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

Rommel vs Montgomery

Discussion in 'North Africa and the Mediterranean' started by donsor, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. donsor

    donsor Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've seen a lot of documentaries on TV (Military Chanel) regarding the desert warfare between the Axis (Germans and Italians) and the British in far stretches of the Libyan desert whereby tanks and artillery were extensively used along with troops of course. My question is that do the tank guns and artillery aimed at a particular target or are they mostly directed towards the vicinity of the opposing forces hoping that with enough rounds the shells could hit a target. Unlike the recent tank battles in the Desert Storm, our Abrams aimed at a specific target whether it be enemy tanks or other armored vehicles. Also, I was surprised at the lack of use of air power by either side. Fighter bombers such as the Mosquitoes and US A-26s could have raised havoc shooting at tanks. Also I'm seeing a declining use of tanks in future conflicts because of high tech weapons which a single soldier can knock off a tank at a distance much less the use of helicopters and laser guided bombs. No more tank on tank battles. Not even Iran will dare send their tanks in open desert against sophisticated anti-tank weapons. North Korea have thousands of tanks they could send south in case of conflict but we could take care of that with air power and tactical nuke weapons.
     
  2. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    9,504
    Likes Received:
    3,037

    Okay a few statements and a question popped in there somewhere...Tanks are aimed at targets, specific targets...commonly other tanks...but any vehicle or building is fodder for the tank...its secondary role is a sheild for infantry. This need has not dissapeared (although many now used APCs - they are not suitable actually ON the battlefield.) In the case of the Russian front or Africa, one could "dig-in" ones tank so that it turret is just visiable...this can now be used as a tank killer, lurking out of sight or the gun traveresed high (the tank angled to increase the traverse) and used as artillery.
    Artillery is an "area weapon" used to bombard a particular area not particular target...it uses a high explosive round and is used in tandem to increase the "killing power" on a set of co-ordinates. This is a "stand-off" weapon...the operators do not directly see the enemy. The battle of Long Tan was perhaps one of the best examples of what artillery can do. Kill thousands in an afternoon...God bless the kiwi artillery, champion shots...dont mess with kiwi artillery!
    Oh and we still DO have tanks on the battlefield...they just now have taken to the air...cavalry is alive and well and skimming heads somewhere near you!
    And there were plenty of aircraft in the african campaign...Spits, hurricanes/Hurrybombers, kittyhawks by the truckload...axis had greyhounds, me109s and my favourite Storchs...any many more besides...Airpower wasnt the easiest thing to institue in a desert, still isnt. The dust problem (huge), problems with getting AVGAS to the air units, overheating engines...lack of cover etc etc...
     
  3. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    I would say that until Tedder left,the Desert Air Force generally'fought'from high altitude.It wasn't until he left,and C.O's like Montgomery and Broadhurst came in,that the situation changed.This eventually led to the "cab rank"system.cheers
     
  4. RD3

    RD3 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    31
    The desert Warfare in the years 1941-1943 is often compared with sea battles by the tank soldiers who were involved. Hundreds of tanks driving through the desert, shooting at each other at ranges from 2000 meters to just 20 meters.
    Also important is, that despite the great involvement of tanks, the infantry still played a very important role and that between battles, there were long periods of static defense in which both sides just stayed in their defensive positions (even as long as the summer lasted because it was to hot to fight), protected by mines and barbed wire.
     
  5. scipio

    scipio Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    122
    All the above is correct. It was very much a tank-anti tank duel.

    Rommel perfected the tactic of tempting the British tanks on to his ani-tank screen of 88mms and then destroying British tanks in their hundreds. Surprisingly the British in WW1 had realised that the tank had to stop to have a chance of firing accurately but in the inter-war years the Cavalry chaps got their way and it was tally-ho - fire on the charge! As the range of British tanks in North Africa were always much less than the German, they can be excused for this tactic, how else could they close to get a meaningful shot in.

    Montgomery put a stop to this nonsense and he forbade his tank commanders to charge after the German tanks (sacked Lumsden), much to the disgust of Rommel who suddenly recognised that he had a formidable opponent capable of thinking through the problem. Once Tedder had departed to screw up the planning for air war over Sicily, Broadhurst with Monty's active blessing developed the Cab Rank system - the combination of knocking out German tanks from the Air and husbanding the British Tanks was decisive - plus of course the usual brilliant performance from the Artillery (but I am biased here).
     
  6. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    I don't think anyone could argue that the Royal Artillery was anything but superb throughout the war.cheers.
     
  7. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    In fact the DAF ran into trouble early on from operating too low ; continual 'bouncing' by the high-flying Bf109s of JG27 led to high losses. Also, DAF always took second place to the Defence of Great Britain in terms of aircraft types. Also, in the earlier stages, the main problem was maintenance and supply.

    But the lessons learned from 1942 onwards were to prove absolutely invaluable during the NW Europe campaign. ( The Mossie, BTW, never really featured as a low-level tactical support aircraft ).
     
