North Africa and beyond..

Obstacles to the front; enfilade fire from a defilade position; defense in depth; units offering mutual fire-support; a mobile reserve to to reinforce points of penetration! Tobruk? No! Mid-afternoon, 18th June, 1815 Mont St Jean.

[i]"Contrary to Rommel’s belief, the British were decidedly not planning to abandon Tobruk as they had Benghazi…Rommel believed that by concentrating 3,000 infantry and forty tanks at one vulnerable spot he could blast his way through and drive out to sieze the town itself.

But the spot was notat all vulnerable. The Italians had given Tobruk a formidable network of strongpoints, interconnected by concealed passageways and fronted by a deep anti-tank ditch, and the predominantly Australian defenders were extremely pugnacious!..‘We wanted to prove to the Australlians that it was quite safe to lie low in a ditch or trench and let a tank drive straight over them. As each brigade came into reserve…we had them dig slit trenches, lie in them and ran over them… This training paid off and when Jerry broke in about the end of May the infantry just laid low while the Mark IV Jerry tanks rolled over them, then came up, wiping out the German infantry following. This left the Jerry tanks completely cut off from their support and both the artillery…and our tanks…had a field day, knocking all of them out.’…

At what Rommel termed the Schwerpunkt, the point of maximum pressure, the 25 pounders of 425 Battery, 107 Regiment Royal Horse Artillery were employed in an anti-tank role, firing over open sights from the shallow pits. They had no armour-piercing solid shot and fired high explosive which had to make a direct hit to stop an oncoming Panzer. Despite this handicap and the fact that it was still quite dark, 'the first shot from Number One gun set the lead tank on fire and Number Two gun’s first round lifeted the turret clean off another.

Retaliation was swift, as a t least fifteen tanks opened up on the british gunners with both cannon and machine-gun fire. Soon two officers and four men were down, ‘but we were getting hit after hit…and every time a tank was hit a cheer went up.’…

Lt Joachim Schorm of the 5th Panzer Regiment found himself in a predicament. Apart from enemy fire, his Mark III Panzer had problems with brakes, gears and engine. ‘Some of our tanks are already on fire. The crews call for doctors, who dismount to help in this witches’ cauldron. Enemy anti-tank units fall on us with their machine-guns firing into our midst…Our own anti-tank guns and 88’s are almost deserted, the crews lying silent beside them’…"[/i]

Just a little taster of how things were at Tobruk.

The British facing him had only thirty-seven tanks, including captured Italian M13’s, some of which mounted only machine-guns.

Rommel seemingly had no idea how weak the British were - nor how slow their response could be . He wasted a lot of effort on unnecessary deception measures. When the Afrika Korp began to disembark on 14 February he ordered the Italian harbourmaster to ignore the black-out regulations and unload the vessels around the clock, and under arc-lights after dark. He got Italian engineers to manufacture fake tank bodies out of canvas and wood, mount them on Volkswagen cars and park them where they could be seen by Allied reconaissance planes.

Rommel held a parade in Tripoli at which real Panzers were driven around in circles, giving the impression of much greater numbers to anyone who might be watching.

Deception is a tool or tactic to be employed and exploited, as opposed to it being a problem in itself. Unless of course it is oneself that is being deceived.

Also, not all British tank officers were Hooray-Henrys. The British 4th Brigade of the 7th Armoured Division was commanded by Brigadier Alec Gatehouse…‘A hard driving Royal Tank Regiment officer who thoroughly understood armoured warfare and whose mind was uncluttered by the equestrian foppery often flaunted by his equivalents in the recently mechanized cavalry.’

As the siege of Tobruk wore on, Wavell made two attampts to dislodge the Germans from their positions along the Libyan-Egyptian frontier. Operation ‘Brevity’ in May 1941 and Operation ‘Battleaxe’ in mid-June were both failures. In Battleaxe, the British lost 100 tanks, including the heavily armoured Matildas, in a massive frontal assault. Many of the tanks fell victim to the deadly fire of the German 88’s but others, which were not fatally damaged and could have been recovered, were left on the battlefield because, unlike the Germans, the British had not yet developed tank recovery units.

Wavell was sacked after Battleaxe, and replaced by Auchinleck. Churchill and Auchinleck agreed that no new attack would be mounted before November.

