True.Urmel wrote:The planners for the establishment of Sperrverband Afrika never expected the mileage that the tanks accumulated. All these tanks were supposed to do was mill about around Sirte and block a British advance on Tripoli.
But it would be inadviseable to discount the possibility that those very same planners started to consider greater distance and mechanical reliability after it was decided to upscale the committment to a pair of 'panzer divisions' with the express intent of going on the offensive some time in May. They may even have fallen back on some planning assumptions that they had originally considered for a the 3.Pz-Div deployment of 1940 to assist the Italians in taking the Suez. I, personally, very much doubt that the January 1941 'Sperrverband Afrika' planning for the deployment of 30 pantsers went unrevised when, in early Feb, it was decided to send an offensive force of almost 300 pantsers.
Again true. But he was only jumping the gun on what was assumed to occur 6-8 weeks hence.Urmel wrote: It was Rommel getting carried away that turned these tanks into maintenance liabilities.
Well, I was suggesting that the poor mechanical reliability of Pz.Regt.5 pantsers up to and during Op Brevity shouldn't be used as evidence of the absence of German overhauls. 2RTR's pantser reliability in the approach to Op Brevity shows that - at least as far as British pantsers are concerned - mechanical reliability after complete overhaul was hardly better, if at all, than before overhaul.Don Juan wrote: I interpreted your comment as an assertion that PR 5 had been overhauled prior to their involvement in Crusader i.e. that British overhauls, as demonstrated by 2 RTR during Brevity, were so bad that the poor mechanical performance of PR 5 during Crusader could not be used as evidence of the absence of an overhaul.
My position is that we have no documentary evidence that 'proves beyond doubt' that the Germans were, or were not, conducting overhauls. Circumstantial evidence seems to suggest they had the capability to conduct full overhauls. The same circumstantial evidence would also seem to suggest that the Germans were doing 'staged' maintenance rather than taking serviceable (but tired) pantsers out of the line to fully zero-hour them.Don Juan wrote: If you are now conceding that PR 5 had not been overhauled prior to Crusader, then we are both on the same page.
I think the evidence points to overhauled tanks not being and better reliability wise than prior to overhaul. And thus, as already noted, I consider the entire 'overhaul' question to be a bit of a red herring in some of these discussions.Don Juan wrote: If you are also asserting that generally speaking British overhauls weren't all that great, then we are still on the same page.
Nevertheless, in the round we are indeed pretty much on the same page.
Not sure what point specifically you mean when looking for evidence to be proven wrong. The Germans were keeping a significant proportion of their pantsers battle-worthy. Enough pantsers to be able to shoo-off the British on multiple occasions. Even Op Crusader was a German win until Rommel contrived to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Whether they were keeping their pantsers capable of combat through spares shipped in, flown in, locally tin-tapped spares or just plain sticky-tape and chewing gum fixes is largely irrelevant to the larger picture. Of course, of major interest to those wanting to know 'how' they did it.Don Juan wrote: I'm very keen to see a schedule of flights to North Africa after June 1941, and the consequent delivery of spares. I don't mind being proved wrong on this if the info is forthcoming.
