Afrika Korps

[Oleander Ardens]

Rommel understood the difficulty of assaulting built-up positions. His service in Italy in 1918 would have been instructive. Still, it is obvious that such situations do limit tactical options. The 'stormtrooper' tactics used by Imperial Germany in 1918 were as good as it gets for taking built up positions by storm -- and they require high-quality motivated troops who will take significant casualties. Even knowing those tactics, Rommel may simply not have had the ability to absorb that kind of loss without the whole exercise being rather Pyrhhic.

True enough, even if he actually did attack initially the fortress, taking rather heavy casualities in the process. The infiltration tactics of WWI were of course the tactical (becoming also partly the operational) mold for every intelligent offensive operation. However the concept ever called for heavy firepower directed ala' Bruchmueller. It was impossible to achieve against Tobruk given the small weight of the artillery and the even smaller of the available ammunition. Heavy mobile direct firepower in the form of well-armored assault guns and self-propelled artillery who proved to be of so great importance later in the war lacked completely. Airpower was also not available in even remotely sufficient numbers, nor to support the siege, nor to cut off the supplies. Seapower was not present.

All in all the defenders of Tobruk were brave but all but successfull defense under this circumstances would have cast a deep shadow on the capabilities of allied forces in a "conventional" setting.

[Pannonian]

True enough, even if he actually did attack initially the fortress, taking rather heavy casualities in the process. The infiltration tactics of WWI were of course the tactical (becoming also partly the operational) mold for every intelligent offensive operation. However the concept ever called for heavy firepower directed ala' Bruchmueller. It was impossible to achieve against Tobruk given the small weight of the artillery and the even smaller of the available ammunition. Heavy mobile direct firepower in the form of well-armored assault guns and self-propelled artillery who proved to be of so great importance later in the war lacked completely. Airpower was also not available in even remotely sufficient numbers, nor to support the siege, nor to cut off the supplies. Seapower was not present.

All in all the defenders of Tobruk were brave but all but successfull defense under this circumstances would have cast a deep shadow on the capabilities of allied forces in a "conventional" setting.

How would you assess the original Australian assault on Tobruk?

[Oleander Ardens]

How would you assess the original Australian assault on Tobruk?

Pretty much as Wikipedia:

Following the fall of Bardia, 7th Armoured Division with Australian 19th Brigade advanced to Tobruk which was isolated by the 7th Armoured Division on the 6 January. By 9 January it was surrounded.[34] After a twelve day period building up forces around Tobruk, O'Connor attacked on 21 January and Tobruk was captured 22 January, yielding over 25,000 prisoners along with 236 field and medium guns[6], 23 medium tanks and more than 200 other vehicles. The Australian losses were 49 dead and 306 wounded

A truly fierce siege against determined defenders which made a crushing amount of firepower an absolute necessity. Still kudos to the Aussies.

P.S: The article CBR posted shows just how terrible the intratheater supply situation of the Axis forces was. No fuel - no mobility, no ammunition - no firepower.

[Pannonian]

How would you?

The Australians lacked overwhelming firepower, numbers, and time, needing to take it quickly with whatever was at hand so their pursuit wouldn't be delayed.

[Oleander Ardens]

I edited my post without seeing your reply

How would you assess the original Australian assault on Tobruk?

Pretty much as Wikipedia:

Following the fall of Bardia, 7th Armoured Division with Australian 19th Brigade advanced to Tobruk which was isolated by the 7th Armoured Division on the 6 January. By 9 January it was surrounded.[34] After a twelve day period building up forces around Tobruk, O'Connor attacked on 21 January and Tobruk was captured 22 January, yielding over 25,000 prisoners along with 236 field and medium guns[6], 23 medium tanks and more than 200 other vehicles. The Australian losses were 49 dead and 306 wounded

A truly fierce siege against determined defenders which made a crushing amount of firepower an absolute necessity. Still kudos to the Aussies. See also that they had in their infantry tanks (Matilda) an excellent "assault gun" for the specific METT-T.

Next day, the capture of the remaining outposts from R1 to S11 was completed and assisted strongly by Infantry tanks of the Support Group and the 2nd Rifle Brigade and 1st King's Royal Rifle Corps which had arrived as reinforcements that morning. Meanwhile, the 7th Armoured Division which had also entered the perimeter from the Derna road that morning stood by to advance into the town if required.

P.S: The article CBR posted shows just how terrible the intratheater supply situation of the Axis forces was. No fuel - no mobility, no ammunition - no firepower.