What do you think of the Siege of Tobruk

The siege of Trobuk 'the longest sige in british history' well bing australian I follow the anzac's where ever they went, and I was wondering what anyone else thought of either the anzac, british or the german troops at trobuk. Do you think it was a thorn in rommels side, or should the brisith have evacuated it before hand, but would that have lost the north african war for the british? i have read many stories and first hand accounts of the relationship between the british and the aussie troops at this time and if rommel knew of the friction between the two would he have been more likely to try and push harder for tobruk?

 

Tobruk held despite the friction because of the men themselves not their comanders, the men appreciated each others qualities and knew that whilst tobruk held it would always be a thorn in erwins side, if he copuld have taken it earlier and then brought the full weight of his troops to bear then the allies would have ahd a problem, not only that but he could have used tobruk as a supply harbour thus negating the long supply lines that were time consuming and vulnerable.

 

What would've make the difference?

Hitler didn't gave something about relationships between countries. He cared about Victory, Jews & Oil (for his Panzer).

Hitler striked where he wanted to strike. Whenever there was a Donkey & a Horse he wouldn't care, he wanted that place, so he'll get that place.

If you still have a reason to let me believe, that the relationship between those two, could change a difference in German tactics.. you may tell me!

 

I have read many books on the aussie and british troops, from ww1 to ww2 and the negative feelings between them was not only between the commanders but the line infantry as well, I heard stories about how austaliran soldies would pretend to shot there british officers. If you ask australians today about it the majority still don't like being under the rule of the british and they didn't then, they were still considered second line troops not fit to hold a front line, by the british, Australians felt as though we were let down by the british at singapore, and in africa. IN our time of need we had to turn to the american marines to help us. P;us the aussie commanders resented the british because for a long time the australian soldies were still under british command, not austrlain commanders.

But if you know that a force has friction in the ranks by using it against them, such as the french standoff with there qovernment in ww1, if the germans learnt of that ww1 could have been different.

 

I think that Britain just was unable to provide it.

 

In my opinion one of the best shots of 'men' from the second war. (If anyone knows of a clearer copy I'd be interested?) :

Some Aussie 'rats' at Tobruk,


Sadly, the central victorious figure in that picture, Fred Origlassi, was killed in Korea on November the 5th 1950.
Origlassi

Cheers,
Adam.

 

A bit surprised there tomcat.

Just about every account of Anzac's from british side has been of praise. Their commanders were held in high regard, the only friction I know of was that the commonwealth commanders could 'phone home' if they were not pleased with the orders that they received. The other bit is betwen Churchill and the Aussie PM regarding the Aussies wanting back some of their divisions for defence of the land of Oz. Churchill talked to Roosevelt who in turn agreed to aid the Australians. Churchill ,in his memoirs, pointed out that the Aussies were a key to the success in their repective areas.

 

you are tight about the australian PM (who is PM John Curtin) and churchill except that curtin wanted all the australian divisions back to asia, at the time of December 1941- Feburary 1942 there was the 9th Infantry division in the middle east and two more en route when curtin requested they be returned home, a long stoy short curtin won and australia finally got 'sovereignty over its own troops at war'. A big step for australia against britian. for many britons, and in particular Winston Churchill, the belief that the 'dominions' would do exactly as they were told, was hard to shake. and it was cutin who requested help from the americans, which later churchil said it would make "A very bad impression in high american circles" (the americans took no offence).

And as for high praise that was only about the 9th infantry Divison, a properly formed and trained division, unlike the militia soldiers, mostly which were in australia. one account was about a private who never fired a shot at the kokoda trail and at the end of it turned to his sergeant and said " Now can you show me how to use this"

Churchill considered europe the more dominate theatre of war and sent only a few warships to australia one which was sunk en route. It wasnt' could they couldn't send help, theyu just thought asia not as important.

 

you have to be kidding don't you, britain never thought of asia as secondary as we were relying on the india for men and material, if britain could have she wopuld have sent more help but when you are losing ground hand over fist on your doorstep and need every available man to maintain your base of operations and protect you means to wage war (middle east oil) you have to prioritise. once america was in the war and fighting in the pacific chruchill knew that australia was safe.

my area of knowledge is 4th indian division and the western desert, i have spoken to many british vets who have all said that the aussies were marvelous troops who you could rely upon at any time, not once has friction been mentioned amongst the men. you will actually find too that all commenwealth and dominion troops were regarded as suspect fighters until they actually won the respect of the commanders on the battle fields, despite having already fought with extreme bravery in three campaigns when montgommery arrived he didnt take a liking to the 4th indians, after el alamain he left them on battlefield clear up duties, finnaly General Tucker there C.O went to monty and said he wanted to be replaced as co if his troops were not to be used, within a week they had been called forward to the mareth line.

you see british generals were of the old order and didnt trust non english troops, wether they were indians,poles, south africans or Aussies.

i am pleased to say that 4th indians forget an excellant partnership with 2nd New Zealand division and shared many battle honours.

 

Churchill was outraged when he heard that Curtin asked for help from the americans, he himself said to curtin europe is more important then Australia. Which fine he looked after his own country first but we needed our troopes for the defence for our country, and the 9th inf div was the best force we had, well trained and lead and importantly experinenced.

I am in noway saying 'dominion' troops are less effective then other troops, in my readings and research, I have found that many dominion troops of the commonwealth were great fighters and able to rival even the best of the africa corps and the militia held the japanese. Dominion troops always prasied each other such as the New zealands and Australians hence the name (ANZAC), and the indians. The friction I am referring to is in the lower ranks, such as the example I showed earlier. Or an account I have about australians wanting to lead themselcves not by the british, they wandted 'indepence' you could say.

As did many 'dominion' troops as i said before just look at the Australia New Zealand Army Corp (ANZAC) thats how close they were.

 

tomcat, you really should read "Gallipoli" by Les Carlyon. He's a journalist by trade, so he doesn't have any favours to return amongst military people. The myth of "Colonial" troops exploited by British commanders is exactly that - a myth. British-born troops fared no better than their Australian or New Zealand comrades. Australian & NZ commanders were on a steep learning curve at Gelibolu. Monash and Morshead emerged as leaders of the future, as did Freyberg (commander of the NZ Division in the 8th Army in WWII). As for only one warship heading for Oz, the RN sent two capital ships they could ill afford, to Singapore: the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse, plus the destroyers HMS Electra, HMS Express, HMS Tenedos & HMAS Vampire. When the two capital ships were sunk by Japanese torpedo-bombers on 10 Dec 1941, the four destroyers played an heroic role in rescuing the survivors of this great naval disaster. Once the war in Europe was over, Britain lost no time in sending a powerful carrier fleet to the South Pacific, where they performed well - surviving "Kamikaze" attacks which put many of the US carriers out of action. Don't knock the Poms, mate - they had to fight to secure their own backyard before they could think about looking after Oz. And MacArthur had nowhere else to run to after the Japs kicked him out of the Philippines. Finding that he could bully Curtin into giving him virtual Military Governor status, Dugout Doug did exactly that. The Kokoda Track became the Kokoda Trail, because that's what Dugout Doug's public back in the USA understood. Now understand that none of this PR buildup was intended to benefit Australians at all. Milne Bay - the first defeat of the Japanese land forces in WWII - was down to the Australians, but nobody in the States heard about it as such. If it didn't involve Americans, it didn't happen. The penny dropped shortly after, when MacArthur proposed his "Island-hopping" campaign...Not a single Australian unit was proposed in the ORBAT. The Australian Field Force commander, General Blamey, was less than amused. Typical of MacArthur's publicity stunts was the announcement by his staff that he had moved his headquarters "one thousand miles closer to the front line." This meant that he'd moved his HQ from Melbourne to Brisbane.

Cheers,
Klive

 

unsure as to how copy/paste works with this site, but i added info on a url. or site, as to how blitzkreig tactics where thwarted by the Aussies at Tobruk. of Rommels commenting on these troops. I also read some info, on how German bombers where tricked as to targets being destroyed, and garrison on her knee's by systems of camoflague, and deceits leaked to Axis leaders. header is listed as..wargames/2008/02/04/aussies-in -tobruk





bf109 Emil

 

I think the main reason the Allies held out in Tobruk is because they had access to supplies and reinforcements via the med because the British had total naval superiority at that point, which is rare for any encircled troops. Also Rommel underestimated the strength of the garrison holding Tobruk, and constantly got thrown back. If he had concentrated his force into one big push rather than several token efforts, Tobruk would've fallen no problem. When it comes to the frictions between British and ANZAC forces I can't see it playing that great a role, and the German/Italian friction would've been even worse, particularly because supplies were short due to British air and naval superiority and the Italian forces were given priority. Pretty much the reason why the Italians lost Africa from what I know is because they were constantly half-starved of supplies from the second battle of El Alemain onwards. Rommel's expeditionary force was in even worse shape due to the Italian priority of supplies.

