Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Logistics is the key to desert strategy

Discussion in 'What If - Mediterranean & North Africa' started by legion astartes, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Thanks Za I believe your information answers the question in full, even without going to the effort of doing the full math it's obvious it could not have been done in a WW2 time frame. The tonnages involved are just too high, Italian iron and steel production was stretched to the limit as it was and dedicating enough equipment to the railroad would have meant leaving much too little for the front lines.
    So it seems we have ruled out railways, and probably more coastal traffic than was used as well. So the answer to the original question seems to be "Within the historical constraints there was little room for improvement over what was actually done ".
     
  2. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    On rail construction:

    The way the Allies, particularly the US, would have handled it was simply to ship a rock crushing plant and quarry equipment to the site of the construction. As a little known example of this, there was such a plant operating on Ohama beach by D+4 to provide construction materials for the landings.
    The US did the same throughout the Pacific. Such plants were used in building runways and harbors around the world.
    The Axis probably could have done this too but just did not have the equipment or thinking in place to make it happen.
     
  3. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I think any good engineer would see that local production of ballast is a must, I wonder if anybody has information on what was used to build the road around Tobruk or the many military roads built by Italians in Ethiopian war, I very much doubt much material came from Italy, probably something less sophisticated than the Omaha plant but along those lines so possibly the ballast could have been produced locally. But for a railroad you also need steel, and from the numbers Za gives a lot of it, and that will always need to be shipped.
     
  4. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Ballast is not a problem, the Lybian desert has more than enough rock :D and even if it's not the best for the purpose (I have no idea), any decent mineral better then shale or sandstone can be used but it will have to be renewed often. The US CoE and the CBs knew it all, their achievements were great, I'd be extremely proud to have worked under them (I did under a retired Admiral!)

    What Terry says is entirely correct, even if the crushing plant was sunk by the laws of probabilities at least one would make the crossing, so they would be in business. Actually I don't see any reason for the Italians not having some in place already, crushed rock has a number of reasons, but having them put it out at military rates is something else.

    Now for the rails and sleepers and all the fittings (there's a lot of small hardware tho pin a rail to a sleeper!), those really would need to be shipped, along with the heavy construction plant unless you want to do it à la River Kwai.

    Remember one 100km stretch of single track would require 12,000 tons for rails alone ;) What did you say was the load capacity of the run-of-the-mill Italian freighter?

    Once again, all this is to bring out that rail transportation is the most effective and cheapest to operate overland means of transport. Trucks the opposite but they beat walking ;)

    And building a railway is not simply laying sleepers on the ground and stretch rails along. Just to give you an example your off-the-shel locos won't be able to pull the same train over a gradient above 3%. What if you meet a range of hills in mid way? Lots of engineering involved!

    By the way, we've heard of the problems the Germans had when they invaded the USSR, which were exactly the problems the Sovs had when they turned the scales the other way: a monstrous state of affairs railways wise!
     
  5. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    Sounds like it would be better to expand Tobruk as a harbor than build a railroad. That at least allows ships to take the cargo most of the way, & ships are generally more effcient than railroads. Anyway, improving the harbor would require fewer men and less material than building a railroad.
     
  6. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    so our monty did alright then?.one would assume the africa corps,or rommels rabble would have destroyed roads and harbours,so how did monty manage to kick rommels arse 1,200miles from alamein to tripoli in 5 months,without large harbour facilities?.were supplies flown in?,did monty have enough transport?,or did the royal engineers have similar engineer battns as the u.s did?.cheers.
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Carl, one thing does not preclude the other. The Axis had three decent harbours in Lybia: Tripoli, Tobruk and Benghazi. What woulb be the best means of transportation from port to in-between? Rail!

    Unless per your reason "ships are generally more effcient than railroads" you mean the Ship of the Desert, the camel :D

    Your statement applies when you have good waterways, not the case here.
     
  8. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    This is by far the most efficent use of resources. The Allies knew it and did an outstanding job clearing ports after their capture. Both Tobruck and Benghazi received such attention in Monty's advance.
    There is no reason except lack of planning or expertise that can explain the failure of the Axis to do likewise. I know from history that the British or US could have put a single salvage ship (generally a small converted freighter) with a couple of tugs carrying typical salvage supplies and a crew of about 25 to 50 men into one of these ports and cleared most, if not all, of the wrecks within a couple of months.
    An added bonus is that most of the time the more intact ships can be refurbished and put back into service. The Allies did this primarily with merchant ships but all the same an extra hull is an extra hull.
     
  9. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    The port capacity was not the bottleck, the problem was getting the ships there and unloading them safely. Tobruk and possibly Bengazi as well were too exposed to attack from Egypt based planes, there is a link in this thread to a German report that they were unable to use Derna, which is half way between the two, because of the risk of air attack not port capacity. Tobruk is actually closer to Alexandria than to Italian ports so an intervention by the Royal Navy against any major convoy is also likely, and the Italians did not have the fuel to provide major surface escorts to every convoy. There was a constant flow of coastal traffic, up to Bardia and even Matruth but anything major would have not worked.
     
  10. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona

    Actually, port capacity was the bottleneck. Over 85% of supplies, men and, equipment shipped by the Axis to North Africa arrived safely. There were only brief periods prior to the Axis defeat at Alamein where the British were able to make any serious interdiction of supplies. Most of these occasions required alot of effort diverted from elsewhere and were in congruence with an upcoming offensive.
    The Axis did try and use Benghazi as much as possible but capacity was very limited due to harbor obstructions. Tobruck was largely useless by the time the second siege ended. Thus, the vast majority of Axis supplies had to go to Tripoli. This was the problem.
    When the Germans / Italians had a supply line that required nearly a 2000 mile round trip per vehicle they were using up what did arrive in useful quantity to deliver a meer fraction of that to the front.
    The Allies had the largesse to make something like the Burma Road work; the Axis didn't. They needed shipping and a short haul to make their offensive work.
     
