Percy Hobart not retired in 1940

[Nytram01]

In 1940, just was War was about to begin in North Africa the decision was made to forcably retire arguably the most forward thinking and driven man in the British Army purely on the basis of his voice being that of a dissenter on British deployment of Armoured units. That man was Percy Hobart.

Hobart today is remembered for training Britain's two best Tank Division of WW2 - the 7th Armoured "Desert Rats" and the 11th Armoured "Black Bulls" - and for his development of the 79th Armoured Division into a specialized unit of the uniquely designed tanks known universally as Hobarts Funnies, but in the 1930's he was known as the most confrontational of all the Tank advocates in the British Military, was rather unpopular with the upper-ranks of the British military, and many were quite pleased to see the back of him when Wavell sent him out to pasture.

Basil Liddell Hart thought the treatment of Hobart a disgrace and wrote of him "He was one of the few soldiers I have known who could be rightly termed a military genius." Churchill agreed that the treatment of Hobart was disgraceful once he'd been made aware of it and got him command of the 11th. When Alan Brooke became CIGS he was a good enough soldier to recognize that British needed men like Hobart and set him the task of developing the 79th despite having previously been an opponent of Hobart. Reportedly, Guderian paid very close attention to Hobart's maneuvers pre-war and to all the observations and assessment he made and considered him a guiding figure in his own development of Armoured warfare.

So, my question here is, what if Hobart had been retained by Wavell instead of retired? Would he have distinguished himself in command of the Desert Rats? And would he have risen to fame as Commander of the 8th Army and proven Liddell Hart right in describing him as a "military genius"?

 

[ranoncles]

Most likely not. Based on his work, he just wasn’t that good. He did have a knack for seeing the potential in things and there’s nothing to suggest he wouldn’t have been able to change his ways and become better/adopt better tactics but it’s unlikely he would have been given the time to grow.

So let’s start at the beginning. Hobart commands the mobile division a.k.a. 7th Armoured before 1940. His greatness at that point lies in the fact that he emphasises realistic desert training. Actual tactics favour tank rushes as the British are firmly embedded to the idea that tanks can fight on their own and don’t need to use combined arms tactics at all. Infantry and artillery are only required to form safe havens where tanks can replenish.

Which means Hobart will do well against the Italians in 1940 and then get his ass kicked by the Germans in 1941. So how long would Churchill retain a general with repeated defeats to his name? Surely not beyond Crusader? Perhaps Hobart will see the error of British tactics and effect immediate changes but considering the fact the British never really got this right during WWII (only started making actual progress after being mauled in Normandy) suggests this is unlikely. Even the 11th Armoured wasn’t particularly well trained in useful combat tactics under Hobart during the mid years of the war. Pip Roberts was forced to create mixed brigade battle groups to alleviate the worst problems.

The 79th Armoured never fought as a unified, single division so one can’t judge Hobart on that. The actual funnies did perform brilliantly so perhaps his genius lay in the fact that he could see the full potential of armoured vehicles but he wasn’t a great tactician?