that manufacture these and various supporting industries that the facilities themselves need. War added the further complication of allied bombing and submarines.
On the other side the allies had America's industrial might and were abound with trucks and fuel, shipping tonnage and the aircraft and destroyers to protect them. When they anticipated similar problems in D Day they prefabricated entire sections of ports that could be dropped into place. The Germans would have to match this, but it is difficult to imagine with the resource strain of operation Barbarossa and America entering the war.
What's the point of wearing shorts when you are going to wear knee high socks anyway?
Asking the real questions
it's called having drip, you wouldn't get it
Ventilation, retard
open wide short pants to cool your giant steel nuts
knee high sock to keep the constant flow of lose sand in the wind from irritating your shins
WW2 was won and lost on sauce
The SS had swag, the Russians had drip, Roosevelt brought in sauce
yes, bongs would shit their bricks because they would lose sea connection with india, that could have had an uprising agains the bongs, and would had had to pull forces from elsewhere to protect it. nazi control of north africa also means gargantual oil supply for the germs.
Probably not, Africa felt more like a testing ground for both sides (and the us army later on) than a proper campaign, of course though it eventually became that but way later on.