Of all the theaters of operations, it was probably in North Africa
that the war took on its most advanced form. The protagonists on both sides
were fully motorized formations, for whose employment the flat and
obstruction-free desert offered hitherto undreamed-of possibilities. It was the
only theatre where the principles of motorized and tank warfare, as they had
been taught theoretically before the war, could be applied to the full-and
further developed. It was the only theater where the pure tank battle between
major formations was fought. Even though the struggle may have occasionally
hardened into static warfare, it remained-at any rate in its most important
stages (i.e in 1941-42 during the Cunningham-Ritchie offensive, and in the
summer of 1942-Marmarica battles, capture of Tobruk)-based on the principles of
complete mobility.
In military practice , this was entirely new, for our
offensives in Poland and the West had been against opponents who, in all their
operations, had still had to take account of their non-motorized infantry
divisions and had thus had to suffer the disastrous limitation in their freedom
of tactical decision which thus imposes, especially in the retreat. Often they
had been forced into actions quite unsuited for the object of holding up our
advance. After our break-through in France, the enemy infantry divisions had
simply been overrun and outflanked by the out motorized forces. Once this had
happened they had had no choice but to allow their operational reserves to be
worn away by our assault groups, often in tactically unfavorable positions, in
an endeavour to gain time for the retreat of their infantry.
Non-motorized infantry divisions are only of value against a
motorized and armoured enemy when occupying prepared positions. If these positions
are pierced or outflanked, a withdrawal will leave them helpless victims of the
motorized enemy, with nothing else to do but hold on in their positions to the
last round. They cause terrible difficulties in a general retreat-for, as I
have indicated, one has to commit one's motorized formations merely to gain
time for them. I was forced to go through this myself during the Axis retreat
form Cyrenaica in the winter of 1941-42, when the whole of the Italian Infantry
and a considerable part of the German, including the majority of what was to
become 90th light Division, were without vehicles and had either to be carried
by a shuttle service of lorries, or to march. It was only the gallantry of my
armour that enabled the retreat of the Italo-German infantry to be covered, for
our fully motorized enemy was in hot pursuit. Similarly, Graziani's failure can
be attributed mainly to the fact that the greater part of the Italian Army was
delivered up helpless and non-motorized in the open desert to the weaker but
fully motorized British formations, while the Italian motorized forces,
although too weak to oppose the British successfully, were nevertheless
compelled to accept battle and allow themselves to be destroyed in defence of
the infantry.
The British forces-in contrast to ours-were all fully
mobile, and the war in Africa was, in fact, waged almost exclusively by mobile
forces. Out of this pure motorized warfare, certain principles were
established, principles fundamentally different from those applying in other
theatres. These principles will become the standard for the future, in which
the fully-motorized formation will be dominant.
The envelopment of all fully-motorized enemy in the flat and
good-driving terrain of the desert has the following results:
(a) For a fully-motorized formation, encirclement is the
worst tactical situation imaginable, since hostile fire can be brought to bear
on it from all sides; even envelopment on only three sides is a tactically
untenable situation.
(b) The enemy becomes forced because of the bad tactical
situation in which the encirclement has placed him, to evacuate the area he is
holding.
The encirclement of the enemy and his subsequent destruction
in the pocket can seldom be the direct aim of an operation; more often it is
only indirect, for any fully-motorized force whose organisational structure
remains intact will normally and in suitable country be able to break out at
will through an improvised defensive ring. Thanks to his motorization, the
commander of the encircled force is in position to concentrate his weight
unexpectedly against any likely point in the ring and burst through it. This
fact was repeatedly demonstrated in the desert.
It follows therefore that an encircled enemy force can only
be destroyed
(a) when it is non-motorized or has been rendered immobile
by lack of petrol, or when it includes non-mobile elements which have to be
considered;
(b) when it is badly led or its command has decided to
sacrifice one formation in order to save another;
(c) when its fighting strength has already been broken, and disintegration
and disorganization have set it.
