Montgomery And El-alamein

General Bernard Law Montgomery wasn´t a strategist. He also didn´t defeat Field Marshal Erwin Rommel in the battle of El-Alamein in October 1942. Montgomery had only a great material predominance. On 23-rd October 1942 the 8. Army had 1229 tanks. Rommel´s Afrikakorps including Italian army only 550!!!!!
When the British offensive began, E.Rommel was treating in Germany!! After his comeback was situation insoluble. Rommel´s Afrikakorps was very bed stockpiled. In spite of the all Hitler´s promises, petrol has been reduced to a minimum. Rommel had to obey stupid Hitler´s orders. In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly. These negatives were reasons of German defeat in the battle of El-Alamein. Montgomery wasn´t a hero.

 

Originally posted by dusan@Aug 23 2004, 10:40 AM
On 23-rd October 1942 the 8. Army had 1229 tanks. Rommel´s Afrikakorps including Italian army only 550!!!!!


Hi,

When attacking strongly fortified positions without a preponderance in weaponry of at least two-to-one, the chance for failure is magnified.

The techniques of which had been perfected ever since Montgomery had shown the way at El Alamein, proved their value (as this writer can testify) when it came to assaulting the several strong defensive lines across the peninsula of Italy.

For his faults, and he had more than a few, Montgomery's concern was to minimise casualties - only live soldiers can fight another day!. Thankfully Oliver Leese, on taking command of 8th Army, knew better than to change things.

In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly.

Ill equipped soldiers do not cowards make. Many Italian fought bravely and well, not only in the desert but later in Sicily.

Regards,

Gerry

 

In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly. These negatives were reasons of German defeat in the battle of El-Alamein. Montgomery wasn´t a hero.
[post=27598]Quoted post[/post]



You must remember that, besides having lousy equipment and leadership, Italian soldiers could still fight, but only when they chose to.

Germans, even those who hated Hitler fought to the 'last man and last round' in the west, even when the Red Army was fighting on German soil. That is how Germans are!

Italians, and the French too for that matter, won't fight unless they believe in what they are fighting for. Italian soldiers very often surrendered in mass rather than be killed for something that they did not believe in. Many of the French did the same in 1940!

However, British soldiers who fought at both battles say that the fighting against well trained, well led and committed Italians at Keren was far harder than the fighting against the Germans at Monte Cassino.

To use the blanket term "coward" against a whole nations army when it does badly smacks more than a little of wartime propaganda. Read what the Axis said about the British, and Empire Armies after Dunkirk, Greece or Singapore. Do you see cowards there too? I only see soldiers 'at the sharp end' dropped in the mire by politicians!

I would agree with you that 'Montgomery wasn´t a hero'. IMHO none of the 'high ups' were. The real hero, in any war, is the little man who puts his life on the line, and often loses it.

 

In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly.

I am probably going to add fuel to the fire and I am not
questioning the bravery of the Italians, but I have numerous
records of Italians soldiers involved in the following acts...
Trickery or Cowardly...well I'll let you decide.

1/Comming to surrender in two files and the first falling
on their knees while the rear file opened fire on their
pending captives.

2/The use of civilians, especially women whom they
compelled to wave flags for them while they hid in
slit trenches. one account of an Italian soldier making
his exit from a barn with a women in front of him.
She wasn't a volunteer: she had a pistol in her back!

3/On their retreat from various battles the booby trapping
of injured and dying Allied troops by means of placing
mines under them!

There you go Trickery or Cowardly

Regards

Kieron

 

Originally posted by kieron hill@Aug 29 2004, 09:53 AM
In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly.


2/The use of civilians, especially women whom they
compelled to wave flags for them while they hid in
slit trenches. one account of an Italian soldier making
his exit from a barn with a women in front of him.
She wasn't a volunteer: she had a pistol in her back!

[post=27797]Quoted post[/post]


I would doubt that this incident took place at El Alamein.

There are numerous incidents of Italians faking surrender and shooting, or shooting and then surrendering (I ran into them in the Australian Official History volume "To Benghazi"). There are also numerous incidents of Italian troops surrendering rather than fighting.

There are also numerous incidents, particularly at Alamein, of Italian troops fighting hard.

One of my favorite attacks on me and my WW2 web page is on that very subject, and is reprinted on my FAQ page. The guy ended his diatribe by saying, "May God put you face to face with those you have dishonored."

