Amphibious landing at Tobruk by the Axis 1941

[Andy H]

British Intelligence learn't on November 16th 1941 that the Italian San Marco marine Btn had arrived in North Africa. Some 6 days earlier the British had learn't that leave had been cancelled in the Panzergruppe and that the Trento Mot Division had been brough up to Tobruk, plus Landing Craft. Sometime later the British found some 500 rubber boats in the area.

Does anyone have any further information on this proposed amphibious assault?

Regards

Andy H

[Andreas]

Trento replaced Bologna (I think) in the siege line, so they probably had nothing to do with any amphibious assault.

The assault was planned for 21 November. I never heard anything of an amphibious stage, all the accounts I have read agree that it was a straightforward job, with elms. 15.PD and Div. zbV Afrika attacking up the Via Balbia from the SE of the siege lines, with the tanks exploiting the breakthrough, and the fortress collapsing in two days.

Crusader spoiled the party.

All the best

Andreas

[Andy H]

The British OH on its Intelligence in Vol II, gives a reference of CAB44/92 which refers to it within Section I, chapter G: General Auchinleck's offensive; phase II, the launching of operation "Crusader", 1941 Nov.18-30, by Lieutenant-Colonel G. R. Johnston

Regards

Andy H

[Jon G.]

There was a proposed amphibious assault near Tobruk in May 1942, in the wake of the Gazala battles. One version, available here suggests that the plan was cancelled, whereas Churchill's speech in the House of Commons from June 1942 actually suggests that an Axis amphibious attack was driven off by the Royal Navy.

I lifted the Kampfgruppe Hecker OOB from the Comando Supremo forum - unfortunately, I don't have a direct link to the post I lifted this from, but it was written by Jack Greene:

... Hecker Amphibious unit
Approximately 650 men or just over 800 if third San Marco company arrives.
3rd San Marco Battalion was in Africa. 373 men of two companies and possibly a third company (168 men) would have been used in the proposed operation.
778th Pioneer Landing Company (A German Amphibious Assault Engineer company numbering 73 men).
13th company of the 800th Brandenburger Regiment (100 men, 60 of whom had lived in Palestine and spoke some Arabic).
Vehicles: Three British tanks, either light Mk VI's, or medium Mk IV's. Also three armored car, and two SP guns.
Artillery included 13 47mm AT guns, three 50mm, six 37mm, and 4 2-pdrs...

[13emeDBLE]

I never heard about an amphibious project against Tobruk in 1941. Rommel and Panzergruppe Afrika planned an attack from the south-east, by land.

Remember taht this plan was taken with only few change for the attack of june 42.

The operation Theseus planned an amphibious attack, by KG Heker, occuring after the first phase. But the 26th of may, Rommel choose the "Venezia" option and this amphibious assault was first postponed, and later cancelled.

The Theseus action foresaw an attack against Bir Hacheim : the XX Corpo at the north, the DAK directly against the Free French, and the 90. Leichte-division by passing the strong point by south.

The "Venezia" option (or hypothesis) was a change of the main direction, all units bypassing Bir Hacheim on the South (the XX Corpo attacking Bir Hacheim).

Of course, with all mobiles units so deep in the South, an amphibious operation against the northern coast would be too risky and was postponed till the Panzer-division were in course to encircle the 8th army. But the plan had to be abandonned few days later...

Regards,

CM

[Andy H]

Thank you Jon & Cedric for the information provided.

Re-reading the passage in the OH, it uses the word 'pointed' which would indicate that this was how British Intel interpreted the various fragments of information it recieved from sigint etc.
The OH also makes note of WarOffice records in relation to this event.

The answer, if there is one, lies to some extent in those records mentioned.

Regards

Andy H

[The_Enigma]

Trento replaced Bologna (I think) in the siege line, so they probably had nothing to do with any amphibious assault.

The assault was planned for 21 November. I never heard anything of an amphibious stage, all the accounts I have read agree that it was a straightforward job, with elms. 15.PD and Div. zbV Afrika attacking up the Via Balbia from the SE of the siege lines, with the tanks exploiting the breakthrough, and the fortress collapsing in two days.

Crusader spoiled the party.

All the best

Andreas

Would have the action gone nicely along with there plan?

From what ive read of the attacks upon the fortress earlier in the year, they had managed to brake in at least once which was driven back and in general it seems the defenders gave them a really hard time.

[Andreas]

This time they had a proper plan, and it is likely that they would have succeeded, in my view.

All the best

Andreas

[13emeDBLE]

That's another question !

It is very hard to foresee if an operation cancelled should have gone well...

There was a lot of differences between this plan and the differents assaults repulsed on spring 41. One of the main is a bigger support from heavy german artillery in november 41. But also, the fortifications and defences were very well, and in an in-depth system.

Also there is differences between the attack planned in november 41 and the assault successfull of june 42 : the main is that the defensor were less strong, with less arty support, and defences not ready to deal with a big attack.

But it could become a debate without end...

CM

[Michael Emrys]

...the defensor were less strong...

AIUI, the defenses were considerably less strong in 1942. Many of the mines had been lifted to be used in the Gazala line, parts of the AT ditch had been filled by wind-blown sand, the wire was gone or decrepit in some places. If I am correct, the troops had not been in position long and might not have settled in properly (sited their weapons, located reserve supplies, established communications internal within the fortress, etc.). In other words, in 1941 the defense was quite well thought out but in 1942 a hasty improvisation.

Michael

[JonS]

Agree with Michael about the state of the defences in mid-1942. Furthermore, the decision to defend Tobruk at all in June 1942 was very much a last-minute thing. Up to May 1942 (and even later?) the plan called for abandoning Tobruk should 8th Army be pushed back from the Gazala position - largely because the RN pretty much refused to supply it again as they had in 1941. However at some point during the Gazala Battles in May-June 1942, when things started going south, someone had the bright idea that maybe they should defend Tobruk after all. Order, counter-order, dis-order. Predictably, hilarity ensued.

There are certain similarities between early 1941 - when the Aussies were able to successfully fall back on Tobruk, even though highly disorganised - and mid 1942 - when the Yarpies were unable to successfully fall back on Tobruk, because they were disorganised - but I think the differences are more significant.

It's worth noting that all (both?) the successful assaults on Tobruk came in from the SE. I'm tempted to agree with Andreas that the planned Italo-German assault on Tobruk in Nov 1941 would have been successful, although very bloody for the Axis forces involved.

As for the proposed amphib assault, I wonder (ie, I have no sources to back this up) if the plan was to wount a diversion across the very large Wadi that marked the NW limit of the perimeter? That'd be sort-of like a river crossing, which is about all that rubber boats would be good for.

[Michael Emrys]

As for the proposed amphib assault, I wonder (ie, I have no sources to back this up) if the plan was to wount a diversion across the very large Wadi that marked the NW limit of the perimeter? That'd be sort-of like a river crossing, which is about all that rubber boats would be good for.

Would the wadi have been water-filled? I know that in the event it did rain very hard during the opening of CRUSADER and several times in the ensuing days, but was there sufficient expectation that the wadi would have water whenever the attack went in?

Michael

[JonS]

The one I'm thinking of was more like a fiord than a dry wadi. I'm no geologist, but it looks to have been built by the standard wadi processes, but was essentially a long, narrow-ish indentation on the coast.

I'm pretty sure it's the one shown NW of the end of the runway here:
http://maps.google.com/maphp?ie=UTF8&ll ... &z=13&om=1

... although that one looks dry ...

[The_Enigma]

The attacks all were made from the SE?

This is the area the Aussies originally broke in as iirc the AT ditch was shallower there, did they carry on construction of it during there stay at the 1star Hotel Tobruk?

[13emeDBLE]

No, the attack of May was against the Ras el Medauar, at the highs grounds at the south-West.

But you are right for all others attacks, especially the two successful ones.

I have no infos of where the british attacked Tobruk at the end of 1942, after El Alamein....

CM