How did the Allies do it in the Western Desert?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

WWII North Africa.

Germans had superiority in tactical mobility/ foresight, tank quality, tank gun
size (range, punching power), anti-tank guns (range, punching power), a tie in
quality of artillery.

How then, given those handicaps, did the British succeed in holding them off
and even sending them backward during the early years (before Grants &
Shermans)? How do you take the inferior weapons the British had and turn the
tables?

Thanks,

Mike
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Mike Parrott" <mparrott429@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040528113713.06380.00000055@mb-m12.aol.com...
> WWII North Africa.
>
> Germans had superiority in tactical mobility/ foresight, tank quality,
tank gun
> size (range, punching power), anti-tank guns (range, punching power), a
tie in
> quality of artillery.
>
> How then, given those handicaps, did the British succeed in holding them
off
> and even sending them backward during the early years (before Grants &
> Shermans)? How do you take the inferior weapons the British had and turn
the
> tables?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>

My best answer is the old quote I read somewhere:

"An amateur soldier discusses tactics while a professional soldiers
discusses logistics"

Whichever side could get the most fuel and other necessary supplies to its
forces in the desert typically had the advantage. The British sucesses
could pretty much be determined by how able the RAF at Malta was able to
interdict the Axis supply convoys from Italy. When Malta was suppressed by
the Regina Aeronatica and the Luftwaffe, the Germans were able to advance at
will - but when the British air force at Malta was active, the German
superior technology was unable to fight back adequately.

At least that's how I see it.
--
MJB

Mr. Tin's Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Mike Parrott" <mparrott429@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040528113713.06380.00000055@mb-m12.aol.com...
> WWII North Africa.
>
> Germans had superiority in tactical mobility/ foresight, tank quality,
tank gun
> size (range, punching power), anti-tank guns (range, punching power), a
tie in
> quality of artillery.
>
> How then, given those handicaps, did the British succeed in holding them
off
> and even sending them backward during the early years (before Grants &
> Shermans)? How do you take the inferior weapons the British had and turn
the
> tables?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
Better supply lines, slight edge in the air and a willingness to give up
ground they knew they could not hold.

--
estarriol
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Another thing is the occasionally defensive line's established. The British
knew the German/Italians would push towards Cairo/Suez. The British did not
HAVE to push into Libya. The rest of Africa was secure and Germany was not
going to make a long flank march around the Quarta Depressions. So dig in
and make them trade tanks/men for space.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Not convinced that German equipment was that much better. 40mm (2pdr) was a
damn good gun. From what I have read, German tactical skill in armoured
warfare was a lot better, with forward commanders compared to British. Also
German/Italian armour was vastly outnumbered in the desert.

What was surprising was Axis successes.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I will second this sentiment with one addition.

The Germans NEVER adapted to the desert. Their folks suffered from the
climate, exposure and disease disproportionatly to the Allied troops.

Getting back to logistics. All the superior tech in the world will not
make up for people that are not operating at 100%. The Germans never
operated at 100% or anything close to that.

Finally, the Italians were not motivated to the same degree as the
Germans -- that being said, I will go out on a limb here and say they
probably took better care of their troops than did Rommel (If one is
willing to overlook the fiasco's early in the war that is).

mjc

Justin Taylor wrote:

> Not convinced that German equipment was that much better. 40mm (2pdr) was a
> damn good gun. From what I have read, German tactical skill in armoured
> warfare was a lot better, with forward commanders compared to British. Also
> German/Italian armour was vastly outnumbered in the desert.
>
> What was surprising was Axis successes.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I will second this sentiment with one addition.

The Germans NEVER adapted to the desert. Their folks suffered from the
climate, exposure and disease disproportionatly to the Allied troops.

Getting back to logistics. All the superior tech in the world will not
make up for people that are not operating at 100%. The Germans never
operated at 100% or anything close to that.

Finally, the Italians were not motivated to the same degree as the
Germans -- that being said, I will go out on a limb here and say they
probably took better care of their troops than did Rommel (If one is
willing to overlook the fiasco's early in the war that is).

mjc

Justin Taylor wrote:

> Not convinced that German equipment was that much better. 40mm (2pdr) was a
> damn good gun. From what I have read, German tactical skill in armoured
> warfare was a lot better, with forward commanders compared to British. Also
> German/Italian armour was vastly outnumbered in the desert.
>
> What was surprising was Axis successes.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

estarriol startled all and sundry by ejaculating the following words of
wisdom

> Better supply lines, slight edge in the air and a willingness to give up
> ground they knew they could not hold.

Bah everyone knows Rommel was afraid of the ANZACs 🙂

--
rob singers
pull finger to reply
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Mike Parrott" <mparrott429@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040528113713.06380.00000055@mb-m12.aol.com...
> WWII North Africa.
>
> Germans had superiority in tactical mobility/ foresight, tank quality,
tank gun
> size (range, punching power), anti-tank guns (range, punching power), a
tie in
> quality of artillery.

Which just goes to show that minor technical differences in equipment don't
have much effect on the outcome of battles. Training, doctrine, morale &
logistics are what count. BTW British armour was not vastly inferior to the
Germans in terms of quality, their tactical doctrine after 1940 was poor
however.

> How then, given those handicaps, did the British succeed in holding them
off
> and even sending them backward during the early years (before Grants &
> Shermans)? How do you take the inferior weapons the British had and turn
the
> tables?

Amass enough men, material and supplies (esp the latter in the desert) to
make sure you win & refuse to give up when the going gets tough.
Interestingly the 8th Army's most catastrophic defeat was _after_ they'd
been re-equipped with Grants, at Gazala in 1942. Rommels operations were
conducted on a shoestring and did not have the operational depth to survive
major reverses, as his failures in Crusader & at Alam Halfa showed. When his
gambles worked, they paid off handsomely of course (see Gazala above...).

Cheers
Martin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

>
> Which just goes to show that minor technical differences in equipment don't
> have much effect on the outcome of battles. Training, doctrine, morale &
> logistics are what count. BTW British armour was not vastly inferior to the
> Germans in terms of quality, their tactical doctrine after 1940 was poor
> however.

>
> Amass enough men, material and supplies (esp the latter in the desert) to
> make sure you win & refuse to give up when the going gets tough.
> Interestingly the 8th Army's most catastrophic defeat was _after_ they'd
> been re-equipped with Grants, at Gazala in 1942. Rommels operations were
> conducted on a shoestring and did not have the operational depth to survive
> major reverses, as his failures in Crusader & at Alam Halfa showed. When his
> gambles worked, they paid off handsomely of course (see Gazala above...).
>
> Cheers
> Martin

For an excellent overview of the fight in the desert I suggest reading
West of El Alamein, a recent book that covers in depth the fighting
and personalities involved. Really excellent on its insights to
Rommel, Monty and the Italian troops. First rate book.

LPG
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I tried searching for a "West of El Alamein" book and came up empty.
Is that the right title for the book? Who is the author? Please
advise as I'd like to get this book. Thanks.


boru@suite224.net (Luke Gallagher) wrote in message news:<19a2e39b.0406011052.5af2b1dc@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Which just goes to show that minor technical differences in equipment don't
> > have much effect on the outcome of battles. Training, doctrine, morale &
> > logistics are what count. BTW British armour was not vastly inferior to the
> > Germans in terms of quality, their tactical doctrine after 1940 was poor
> > however.
>
> >
> > Amass enough men, material and supplies (esp the latter in the desert) to
> > make sure you win & refuse to give up when the going gets tough.
> > Interestingly the 8th Army's most catastrophic defeat was _after_ they'd
> > been re-equipped with Grants, at Gazala in 1942. Rommels operations were
> > conducted on a shoestring and did not have the operational depth to survive
> > major reverses, as his failures in Crusader & at Alam Halfa showed. When his
> > gambles worked, they paid off handsomely of course (see Gazala above...).
> >
> > Cheers
> > Martin
>
> For an excellent overview of the fight in the desert I suggest reading
> West of El Alamein, a recent book that covers in depth the fighting
> and personalities involved. Really excellent on its insights to
> Rommel, Monty and the Italian troops. First rate book.
>
> LPG
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

ccooper@eagle.org (Clay Cooper) wrote in message news:<f6e90257.0406011721.307704cd@posting.google.com>...
> I tried searching for a "West of El Alamein" book and came up empty.
> Is that the right title for the book? Who is the author? Please
> advise as I'd like to get this book. Thanks.
>
>

OOPS! I let a friend of mine borrow my copy so I do not have it
handy. I checked on Amazon and found out it is actually entitled The
Battle of Alamein: Turning Point, World War II, and is by John Bierman
and Colin Smith.

So much for my memory. My apologies.

LPG
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Thanks Luke. I just ordered a copy of that book for 20 cents +
shipping from Amazon. Cheapest book I've ever bought, I believe.
Regards,
Clay


boru@suite224.net (Luke Gallagher) wrote in message news:<19a2e39b.0406020613.12ec2316@posting.google.com>...
> ccooper@eagle.org (Clay Cooper) wrote in message news:<f6e90257.0406011721.307704cd@posting.google.com>...
> > I tried searching for a "West of El Alamein" book and came up empty.
> > Is that the right title for the book? Who is the author? Please
> > advise as I'd like to get this book. Thanks.
> >
> >
>
> OOPS! I let a friend of mine borrow my copy so I do not have it
> handy. I checked on Amazon and found out it is actually entitled The
> Battle of Alamein: Turning Point, World War II, and is by John Bierman
> and Colin Smith.
>
> So much for my memory. My apologies.
>
> LPG
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Most German tanks that were knocked out in the earlier times seemed to
have fallen prey to antitank guns more often than British tanks. In
particular the 6pndr which was often employed with effect and a
stubborness of the crew not to stop firing till the last moment.

..also with the logistics thing a great many tanks on both sides fell
victim to the desert conditions and need for maintenance where again
the British could better rely on supplies of spare parts (and indeed
new tanks) getting across the meditereanean.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Germans also tended to use captured British tanks where possible. I think it
was the outnumbering and poor resupply that did for Rommel. I wonder if he
thought about Hannibal as he was fighting in the desert.

--
Justin Taylor
justin@hellou2.fsnet.co.uk
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

"Rhandolph" <rhandolph@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70465ae0.0406110127.643e4173@posting.google.com...
> Most German tanks that were knocked out in the earlier times seemed to
> have fallen prey to antitank guns more often than British tanks. In
> particular the 6pndr which was often employed with effect and a
> stubborness of the crew not to stop firing till the last moment.

There were a number of actions where infantry and gunners fought
particularly stubbornly in the desert.
On both sides.
I think one factor in the desert was that there was nowhere to run.
Despite their bad rep, Italian gunners frequently stood by their guns to the
last.

BTW, 6pdr was relative latecomer to the desert war.
2pdr and 25pdr were the panzer killers in early desert warfare.

> ..also with the logistics thing a great many tanks on both sides fell
> victim to the desert conditions and need for maintenance where again
> the British could better rely on supplies of spare parts (and indeed
> new tanks) getting across the meditereanean.

It's remarkable that Jerry never figured out Enigma was being broken.
Just as well really.

--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom