Tigers from HELL

[winkelried]

I am actually surprised by all the Tiger aces. Since so few, relatively, were made, I thought their terror was over represented in our scenarios--with Allied accounts of "everything is a Tiger" something like the "every gun is an 88" mentality of soldier's stories. The list gives credence to the idea of Tiger platoons being stuck like a boulder in a stream of attacking Allied tanks.

And so few Panther aces. I know the MkIV was really an infantry support tank (superb, I think), but I would have thought Panthers would have been more anti-armor.

The Tiger was an excellent weapon until late 1944. Excellent gun with good optics for a first hit rate and well armored. The different units achieved a high kill ratio. I think that often experienced tankers got to the Tiger units (see Wittmann).

[winkelried]

See Tiger units loss ratios

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of the first (second?) gulf war - Well, let's call it the Kuwait war. Coalition kill claims were off the charts. It wasn't until after the war that the claims were investigated properly and the truth shown to only be a fraction of the original reports. Like a decimal point moved over kind'a off. You can imagine the number of times an abandoned T55 hulk in an open field got counted as a 'new kill' by passing A10 pilots. And all those mobile scud launchers we hunted? Even had video footage of their destruction on TV. It turned out we perhaps got one of them... maybe.

[JonS]

See Tiger units loss ratios

Bear in mind that those are claimed kills vs the rather eclectic German difinition of losses. Both bias the ratio heavily in favour of the Germans.

[winkelried]

looking at the loss ration table i referenced in a previous post:

seems that the 1'839 Tiger Is and IIs killed 9'850 enemy tanks - which is roughly 8% of the approx 115'000 T-34/KV/JS/M4 produced during WW2 ... CW produced tanks not taken into account ...

[Erwin]

Also check WHEN the Stugs got their kills. It could be early war when the Soviets had very little to oppose em.

[Steiner14]

From the article "Cinquante ans après les faits, les archives s'ouvrent et paraissent les premiers ouvrages scientifiques sur le sujet comme ceux ..." says 50 years after the facts the archives were opened etc.

Could you please translate that?

The google translation does not state explicitly that all records of the trial were declassified. And it uses the phrase "records APPEAR open" and "become available including PARTS of the pre-trial".

The google translation even seems to indicate, that the first scientific work from Fouche on the topic, because he could use original papers, draw heavy criticism from the preservators of the legend. Strangely the Wikipedia article also seems not to contain any infos, why Fouche's work was criticized?

Vincent Reynouard was tried but not convicted for this book, since "la Cour de cassation a cassé cet arrêt, les faits reprochés ne constituant pas une apologie de crimes de guerre, mais une contestation de crimes de guerre, laquelle n'est pas réprimée par la loi"

I can't find this text on the Wikipedia page. Do you have a link?

The page explains, that 14 of the 22 supects came from the French region of Alsace. This created a big uproar in the region when they were convicted. So the French parliament passed an amnesty shortly after the process and the Alsatians were liberated almost immediately.

An uproar for murderers? Liberation of murderers because of an uproar?

And this is an "explanation" that satisfies you?

For the remaining the death penalties were then converted to prison terms. They were then liberated a few years later like many other people convicted for collaboration and war crimes.

The biggest war crime in France with over 600 victims and 500 women and the "muderers" are freed after a few years because they were comin from a certain region? It's hard to imagine that you can be satisfied with such "explanations".

But if you would read the link to the affirmation in lieu of oath of Eberhard Matthes, Obstlt. of the Bundeswehr, the link i gave you, then the whole story suddenly becomes explainable.

And why were the higher ranks not put on trial in 1953 but only the lower ranks?

Why was Stadler in Austria never interrogated from the police?

And why did the french legal authorities never ask the british foreign office for extradiction of Lammerding in Düsseldorf (British sector) even more, since Lammerding never denied to speak openly about what happened at Oradour?

BTW Standartenführer Sylvester Stadler CO of SS PzGren Rgt "Der Führer" seems to have ordered a court martial for Diekmann.

If that is true isn't that interesting? The "criminal" SS was investigating what happened (btw: how many court martials did the allied forces order when german civilians or german POWs were killed?). What was the result of the investigations of this court martial?

My grandfather was also put on a court martial (after a russian breakthrough he was not capable to blow up the ammunition anymore and could only take the "clasp"(?) of the ATG with him). The investigations showed, that he had acted correctly. So a court martial on the german side did not mean the suspected was automatically guilty.

