Jump to content


El Alamein


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

Cruffler #21 Posted Oct 23 2011 - 21:00

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 8223 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    01-06-2011
Well Myy opinion ofSecond El Alamein just was that it was such a one sided affair it couldnt turn out any other way with the lack of supplies and resupply. I have great Respect for Rommel....but Monty well Lets say I like Pattons opinion of him!

I often thoguht in the big alternative history what if scheme that had Hitler not attacked Russia and drove for Moscow but had earlier deployed troops to Finland,and secured more equipment and trainign tot he Romaninas and Hungarians.. .the Reds would have been ina worse sense of flase secuirty.Also had Hitler actually placed a a full fledge army Groupe in North Africa.....they would have drove plumb through Egypt and up through Iraq. Turkey would have enterd the war on Axis side as well by then Hitler could have drove south throguh Russia to the oil fields the then Afirka Corps/Army Grupe could have continued east to Indiaand linked up with the Japanese somehwere along the line. Big what ifs but not entirley far fetched as one would think.

GeneralDirection #22 Posted Oct 23 2011 - 21:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 5992 battles
  • 3,026
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostFryaDuck, on Oct 23 2011 - 09:08, said:

The Chicken - WarGammings military specialist who won't touch anything he may get pulled up on.

Huh?

The_Chieftain #23 Posted Oct 23 2011 - 23:45

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 19356 battles
  • 10,015
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
With respect to Monty, you can't argue much which success. He acted very cautiously in times where  lost gambits would have been almost unrecoverable, and when he struck, he was sure to wait until it was as unfair a fight as possible, which doesn't strike me as being a particularly poor trait.

Market Garden may have been uncharacteristic of him given his earlier performance in the war, but on the other hand, the situation was not the same. A failed Market Garden was not likely to result in the Germans pushing back to Paris in the same manner that screwing up in North Africa could result in the Axis going to Alexandria.

anglomanii #24 Posted Oct 23 2011 - 23:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1297 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    02-13-2011

View PostCruffler, on Oct 23 2011 - 21:00, said:

Well Myy opinion ofSecond El Alamein just was that it was such a one sided affair it couldnt turn out any other way with the lack of supplies and resupply. I have great Respect for Rommel....but Monty well Lets say I like Pattons opinion of him!

I often thoguht in the big alternative history what if scheme that had Hitler not attacked Russia and drove for Moscow but had earlier deployed troops to Finland,and secured more equipment and trainign tot he Romaninas and Hungarians.. .the Reds would have been ina worse sense of flase secuirty.Also had Hitler actually placed a a full fledge army Groupe in North Africa.....they would have drove plumb through Egypt and up through Iraq. Turkey would have enterd the war on Axis side as well by then Hitler could have drove south throguh Russia to the oil fields the then Afirka Corps/Army Grupe could have continued east to Indiaand linked up with the Japanese somehwere along the line. Big what ifs but not entirley far fetched as one would think.

well said. a big "what if" but it was at El Alamein that those hopes where dashed. you are correct in saying the threat from this battle would have been great to russia, in my opinion it is far too often overlooked in in it's global importance. i see it in the same realm as the seige of Tobruk.


p.s. The_Chieftain: if the DAK did win El Alamein, what do you think the logical out come would have been?

Red_Rick #25 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 00:47

    Private

  • Players
  • 5522 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

View PostPanzerHale, on Oct 23 2011 - 02:25, said:

Its a battle that doesnt get talked about enough though because of the sheer numbers on the Eastern Front. 1940 to 1942 were lonely years for the Empire yet by the time the American's actually got boots on the ground in 1942, the tide was turning due to steadfast hardwork and sacrifice in North Africa and Russia.
I'm very biased but I really do think that the work and sacrifice of the British (Great Britain and the rest of the Empire) while everyone else watched on is forgotten about and maligned. After the fall of France, all the might of Germany and Italy fell on the British and they stood against it.
Even games like WoT do this quietly in adopting the French stream of tanks before British.

Edit, just to add, I'm not slagging off the Americans here, Lend/lease was massively important and its another area that isn't spoken about enough. The British convoys to Murmansk to supply the Russians with lend lease equipment, whether it be American or British helped the Russians out immensely as well as American muscle supplying Britain when our industry simply wasn't up to it.


I agree....Its hard from my own point of view considering the major players in WW2 not to see the Brits in the next release. I wonder when World of ships comes out if the UK is again left out in favor of the tiny Russian fleet...or World of planes for that matter....

Valkeiper #26 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 03:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011
I know this is slightly off topic; but I'm desperate for the answer.

I have been taking screenshots of my garage displays after my battles and wish to submit it for the MVP contest. i can't seem to find the screenshots, though.

Where can i find the screenshots?

Killer30CoD #27 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 04:15

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9688 battles
  • 964
  • [_MLP] _MLP
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011
Now how in the hell did a flame war start? Who cares about who deserves more credit in the war, we won, now get over it! @FryaDuck WTF are you going on about? @those who argue about something that was settled close to 80 years ago, why do you keep going on about this?

Killer30CoD #28 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 04:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9688 battles
  • 964
  • [_MLP] _MLP
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011

View PostValkeiper, on Oct 24 2011 - 03:08, said:

I know this is slightly off topic; but I'm desperate for the answer.

I have been taking screenshots of my garage displays after my battles and wish to submit it for the MVP contest. i can't seem to find the screenshots, though.

Where can i find the screenshots?
check documents, or if you have a printer connected, check the storage for that.

Chopa #29 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 05:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 42189 battles
  • 491
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

View PostCruffler, on Oct 23 2011 - 21:00, said:

Well Myy opinion ofSecond El Alamein just was that it was such a one sided affair it couldnt turn out any other way with the lack of supplies and resupply. I have great Respect for Rommel....but Monty well Lets say I like Pattons opinion of him!


  What? That he put him in mind of a "Very fierce rabbit"?

  Personally I rather think Churchill understood him best: "Indomitable in retreat, invincible in advance, insufferable in victory." — Prime Minister Winston Churchill's observation of "Monty" in Spring of 1943.

PALADIN_DO #30 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 05:35

    Private

  • Players
  • 9062 battles
  • 6
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
With all that said.I think the turning point in the war is the Supprise Attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, if that never Happen i dont think Britain can fight the Germans toe to toe w/o the resources of America.

Golf_One_Four #31 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 06:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 53095 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 22 2011 - 15:14, said:

The best tank Rommel had was the Panzer IV F2 with the long L/43 75mm gun but there were only 30 of these available. Another eight Panzer IVs were still armed with the short L/24 75mm. Most German mediums at Alamein were Panzer IIIs


  I was wondering why Panzer III/IV tanks are not part of this special, earning more XP? My Panzer 3/4 has 1,664 battles. It is my baby.

SpruceMoosey #32 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 12:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6968 battles
  • 644
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

View PostOrangesLuvMe, on Oct 23 2011 - 03:37, said:

Explain Operation Market-Garden then?


It's quoting Winston Churchill dude.  I don't think he's going to dig himself out of the grave to answer your dumb ass forum fail.

Abacab81 #33 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 14:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18379 battles
  • 1,370
  • [ISI] ISI
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOrangesLuvMe, on Oct 23 2011 - 03:37, said:

Explain Operation Market-Garden then?

Market-Garden was an ambitious plan, to start with, although, and Montgomery was convinced he could pull it off, and, when you read the accounts of it, it was slow going, but the British and Americans could have pulled it off

The main reason it became such a "balls up" was due to a failure in the intelligence assessment.  The urge to have the war over by Christmas was running high in Britain at the time.  By mid-to-late 1944, the British were starting really feel the strain of the prolonged conflict. The urge to get the war over was strong among Parliament leaders, the public, and plenty of members of the armed forces. Montgomery's plan seemed like the bold stroke to end the war, and start bringing the men home, and begin the long process of healing from 6 years of sustained conflict.  

