Both went a bit pear-shaped. Dieppe was always a raid, but it went rather wrong with far less penetration inland and far higher casualties than expected. Kasserine was IIRC the first engagement of any significance by US ground troops in Europe, and IIRC they weren’t really ready for it. They learned, and didn’t have the same problems again.
In any case, Kasserine was largely irrelevant as the Germans in North Africa were already decisively defeated (even if they didn’t realise it yet) and the only question was how many would be captured. IIRC it was on a par with (if not worst than) Stalingrad.
Bloody hell I agree with this too. I never understood why Rommel was starved of support right up until the battle was in reality lost and only then did the Germans build up a massive force in N Africa just to have the majority of it transported to POW camps. If they had given that much support to Rommel in 1941-42 there would have been no Kasserine and possibly little allied presence in the Med. Then the Allies may not have been able to work through their teething problems before D-Day. Still as I said, tricky thing war, great in hindsight.
… you can’t possibly compared the axis defeat in north afrika to stalingrad…Its insulting to do so.
the vast majority of axis troops were italians of dubious or no combat value (except for the Ariete division and a unitof italian paratroopers). Remember, Afrika korps was a CORPS, which composed of a mere two panzer divisions (32,000 men) with supporting infantry divisions
And the german soldiers lost at stalingrad were… the ENTIRE 6th Army!!!
Actually, by the time of the surrender in Tunisia it was the entire Army Group Afrika that was lost. Total loss in the final surrender was 275,000, and around 40,000 casualties were suffered by the Germans in the last stage of the campaign. That gives a little over 300,000 lost. Of these the best estimate I can come up with is that a little over half were German (60-70% I would guess - this US army document states 5 Italian divisions and 9 German divisions were present in Tunisia during the final battle).
At Stalingrad, the total number who survived to surrender were roughly 91,000. In addition there were approximately 800,000 Axis casualties, of whom roughly 400,000 were German and 130,000 Italians over the course of the Stalingrad campaign. If you’re going to suggest that the majority of Axis losses in North Africa were of poor quality troops, it is worth noting that their losses at Stalingrad were only half German - the rest were mainly Romanian, Hungarian and Italian.
Looking at those figures I see no way in which it can be construed as insulting to compare the two battles. Both saw the loss of comparable numbers of Axis troops, huge stocks of war materiel and in the case of Tunisia a very large amount of shipping. Both were also happening at roughly the same stage of the war too.
Edited to note that “casualties” will include those who were wounded and could return to duty later - something not possible for captured or killed soldiers. Allowing for this, the battles look even closer together since in most battles there will be 2-3 times more wounded than killed.
I’ve seen estimates of 50,000 or so at Stalingrad. Records are most likely nonexistent so this will be a very approximate figure. I’d be surprised if more than a handful survived the war.
Actually, by the time of the surrender in Tunisia it was the entire Army Group Afrika that was lost. Total loss in the final surrender was 275,000, and around 40,000 casualties were suffered by the Germans in the last stage of the campaign. That gives a little over 300,000 lost. Of these the best estimate I can come up with is that a little over half were German (60-70% I would guess - this US army document states 5 Italian divisions and 9 German divisions were present in Tunisia during the final battle).
At Stalingrad, the total number who survived to surrender were roughly 91,000. In addition there were approximately 800,000 Axis casualties, of whom roughly 400,000 were German and 130,000 Italians over the course of the Stalingrad campaign. If you’re going to suggest that the majority of Axis losses in North Africa were of poor quality troops, it is worth noting that their losses at Stalingrad were only half German - the rest were mainly Romanian, Hungarian and Italian.
Looking at those figures I see no way in which it can be construed as insulting to compare the two battles. Both saw the loss of comparable numbers of Axis troops, huge stocks of war materiel and in the case of Tunisia a very large amount of shipping. Both were also happening at roughly the same stage of the war too.
Edited to note that “casualties” will include those who were wounded and could return to duty later - something not possible for captured or killed soldiers. Allowing for this, the battles look even closer together since in most battles there will be 2-3 times more wounded than killed.[/quote]
130,000 german troops surrendered at Tunisia . Germany and Italy suffered only 25,000 causalties in battle, so the battle of Tunisia is more of a great logistical victory.
The german soldiers that fought at Stalingrad were some of Germany’s most valuable men, many specialists and combat engineers. During the siege, 500 of germany’s experienced veteren Air combat instructors were lost while they desperately tried to fly transports to save teh 6th army.
The sturmpionere were valuable specialists and many were lost there. Germany lost around 300,000 killed, wounded, and captured there, double the amount of german soldiers lost in Tunisia.
anyway, back to topic. Rommel is famous for his "sword and shield " technique and others, mostly using flak 88 and 76mm traps against enemy tanks. However, these strategies were standard procedure in the eastern front, so I don’t see how brilliant he was at all.
