...of the Axis forces. I call it final retreat although it is only meant from Egypt and Libya to Tunisia. There are quite different opinions. 1) The Italians say that whilst they stood, the Germans just took all the vehicles (even the Italian ones) and escaped. 2) The Germans say that they withdrew masterfully and always managed to get out of the trap (the "left hooks" by the 2nd. NZ.Div.) 3) The British say that they pushed the Germans in front of them at their will. 4) And at least the Free French say that because of their advance from the South the Axis forces withdrew that fast... ----- To 1) The Italians are partially right: There were some Italian units who really stood at el-Alamein! And it is correct that mainly German units were able to drive back then. But it is an Italian myth that Rommel decided to get rid of the Italians like this. The German units did not have enough means of transport for their own troops. Not even enough fuel to move the vew remaining vehicles. The Italians were mostly not mobile units. It is only logical that the not motorized units will remain... To2) Actually Rommel decided to withdrew earlier. But he was ordered to stay to the last man by a certain A.H.. It took him more than a day to decide to act against this highest order and to try to safe what he could (something Paulus did not dare at Stalingrad!). Rommel never had the intention to give another stand but decided to withdrew to Tunisia. He was aware that he could not hold the Allied advance and that it would not make a sense after Op. Torch. His intention was to bring valuable troops and eventually material back to Europe. So, the whole withdrawal was only a delaying to be able to supply the remaining troops and to move the unmotorized units. And they manged to escape the trap more than once... that was quite masterfully executed B) To3) Cannot say much. Believe that they could have smashed the Germans much earlier -but maybe Monty wanted to safe the blood --- > Hope you have some information on his strategy for me To4) The Value of the French advance to the North was a morale & political one. De Gaulle needed some sort of success to get more acceptance from the other Allies and to make the French believing that the Free French are worth to be joined. When the French advance started from the South, they actually had to hurry to be able to catch the Italians. It is not the case that the Italians were fleeing the advancing French but the garrsions in the South were with absolutely no more strategic value, once the fall of Tripoli in the North was close. So it was decided to withdrew (and safe) all those units in the South. Logic decision! In clear word: The Italians would have abandoned the South with or without the advancing Free French. Further; most of the "Italians" down there were in fact native Libyans. Their fighting spirits were sometimes not that high any more once it was clear that the Italians would loose Libya. Understandable. There was actually no dramatic fighting in the South. Would have to check the details but believe that there was something lasting about 3 days at Sebha and then later on at es-Sciuref (the latter one was lost by the French and they had to withdraw!). ---- And now to Tom's quote: which brings on the other myth that Rommel was short of fuel which led to his boss - Kesselring - asking why he was able to bring the entire DAK back all the way to Tripoli ??? I give no value on such statement. Kesselring at first did not like Rommel. And if you see, what was remaining, when the Axis troops arrived at Tripoli - then you really don't need much fuel any more to move this remnants of an army. If there would have been a sufficient fuel supply, much more could have been safed. Here I really trust in the word German veterans gave me - and not in the loud boosting of a Kesselring!