Rommel vs. Montgomery

[Jon G.]

Visibility is extraordinarily good in the desert.

Although visibility in the desert could be exceptional, due to the topography and air clarity, it rarely was...

OK, I take your point about visibility often being limited by climate factors - but my point in turn was simply that targets would be seen at ranges far outside extreme gunnery range, which was why engagements were often opened at such extreme ranges. The likelihood of actually hitting anything would be slim, also due to the very climate factors you mention.

If you want to knock out a Pz III or Pz IV at decent range ~800 yards or so, even a 2-pounder will do the job nicely.

Sorry! You could hit a III or IV at that range (with a bit of luck, given the poor sights) but it is doubtful whether you could really damage it or harm the crew, given it's solid shot ammunition.

I recall a study of British AT tactics in the desert stating that AT guns should withhold their fire until enemy tanks (generally Pz IIIs) had closed the range to about 800 yeards; furthermore the AT gunners had to make the most of their fire in the following 30 or so seconds, for once the Pz IIIs were at 600 yards or closer, their MG fire would begin to tell.

Even at 800 yards, the enemy tanks would have been visible for quite a while... barring a khansim or rainstorm

[Jon G.]

Shrek - you wrote this, very curious, as I thought the key to victory was this:

"It's not a race to see who does best, or who destroys the enemy tanks first."

Its not? Than what is the race for? Don't quite see the point in that statement. It is a race to see who does best, or who destroys the enemy tanks first...

My point is simply whether British AT guns were capable of knocking out enemy tanks. They were, even if it had to be at closer ranges. So was the 88mm gun, which is all-round a much more powerful weapon than 2- and 6-pounder guns, even if it came with some drawbacks such as a high profile which made it more vulnerable to HE fire and being overall heavier than British dedicated AT guns.

Commanders will generally not launch tanks at each others' positions to see who makes it the farthest and then tally up losses sustained at various ranges to see who won. They want to stop the enemy tanks. Both 88mm guns and 2- and 6-pounder AT guns are eminently suitable for this role. Curiously, the 37mm PAK, standard German AT gun in 1941 was not, at least not when facing Matildas.

You also claim the 6-pounder could knock out ANY German tank they had in Africa.

No, not quite. I said that a 6-pounder AT gun is perfectly capable of stopping any tank from the DAK, the one German corps that Rommel had under his command while he was facing Montgomery. This corps had several different types of tanks on strength at various times, even captured Matildas on occasion. It did not, however, have Tigers on strength at any time in its existence.

For what it is worth, 6-pounders knocked out Tigers in Tunisia. These tanks were from a different German unit; namely the 5th Panzer Army, a unit which was not commanded by Rommel.

Before you accuse me of nitpicking, I gently point you to the title of this thread.

Lastly - Rommel commanded the DAK. Stop saying Arnim did shrek.

Rommel commanded Panzerarmee Afrika, an assembly of units that had the equally Tiger-less Italian XX and XXI corps on strength, as well as the all-German DAK, which had several different commanders while in Africa. Von Arnim commanded the 5th Panzer Army, a unit that was shipped to French North Africa in the autumn of 1942 not long after El Alamein.

Initially, the two Axis armies were hundreds of miles away from one another; Rommel - who this thread takes its name after - was heavily embroiled in Egypt and later in Libya against the British 8th Army, under Montgomery. In French North Africa, the 5th Panzer Army faced the US 5th and the British 1st armies, under the overall command of Eisenhower.

In March 1943, von Arnim became overall C-in-C of Axis forces in Tunisia, whose eastern borders the DAK had been pressed back to by January.

You are wrong. Rommel commanded Tigers. But it doesnt matter who commanded Tigers - the question was if the British Matilda out-classed anything the Germans had in Africa (Andreas brought it up), and I mentioned the Tiger as an excellent example of a German tank that I think out-classes the Matilda.

I agree completely with you. The Tiger outclasses the Matilda. The problem is that your comparison is false, for Tigers were not under Rommel's command in North Africa, nor did Matildas and Tigers ever face one another as far as I know.

I stand by everything I said. Sorry, I'm not trying to do anything except state my opinion. It's just a thread, don't get bent out of shape. No flame war intended. No personal insults being hurled here. Just stating my opinion. Sorry if I offended anyone. But I don't see anyone contending my major points. And who amongst you thinks Monty the better commander? I just happen to think another way. No crime in that, is there?

I am certainly not offended, and feel free to state and defend your opinion. However, please don't do so by stating demonstrably false things, such as Tiger tanks being part of the Afrika Korps. If anything, your basic opinion that Rommel was a better commander than Montgomery should be amplified by the fact that he did, indeed, not have any Tigers as part of his forces in Africa.