  8. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Hi Martin,are you talking about the Mossie in the desert,or in the n/w Europe campaign .?cheers
     
  9. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Mossie everywhere.....it was far too fast and had too shallow a dive. It was OK against large, immovable objects ( eg jails and Gestapo Headquarters ) or large slow-moving objects ( eg ships ). The 'rocket-firing Mossie' which features in imagined paintings of Normandy is just that - imaginary ( rocket-firing Mossies were only used in the anti-shipping role ).

    Even the Typhoon wasn't ideal for ground attack - again, the angle of dive was too shallow for accuracy ( it became effective due to overwhelming firepower but took very heavy losses ). Probably the best, most accurate anti-tank ground-attack aircraft of WWII was in the fact the Stuka, as perfected by Rudel. Very slow, and a near-vertical dive. It was OK so long as there was nothing else in the air to shoot it down..........

    ( Sorry - getting a bit off-topic for the desert....:eek: )
     
  10. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    sort of off topic here, but wasn't it today that Monty launched his El Alamein offensive against the Afrika Korps?
     
    4th wilts likes this.
  11. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    I think it is or was the start of operation lightfoot on 23rd October.I like that name.Which allied aircraft in Africa was the best at dive bombing,ground attack.?cheers.
     
  12. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    There never was an Allied divebomber in that theatre. But the most successful ground-attack machine in the Desert was undoubtedly the good old Hurricane MkII ( especially the ones with 4 x 20mm cannon and the later Mk II 'Hurribomber' ). They still took heavy losses until more nimble aircraft arrived to keep the Bf109s at bay.

    Even better still, and probably the most famous of the DAF's ground-attack aircraft was the Hurricane MkIID armed with 2 x 40mm cannon ( very similar to the set-up on Rudel's Stuka ) which put in some impressive claims around the time of El Alamein.
     
  13. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Hi Martin,were beaufighters ever used in the desert,?or only on Anti shipping strikes.?cheers.
     
  14. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Beaufighters were certainly used in the Desert ( mainly near the coast ) in 1942. The main role was anti-shipping but when land targets appeared they were tackled.

    Here's a quote from the little official booklet 'Beaufighter' published in 1944 : -

    '...Beaufighters took off and fell upon columns of of lorries advancing between Tobruk and Mersa Matruh. The concentrated traffic offered an ideal target ; shells from the cannon and machine-gun fire tore into the column, setting petrol tanks on fire, wrecking engines and killing lorry-borne soldiers....a scene of unbelievable chaos, burnng lorries, collided vehicles.....other Beaufighters were were inflicting mortal damage to enemy schooners and barges creeping along the coast...'
     
    4th wilts likes this.
  15. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Perhaps we should have ordered some dauntless SDB's and laterly helldivers.?Or were Fairy Barracuda's tested.?obvIously with dust filters.cheers
     
  16. 4th wilts

    4th wilts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    29
    Well I've read through different sites ,and can't seem to find any reference to any dive bombers used by the D.A.F.but were any dive bombers used by the U.S.A.A.F.in Tunisia.?it's a bit off topic,but would be good to know.cheers.
     
  17. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Actually it's a thought but----did the USAAF use any divebombers over land ?

    Helldivers, Dauntlesses etc were all carrier-borne, weren't they ? :confused:
     
  18. Carronade

    Carronade Ace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    846
    The USAAC/F used at least two divebombers. The A-24 was a landbased version of the SBD Dauntless which saw service in the S/SW Pacific, not very extensive to my knowledge. The A-36 was a dive bomber version of the early Allison-engined P-51, used mainly in the Mediterranean AFAIK; it retained the air-to-air capability of the standard Mustang and scored a number of kills in air combat. On the other hand, a standard fighter could also carry bombs; the fighter-bomber seems to have been preferred over a specialized dive bomber.

    There was also a land-based version of the SB2C Helldiver, the A-25, but it never served in combat.

    The USMC also made extensive use of the SBD in the land-based role. AFAIK the Son-of-a-B 2nd Class was reserved for carrier use during WWII.
     
  19. Duns Scotus

    Duns Scotus Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    84
    Likes Received:
    5
    HI Clint my Montana buddy-your old Scots buddy here.! Yes El Alamein was launched on this day in October.
    However, I'd like to take issue with ''Martin'' re the accuracy of Tyhoon fired rockets -what made rocket firiing Typhoons more deadly than the Stuka was that the rockets thy ired did NOT have to strike the target to cause maximum dam age -as they showed time after time.
    Iwonder if Wehrmacht survivors of the Falaise gap debacle would agree about the lack of efficacy of ''Typhoon'' rockets attacks?-I don't think so.!
     
  20. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I agree 100% that the Typhoon was far more deadly than the Stuka - but as for accuracy : no. Speed of aircraft and 'drop' of rockets when launched put paid to any notion of accuracy. The Typhoon excelled at causing total chaos against targets in tightly-packed areas such as Normandy lanes. Typhoons could destroy an entire vehicle column with rocket- and bomb-blast plus 20mm fire. But against a single tank ?

    Stuka.
     

Share This Page