Use of irregulars/auxiliaries in North Africa?

[Sawpatin]

I'm curious if either side made much use of irregular/auxiliary combatants in North Africa during WW2? In other words, men who were not formally incorporated into a belligerent army but fought alongside or in support of them. Things like militias, partisans, tribal fighters, etc.

[Stephan]

When americans invaded in Westish Africa, with Vichy France as opponent and Vichy forces capitulated after some rather heavy fights, the americans were very anxious to get the local french dignitaries to agree. Eisenhower could literally sit several hours with each one village mer, and or or "arab" chieftain. They didnt wanted to risk these locals to become adversary, with sabotage or at least, active non cooperating actions...

I write "Arab" because many of them locals wasnt arabs, many was different berber clans and similiar. But all were so long under French dominance, so the local french representatives still counted.

[Sheldrake]

I'm curious if either side made much use of irregular/auxiliary combatants in North Africa during WW2? In other words, men who were not formally incorporated into a belligerent army but fought alongside or in support of them. Things like militias, partisans, tribal fighters, etc.

The British organised the Libyan Arab Force AKA the Senusi Army. These were mainly guerrillas in Cyrenaica, but one "Battalion" fought at Tobruk. I only found this at Thiepval,Somme with a school group from a inner London school. Every student wanted to check the CWGC records to see if someone of their name had died in the World Wars. I thought that the Libyan refugee might be disappointed, but eighty four members of the Libyan Arab Force are commemorated by the CWGC. One of them bore his name: something like Osman Mohammed. This force became the basis for the post war Libyan army.

The British had organised several other irregular forces in Africa in the Middle East. Orde Wingate formed Ethiopian irregulars as part of the war in East Africa.

The British Special Operations Executive was supposed to be responsible for waging irregular war against the Axis powers. Not sure of the Libyan Arab Force was run by SOE. Their dead have service numbers units and ranks.

The British Empire and Dominion forces also included several organisations on the borderline between being part of the army and some form of co-belligerent. There were a lot of what can be described as private armies, tolerated or supported to some degree. LRDG, SAS, SBS, Popski's Private Army. Most of these used irregular tactics indistinguishable from guerrillas, certainly from the Germans point of view.

The French Army in North Africa included tribal auxiliaries, the Moroccan Goumier. These were were part of the French (Colonial) Army of Africa. There were also about 60,000 Vichy French trained men in paramilitary or auxiliary organisations outside the Vichy army and above the German imposed limits.


The FRench

[Sawpatin]

When americans invaded in Westish Africa, with Vichy France as opponent and Vichy forces capitulated after some rather heavy fights, the americans were very anxious to get the local french dignitaries to agree. Eisenhower could literally sit several hours with each one village mer, and or or "arab" chieftain. They didnt wanted to risk these locals to become adversary, with sabotage or at least, active non cooperating actions...

Did the Americans organize any irregular/auxiliary troops through these local dignitaries/chieftains?

The British organised the Libyan Arab Force AKA the Senusi Army. These were mainly guerrillas in Cyrenaica, but one "Battalion" fought at Tobruk.

Interesting. Is there any info about their effectiveness/reliability when working alongside the Brits?

LRDG, SAS, SBS, Popski's Private Army. Most of these used irregular tactics indistinguishable from guerrillas, certainly from the Germans point of view.

I thought these units were all made up of British/Commonwealth military personnel. You're right that they employed irregular military tactics, but afaik they were still members of the Commonwealth armed forces, rather than something like a militia or a true "private army" that would owe allegiance to its commander rather than a nation.

Or am I wrong here, and these units included men who were never sworn in to the British/Commonwealth armed forces?

The French Army in North Africa included tribal auxiliaries, the Moroccan Goumier. These were were part of the French (Colonial) Army of Africa.

Thanks, I'm aware of the Goumiers, but I thought they were part of the French military, rather than a separate auxiliary force that operated outside the normal French chain of command.