[winkelried]

Could you please translate that?

The google translation does not state explicitly that all records of the trial were declassified. And it uses the phrase "records APPEAR open" and "become available including PARTS of the pre-trial".

Google translation is crap here - as often. "les pièces de la procédure préalable" means "the parts (meaning all not some) of the pre-able procedure" which is the procedure by the juge d'instruction where information is gathered.

strangely the Wikipedia article also seems not to contain any infos, why Fouche's work was criticized

Fouché's work was scrutinized in the usual context of the discussion around the Résistance in France - some French are a bit touchy when somebody is questioning the image of the Résistance. Only recently e.g. the role of the (French) Milice during the occupation is discussed outside of historian circles. You can read Fouché's paper online. Fouché never questioned the massacre and its originators.

I can't find this text on the Wikipedia page. Do you have a link?

It's on the page about Vincent Reynouard.

An uproar for murderers? Liberation of murderers because of an uproar?

And this is an "explanation" that satisfies you?

Sure. Read Fouché - it's about French politics. The 13 Alsatians were pressed into German service - therefore they were considered as being victims of a war crime themselves. The argument then went that somebody who was a victim of a war crime could not be tried for a war crime he was involved himself. The 14th Alsatian was tried since he was a NCO and joined the SS on his own will.

It's hard to imagine that you can be satisfied with such "explanations".

I am because I know French politics and sensibilities ...

And why were the higher ranks not put on trial in 1953 but only the lower ranks?

Adolf Diekmann was diffcult to put on trial since he was KIA.

Heinz Barth was found only in 1981 in the GDR

Heinz Lammerding evaded a British arrest order (which was issued on request by the French) and was not extradited by the FRG since he was a German citizen.

In addition Aurel Kowatsch 1a of the division (in absentia), Heinrich Wulf CO of the recon batallion and Otto Hoff leader of a pioneer unit were tried. Later it surfaced, that Kowatsch was KIA in Hungary in 1945. Both Wulf and Hoff served prison terms.

If that is true isn't that interesting? The "criminal" SS was investigating what happened (btw: how many court martials did the allied forces order when german civilians or german POWs were killed?). What was the result of the investigations of this court martial?

This is interesting indeed. If it is true (to my knowledge the source is Lammerding), then it seems that the action of Diekmann was too much even for Stadler. Since Diekmann was KIA a few days later, nothing came out of this it seems.

[sburke]

While I do realize war by it's very nature brutalizes individuals and that any nation is capable of war crimes especially in the heat of battle that is a quite different matter than a political/cultural force that demonizes as subhuman everyone else. The Nazis were the ONLY group to create a whole concentration camp system designed to wipe out all peoples they considered inferior or useless. Even Stalin didn't get that proficient at it.

Defend the SS for their massacre of French civilians? Deny it happened? Sorry the camps speak for themselves. I don't need some one to make up stories to have me understand what the Nazis and their war dogs, the SS were capable of. What happened to Germany at the end of World War 2 was horrendous as well, but really what does one expect after waging a brutal war of extermination for 5 years? That the allies and particularly the Russians are gonna come in and suddenly behave like attorneys in the public defenders office? You can say what you want Steiner14, but all things are not equal and Germany has earned herself a place in history that no one should forget. You want me to cry over Germany not getting "fair" treatment - not gonna happen. Stop trying to deny the evils that were perpetrated by the Thrd Reich and you might have a chance of moving me. The SS- poor victims of summary justice? You gotta be friggin kidding me.

[MikeyD]

German attrocities went back to WWI at least and were deliberately orchestrated from the top under their concept of 'total war'. The occupying army is to terrorize the population into submission as a matter of policy. And they performed their duties with typical German efficiency. The flaw in this 'strategic theory' is it discounts the political nature of military conflict. Wars aren't fought in a vacuum, they're supposed to be fought for a purpose. As efficient as Germany was at waging war it was dreadful at administering its newly acquired posessions. If war is "politics by other means" then Germany's wars were total failures.

[Michael Emrys]

In the western desert a British force that had heavy advantage in number, and quality, and with the abillity because of "enigma" to read their enemies mail,was beaten for some years very soundly by a German Italian force with no advantage save leadership and tactical ability...not much chance for a western "hero" there, until Monty finally turned it.

There are some elements in that statement I feel obliged to contest based on my own readings.

