Pursuit of Rommel to Tunisia

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Pursuit of Rommel to Tunisia

#31

Post by Gooner1 » 16 Aug 2017, 10:48

Don Juan wrote:I suspect a lot of the criticism of Montgomery comes down to the usual problem that military historians are invariably obsessed with encirclements, but are completely ignorant of engineering, and know nothing of the severe limitations of the tanks of the era.

I don't think you could undertake a rapid armoured advance during WW2 without significantly burning out your tank force. This is why e.g. entire panzer divisions were sitting around waiting for refits after the first month of Barbarossa. A long advance along the coast of North Africa had to be deliberately paced so that the tanks involved could last the distance. You might get a large initial "bag" from a quick thrust, but then you'll be waiting around, possibly for months, until sufficient new or overhauled tanks are available.

The almost total ignorance of the importance of tank durability and overhaul life has perverted the understanding of WW2, imo.
To illustrate that on 16th November whilst near Tobruk, Roberts of 22nd Armoured Brigade reported that the number of his tanks able to advance another 300 miles (or less across the desert) were 4 Grants, 1 Sherman and 1 Crusader.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Pursuit of Rommel to Tunisia

#32

Post by Don Juan » 16 Aug 2017, 13:22

Yes. And when the British drove to Tunisia, they made sure that they started with tanks that had low mileages. 4 CLY took I think 18 Crusaders on their own tracks from Bomba to Medenine (1000+ miles) and only lost three of them on the way, none of them to breakdowns.

What is not generally understood is that the nature of mechanized warfare changes as distance increases. It becomes less about overwhelming the enemy and more about pacing yourself so that you can go the entire way. The idea that the 8th Army could continually perform daring, rapid thrusts from Egypt to Tunisia is just not realistic. If you're attacking a very limited area like Poland or France, a rapid armoured advance is possible, because by the time your tanks are burnt out, there's a good chance that you'll have achieved all your objectives. But in North Africa or the USSR, this isn't going to work.

It's really the difference between tactical distances and strategic distances. It's no surprise that a relentlessly tactical army like the Germans had ran into problems when they attempted war over the longer distances.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941


Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”