Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sidi Rezegh historical/winning solution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sidi Rezegh historical/winning solution

    I think the plan that Major Kummel used, and the winning readers used, to send two companies north onto the Trigh Capuzzo is terribly risky. I understand that it worked historically, but in spite of that the plan seems reckless.

    Suppose the first British company is destroyed on the trails coming up to Hill 175.

    Then the two German companies attack along the Trigh Capuzzo. Removing the one company already destroyed, that leaves 8 British versus only 2 German companies!!

    This plan seems to count on disorganization and panic to completely disarm the British. But what if they don't panic? If the British hold it together, the odds are 4-1 in their favor on the engagement along the Trigh Capuzzo. This seems extremely dangerous, and likely to result in the loss of the two German companies.

    It's too daring by half, and the fact that it worked can only be attributed to luck, poor British leadership, or both.

    My own plan was to use two Panzer companies to check the advance up the trails to Hill 175, and then use the third to screen the wide open right (east) flank, from which further British troops might suddenly appear. I thought this a prudent solution which, while it wouldn't eliminate the British force, would at least check the British attack, keep the airfield, and preserve my own force. For this plan, I got an Honorable Mention in the magazine.

    Even knowing the 'winning' solution, I wouldn't use it. I would still use some variant of my plan, which offers a high probability of success, and little opportunity for my own force to be destroyed.

    Thoughts?

  • #2
    defense

    I was a little fooled by the effect of attacking at the brits point of entry. I chose to do this, but had no idea it would bottle neck and plug up the entry point, and so I planned to destroy as many as possible upon entry, and then command a firing retreat against the remaining enemy force. Lapse in intelligence I guess, or my own lack of thoroughness. Write back if anyone else had this same problem.:bang:

    Comment


    • #3
      The reality is that the odds were so greatly against the Germans that unless every available gun is brought to bear at the bottleneck there is no hope of victory. When faced with such numbers only the extreme (and to some irrational) approach can suceed.
      Lance W.

      Peace through superior firepower.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree

        the plan is risky, but when you are outnumbered as badly as the Germans were...you MUST take risks to be successful. The main issue I had was the idea of attacking the British instead of ambushing them in a fire-sack in front of the airfield or on the road, with your tanks in place. No WWII tanks fired with any degree of accuracy while moving, certainly not at moving targets. If I'm the British commander, a moving engagement is to my liking,..I can shoten the range quicker, maximize the advantage of my superior speed, and the German advantage in range is minimized by their poorer accuracy. The reader that attributed the success of the historical plan to the "poor British leadership" or panic is correct. If the British keep their heads, mix with the attacking panzers, they have a great chance of overwhelming the 2 attacking companies, cutting off the ambush element, and regaining their airfield.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sidi Rezegh historical/winning solution

          Originally posted by runyan99
          I think the plan that Major Kummel used, and the winning readers used, to send two companies north onto the Trigh Capuzzo is terribly risky. I understand that it worked historically, but in spite of that the plan seems reckless.

          Suppose the first British company is destroyed on the trails coming up to Hill 175.

          Then the two German companies attack along the Trigh Capuzzo. Removing the one company already destroyed, that leaves 8 British versus only 2 German companies!!

          This plan seems to count on disorganization and panic to completely disarm the British. But what if they don't panic? If the British hold it together, the odds are 4-1 in their favor on the engagement along the Trigh Capuzzo. This seems extremely dangerous, and likely to result in the loss of the two German companies.

          It's too daring by half, and the fact that it worked can only be attributed to luck, poor British leadership, or both.

          My own plan was to use two Panzer companies to check the advance up the trails to Hill 175, and then use the third to screen the wide open right (east) flank, from which further British troops might suddenly appear. I thought this a prudent solution which, while it wouldn't eliminate the British force, would at least check the British attack, keep the airfield, and preserve my own force. For this plan, I got an Honorable Mention in the magazine.

          Even knowing the 'winning' solution, I wouldn't use it. I would still use some variant of my plan, which offers a high probability of success, and little opportunity for my own force to be destroyed.

          Thoughts?
          This was my reasoning, and powered my solution. Then again, many successful operations began as discredited ideas or theories. Success or failure can often hinge on the most trivial of circumstances. One example may be the fact that Hitler was sleeping when the D-Day landings began, and nobody was willing to wake him, keeping reserve formations in reserve.
          Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
          (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X