Jump to content


Tobruk


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

G_for_George #61 Posted Apr 28 2014 - 10:56

    Private

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

I couldn't find my previous comment but great that Tobruk was considered and such a great article and insightful comments.

Bring it on!

In future it would be good if World of Tanks looked at other desert maps, especially one for the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and even the Chieftain might add more reviews of these tanks.  Just consider the tanks used in the conflicts, would love to see a Merkava - bring it on:

 

AMX-13 light Tank

Centurion Mk5

Centurion [upgraded] – Upgraded Centurion

 

Charioteer

 

Cromwell

 

FT-17

The Lebanese Army had a company of older French tanks, probably FT-17s in 1948-49.

Hotchkiss H-39 tank

Israel purchased a few from France in 1948; they formed the bulk of the Israeli tank force of the time.

Light Tank Mk VI

British tanks used by the Egyptians in 1948-49.

M22 Locust airbourne tank

British tanks used by the Egyptians in 1948-49.

M60A1

Israel used M60A1s in 1973. Applique armour was added for the 1982 war.

Matildas

The Egyptians had a few companies of British Matildas in 1948-49.

Merkava

An Israeli made heavy tank. It is slower than the contemporary Centurion or M60A1, but has better armour with a view to minimising crew casualities. It is equipped with an M68 105mm gun. A large rear ammunition compartment makes it possible for the Merkava to act as a short distance APC. It first saw action in the 1982 war. Now up to Mark IV.

Patton M48A2

Saw service with the Israelis in 1967.

Patton M48 Improved (M48A4)

The Israelis up gunned their M48A2Cs with the M68 105mm gun, and fitted a diesel engine. The US designate this as the M48A4 however, the Israelis do not. A handful had been up armed by the 1967 war and nearly all by the 1973 war.

Renault R35 Tank

The Syrian tank force in 1948 was made up of old worn out French R35s.

Renault R39 Tank

The Syrians also used R39s in 1948.

Sherman M1

The Israeli’s called all their early Shermans M1 whether based on the M4A1 (cast hulls) or M4A2 (welded hulls and diesels) and whether armed with a 75 mm (American or French) or 76 mm gun, or 105 mm howitzer.

The de-militarised Shermans located by Israel in Italian scrap yards during 1948 had a hole drilled in the gun. These were repaired in time for the 1948-49 war, although after the war some had their suspect weapon replaced by an old 1914-18 vintage Krupp 77mm field gun. Zaloga (1983) says these dodgy Shermans were originally equipped with a 105 mm howitzer, although another source says they had French 75 mm guns. .

The Egyptians fielded about a company of Shermans in 1948-49; mostly scavenged from battlefields.

France provided Israel with 60 M4A1 Shermans (76mm) just before the 1956 war.

By the 1956 war the Israeli’s had Shermans with Flail Scorpion mineclearing sweeps and bulldozer tanks fitted with M1 bulldozer blades.

By 1967 most M1 Shermans had been phased out, although small numbers where used on the Jordanian front for infantry support, and the bulldozer versions were still active.

Sherman M4A4 with FL-10 Turret

A Sherman M4A4 modified with M4A2 engine and AMX-13 turret for Egyptian Army.

Sherman M50 ‘Super Sherman’

Israeli-French modification of rolled plate hull M4 Sherman tanks. Most were based on the M4A4, but a few were based on the M4A1 cast hull. They had the normal gun replaced by the 75 mm high-velocity gun used in the AMX-13 (I’ve alternative designations of this gun as a VO1000 or a CN 75-50). The M50 Super Shermans first saw action during the 1956 war, and were still being used in small numbers in 1973.

Sherman M50 [APC]

Israeli M50 tank modified into an APC

Sherman M50 [Modified]

Israeli M50 turret fitted to M51 cast hull

Sherman M51HV ‘Isherman’

Israeli-French modification of M1 Shermans of various marks. They had the normal gun replaced with the French VO980 105 mm gun used in the AMX-30 (actually a shorter (L/44) version of that used in the AMX-30; Glen Hallick emailed to say “It’s a shorter version with a muzzle brake added. The Mk.51′s couldn’t handle the recoil of the French 105 so it was shortened.”). The gun fired HE and HEAT, no APDS (too low a velocity). Ishermans served in 1967 and 1973.

Sherman III

British Shermans (M4A2 w/75mm) provided to the Egyptians

T-34/85

The most common Egyptian tank in the 1956 war was the Czech built Soviet T-34/85. They also saw service in 1967 with both the Egyptians and Syrians.

