Discussion about WW2/North African campaign

[CareBear]

one of the few things i remember from my coursework that i did on north Africa, is a British assault on an Italian fort or stronghold,

anyways the Italian shells bounced of the British armour, and the commander surrendered immediately saying something along the lines of 'we have exhausted our supple of ammunitions' while standing next to a heap of shells

now i want to find the third reich book i had as that had pretty much everything in it

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by CareBear

one of the few things i remember from my coursework that i did on north Africa, is a British assault on an Italian fort or stronghold,

anyways the Italian shells bounced of the British armour, and the commander surrendered immediately saying something along the lines of 'we have exhausted our supple of ammunitions' while standing next to a heap of shells

now i want to find the third reich book i had as that had pretty much everything in it

Not surprising, before the Germans got thier high velocity 75mm guns the only thing that they could rely on to stop a Matilda II was the 88 linky

For those of you who have ever cracked a French cheese eating surrender monkey joke, I suggest you read up on the battle of Bir Hakeim, where the Free French 1st Brigade of under 4,000 held out against a German/Italian force of 45,000 for two weeks and only withdrew after they had expended all thier ammunition.

[dead fish12345]

The matilda's gun though was just a 40mm 2 pounder and was just about worthless for killing heavier armor at longer ranges so the German 75and 88s could still sit out of range of the 40mm and knock them out.

[[R-CON]Tim270]

The majority of the Brit 'cruiser' tank series (I.e Ax Crusader etc) Were built for speed and mobility, this tactic essentially was used against them by Rommel in a lot of cases. 88 screens were used to lure tank chargers after small units of panzers back straight into the 88's fire.
Ive read quite a lot of books on the campaign and essentially had the Axis been able to keep a efficient supply route and ample reinforcements I would find It had to believe the allies would have kept their foothold in North Afrika. Most of the panzer devisions were still made up mainly of Pzr3's with 4's being less common, So I would say that the Axis had the real advantage in Tank vs Tank with the 75mm Pzr4's until Shermans/Lee were put into service.

I find it the most interesting theatre of the war as its a very hard terrain to fight in let alone utilize, and required very fast decisive tactics to archive victory.

[Hellbrawler]

It's funny considering how Germany would've had total control of Africa had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union which was a stupid move. Germany could have focused all firepower into North Africa while keeping Britain at bay and the Non-Aggression pack with the USSR.
Just imagine ALL of the Tigers and the updated Panzers pounding on Egypt. And even with the US invading to the west, they would've beaten back the allied forces anyway.

[Epim3theus]

The Nazi's got sidetracked by the Italians , that managed to loose every single fight they got them selves into in the WW2, into Greece and Africa. So it's more the otherway around. Then Barbarossa would have started earlier and General Winter might have come to late etc. Anyways....
Hitler wanted the Lebensraum in the east, he didn't have really have anything against the Brtittish, or something to gain in Africa. He was just defending the soft lower belly of Europe. He would rather make peace with the Brits than with the Communists. He was out for Lebensraum, and making the slavic people work for them. A bit like the big colonialist European countries did in other parts of the world.

[Hellbrawler]

Default Re: Discussion about WW2/North African campaign
The Nazi's got sidetracked by the Italians , that managed to loose every single fight they got them selves into in the WW2, into Greece and Africa. So it's more the otherway around. Then Barbarossa would have started earlier and General Winter might have come to late etc. Anyways....
Hitler wanted the Lebensraum in the east, he didn't have really have anything against the Brtittish, or something to gain in Africa. He was just defending the soft lower belly of Europe. He would rather make peace with the Brits than with the Communists. He was out for Lebensraum, and making the slavic people work for them. A bit like the big colonialist European countries did in other parts of the world.

He didn't want anything in Africa?? I thought he wanted the Suez Canal a MAJOR economic target.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by Hellbrawler

He didn't want anything in Africa?? I thought he wanted the Suez Canal a MAJOR economic target.

Nope, German troops were only deployed to Africa to stop the British from overrunning the Itallian colonies there. The offensive into Eygpt was conducted on Rommel's own initative.

[Hellbrawler]

Nope, German troops were only deployed to Africa to stop the British from overrunning the Itallian colonies there. The offensive into Eygpt was conducted on Rommel's own initative.

Oh wow, I'm surprised the Germans didn't see the significant advantages of controlling the Suez Canal.

[gclark03]

It's never that simple. There's a chance that something else would have stalled his Africa campaign, or that one of his senior advisers would have capped him in 1943 and taken control of Nazi Germany. This is a futile game of 'what if?' that will amount to nothing.