Talk:Operation Battleaxe

Random information

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/m-6mineban.pdf

THE MILITARY CONSEQUENCES OF A COMPLETE LANDMINE BAN

pg. 15

"Other anecdotal accounts of the use of antitank mines in World War II exist. One of the earliest occurred at Halfaya Pass in Egypt, during Operation BATTLEAXE (15-17 June 1941). In that engagement the British lost four of 18 Infantry tanks to antitank mines, while 11 were lost to AT guns and enemy tanks."

^[1]

---

Operation Battleaxe went badly for the British. The Germans used anti-tank guns to kill tanks while using tanks against infantry and trucks. The British had thought that you needed to use your tanks to kill other tanks. They had the disadvantage of having a small tank gun (the 40mm 2pdr). The Germans had a very small number of 88mm FlAK36 guns that were used in the anti-tank role. During Battleaxe, there were about 5 at Halfaya Pass, 4 "at Hafid ridge", and 4 operating with one panzer regiment (the 8th). After the battle, the British assumed that the Germans must have tanks that had a better gun than they did, and that accounted for their many tank losses. In fact, it seems that they were mostly killed by anti-tank guns. The Germans also had the advantage of good tank recovery equipment and organization. The British had almost none. When the British were forced to withdraw, they left behind knocked tanks that were repairable, because they had no way to recover them.

Doesnt this second part take away from the fact the 2 pounder was quite effective and how the British used there tanks and decent repair serive which was in place and constently being updated----

Google books

• The Grand Alliance [2] - Winston Churchill
• Memoirs of the Second World War - Winston Churchill
• Winston Churchill - Henry Pelling
• The Churchill War Papers: The Ever Widening War, Volume 3: 1941[3] - Martin (Ed.) Gilbert
• Intelligence and Strategy: Selected Essays - John Robert Ferris
• The Rommel Papers [4] - Erwin Rommel
• History of the Second World War - Basil Henry Liddell Hart, Henry Basil, Constance Kritzberg, Larry Hancock
• Tobruk 1941 - Jon Latimer (Contains British Order of Battle)
• Germany and the Second World War: Volume III: The Mediterranean, South-East Europe, and North Africa 1939-1941 - Gerhard Schreiber, Bernd Stegemann, Detlef Vogel
• Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942 - Christer Jorgensen
• The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean Volume II: November 1940-December 1941

Discrepancies

• British artillery at Halfaya?
  • Didn't fire since artillery was bogged down in soft sand - The Crucible of War
  • Did fire, but had no effect as the garrison was bunkered down at the time - Afrika Korps - Time-Life
  • Did fire, but the concentration of fire missed, "falling in the empty wadi between the Third and the FlaK", the garrison also bunkered down - Panzer Aces II: Battle Stories of German Tank Commanders of WWII

Initial strength

• British
  • 180 tanks, 7 AD; 19 tanks (from 4th AB) 4 IID - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
  • 300 tanks Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
  • 200 tanks - Rommels North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
• German
  • 70 tanks, 5 LD; 80 tanks, 15 PD - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
  • 200 tanks, 170 in frontier - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
  • 100 tanks, 5LD, 85 tanks, 15 PD - Rommels North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942

Losses

• Axis
  • Over 100 tanks, only 12 which couldn't be ultimately repaired - Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-44
  • 12 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43
  • 25 tanks - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
  • 25 tanks and 700 dead - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
  • 592 Italians, 685 Germans, 12 tanks after repairs - Rommel's North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
  • 678 Germans (328 killed and missing) and the Italians lost a smaller though uncertain number. - The Tanks, pg. 92
  • 93 dead and 235 missing Germans - Rommel's War in Africa, pg. 140

• Allies
  • 91 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43, Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
  • Half their tanks and 900 men - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
  • 969 casualties, 91 tanks (64 being Matilda's), 36 planes - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Minor change

Hi, I've just changed the sentence stating that v. Brauchitsch was commander of the Wehrmacht into a more accurate form. v. Brauchitsch was only C--i-C of the Heer, or ground forces, a separate branch of the Wehrmacht as a whole. C-i-C of the Wehrmacht was Hitler himself, although he assumed Brauchitsch's position in late 1941 when he blamed the Field Marshal for the failure of Operation Typhoon. 217.247.250.221 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Things to resolve

• When did the operations name get changed from "Bruiser" to "Battleaxe"? Why did it change?
• Where all Italian forces part of the Trento Division?
• What of the attack on Bardia (supposedly defended by Leutnant Tocki)
• Need to get reliability figures for each of the authors used
  • Was Messervy's headquarters really attacked three times during the operation?

Oberiko 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

images

A Matilda tank in the "hull-down" position at the front lines just prior to the start of Battleaxe

Prelude

"These tanks arrived with many mechanical faults (including a lack of sand filters for the engines) on arrival and required extensive servicing.[8] They were scheduled for use in rebuilding the 7th Armoured Division (the Desert Rats), which had been previously dissolved, with the cruiser tanks going to the 7th Armoured Brigade and the infantry tanks going to the 4th Armoured Brigade."

Ok question about this, i was under the impression that this wasnt an actualy problem and that most equipment shipped out of North Africa was made desert worthy once it got there, not before it left for Africa.

Also am confused by the last point, 4th and 7th Armoured brigade were part of the Division at this time. 7th Armoured had not been shipped off to Burma by this point and the 4th Brigade had not been detached from the division as it was later in the war.

Stating that the division was disolved and the tanks were sent to these two brigades makes no sence so am delting it for now. The truth is by the end of Operation compass most tanks were in repair shops or non repairable and thats why the division was out of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of "RAF"

124.169.28.37 is me. Regarding the recent dispute, use of "RAF" in regard to the North African Campaign is a little like the ever-popular and always erroneous use of "British" as shorthand for Commonwealth forces, or references to the "British Eighth Army". In the first place, note that the Desert Air Force article actually covers preceding "RAF" formations, which is only proper as there was continuity in terms of command and mission. Second, the air forces of the Dominions were separate and controlled by sovereign countries. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is likely that South African Air Force (SAAF), Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), RCAF and RNZAF personnel, including many in distinct SAAF and RAAF units, would have vastly outnumbered UK air force personnel in North Africa, at all stages of the campaign. At the very least they were highly significant. Grant 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dont see the point of brining up the Eighth Army or why there should be any discussion on referring to as the British Eighth Army or even just the Eighth Army. It was a British formation, subordanite to it was of course many different nationalities but that doesnt mean it wasnt "British".

For example, the 1st Canadian Army, which had a Polish division and a British Corp under its command but the army is still Canadian. American Armies with French divisions under its command or Soviet Armies which had Polish forces making them up etc

To my understanding if these allied forces were operating under a R.A.F. HQ, the term would be correct. Although i dont know if this is the case at this point during the Desert War.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tobruk 1941: Rommel's Opening Move, pg 26 gives the Order of Battle for Battleaxe as being "202 Group RAF" and "204 Group RAF". It also specifically shows some RAAF and SAAF units as being parts of those groups. Do you have a source which shows otherwise? Oberiko (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If i remember correctly that books main source was the official history, which am pretty sure would have put the correct tactical formations such as RAF Groups etc.

Which again boils down to, even though it had other national squadrons making up the Group it was still a RAF Group and not say an Australian or south African.

Although stating all that, theres no harm in highlighting a paticular nations squadron within the article and am not attempting to imply in any of these replies that the efforts made by the other nations other then the British contribution was less.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What I've done is had 204 Group RAF linked to Desert Air Force since that was the unit which was basically transformed into the latter. Oberiko (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc, this is an old chestnut; it was always known simply as the "Eighth Army" to those involved. The name "British Eighth Army" stems from non-Commonwealth (e.g. US and German) news reports and historiography. (I am resigned to the current article being called "Eighth Army (United Kingdom)" but that is a poor compromise IMO, compared to say Eighth Army (Allied).)

Oberiko, see the relevant RAAF official history John Herington, Second World War Volume III – Air War Against Germany and Italy, 1939–1943 (1st edition, 1954), in which those units are referred to simply as "202 Group" and "204 Group". There was also 201 Group, which had responsibility for maritime patrols.

This all goes back to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which was essentially a defence co-operation treaty between sovereign countries. The fact that this relationship was unusually close and cohesive for separate air forces is mostly a result of previous historical ties, but these make them no less separate. As with the Commonwealth Article XV squadrons and No. 6 Group RCAF, the numbers of squadrons/wings/groups in North Africa were chosen to avoid confusion with RAF and other Commonwealth units, not because they were "RAF" units. Similarly, "233 Wing", which was always made up entirely of South African squadrons (although these featured personnel from other Commonwealth air forces), later changed its name to the unambiguous "No. 7 Wing SAAF".

I haven't even touched on the not-insignificant role of Polish, Free French and other European aviators in the Allied squadrons.

That is why "Allied air forces" is more accurate than "RAF", with "British Commonwealth air forces" a distant second. Grant 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, must say I'm a little confused. Is "204 Group RAF" a correct term? And if so, is there both a "204 Group" (not officially part of the RAF) and a "204 Group RAF"? Oberiko (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a disjuncture in terminology between two countries which had a stake in said units. Not quite as bad as WW1, when the British military used names (67, 68, 69 and 71 Sqn), for Australian Flying Corps squadrons, which were not used or recognised by those squadrons (actually 1-4 Sqn AFC). But I digress.  ;-) Grant 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.28.37 (talk)

So, if I have this, the U.K. referred to these groups as "204 Group RAF", while other Commonwealth nations simply referred to it as "204 Group". Oberiko (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"EnigmaMcmxc, this is an old chestnut; it was always known simply as the "Eighth Army" to those involved."
Well of course it has been, that doesnt stop the fact that it was in fact a "British" Army. If i had belong to it, from whatever nation i wouldnt be standing shouting i belong to the British 8th Army, but simply the 8th Army. The British official history even calls it just that, the 8th army. However since we are not in said army and are writing about it, it seems appropriate at least once on its first mention to call it as it is the British Eighth Army.

Again talking about simlars, the British 1st Army was also multinational but was still the British First Army, however to keep mentioning throughout an article unless there was two first armies in action would seem redundent. i.e. the American and Canadian first armies in Normandy would require you to keep stating it to avoid confusion while once established the British Second Army would not.

"Hmm, must say I'm a little confused. Is "204 Group RAF" a correct term? And if so, is there both a "204 Group" (not officially part of the RAF) and a "204 Group RAF"? "

It was only a RAF Group, however they were made up of multinational forces.

Correct title based off how it is indexed in the Official History would be:

Royal Air Force in the Middle East: Group 201, Group 204, Group 205

When writing about them however in the official history they are simpley noted by there Group names without RAF infront of them.

For an example, from Pg385 from Volume III "Behind them No.205 Group had ....."

Squadrons however appear to be singled out with there respective arm after the squadron name i.e. 1st Squadron R.A.F., 1st Squadron F.A.A., 1st Squadron R.A.A.F. etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)