Except for cases (a) and (b), which occurred frequently in
other theatres of war, encirclement of the enemy and his subsequent destruction
in the pocket can only be attempted if he has been so heavily battered in open
battle that the organic cohesion of his force has been destroyed. I shall term
all actions which have as their aim the wearing down of the enemy's power of
resistance "battle of attrition." In motorized warfare, material
attrition and the destruction of the organic cohesion of the opposing army must
be the immediate aim of all planning.
Tactically, the battle of attrition is fought with the
highest possible degree of mobility. The following points require particular
attention:
(a) The main endeavor should be to concentrate one's own
forces in space and time, while at the same time seeking to split the enemy
forces spatially and to destroy them at different times.
(b) Supply lines are particularly sensitive, since all petro
and ammunition, indispensable requirements for the battle, must pass along
them. Hence, everything possible must be done to protect one’s own supply lines
and to upset, or better still, cut the enemy's. Operations in the enemy's
supply area will lead immediately to his breaking off the battle elsewhere,
since, as I have indicated, supplies are the fundamental premise of the battle
and must be given priority of protection.
(c) The armour is the core of the motorized army. Everything
turns on it, and other formations are mere auxiliaries. The war of attrition
against the enemy armour must be therefore be waged as far as possible by the
tank destruction units. One's own armour should only be used to deal the final
blow.
(d) Reconnaissance reports must reach the commander in the
shortest possible time' he must take his decisions immediately and put them
into effect as fast as he can. Speed of reaction decides the battle. Commanders
of motorized forces must therefore operate as near as possible to their troops,
and must have the closest possible signal communication with him.
(e) Speed of movement and the organizational cohesion of
one's own forces are decisive factors and require particular attention. Any
sign of dislocation must be dealt with as quickly as possible by reorganization.
(f) Concealment of intentions is of the upmost importance in
order to provide surprise for one's own operations and thus make it possible to
exploit the time taken by the enemy command to react. Deception measures of all
kinds should be encouraged, if only to make the enemy commander uncertain and
cause him to hesitate and hold back.
(g) Once the enemy has been thoroughly beaten up, success
can be exploited by attempting to overrun and destroy major parts of his disorganized
formations. Here again, speed is everything. The enemy must never be allowed
time to reorganize. Lightning regrouping for the pursuit and reorganization of
supplies for the pursuing forces are essential.
Concerning the technical and organizational aspect of desert
warfare, particular regard must be paid to the following points:
(a) The prime requirements in the tank are maneuverability,
speed and a long-range gun-for the side with the bigger gun has the longer arm
and can be the first to engage the enemy. Weight of armour cannot make up for
the lack of gun-power, as it can only be provided at the expense of maneuverability
and speed, both of which are indispensable tactical requirements.
(b) The artillery must have great range and must, above all,
be capable of great mobility and of carrying with it ammunition in large
quantities.
(c) The infantry serves only to occupy and hold positions
designed either to prevent the enemy from particular operations, or to force
him into other ones. Once this object has been achieved, the infantry must be
able to get away quickly for employment elsewhere. It must therefore be mobile
and be equipped to enable it rapidly to take up defence positions in the open
at tactically important points on the battlefield.
It is my experience that bold decisions give the best
promise of success. But one must differentiate between strategic or tactical
boldness and a gamble. A bold operation is one in which success is not a
certainty but which in case of failure leaves one with sufficient forces in
hand to cope with whatever situation may arise. A gamble, on the other hand, is
an operation which can lean to either victory or to the complete destruction of
one's forces. Situations can arise where even a gamble may be justified-as, for
instance, when in the normal course of events defeat or just merely a matter of
time, when the gaining of time is therefore pointless and the only chance lies
in an operation of great risk.
The only occasion when a commander can calculate the course
of a battle in advance is when his forces are so superior that victory is a
forgone conclusion; then the problem is no longer one of "the mean"
but only of "the method". But even in this situation, I still think
it is better to operate on the grand scale rather than creep about the
battlefield anxiously taking all possible security measures against every
conceivable enemy move.
Normally, there is no ideal solution to military problems;
every course has its advantages and disadvantages. One must select that which
seems best from the most varied aspects and then pursue it resolutely and
accept the consequences. Any compromise is bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment