Bardia 1941

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Bardia 1941

#16

Post by The_Enigma » 18 Jan 2009, 05:17

Excellent photos, great posts :)

Didnt the Matildas have to be dragged from Bardia to Tobruk by British trucks to keep them in action?

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#17

Post by Peter H » 18 Jan 2009, 05:30

The_Enigma wrote:Excellent photos, great posts :)

Didnt the Matildas have to be dragged from Bardia to Tobruk by British trucks to keep them in action?
Yes :)


User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#18

Post by Peter H » 28 Jun 2010, 11:11

I recommend Craig Stockings new book on the Bardia battle.
Bardia: Myth, Reality and the Heirs of Anzac


A good review on the books strengths and weaknesses:
What Happened at Bardia?
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/iss ... -at-bardia


Image

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Bardia 1941

#19

Post by Dili » 28 Jun 2010, 14:37

Any detail of Artillery and Anti Aircraft defenses of Bardia?

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#20

Post by Peter H » 29 Jun 2010, 13:06

Stockings(page 116) gives the following Italian garrison artillery numbers:

41 Breda Model 35 20mm AA guns
85 47mm AT guns
26 Solothurn 20mm AT guns
41 65mm infantry support guns
147 field guns(75mm & 77mm)
76 howitzers ( 100mm & 105mm)
27 medium and heavy guns (120mm & 149mm)


On page 386 he relates that "Italian artillerymen..were described by their adversaries as the most dangerous and tenacious of their foes" due to able officers,better educated soldiers,and thorough training:
Lieutenant Colonel Chilton ,2/2 Battalion,belived 'there was no question that the Italian gunners were well-trained and determined troops,prepared to fight it out to the last'....Major Marshall of 2/7 Battalion was equally adamant that 'we had every respect for the skill of the Italian artillerymen'..After Bardia capitulated,a fellow artilleryman,Gunner L.E.Tutt,104 RHA,came across an Italian battery that had been engaging his own.He noted they had 'died at their guns'..

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Bardia 1941

#21

Post by David W » 29 Jun 2010, 13:31

Peter.

Great info!

Does it say to which units the guns were ascribed?

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Bardia 1941

#22

Post by Dili » 29 Jun 2010, 15:23

Thanks Peter but not enough detail. btw the 105mm howitzer is certainly wrong, Italians had a 105 gun.
Last edited by Dili on 29 Jun 2010, 16:19, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Bardia 1941

#23

Post by David W » 29 Jun 2010, 16:15

Another thing, Solothurn in Jan 1941?
I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's the earliest I've ever seen them listed.

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Bardia 1941

#24

Post by Dili » 29 Jun 2010, 16:35

I have this quotes taken from some place in my database:
According to Cappellano (page 240), 100 Solothruns were purchase at the end of 1940 and immediately sent to the 10th Army in A.S. The Germans provided 60 more in 1941 that had been originally made for the Dutch Army. 2,500 were obtained in 1942, mainly to equip the A.S. 42 structure.
580 bought, 100 arrive in 1940, 60 arrive from Netherlands; 305 from order filled in Mar42

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#25

Post by Peter H » 01 Jul 2010, 09:25

David W wrote:Peter.

Great info!

Does it say to which units the guns were ascribed?
David

No allocation given unfortunately.


While acknowledging the Italian artillery as a capable arm Stockings also brings up some serious defeiciences it had in relation to its shell types,quality:

(a)Duds were very common--"a captured Italian document of 1 October 1940 revealed that 66 per cent of all ammunition fuses in the 21 Corps were out of date and untrustworthy"(page 335).One British gunner relates at Bardia of a great many Italian rounds "that were not bursting and turning head over heels acroos the desert...one tank crewman was astonished by the number of enemy shells which failed to explode---"

(b)"The problem was more than faulty fuses ...even when Italian shells detonated they occasionally failed to fragment.Those that did revealed seriously defective sharpnel patterns...even Wavell observed that Italian shells did not burst with anything like the 'snap of German artillery in the last war'..they were noisy,but rarely deadly...most Italian shells burst upwards rather than downwards.The sharpnel was therefore ineffectual beyond a metre or two from the point of explosion,and its lethal area was restricyed to a narrow cone immediately to the rear of the explosion---fragmentation was almost non-existent.This explains why practically all Australian wounds from shellfire were fatal and the result of direct hits,there should have been a much higher proportion of sharpnel wounds.."

More,pp 336-337:
A soldier from 2/3rd Battalion concluded that 'there must have been something wrong with their ammunition,for I've seen men knocked head over tit,but get to their feet,staggering and silly in the head,but unhurt"...In Mereiga sector Lt MacFarlane was twice blown over by Italian shells but remained uninjured...Captain Honner was 'horrified to see the first two sections and then the third blown over'.As 'nothing moved in the dust',he thought 'this is it--one platoon gone'..after a moment Honner's dazed soldiers scrambled up and forward to regain their positions..In Saviage's opinion the Italians lost at Bardia because of the ineffectiveness of their shells more than any other factor'

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#26

Post by Peter H » 01 Jul 2010, 09:59

Stockings on the key role of the British Matilda tanks at Bardia (page 330):
They quite literally could not be stopped.During the battle one vehicle substained 46 direct hits,and while anything breakable--radio aerials,water cans,lights and so forth--was blown off the tank,it was neither penetrated nor put out of action...

As the survivors of Sidi Barrani took up positions behind the wire at Bardia,news of a terrible weapon against which there was no defence spread quickly.Bergonzoli's men knew full well what was coming...Mackay later noted that it was at the appearance of the I tanks that many Italians 'realised the hoplessness of the position and surrendered freely'...

Mackay confessed two days after the battle that for him 'every I Tank that could be kept going for Tobruk was worth a battalion of infantry'..'For Mackay ' without tanks it would probably have taken weeks of heavy fighting and slaughter to capture such a heavily fortified position [Bardia]..'

The Australian Army's own analysis concluded that Bardia had proved 'the fact that an armoured force is essential for success in modern battle'..

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Bardia 1941

#27

Post by Peter H » 01 Jul 2010, 10:48

Stockings claims the following factors lead to a quick Australian victory at Bardia:

-only 6,000 of the Italian garrison at Bardia of 40,000 were on the perimeter defenses.The Italians did not believe in exposing their support & service troops in an active defense role anyway.At the focal points of attack the Australians outnumbered the Italian defenders.

-the Italian Posts were exposed,only fired forward and could be easily outflanked with armour support.Post 11 only caused a problem because no tanks supported the Australian attack there.

-the Italian garrison lacked adequate food and water,and hence poor morale..."One Italian infantryman reported to his captors...that for the last 15 days he had insufficient food--one piece of bread,half a tin of meat and a little soup each day---a far cry from the 1.5 kilograms of food per man per day stipulated by Italian ration scales....[One Australian] recalled "many were dying and weak from hunger and thrist.They ratted dugouts for stray crumbs of food.They went down on their knees and drank up puddles of water.."

-Italian artillery shells proved to function poorly (as mentioned in posts above)

-"the decisive contribution of British armour--ascribing central importance within the first significant Australian victory of World War 2 to British tanks may not fit neatly into the Anzac tradition,but is nonetheless the correct thing to do.."


The Anzac myth of rugged big men attacking with bayonets and bettering man to man their effete opponents should be challenged.Effective concentrated firepower(and armour) lead to the victory there.

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

Re: Bardia 1941

#28

Post by Tim Smith » 01 Jul 2010, 18:00

The fat lady (Matilda) sang, and the battle was won!

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Bardia 1941

#29

Post by David W » 01 Jul 2010, 18:17

Thanks Dili.

Thanks Peter.



Question.

Did the Italian artillery rounds gat any more reliable as the campaign wore on?

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: Bardia 1941

#30

Post by Dili » 01 Jul 2010, 22:37

From what i have read yes. I suspect like in East Africa many of the rounds were WWI vintage. With so many losses they would need to get new rounds.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”