Mark1878
Donor
I thought the point of being at El Alamein was there were no flanks so no flanking manoeuves, which is why Auckinleck chose it (not Montgomery)
I thought the point of being at El Alamein was there were no flanks so no flanking manoeuves, which is why Auckinleck chose it (not Montgomery)That seemed to be the way things went in OTL a pinning attack then a flanking manoeuvre South into the desert, until Montgomery reversed things at El Alamein.
Yep, it was one of the only choke-points in the theatre (Halfaya Pass was was another IIRC), no room to manoeuvre, you just had to slowly grind away at the enemy until one side broke.I thought the point of being at El Alamein was there were no flanks so no flanking manoeuves, which is why Auckinleck chose it (not Montgomery)
The Brave option would be an amphibious assault on Tripoli. Churchill would wet himself in excitement at the prospect. Alan Brooke would be horrified at the risk.So after only "Left" hooks, whey not go for a "Right " hook. That would caught the Italians and Germans by surprise. A landing behind their lines would not be something that would be included in their plans or preparations.
Definitely. He needed to take up his position in the Officers' Mental Home...These were ‘different’ but Wingate was questionably medically certifiable.
The procurement office?Definitely. He needed to take up his position in the Officers' Mental Home...
Which is not the case when Montgomery was attacking which was with a feint to the south & the main attack in the north.I thought the point of being at El Alamein was there were no flanks so no flanking manoeuves, which is why Auckinleck chose it (not Montgomery)
yes but no FLANKING manouevre but straight forward into an enemy position (as Rommel had done in the first battle of El Alamein) so not comparable to the rest of the NA campaignWhich is not the case when Montgomery was attacking which was with a feint to the south & the main attack in the north.
And in this war, unnecessary. Operations of that sort are the resort of armies which are on the back foot, not the front. It would only be a slight exaggeration to suggest that all, if not most British special forces operations in WW2 were councils of desperation; the sort of thing you do when you have difficulty in harming your enemy any other way. There are some exceptions.As in "eccentric" or "lunatic"?
He's the Army's drillmaster. No better man for training the troops.Wonder were monty will get his recognition now that North Africa is wrapping up?
He does have the knack for training and building up unitsHe's the Army's drillmaster. No better man for training the troops.
I doubt it. ships like that are too precious, and too vulnerable to aircraft or artillery to be worth risking in such a way.The Brave option would be an amphibious assault on Tripoli. Churchill would wet himself in excitement at the prospect. Alan Brooke would be horrified at the risk.
They could be potentially useful in tying down Japanese forces on the Thailand-Burma border.And in this war, unnecessary. Operations of that sort are the resort of armies which are on the back foot, not the front. It would only be a slight exaggeration to suggest that all, if not most British special forces operations in WW2 were councils of desperation; the sort of thing you do when you have difficulty in harming your enemy any other way. There are some exceptions.
It was in the vicinity of thirty miles from the Mediterranean to the north edge of the Qattara Depression, as far as I can understand from Alam Halfa maps. So large-scale 'flanking' moves were difficult, but there was space to try local stuff.I thought the point of being at El Alamein was there were no flanks so no flanking manoeuves, which is why Auckinleck chose it (not Montgomery)
To repeat myself. There's no problem the proper application of a Warspite (along with a Valiant, Barham and Queen Elizabeth) can't solve.I doubt it. ships like that are too precious, and too vulnerable to aircraft or artillery to be worth risking in such a way.
Well prepared airfields out of effective firing range. They're not great against mines or submarines either.To repeat myself. There's no problem the proper application of a Warspite (along with a Valiant, Barham and Queen Elizabeth) can't solve.
I believe HMS Dreadnaught holds the record as the only battleship to successfully attack a submarine 😁Well prepared airfields out of effective firing range. They're not great against mines or submarines either.
And that appears to have been her only actual success more-or-less.I believe HMS Dreadnaught holds the record as the only battleship to successfully attack a submarine 😁
They're probably low on ammunition too.Have to wonder how the German and Italian air forces in NA are doing right now they must be hitting the limit of their operational endurance given the lack of spares due to the convoy's not making it to them in any shape or form.