What do you think of the Siege of Tobruk

Yes I read a very similar quote from the Australians At War. Series.

 

As for Australian acknowledging other nations troops you just have to watch a ANZAC day march (25th April) in any capital city, every nation who were our allies and even our enemies are eligible to march the only nations who are not allowed are the Japanese & Germans. As for the Germans that is due solely to the Nazi's. They of course recognise that not all Germans were Nazis however they cannot be sure of the political views of individual soldiers during the Nazi era or what they may have or may not have done during the war, this is the reason the Africa Corps has been denied permission to march even though they have the support of the Vets and others in OZ.
The foreign Vets who march regularly and in strength here in Melbourne are usually, Turkish, Brits, New Zealanders, Canadians, Poles, Greeks, French, Russians, Italians, and many more, basically if they were allies they are eligible to apply for a position in the ANZAC day march however Australian units are the main focus.

 

Sorry everyone I know this thread is old however after reading it I have found some items i would have and would like to continue commenting on.

Information taken from the book 'Tobruk' written by Peter Fitzsimons.


The 9th AIF Division was not a full division, it consisted at the start of it's African campaign of only 8 Btns all of whom were not well equipped. Its Arty and AA had virtually no guns and it Cav Regt was a Regt in name only, it had no tanks and very few Universal carriers and stayed behind in the Holy Lands. The transport companies were very under equipped not having enough vehicles to move a Bgd. Signals had little Sig equipment and the list goes on. The Btns were under armed having to disobey orders from General Neame not to touch captured Italian weapons due to it being regarded as to dangerous to use, they scrounged numerous support type weapons such as MG's and other weapons. They had few Brens and Vickers to go around.

The reason the Australians were not at Mersa el Brega was Morsehead regarded it as a position that would only have one result the destruction of the forces their. It was a flat featureless area that ran almost all the way back to Benghazi, the 20th AIF Bgd and other troops deployed their against a determined foe like the Africa Corps would be to few, would not well enough armed and with way to few munitions and with the position far too exposed to hold the line for very long. Most importantly the 20th Bgd would be insufficiently mobile not having enough trucks to move them around.
Morsehead was writing a memo to Neame describing this when he heard that Wavell and General Sir John Dill were coming forward with General Neame and wanted to have a meeting with Morsehead the next morning.
General Morsehead took the chance to tell the Generals exactly what he thought. Neame was not convinced and was also quite annoyed that a colonial was questioning his placements. (Neame was one Brit General who disliked most commonwealth troops). Neame said that even if such a move was warranted he would not be able to organise transport for the Bgd for at least one week. Wavell did not think a German attack would happen for quite some time so to him their was no real problem. Even though the forward formations Intel showed that tanks and other vehicles had been moving around forward of the allied position.
Morsehead eventually said,"In my opinion sir the whole area where they are now offers as much scope for a defensive position as a billiard table".
Eventually General Dill spoke up saying he felt that it would be prudent to pull the 20th Bgd back to absolutely make sure that at the first enemy move they would not be finished as a fighting force. Again when asked how long it would take to move the troops back Neame replied at least one week. Wavell then gave the orders for the troops to be pulled back to the nearest place that was not as flat as a billiard table. Which started happening the next day with their own and borrowed trucks, the troops were moved back slowly but surely.

Wavell after arriving back in Egypt issued the following order to Neame.

"The safe guarding of your forces from a serious reverse and the infliction of losses and ultimate defeat of the enemy are of greater importance than the retention of ground. The re-occupation of Benghazi by the enemy though it would have considerable propaganda and prestige value, would be of little military importance and it is certainly not worth while risking defeat to retain it".

 

I am intriqued by this account.

Did he go just one battle with out the knowledge or the whole campaign?

If he did not know how to shoot his rifle he would not know how to clean it so firing the thing if it was possible by the end of the battle/campaign would of been probably deadly to the firer. Most especially in the PNG tropics.
Most Aussies of the time were taught how to use a rifle during universal training and also if they were Militia, however not all men were in such a position for numerous reasons. However for a Corpral not to know is wierd and IMHO highly unlikely, although their was much hand to hand on the Kokoda track their were also many, many instances where rifle fire was the best or only way to keep the IJA and IJN troops from overtaking Aussie positions
Also most unit Sgts and officers on the ships going to PNG took the time to train the men in firing the weapons while at sea.
However as we all know it is quite possible for such a situation to occur during the war especially the first year of the Pacific war where untrained Aussie militia were tossed at the Japanese.

 

tid45 et al - In Tobruk,facing the best,proven army in the world with the one commander,Rommel,and air superiority complete; it didn't matter whether you were English, Irish or Indian.The thing was being competent, being alive, and not being killed.
The Royal Horse Artillery are as English as you could wish for..and they loved 'their Australians' at Tobruk.After all at the Battle of Amiens August 8th 1918,the RHA had done some very fine execution in support of the Australians under General Monash,(the man on the $100 note).
Churchill asked 'I' the big question:
' Will they stand..? '
and a very English voice replied: (imagine)
' Moreshead has the 9th Division, sir,made up of shearers,thieves,alimony dodgers, and many of them are active communists.'
The last time the RHA supported Australian troops under Australian Command was on De Schwaze Tag 8/8/1918.The black day of the German Army.
Yes they'll stand..
Churchill needed that reminder, to settle his nerves over the possible loss of Tobruk,then Malta,then Cairo and the Suez Canal,and then the Mediterranean Sea.

 

I am not sure I agree with the "their Australians" quote. The Australian forces in ww2 were not British citizens, nor British soldiers, they were Australian through and through. Ask any Aussie if he is British and the answer will be **** no I am Australian.

This runs true for the Aussies of ww2, they had gained their independence from the British in 1901, and after ww1 the Australians held the right to control their own troops in battle, and only were put under the British as an Expeditionary force, not British soldiers.

The Australians had the right to pull their troops out of any battle or engagement and return them home, this is what was actually done, however it was done after a the campaign and returned to Australia for its defence against the Japanese.

 

Several posters have mentioned ANZAC's. That is a force that includes Australians and New Zealanders. In the taking of Tobruk (Jan 1941) the 6th AIF Div was supported by a NZ'd transport unit thus they were ANZACs though not a Corps.
In Greece and Crete the Aussies and NZ'ders served as a ANZAC Corps.
In Tobruk their as far as I know were no or very limited amount of NZ'ders so the troops in Tobruk were not ANZAC's they were Australian and they served fought and died along side many brave soldiers etc from numerous nationalitites.
The RA including Field Arty, anti tankers, and AA in Tobruk did more than their bit to save the fortress in many ways, most especially during but defininety not confined to the Easter battle. Relations between the Brits and Aussies allways have the occasional niggle however as written earlier they do the job regrdless of petty squabbles.
My Uncle (professional Aussie soldier) was a liason officer with the Notts Yeomanry (Coastal Gunners). He allways said that relations with all nationalities was very good.

 

I have joined`this thread late and I have never heard any stories about friction between British and Anzac troops, I know that British officers looked down on Australian troops in Galipoli but lets face it a lot of British officers came from the old aristocracy and probably treated British troops the same. the people I have talked to about Anzac troops regard them the same as the Canadians, Indians and south Africans, they have gave there lives for the British motherland and really if they wanted they could have stayed at home but they didnt.

 

post 76,by Volga boatman,as regarding the Stuka attacks,I believe Tedder was commanding officer of the desert airforce at that time.His nickname was '20,000ft Tedder',for good reason.he never attacked below that height,although some sans and wings did.when he left,and Conningham took over Tedders job,Harry broadhurst was given command of the d.a.f,only then did the allied air tactics change.They were finally ordered to give c.a.s to the army,and engage the enemy at lower altitudes.But only after tedder left,cheers.