| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > El Alamein |
| Posted by: Marius July 24, 2004 08:03 pm |
| Can you help me here. I need more information about the defeat of Rommel by Monty. So if you know anything please write. :beer: |
| Posted by: Diego August 15, 2004 10:56 pm |
| Marius, try to find a copy of the following book:
"Fighting the Desert Fox" by John Delaney, Cassell & Co., London 1998 This provides a pretty good overview of operations in North Africa from early 1941 through the El Alamein battles of 1942. Useful maps and photos included. If you add the following two books, you'll get a pretty good idea of the whole North African campaign: "Operation Compass 1940" by Jon Latimer, Osprey, Oxford 2000: operations from the start of the campaign until Rommel's landing. "An Army at Dawn" by Rick Atkinson, H.Holt & Co. 2002: U.S. operations from the Torch landings through the end in Tunisia. Some information on the 8th Army operations in the eastern part of the theater as well. Best, Diego |
| Posted by: ^All^ September 19, 2004 01:35 pm |
| Marius If you live in Romania at Editura Bogdana (the ex Editura Z) has a coleciton called War. There you will find a book called Batalia de la El Alamein. :cheers: |
| Posted by: Iamandi September 20, 2004 11:37 am |
| You may post please an adress of this editure? Or a link to his home page, if he had one? 10x! Iama |
| Posted by: Dani September 20, 2004 11:46 am |
| ^All^ and Iama, All books from "Z" publishing house or "Bogdana" are novels (fiction). Anyway check the link below: http://www.aer.ro/ro/edituri.asp?id=127&paid=0 |
| Posted by: ^All^ September 26, 2004 01:07 am | ||
Sorry, did't had time to read the book about El Alamein to see if it's fictios or not, but not all their books are fictios for example the book written by Andy McNab or the Desert Rats written by the commander of the 8-th Army during the Golf war. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore June 07, 2005 09:51 am |
| I once stumbled on a thick second-hand book on the second battle of Alamein. Don't remember the author and I'm not home to check. I was initially not interested but it was very cheap so I told myself "for cold winter evenings". I did not regret it. It was a very meticulous study of the offensive from a British pov. It was also usefull to get into the British mindset of the time and also got me to know a bit about Monthy. When I reached the last pages I could fit the work into the frame of more general studies. My end thoughts were something like "so that's what it takes for Monty to defeat an enemy. Wow. The guy was quite lucky he didn't have to wage war with Rommel's ressources. That would have been interesting to see". |
| Posted by: PanzerKing June 09, 2005 01:16 am |
| I think it was one of the first battles for the Wehrmacht where defeating the enemy wouldn't have been a problem with the proper supplies, fuel, and reserves. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore June 09, 2005 08:08 am | ||
The geographical situation and the land mines left no other solution than attritional warfare. The British won because the Germans had none of the items you listed in quantities approaching the British level. If you give both sides equal ressources then the defender would have held a considerable advantage. I think that El Alamein 2 was closer to WWI than mobile desert warfare. It was not very typical. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2005 10:33 am |
| Hi Chandernagore, I think you can extend the WWI analogy further to most WWII battles. The actual breakthrough period, with masses of men and materiel employed on narrow frontages, often strongly ressembled WWI battles. WWII battles tended to differ from WWI battles during the exploitation phase, when extremely rapid and deep ranging movement by mechanised formations achieved penetrations impossible during WWI. For example, Rommel's breakthrough of the British Gazala line in May-June 1942 had taken just as long as Montgomery's breakthrough at El Alamein in October-November 1942. It was from there that he exploited up to the El Alamein position. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore June 09, 2005 12:03 pm | ||
Mostly agree. Minefields were to desert warfare what trenches were to WWI. Of course there wasn't much mechanized forces to exploit any breakthrough for the major part of WWI. If you except a few operational stand -offs the desert war in north Africa was however very mobile, from O'Connors offensive right to the end in Tunisia. |
| Posted by: Iamandi June 09, 2005 12:12 pm | ||
| Yes, was an attrition war, but was in some ways differend then World War 1. Was more mobile, because of new military technic (more advanced) - rapid tanks then in ww1, aviation had a more major role then at time of ww1, and in some aspects was more mobile then that. I say this regarding to what means all war in Africa. And, of course there was more tactical thinking then in world war one. And, what Sid say here:
was different in the last part of ww1 to the rest of this war in minds of briliant tacticians, and i think if Germany was not perturbed by internal revolt the war can extend over the 1919, momment were was possible to see a different type of war, different then what was the majority of first world war. Unfortunately, in practice were not so much achievements because that tanks were underpowered, non-fiable, ... , were at first stage of their life (example: gases in crew compartment); planes much adapted to tactical needs were not introduces and used in large scale, because war was over. Let's not forget some: at the time of the ww1 were developed new tactics - first thinking in blitzkrieg tactics, first steps to assault planes by Camels of british with small bombs and pilots with missions to straffe, and bomb trenches, trains, artilery and whatever looks importand, and by German part with planes tended to look more like military planes and distinct roles -> assault planes, planes armed with 20 m.m. machinecanons for tank destroyer missions. War was ended so early! But, quilty were top military commanders and theyr stoopid thinking mode. Clear thing, majority of that leaders were limited in thinking! But, for this separate subject i will open a new topic soon in section dedicated to pre ww2 time. Iama |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 09, 2005 12:23 pm |
| Hi Iamandi, Hitler also blamed Germany's defeat in WWII on internal revolt. However, this is to evade the truth, which was that Germany's internal disturbances were the direct result of failure in the field. Germany's internal cohesion wasn't under threat in 1914. It was by 1918. If Germany had staggered on into 1919, we might, indeed, have seen a different kind of war, but it would have been conducted by the Allies as they swept across Germany. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Jeff_S June 09, 2005 03:03 pm | ||
While the appearance of mechanized forces was certainly important, I don't think it was the only reason the war in North Africa was more mobile. Look at the troop densities. They were much lower than those you see in Western Europe. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore June 09, 2005 05:57 pm | ||||
Good point. No way you could create a continuous front. Except at a few location like El Alamein  |
| Posted by: Jeff_S June 09, 2005 06:04 pm | ||
El Alamein, Tobruk, I think some of the Tunisia fighting in 1943 was fairly static as well. Other than that, my understanding was that it was quite mobile even where the percentage of mechanized units was small. (which it was on all sides) North Africa's hardly my specialty. |
| Posted by: Imperialist June 10, 2005 05:21 pm | ||
The only thing that was new in Blitzkrieg was the tank and tactical air support, otherwise the theory and practice of blitzkrieg is as old as the history of organised warfare. |
| Posted by: sid guttridge June 11, 2005 09:06 am |
| Hi Jeff-S, I wonder if it is really true that troop densities were exceptionally low in North Africa. The actual fighting almost all took place within about 80 kilometres of the coast and was largely dependent on the great coastal road built by the Italians between the wars. It was logistically virtually impossible to employ major forces further inland for any significant period. Rommel had the equivalent of some ten German and Italian divisions to defend about 80 kilometres at El Alamein. The terrain was extremely open and offered the attacker little cover. When the extensive minefields are added in (not a problem in WWI) this was not a particularly easy position to crack by frontal assault. In discussing North Africa, it should also be recalled that the Italians sent their best forces there and that these often fought stubbornly. In particular, it was the Italians who usually manned the fixed front line defences and usually bore the first impact of British Commonwealth assaults. This was not a German-only theatre. Cheers, Sid. |
| Posted by: Iamandi June 11, 2005 02:32 pm | ||||
Salut! I asked myself what is with your absence here... I think you had exams, no? About your comment, yes, basic of blitzkreig is old. The concept was practiced with another type of mobile units: cavalry (*). But, let's not developed this here, i will open a new topic in pre world war 2 dedicated segment of this forum, if nothing appears in my LAN, at my job. Iama |
| Posted by: Chandernagore June 11, 2005 02:37 pm | ||||
Disagree somewhat. The single most important technical advance which made the modern blitz possible at all was the radio. The blitz was much more about command control. |
| Posted by: dragos June 11, 2005 03:01 pm |
| For discussion on Blitzkrieg, please follow the existing topic: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1761 |
| Posted by: Imperialist November 04, 2005 10:01 pm | ||
There were important achievements. The inadequate exhaust present in Mark I british tanks were fixed by 1917s with the apparition of the Mark III tank. Armour was upgraded too, as the germans were starting to use armour piercing bullets. The fuel tanks were also placed on the outside. All in all, the tanks were increasingly fiable for those times, but the revolution in their use was not there yet. take care |
| Posted by: sid guttridge November 05, 2005 10:20 am |
| Hi Imperialist, Very true. In WWI the British and French had developed tanks to the point where they could achieve a breakthrough. The Germans had done the same with their improved infantry tactics. However, neither side was able to exploit a breakthrough because they did not have the necessary doctrine and the necessary reliable mechanised assets to do so. For example, tanks then moved at little more than walking pace and were mechanically extremely unreliable. They were still incapable of deep exploitation. The inter-war years gave time for all sides to develop the necessary doctrine and material assets to put it into practice. The Germans were most effective at this, probably because victory had made the Allies complacent. By 1939 only the Germans had managed to combine reliable armour and mechanisation, their superior infantry tactics and the new element of close air support into an effective doctrine - the Blitzkrieg. Other people had similar ideas, but only the Germans had actually made them effective by the beginning of WWII. Cheers, Sid. |