The first thing is that the claim that the British had a "heavy advantage in number and quality" is a huge exaggeration. Whatever advantages in numbers of troops were available in the theater the British might have enjoyed were most of the time completely counterbalanced by the fact that Middle East Command was fighting on three and sometimes four fronts, whereas the Germans prior to November 8, 1942 were fighting only on one.

As far as quality of weaponry goes, I find it hard to assign any overall superiority to either side. Most of the Italian gear was second or even third rate, although their artillery seems to have been serviceable enough. In tanks and ATGs, the Germans enjoyed a clear edge until the Brits began receiving American arms in quantity. The Brits were a bit more lavishly supplied, especially in all-important petrol.

Finally, in regard to Ultra, its most important contribution was tipping when convoys would be sailing from Italy to Libya, and I believe even most of that information was in the Regia Marina code. Since many of Rommel's operations were in violation of his orders, he was not in the habit of informing them in detail before hand. Thus no messages for Ultra to intercept. On the other hand, he had his own intercept service that was quite good at keeping him informed of British capabilities and intentions, aided by quite sloppy comms discipline on the part of the Brits for most of the campaign. When Rommel lost his intercept detachment soon after arriving at el Alamein, at about the same time that his enemy began to tighten up radio discipline, he finally lost that advantage.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

Bear in mind that those are claimed kills vs the rather eclectic German difinition of losses. Both bias the ratio heavily in favour of the Germans.

Yeah, if you look at the Soviet numbers it looks like the Red Army destroyed German armored vehicles on a rough one to one basis, and in the later campaigns for every destroyed Soviet tank there were close to two German AFVs destroyed.

If you look at the Soviet records you find that Tigers pretty much nowhere were a tactical show-stopper, if they showed up they caused problems but they could and were destroyed, but there weren't many of them and although capable of inflicting losses they never achieved decisive results. Over and over you find reports of entire Tiger units stuck or broken down or abandoned and then getting overrun.

Which doesn't mean the game should simulate Tigers as useless. But personally, I would trust any record generated by the Nazi German military exactly as much as I would trust Red Army records: you can assume military professionals were doing the recording but they had incomplete information and were working for bosses who preferred happy statistics to unvarnished fact, and who had a record of punishing underlings who reported unpleasant truths.

[winkelried]

Over and over you find reports of entire Tiger units stuck or broken down or abandoned and then getting overrun.

You are right on the issues - in the battle for Lucherberg e.g. quite a few tigers got stuck in the mud and shell holes when trying to reach the inital position for an assault. The Americans then dealt with the remaining Tigers (and Jagdpanthers) in a standard way: used artillery to maul the accompagning infantry and then got them one after to other with AT-weapons or they retreated since they were no longer protected by infantry. A tactic which worked also in the Bulge.

As I understand the Tiger (I & II) could dominate a certain area (as could to the Panther), but since there were not that many of them, they could be outmaneuvered (even more the Panther, due to his weak side armor). Something which is often missing in CMx battles, since the maps are rather small and don't allow maneuver of this kind.

[winkelried]

Finally, in regard to Ultra, its most important contribution was tipping when convoys would be sailing from Italy to Libya, and I believe even most of that information was in the Regia Marina code. Since many of Rommel's operations were in violation of his orders, he was not in the habit of informing them in detail before hand. Thus no messages for Ultra to intercept. On the other hand, he had his own intercept service that was quite good at keeping him informed of British capabilities and intentions, aided by quite sloppy comms discipline on the part of the Brits for most of the campaign. When Rommel lost his intercept detachment soon after arriving at el Alamein, at about the same time that his enemy began to tighten up radio discipline, he finally lost that advantage.

still quite some myths to bust the performance of the DAK had also to do a lot with luck. in 1942 e.g. Rommel shove defeat very closely in the cauldron and on the other hand two Italian (Ariete & Trieste) and one German division (90. le) had a hard time with a 3'000 French legionaires, colonial infantry and marines in the middle of the desert.

[Steiner14]

Google translation is crap here - as often. "les pièces de la procédure préalable" means "the parts (meaning all not some) of the pre-able procedure" which is the procedure by the juge d'instruction where information is gathered.

Are this the papers of the trial itself and the protocols, or papers gathered before the trial?

Fouché's work was scrutinized in the usual context of the discussion around the Résistance in France - some French are a bit touchy when somebody is questioning the image of the Résistance.

How comes that? Following the legend Oradour and Tulle were peaceful areas. "The french are a bit touchy" is a very nice understatement for the uninformed readers.

The french people, at least who lived at that time and knew how they loved the resistance themselves, is heavily divided about the role of the Resistance. The political establishment tries to suppress any open discussion about it, because that would lead to further questions regarding the myths of the german occupation.

Could it be, that Fouche maybe mentions that this area was full of heavy partisan activity? That even the german high command for the West, knew about it and ordered "Das Reich" to fight the partisans? Could it be, that Fouche mentions that German soldiers were attacked, tortuered and murdered by the Maquisards?

Does Fouche maybe mention the 40 awfully mutilated german soldiers in Tulle and that the german units in Tulle even were encircled?

The trial in the communist DDR was a classical show trial, where even the fightings against the Maquisards, the tortured german soldiers were ignored and the area was portrayed as a peaceful civilian area where the SS without any reason killed civilians - exactly like the media tell the people all over the world today.

Fouché never questioned the massacre and its originators.

And although he never questioned the "massacre", he was heavily criticized... I think that shows the spiritual climate and how "just" and "objective" the trial 1953 was (imagine the 9/11 "trials"^2), if even today, the undeniable simple truth, that the Resistance was acting against international military laws (and against the german-french treaty!) and that they were not at all beloved by the french people.

Not only because of the fear of repressions of the Germans, but also because of their incredible brutality, their torturing of helpless soldiers (driving with trucks over people, cutting off genitals and putting into mouth, drilling holes through the feet, putting cables though it, connecting it to trucks and driving around) and their communist agenda?

It's on the page about Vincent Reynouard.

It's very laborious if you are not giving any links.

I have searched the french Wikipedia article and there it is stated, what i was writing: that in 2004 he was convicted for "approving war crimes". He had to fight to the highest court, that this ridiculous verdict (You are doubting the official story of 9/11 - so you are approving it) finally was overruled.

Later, in 2007 the father of eight children was sentenced to one year in prison and 10.000 EUR for "denying crimes against humanity" for a brochure called "Holocaust, what are you hiding".

[abneo3sierra]

The first thing is that the claim that the British had a "heavy advantage in number and quality" is a huge exaggeration. Whatever advantages in numbers of troops were available in the theater the British might have enjoyed were most of the time completely counterbalanced by the fact that Middle East Command was fighting on three and sometimes four fronts, whereas the Germans prior to November 8, 1942 were fighting only on one.

As far as quality of weaponry goes, I find it hard to assign any overall superiority to either side. Most of the Italian gear was second or even third rate, although their artillery seems to have been serviceable enough. In tanks and ATGs, the Germans enjoyed a clear edge until the Brits began receiving American arms in quantity. The Brits were a bit more lavishly supplied, especially in all-important petrol.

Finally, in regard to Ultra, its most important contribution was tipping when convoys would be sailing from Italy to Libya, and I believe even most of that information was in the Regia Marina code. Since many of Rommel's operations were in violation of his orders, he was not in the habit of informing them in detail before hand. Thus no messages for Ultra to intercept. On the other hand, he had his own intercept service that was quite good at keeping him informed of British capabilities and intentions, aided by quite sloppy comms discipline on the part of the Brits for most of the campaign. When Rommel lost his intercept detachment soon after arriving at el Alamein, at about the same time that his enemy began to tighten up radio discipline, he finally lost that advantage.

Michael

I think, to be fair, we should say that every front the British were fighting on, was against the Germans, so the idea one was on more fronts, is not accurate, unless including the Pacific, which was mostly a sideshow, as the Western Desert was also to the German command. Also because the German command was putting secondary emphasis on the desert, the DAK received mostly secondary vehicles, and generally insufficient amounts of ammunition, not to mention the petrol as you said. A tank without petrol, is a sitting duck.

I agree with the part of the code in that Rommel apparently never (? occasionally? lol ) notified his own command what he was planning, until he was already done. Also a huge reason he missed (and still barely at that) was leaving Malta un-taken astride his LOC.

That said though, most of what I had said was only about tank aces. Generally having seen men in combat, I think it comes down to that if the average person has a chance to A) back up and fight another day, or stand and fight to the end, he will choose A. Not many heroes are created when you have that choice, usually heroes are created (or aces, for that matter) when you HAVE to fight, therefore also usually on the strategic defensive, rather than the offense which generally has the freedom of action to choose where and when to fight. In the western desert, the Germans were mostly on the offensive due to Rommel's style, and the general German world position of the time. Once the Germans began having to withdraw, worldwide, the best weapons, the Pz VI, etc, were on their home front, so most of their aces, who by that time had experience also in other areas, were here, on the home front, unable to really withdraw ,so they stood, and fought.