There were also about 60,000 Vichy French trained men in paramilitary or auxiliary organisations outside the Vichy army and above the German imposed limits.

Interesting, would you have any details to share on these sorts of troops, such as what roles they were used for, or how much autonomy they maintained outside the regular Vichy armed forces?

[Stephan]

Did the Americans organize any irregular/auxiliary troops through these local dignitaries/chieftains?

Not that I know / remember from this book by Eisenhower. They were happy if the locals didnt disturb them.

But I guess they did accept help with information, ie some basic spionage, when it was possible.


They had support from regular French troops later on (the Vichy french defended the landing vigorously, with about 2000 casualties on both sides, so it was clearly more than some shooting for the honour).
Although it strikes me, Im not sure if it later on were the ex Vichy trooops, which changed side, or
De Gaulles Free French...
Anyway, compared to the Germans these french used against germans were totally inferior.

(and to speak the truth, the americans wasnt very much better while still in Africa, it seems they become more war hardened later on when they learned the difference between a peace time army and war time army...).

[Sheldrake]

The British organised the Libyan Arab Force AKA the Senusi Army. These were mainly guerrillas in Cyrenaica, but one "Battalion" fought at Tobruk.

1. Interesting. Is there any info about their effectiveness/reliability when working alongside the Brits?

LRDG, SAS, SBS, Popski's Private Army. Most of these used irregular tactics indistinguishable from guerrillas, certainly from the Germans point of view.

2. I thought these units were all made up of British/Commonwealth military personnel. You're right that they employed irregular military tactics, but afaik they were still members of the Commonwealth armed forces, rather than something like a militia or a true "private army" that would owe allegiance to its commander rather than a nation.

Or am I wrong here, and these units included men who were never sworn in to the British/Commonwealth armed forces?

The French Army in North Africa included tribal auxiliaries, the Moroccan Goumier. These were were part of the French (Colonial) Army of Africa.

3. Thanks, I'm aware of the Goumiers, but I thought they were part of the French military, rather than a separate auxiliary force that operated outside the normal French chain of command.

There were also about 60,000 Vichy French trained men in paramilitary or auxiliary organisations outside the Vichy army and above the German imposed limits.

4. Interesting, would you have any details to share on these sorts of troops, such as what roles they were used for, or how much autonomy they maintained outside the regular Vichy armed forces?

Re 1 No idea. Probably not very effective against tanks but a useful source of information. Check out this article http://www.libya-watanona.com/libya/9aug40.htm

Re 2 Allegiance is an interesting topic. Most soldiers have an "allegiance" to the head of state. But soldiers follow their commanders and really fight for their comrades.

All auxiliaries have some degree of allegiance to someone. No one would accept a force that was not under its control - unless they were paying mercenaries. There are grey areas.

The SAS and LRDG were private armies - formed outside command structures> No one ordered their formation. The state adopted them - as it had with organisations such as the Frontier Force or the Guides if the Indian Army.

Popski's Private Army was the link between the Libyan Arab Force and the other private armies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popski%27s_Private_Army

Re 3 No one was going to equip and supply forces that weren't part of the command structure. The Free Polish Forces, equipped and supplied by the British supplied owed allegiance to the government in exile, but operated under British Command. The Libyans, about as "Irregular" as you get were recruited under the orders of Jumbo Wilson and existed somewhere in the chain of command.

Re 4 No idea. You will have to dig around.

What is your interest in this subject. What are you looking for and why?

[Sawpatin]

Re 1 No idea. Probably not very effective against tanks but a useful source of information. Check out this article http://www.libya-watanona.com/libya/9aug40.htm

Thanks for the link.

Re 2 Allegiance is an interesting topic. Most soldiers have an "allegiance" to the head of state. But soldiers follow their commanders and really fight for their comrades.

All auxiliaries have some degree of allegiance to someone. No one would accept a force that was not under its control - unless they were paying mercenaries. There are grey areas.

