In article ,
says...

Perhaps a better plan might have been rather then fight a war in North
Africa do a direct invasion of Sicily from Egypt.


Look at a map, without control of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya your invasion
convoy will have to go round the Cape through the Suez Canal and then fight

You probably find that more then enough supplies came as almost all
supplies to the army in Egypt came that way anyway.


its way through an area where the axis have air bases on both sides of the
Med

Point taken. They probably could have done it but it is risky.


As it was North Africa costs the Axis dearly. IIRC about 25% of axis
strength.


Hardly a compelling argument for not fighting them there then.

It is as long as Russia held! From the US and Britain point of view,
they needed the war as they showed the world that while Russia was
losing so much that they were fighting too. It also enabled them to
learn as others have pointed out.

I would argue from Axis view the whole war in North Africa was an
expensive waste. A best all he could do was win in the Suez for awhile.
Which the Allies could and did get on without it.

As a result large numbers of German troops and air force were uselessly
stuck at the end of a long supply line carrying large numbers of useless
Italians soldiers.

The effect in some parts of the German military was quite dramatic for
example large numbers of German transport planes were diverted and lost
over North Africa at a time when they were badly needed in Russia.

Apparently Hitler originally wanted to defend only a small part of
Africa, that is what he should have done.


--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard