The "lost" battle of Mersa el Brega, Libyan desert, 31 March

[Urmel]

I think you'll find that is overall history's verdict, given what happened next. The amount of resources squandered on supplying the Axis forces around Tobruk and the effort put into building up a siege force to deal with Tobruk was a major drain on the resources in North Africa.

Murphy's thesis does a good job in revealing what resources were available to the British.

I don't know. I keep finding niggling things that make me doubt the whole lot. E.g. on 7 RTR, quoting Fletcher:

In early April six [Matildas] were sent to Crete

The order may have been given then, but they did not leave Alex until 11 May, see WO169/1416. This whole discussion of how many tanks were available is rife with speculation which appears ill informed.

Or the idea that after having casualties of not far off 1,000 men, 6 Australian Division was stronger than before. Murphy completely ignores where casualties fall. That they had 1,000 casualties out of 16,000 during the assaults on Bardia and Tobruk (or whatever a division had) is not relevant. They had close to 1,000 casualties out of 5,400 riflemen (12 companies with about 150 men each). So 18.5% rather than 6.25%. I doubt that they felt stronger than before. And that's ignoring sick cases, which were also a serious issue in the desert. That they only spent four weeks in the desert isn't relevant either - after four weeks of Operation CRUSADER 2 New Zealand Division was a shell of its former self. Time doesn't matter. Intensity does.

[Gooner1]

I think you'll find that is overall history's verdict, given what happened next. The amount of resources squandered on supplying the Axis forces around Tobruk and the effort put into building up a siege force to deal with Tobruk was a major drain on the resources in North Africa.

Does history have verdicts? I can't quite see how things are supposed to turn out so much better if they delay their attack a couple of months or so. They're certainly not going to get to Alexandria or even within spitting distance of it.

This from the Australian Official History on the German strategy

On 18th March Rommel left Africa by air
to report to the German High Command; but before leaving he ordered
that plans should be made for an operation to seize the eastern outlet of
the El Agheila defile on 24th March . On the 19th he saw Hitler, General
Brauchitsch and the Chief of the General Staff, General Halder, at Hitler's
headquarters . He told Hitler that the British were thinking defensively
and concentrating their armour near Benghazi, intending to hold the Jebel
Achdar area. He asked for reinforcements, contending that it would not
be possible to bypass the hump of Cyrenaica by attacking along the chord
of the arc in the direction of Tobruk without first defeating the British
in the Jebel Achdar. Hitler and Brauchitsch replied that the 15th Armoured
Division, due to be dispatched in May, was the only reinforcement Rommel
could expect . When it arrived he was to make a reconnaissance in force
to Marsa Brega, attack the British around Agedabia and possibly take
Benghazi; but he was to adopt a cautious policy in the meantime. The
German High Command had its eyes on other commitments: Greece and
Crete. And Russia. Rommel later recorded that he "pointed out that we
could not just take Benghazi, but would have to occupy the whole of
Cyrenaica, as the Benghazi area could not be held by itself " .

If Rommel is genuine in what he 'pointed out' it shows he had a rather better grasp of strategy than OKH.

Or the idea that after having casualties of not far off 1,000 men, 6 Australian Division was stronger than before. Murphy completely ignores where casualties fall. That they had 1,000 casualties out of 16,000 during the assaults on Bardia and Tobruk (or whatever a division had) is not relevant. They had close to 1,000 casualties out of 5,400 riflemen (12 companies with about 150 men each). So 18.5% rather than 6.25%. I doubt that they felt stronger than before. And that's ignoring sick cases, which were also a serious issue in the desert. That they only spent four weeks in the desert isn't relevant either - after four weeks of Operation CRUSADER 2 New Zealand Division was a shell of its former self. Time doesn't matter. Intensity does.

The Australians themselves thought their losses had been light and had been eager to push onto Tripoli but had instead quickly been packed off to Greece.

[Urmel]

Fair point on the Australians if that's what they felt.

As for Rommel's grasp on map reading (not strategy), yes, but he clearly did not understand the logistical implications of his move, or totally ignored them.

[Norm]

Hi all I am the author of The Lost Battle of Mersa el Brega and should I like to apologise to all the contributors to the Axis History Forum who have read and placed a comment on my work for my late response. I would, of course, have responded sooner but have only recently been made aware of your comments. However, now that I have been made aware of your comments let me thank you most sincerely for taking the time to read my work and then going to all the trouble of reviewing it and highlighting certain aspects you consider are incorrect or lacking in detail. In future responses I will endeavour to address the concerns you have already posted and will be happy to debate any issues or points of accuracy, or inaccuracy, that you may feel I have made.
In regard to URMEL’S comment that “It's amazing what people get PhDs for” intimating that my work is poor and that therefore I should not have been awarded a PhD, he is of course entitled to his opinion and, to a certain extent, I agree with him. I have read many PhD submissions over the last ten years and I have to say some of them are very poor indeed. This observation also applies to many, so called, works of history. Perhaps any work URMEL has produced falls into this category, and I, and I am sure other contributors to this site, would be very grateful to see his PhD thesis or indeed any work that he has had published, to help us make up our minds as to whether his opinions are worth taking seriously or not.
As to my own research into the battle of Mersa el Brega, and the gaps, or perhaps less detailed explanations offered in my research, that some of you have pointed out, I would just like to clarify how modern PhDs are constructed. As you will have no doubt noticed approximately half of the thesis (which can only be in total 100,000 words long) is taken up with explaining how I went about writing it. I had to do a source review a piece on command and several other pieces of work completely unrelated to the core subject matter; the battle itself. I had gone into much more detail on virtually every aspect of the battle and would have loved to have included far more on, for example Italian tanks, anti aircraft guns and the ability of the Australians to pursue the Italians after Beda Fomm, but unfortunately the rules of the qualification forced me take them out to satisfy the demands of the word count.
Nonetheless I am now more than happy to discuss these and any other aspects of my work, the battle and any surrounding issues, at length, with anyone who is interested, provided, of course, the debate is reasoned and any points of dispute are backed up with sound evidence. So gentlemen it’s up to you please fire away.

[Urmel]

In regard to URMEL’S comment that “It's amazing what people get PhDs for” intimating that my work is poor and that therefore I should not have been awarded a PhD, he is of course entitled to his opinion and, to a certain extent, I agree with him. I have read many PhD submissions over the last ten years and I have to say some of them are very poor indeed. This observation also applies to many, so called, works of history. Perhaps any work URMEL has produced falls into this category, and I, and I am sure other contributors to this site, would be very grateful to see his PhD thesis or indeed any work that he has had published, to help us make up our minds as to whether his opinions are worth taking seriously or not.

Ah. So only people with PhDs are entitled to have a view on the quality of PhDs? Ah well, that should make life in academia so much easier. Well in any case I hope you can excuse me non-PhD having a view on what's happening in your ivory tower, I know that it's just not very becoming for the great unwashed to comment on your noble pursuit, but begging your forebearance nevertheless...

Going by your bibliography, you have not accessed any German primary sources or official histories, if we ignore the 'Rommel Papers'. War diaries of e.g. the D.A.K. for the period are held in the UK. Not being able to speak German would be no excuse, I am 100% certain someone would have translated the relevant 2-3 pages for you in exchange for a small sum of money or a free diner, and I am sure even in Hull you'll find the odd German speaker (heck, I'd have done it for free). The Italian OH is often quite detailed on a number of these things, it's available in English. I would have failed you right there, for failure to show that you dug as deeply as you could into the Axis side of the story, unless of course you did look at them but then didn't feel like mentioning them.

The comment on PhDs being handed out for describing a single day of battle was however not aimed at you. That's the academic system - contribution to knowledge, no matter how tiny it is, I am aware of it. That's obviously fine for you, but I think as a taxpayer I am entitled to have a view on whether I think that's a desirable threshold to have, and to express that view, regardless of my academic qualifications. The bristling response does however indicate that maybe deep down you have some nagging doubts about the wisdom of the sytem yourself.

By the way, if you manage to get over being criticised by a non-PhD holder, how about dealing with my more substantive criticism of your work? E.g. where does the information that 7 R.T.R. sent tanks to Crete in April come from?

As for my work. It's linked in my signature. Knock yourself out to take a view of its quality. I welcome qualified criticism and corrections from fellow researchers very much.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Norm,

Firstly, welcome to the Forum.

Secondly, don't worry about Urmel - he can get testy at times, I think it might be lack of sleep!

The good thing is, though, that if you want to have a debate with someone about the desert war, complete with references to increasing numbers of primary sources, etc, then he is one of the many forum members on here who really holds your "historical feet to the fire" in terms of research and analysis.

Regards

Tom

[Urmel]

Yeah, I'm just a cranky old git, but I'll have you know that all that travel to Astana would get to you too after a while.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi,

OK, I confess, I had to look up "Astana" - at first I thought it was where they send the naughty people in Harry Potter

They have obviously got an unknown desert war archive there...or perhaps just a reminder that POL was all-important.

Regards

Tom

[Urmel]

Close though. That's Ashgabat, in real life Azkaban. Or was that the other way round? On my list of places to dread that the boss may send me there... TV apparently is a choice between 24-hr coverage of tractors tilling the land, or Turkmen folk songs hailing the Turkmenbashi. Shudder...

[Aber]

Hey, Ashgabat isn't so bad; great rugs, good flea market and the ruins of Merv.

Nizhny Tagil, on the other hand...

[Norm]

Hi All

Thanks for the welcome Tom it is very much appreciated. As for Urmel i figured he was not such a bad guy. Anyway his comments, and i hope others, are just what i want. I want people with knowledge to question all aspects of my thesis to make me think and to make me justify what i have written. That being said i think i should put my position in regard to my PhD, and my status, such as it is, on the table. I am not a professional academic i am by trade an engineer and i have my own business. Moreover, the tax payer did not fund my PhD I self funded the whole project just ask the wife!
As i said earlier i want to be asked questions and Urmel's question on the Matilda tanks on Crete is a good start. I have pulled my notes on this issue and will post a comprehensive reply soon.

Regards Norm

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Urmel wrote, "It's amazing what people get PhDs for."

I would find it astonishing if this paper were really part of a PhD thesis. I thought original research was a pre-requisite of PhD theses. This seems to be largely derived from secondary sources.

If this article was accepted towards a PhD, then (1) the University of Hull needs to look out for its reputation and (2) the University of Axishistoryforum should start dishing out doctorates to some of its more distinguished contributors.

Make no mistake, I found the article interesting and I am glad it was put up here, but I would seriously question the academic standing being claimed for it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Urmel]

Hi Norm

On a more general point, what is your view that the position could really have been held by the forces available? Holding Mersa el Brega itself against an assault would not have been a problem in my view, it was a strong position. The problem starts when the enemy realises that it's a non-starter to attack it, and they go south. There is the gap at Maaten Giofer (and thanks for the translation in your thesis, I always wondered), and then potentially also paths further south, between the salt lakes and the Marada Oasis.

When the Axis fortified this line (Marada - Mersa el Brega) facing the other direction after CRUSADER they put about 70,000+ men into it, with over 200 field guns, about 150 AT guns (of which about 40 were 88s), and about 100 tanks. And even with that (and another 100 tanks arriving) they were so worried about withstanding an attack that they preferred to go on the offensive instead.

If you can't hold the line south of Brega, all you do by putting more stuff into Brega to make it defensible is to increase the Axis POW count, in my view.

[Urmel]

Hi Guys,

Urmel wrote, "It's amazing what people get PhDs for."

I would find it astonishing if this paper were really part of a PhD thesis. I thought original research was a pre-requisite of PhD theses. This seems to be largely derived from secondary sources.

My guess is the original research turns on the question whether we accept the official claim that 'defeat was inevitable' at Brega, and the thesis seems to take a tactical view that this was not so, and I guess that qualifies as original research.

I make no comment on the reputation of the University of Hull.

[Aber]

Make no mistake, I found the article interesting and I am glad it was put up here, but I would seriously question the academic standing being claimed for it.

Given the original link is to Hull's digital repository and lists it as a PhD thesis, there is no doubt about what it is.

The supervisor's details are relevant to the thesis:

David J. Lonsdale joined the department in September 2006. Prior to this he held the posts of Lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of Reading (2003-2006) and Lecturer in Defence Studies at King's College London (2000-2003), based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College. His main areas of research are Strategic Studies and Military History.

The sources cited include original documents, and even a participant's interview.

Therefore seems perfectly valid as a PhD, and as the author commented, thesis do have a length limit.

The better question is what needs to be added (or taken away) to make it an interesting book?