The Importance of the North African/Western Desert Campaign

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Alam Halfa

What has to be remembered though is that despite his constant supply problems, Rommel was extremely successful in what little logistics and man power he had. He defeated numerous British forces much larger than his own! General O'Conner I think was the same, would have been an interesting show down if he hadn't been caught.

This was one of Churchills greatest errors. Halting the push at El Agheila and splitting his forces to contest Greece cost a huge amount of allied lives for a negative result. (Having to fight for the same real estate time and time again)

The one saving grace was the Tobruk garrison continually denying Rommel the use of its port facilities and subsequently Egypt and the Suez. This allowed the build up of forces from Egypt to take place which eventually proved the downfall for the Axis.

[Jaeger]

Hello Spidge.

I have to agree on the point about breaking up the formations. But there was a shortage of men and equipments in the vicinity of Greece, so I really can't see any other option if he was to aid the Greeks.

The political cost of not aiding Greece would have been enormous.

[4th wilts]

firstly,this campaign taught the western allies how to fight as an effective team.secondley,the tactical use of aircraft was honed in this campaign eg.montys insistance upon having r.a.f hq next to army h.q.very important.yours,4th wilts.

[Jaeger]

I'd like to add the battle schools in Egypt where procedures were standarised. Education of Sappers etc.

The perfection of the Royal Artillery was done in the desert campaign too.

Monty's insistence on fighting with divisions as divisions helped aswell.

Basically the Desert campaign helped closing the gap between the Germans who had worked hard during the 30ies, and the Allies.

[spidge]

There has been much written about the "unusual" cohesion between the Australian troops and British RA et al during the siege of Tobruk. Australian, Lt.Gen Morshead, while known as Ming The Merciless to his troops proved his ability and gained their respect by defeating Rommels' Blitzkrieg and the German machine for the first time on land.

He learnt his trade under Australian General Sir John Monash in WW1.

[General Mayhem]

Great Post,
The point about Churchill's not choosing the North African theatre is excellent. A case of serendipity. Mussolini provided the Brits with the opportunity to engage the axis on "their" ground, more-or-less. Since the Brits had far more experience in North Africa. "The Path to Victory" and an "Army at Dawn" are great reads on this critical western theatre and show the wisdom of Churchill's reluctance for an early landing in France even had it been logistically possible. The initial spanking Ameican troops received at the hands of the Afrika Corps was critical to the development of Eisenhowers Leadership and that of his Lieutennts as well as te troops themselves.
Much is made of Rommel's early successes against the British, but it is important to know that he benefited from extrodinary inteligence that quite literally told him what the British were planning and where and when. If the the allies are criticized for not being up against the first team, it shoud be noted that Rommel also took full advantage of his opponents lack of experience, arguable leadership and blunders in the early going. Which is the mark of good generals. Both the African campaign and Barbarossa do reveal Hitler's marked tendency to underestimate his enemies and overestimate Germany's capacity for military operations. It has been postulated that the German's simply did not have their economy or war machine set up to accomplish the goals Hitler insisted on. Von Bock pointed this out before Barbossa. So whether more troops and equipment would have made a difference can always be argued.
The experience of Russia in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam and Iraq against determined opponents would seem to argue against it.

[Jaeger]

Lt.Gen Morshead, while known as Ming The Merciless to his troops proved his ability and gained their respect by defeating Rommels' Blitzkrieg and the German machine for the first time on land.

He learnt his trade under Australian General Sir John Monash in WW1.

This is so true. It was evident that Morshead was a 'clear thinker'. The best kit the Germans could use against the Allies was the MG's, the long range 88's, and superiour tank guns.(shelling allied positions whilst maintaining a safe distance from the 2pdr.) Morshead negated those weapons by fighting a lot in the dark. So easy, so brilliant.

IIRC Monash had read about this (night operations) from the Japanese victories against superiour Russian forces in 1905.

At any rate the hard fought lessons that the Tobruk Rats made was implemented in the second battle of El Alamein. And that was an important factor for the victory there.

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Jaeger

Morshead negated those weapons by fighting a lot in the dark. So easy, so brilliant.

After the initial defeat of Rommel at Tobruk, Morshead said that defence was "A state of mind" and a dangerous comfort for the troops to fall into.

So, every night, he ordered that a different company of "commandos" from different positions right across the perimeter, left Tobruk to cause havoc throughout the German perimeter. Killing, destroying supplies and taking prisoners for interrogation.

[4th wilts]

after the battle of alamain,the 7th armd div chased rommel for 1200 miles,they were generally in the lead.this showed perhaps the durability and reliablity of the sherman over similar crusader tanks.yours,4th wilts.

[Desert Dog]

A must read is "The End of the Beginnin" by Tim Clayton and Phil Craig. It deals with the Comonwealth retreat to Alamein in the Summer of 42 and briefly covers the battle itself.