I think you know what I mean though. There's a difference between a spec ops unit made up of serving military personnel, and a militia made up of local tribal fighters allied to a belligerent, or a partisan force made up of armed volunteers who are not officially members of any national army.

Re 3 No one was going to equip and supply forces that weren't part of the command structure.

In Asia before WW2, the Japanese equipped Inner Mongolian troops when they were fighting proxy battles against China in the 1930s (e.g. the Suiyuan Campaign). These men were not formally part of the Japanese military, and despite heavy involvement by Japanese "advisors", Japan was never officially involved in these operations, and the rankers took orders from their Inner Mongolian officers.

This is what I meant by "outside the chain of command." I didn't mean they wouldn't have been subservient in some manner to a belligerent nation, I just meant that they took orders outside of the regular army (e.g. through "advisors", "attaches", intermediary officers, etc.)

What is your interest in this subject. What are you looking for and why?

Examples of irregular/militia/non-state combatants serving alongside or in support of one of the belligerent nations.

[Sheldrake]

I think you know what I mean though. There's a difference between a spec ops unit made up of serving military personnel, and a militia made up of local tribal fighters allied to a belligerent, or a partisan force made up of armed volunteers who are not officially members of any national army.

The difference lies in your choice of definitions.

The Geneva Convention provided a real incentive for the British to at least nominally enlist irregulars as members of the armed forces, even if they would never have been allowed to join outside a major war.

SOE's female agents, mainly wireless operators supporting irregular forces were commissioned into the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry FANY, but never served as nurses.

Take No 62 Commando was an an irregular force that supported SOE. It was raised as a private army by Augustus March Philipps, its members included Czech Germans, Danes,Poles and Frenchmen. It carried out operations on Spanish territory as well on axis occupied territory. Not all of their dead are dignified with a Commonwealth War Grave. The Czech, Richard Lehniger, a WW1 Austrian veteran, has a CGWC headstone, because like all German ex internees he was recruited into the Army Pioneer Corps. The Pole and Frenchmen taken prisoner on the same operation disappeared and are not commemorated on any Commonwealth memorial.

The Libyan Arab Force were obvious irregulars - but were given British military identities to avoid their legal summary execution.

[Sawpatin]

The Geneva Convention provided a real incentive for the British to at least nominally enlist irregulars as members of the armed forces, even if they would never have been allowed to join outside a major war.

The Axis forces seem to have had a different attitude though. The early Sandžak muslim militias were not all formally enlisted in the German or Italian armed forces. And in China during the early stages of the Sino-Japanese conflict, Japan made use of bandit gangs and mercenary forces like the Grand Han Righteous Army which were not formally incorporated into the Japanese or Manchukuoan armed forces and operated outside normal army discipline as auxiliaries. I wonder if perhaps Germany or Italy organized any similar paramilitaries, mercenaries, militias, or tribal auxiliaries in North Africa?

[Sheldrake]

Maybe different attitudes to the Geneva Convention or a different approach to native populations. The British had 200 years experience of co-opting auxiliaries and allies. Being told they were British helped even if we didn't mean it really.

[Urmel]

The Germans also tried to set up an Arab legion in Tunisia.

[CatalinaCyG]

In 1940 France had auxiliaries: 20,000 to 25,000 in the AOF, 5,000 in the AEF, 29,300 in Indochina (Indigenous Guard, under the joint authority of the residents and the indigenous authorities, mainly responsible for police missions). In North Africa, in addition to the Moroccan goums, 16 of which were deployed in southern Tunisia, and the Tunisian goums, there was the auxiliary police force Makhzen. The special troops in the Levant also included auxiliary units. Finally, in June 1940, in the French coast of the Somalis, there were 4 companies of militia and Askaris irregulars. Apart from the units in southern Tunisia and Djibouti, all these units had mainly police and surveillance missions.

[Urmel]

I'm sorry, but there is a lot of information here that is simply not correct.

The British organised the Libyan Arab Force AKA the Senusi Army. These were mainly guerrillas in Cyrenaica, but one "Battalion" fought at Tobruk.