[Michael Emrys]

I think, to be fair, we should say that every front the British were fighting on, was against the Germans, so the idea one was on more fronts, is not accurate, unless including the Pacific, which was mostly a sideshow, as the Western Desert was also to the German command.

What in god's name are you thinking of? Did you miss your sleep this weekend?

Look, I'll spell it out for you since it doesn't appear that you know. In addition to its commitments in the Western Desert, the Middle East Command had commitments in Greece, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia and both British and Italian Somalias. These were all corps sized engagements and some of them were either simultaneously or sequentially ongoing. Rommel's mission was to protect Libya. Period.

Because he was, as one German general put it, "neurotically ambitious", he decided on his own hook to try to force the British out of the Middle East altogether. But that exceeded both his brief and his means.

Michael

[Guest]

The first thing is that the claim that the British had a "heavy advantage in number and quality" is a huge exaggeration. Whatever advantages in numbers of troops were available in the theater the British might have enjoyed were most of the time completely counterbalanced by the fact that Middle East Command was fighting on three and sometimes four fronts, whereas the Germans prior to November 8, 1942 were fighting only on one.

One front against many doesn't really matter, in my opinion, when one side has an advantage in numbers *and* almost complete freedom of reinforcement and resupply, and the other does not.

In terms of combat-ready, combat-worthy (i.e. not MG-only) tanks in the AO the British regularly had significant superiority in numbers, other theaters notwithstanding. During some of the North African battles the Afrika Korps had only a few dozen operable tanks, where the British at their weakest had several hundred. Quality is definitely arguable until American hardware shows up.

In terms of infantry I don't think the 90th Light ever had more than a few thousand troops after initial losses, and the infantry battalions of the Panzer Divisions were chronically short on men. Since Rommel considered only a very few Italian divisions capable of strategic maneuver most battles involved only a few additional motorized divisions, usually facing at least as many British troops.

Add to that that the capable Italian divisions were usually wasted investing "boxes" or getting into head-on slugging matches with British armored formations, as well, and you come up with "a handful of guys making people uncomfortable and causing poor strategic decisions" more than a shining, well-equipped German striking force pouncing from out of the desert. It was like that until significant German reinforcements arrived, but that completely changed the nature of the North African conflict and I'd argue it became something that needs to be examined separately.

The British may have been spread thin, but for most of its life DAK was a drop in the bucket comparatively.

[abneo3sierra]

Actually Mr Emrys..the Germans were fighting on a rather large front (Russia) as well as in Greece against the British you mentioned (already won there by the way before the date you give). Perhaps ROMMELS mission only involved Libya, but you compare one German unit whose mission was Libya, then compare the entire British Empire with all of their missions, your logic is flawed in that. You mention Greece, that ended in spring 1941. Syria? Never a theater of war in any normal sense of the word, Iraq, Iran..the British Empire was trying to keep these colonies from rebelling, but at the same time, Germany also was dealing with the same type of partisan warfare in France, the Balkans, and conquered areas of the USSR.

That said, Phil was dead on right in his reply to you also. Even on a "bad day" for the British, they had much more than the DAK had on its best day in terms of men or material.

[JonS]

Syria? Never a theater of war in any normal sense of the word

See: Operation EXPORTER

Iraq, Iran..the British Empire was trying to keep these colonies from rebelling

Both countries were the scene of large-scale, active operations. Neither were colonies.

Regarding the balance of forces, is it worth pointing out that during Op CRUSADER the British attacked with four divisions (7 Armd, 2 NZ, 4 Indian, ?? Seth Efrikan), and had another division (70th) in Tobruk. The Axis had ten: 15 Pz, 21 Pz, 90 Light, Bologna, Pavia, Ariete, Brescia, Savona, Trento, and Trieste.

[abneo3sierra]

See: Operation EXPORTER

Both countries were the scene of large-scale, active operations. Neither were colonies.

Regarding the balance of forces, is it worth pointing out that during Op CRUSADER the British attacked with four divisions (7 Armd, 2 NZ, 4 Indian, ?? Seth Efrikan), and had another division (70th) in Tobruk. The Axis had ten: 15 Pz, 21 Pz, 90 Light, Bologna, Pavia, Ariete, Brescia, Savona, Trento, and Trieste.