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Cowardice is not strictly limited to Italians. Neither is bravery the sole province of Germans, Americans, Russians, or any other ethnic group.

 

In addition to this, Italian soldiers were cowardly.


Ill equipped soldiers do not cowards make. Many Italian fought bravely and well, not only in the desert but later in Sicily.

What has to be remembered concerning the Italians in North Africa. The Then Maj Gen Dorman-smith put forward the idea in 1941 that british Troops should concentrate on known Italian positions rather than the more heavily defended german ones.

However, in many cases the italians did put up a good fight.

 

As far as I am aware, the Italian declaration of war - when France was on her uppers in June '40 - was not greeted with much enthusiasm (relative to the other nations' responses). In addition to an ill-equipped and badly led army, and, in some cases, antipathy towards their German allies as well as Mussolini, it cannot be expected that many conscripts would have fought to their utmost.

The British and Commonwealth forces fighting in North Africa (particularly in 1940-41 against the Italians in East Africa, and later against Rommel in late 1942) knew that defeat in Africa meant the near total dislocation of the war effort; whereas perhaps the Italians knew that in a large part they were fighting to preserve a ramshackle, unproductive empire for the further glorification of Mussolini?

The impact of motivated volunteers - as exemplified by the successes of Australian and South African troops in these campaigns - over disillusioned conscripts is also evident.

Richard

 

Let us step back a bit.....

When was Rommel beaten ?

Probably in JUL42 when he found the Eighth Army was not going to let him roll into the Delta easily. "The Auk" had his measure and he was only very loose sand every time he was attacked......

Rommel was doomed from about the time he first landed in Africa - he was a minor player in a minor side show as far as Hitler and OKW was concerned. He may have had his successes due to some innate abilities and some mediocre performances by the British higher echelons, but he could not sustain his advances beyond the Egypt/Libya border – each time he was forced to pause because of logistic “tail” that could not support his “teeth” in the manner to which he would like to become accustomed nor have enough “teeth” at what is now called the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) to really damage the British.

In 1941 he faced a “war on two fronts” while Tobruk held out thus dividing his fighting troops and his logistic support elements. In 1942 he had pushed his an overlarge “fighting patrol” to the gates of the Delta but could not sustain the offensive because a lack of logistic support meant much of the mass of his force was still coming forward. He was forced to pause by the desperate stands at Mesa Matruh and later El ALamein. When “the Auk” started to go over to the offensive it meant the jig was finally up. The strain of over a year in the desert combined with pressure on the German/Italian forces in the First Alamein aggravated his health (and particular his mental attitude) such that he was sent back to Germany to recuperate. He tried to up the priority for the North African Theatre but Hitler and OKW were only looking at Russia……

These battles fought to preserve the delta also had a side benefit of “blinding” Rommel – he lost his main sources of SIGINT both on the battlefield (loss of Seeboehm’s unit) and strategic (reading the US Military Attaché’s “mail”).

It must also be remembered that “the Auk” had planned for and started preparations for what would later become the Battle of Alam Halfa.

So Montgomery, while he had no walkover was almost pre-ordained to win the Second Battle of El Alamein – if he did not cock it up too badly. There was always the Torch Landings to back him up….

It is in his manner of wining that is of greater interest. His methodical approach is apparent as was his need to minimise casualties (which was to become an over-riding concern by Normandy). His less than “correct” use of armour is also there for criticism but he recognised he had a flawed (doctrine/training) weapon, so he did the best he could in the circumstances - he fought an infantry battle to release his “cavalry” but could not quite manage it and when it did get loose the weather turned against him (but remember Monty’s advance to El Aghelia per day was still faster than Rommel’s from Gazala !). He used the firepower of his artillery in the manner to which it should be – massed and centrally controlled – rather than its disintegration into the “Jock Columns” that had been advocated by old “desert hands” (and the Royal Artillery was and probably still is the best exponent of the use of firepower in the world –a lesson learned from WWI).

So Monty won and he and his troops learned a few lessons and they got better as the war and the confidence in their abilities went on. So called aberrations like Arnhem were actually more to do with Monty’s confidence in himself that he knew how to fight this war (even if it put off-side his Allies).


Cheers
Edward

 

Monty also knew that, on the whole, our kit was inferior to that of Rommels mob, especially our armour. Therefore you need that numerical supremacy to balance it with.

 

Agreed, it's best left mort.