Montgomery's plan was bold, it was dashing, and if it had succeeded (this where one enters into historical conjecture, and it's ground I am never comfortable being on) it quite possibly could have ended the war earlier.   The Germans moved the 9th and 10th SS divisions to the Arnhem area to rest and refit.  There presence was noted, or at least the presence of tanks, was noted in the area, which the British blithely wrote off with comments such as "of course they're tanks, old chap, but their guns are most likely broken, so I would worry so much about them".  or "What are a few broken tanks going to do? They'll probably run off at the first sight of us."  Brian Urquhart, an officer (Lieutenant, I believe?) who was one that was evaluating the recon photos of the Arnhem area, was gravely concerned about the proposed operation, due to the presence of so many tanks, but he was basically ignored.

That was the main reason for the British being stopped at Arnhem, it was a colossal intelligence failure on the part of the British.  And, we might as well include our intelligence types too, because they had access to the information, evaluated it, and came to the same conclusions.  

The other British failure, as some historians like to call it, was not utilizing the Dutch underground to assist the British Airborne, once they got on the ground.  Historians have called ia "grave failure" or a "failure of the highest order".  The British had good reasons for not trusting the Dutch underground, due to the fact that big parts of it, if not the whole thing, had been compromised by the Germans.  To gain a better understanding, read Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks.  

Because of the presence of large German forces in the area, that were not taken into account in the planning, that is main reason for the failure.  Could the plan have worked otherwise? Who knows, it's done, it's 67 years in the past, we will never know.  It can be "gamed out" and I believe it has on many occasions,  but that is not always a good indicator of who would have succeeded.  

As far as being a British, or Allied "defeat" I am not sure that is true.  Most of the objectives were obtained, and the Germans were dealt a hard blow.  It certainly was not the crushing defeat some historians, with a bias against Montgomery, have suggested.  A "strategic defeat", maybe one could call it that, but if one looks at it from the stand point of "did it disrupt Allied strategy,?" Then, no.  A tactical defeat?  Certainly. Arnhem was the only objective not achieved, and since it is often considered the "main" objective, that is the yardstick many historians use to classify what happened at Arnhem as a strategic defeat.  However, when the overall plan is looked at, each and every one of those bridges was considered the "main" objective.  If any one of the bridges had been lost, it would have put the whole plan in jeopardy.  If the U.S. airborne troops at either Eindhoven or Nijmegen  had been unable to secure their bridges, then the British position at Arnhem, even if they had held the bridge, and defeated the Germans, would have been rendered moot.  The fact that all of the bridges sans one were taken and held, gives Monty's plan partial vindication.  The failure at Arnhem was due to poor intelligence, information that was almost willfully ignored, is what caused the British to essentially lose an entire Airborne division.

Abacab81 #34 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 15:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18379 battles
  • 1,370
  • [ISI] ISI
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
For further reading on El Alamein, consider this book:

Pendulum of War By Niall Barr.

It chronicles the Battles at El Alamein. Well written.

For more general reading on the North African theatre there is

An Army At Dawn By Ken Atkinson,

and

Path to Victory by Douglas Porch.

sheep21 #35 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 21:02

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11047 battles
  • 160
  • [NRFD] NRFD
  • Member since:
    09-16-2010
Monty's generalship was very much coloured by his experiences in WW1 and serving on the western front with the Infantry, after seeing so many botched attack and poor organisation he was all about training, supply, training, supply and more training and not to waste his mens lives or material.
Something that is quite crucial when your fighting a land battle several hundreds of miles (thousands if convoys were forced to go via south africa instead of the med) away from your production centres with the possibility of enemy interdiction via air or sea every step of the way from England to Alexandria. 98% of Axis personnel were delivered safely to Ports in North Africa and the Balkans along with 90% of their material(ISBN 978-1-84908-380-5). It is a myth that Rommel's forces were seriously disrupted by sea-based interdiction, the main problem was the long road journeys from the major port to the front + allied air superiority.