They were organised as a formal military unit, with British officers. I am not aware of them ever being in the line, but I am also not aware of them being 'guerillas'. They were brought in at a late stage of the winter 41/42 battles as an internal security force.

The Libyans, about as "Irregular" as you get were recruited under the orders of Jumbo Wilson and existed somewhere in the chain of command.

The LAF was under British officers, and had British equipment. They existed fully inside the military chain of command. They never engaged in irregular warfare. https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/th ... world-war/

The Libyan Arab Force were obvious irregulars - but were given British military identities to avoid their legal summary execution.

They very obviously were not. They were an allied force in the same way as the Polish, Dutch, Czech, Greek and other contingents during the war.

LRDG, SAS, SBS, Popski's Private Army. Most of these used irregular tactics indistinguishable from guerrillas, certainly from the Germans point of view.

They absolutely were not, with the possible exception of PPA. The Germans recognised LRDG, SAS and SBS as formal combattants, and as part of the organised military force. Where does this idea come from?

The SAS and LRDG were private armies - formed outside command structures> No one ordered their formation. The state adopted them - as it had with organisations such as the Frontier Force or the Guides if the Indian Army.

No they were not. The formation of the SAS was outside command structures, but certainly not without orders. This is just wrong. https://www.marsandminerva.co.uk/histor ... story-sas/ Same for the LRDG, formed under the orders of Wavell: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov. ... 459dd56324 You can see here how ME Command took a keen interest in its creation: https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholar ... c-c15.html

[Urmel]

Interesting. Is there any info about their effectiveness/reliability when working alongside the Brits?

The performance of the unit during the retreat in January 1942 was not considered great. There were individuals who did very well, like Lt. Saad Ali Rahouma of No. 1 Coy 3 LAF who received the MC (see the previous link to the National Archives blog) for bringing out a large party of his unit from Benghazi.

Below an excerpt of the report written by the CO 3 LAF in February 1942. Please note that I do not endorse the clearly racist tone, but consider that this is a contemporary document and provided as such in answer to your question.

[daveshoup2MarDiv]

I'm curious if either side made much use of irregular/auxiliary combatants in North Africa during WW2? In other words, men who were not formally incorporated into a belligerent army but fought alongside or in support of them. Things like militias, partisans, tribal fighters, etc.

The Goumiers were recruited by the French in 1940 and afterwards as "auxiliaries" (essentially, mercenaries) from native populations in French African colonies; they were not on the "regular" establishment of the French colonial army in North Africa that (essentially) became part of the French expeditionary forces that served in Italy (as early as Sicily in 1943) and then in NW Europe. The French recruited a number of Goumiers battalions (known as "tabors") and there were enough that they were grouped into four regimental-sized "Groupes" that saw action under French command in 1944-45.

There was also an interesting organization designated as the Corps Franc d'Afrique which was organized from (essentially) the anti-German and anti-Vichy Resistance in French North Africa in 1942, after TORCH but before De Gaulle and Giraud's agreement for the ANFA conference. This grew from a battalion equivalent to a reinforced brigade (or very light division) of ~8,000 personnel, and saw action during the Tunisia Campaign. In 1943, it was broken up, with most personnel being absorbed into what became the French 1st Army.

The British organized various "private armies" in North Africa and Southwest Asia (and southern Europe, for that matter) during WW II, but almost all were in the regular British chain of command. The Ethiopian resistance/irregulars in 1940-41 probably come the closest, but that was not really North Africa.

The various partisan groups in southern Europe that worked with the SOE were different, and if the Axis had gotten farther east then they did historically, the British had organized various stay-behind types of organizations, but did not need them.

The Germans and Italians both tried to raise the equivalents, but did not have much luck. Through various antecedents to the OSS, the Americans supported the French Resistance in North Africa before TORCH, but that's as far as it went; when the OSS came into existence in the theater in a significant way in 1943-45, the war was moving into Europe.