Stemming the Tide........

The battle of EL Alamein marked a significant turning point in the North African theatre of WW2. Success in the battle put the initiative back in British hands. But was British success assured from the outset of Montogomerys offensive? Could the Afrika Corps stalemate or defeat the Eighth army and how would this effect the course of WW2?
Any thoughts?
 
At this time, the Allies had several times of men and material than Rommel had. So it was almost impossible to lose.
 
A complete commitment by Germany of 4 mobile divs, which would require Hitler to mollify Mussolini, in the winter of 1940-41 is the only way for the Axis to win in Nth Africa. IOTL they farted around until it was too late.
 
The battle of EL Alamein marked a significant turning point in the North African theatre of WW2. Success in the battle put the initiative back in British hands. But was British success assured from the outset of Montogomerys offensive? Could the Afrika Corps stalemate or defeat the Eighth army and how would this effect the course of WW2?
Any thoughts?
IOTL by the time of the Battle of El-Alamein British subs and maratime strike aircraft based in Malta were playing havoc with Rommel's supply lines. So I dare say while Rommel may manage to fight the allies to a halt he would not have the resources for a renewed offensive.
 
At this time, the Allies had several times of men and material than Rommel had. So it was almost impossible to lose.
Monty "the genius":rolleyes: almost managed it anyhow. He let Rommel get away afterward!:eek::confused::mad: Even slightly agressive pursuit, no Tunis Pocket for months after Torch, Husky goes off months sooner, Mussolini falls much sooner, & the war ends sooner.
 
Monty "the genius" almost managed it anyhow. He let Rommel get away afterward! Even slightly agressive pursuit, no Tunis Pocket for months after Torch, Husky goes off months sooner, Mussolini falls much sooner, & the war ends sooner.
Yep Monty was an idiot. If only he had conducted a more Aggressive Pursuit I am sure Rommel would be out for the count. Oh wait! Aggressive British pursuits of Axis forces in the past sent us back to El Alamein when units were overstretched for a counterattack. Slow and sure are better then fast and loose. Monty was cautious and frustrating. I certainly would not liked to have worked with him as a fellow commander however he should be considered a British hero for his actions in North Africa. El Alamein really signalled the turn around for the UK. It's because he took the time to resupply and prepare that caused him to win the battle.
 
Aggressive British pursuits of Axis forces in the past sent us back to El Alamein when units were overstretched for a counterattack.
At a time when 8h Army tanks outnumbered Rommel, what, 4:1?:confused: This is up there with Monty's excuses after claiming he'd "set the front on fire" after D-day, & stalled at Caen into July.
 
Monty deliberately organized such that the first phase of offensive effectively destroyed Rommel's supplies and committed his(Rommel's) reserves, leaving absolutely nothing for Rommel to challenge Supercharge with.

What's wrong with planning a campaign in such a way that the only question is the degree of your victory?

And had Montgomery been advised as to Operation Torch? If so, had he been permitted to release this news to his staff that they might plan accordingly?
 

Markus

Banned
But was British success assured from the outset of Montogomerys offensive? Could the Afrika Corps stalemate or defeat the Eighth army and how would this effect the course of WW2?

German failure was assured from the outset because of logistics and that does not mean Malta. Even without it little would have changed as the only port with a half decent capacity was Tripoli. Benghazi and Tobruk were very small and exposed to RAF raids. Worst of all Libya lacked a decent rail road line along the coast. IIRC there was one narrow gauge line that ended far short of Tobruk, so all supplies had to be transported by truck. That meant as soon as the Axis forces went past the Egyptian border there were not enough of them to move all the supplies the Axis needed. On top of that fuel consumption increased exponentially. Allied ports on the other hand were not far from El Alamein and connected by heavy rail. This and the Quatarra depression made the position virtually indefatigable and the attackers position highly indefensible.
 
German failure was assured from the outset because of logistics and that does not mean Malta. Even without it little would have changed as the only port with a half decent capacity was Tripoli. Benghazi and Tobruk were very small and exposed to RAF raids. Worst of all Libya lacked a decent rail road line along the coast. IIRC there was one narrow gauge line that ended far short of Tobruk, so all supplies had to be transported by truck. That meant as soon as the Axis forces went past the Egyptian border there were not enough of them to move all the supplies the Axis needed. On top of that fuel consumption increased exponentially. Allied ports on the other hand were not far from El Alamein and connected by heavy rail. This and the Quatarra depression made the position virtually indefatigable and the attackers position highly indefensible.
Absolutely first class analysis. It reminds me of a book on logistics which I read years ago that made exactly the same points. Of course of Rommel had waited until the Italians finished the railway that they did not build, the theatre could have gone differently. For that matter if the British had not built their railway, North Africa would been a stalemate.