Monty was the right general for the right time and this in no way disparages any other Allied war leaders.
In my view Sir Dudley Pound, RN (of PQ-17 fame) and Ernest King, USN are two of the most questionable allied leaders.

Valkeiper #36 Posted Oct 24 2011 - 23:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostKiller30CoD, on Oct 24 2011 - 04:16, said:

check documents, or if you have a printer connected, check the storage for that.

I eventually found my folder for screenshots and discovered i had made a mistake. I had been 'saving' my screenshots by pressing "Control + Printscreen" when it should have been "Function + Printscreen".

Thus, no screenshots.

Gortthrob #37 Posted Oct 25 2011 - 07:30

    Private

  • Players
  • 11690 battles
  • 8
  • [R-INC] R-INC
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011
It may not have been the British' first victory of the war but the Commonwealths first victory must surely be the "Siege of Tobruk" http://en.wikipedia....iege_of_Tobruk. And while we didn't have tanks we certainly faced them.

The Australian 9th Division also fought at El Alamein so it is good to mention them in this thread.

PanzerHale #38 Posted Oct 25 2011 - 09:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4425 battles
  • 25
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostGortthrob, on Oct 25 2011 - 07:30, said:

It may not have been the British' first victory of the war but the Commonwealths first victory must surely be the "Siege of Tobruk"
This is a bit of a silly thing to say mate. We were British during the war and to an extent we still are. If it was a British victory then it was also an Australian victory. If it was a Commonwealth (British Empire) victory, then it was a British victory.
They were at that stage essentially the same thing.

Sealteam6 #39 Posted Oct 25 2011 - 09:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12434 battles
  • 2,202
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

View PostAbacab81, on Oct 24 2011 - 14:54, said:

Market-Garden was an ambitious plan, to start with, although, and Montgomery was convinced he could pull it off, and, when you read the accounts of it, it was slow going, but the British and Americans could have pulled it off

The main reason it became such a "balls up" was due to a failure in the intelligence assessment.  The urge to have the war over by Christmas was running high in Britain at the time.  By mid-to-late 1944, the British were starting really feel the strain of the prolonged conflict. The urge to get the war over was strong among Parliament leaders, the public, and plenty of members of the armed forces. Montgomery's plan seemed like the bold stroke to end the war, and start bringing the men home, and begin the long process of healing from 6 years of sustained conflict.  

Montgomery's plan was bold, it was dashing, and if it had succeeded (this where one enters into historical conjecture, and it's ground I am never comfortable being on) it quite possibly could have ended the war earlier.   The Germans moved the 9th and 10th SS divisions to the Arnhem area to rest and refit.  There presence was noted, or at least the presence of tanks, was noted in the area, which the British blithely wrote off with comments such as "of course they're tanks, old chap, but their guns are most likely broken, so I would worry so much about them".  or "What are a few broken tanks going to do? They'll probably run off at the first sight of us."  Brian Urquhart, an officer (Lieutenant, I believe?) who was one that was evaluating the recon photos of the Arnhem area, was gravely concerned about the proposed operation, due to the presence of so many tanks, but he was basically ignored.

That was the main reason for the British being stopped at Arnhem, it was a colossal intelligence failure on the part of the British.  And, we might as well include our intelligence types too, because they had access to the information, evaluated it, and came to the same conclusions.  

The other British failure, as some historians like to call it, was not utilizing the Dutch underground to assist the British Airborne, once they got on the ground.  Historians have called ia "grave failure" or a "failure of the highest order".  The British had good reasons for not trusting the Dutch underground, due to the fact that big parts of it, if not the whole thing, had been compromised by the Germans.  To gain a better understanding, read Between Silk and Cyanide by Leo Marks.  

Because of the presence of large German forces in the area, that were not taken into account in the planning, that is main reason for the failure.  Could the plan have worked otherwise? Who knows, it's done, it's 67 years in the past, we will never know.  It can be "gamed out" and I believe it has on many occasions,  but that is not always a good indicator of who would have succeeded.  

As far as being a British, or Allied "defeat" I am not sure that is true.  Most of the objectives were obtained, and the Germans were dealt a hard blow.  It certainly was not the crushing defeat some historians, with a bias against Montgomery, have suggested.  A "strategic defeat", maybe one could call it that, but if one looks at it from the stand point of "did it disrupt Allied strategy,?" Then, no.  A tactical defeat?  Certainly. Arnhem was the only objective not achieved, and since it is often considered the "main" objective, that is the yardstick many historians use to classify what happened at Arnhem as a strategic defeat.  However, when the overall plan is looked at, each and every one of those bridges was considered the "main" objective.  If any one of the bridges had been lost, it would have put the whole plan in jeopardy.  If the U.S. airborne troops at either Eindhoven or Nijmegen  had been unable to secure their bridges, then the British position at Arnhem, even if they had held the bridge, and defeated the Germans, would have been rendered moot.  The fact that all of the bridges sans one were taken and held, gives Monty's plan partial vindication.  The failure at Arnhem was due to poor intelligence, information that was almost willfully ignored, is what caused the British to essentially lose an entire Airborne division.

I enjoyed that Aba

I would like to make a few points as well as I have been there & studied the battle in detail a long long time ago.
Like you said, the British knew of the German forces resting close by (II SS Panzer Corps) but after the mauling of them during the escape from the Falise pocket considered them no threat, the refit consisted of giving them auxiliaries made up off Luftwaffe ground crew & pilots without planes to act as a fire brigade, serviceable vehicles were almost none & the few they managed to get working was due to massive cannibalization.
Just organising any sort of counter attack was a miracle by itself, the Victory was a major feat of arms.

The Failure was solely on the Air Commanders shoulders, he insisted the Para's & Gliders land so far away from the Arnhem bridges to keep away from known Flak batteries on the proposed flight paths as he wanted to keep Aircraft losses to a minimum to due the extreme losses in Bomber command, The on ground Commanders insisted they be dropped around the bridges & the gliders land next to them Ergo Pegasus bridge operation, they were overruled by the Air Commander, Willi Bitterich, in charge of the II SS Panzer Corps was in his HQ not far from Arnhem & saw the Bombers & Gliders flying over head & started seeing parachutes opening & organised his troops to conduct sweep operations after the scouts had found all the LZ's, whilst this was being done he heard Nimijin was under attack & worked out real quick what this Airbourne landings Target was & set up a defence which was never penetrated, the British Paras were too late to get to Arnhem & the rest history.

Had a Pegasus style of operation been carried out where the gliders landed next to the Arnhem bridges, no doubt history would of been different.

It is interesting to know that Although Willi Bitterich was Commander of the entire II SS Panzer Corps, he was Totally anti nazi after he learnt how insane his Masters were, Himmler ordered his arrest on several occasions for this & the Gestapo never got past the Guards on the front gates to his HQ's, as one Guard said to the Gestapo, you have to get past every man in the whole Corps to get to Uncle Willi, This Corps was never charged with any War crime & the Leadership of this Corps acted as defence for other innocent SS units that fought with honor that abided by the Geneva conventions at Nurnberg.

Gortthrob #40 Posted Oct 25 2011 - 11:33

    Private

  • Players
  • 11690 battles
  • 8
  • [R-INC] R-INC
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostPanzerHale, on Oct 25 2011 - 09:10, said:

This is a bit of a silly thing to say mate. We were British during the war and to an extent we still are. If it was a British victory then it was also an Australian victory. If it was a Commonwealth (British Empire) victory, then it was a British victory.
They were at that stage essentially the same thing.

Britain is a very specific entity, that is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Commonwealth is separate from that, the Australians who fought at Tobruk were not British.

Mind you there were a lot of British soldiers fighting there so It is all good. All I was responding to was the Churchill Quote in the OP




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users