Technically you are correct in that they were not colonies, yet the people the British were fighting in these operations were partisans seeking to rid British colonialism. The British governed these countries after WW1 as occupied lands, and the British forces fighting there, were not fighting "axis" powers, but rather "insurgents" trying to gain their own freedom.(albeit I am sure with help from the axis) Also the comparison of numbers of divisions does not account for the fact that during Op Crusader, the German Italian divisions you mentioned were short on pretty much everything, from artillery shells, to fuel, to food, to tank rounds, due to the harassment of their LOCs by a well led, and superior RN Mediterranean force, as well as the rather tenacious defenders of tiny Malta.

"Britain granted independence to Iraq in 1932, on the urging of King Faisal, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces. King Ghazi ruled as a figurehead after King Faisal's death in 1933, while undermined by attempted military coups, until his death in 1939. Ghazi was followed by his under age son, Faisal II. 'Abd al-Ilah served as Regent during Faisal's minority.

On 1 April 1941, Rashid Ali al-Gaylani and members of the Golden Square staged a coup d'état and overthrew the government of 'Abd al-Ilah. During the subsequent Anglo-Iraqi War, the United Kingdom invaded Iraq for fear that the Rashid Ali government might cut oil supplies to Western nations because of his links to the Axis powers. The war started on 2 May and an armistice was signed 31 May.

A military occupation followed the restoration of the pre-coup government of the Hashemite monarchy. The occupation ended on 26 October 1947. The rulers during the occupation and the remainder of the Hashemite monarchy were Nuri as-Said, the autocratic Prime Minister, who also ruled from 1930–1932, and 'Abd al-Ilah, the former Regent who now served as an adviser to King Faisal II."

just a snippet from wiki article on the times.

[JonS]

Technically you are correct in that they were not colonies, yet the people the British were fighting in these operations were partisans seeking to rid British colonialism.

except ... both were already independent countries. Not colonies. Not mandates. Not dominions. Independent countries.

The British governed these countries after WW1 as occupied lands

The British never governed Iran.

The British stopped governing Iraq in the early 1930s. As you should know, since that's pretty clear in the snippet you posted.

the comparison of numbers of divisions does not account for the fact that during Op Crusader, the German Italian divisions you mentioned were short on pretty much everything, from artillery shells, to fuel, to food, to tank rounds, due to the harassment of their LOCs

Sure, but that's a different argument. The claim was that the British had more and better everything, not just that their log support was better.

Also, the Axis weren't that short of stuff, since they were days away from launching their own major assault on Tobruk, and were only prevented from doing so by CRUSADER.

[abneo3sierra]

Actually in that snippet it says the military occupation ended in 1947, but close enough.

My only argument was that the earlier post here, questioned why there were not "tank aces" in the desert, and this somehow has led to the question of who was stronger, while my point is primarily that tank aces were not probably (yet still possible) until their side went on the defensive. As I noted a few posts back, my entire comment that these have been based on, was actually an error in my reading of the post that I was replying to.

Still though, having replied to Michael above regarding his statement that before November 1942 the Germans were fighting on only one front, while the British command was fighting in Greece ( this ended as I pointed out, in early 1941) Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc.. my rebuttal to this, was that they were not fighting in the same sense as they were fighting in the "Western Desert"..in these other areas, they were fighting against insurgents who were rebelling against British rule, direct or indirect, of their lands, and the British were fighting to keep their position astride oil supplies, etc, but they were fighting poorly equipped, tribal armies basically, and partisans, while the other German front was Russia, from summer 1941, on. And in that front, Germans were fighting a giant. The German force in Africa was lowest in the line for replacements, reinforcements, etc(rightly so) behind what Hitler saw as "THE war" in the east..while for Britain, until the landings on the continent, Africa was "THE war" and the others mentioned were the side show.

[JonS]

Michael wrote:

Whatever advantages in numbers of troops were available in the theater the British might have enjoyed were most of the time completely counterbalanced by the fact that Middle East Command was fighting on three and sometimes four fronts, whereas the Germans prior to November 8, 1942 were fighting only on one.

And he is quite correct. In the theatre, before Nov 1942, the Germans were only fighting on one front, while the British Middle East Command had multiple simultaneous and consecutive active fronts seperated by thousands of miles.

[JonS]

Actually in that snippet it says the military occupation ended in 1947, but close enough.

Uh, what? The occupation was a consequence of the active military operations there. Before that Iraq was an independant country. In the same way, US occupation of Germany continues to this day, despite Germany being an independant country prior to mid-1945.