Pressure from the Australain Government, who felt their men had done enough, made it necessary to withdraw most of Morshead’s division by sea from Tobruk. Along with British infantry, the ships also brought an armoured brigade woth more than sixty tanks, most of them heavy, but poorly-gunned, Matildas. They were to spearhead part of the forthcoming offensive, in which it was planned that the beleagured Tobruk garrison would break out and meet up with British troops advancing from the east. The offensive was codenamed ‘Crusader’.

‘Crusader’ was prefaced by two daring commando raids (amazing how the British seemed so imaginative when it came to irregular warfare, but stuck in the past in conventional warfare?), both of which were complete failures.

One mission, carried out by N0.11 (Scottish) Commando was an attack on Rommel’s H.Q., 250 miles behind the lines, with an aim to killing Rommel.

The other mission, was the first major operation by the Special Air Service, it was intended to cripple enemy tactical air capabilities, on Axis airfields again deep behind enemy lines.

Long sandworm-like trails of dust described the progress of the Eight Army’s divisions crossing The Egyptian/Libyan frontier, and the launch of Operation Crusader. The operation was to anounce the renewal of the campaign to evict the Nazis (for that is what the Panzer Group Afrika was) from North Africa. In one of his ‘Boys Own’ whims, Churchill had named the British force, under O’Connor, The Army of the Nile. However, this was a different army, and was newly equipped with the ‘Stuart’ (that is, the American light M3 tank, known less formally as the ‘Honey’ on account of the sweetness and reliability of its Pratt & Whitney aero-engine allowing a top speed of up to 40m.p.h.), armed with its 37mm cannon. Elements of the 4th Armoured Division also sported the latest Crusader tank. Both tanks were under-gunned the British gun being the 2 pounder. Both tanks fired only armour-piercing shot. At first, the Honey crews had some success as they used the Honey’s speed, as in a dogfight, to some advantage, getting behind the panzers and putting a round into their rear engine compartments. However, the crews soon became discomforted as the Honey’s began to burst into flame and it wasn’t long before there were many cremations.

When the Britsh crossed the frontier, Rommel’s focus was on Tobruk, and he wouldn’t accept that the incursion was anything more than a feint to draw him away from said siege. The British, under Cunningham (fresh from Ethiopia and with no experience of armoured warfare) directed their efforts towards the area of Gabr Saleh, where recce vehicles had detected the Italian Ariete division, one of the better Italian units. It wasn’t Rommel, but Cruwell, who ordered the 15th Panzer Division to take on the British tanks gathered at Gabr Saleh. At last, Rommel, put his attack on tobruk on the back-burner and began to play a much more active role in what was to follow.

In charge of most of the British armour was ‘Strafer’ Gott, who had recently been promoted to the command of the 7th Armoured Division. The Germans were very proficient at coordinating battlegroup formations of armour, infantry and artillery together with air-power. The British had not reached this level of expertise, as yet. Instead, they encouraged the ‘spirit of the charge’ and then every man for himself. ‘This will be a tank commander’s battle,’ said Strafer Gott. ‘No tank-commander will go far wrong if he places his gun within hitting range of an enemy.’ This, after the British had spent eighteen months of running up and down the desert, was the tactical genius of the commander of the British armour.

Rommel concentrated both his 21st and 15th Panzer Divisions against Brigadier Jock Campbell, whose tanks, guns and motorized infantry had advanced from Gambut onto Sidi Rezegh. The concentration by Rommel led other British commanders, such as Cunningham and Norrie to believe that the Afrika Korps were in retreat, and they galloped after them. The bravado of an old lafy chasing after a mugger because she believes he’s afraid of her umbrella. In time all the armour clashed in what became a whirling mêlée. Elements of the Panzer groups used the same tried and trusted tactic by, once again, feigning retreat and drew the 7th Armoured Brigade onto their 88’s ( I imagine the German commanders paid more attention to their classical studies). Sergeant (later Major) Sam Bradshaw recalled: ‘Nine 88’s took out most of the regiment’s 52 tanks in twenty five minutes, and the superiority of the Panzer mark IV’s could knock out a tank at 2000 yards, while the ‘peashooter’ (two pounder) had to get within 600 yards of a target to hit it.’

As can be appreciated, armoured battle -groups should consist of a balanced and coordinated mix of armour, artillery and infantry, offering mutual support in both the attack and defence.

The German 88’s, ought to have been neutralized by high-explosive, indirect fire by British artillery units. However, the British armoured divisions were light on both infantry and artillery at this stage of the proceedings.

