Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: Gundamentalist 5.56 on 18 September 2013, 12:22:40 AM
-
I'm aware that the Italians had some naval guns at Tobruk before it was captured by the British, but were there any other serious gun emplacements in North Africa?
I'm talking about the sort of objectives that commandos were set to capture at Dieppe and D-Day, that sort of scale.
-
The Mareth Line had some defences but doubt anything on the large gun emplacements like the Atlantic Wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mareth_Line
-
The various fortified and siege lines which popped up through the desert war all had gun emplacements, sometimes for fairly hefty pieces, but it was far too mobile a war and remote from a supply pov to warrant Atlantic Wall type concreted gun emplacements.
Individual emplacements (like those at the top of Halfaya Pass) often had concreted sides, but no top cover.
You could easily do an LRDG/Brandenburg attack on some sort of gun positions though - the Halfaya anti-tank nests, medium and heavy gun emplacements at Tobruk, Gazala or Alamein or whatever.
Cheers
Martin
-
fully enclosed gun emplacements are a distinct advantage only if you plan to be bombed from the sea, their big drawback is the lack of field of fire. We had such a discussion standing over the top of one of the Atlantik Wall emplacements in the British Sector (sword I think). The bunker was an impressive piece but it was useful only to cover (in the specific case enfilading) a specific strip of the beach. On the other hand in the same day I was at Merville... and the battery has both the bunkers and open emplacement with turntables.
The second best choice is a turreted emplacement but... it is expensive and the turret is heavy.
There were casemated restricted FoF coastal batteria at Tobruk and Bardie under the command of the Milmart (Milizia Marittima, our coastal defence organization). I think the largest gun was a 150mm but I have to check.
Oh by the way, the desert war was quite static... Tobruk and El Alamein were sieges. Yet even there 360 field of fire were more important than protection.
-
Many static Italian gun positions were like this
(https://static.awm.gov.au/images/collection/items/ACCNUM_SCREEN/P00643.003.JPG)
-
The Mareth Line had some defences but doubt anything on the large gun emplacements like the Atlantic Wall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mareth_Line
the mareth line, before armistice :
Anti-tank guns ( 25mm & 47mm ) + some tank turrets , MG, etc, nothing "big" or "serious" ...
the mareth line afrikakorps :
quite the same ... ( just bigger AT guns ) ... and worked well to stop the allies rush ...
on the mareth line, choose a command bunker as objective ;)
If you want something "big" or "serious" in North Africa for allies commando action, give a look at :
Safi Landing during Operation Torch ... the port was protected by a 138mm naval gun battery, a 155mm battery, a 75mm battery and smaller guns .
Oran landing, were rangers captured Northern Fort , ...
but in all cases, there were US .
In Algier Landing, the coastal batteries had been neutralized by french resistance , so no action for the British commandos against "serious" targets ...
-
How about the different sieges of Tobruk? When reading about it they usually speak of heavily fortified positions... I'm not sure however.
-
I'm just reading 'The Desert War' trilogy by Alan Moorehead and it's really enlightening to read the differences between the doctrines.
In 1940 the Italians seemed to treat the Desert War like another Colonial skirmish, as they had recently fought in Abyssinia. To this end they built a network of 'Beau Geste' style forts (as the author puts it), that would be perfect for subduing small scale native unrest, but were unsuitable for a modern war against a well equipped, well trained European army. These forts were apparently protected by artillery guns mounted within and by extensive minefields laid without, but were often unprotected at the rear. The British and Commonwealth forces used to sweep around the flanks and assault from behind.
To over-simplify slightly, Italian tactics seem to have been based on static defence, British tactics on outflanking movement to first surround and then assault the positions. Because the Italians were not trained to survive in desert conditions or use the desert as a sea through which to move and fight (until Rommel arrived), they had no counter to the superior fluidity of Wavell's tactics. When the Italians began to retreat, it was mostly a case of them fighting delaying actions from fortified positions before retreating again.
-
In 1940 the Italians seemed to treat the Desert War like another Colonial skirmish, as they had recently fought in Abyssinia. To this end they built a network of 'Beau Geste' style forts (as the author puts it), that would be perfect for subduing small scale native unrest, but were unsuitable for a modern war against a well equipped, well trained European army. These forts were apparently protected by artillery guns mounted within and by extensive minefields laid without, but were often unprotected at the rear.
if this is true on the coast, it seem's that the fort defense in southern Lybia was quite light : MMG, some HMG and breda 20mm and Mortars . ( in El Tag fort : 4 x 20mm Breda, 3 x 12,7 HMG, 50 MMG ... )
and don't forget the Sahariannas ... who were created in 1923 and motorized in 1938 ... with dedicated air support ... Static defense ?
-
Not quite on the scale of the Atlantic Wall but gun positions like these dominating harbours might be attacked. The twin open mount well dug in seems the Italian norm.
Benghazi (Monty inspecting a captured Italian gun position)
(http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/monty-at-benghazi-595x591.jpg)
This page http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/difcosteng.htm (http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/difcosteng.htm)
in the period between the end of 1936 and the beginning of the Second World War, Massaua HQ succeeded, in a better way than other fortress, to set up a satisfactory defense recognition network (look-outs, signaling posts, radio and telegraph posts, anti-aircraft sighting and identifying posts) connected to an anti aircraft and an anti ship batteries system. Particularly in the base and on some of the islands in front of it (Dahlach islands) were deployed small and medium caliber batteries composed by 76/30 mm AA guns, by 74/40 mm AA guns , 76/50 mm guns, 102/35 mm guns, 120/45 mm guns and 152/45 mm guns.
(http://www.icsm.it/regiamarina/images/ArtiglDahalach.jpg)
Tobruk
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/a5ffc9429f8ab6010576aee0ef65fc502dc7057d.jpg)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgwWvPwmxtfcsLGcOtzCnwLGvTQJunIVvylbPf5iCEGk3Adfpe)
-
and don't forget the Sahariannas ... who were created in 1923 and motorized in 1938 ... with dedicated air support ... Static defense ?
Yep, very much the exception to the rule ... created to patrol between forts (the static defences). Pity they didn't have more of them.