British capture of Tripoli 1941

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#31

Post by Urmel » 21 Jun 2016, 15:17

After Beda Fomm only twelve cruiser tanks and forty light tanks were in action.
1) That's not two regiments other than in name.
2) The two regiments are one of less than Squadron strength of cruisers and one almost full strength of lights.
You know the reason they were not brought forward earlier.
I don't actually. A war diary would record activity and arrivals/departures of tanks. That's what I am looking for.
the two fresh cruiser regiments of 2nd Armoured Division
One is 5 R.T.R. - which one is the other? Presume 3 R.T.R. which was instead sent off to Greece, and lost a vast amount of its tanks there due to mechanical issues (see 'The Gods were Neutral'), which tells us something about how many of its tanks would have made it to Agheila and thence to Tripoli?

I also note this regarding pre-Beda Fomm:
7th Armoured Division [...] in its mechanically doubtful condition
Which would mean the tanks would have struggled even more to make it onwards from Agheila.

How many tanks did 1 R.T.R. in the Delta have? They went into Tobruk with 11 cruisers, but was that because they had no more?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#32

Post by Gooner1 » 21 Jun 2016, 17:47

Urmel wrote: 1) That's not two regiments other than in name.
2) The two regiments are one of less than Squadron strength of cruisers and one almost full strength of lights.
That's assuming the LAD cannot get any more running.
One is 5 R.T.R. - which one is the other? Presume 3 R.T.R. which was instead sent off to Greece, and lost a vast amount of its tanks there due to mechanical issues (see 'The Gods were Neutral'), which tells us something about how many of its tanks would have made it to Agheila and thence to Tripoli?
Yes, thats right, I was thinking one regiment each of Light and Cruiser tanks. It is actually two Cruiser and one Light Regiment. Which is nice. :milsmile:
Unfortunately the A10s of 3 RTR went off to Greece with the track pins for the A13s. Presumably 5 RTR also had a problem with their track pins.
How many tanks did 1 R.T.R. in the Delta have? They went into Tobruk with 11 cruisers, but was that because they had no more?
1 RTR were also in action at Beda Fomm with 11 Cruisers. Might be the same ones that got back to Tobruk.


User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#33

Post by Urmel » 22 Jun 2016, 14:42

How many did the LAD ultimately get running?

I don't actually know what the tank state of 3 R.T.R. was in February? I guess they were up to strength. How much of that would have arrived at Agheila is another issue though (those trackpins :) )

1 R.T.R. did not get back to Tobruk but the Delta, and then was sent forward again in April. The fact that they still had 11 tanks then seems to indicate there was no reserve whatsoever.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#34

Post by Gooner1 » 23 Jun 2016, 14:24

Urmel wrote:How many did the LAD ultimately get running?
No idea. Seems like a job for Tom from Cornwall. :D

I would say that if there was urgency to get them fixed and moving forward again there would be more running than if priority was given to getting them a proper overhaul.
I don't actually know what the tank state of 3 R.T.R. was in February? I guess they were up to strength. How much of that would have arrived at Agheila is another issue though (those trackpins :) )
Oh, they probably all would have arrived at Agheila, albeit not all at the same time.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#35

Post by MarkN » 03 Jul 2016, 16:52

Gooner1 wrote:
MarkN wrote:Some people are very willing to excuse the abysmal performance of 2nd Armoured Division and CYRCOM in April due to the poor state of the tanks at their disposal.

And yet those same people seem to think the 7th Armoured Division could get to Tripoli in February/March with a tank state somewhat worse than that available to the 2nd Armoured Division a few weeks later.
Well those people are certainly less dumb than those who think force ratios have nothing to do with it!

The fact of the matter is that whatever few dozen or score tanks the British can muster in mid-to-late February they are opposed by a round zero tanks on the Axis side.
Remind me please as to when 32nd reggimento corrazato arrived in Libya, how many tanks they had and whether the handful of British tanks that managed to last out yet another dash forward would have come up against them
Gooner1 wrote:By late March-April the Axis had a large superiority over the British in tanks.
And that's not true either.

Force ratios only have relevance when one uses the ones that actually existed rather then the significantly massaged data (sometimes blatantly false) used by some.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#36

Post by Tim Smith » 04 Jul 2016, 09:11

Gooner1 wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Five weeks from Beda Fomm before the first Panzers arrive. If O'Connor can push his forces past, say, Buerat Hitler might think it not a good idea to reinforce failure.
November, 1942. The Axis lose the Battle of El Alamein. The Allies invade French North Africa. Rommel informs Hitler that the North African campaign is now untenable for the Axis and recommends a total withdrawal of all forces from Africa.

Hitler's response? Massive reinforcements, an entire new army sent to Tunisia. Why? Political reasons. Hitler was desperate to avoid Mussolini's regime collapsing.

The same applies to Tripoli in 1941. The loss of Tripoli might cause Mussolini's downfall and a new Italian leader may seek to extricate Italy from the war. Will Hitler risk that?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#37

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 12:25

MarkN wrote:Remind me please as to when 32nd reggimento corrazato arrived in Libya, how many tanks they had and whether the handful of British tanks that managed to last out yet another dash forward would have come up against them
Please remind yourself.
Force ratios only have relevance when one uses the ones that actually existed rather then the significantly massaged data (sometimes blatantly false) used by some.
Yes, like counting all the tanks in workshops in Tobruk or the Delta.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#38

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 14:09

Tim Smith wrote:
Gooner1 wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Five weeks from Beda Fomm before the first Panzers arrive. If O'Connor can push his forces past, say, Buerat Hitler might think it not a good idea to reinforce failure.
November, 1942. The Axis lose the Battle of El Alamein. The Allies invade French North Africa. Rommel informs Hitler that the North African campaign is now untenable for the Axis and recommends a total withdrawal of all forces from Africa.