 

strelkovaya, you kidding right?, The only way the got supplies were via the Tobruk ferry, Made up of Australian vessels, For a navy that was so big and powerful they sure had to rely on alot of other countries smaller fleets to do the difficult dangerous tasks.

And Rommel attacked with over whelming numbers on several occasions, And he did it tctically, You dont just do a full scale charge, You will lose all your tanks, and atleast 25,000 men in an hour, You forget they had mine fields, ditches, adn tank traps to navigate. Not to mention they also had to deal with the highly effective aussie raiding partys behind there lines, Who not only too out enemy troops or captured them, They also went and dug up german mines, and moved them to suit there defense.

Oh and one big push, Requires time to build up supplies, And equiptment, and troops, And we all know how Kursk turned out when hitler waited, Do you really think it would have been any different at Tobruk.

If im not mistaken wasnt it Rommel who once said that the Australians are the elite of the British commonwealth, They seemed to be the only ones that didnt shit them selves and run at the first sign of a panzer.

Oh and britian could have done a hell of a lot more for Australia in WWII, granted infintry they couldnt spare, But they gave us only 1 fighter squadren, They easily could have given us 5, They had already secured the skies over britian and they werent operating 1,000s of planes in NA.

Navy wise, They didnt do shit with there navy, Would have been better off transfering alot more than like 6 ships to help us out, There carriers, Pretty much useless, Atleast they could have provided some help over here, The battle ships, Well besides Bismarck i dont remember to many ship to ship battles early on, Same goes for the Cruisers, Destroyers etc.

They easily could have given us a division of troops, They didnt have all there forces in NA, hell they didnt even give us a battalion of troops. This was the second world war they stuffed us around in, In ww1 at Gallipoli, They gave us a few hand drawn sketches of the landing beaches, No details on the terrain or anything.

Oh as for the mighy powerful british carrier fleet near the end of the pacific war, That just caused more problems than good, To sya they did so good against the kamikazis is utter BS, The yanks had been the ones to spill there blood to find out how to deal with them, Not to mention, The powerful carrier fleet the brits had, just drained more resources. The yanks by this time had over 100 carriers of different types and sizes. It was just plublicity for the brits.

 

von noobie your comment that australian, troops were the only ones not to shit themselves or run at the sight of a panzer is offensive to the memory of any british soldier that fought at tobruk, or served in the desert campaign not forgetting the poles czechs indians and many others that fought there

 

hitler asked rommel what do you want to take tobrook he said in reply
a division of australian soldats ........ shit them self
best krieg

 

My apoligies to both you aussie gents if i misunderstood the quote but while i have no problem agreeing as to the quality of aussie, troops the british were not that unhepful were they? and are the quality of the troops of the 8th army desert rats or non australian troops at tobruk in question?

 

mate apoligies for nothink

 

I hope I did not lead you all to believe that I think that the British a not good troops, for the British are a great waring nation, this has been seen countless timess throughout history. During ww2 the British showed great daring and capabilities both which helped them win the war, if Tobruk was lost during this siege the war would still have ended the same way. The British Troops at tobruk consisted of both British and commonwealth troops, which all fought very well and should all be reconised for what they did, for the apararent "unfearfull Australians" would never had been able to hoold tobruk without the British continously supplying the city from the sea or without the British Garrison there.

Now we must also remember that the British at the time considered their own country more important as would any country with the enemy at their doorstep (which is why our troops were brought home). Although the many battles were won in the end the British needed every plane to finish of the Germans, to continously have air superority over them.

The British needed virtually ever ship they had in the defense for the British Isle, to cover both any invasion of the Isle but ot also cover the Channel approaches and the large area of open sea above the UK. Surface raiders contiionously attempting sorties into the Atlantic were always a problem for the British, as well as the Escort Destroyers and Capitial ships needed to Guard the conovy's under constant threat from the Surface Raiders and the Uboats. I do agree that they probably could have supplied a few more then they did, but America had already taken the lead in the Pacific and were winning the war.

Von_Noobie. 100 Aircraft Carriers? since when? I think you need to not only check the History books both on on the Quality of British troops but also the truth behind why there were restrained from helping.

It is not for us to question on facts that have happened in the past, or to say "but if they had done this" for we must remmber that they made descisions based on the information they recieved.

PS Come on guys language, G rated forum and I don't want this thread to be closed.