Rommel Seriously Injured at Arras

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Thats really on how well Dill, Brooke, and the others moderate Churchill. OTL the record was mixed. As late as 1944 we e Churchill pushing through operations without the resources to make them stick. Dill tried as was kicked upstairs as liaison to Washington DC where he tried from a less influential & distant position.

8.8cm Flugabwehrkanone 18, 36, 37 AP Ammunition

From Hogg: German Artillery of WWII

8.8cm Sprgr Patr L/45: Weighed 9.4 kg with .87kg of TNT or Amatol explosives. This was the standard HE & AA round.

8.8cm Pzgr Patr: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm Pzgr. Weighed 9,5kg with .155kg PETN explosives. Had a hardened ballistic cap (nose) and a base fuze. By the book it could penetrate 105mm of armor at 30 degree angle at 1000m.

Experience in the Spanish War caused a improved direct fire/AT sight to be fitted 1938-39. Hogg does not make it clear how much of the AT ammo was actually carried with the guns.

There on several references given in the description of this video
 
How do you see things building to that in 1941? The British weren't really strong enough to achieve that in 1941 even without the losses Rommel inflicted, though with a competent mobile defense an offensive toward Tripoli has the capacity to go very badly if the Brits are forced to bull in, as they were too used to Italian style incompetence.
Ask the XXX British Corps how incompetent the Italians were at Bir-el-Gubi.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ask the XXX British Corps how incompetent the Italians were at Bir-el-Gubi.
So after Rommel got there and it was the first success they had had since the war in Africa started?
I think the Italians get too much crap for their war record after 1940, but up until Rommel showed up in the desert they did really badly. See Tobruk in January 1941 for example.
 
So after Rommel got there and it was the first success they had had since the war in Africa started?
I think the Italians get too much crap for their war record after 1940, but up until Rommel showed up in the desert they did really badly. See Tobruk in January 1941 for example.
No, when 1400 young volunteers, armed with no particularly heavy weapon (I can't see anything heavier than some mortars and light artillery), accompanied by a dozen of L3 tankettes, and with no great amount of food nor water to fall back on, held off 21 thousand men of the XXX Corps, including one armored brigade (the 22nd), which lost 10 tanks. The final tally before relief from the Ariete division arrived, four days later, was of 60 Italian dead and 117 wounded to 300 British dead and 250 wounded.
 
I don't know that it would make a significant in France 1940.

However, IMO it would change North Africa a lot if Rommel is not sent there.

The British still rout the Italians in COMPASS, and Hitler still sends the DAK to Libya. But a commander other than Rommel is unlikely to launch an immediate counterattack. The plans agreed on with Commando Supremo was for the Axis to rebuild in Tripolitania and get well prepared first.

The problem is that this gives the British time to establish better defenses in western Cyrenaica. And with control of western Cyrenaica, the British can attack the Axis SLOC from Italy to Libya more effectively. ISTM that the British forces would build-up faster than the Axis, further discouraging the Axis from attacking. That's a feedback loop. A secondary loop is that as the British build up in western Cyrenaica, the Axis SLOC will be more attacked, slowing the Axis build-up.

IOW, ISTM that there was a window of opportunity in March 1941, which Rommel used OTL. And IMO, a different German commander probably would not have done so. By June 1941, Tripoli would be effectively blockaded, and the Germans would probably write off Africa. I doubt that Hitler would break French "neutrality" in Tunisia for a losing front. At most, they would evacuate via Tunisia.
 
You eliminate Rommel early and if the Germans are significantly slowed in France by this, there is no North Africa to change. Italy won't join if Mussolini doesn't believe this will be a quick war.
 
Were they issued with anti-tank ammunition? Were the gunners trained to engage tanks? If so then they are anti-tank guns when there are tanks menacing you.

I believe there had been some research in using the 88's as AT weapons, in relation to stoppin the French Heavy tanks. That is probably why the 88's with the 7th PZd had AT rounds.
 
IMO, this engagement would badly effect the 7th's combat operability, the British are in the rear /supply/ AA area of the division, Trucks, Prime movers, communication and fuel vehicles damaged and destroyed. If the British as described in the original post, were a more balanced unit then the 7th PZD has lost it's supply train vehicles, and without fuel the division will stall and back up everything behind it.

The forward elements of the 7th have only the ammunition and fuel they have on board. If the British push , or hit them from the rear after destroying the Division's rear elements the Division will be done for the next month to 6 weeks. This will allow a better , more controlled withdrawl as mentioned to Caliais with the British able to bring over vehicle capable ferrys to with draw vehicles and heavy weapons, in addition to troops. France famms but 6 weeks later, and we are now in a "France Fights On" senario.
 
Top