The Panzers swept around and into the rear of the British attacking forces, and where the artillery ought to have been protected by infantry rifle companies and anti-tank platoons, there just wasn’t the capability. It would come later when the British infantry were issued with the Six Pounder anti-tank gun (as described in the action of the Rifles at Outpost Snipe, Kidney Ridge, in the link above). Instead, the 25 Pounders were busy defending themselves, once again over open sights, as the Panzers attempted to destroy them.

The few trucks that were still intact scarpered as fast as their wheels could move vanishing in a cloud of dust, leaving us with a few Tanks and Bren Carriers, doing there best.
At the same time we were now under fire from enemy tanks and armoured cars, we had not been informed about the tanks etc. Furthermore, we learned that our anti-tank platoon of six 2 pounder guns were knocked out before firing a shot, eight Bren Carriers and crews were lost soon afterwards.

Hungry Aussies storm their own cookhouse in search of tucker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:El_Alamein_1942_-_British_infantry.jpg#file

When he discovered the attrition rate of his tanks, Cunningham almost had a nervous breakdown. He had done the reverse of what he had planned to do. Instead of using his superior force to attack the Axis forces in strength, he introduced his armoured brigades piecemeal, which was precisely what Rommel had hoped he would do. In some localities the Germans had superior numbers, but even where they had not, they outwitted the British with their ‘Show and kill’ tactic of luring the British armour onto their anti-tank guns.

Cunningham ordred a withdrawal from the main battle area of Sidi Rezegh.
In places, particularly where Brigadier ‘Jock’ Campbell was to be found, the British thought themselves on the brink of Viictory and found the order a bitter pill to swallow. As they withdrew, they left behind a landscape which was dotted with fires from blazing vehicles and abandoned fuel and ammunition dumps.

Brigadier ‘Jock’ Campbell was holder of the Distinguished Service Order from the WW1 and a bar from WW2, and a Military Cross. He intorduced the ‘Jock’ columns - mixed battle groups of guns, amoured cars and infantry that he led on expeditions behind the lines.

At Sidi Rizegh, he could be seen everywhere at once on the battlefield. One moment he was seen to be helping to load and fire a 25-pounder whose crews were taking on the Panzers over open sights despite fearful casualties. The next he was doing something even Rommel had never tried: leading a tank charge in his staff car, a sedate Humber saloon hardly intended for such off-piste activity.

Then…

‘Rommel did something so bold, so outrageous, so quintessentialy Rommel-esque that, by all the lucky stars he ever followed and all the bluffs of Blitzkrieg he ever perpetrated, it should have led to his greatest triumph. Had his opponents been a little more demoralized it might have done; instead, it lost him the battle.’

North African campaign map - click to enlarge

n_africa.jpg

It is worth considering here, that not all of the British units continued to fall into this trap. As well as the ‘Cavalry culture’ influencing the way in which British armoured units operated, there was also the fact that a lot of units had suffered immense casualties and that they were reinforced by replacements practically straight from the training depots. Other units, many of them territoral, where rushed out, again recently armoured and with no previous combat experience and many of these had to re-learn the old lessons. Once in-situ they had little time for training, being rushed forward to take their place in the frontline.

Some of the British armoured units consisted of the Royal Tank Regiment, and not only did they not suffer from the ‘Cavalry culture’ but it had been elements of this regiment (Hobart being one of their officers and Liddle hart being of the Royal Tank Corps) which had pioneered the armoured battle-group tactics in the twenties and thirties which ahd been adopted by the German forces.

http://www.royaltankregiment.com/pages/MainFrame2.htm

RTR - the peoples Cavalry AKA the Chav Cav :stuck_out_tongue:

The Little-Known Story of Percy Hobart
They Called Him ‘Hobo’

Trevor J. Constable
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n1p-2_Constable.html

Partial Quote:

…In this climate of clash and controversy, Britain tardily began the formation of its first modern armored division. The Germans already had four and were building more. Hobart’s fears and predictions were being realized. He was the logical man for the command, and the new secretary of war, energetic, reform-conscious Leslie Hore-Belisha, was determined that Hobart should get the vital assignment. War Office conservatives dug their toes in and treated Hore-Belisha to a bewildering exhibition of bureaucratic and professional resistance. The secretary was unable to put Hobart into the post, and recalled in later years: “In all my experience as a minister of the Crown, I never encountered such obstructionism as attended my wish to give the new armored division to Hobart.”

