Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
here you go might interest some of you ww2
U.S. ARMY SIGNAL CORPS MILITARY TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING INSTRUCTION & INSPECTION
Speaking from the marine side Diesel is a lot more stable and safer than a petrol engine. You don’t have to worry about the petrol eating through o-rings and worry about you tanks exploding.
Interesting (to me, at least).
When I joined the Army in 1970, we formed laagers to refuel and replenish.
A few years later, we formed leagers.
I have no idea why the change, but I suspect it was the retirement of officers and NCO's that served along side the the British Army in WWII and Korea; and the newer officers and NCO's that worked alongside the US Army. The US has always called it leagers, as far as I can recall.
Me too. I learned to double-declutch in the Australian Army. It was how we were taught to drive before the introduction of such modern things as syncromesh.
It was, with of course, an English spin on it. I've often wondered how "laagar" was spelt properly. Thanks.
Hmm, methinks there were obviously more possibilities though. To quote the Whale has Wings, "It's all being done on a shoestring, but a very determined shoestring" 😅
The only better possibility really was being able to bring sufficient supplies and equipment forward to not be overrun. Here that's going to happen.
Now, I've been informed by people far more knowledgeable than I am that major improvements to either ports or the railroad in Libya are between difficult and impossible, so I wonder if any real improvement can by made to the road? At least make travelling it less wearing on the trucks.
Not really, you would still end up using most of your fuel to just move the lorries. The killer of vehicles is not so much the road quality but all sand and salt in the air just causing abrasive damage and gumming things up.
I know from my own experience running gear in the outback that keeping roads up to spec takes dedicated gear and time and that was only running a few trucks a day not hundreds. We used to have watering points every 10-20km and two patrol graders and water trucks for the 500km of roads.
For the hundreds of miles of North African coast? Utterly impractical.
Last edited:
How many thousands of trucks do you need to move the water?
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Just a quick one, regarding docks, ports and the people who work in them. As a member of an old London family, whose various members worked in the docks, print, pubs and markets, I grew up immersed in that world. I myself among the wide variety of jobs I have done, ended up at the Airport via long distance lorry/truck driving. A docker (English English) longshoremen (American English) Wharfe (Australian English) predominantly work ashore and would only go aboard ships to unload. A stevedore (English English and American English) was the skilled/semi skilled worker who worked aboard ships and loaded them. What looks to be a very simple job, is far more complex, requiring extensive training if you are in Germany, who ran apprenticeships for stevedores, well they would, or years of on the job experience, maybe helped by the fact that your old man was a ganger, who picked of the stones who got work each day. The top none clerical jobs in the docks were ganger, crane drivers and carpenter, who was a time served tradesman. And the one who earned the highest money was the ganger, thanks to kickbacks, while the crane driver tended to have a secure job as he was employed by the port/dock company full time, unlike the gangers, stevedores, carpenters and dockers who were casuals taken on day by day.
RR.
RR.
Honestly for something on the scale of Compass quantity really does have a quality of it's own. The most recent post had mention of using captured Italian Trucks and how the work of General Hutchinson was paying off, or words to that effect. If the British are more equipped to make use of captured Italian trucks TTL that is a big advantage over OTL
Just having more trucks to move supplies lightens the workload of all of them, in addition getting supplies forward quicker and in larger quantities means the advance can continue at an increased pace. That allows places like Tobruk to be captured earlier, potentially 10-14 days earlier or more ITTL. That again allows some supplies to be shipped to Tobruk cutting down the distance they have to be moved o the front. The same holds true of Derna and Benghazi.
A faster advance also has another benefit, you overrun and capture Italian units both with less of a fight and with more captured equipment. OTL it took the British 16 days to capture Tobruk and another 2 to open the port. Most of those 16 days was sat waiting for supplies and Matilda II's. TTL could well see it attacked and captured in a couple of days and that would possibly be a few days ahead of the OTL arrival at Tobruk. OTL the Italians spent most of the 16 days destroying supplies and equipment, if that does not happen TTL then the British get more supplies and Trucks. That is one possible example but it holds true for other places and for Italian Formations as well.
The next thing to consider is what effect speed will have. The main one is overrunning Italian positions and units before they can prepare fully to fight. The two main benefits of this are the one mentioned above, capturing more supplies and not having to fight as much and or as hard. The second one is important as fighting a battle is a lot more supply intensive than simply driving down a road. Every round of ammo, every drop of fuel, every litre of water or ration pack used by the Army in that engagement has to be replenished. The issue is that things like fuel are used up at a much higher rate than they would be on a march whilst you are also only covering a small amount of ground. You then have to wait to resupply, rest and repair equipment and that all eats up both time and resources. If the fight either does not happen or is over a lot quicker with much less resource expenditure then that is only a net bonus to the British.
Finally we have the issue of moral, that is Italian moral. If the British can advance fast enough you are likely to see Italian moral drop far lower than OTL or even Collapse. This is again a net benefit as if the Italians simply surrender rather than fight everyone wins (sort of). The British capture even more supplies and equipment whilst not having to fight for them and the Italians live. If Italian Moral were to collapse there is very little to stop the British beyond a need at some point to stop and rest briefly.
The TL;DR is that their is no easy solution to the logistics issues in North Africa given the timescale of something like Operation Compass. That said the better preparations before the start of the operation will allow for a faster and more sustained advance. That has the potential to snowball into a much more impressive outcome than OTL.
Just having more trucks to move supplies lightens the workload of all of them, in addition getting supplies forward quicker and in larger quantities means the advance can continue at an increased pace. That allows places like Tobruk to be captured earlier, potentially 10-14 days earlier or more ITTL. That again allows some supplies to be shipped to Tobruk cutting down the distance they have to be moved o the front. The same holds true of Derna and Benghazi.
A faster advance also has another benefit, you overrun and capture Italian units both with less of a fight and with more captured equipment. OTL it took the British 16 days to capture Tobruk and another 2 to open the port. Most of those 16 days was sat waiting for supplies and Matilda II's. TTL could well see it attacked and captured in a couple of days and that would possibly be a few days ahead of the OTL arrival at Tobruk. OTL the Italians spent most of the 16 days destroying supplies and equipment, if that does not happen TTL then the British get more supplies and Trucks. That is one possible example but it holds true for other places and for Italian Formations as well.
The next thing to consider is what effect speed will have. The main one is overrunning Italian positions and units before they can prepare fully to fight. The two main benefits of this are the one mentioned above, capturing more supplies and not having to fight as much and or as hard. The second one is important as fighting a battle is a lot more supply intensive than simply driving down a road. Every round of ammo, every drop of fuel, every litre of water or ration pack used by the Army in that engagement has to be replenished. The issue is that things like fuel are used up at a much higher rate than they would be on a march whilst you are also only covering a small amount of ground. You then have to wait to resupply, rest and repair equipment and that all eats up both time and resources. If the fight either does not happen or is over a lot quicker with much less resource expenditure then that is only a net bonus to the British.
Finally we have the issue of moral, that is Italian moral. If the British can advance fast enough you are likely to see Italian moral drop far lower than OTL or even Collapse. This is again a net benefit as if the Italians simply surrender rather than fight everyone wins (sort of). The British capture even more supplies and equipment whilst not having to fight for them and the Italians live. If Italian Moral were to collapse there is very little to stop the British beyond a need at some point to stop and rest briefly.
The TL;DR is that their is no easy solution to the logistics issues in North Africa given the timescale of something like Operation Compass. That said the better preparations before the start of the operation will allow for a faster and more sustained advance. That has the potential to snowball into a much more impressive outcome than OTL.
Best I can come with is to extend the single track railway from Mersa Matruh.
None of the ports had capacity for all the armies needs, so every mile extra on the railway is one mile less all the rest has to go by lorry.
To be honest you probably need all of them.
Improve the ports as far as possible, use all the captured transport (needs drivers and driver training, fuel, repair, etc. etc.), and extend the railway.
None of the ports had capacity for all the armies needs, so every mile extra on the railway is one mile less all the rest has to go by lorry.
To be honest you probably need all of them.
Improve the ports as far as possible, use all the captured transport (needs drivers and driver training, fuel, repair, etc. etc.), and extend the railway.
Looks like this might be useful:
"Behind the British Victory in North Africa:The Story of Supply"
Looks like it is a 1944 propaganda piece masquerading as information.
On the other hand it does have, on the 1st page:
When the war began a good metalled road ran below the rock escarpment from alexandria to sollum.
Close by it the egyptian state railway stretched in peacetime as the western deserts only port (apart from tiny sollum) - mersa matruh.
British and New Zealand military engineers, helped by labour from mauritius, india, and other parts of the british commonwealth extended the railway line first to the Fort Capuzzo, then to Belhamed,and finally as far as Tobruk.
The road was linked with the Italian "Littoriana" coastal road ... from ALexandria to Tunis via Mersa Matruh, Sidi Barrani, Sollum, Cappuzzo, Bardia, Tobruk, Derna, Tocra, Bengazi, Agheila, Buerat, Homs, Tripoli, Zuara, Mareth, Gabes, Sfax, and Sousse.
Each town, with the exception of Sidi Barrani, Capuzzo, Agheila, and Tocra was a port of sorts - each had a jetty, although sometime capable of berthing only one fishing smack.
Tripoli, Bengazi, and Tobruk, as well as Mersa Matruh, have harbours able to take ocean-going ships. (For the last 2 small ocean going ships perhaps?)
"Behind the British Victory in North Africa:The Story of Supply"
Looks like it is a 1944 propaganda piece masquerading as information.
On the other hand it does have, on the 1st page:
When the war began a good metalled road ran below the rock escarpment from alexandria to sollum.
Close by it the egyptian state railway stretched in peacetime as the western deserts only port (apart from tiny sollum) - mersa matruh.
British and New Zealand military engineers, helped by labour from mauritius, india, and other parts of the british commonwealth extended the railway line first to the Fort Capuzzo, then to Belhamed,and finally as far as Tobruk.
The road was linked with the Italian "Littoriana" coastal road ... from ALexandria to Tunis via Mersa Matruh, Sidi Barrani, Sollum, Cappuzzo, Bardia, Tobruk, Derna, Tocra, Bengazi, Agheila, Buerat, Homs, Tripoli, Zuara, Mareth, Gabes, Sfax, and Sousse.
Each town, with the exception of Sidi Barrani, Capuzzo, Agheila, and Tocra was a port of sorts - each had a jetty, although sometime capable of berthing only one fishing smack.
Tripoli, Bengazi, and Tobruk, as well as Mersa Matruh, have harbours able to take ocean-going ships. (For the last 2 small ocean going ships perhaps?)
Last edited:
To quote Tesco, every little helps. Capturing and opening the port's sooner than OTL reduces the distance some of the trucks need to travel to reach the front, that is a cumulative effect. Every extra day not needing to travel back to a major supply hub in Egypt is a blessing. That reduces wear per round trip for some of the trucks and also over time the trucks in general will be less worn out.
Less wear on the trucks means an increased operational rate, that in turn means more supplies arrive at the front sooner. It all adds up. Yes extending roads and railways as possible is a good idea but over the timeframe of Operation Compass, which could perhaps be as little as 35-40 days it is going to be tricky to make too much progress.
- Status