Although Israel captured many, few, if any, of the captured specimens saw combat duty.

T-54 and T-55

Ti-67

The Israelis captured many T-54s and T-55s and converted them to Ti-67s with minor stowage changes, plus American M68 105mm main gun, radios and machine guns. They were used in the 1973 war.

Valentines

The Egyptians had a few companies of British Valentines in 1948-49.



FrozenKemp #62 Posted Apr 28 2014 - 15:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 42724 battles
  • 4,707
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostAnchobi, on Apr 26 2014 - 09:56, said:

 Figures like these reinforce the perception that the Italians neither were particularly good at fighting, nor were they particularly well motivated to do so. But they often substituted courage for tactics, and just as often, surrendered after putting up a brisk, but short resistance.

 

:sad:


I think a lot of the Italians had a problem with bad commanders and training.  From what I've read/recall, I think the Italian Trieste division was pretty good, though. 

 

 

Aside from AH's Tobruk, there were other wargames covering the period.  I used to have GDW's "8th Army: Operation Crusader" which was interesting in that it had a double-blind system.  Each player had a separate map with a lot of counters used to indicate the edge of enemy-controlled territory.  If you moved into an enemy hex you had to tell the other player and they would let you know if it was clear or not.  It then became your territory.  So, you might run into enemy forces by surprise, and when an enemy entered your territory you'd know they HAD been there, but they might not be there any more, and you wouldn't know the extent of their forces! 


Edited by Kempner, Apr 28 2014 - 15:17.


Wabbit_Punch #63 Posted Apr 29 2014 - 09:38

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 1196 battles
  • 2
  • [BENT] BENT
  • Member since:
    04-17-2014


 


Edited by Wabbit_Punch, Apr 29 2014 - 09:38.


Unassuming #64 Posted Apr 29 2014 - 12:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14919 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    07-25-2012

"At 244 days, it was the longest siege in the history of the Empire"

 

*Cough*

 

Which Empire? Surely not the British...?

 

Click Robert ;)

 

 



CombatCommandD #65 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 06:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2908 battles
  • 51
  • [SW2] SW2
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012

Too bad Tobruk fell not long after. Rommel regrouped and counterattacked and I believe some ANZACs were caught in Tobruk the second time and that time, the Germans got there too fast. With virtually no way to re-assemble their defenses, everything having been stripped away, the 2nd Siege of Tobruk lasted only a short time and ended with a complete surrender of the defenders.

 

Then came Operation AGREEMENT.

 

The worst kept secret of all of North Africa. The Allies lost even MORE men and equipment over Tobruk and other areas. The Royal Navy certainly didn't want be around for that battle and rightly so. They lost several ships, including irreplaceable Cruisers when they had a Battleship shortage!



CombatCommandD #66 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 06:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2908 battles
  • 51
  • [SW2] SW2
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012
On another note, why the heck don't we celebrate our troops so much here in America? Just a thought, seriously. I think a reporter gets more (undeserved) praise here for complete [edited]than our military personnel get for sticking their necks out and often getting their heads lopped off, literally in a number of cases.

CombatCommandD #67 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 07:15

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2908 battles
  • 51
  • [SW2] SW2
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012

G_for_George,

 

I've been saying that for a year now. Why the heck isn't there an Israeli Tech Tree? I got a few responses on the live chat, some were quite unbecoming (and I'm being polite). The Israelis fought a few great tank battles, some of the biggest tank on tank battles since WW2 and even greater than Operation DESERT STORM.

 

Let's look at some things, the M-50 that is better known as the Super Sherman by the international community than by Israel.

 

The M-50 was an M4A4 Sherman with 'Old' Style turrets mounting the 75mm M3, VVSS suspension, and Continental R-975 gasoline engines. Pretty much stock if I'm not mistaken, but generally unremarkable. So the Israelis had a lot of room to play around with the design.

 

The main gun for example was changed out for another 75mm gun. This was the then new French made High Velocity CN 75-50 which was based on the German made 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 or better known as the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther's main gun. The gun was originally developed for the AMX-13, but the Israelis felt the AMX-13 too lightly armored and promptly went about putting the CN 75-50 into the Sherman. Of course the Israelis also bought the AMX-13 and also switched some turrets from the AMX-13 to the Sherman chassis and Sherman turrets to the AMX-13. I believe they did that with several tanks actually.

