Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#31

Post by Urmel » 04 Jan 2017, 09:26

Attrition wrote:Er yes, ground held between El Agheila and El Alamein was insignificant (except for the navies). The real war was in the USSR, hence the British attempt to get back into Europe, rather than add to the ponce to El Agheila in early 1941.
I'm not sure how you missed it, but I'm not talking about the ground.
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

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#32

Post by Attrition » 04 Jan 2017, 12:42

1. Redeeming failure doesn't negate failure, it limits it.

2. I know; I was.

3. Grumpy.


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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#33

Post by Urmel » 04 Jan 2017, 14:06

Grumpy is my middle name.

The objective of CRUSADER was to destroy the Axis armoured forces. It failed and succeeded at the same time. Auchinleck was really Schroedinger in disguise.
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: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#34

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jan 2017, 15:55

Sheldrake wrote:
The diversion of resources from the Middle east to the Far east didn't help. The Middle East lost an experienced armoured Brigade 7th and good infantry 7th Australian and 18th British Divisions and a lot of aircraft and shipping.
The Armoured Brigade being equipped with Honeys which were at the time about the most effective of the 'Cruiser' tanks.

"In all the Middle East parted with four complete Blenheim squadrons, two complete Hurricane squadrons and in addition, twelve Blenheim IV aircraft. Besides these, seven complete fighter squadrons, which were originally intended for the Middle East, were diverted en route" Just at the time the Axis were being reinforced by Fliegerkorps II

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#35

Post by Urmel » 04 Jan 2017, 16:17

Again, the logistical challenge of maintaining anything in the forward area made this a no-loss issue. There was no way more forces could have been maintained in the forward area.
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: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#36

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jan 2017, 18:51

Urmel wrote:I seriously doubt that. The incompetence in British command was too high for that. You're just trying to rewrite history in a more favourable manner. It's technology, it's the Japanese. A poor workman blames his tools comes to mind.
So you're basically saying thay guys that like Robert Crisp, Bob Close, Jake Wardrop, Stuart Hamilton and dozens if not hundreds like them were bad workmen.

There was a period when it was fashionable to ignore the technical aspects of the weaponry involved but I thought that was passé now.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#37

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Jan 2017, 18:53

Urmel wrote:Again, the logistical challenge of maintaining anything in the forward area made this a no-loss issue. There was no way more forces could have been maintained in the forward area.
Monty & crew managed well enough a year later of course.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#38

Post by Urmel » 04 Jan 2017, 19:12

Gooner1 wrote:
Urmel wrote:I seriously doubt that. The incompetence in British command was too high for that. You're just trying to rewrite history in a more favourable manner. It's technology, it's the Japanese. A poor workman blames his tools comes to mind.
So you're basically saying thay guys that like Robert Crisp, Bob Close, Jake Wardrop, Stuart Hamilton and dozens if not hundreds like them were bad workmen.

There was a period when it was fashionable to ignore the technical aspects of the weaponry involved but I thought that was passé now.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that guys like Davy, Gatehouse, Gott, Norrie, and Scott-Cockburn were bad workmen.

https://rommelsriposte.com/2011/01/26/w ... -the-dsos/
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

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#39

Post by Urmel » 04 Jan 2017, 19:13

Gooner1 wrote:
Urmel wrote:Again, the logistical challenge of maintaining anything in the forward area made this a no-loss issue. There was no way more forces could have been maintained in the forward area.
Monty & crew managed well enough a year later of course.
Sure. What does that prove?

Also, if I am not mistaken Monty & crew let the Axis escape to Tunisia?

Or do I have that wrong?
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

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#40

Post by Attrition » 04 Jan 2017, 20:12

Urmel wrote:Grumpy is my middle name.

The objective of CRUSADER was to destroy the Axis armoured forces. It failed and succeeded at the same time. Auchinleck was really Schroedinger in disguise.
Mine's Git ;o))

I'm not so sure about means and ends, because it seems to me that the British army had a way of war inherited from 1918, to exploit superior quantities of firepower to ensure cheap-ish battlefield victories. I think this was well-understood ling before 1939; what did it matter if the Axis quit the battlefield, when they would be overwhelmed the next time they made a stand?

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#41

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 04 Jan 2017, 20:58

At least it's the adults talking in this thread.Enjoy it while that lasts.
Good point... :D

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#42

Post by Sheldrake » 04 Jan 2017, 21:37

Attrition wrote: I'm not so sure about means and ends, because it seems to me that the British army had a way of war inherited from 1918, to exploit superior quantities of firepower to ensure cheap-ish battlefield victories. I think this was well-understood ling before 1939; what did it matter if the Axis quit the battlefield, when they would be overwhelmed the next time they made a stand?
Attrition old man,

I know that you wear your military philosophy on your handle, but I am not sure that there is a continuous British commitment to victory through firepower from Amiens to El Alamein.

Liddell Hart and his "indirect approach"and the tank enthusiasts put up a model of a surgical application of mechanised force- and one that appealed to the treasury as it implied a small army. Immediately before WW2 British doctrine emphasised mobility and manoeuvre. The phoney war and conformance with the French had the British dusting down the plans and concepts from 1918. In the aftermath of Dunkirk the Batholomew report led to some false conclusions such as the idea that mechanised warfare rendered the division obsolete. The success of Op Compass led the British to believe that victory by manoeuvre was possible in the face of superior forces

There was no clear idea of how tactical victory could be achieved. The common assumption was that armoured warfare in the desert was like war at sea with the idea of bringing tanks into combat with each other like warships. Hence the unbalanced structure of 7th Armoured division. 9 armoured regiments sent out to destroy German armour in three brigades..

.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#43

Post by Attrition » 04 Jan 2017, 23:34

That they did but like attrition and its supporters such as Delbruck in 1914, they were a fairly well understood minority. British armoured divisions were unbalanced, with too many tanks and not enough infantry, artillery and bumflufferies (like panzer divisions) early in the war but that seems to be more a matter of necessity than preference, what with the lop-sided nature of rearmament. Notice as well that the British had I tanks as well as cruisers.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#44

Post by Urmel » 05 Jan 2017, 11:45

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
At least it's the adults talking in this thread.Enjoy it while that lasts.
Good point... :D

Regards

Tom
Maybe there's a trick we can use... Choose an esoteric technical thread title. Post nerdy documents up front and make an effort to discuss them for 5-10 posts. Then wildly veer off topic. Nobody else will look beyond those first posts. :welcome:
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

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#45

Post by Urmel » 05 Jan 2017, 11:56

Attrition wrote:That they did but like attrition and its supporters such as Delbruck in 1914, they were a fairly well understood minority. British armoured divisions were unbalanced, with too many tanks and not enough infantry, artillery and bumflufferies (like panzer divisions) early in the war but that seems to be more a matter of necessity than preference, what with the lop-sided nature of rearmament. Notice as well that the British had I tanks as well as cruisers.
In fairness the German 1939 Panzerdivision wasn't exactly a marvel of balance either:

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Zus ... vision.htm

In fact, 7 Armoured Division was probably more balanced than that. The problem was of course that it wasn't fought as a division, but rather as four individual brigades.
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

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”