Hitler's response? Massive reinforcements, an entire new army sent to Tunisia. Why? Political reasons. Hitler was desperate to avoid Mussolini's regime collapsing.

The same applies to Tripoli in 1941. The loss of Tripoli might cause Mussolini's downfall and a new Italian leader may seek to extricate Italy from the war. Will Hitler risk that?
Ruling out a German landing in Tunisia how can the Axis get troops into Tripoli faster than they were already?

The Parachute division a possibility?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#39

Post by Urmel » 04 Jul 2016, 14:13

Why would you rule out a landing in Tunisia? It was under serious discussion during CRUSADER and the Italians requested it.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#40

Post by MarkN » 04 Jul 2016, 14:54

Gooner1 wrote: Please remind yourself.

Yes, like counting all the tanks in workshops in Tobruk or the Delta.
Having reminded myself, I note your continuing inability to face up to any 'facts' that are unhelpful to your ahistorical analysis.

In a previous discussion we had about the actual performance of 3rd Armoured Brigade and 2nd Armoured Division 6 weeks later, you massaged the data to suit your analysis. To recap, on the British side when counting tanks and formations, you exclude all units not in the immediate vicinity of the engagement and all non-operational tanks. On the otherhand, deliberately to inflate the "force ratios" that you like to quote, you assume all Axis tanks are serviceable and include units further away from the engagement than British units you've chosen exclude.

In this discussion, the tables are turned. You dismiss three battalions of Italian light tanks as a "horde of useless Italian L3 tankettes" - the very same 100+ tanks you are eager to include in your 'proof' of how impossible was 2nd Armoured Division's mission. And, just to complete the intellectually challenged cycle of evidence, suddenly all of the broken (or likely to be broken since this is a what if) British tanks are now to be considered in the 'force ratio' of an ahistorical march to Tripoli.

Why do you feel the need when excusing poor British generalship to have to massage the facts in one direction, and when seeking fault in British political decisionmaking you have to massage the figures to the complete opposite?

And, to add insult to injury, in this thread you are relying on the Australian OH passage as the foundation of your belief that taking Tripoli was a done deal. The passage that you quoted does not reflect accurately O'Connor's own appreciation. Although he certainly did want to press on, and felt success was possible, it was a belief full of caveats and assumptions that, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see were inaccurate or unlikely to be fulfilled.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#41

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 15:27

Urmel wrote:Why would you rule out a landing in Tunisia? It was under serious discussion during CRUSADER and the Italians requested it.
Unless the French agree to their coming over, the Axis are distinctly lacking in the naval department ..

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#42

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 15:28

MarkN wrote: Having reminded myself, I note your continuing inability to face up to any 'facts' that are unhelpful to your ahistorical analysis.
You need to remind yourself that I haven't faced any facts. :wink:

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#43

Post by Tim Smith » 04 Jul 2016, 17:24

Gooner1 wrote:
Urmel wrote:Why would you rule out a landing in Tunisia? It was under serious discussion during CRUSADER and the Italians requested it.
Unless the French agree to their coming over, the Axis are distinctly lacking in the naval department ..
You're forgetting that the British had already dealt with the French Navy on 3 July 1940.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on ... K%C3%A9bir

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#44

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 18:01

Might be of interest:
Freddie de Guingand, 'Operation Victory' (1947)

"in the Joint Planning Room at G.H.Q., we had convinced ourselves that once Tobruk and Benghazi were captured we could, after a pause of a week or two, advance with adequate forces to capture Tripoli. The prize was great. It would mean that we should be in a position to avoid further major campaigns in North Africa. We would be able to link up with the French in Tunis, which might well lead to active collaboration. The shipping route through the Mediterranean might be kept open without great difficulty. There were uncertainties – inherent in all bold military ventures. For instance, subsequent maintenance of the forces in Tripolitania might well have proved very difficult. On the other hand, I seem to remember that General O’Connor’s own staff were studying the same problem and were very hopeful. There was very little, if any, useful Italian opposition left, and at the time the decision had to be made the Germans had not decided upon major intervention across the Mediterranean. In order to maintain the comparatively small force that would have been necessary to capture Tripoli, all but this striking force would have to be grounded, and its transport formed into supply echelons. All this, however, had been worked out and was by no means impossible."

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British capture of Tripoli 1941

#45

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jul 2016, 18:06

David Belchem, 'All in the Days March' (1977)

"At El Agheila , our forces were still some 760 miles from Tripoli, but our intelligence reports indicated that the remaining Italian troops in Tripolitania had no heart for this war and moreover much of their equipment, particularly artillery, had already been sent to reinforce the formations in Cyrenaica, which were now in our hands. As far as North Africa was concerned, the Army problem was whether we had the transport vehicles and fuel to sustain an advance to Tripoli for, until arrival there, there would be no port nearer than Benghazi for receiving seaborne supplies, which thence would have to be moved along the single desert coastal road.
I was one of the junior staff officers (a Major) employed on making the calculations concerning the move forward to Tripoli, in terms of tonnage to be shifted, and vehicle capacity and fuel availability necessary. The answer was positive: it could have been done."

Post Reply

Return to “What if”