 

Because of the increase weight, the VVSS suspension and the Continental R-975 proved inadequate for the newly designated Sherman M-50. So the Israelis swapped out the VVSS for HVSS and the Con R-975 for Cummins V8 460 diesel engines. The latter largely for battlefield survivability, though this also lead to two designations: M-50 Continental and M-50 Cummins.

 

Also, to compensate for the added weight in the front of the turret, the M-50 was also given a counterweight in the back. Actually, the whole modification process was quite similar to a Sherman Firefly. I wouldn't be surprised if a Firefly was the actual basis for the M-50.

 

Incidentally, the Egyptians also put FL-10 turrets on Sherman chassis and the CN 75-50 was also put on M10 Tank Destroyers by the IDF for a little more punch.



Anchobi #68 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 14:30

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13235 battles
  • 400
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View PostCombatCommandD, on Apr 30 2014 - 01:15, said:

G_for_George,

 

I've been saying that for a year now. Why the heck isn't there an Israeli Tech Tree? I got a few responses on the live chat, some were quite unbecoming (and I'm being polite). The Israelis fought a few great tank battles, some of the biggest tank on tank battles since WW2 and even greater than Operation DESERT STORM.

 

Let's look at some things, the M-50 that is better known as the Super Sherman by the international community than by Israel.

 

The M-50 was an M4A4 Sherman with 'Old' Style turrets mounting the 75mm M3, VVSS suspension, and Continental R-975 gasoline engines. Pretty much stock if I'm not mistaken, but generally unremarkable. So the Israelis had a lot of room to play around with the design.

 

The main gun for example was changed out for another 75mm gun. This was the then new French made High Velocity CN 75-50 which was based on the German made 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 or better known as the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther's main gun. The gun was originally developed for the AMX-13, but the Israelis felt the AMX-13 too lightly armored and promptly went about putting the CN 75-50 into the Sherman. Of course the Israelis also bought the AMX-13 and also switched some turrets from the AMX-13 to the Sherman chassis and Sherman turrets to the AMX-13. I believe they did that with several tanks actually.

 

Because of the increase weight, the VVSS suspension and the Continental R-975 proved inadequate for the newly designated Sherman M-50. So the Israelis swapped out the VVSS for HVSS and the Con R-975 for Cummins V8 460 diesel engines. The latter largely for battlefield survivability, though this also lead to two designations: M-50 Continental and M-50 Cummins.

 

Also, to compensate for the added weight in the front of the turret, the M-50 was also given a counterweight in the back. Actually, the whole modification process was quite similar to a Sherman Firefly. I wouldn't be surprised if a Firefly was the actual basis for the M-50.

 

Incidentally, the Egyptians also put FL-10 turrets on Sherman chassis and the CN 75-50 was also put on M10 Tank Destroyers by the IDF for a little more punch.

that would be nice for a tier 6 tank, but is that where the tech tree starts off at?  no offence to Israel, but they have barely a handful of original tanks...

 

granted, the chinese tech tree is a conglomeration of "whatever they could get their hands on" mixed with modified soviet tanks and a couple of original designs (with soviet influence), but do we need another tech tree like that?

that's kinda like making up tech trees just for the sake of Historical Battle Mode



Chopa #69 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 16:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 34654 battles
  • 489
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

View PostUnassuming, on Apr 29 2014 - 07:54, said:

"At 244 days, it was the longest siege in the history of the Empire"

 

*Cough*

 

Which Empire? Surely not the British...?

 

Click Robert ;)

 

 

 

Ahh Gibraltar, these young whippersnappers today think they've been in a siege if a scuffle goes much past lunchtime. In my day we counted our sieges in years and it wasn't a proper war until it hit the 100 year mark.



The_Chieftain #70 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 17:58

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10166 battles
  • 9,599
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostUnassuming, on Apr 29 2014 - 12:54, said:

"At 244 days, it was the longest siege in the history of the Empire"

 

*Cough*

 

Which Empire? Surely not the British...?

 

Click Robert ;)

 

 

Hmm. You have me there



redplauge #71 Posted Apr 30 2014 - 21:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16315 battles
  • 1,100
  • [W-G] W-G
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011
of intrest, tho more in line with WoWP, but signifigant to the north african campains was also the seige of malta

Anlushac11 #72 Posted May 01 2014 - 03:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 33153 battles
  • 2,108
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

The Littlejohn adapter should not be available for Matilda in historical battles. The Matilda right off loses its top gun. That brings the Matilda II more in line with the Valentine and PzIII/IV.

