How did the diggers defeat Germany in Tobruk?

C

Cootamundra

New Member
GreyWolf said:
Just wondering, how did the diggers defeat Germany in Tobruk? What tactics did they use?
Click to expand...
Pretty much summed up via this statement by the British Commander-in-Chief, General Sir Archibald Wavell "There is nothing between you and Cairo". Put simply they had little choice. After first routing the Italians the Allied forces were then put on the defensive as Rommell and his Africa Korps smashed through British and Australian lines in Greece. Tobruk was decided as the only worthwhile point and the Australian 9th Division was given the task of defending the Western Desert.

As usual Australian Diggers showed a level of fortitude and ferocity that has marked them out as being among some of the world's best soldiers. They were aided in their defence of the city by the simple fact that any attacker had to lunge across flat expanses outside of the city to get to the heart where the harbour lay. While the habour functioned the Australian forces could be resupplied by allied shipping. The diggers built a semi-circle of fortifications stretching from beach to beach around the city with multiple strongpoints, barbed wire and anti-tank ditches. They combined this with the judicious use of mines, heavy weapons and aggressive patrolling tactics. Every time German attacks hit they got close but never fully penetrated. In fact it has been noted that Tobruk was defended via offensive tactics. Many German tanks and a disproportionate number of infantry were destroyed by the 'Rats of Tobruk' and the German tactic of blitzkrig was never able to break down the defence of the city. Over the 6 months of defending Tobruk Australian, British and Polish troops were used. Commanding office was Major-General L.J. Morshead.

For further info....go to the Australian War Memorial website amongst many others ===>http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/tobruk/581.htm
 
C

crazypole

New Member
I think that a lot of the problem was that the German tactics relied heavily on the ideas of schwepunkt and aufrollen (sorry if spellings are inaccurate). Due to the very small front being fought over, and the fact that the defenders held the centre ground, so having shorter distances to shift troops from one sector to another; this meant the German troops could not apply their basic tactics,, which limited their effectiveness.
 
D

davidcandy

New Member
gf0012-aust,
I was happy and surprised to read something about our army.

crazypole,

I had to look up aufrollen (it means rolling up). The shorter distances you refer to are known as "interior lines of communications". I hadn't considered it from that point of view.

This is the page that lists all CSI and other reports.
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

There are two here, Standing Fast. German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/wray/wray.asp) and The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During The First World War (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Lupfer/lupfer.asp). They make the point that German Infantry didn't consider tanks to be too much of a menance. Use Artillary to seperate tanks from infantry, then own infantry throw bombs at tank. It seems the Australians used similar tactics in concept. Seperate tanks from infantry with infantry and then kill the tanks with big guns.

Then there is the cold war russian way. Attack tanks with normal artillery shells. It won't kill them but tanks aren't much use with all periscopes and antennas blown off.
 
P

Padfoot

New Member
The Royal Navy probably had something to with it. Naval superiorty was crucial in the defeat of Germany in North Africa overall. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top