Afrika 1941 - Page 3 - Historum

Lasher · September 5th, 2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qymaen

The German's had no Navy besides a couple battleships, a few pocket battleships, and thousands of U-boats. The Italian fleet was mostly wrecked at Taranto in 1940.

That should be enough to guard supplies, shouldn't it?

**SPERRO** · September 5th, 2011, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasher

The Germans had aerial superiority at Tobruk and beyond from their base in Malta. Why not use that?

The Germans never Held Malta.

Lasher · September 5th, 2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPERRO

The Germans never Held Malta.

Then why were the Germans able to bomb at Gazala?

**SPERRO** · September 5th, 2011, 01:53 PM

The further that the Afrika Corps advanced east, the mor severe were their supply problems. a huge amount of cargo destined for North Afica was sent to the bootom of the Med by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

When 2nd Alemein kicked off, Rommel had a grand total of 64 tanks in serviciable order,

**SPERRO** · September 5th, 2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasher

Then why were the Germans able to bomb at Gazala?

Because they had airfields at El Agehlia

Lasher · September 5th, 2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPERRO

The further that the Afrika Corps advanced east, the mor severe were their supply problems. a huge amount of cargo destined for North Afica was sent to the bootom of the Med by the RAF and the Royal Navy.

When 2nd Alemein kicked off, Rommel had a grand total of 64 tanks in serviciable order,

Numbers don't always matter. Numerical superiority isn't that much of an advantage when your tanks are spread, which allowed Rommel to defeat his enemies in detail. Rommel also had 88mm anti-tank guns he used.

Lasher · September 5th, 2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPERRO

Because they had airfields at El Agehlia

OK: it was El Agehlia. Why couldn't they just transport supplies from there?

**SPERRO** · September 5th, 2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasher

Numbers don't always matter. Numerical superiority isn't that much of an advantage when your tanks are spread, which allowed Rommel to defeat his enemies in detail. Rommel also had 88mm anti-tank guns he used.

Agreed, but at Alemein, he was out gunned and out tanked by up to 10-1

Lasher · September 5th, 2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPERRO

Agreed, but at Alemein, he was out gunned and out tanked by up to 10-1

I don't know why Rommel didn't just concentrate on one part of the enemy line. The flanking option wasn't avaliable because of the desert. Because the enemy was deployed in a line, the depth was very short. He should've feinted on one spot of the enemy line to draw in the reserves then concentrate on the vunerable spot of the enemy line like he did at Gazala.

**SPERRO** · September 5th, 2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasher

I don't know why Rommel didn't just concentrate on one part of the enemy line. The flanking option wasn't avaliable because of the desert. Because the enemy was deployed in a line, the depth was very short. He should've feinted on one spot of the enemy line to draw in the reserves then concentrate on the vunerable spot of the enemy line like he did at Gazala.

Despite this, he was on the defensive. he could not hold against such a savage artillery bombardment and a persistant infiltration (10 days) into his minefield defenses,. This attrition sparked off a 2000 mile retreat back into Lybia where he finally managed to stabalise a defense line (Mareth).