 

I hope a Battle of Sidi Rezegh is done separate from Tobruk map. Sidi Rezegh was one of the largest tank battles of WW2 and at the time of the battle in late November 1941 was the worlds largest.


Edited by Anlushac11, May 01 2014 - 03:21.


CombatCommandD #73 Posted May 03 2014 - 02:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2908 battles
  • 51
  • [SW2] SW2
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012

I believe Chieftain was referring to the British Empire when he said 'the longest siege in the Empire's history.'

 

You can pretty much rule out the Japanese Empire. While technically on the old side, it wasn't really an empire as we can consider it until the 1860s. Then I don't recall hearing them get into many sieges there after.

 

The Russian Empire... hm... maybe, but I'm Russian history kind of sucks.

 

The German Empire... which one?

 

The Roman Empire?

 

Ottoman Turks?

 

Really. When he said 'the Empire' did some of you have to get so technical? Almost feels like a Kirchner Cheerleader slipped into here.



Xlucine #74 Posted May 03 2014 - 02:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
I think you missed the point of that post - check his link

Commanche6 #75 Posted May 03 2014 - 12:40

    Private

  • Players
  • 29789 battles
  • 1
  • [JEDI] JEDI
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011

Great write-up, as always. I don't think it is a neglected theater on this side of the pond, though. As a kid, I watched Rat Patrol, Rommel was a doomed god of warfare who finally tried to do the right thing, and the movie Patton had Rommel kicking US Army behind at Kasserine Pass before George S. valiantly saved the day for the Allies. (It was a movie, after all). One bit of trivia--long-time Sunday Funnies comics character Andy Capp was originally a British WWII vet who served in the desert. His trademark tattered trenchcoat was actually British army kit that he demobbed with. Wonder if his domestic violence and substance abuse issues with Flo was how the Greatest Generation dealt with PTSD.

Edited by Commanche6, May 03 2014 - 12:52.


CombatCommandD #76 Posted May 13 2014 - 08:46

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2908 battles
  • 51
  • [SW2] SW2
  • Member since:
    06-13-2012

I heard there were a lot of bad cases coming out of that. Some were worse than WW1 cases and that's hard to believe. Okinawa alone produced more US causalities and PTSD cases than anywhere else then and since. One of the reasons the A-Bomb was dropped. The losses on Okinawa were staggering. Over 300,000 US, Japanese, and civilians killed or wounded. Over a hundred US Navy ships damaged, some quite badly. Nearly 40 others sunk. Plus the logistic train was enormous!

 

Most folks don't realize, that in the PTO we had more guys in work gloves than in combat boots, often 6 pairs of gloves to 1 pair of boots!

 

And that was about midway across the PTO. Imagine having to go right up to Japan. It was likely 12 pair of gloves to 1 pair of boots. It was just too monstrous to even try. Plus the defenses were going to be tough and human wave attacks were now going to be involving women and children. Can any of you say with a straight face that you would rather an invasion than an A-Bomb in such a case?



Dad_is_bad #77 Posted May 13 2014 - 12:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 625 battles
  • 74
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014

View PostZinegata, on Apr 27 2014 - 02:40, said:

The excellent performance of the Australians at the first siege of Tobruk really brings into question why the South Africans surrendered so quickly in the aftermath of Gazala - a topic never really looked into much.

Another gargantuan Churchillian muck up actually.

The Admiralty had informed Churchill and CIGS as well as the Middle East command that they would not and could not sustain the losses to continue to resupply Tobruk.

So what does Churchill do he ordered reinvestment  in Tobruk giving Auchinleck absolutely no options and anyway the rest is history.

I genuinely believe this was one of the reasons Churchull canned the "Auk" as the "Auk" had always been right in his judgements with Church and Church didn't like it one little bit..

AS recanted here's the basics of it..

In 1941 the Australians had held Tobruk for 9 months, until Rommel’s withdrawal to the west. That winter the Middle East Command in Cairo had decided that without naval support it would be impossible for the Tobruk fortress ever to be held in isolation. London had been informed and had – they thought – agreed, but on 15 June 1942 Auchinleck received a telegram from the Prime Minister, “Leave as many troops in Tobruk as are necessary to hold the place for certain.” At length a compromise was reached. Tobruk was to be “temporarily” invested while a new strike force was built up near the frontier.

