That is relevant. I was referring to within unit maintenance. The accounts of issued unfit I am sure are correct. It was the units who judged them unfit on receipt using their own knowledge.Urmel wrote:What about the 16 Mk IVa that were issued to 2 R.T.R. 'unfit for action'?
BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
Well then there's the bit about my sig...
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
And are you asserting it reports incompetence within units ? Were they not doing all they could with what they had and if not where does it state that?
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
I assign no motivation or reason.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
Nothing at all??? Not even "salutary" as a direct 7 Armd Div quote?Urmel wrote:I assign no motivation or reason.
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
I am a veritable example of agnosticism in this regard.
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
I hope you base that on evidence.Urmel wrote:I am a veritable example of agnosticism in this regard.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
Incompetence? Units receiving old or incomplete kit from others often exaggerated their state so that better kit or parts for them might arrive. Do you know how they were judged unfit?
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
He also left a 10 page set of notes upon which it appears that report was based. One intetesting excerpt:ClintHardware wrote: ↑18 May 2018, 08:47Major-General O’Moore Creagh left what appears to be an unhurried and thorough analysis of BATTLEAXE that he finished writing in August 1941 from the perspective of the 4th and 7th Armd Bdes and 7th Sp Gp, even though the 4th Armd Bde had fought under 4th India Division.
It is an accepted principle in the employment of infantry tanks that they should remain on the objective no longer than is absolutely vital. After that they must rally to enable units to cary out maintenance, to reorganise, and to replenish ammunition, oil etc.
Owing to unforseen circumstances that principl was not adhered to after the capture of CAPUZZO. Many tanks were used as immobile pill-boxes. Had the tanks been able to rally earlier many more would have been recommissioned in good time for the fight next day. As a direct example of this 13 tanks which only required unit fitter attention had to be abandoned.
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE Major-General O’Moore Creagh 88s & Axis Positions
Yes.MarkN wrote: ↑02 Jul 2019, 15:21He also left a 10 page set of notes upon which it appears that report was based. One intetesting excerpt:ClintHardware wrote: ↑18 May 2018, 08:47Major-General O’Moore Creagh left what appears to be an unhurried and thorough analysis of BATTLEAXE that he finished writing in August 1941 from the perspective of the 4th and 7th Armd Bdes and 7th Sp Gp, even though the 4th Armd Bde had fought under 4th India Division.It is an accepted principle in the employment of infantry tanks that they should remain on the objective no longer than is absolutely vital. After that they must rally to enable units to cary out maintenance, to reorganise, and to replenish ammunition, oil etc.
Owing to unforseen circumstances that principl was not adhered to after the capture of CAPUZZO. Many tanks were used as immobile pill-boxes. Had the tanks been able to rally earlier many more would have been recommissioned in good time for the fight next day. As a direct example of this 13 tanks which only required unit fitter attention had to be abandoned.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !
BATTLEAXE: the most important battle yet undertaken
Just how quickly can expectations be dashed...
14 June 1941....
17 June 1941....
14 June 1941....
17 June 1941....
- ClintHardware
- Member
- Posts: 816
- Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17
Re: BATTLEAXE: the most important battle yet undertaken
Well...he did start the operation stating in writing that he expected failure. On the plus side, many lessons were learnt for the next operation.
Did you hope his post-operation statement was revalatory or revalavatorial ?
I am glad that my initial disbelief in respect of panzer deliveries, damage and recoveries has stimulated questions and actions over the last 7 years across the internet in various ways.
Thank you Mark
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !