Sixes and Snake eyes Rommel's luck in an alternate 1942 desert war

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the original battle of Gazala was a wargame, Rommel's plan might be modeled as two rolls. The first one against the French, requiring probably a 70% roll to succeed, and the second to envelop the rest of the boxes, also requiring a 70% or so. So his plan to work decisively probably required two decent rolls, the aggregate of which is about 50%. OTL he got one good roll and one bad one, something that happens about 40%ish of the time (two bad rolls is about 10%).
So armchair commanders like us can debate---was Gazala a good risk for Rommel given the distribution of things that could happen? Rommel probably thought his most likely outcome was something like in this timeline---as in, he bulldozes the French out of the way with a typical 3:1 with air superiority, separates the rest of the boxes, destroying each with something on somewhere between 5-7:1 charts one at a time, and uses his 'reading the enemy's mail' ability to blunt any counterattacks, and of course captures tons of supplies. But I wager Rommel knew he was rolling the dice and that both parts had to work or everything would get way dicier.
And he probably knew he'd never get better odds. He probably also knew that 'reading the enemy's mail' wouldn't last much longer either.

Rommel enveloping the rest of the boxes is sort of hard to contemplate as a roll; in the sense that "read mail" and "London forbids Gazala and Tobruk garrisons to be moved or utilized to free encircled troops" are huge weighting factors to those actions, that exist historically and in my timeline. That results in the British nailing 40 percent of their manpower to fixed positions without making any attempt to extricate themselves or free their comrades; until Rommel is inside their rectum and they evacuate of their own initiative (survivors of British 50th, and 1st South African div) or are captured whole sale (150th brigade, Indians at Knightsbridge, 2nd south african and other parts of the Tobruk garrison)

Its not that the DAK/PAA could beat the 8+ divisions (equiv) of the 8th army, its that 3 divisions could beat 1 brigade over and over again because the British where engaged piece meal the entire battle; by their own design
 
8.1
Chapter 8.1

05-31-42 23:59 hrs British 8th army and Middle East HQ Cairo Egypt Reporting back to American President Roosevelt and Joint Chiefs of Staff; Colonel Bonner Fellers, American military attache to MEGHQ

Urgent updates:

Briefings are off schedule due to chaotic nature of battle and fatigue/stress of staff officers; will provide 2-3 updates per day as appropriate and ordered
Guards troops routed by Africa Corps, many prisoners taken including commanders
Axis controls all recoverable battlefields and roads south and east of Gazala and the coastal road
Failure of guards attack, and prior army internal supply reshuffle to support relief attack, and continued axis grip on El Adem creates supply shortages for 8th army
29th Indian still relocating to counter attack Belhamed from the East, London continues to forbid withdrawal or participation of Tobruk garrison to relieve Belhamed
Local spies and British intelligence sources believe axis bringing in fresh troops by air
Auchinlek over rode Ritchie early in day and ordered 8th and 9th Indian and 32nd tank brigade to counter attack axis forces at Sidi Muftah to relieve trapped 150th brigade
Per private conversations with staff officers, attacks proceeding poorly due to axis field and anti tank artillery, lack of 8th army advance artillery and surprise arrival of large numbers of Italian tanks; Ritchie and Auchinlek do not acknowledge outcome of attacks; they portray optimism about relief of 150th brigade
Reports of heavy air attacks against counter attack troops at Sidi Muftah
Desert airforce commanders acknowledge supply and condition difficulties inside of Gazala battle area, they advise difficulty maintaining required sortie rates, air force staff officers more vocal today about recommending withdrawal of troops who are yet in close battle/encirclement
More, but not majority of GHQ staff officers recommending withdrawal of entire 8th army including garrisons to the Egyptian border
Auchinlek developing plans for fresh troops to drive on the coastal road and restore supply conditions to front line troops, units for this are still many days out, Auchinlek says he believes troops at Gazala can hold on; says Rommel has lost many tanks
Royal Navy staff officers advise siege supply of Tobruk impossible and naval evacuation of Tobruk impossible, majority recommend demolition and overland troop withdrawal. They advise all ships committed or under repair. Privately Royal Navy staff officers regard threat to entire 8th army as grave and believe Rommel will invade Egypt
Communications problems have escalated; 8th army reports less than 10 percent communication efficiency for remaining forces south and east of Gazala; communications with units on Gazala line reduced to GHQ estimated 50 percent efficiency (see personal observations) this may be a generous over estimate by GHQ
GHQ believes based on Rommel's moves yesterday, that he will drive east to the Egyptian border, a repeat of his "dash to the wire" from last year; GHQ is hopeful that fresh formations arriving from Egypt can engage and defeat him there separated at great distances from his bases
Auchinlek and Ritchie jointly request freedom/authority to move troops at Gazala to support operations, London denies
URGENT 2nd UPDATE
GHQ estimation of Rommel drive to border incorrect; large axis tank columns reported in Arcoma
South African staff sections disrupted, captured or dispersed by DAK at Arcoma; staff officers not providing proper briefings, they advise situation as critical and evolving rapidly
South African staff officers privately advise that many supplies and much of their command sections possibly lost at Arcoma
South African staff officers privately advise that arrival of DAK at Arcoma creates mortal peril to their troops at Gazala and Tobruk
South African staff officers request Ritchie to order withdrawal of 1st South African to east of Arcoma to avoid encirclement
South African staff officers reject proposed counter attack at Arcoma siting failure of guards attacks and limited ability to restock ammunition at Gazala
Ritchie defers decision about Arcoma counter attack
Our staff urgently revaluating situation
Rumors rampant in GHQ and city of Cairo itself; some GHQ staff officers losing nerve over arrival of tanks at Arcoma
Rumors at GHQ that all commanders will be relieved by London
London and GHQ now have numerous impasses regarding command authority of troops on the coastal road
GHQ now presenting 3 simultaneous estimates of Rommel's remaining tank and infantry strength; Ritchie is accepting middle case, Auchinlek chief of staff accepts best case and bases counter attack proposals at Arcoma on these
Auchinlek chief of staff ignores context of DAK retaining battlefield for estimated tank strength; due to loss of communications and many units captured it has become hazardous to guess how many tanks the DAK is destroying vs capturing/repairing for their own use