The main part of the garrison was to be formed by the 1st South African Division with General Klopper – a major general of 1 month’s standing – named commander of the stronghold. The port’s physical defenses, while not in good shape, were hardly weaker than they had been in April 1941. The barbed wire, tank traps and well-placed gun emplacements were still there. Equipment was, if anything, a bit better. There were 2 partial medium-artillery regiments and the garrison was strong in field artillery. Although there were no anti-tank regiments, there were about 70 anti-tank guns, including 18 6-pounders as well as 18 37mm anti-aircraft guns and a number of Bofors plus about 55 tanks. The strength of the garrison was about the same, some 35,000 men. There was important difference, and it was one which Klopper, none too sure of himself or his position, was ill-equipped to deal with: this time the defending troops were exhausted, their morale was lower, and the camp was filled with a feeling of insecurity and impermanence.

As Tobruk prepared for battle the South Africans took up their positions along the northern, western and southern perimeter from the sea to the El Adem road. East from there were the 2nd Camerons, 2/5th Mahrattas and the 2/7th Gurkas. Near the Palestrino ridge in the centre were the 201st Brigade HQ’s, the 3rd Coldstream and the Sherwood Foresters. Meanwhile, the rest of the Eight Army made their way towards the defenses at the Egyptian frontier.

As usual, Rommel had devised a ruse for capturing Tobruk. Only his infantry approached the western perimeter, while his mobile forces swept on past, to give the impression that he was heading straight for the border as he had done the year before - and sending messages in clear to reinforce the illusion. Just before Bardia he and the 90th Light Division turned back to join the Afrika Korps assault divisions and the XX Italian Motorized Corps, who had been waiting southeast of the city. He was using the plan he had intended for 23 November 1941.

Rommel’s zero hour was 05h20 on 20 June 1942. As the first rays of sunlight began to creep over the desert the long black lines of tanks, trucks and infantry slowly started to move forward. As it grew louder small black dots appeared on the horizon, which, as they drew nearer, resolved themselves into waves of Stukas and Ju 88’s. Every airworthy Axis plane in North Africa had been pressed into service for the battle. As the heavy artillery began to fire, the planes released their bombs and quickly got out of the way for the next wave, operating a shuttle service between the defense perimeter and El Adem airfield, 10 miles away. They pounded a gap open 600 yards wide. Behind them, under cover of artillery barrage and half-hidden by smoke and dust, German and Italian sappers raced forward to lift mines and bridge the tank traps with tanks and infantry racing through the gaps. As they move forward, they lit green, red and purple flares and the Stukas dropped their bombs just ahead of the advancing, multi-coloured smoke screen while the other planes and artillery blasted the enemy’s rear with shells and bombs.

The timing of the entire operation was perfect. Panzer Army Afrika might well have been on maneuvers. The first shock troops broke into the fortress from the southeast. A second group breached the defences in the south, along the El Adem road, soon after. As tanks poured into the city they fanned out and headed for the harbor, while parachutists were dropped behind enemy lines to disorganized the defences and protect the supply dumps from demolition.

Inside Tobruk the situation was chaotic. General Klopper – his HQ’s bombed out, his radio and telephone wrecked and his code booked destroyed, lost the last vestige of control. Disconsolately he and his staff watched the Panzers race past their HQ’s on their way to capture the fuel dumps in the harbor. Some British troops broke out to the east. Others fought grimly on, while still others, like the South Africans in the west and southwest, hardly realized anything was happening until the 90th Light came up on their rear.

By dawn 21 June Tobruk was a pile of ruins. The streets were a maze of rubble and in the harbor the masts and funnels of sunken ships rose pathetically from the water. General Klopper have his compass and staff car to 7 young men from South African 6th Brigade who were determined to escape, saying, ”I wish I was coming with you.”

A few hours later a small part of officers set off in a truck, a little white flag fluttering over the hood, and at 09h40 on Via Balbo Klopper officially turned the city over to Rommel. Soon after, a large white flag was hoisted over 6th Brigade HQ’s by South African native drivers.

The signal to surrender created even more confusion. Some units never got it. Others, like the 3rd Coldstream, decided to ignore it and try to escape. The Cameron Highlanders, along with remnants of some of the Indian brigades, held out for more than 24 hours – surrendering only after being told that if they did not the Germans would concentrate every piece of artillery in Tobruk on their position. Finally giving in, they marched down to the prisoners of war cage in parade formation, with the pipes skirling “The March of the Cameron Men.” As they approached every man along the way - prisoner and German sentry alike - snapped to attention. 