A cavalryman whose most recent assignment had been the training of riding instructors was proposed by the War Office for command of the new armored division. This proposal fairly characterized the uncomprehending state of British military thought on the eve of the world’s greatest war. In a compromise arrangement with the War Office, Hobart became director of military training. Hore-Belisha hoped by this stratagem that Hobart’s personal drive, enthusiasm and knowledge of armored warfare could permeate all army training.

[b]The tank genius was now deep in “enemy” territory. He was the last tank man of high rank left in an influential post. Like a loathsome infection, he was gradually walled off by the subtle processes of the War Office organism, while pressure mounted to expel him entirely from that august body. Hore-Belisha was continually urged to dismiss Hobart.

The Munich crisis provided the right emotional climate and an excuse to get rid of him completely. He was bundled on a Cairo-bound aircraft, assigned to raise and train Britain’s second modern armored division. With Hobo’s removal to the Nile delta, tank thinking was exterminated in Whitehall [Britain’s Foreign Office], and as Liddell Hart put it, “The British Army was again made safe for military conservatism.” For these decisions on the part of its highest military professionals, Britain was to pay dearly in life and prestige.[/b]

Scattered motorized and mechanized troops with obsolescent equipment were all that Hobart found in Egypt as the basis for a modern armored division. A grim enough prospect in itself, the equipment situation was overhung by a demoralizing and obstructive emotional factor. Commanding in Egypt was one of the British Army’s remaining conservative hangovers from the First World War, a soldier for whom Hobart, himself a decorated veteran of the first conflict, had never failed to express his professional contempt. The commanding general was also a socially-minded soldier. He especially detested Hobart at the personal level for his 1928 marriage, for which Hobart’s wife had gone through the divorce court.

Modern minds would regard such a procedure as little more than a fact of life. To the British Army of the period between the wars, it was a transgression sufficient to bring many threats of professional retribution on Hobart, one of them from the general who now commanded in Egypt.

Hobart’s arrival was followed by a brief and brutally unceremonious interview in the quarters of the commanding general. “I don’t know why the hell you’re here, Hobart,” he barked, “but I don’t want you.”

[b]In this poisonous atmosphere, once again virtually isolated, Hobart buckled down to build the kind of armored division of which he had always dreamed. There was virtually no communication with main HQ, no sympathy with what he was doing, no co-operation and no equipment. Hobart proved his superb qualities under these negative, antagonistic conditions by bringing off the miracle of the 7th Armoured Division.

Troops accustomed to the sleepy garrison routine of Egypt found themselves with a stern taskmaster. Rushed into the desert to train by day and by night they soon found themselves permeated by the unconquerable spirit of the tall, hawk-faced Hobart. He infused them with the same magic morale he had given to the 1st Tank Brigade, and month by month he welded the scattered units into a determined, smoothly functioning fighting division.

Taking the jerboa (desert rat) as their emblem they were soon known as the “Desert Rats.” They proved themselves Britain’s finest armored division in the whole North African campaign. Lieutenant-General Sir Richard O’Connor, commander of the Western Desert Force of 1940, called the 7th Armoured Division “the best trained division I have ever seen.”[/b]

The grim and frustrating duels of the War Office and the struggle for the armored idea slipped into the background as Hobart fulfilled himself in a man’s job. [b]When war broke out in September 1939, a deadly, hard-hitting and superbly mobile force was under his command. Lean, tanned and hard of body and mind, the 54-year-old Hobo was ready for whatever the war could bring.

Three months later, Hobart was dismissed from his command and sent into retirement.[/b]

This shocking blow came at the hands of General Sir Archibald Wavell, who decided to act on an adverse report on Hobart filed by the general who hated him and who had sworn professional retribution. Normally a man impervious to the effects of opposition or professional misfortune, Hobart was shaken to the roots of his being by his abrupt and complete dismissal.

Lady Hobart recalls the 1940 dismissal from the army as the one time in their life together that the general had shown distress over any reverse. “He was a stricken man,” she says today. “To anyone lacking his intense fortitude, the wound would have been mortal. No warning whatever was given that this blow was to fall.”

[b]General Sir Archibald Wavell, who was himself a man with a keen mobile sense, was unable in later years to explain adequately his action in dismissing Hobart. The loss of the tank genius from the desert command was to have incalculable consequences for British arms and fortunes. Liddell Hart tackled Wavell about Hobart’s dismissal personally, and made it clear to him how deplorable and damaging the whole affair had been. “Wavell’s explanation was rather lame,” says Liddell Hart.