Personal observations:
GHQ command temper gravely impacted tonight, many staff officers whom had been confident, heavily impacted by Rommel arrival at Arcoma
Our staff (will provide further review tomorrow) now estimates ability of Tobruk garrison to withstand a 4 week siege as 1/15
Going on private disclosure of heavy losses at Sidi Muftah, which is still difficult to obtain a clear picture of; we regard the 150th brigade chance of relief as hopeless; 150th brigade beginning to report shortages of ammunition, water and fuel; collapse or surrender is likely; Ritchie and Auchinlek do not acknowledge this possibility and do not have a contingency plan for troops further north once the box falls
Privately, South African staff officers acknowledge ranging by captured heavy British (captured) guns on Tobruk, and significant probing/recon in force activity on the south east of the perimeter; they privately advise the south east defenses are very weak, and that a full throated assault from the south east could break into the port and heavily impact the garrison
Using our own analysis, and an assumption that the 32nd tank brigade is in worse condition than Ritchie has acknowledged, our staff is near certain Rommel has tank superiority on the Gazala battlefield
We regard threat to Tobruk garrison as mortal in light of Axis probes and disclosures from South African staff
We regard threat to troops at Gazala as greatly escalated from previous estimate
One staff officer says "this is Dunkirk with no one to bring us home"
South African staff officers appealing directly back to their political leaders to apply pressure on Ritchie and London; command impasses creating significant strategic impairment to the army
We regard all forces south and east of Gazala as defeated as lost, which Ritchie has not acknowledged
We regard degraded communications as mortal threat to all remaining troops at Gazala

End Transmission


Same time and date Bletchley Park Britain desk of Jean Alington; Project Ultra code breaker

Decryption pile on her desk for Abwehr field communications grows, unworked on due to desperate need to keep up efforts on decrypting PAA communications and increased Luftwaffe theater communications

Those messages, languishing on her busy desk contain information on operation Salaam and Condor

The platoon of Hauptman Seebohme's assigned to operation Salaam makes contact with secret agent Eppler in Cairo at their command post in Arcoma
 
Chapter 7

Ritchie discloses axis may have captured HEAVY artillery at Belhamed, with corresponding ammunition supplies which could possibly be used against Tobruk
Ritchie furious with London, Ritchie and staff officers expect to reorganize command structure of 8th army to account for large number of senior officers captured as soon as crisis passes
Privately staff officers say there is no ammunition ... for the planes
This looks like placing your thumb on the scales.

Smith, post war sued Brook, Churchill, Montgomery and Alexander for trashing him in their memoirs
IIRC Smith was a Brigade commander at Anzio and faced a revolt from his subordinates.

Instead 21st panzer would be pushed, hard, augmented by 19 captured Grant tanks,
ranging by captured heavy British (captured) guns on Tobruk
More thumbs

Auchinlek over rode Ritchie early in day and ordered 8th and 9th Indian and 32nd tank brigade to counter attack axis forces at Sidi Muftah to relieve trapped 150th brigade
At this point Auchinleck, would be spending most of his time forward with 8th Army, and considering taking over directly himself.
 
This looks like placing your thumb on the scales.


IIRC Smith was a Brigade commander at Anzio and faced a revolt from his subordinates.


More thumbs


At this point Auchinleck, would be spending most of his time forward with 8th Army, and considering taking over directly himself.
If the 90th light captured the main 8th army rail head, supply depots and a corps HQ, my assumption (which i've carried into the timeline) i s that they would capture heavy army artillery and put it to use. The 8th army was being built up for a planned offensive that would occur in August so they were starting to be issued 7.2 inch cannons

i covered the fate of decapitated British armored formations in the south, both those historically performed by the 90th light, and the butterflied battles of the 22nd armored brigade; which is where the captured tanks have come from

yes as historical (albeit earlier due to Rommel having earlier success in this timeline) Auchinlek is starting to assert himself over Ritchie instead of just micro managing

@Draconis yes general smith won his libel lawsuits against Churchill/Alexander/Brooke/Montgomery and they had to retract/edit their works about him. BH Liddle Heart claims Smith was a genius; most who where under him or supervised him thought he was a psychopath; including American Attache's who wouldn't have had political axes to grind against him

i am trying to avoid the appearance of too much thumb work...... please bear in mind that the historical positioning and command cohearance and reactions of the British at Gazala were very poor; which is why they lost the battle in the first place; so things like piece meal brigade attacks against dug in anti tank guns, without artillery preperation at Sidi Muftah are not thumbs, thats what the British historically did to try and relieve the box; and they ended up getting all their armor knocked out; and historically thanks to Captain SeeBohme and Colonel Fellers Rommel had near realtime knowledge of these attacks and met them with very little of his own losses
 

nbcman

Donor
There’s a difference between Germans using captured equipment to jumping immediately into a Grant tank that they had never seen in battle before May 27 1942. 4 days prior to the last update at the start of this very battle against the 4th Armoured Brigade. I didn’t know the DAK were tank savants who could jump into any tank and be effective.
EDIT: a tank with English markings and indicators instead of in German.
 
Last edited:

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
i am trying to avoid the appearance of too much thumb work......

For me, you are now starting to fail in that aim. Bletchley Park seems to have swallowed inefficiency juice, captured supplies magically get transformed into operational kit in a trice, and essentially, every single break is being pushed in one direction.

Sufficiently so that the thread has, for me, become unreadable. It's no longer a matter of following a POD, but giving one side every break of luck.

Now, there have been timelines where that approach has worked, but the set out with that premise, that one side got every break of fortune, and seeing where that went.

If you want to do that, then fine. But at present, your thumb is now firmly on the scales.
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference between Germans using captured equipment to jumping immediately into a Grant tank that they had never seen in battle before May 27 1942. 4 days prior to the last update at the start of this very battle against the 4th Armoured Brigade. I didn’t know the DAK were tank savants who could jump into any tank and be effective.
EDIT: a tank with English markings and indicators instead of in German.
Ya, by the time the DAK is marching on Alexandria then I can see the tanks be put to use but nobody could use enemy tanks that quickly after capturing them.
 
OTL, how quickly were Grant tanks repurposed by the Germans and Italians? Had any Grants been captured before? Are Grants easy or difficult tanks to handle for experienced tankers familiar with other tanks (and probably with some experience handling previously captured models)?
All of these are questions I don't know the answers to. Can anyone adequately answer them?
 
This doesn't make sense to me. Probably need to rewrite this bit.
Guessing he's referring to this
In particular
By early 1941 British code-breakers at Bletchley Park had managed to decipher the Abwehr hand cypher used by field stations (including SALAM), and by early 1942 had also broken the Enigma machine code which was used for the most-secret communication between German commands. Code named ULTRA, this source of information was considered so vital to the war effort, that it was only de-classified in the early seventies. Almásy's presence in Libya was already known to British intelligence from captured messages by late 1941, however the natures of his activities were not. It was only when Operation SALAM was well underway that a young intelligence analyst, Jean Alington (later Jean Howard) realised that an enemy unit was moving in the Libyan Desert behind British lines. However, as Rommel's advance was imminent, messages from Panzerarmee Afrika had priority in deciphering and analysis, and there was a several days delay in warning HQ Middle East in Cairo. By the time a search was organised, Almásy was safely back in Jalo.[1]

So OTL, these important messages were behind in Bletchley Park's queue. It is likely it'll be even more queued in this timeline as the Rommel problem is even more frantic.
 
The loading and driving probably wouldn’t be too hard to pick up the basics.
Maintenance would take quite a while to sort out though. Labels and manuals all in English, knowing which custom shaped tool is needed to reach the water pump, and so forth.
 

Garrison

Donor
OTL, how quickly were Grant tanks repurposed by the Germans and Italians? Had any Grants been captured before? Are Grants easy or difficult tanks to handle for experienced tankers familiar with other tanks (and probably with some experience handling previously captured models)?
All of these are questions I don't know the answers to. Can anyone adequately answer them?
Not wishing to discuss the progress of the thread but here is a source that's relevant to the questions you have:
Possibly the most relevant part:
Both the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions of the Afrika Korps formed provisional units of captured English armor in 1941. The size of these units varied widely from time to time, since new vehicles were acquired and those in use broke down, were cannibalized for parts, or were lost in combat. By February 1942, a consolidated captured tank unit was created for the Afrika Korps as a whole. It remained in service until the end of the fighting in Africa, since newly captured vehicles were funneled to it as others were lost. A maximum of 18 tanks comprised the unit, though numbers constantly fluctuated. Various models of British tanks served in these units, including Matildas, Valentines, and Crusaders. Only a very few examples of American tanks in British service were taken.
 
The loading and driving probably wouldn’t be too hard to pick up the basics.
Maintenance would take quite a while to sort out though. Labels and manuals all in English, knowing which custom shaped tool is needed to reach the water pump, and so forth.
I understand presently about half of Germans speak English as one of their languages. Back in WW2 though the fraction would be a lot lower, but probably enough in tank repair and maintenance crews to make language not a big barrier. And as Garrison points out, DAK was notorious for using captured equipment, enough so that they actually formed a unit exclusively containing such tanks. Anyone know anything particularly about the Grant (other than that it was considered a pretty decent tank in 1942)? Was it easy to employ or similar to a Pz3 or 4? Could a tank crew with reasonable familiarity with captured tanks use it at say 80% efficiency within a day of acquiring it in good condition? Most of these tanks in this timeline are likely in somewhat better condition than most historically captured tanks as many were captured in depot, so to speak rather than salvaged from the battlefield.
 

nbcman

Donor
The loading and driving probably wouldn’t be too hard to pick up the basics.
Maintenance would take quite a while to sort out though. Labels and manuals all in English, knowing which custom shaped tool is needed to reach the water pump, and so forth.
Aiming and firing an unfamiliar weapon of any type is a problem. The absence of or the presence of incompatible radio equipment is another issue with integrating the Grants into a Panzer unit.
It is not like handing a Landser a different rifle and allowing him to fire a few rounds to battle sight the weapon.
 
I understand presently about half of Germans speak English as one of their languages. Back in WW2 though the fraction would be a lot lower, but probably enough in tank repair and maintenance crews to make language not a big barrier. And as Garrison points out, DAK was notorious for using captured equipment, enough so that they actually formed a unit exclusively containing such tanks. Anyone know anything particularly about the Grant (other than that it was considered a pretty decent tank in 1942)? Was it easy to employ or similar to a Pz3 or 4? Could a tank crew with reasonable familiarity with captured tanks use it at say 80% efficiency within a day of acquiring it in good condition? Most of these tanks in this timeline are likely in somewhat better condition than most historically captured tanks as many were captured in depot, so to speak rather than salvaged from the battlefield.
Based on other examples of this happening during the war (manly Germany useing captured Russian tanks) it takes 2 week minimum to train a tank crew to use a captured tank, usually 4 so they now how to use it well. And even more importantly never in the same battle said tanks were captured. That only happens (after ww2 i don't have any examples during it) where you tain up a unit to use tanks befor there captured (usually when useing a surprise attack) and even then there raly successful (the tet offensive for example)
 

Garrison

Donor
Aiming and firing an unfamiliar weapon of any type is a problem. The absence of or the presence of incompatible radio equipment is another issue with integrating the Grants into a Panzer unit.
It is not like handing a Landser a different rifle and allowing him to fire a few rounds to battle sight the weapon.
Couple of other purely technical points. The Grant's unique design would hardly have been conducive to quick turnaround for German combat use with the sponsion and turret gun mounts. In addition to making operating the tank more complex this also required a bigger crew(German tank crews for comparison):

Grant: 6 no duties specified on Wiki but I think its safe to assume two gunners and two loaders
Panzer II: 3 (commander/gunner, driver, loader)
Panzer III: 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner)

Add the tall profile and the low mounted 75mm gun I can imagine a German crew would have quite a hard time adapting. May partly explain why the Germans don't seem to have used many in OTL, not to mention the fact that their mechanical reliability and relative toughness probably meant there were fewer left on the battlefield.

Another question that I have not found an answer to is how often such captured enemy tanks were used in offensive operations as opposed to in defensive situations?

ETA: Should also be noted that even guns of the same calibre would have different shell velocities depending on barrel length, propellant and weight of the shell. A couple of examples:

3.7 cm KwK 36
Shell 37 × 249 mm. R
Caliber 37 mm (1.45 in)
Muzzle velocity 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s)
Effective firing range 300 m (328 yds)
Maximum firing range 5,484 m (5,997 yds)

37 mm gun M3
Shell 37×223 mm. R
Caliber 37 mm (1.45 inch)
Muzzle velocity up to 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s)
Maximum firing range 6.9 km (4.29 mi)
 
Last edited:
OTL, how quickly were Grant tanks repurposed by the Germans and Italians? Had any Grants been captured before? Are Grants easy or difficult tanks to handle for experienced tankers familiar with other tanks (and probably with some experience handling previously captured models)?
All of these are questions I don't know the answers to. Can anyone adequately answer them?
afaik only a couple of grant tanks where used by the DAK and that was later in the campaign historically... they didn't capture many in otl gazala because most where kaboomed with 88mm cannons at the battle of the cauldron and not salvageable; 22nd armored in my timeline is decapitated and has many crews surrender

those tanks where pretty much new from the factory, so service issues would not be a super immediate concern; it would be very ineffecient but it would be better than nothing, i assume experienced tank crews could fire the guns and figure out how to drive them without too much fuss; alternative is walking
 
Couple of other purely technical points. The Grant's unique design would hardly have been conducive to quick turnaround for German combat use with the sponsion and turret gun mounts. In addition to making operating the tank more complex this also required a bigger crew(German tank crews for comparison):

Grant: 6 no duties specified on Wiki but I think its safe to assume two gunners and two loaders
Panzer II: 3 (commander/gunner, driver, loader)
Panzer III: 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner)

Add the tall profile and the low mounted 75mm gun I can imagine a German crew would have quite a hard time adapting. May partly explain why the Germans don't seem to have used many in OTL, not to mention the fact that their mechanical reliability and relative toughness probably meant there were fewer left on the battlefield.

Another question that I have not found an answer to is how often such captured enemy tanks were used in offensive operations as opposed to in defensive situations?
Plenty of times in russia (hell I remember a memware that talked about a captured kv-1 used in the battle of Moscow, best tank in the unit and give to the worse tank crew to help them survive to be trained up, worked well they gave great work in a panzer 4 during case blue after they lost the kv-1)

Seems to me the reason Germany didn't use a lot of grants is that they didn't capture many, most British defits where before the grant was introduced and America had mostly moved to the Sherman (and that was used by Germany during the battle of the bulg)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top