After 2 years in British hands Tobruk had fallen in 2 days – and despite Rommel’s anger at the extend of the destruction effected by British demolition squads on vehicle parks and fuel dumps, he still had captured enough o carry him on his drive to Egypt. The fall of Tobruk came as a shattering blow to the British public (as Churchill had known it would), as well as to the Australians and South Africans. General Klopper came in for most of the criticism, but he was not entirely to blame. The decision to invest in Tobruk at all had been, in General Bayerlein’s phrase, ”a fatal decision.”

Though a more experienced general might have made more progress toward pulling the garrison into shape in time, there was also confusion among the British High Command. For example, Auchinleck realized full well that Rommel was almost certain to stick to his original plan to attack from the southeast. When Ritchie flew into Tobruk on 16 June 1942 to confer with the defenders, he warned Klopper to pay special attention to the western perimeter.

On 22 June Rommel received a message from the Fuhrer informing him that at the age 49 he had just been appointed Germany’s youngest Field Marshal. Rommel celebrated that night with canned pineapple and a small glass of whisky, but after dinner he wrote his wife, ”Hitler has made me a Field Marshal. I would much rather he had given me one more division.”

True to his cardinal rule – he never give the enemy breathing space – he did not celebrate long. The next day his Order of the Day read: ”Soldiers of the Panzer Army Africa! Now we must utterly destroy the enemy! During the coming days I shall be making great demands upon you once more, so that we may reach our goal.” The Nile. 

He would never get there. Hitler, by discontinuing the attack on Malta and refusing to send Rommel adequate supplies, would make defeat in the desert inevitable. Later, the Field Marshal would find himself presiding over another fiasco - the defence of Normandy – and still later would come involvement in the plot against Hitler and, eventually, forced suicide.

All this was in the future; in June 1942 the Desert Fox was as he is still remembered - dashing, resourceful and brave, racing across the desert with tanks of the Afrika Korps, heading to the pyramids of Egypt…


Edited by Dad_is_bad, May 13 2014 - 12:20.


avegemite #78 Posted Apr 26 2017 - 04:26

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 15879 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    03-08-2014

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning.

We will remember them.

 

Lest we forget.



FrozenKemp #79 Posted May 16 2017 - 01:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 42724 battles
  • 4,707
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostDad_is_bad, on May 13 2014 - 06:10, said:

The main part of the garrison was to be formed by the 1st South African Division with General Klopper – a major general of 1 month’s standing – named commander of the stronghold. The port’s physical defenses, while not in good shape, were hardly weaker than they had been in April 1941. The barbed wire, tank traps and well-placed gun emplacements were still there. Equipment was, if anything, a bit better. There were 2 partial medium-artillery regiments and the garrison was strong in field artillery. Although there were no anti-tank regiments, there were about 70 anti-tank guns, including 18 6-pounders as well as 18 37mm anti-aircraft guns and a number of Bofors plus about 55 tanks. The strength of the garrison was about the same, some 35,000 men. There was important difference, and it was one which Klopper, none too sure of himself or his position, was ill-equipped to deal with: this time the defending troops were exhausted, their morale was lower, and the camp was filled with a feeling of insecurity and impermanence.

 

I realize I'm quoting a post from three years ago, but still, when I see something incorrect I feel I have to comment.  Every other account I've read of the battle do not say that the defenses were "hardly weaker than they had been".  They say that they were, period, full stop.  

 

"The fact that its fall was also not seriously considered even on the spot is borne out - paradoxically - by the state of its defenses; in June 1942 it was in no condition to withstand a resolute attack. On the eastern side, where O'Connor's original attack had gone in, the anti-tank ditch had been allowed to fill, and many thousands of the mines now sewn in the Gazala defenses had originally been buried along the Tobruk perimeter - and removed from that perimeter in the confidence that Tobruk would never again be threatened."  (Barry Pitt, The Crucible of War)

 

And the state of the defenses does not seem to have been universally known.  e.g. Ritchie consulted with Gott about what to do, and according to Barry Pitt, Gott "was unaware of the deterioration of Tobruk's defenses along the south-eastern and eastern flanks of the perimeter and thus still considered it was possible for the port to withstand a seige". 

 

On other points I agree with you.  There were also bad communications between Auk and Ritchie with Ritchie saying "I'm pulling back" and sending troops back and only later that day getting orders otherwise. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users