Wavell went on to win his own immortal glories by crushing the Italians with the Hobart-trained 7th Armoured Division – the only unit available and able to nullify the overwhelming Italian advantage in manpower and machines.[/b] By one of destiny’s strangest twists, Liddell Hart had compiled a list of the most promising officers in the British Army for Hore-Belisha in 1937. Only two men were singled from the multitude of British generals as likely to become great commanders – Wavell and Hobart.

The fortunes of the British Army in North Africa were left after Hobart’s dismissal in the hands of high commanders who were no more than amateurs in the handling of modern armored forces. So tight was the conservative grip on command that it was not until the latter part of 1942 that authentic tank officers even reached divisional commands. This continuing prejudice and incomprehension was reflected by the British Army’s record in the field. With an inferiority of force but with an intuitive gift for handling mobile forces, Rommel proceeded to thrash humiliatingly a succession of British generals sent against him. The troops in the field, as well as the public all over the world, began to wonder if the British had ever heard of the tank before Rommel. British troops in North Africa, repeatedly let down by their armored forces, began to look on their own tank units with considerable suspicion…

Very interesting report, George. It was probably of no coincidence, methinks, that at the time when the Eighth Army units were issued with the, aforementioned, Stuart and Crusader tanks, they were not issued to the 7th Armoured Division, who continued to employ the old and obsolete medium tanks.

O’Connor’s maneouverings culminating at Beda Fomm, were as imaginative as any that followed and better than most.

The English in North Africa have two secret weapons on their side: the Matilda tank and General Richard O’Connor. The Matilda is a powerful beast of 30 tons, with a 2 pounder gun and nearly impenetrable armor. Though she is slow, she outclasses any tank the Italians have.

Less well known is the bird-like commander of the Western Desert Force General O’Connor. Formerly military governor of Jerusalem, he has been sent by Middle East commander General Archibald Wavell to defend Egypt against the Italian invaders. On O’Connor’s mind is an offensive.

His plan is to attack an unfortified gap in the enemy lines called Nibeiwa. If successful, he will encircle General Graziani and fall on his rear. To achieve this, O’Connor has at his disposal Two crack divisions, 4th Indian and 7th Armored, as well as the 7th Royal Tank Regiment with 48 Matildas.

Later, the Germans were to paint black crosses on captured Matildas for their own use.

Isn’t Matilda the name one might give to a reliable old mare?

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:r3CXZga6moIJ:www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-5-2002-31650.asp+O'Connor+beda+Fomm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

Probably more like ‘Oiks’ and ‘Warts’ in the parlance of the Polo-playing, Sloane-Rangers of the day.

oik from the Oxford English Dictionary: oick, oik (OIk). slang. Etym. obscure. Depreciatory schoolboy word for a member of another school; an unpopular or disliked fellow-pupil. Also gen., an obnoxious or unpleasant person; in weakened senses, a ‘nit-wit’, a ‘clot’. Hence 'oikish a., unpleasant, crude; 'oickman

The film opens with a shot of a sign: The Leicestershire Yeomanry Sports and Military Display. Whit Monday June 6th Burleigh Park, Loughborough. We then see shots of parked cars and a band playing. We then see various events involving members of the yeomanry riding horses in a field. The differerent events are described with intertitles as follows: “Officers’ chargers”.

http://www.macearchive.org/Media.html?Title=1457#

http://www.macearchive.org/Results.html?Tag=Animals

To the norhteast of Rommel, the Eighth Army, unaware of what was happening in their rear, was making good progress towards Tobruk. Indeed, because Rommel had leached his forces in that area, the British were abe to recover and repair much of their abandoned armour. As Rommel was plunging into the Brtish soft-underbelly, the British were doing the same to him. His chief of staff was screaming for him to return, but he continued his 'Charge to the wire!"(the wire was layed by the Italians to mark the Libya/Egypt frontier). He came very close to two huge British ammunition and fuel supply dumps, somewhat south of the Siwha Oasis, but he considered that it would be too much of a waste of fuel to investigate. One of these dumps measured six square miles and would have afforded him all the fuel he would have needed to capture Egypt.

However, he finally paid heed to the ever more urgent requests for him to return before he ran out of fuel and ammunition, as his rear echelons were no longer able to supply him and, indeed, were in danger of being overrun.