  11. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    I must disagree, I don't have statistics of losses in Tobruk convoys compared to Tripoli, but I found instances of 1942 convoys directed at Tobruk from Italy suffering 50% losses to the RAF. And this in a period where the withdrawal of the submarines from Malta had made the Tripoli route generally safe. There are plenty of instances of equipment unloaded at Tripoli, reloaded there on coastal craft and delivered at Tobruk or even Bardia and Matruth. I suspect this was to avoid risking the ships that far forward rather than because they could not be unloaded there. If Tobruk was already inoperative then why did the British mount what could only be described as a very high risk commando operation to try to knock it out? And why were the the forces that repulsed it there at all? If they were ready to run that sort of risks to hit the port they would probably have done the same against the much more vulnerable ships at sea if any large convoy to Tobruk had been attempted.
    Bengazi would have made a better bet, and was never brought back to full capacity by the axis, so you probably have a point there.
    IMHO what would really have changed the logistics situation would have been Italy not loosing 30% of it's shipping fleet, including most of the fastest and newer ships, by failing to recall them home before declaring war in 1940.
     
  12. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    The problem with counting the capacity of Tripoli is that it places the ships offloading at the end of a long road. To get around that efficiently the Axis can either quickly build a railroad to Egypt, or expand the capacity of Benghazi or Tobruk. by 'expansion' I include the ability to defend the port against Allied interdiction.

    The Italians did attempt to extend the short railroad from Tripoli. the problems outlined by others here, building tracks and importing material, prevented the tracks from extending far enough to make a difference. They also discussed with the Vichy French the extention of a French railroad from Tunis to Tripoli. I think it went as far as Sfax or Gabes in those days. The French talked a bit but did nothing.

    If the Axis can expand one or both of those ports (Benghazi or Tobruk)to the necessary capacity, defend it, and get the ships there through British sea interdiction, then they have a chance of resolving the North African logistics problem. thsoe two ports were close enough to Egypt to make truck supply to the battlefield practical.
     
  13. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    During the Seige of Tobruk an Australian soldier observed that,

    "Tobruk Harbour is full of ships, and the ships are full of harbour".


    John.
     
  14. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Pardon my ignorance, but exactly what railroads did exist already in Tunisia and Lybia?
     
  15. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    426
    Now this is from Wiki. So take it with a grain of salt.

    " By 1939 the Lybian italians had built 400 km of new railroads and 4,000 km of new roads (the most important and large was the one from Tripoli to Tobruk, on the coast) in Libya."

    Italian Libyans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  16. Carl W Schwamberger

    Carl W Schwamberger Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    81
    From miscl books on the African war:

    Both the Italians and French ahd built small guage railroads in their colonys. These were mostly for moving agricultural products to port for export to Europe. Dates, Oranges, ect... There were some mineral as well. The Italian railroad extended slightly west from Tripoli, but most of the track went east along the coast.

    The French had been busier. The railroad from Tunis ran west to Algiers and Oran, and south towards Sfax and Gabe. Tho I am not certain exactly how far south it went. A branch was susposed to run into the Western Dorsal mountains to a mine but again I cant remember if it was completed. Unfortunaly no one keeps old atlases so it is really diffiult to track down accurate maps of these.

    The British had extended their railroad from Alexandria west before the war. During the African campaign they continued extending it, which helped their supply transport immensely.
     
  17. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Aquila non capit muscas

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    8,809
    Likes Received:
    372
    Location:
    Portugal
    Thank you Carl. Perhaps I wouldn't be too far off the mark if I ventured there simply wasn't a heavy load bearing railway from Tunis all the way to Alexandria ;)

    Roadwise, there was the Via Balbia, inaugurated by Il Duce in 1937. It got this name in 1940 when Marshall Balbo was killed.


    Tripoli harbour
    [​IMG]

    Bridge on the Via Balbia, destroyed by a Brit bomb.
    [​IMG]

    "Marble Arch" - Arco dei Fileni. It straddles the Via Balbia. Ghaddafi had it demolished :D
    [​IMG]

    Building a phone line around the Brit held Tobruk. More materials that had to come over!
    [​IMG]

    The Via Balbia in Jan '42. What Via? A desert track!!!
    [​IMG]

    Photos belonging to Cesare Pozzi, on the right.
    [​IMG]

    Fine site in La mia guerra 1940-1943
     
  18. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    during the mareth battles,i understand 8th armies supplies came mainly from benghasi.monty had xxx and x corps in action,x111 corps lost its transport to supply the 2 forward corps,i think?.tripoli port was knackered,so i understand?.i hope this helps,cheers.
     
  19. Owen

    Owen O

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,765
    Likes Received:
    760
    Lee
    Tripoli was open by then.
    Page 77 of 51st Highland Div History says,

    Now the harbour of Tripoli was in use, forward airfields had been cleared , and we had improved our supply lines and our air suport .
    So the job of 8th Army was to press forward as far as possible and get into the wide plain beyond Mareth towards Sfax and Sousse.
     
  20. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    do we know when the tripoli port was open?,because i am sure,i think?,that a whole corps lost its transport,to supply the 2 forward corps of 8th army.cheers.
     

Share This Page