[jclarke05]

Shrek - ! What do you mean no Tigers in the DAK? Rommel commanded the forces in Africa! Tigers were under his command, since 5th Pz army was part of the German forces in Africa. Why are talking this rubbish? Yes Rommel was recalled from Tunis in mid-March 1943 - due to illness, Hitler forced him away saying his nerves were shot and he needed a rest. But he was commander of the German African forces, the DAK, for almost the entire length of it's existence. Why are you trying to spread this falsehood? Stop arguing moot points and look at my MAJOR POINTS: Rommel was better. Monty was good, but not great. Stop picking these relatively minor points to debate.

You say the DAK did not have Tigers in strength. SO WHAT. That is NOT THE POINT. They had the 501 and 504 bttn.s, which are big enough formations for me. No, Hitler didn't have armies of Tigers. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The Tiger fought with distinction in Africa. The Tiger fought for at least 5 to 6 months in Africa. The Tigers were under German DAK command, which was under Rommels command. Therfore its safe to say Rommel commanded Tigers. No, he wasn't at every battle personally directing Tigers (maybe he was?). But again, THAT IS NOT THE POINT, shrek. And again, Tigers meeting Matildas was a point I never implied nor intended. I was simply stating the Tiger out-classes the Matilda. Boy you are good at twisting things around. BTW shrek, Tigers, under Rommel, fought at Faid and Kasserine. Tunisia, February 14 - 19, 1943. Don't forget Tunisia is not the Libyan desert. Tunisia is more temperate, and mountainess.

And this statement: "...the Germans only had a hand-full of long-barrelled PzKfw IVs..." Well, if you want to say anywhere from 20 to 50 is a handfull. Don't forget the HG came over to Tunisia with PzKfw IV F2, F8s, and Stug. III Ausf Fs, all of which had the long 75mm. And dont forget the captured Russian, British and US material pressed into DAK service. It is time for these widespread falsehoods to end.

NO SHREK, the 88 is vastly MORE suited for destroying tanks, than the 2 or 6 pounder. When you can destroy enemy tanks before their guns can be effective, thats a GOOD thing, shrek. The reason the Brits were told to wait until 800m or whatever is because any farther and the rounds would have bounced harmlessly off. The 6-pounder is a pea-shooter, shrek. Stop acting like its this big super-weapon. It had less range, smaller round, lower velocity. Come on. I don't remember reading about how the Germans feared the "awesome 6-pounder", the way the Allies feared the 88mm.

[Jon G.]

Rommel commanded the forces in Africa!

OK. Now I am offended. Go back and read my post if you please. Then I'd be happy to discuss with you again.

[JonS]

lol. Good luck Shrek. You might have better luck talking to that plank over there.

BTW, 501 and 504 s.Pz.Abt. were never in action together. 504 was completely wiped out. US 5th Army wasn't in NA - only II Corps was.

[JonS]

NO SHREK, the 88 is vastly MORE suited for destroying tanks, than the 2 or 6 pounder. When you can destroy enemy tanks before their guns can be effective, thats a GOOD thing, shrek. The reason the Brits were told to wait until 800m or whatever is because any farther and the rounds would have bounced harmlessly off. The 6-pounder is a pea-shooter, shrek. Stop acting like its this big super-weapon. It had less range, smaller round, lower velocity. Come on. I don't remember reading about how the Germans feared the "awesome 6-pounder", the way the Allies feared the 88mm.

lol. Oh well, I'll have a go at the plank.

Your quote above is just wrong. The correct answer to an 88mm screen is a 25-pdr concentration. Not more tanks. Once the British figured that out the 88s weaknesses became vastly more apparent. The 6-pr was a handy little gun that could knock out anything in DAKs armoury. The 17-pr was a more powerful gun, but it was also vastly less maneauverable and vastly slower to emplace. That is why Inf-Div A-Tk regts maintained a mix of 6-pr and 17-pr.

The 6-pr has better penetration than the 25-pr.

Mathematical Equation: DAK < German Forces in Africa
Mathematical Equation: PAA < German Forces in Africa

[Dietrich79]

I just watched a history channel special on Rommel and something i didnt know was that 85% of his vehicles were captured ones towards the end of the campaign.Not bad for having to capture allied supplies before you could advance.Also they mentioned a 10 to 1 ratio of British Tanks knocked out to German tanks knocked out.I think the answer is obvious.

[JonS]

yes - obviously you can't win a campaign without some understanding of logistics.

[The Argus]

It certainly proves the British were great truck builders, to supply 85% of German needs as well as their own plus the overlap needed to account of dammage.... very impressive Mr Morris.

6pr Vs 88mm

AT work is as much tactical as ballistic, being able to defeat armour is only the start of an AT Guns problem. A 15" naval gun could knock out tanks but it was hardly ideal for a battlefield AT screen. The 88 had great ballistics but it was tactically awkward due to its weight and (in NA at least) its crusiform platform mounting. The 6pr was much less impressive in terms of down range effect, but far more flexiable in the tactical sense. But the biggest problem with the 88 is that every gun Romel had out in the field killing tanks, wasn't doing its primary job of defending his logistic chain from alied air attack.

In the desert the AT equasion had three factors: a) Small arms range, b) HE range of the attacking tank and c) the effective range of the AT Gun. For example the PzIV could shoot HE further than the 2pr could kill a PzIV, thus the 2pr was at a disadvantage even though it could kill the PzIV. This was also the root of the outcry against the lack of HE in British tanks, they couldn't reply to conventional Axis AT guns. The 6pr had the range to kill German tanks, or at least scare them, at the same distance German tanks could return the compliment with HE, so reducing the game to parity (untill the tanks got ito SA range), and the CW had a lot more 6pr's than Romel ever had 88's.

On the Germans being better soldiers business, some were, some were not, its the same on the allied side of the fence.

shane

[David W]

The 6-pr has better penetration than the 25-pr.

It was more accurate as well.

[jclarke05]

OK thanks for the correction. Got it. Needed to go back and do some reading. I forgot alot of details didnt I?

But I know if you had to pick, just in the AT screen role, you would take the 88mm over the 6-pounder. Be honest! I'm not saying the 6-pounder wasn't effective, but come on. You would honestly rather have a battery of 6s rather than 88s?

Yes the 501 and 504 Tiger bttns were beat up pretty bad, the entire 504 was wiped out (in late February the remaining Tigers of the 501 bttn was transferred to PzRgt 7 of 10th PZ) - BUT you missed the point. The point wasnt WHO commanded Tigers, HOW many were there, IF they fought Matildas, WHERE they were, etc. etc etc. The point was: someone said the Matilda out-classed ANY German tank in the theatre. I realize now most of you were talking about the early years in Egypt and Libya. But Tunisia counts too dang it! Same dang theatre! Tigers were there. Tigers out-class Matildas in my book. Simple. Just my opinion.

And nobody has said anything about my MAJOR point - that Rommel was better, and why I think this way. Isnt that the point of the thread? Monty vs. Rommel?

Jon s - I meant 5 panzer armee, under Arnim?

great thread and thanks for ther corrections

[JonS]

And nobody has said anything about my MAJOR point - that Rommel was better, and why I think this way. Isnt that the point of the thread? Monty vs. Rommel?

Why, yes it is - glad you noticed. IMO, all your other sloppy thinking makes any point you might have about R ... questionable.

[The Argus]

88mm Vs 6pr... it would depend, honestly. If it were a mobile engagement especially a retreat then I'd pick 6pr's as lighter and more expendable. Holding a static front (or trieing to) the 88's do indeed rule.

I agree this whole thread is about romel Vs monty, and is now twelve pages long. Sorry but I don't see anything in:

Rommel was better

that hasn't already been covered.

Romel was more agressive, Monty more deliberate. But as far as I see your main point is that Romel was a tactical genius, and that is unsupported. A fine tactician perhaps, but Romel was more quick and decisive than original in thought. He was great at useing the tactical tools he had to hand, but I don't see him as having invented any new ones and about the only place he 'steped outside the box' was in ignoring his logistical troubles and pressing on reguardless.

shane

[Fubbik]

Was Montgomery a good general? The Germans and the Russians certainly thought so. Even Eisenhower, who did not like Monty said: "Whatever they say about him, he got us there (Normandy).

And Andy H, going on with a plan (starting to carry it out) though the circumstances have deteriorated is not what the Germans did in Russia, it started well for them.

[Graeme Sydney]

I think that Sun Tsu came up with the 3 to 1 rule just as a general guideline to be used when deciding whether to attack/defend or not. He did not believe in losing soldiers unnecessarily, especially since this could boost the morale of his enemies. He did not believe in fighting any battle that he was not absolutely positive he could win. At this time also there was usually very little difference in the weapons used by each side and usually not a great deal of difference in training. Since then, troops have become much more expendable, leading to instances where the 3 to 1 rule was disregarded, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

The 3 to 1 rule applies primarily to local superiority (platoon, company and battalion level) where only organic manpower/ firepower can be counted on. At higher levels the art is to predict, concentrate, secure, flexibility etc etc and applied 'all arms tactics' to concentrate adequate forces at the critical point. Therefore the better general can do more with less (- Rommel???). At divisional and above, less than 3 to 1 odds are expected although victory normally goes to the "biggest battalions with the biggest guns" (Napoleon?).

No rule is absolute in the army or in time of war, but to attack without local superiority is 'above and beyond'. 3 to 1 is good odds for success. The greater the odds in your favour the greater the chances of success AND the greater the chances of succeeding with minimum losses.

Cheers, Graeme.