Other points the book made included British armoured cars attacking Axis supply columns and the suggestion that Rommel should have fought a defensive war and thus husbanded his petrol supplies.
 
the brits up till monty took command would always engange in wild cavalry charges....and they would run into 50mm pak and 88mm guns that would destroy all their tanks... for the most part the brits always had better tanks than the german in africa... it wasnt till rommel was backed all the way up that he had some mark 4s with long 75 and a few tigers.... the grants and sherman always had the advantage against his other stuff.... monty led with his infantry and used his bombers and artillery to suppress german anti tank guns close pursuit was fraut with losses. monty used the colin powell strategy use only overwhelming force so victory is assured
 

burmafrd

Banned
El Alamein was never going to be anything but a British Victory. Monty had such a huge advantage in men and material and also air superiority.
What he can be faulted for was a very slow pursuit that was not necessary at that time- previous British pursuits happened without huge advantages of air power and much larger force disparity. In this case he could have had a much more aggressive pursuit with little risk.
 
Indeed, Monty's pursuit could perhaps have happened faster, but if he had advanced faster, he risked several things;

1. Large casualties in the minefields the Germans left behind again and again and again.
2. Running out of supplies and exposing the troops to a German counter-attack.
3. Running ahead of support (air, artillery, infantry) and thus exposing the troops to a German counter-attack.

With Torch happening, Montgomery knew that the Germans in Africa were doomed. He wanted to preserve his forces as a coherent fighting force to make sure Rommel could not rebound like had twice before.

Husky could hardly happen sooner anyway - Rommel's El Alamein part of the forces in Tunisia was rather low.

As for 4 divisions 1940, the infrastructure in Libya cannot support it. Rommel did a lot of his advances in captured British supplies. Once that source ran out, he was unable to supply his troops, as happened before Crusader and before El Alamein.
 
El Alamein was never going to be anything but a British Victory. Monty had such a huge advantage in men and material and also air superiority.

Yes, Monty had an advantage in manpower and material but he still has to shift a well entrenched opponent who has placed at his front the biggest minefield in WWII, with no other way of attacking but a frontal assault against an enemy whose artillery and armour are just as effective if not more so than his own.

El Alamein was far from a foregone conclusion. Monty did have the advantage in manpower and material but that doesn't mean victory was assured. There have been many generals in the past who failed to achieve victory when they had the advantage and the situation at El Alamein was such that Rommel's strong defensive position gave him somewhat of an advantage against Montygomery who could only attack by working his way through that large minefield and then launching frontal attacks.

Monty managed to open a few avenues through the minefield and managed to get into a positon that Rommel wasn't expecting him and thus turn his flank and make his continued presence at El Alamein untenable but if Rommel had anticipated Monty's move than he would have been able to prevent it and hold his positions longer, maybe even preventing Monty from getting victory.
 
rommel had no armored striking power, no fuel and no fresh infantry by alemain... he was chasing the brits in their own trucks and buring brit fuel just to advance

there is a great stalemate scenario in the book how hitler could have won ww2

if rommel had been given a free hand he wouldnt have used the stop gap lines at fuka, sollum, tripoli, and mareth instead he would have retired all the way back to wadi akrit in tunisia. there he would have only had to hold on a 50 mile front between the sea and a salt marsh
he could combine with 5th panzer army and strike either the torch forces or the 8th army with his combined strength over and over plus on a short front he doesnt need a lot of supplies
if the idea was given total support he could stall the allies for 12-18 months easy
 
Yep Monty was an idiot. If only he had conducted a more Aggressive Pursuit I am sure Rommel would be out for the count. Oh wait! Aggressive British pursuits of Axis forces in the past sent us back to El Alamein when units were overstretched for a counterattack. Slow and sure are better then fast and loose. Monty was cautious and frustrating. I certainly would not liked to have worked with him as a fellow commander however he should be considered a British hero for his actions in North Africa. El Alamein really signalled the turn around for the UK. It's because he took the time to resupply and prepare that caused him to win the battle.

There's the little fact that an army needs suppy to keep moving if Monty moved faster he'd have been doing so with no logistic support. Patton may be stupid/crazy enough to do that but Monty wasnt.







 
It is of course the easiest thing in the world to sit back and say Monty should have done this or that.

Looking at what happened in real life does shed a rather different light on the matter.

First numbers, Monty was conducting a head-on assault against a well-entrenched enemy. No manoeuvring was possible. This is one of the hardest and most wearing operations that can be carried out. So whilst numbers were there they were only just over the quantities needed for this type of attack.

Secondly, the pursuit. Slow perhaps. Determined and relentless and not stopping until Tunisia ensuring supplies etec were always there, certainly.
Consider previous British attempts after earlier victories. Off they go become stretched and Rommel manoeuvres and chops them up. This time Monty very sensibly decided that that was nonsense and kept full control of his forces who kept advancing. Rommel kept retreating. Which of the 2 scenarios is better ?

Finally, nothing in war is guaranteed as anyone should know.
 
Top