To digress:

Most of us are familiar with the tactics of ‘one foot on the ground’; fire and manouver - pepper-potting. No longer do we simply charge at an objective, we fight-through it.

There has been much criticism, particularly by myself, of the ‘spirit of the charge’. However, how did one feel when watching the film ‘A Bridge Too Far’ when Redford and his boys had taken that bridge in Holland, and then, when the Limey tanks had finally crossed the bridge, they refused to charge forward without their infantry support? Where they not operating correctly?

There are times when the charge is not just an apropriate solution, but it is the only solution. Here is a history which I was going to post later, if I reached El Alamein, but I think it would add a little balance to the discussion.

[i]"At first all went well. As a night tank attack was unusual for either side, it came as a considerable shock to the enemy troops who had just endured another dose of what Rommel called ‘the terrible British artillery’. The Wiltshires saw German infantry 'running in all directions. They could not avoid the tanks and many were killed by machine-gun fire or run over. Those who surrendered were directed back to the British lines, but when light came many were able to take up fresh positions and continue fighting (no infantry to escort the prisoners).

Then the 9th were betrayed by the dawn. It came up behind them long before they were through the anti-tank guns, silhouetting their tanks as plainly as in recognition manuals.

On the right flank the Hussars were subjected to fire from their front and both flanks. It was every bit as bad as Farquar had predicted and his response was precisely what Montgomery had expected of him. ‘Soon the battlefield was thick with black smoke from burning tanks.’ (notes the regimental history). The smoke may well have been the saving of the survivors, who were able to get among the guns and wreak a terrible revenge, in some cases crushing man and machine alike. The Hussars claimed the destruction of fifteen anti-tank and four field-guns. By this time their ‘runners’ were down to seven.

The Yeomanry reacted in exactly the same way. On the left flank the Warwicks, having mistaken another small hill for Aqquir, advanced on a more southerly bearing than was intended. This immediately brought them up against a bettery of four Italian field-guns whose crews fired over open sights and quickly accounted for one of the Warwicks’ leading Crusaders, killing the second-in-command of the reconnaisance squadron. Then the British got their machine-guns on to the Italian emplacements and they were overrun.

In the centre the Wiltshires were confronted by a battery of 88s. These began to pick off the british tanks with their usual ease. Before long, the Wiltshires’ lieutenant-colonel and all three squadron commanders were wounded. It was clear to the Wiltshires that they were much too close for retreat to save them, so valour became the better part of discretion. They closed with the guns, machine-gunning madly, ignoring their casualties.

Then the surviving Shermans and the Grants were all over the 88s, an armour-plated lynch mob which trampled over gun pits and gunners alike, competing with each other to do their worst. The 9th’s own casualties were considerable. In all they lost 270 killed or wounded and out of their ninety tanks only nineteen were still capable of movement."[/i]

The mission, of the above mentioned units, was to breach the Axis anti-tank defences and open the way for follow-up forces to exploit the open terrain beyond them. They achieved their aim.

When first given their orders for the mission, the commanders pointed out to Monty that it would be suicidal. Monty agreed, and explained that it was necessary even if it meant the loss of every man and every tank. There had to be a breakthrough into open country so that the Army could maneouvre.

The irony of it was, that those surviving tanks had had their means of communication knocked out i.e. their radio antennae. They were uanble to communicate their success to the following on brigades. Said brigades, upon seeing this tank graveyard were reluctant to proceed through, not being aware that the way was clear - c’est la guerr!
More on this later.

:
Originally Posted by 32Bravo

[i]To the norhteast of Rommel, the Eighth Army, unaware of what was happening in their rear, was making good progress towards Tobruk. Indeed, because Rommel had leached his forces in that area, the British were abe to recover and repair much of their abandoned armour. As Rommel was plunging into the Brtish soft-underbelly, the British were doing the same to him. His chief of staff was screaming for him to return, but he continued his 'Charge to the wire!"(the wire was layed by the Italians to mark the Libya/Egypt frontier). He came very close to two huge British ammunition and fuel supply dumps, somewhat south of the Siwha Oasis, but he considered that it would be too much of a waste of fuel to investigate. One of these dumps measured six square miles and would have afforded him all the fuel he would have needed to capture Egypt.

However, he finally paid heed to the ever more urgent requests for him to return before he ran out of fuel and ammunition, as his rear echelons were no longer able to supply him and, indeed, were in danger of being overrun. [/i]

In the north, the British had linked up with a force that had broken out from Tobruk. It was a false dawn, however, and the return of Rommel would delay the relief of Tobruk for another nine days, or so.

Rommel returned from the wire, and was able to push the British off the airfield at Sidi Rezegh, but this minor victory would be short lived. Crusader, and Rommel’s own rash charge to the wire, had reduced his Panzer force to about forty Panzers. He was no longer able to operate so far east of his supply bases. All operations are affected by a limiting factor; to the economists it is a part of what is known as Economies of Scale; to the accountant it is the Primary Budgeting Factor. However one dresses it up, it is about capacity. Rommel had sustained more losses than he could afford, and no longer had the capacity to offer battle.

The Malta-based air and sea operations of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force against Axis supply convoys had begun to take effect. There were no replacement tanks, ammunition or fuel available and Rommel had no option but to withdraw. He first of all withdrew to the Gazala Line. An imaginery line of longitude which passed through the port of Gazala, west of Tobruk. This resulted, finally, in the relief of Tobruk which came about on the 7th December 1941, but was somewhat overshadowed by events elsewhere.

Differences in approach between the wars which led to success and failure:

The Panzer Division vs the Mobile Division

The German Panzer division was only created in 1935, after Hitler’s decision to rearm. But the precursor for the Panzer division was the creation of the motor transport troops in the early 1920s where one battalion of motor transport troops, was attached to each of the seven Reichswehr infantry divisions. These motor transport troops were essentially experimental motorized units, which experimented with tank tactics using dummy tank mock-ups fitted over the chassis of automobiles in lieu of the Versailles ban on tanks.

The Germans learnt from their experimentation that tanks constituted the new queen of the battlefield, a combat multiplier to the infantry. A tank’s value lay with its shock value and mobility. When employed in mass of at least battalion strength, it constituted a formidable foe. But the problem lay with the issue of speed. Instead of coupling the tank to the infantry, it was decided to motorize the infantry, engineers and artillery to match the tanks’ speed. This solution meshed with the German conviction on combined arms operations, in which all arms minimized their deficiencies and maximized their strengths by operating together in a single formation through the Panzer division.

The British continued their pioneering work on tanks in the interwar period. Their experimentation drew foreign interest, particularly German interest, on the role of tanks in future warfare. On the question of speed, unlike the Germans, the British decided that the tank was best utilized in specialized roles, in either the infantry support role or exploitation role. This required two types of tanks: the slow but heavily armoured infantry tank to support the infantry, and the thinly armoured but fast cruiser tank for exploiting and harassing the enemy’s command and control functions and logistics in the rear. The cruiser tank was concentrated in the Mobile division, which became the Armoured division in 1939. Although a combined arms outfit, it was too tank-heavy with too little infantry or artillery support. The substantial infantry component was provided by a separate Motor division consisting of motorized infantry and attached artillery elements. Given the fiscal austerity and separate divisional framework, both divisions did not have sufficient opportunities to operate and train with each other until hostilities began. This was a major weakness compared to the German Panzer division which was a true combined arms team integrated in a common formation.

Training

Both armies devoted considerable care to training in the interwar period. But the German system proved superior to the British system primarily because it had a coherent doctrine working in its favour and a good pool of motivated talent to start with. Hans von Seeckt paid special attention to training, particularly battle drills which imposed a uniform training standard across all formations within the Reichswehr. He also devoted special attention to new technologies like radio, tank tactics and aircraft employment in his large-scale annual military exercises which were retained by his successors after 1926 even at the height of severe budgetary allocations during the Great Depression period. These exercises allowed the full employment of combined arms concepts at corps level which enabled commanders and line troops to familiarize themselves with the doctrine.

The British army did not enjoy such a luxury. Imperial policing duties took away opportunities for large formation training. Even forces based in Britain had limited opportunities to engage in corps-level training due to the shortage of funds. In fact, only two corps-level training exercises took place in the entire interwar period, in 1925 and 1935 which lasted barely a few days. More detrimental was the decentralization of training to formation commanders. This decision, a carry-over from tradition, had a significant impact on wartime operations. In particular, formations experienced a wide range of training and operational readiness, depending on the forcefulness of the formation commander. More importantly, there was no common doctrine since the army allowed its commanders the flexibility and leeway to interpret doctrine as they deemed fit. The disdain for battle drills further compounded the problem. The lacklustre and uneven pre-war training showed up evidently during the Battle of France in 1940 when British units were often outmatched by their well-trained German counterparts.