Talk:First Battle of El Alamein

Who sited the defences at El Alamein?

I would like to place on record the interview I did, diaries I was given and the results of subsequent research at the Public records office and Imperial War Museum library archive. Between the 2nd July and 29 October 1941, members of 106 Army Troops Company Royal Engineers, began the construction of the defence line at the railway halt of El Alamein. Their work involved clearing fields of fire, blasting gun pits, construting roads and preparing HQ locations. Their work also included fortifications on Ruweisat Ridge and the surveying of defensive 'boxes'.What is particularly interesting is that the location and all of the emplacments were selected by NCOs as no officer was present, since they were in Alexandria planning for their next task. They were soon called away from this work and the unit was sent to Kabrit to join 'L' Commandos section, A New Zealand batallion for combined arms training at the Commando Training School, HMS Saunders. This was the real birth of the SAS although subsequent historians have overlooked the involvement of other units.

My problem is that I have failed to find any reference in official souces of their work at El Alamein. Sadly much of the units War Diary was lost when they were captured after they were told to stay in Tobruk and help defend the place, presumably becuase they had gained much valuable experience at defences. (The SAS plans had been scaled back by then). I published the diaries, interviews and research in 2004 and would like to add a note about the intial siting and construction of the line. Should I add it to this article or create a new one about the construction? Morcar1066 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Chas Jones 31 October 2012

Hmm. I'm sure 106AT Coy RE were a splendid unit but I think you are assigning way too much importance to this episode. If you read the Official History (The Mediterranean and the Middle East Vol III) you will see that (my paraphrase) "Since before the war the 'Alamein line' had been recognized as the possible site of a position for defending the Delta of Egypt......and various troops and civil labour gangs had been employed there from time to time....but preparations for [other operations meant] work at El Alamein naturally fell very low on the list of things to be done" (p.332). The line wasn't a line but three defensive 'boxes' about 15 miles apart. One box (on the coast) had been dug but only partly wired and mined while a second had been dug but not mined and the third had hardly been started. The Official History goes on: "Such was the slender framework of the position to which the British were were withdrawing: the term 'Alamein line' at this time meant only a line on the map" (also p.332). I guess the work done by 106 AT Coy would have been on the first box (which was around the railway halt). But without meaning to belittle their contribution, how much impact would a single company have had? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Infobox

Changed result to Allied victory as per Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement attributed to Rommel with source whose reliability has been questioned

A user has questioned the reliability of the source used to support the following statement.[1] But unfortunately he/she posted his/her comment on the article page, when it belongs on the talk page. I have posted both the statement whose reliability has been questioned and the editor's comment below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The Māori Battalion was highly regarded across all sides for its effectiveness, strength and unique Māori culture it brought with it to the front. Erwin Rommel was said to have conceded their power by saying "Give me the Maori Battalion and I will conquer the world".

Many groups have made up complements about themselves and attributed them to Rommel. The above statement about Maori is one such example. The author of the cited reference never met Rommel, and the Rommel Papers contain no praise of Maori. No German officer would be silly enough to think you could conquer the world with one battalion. Another invented comment is if Rommel had to take hell "he would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it". However, he did call the Australians and New Zealanders 'elite' troops and 'excellent infantry'. User:Mansub20 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2021‎ (UTC)

Rommel complimented some Australian prisoners who were brought to him, saying they were big, strong men and clearly part of some elite formation, but this is a compliment to those men in particular; not an overall view of the ANZAC forces. New Zealanders were not mentioned, not even in his own papers. It would have been extremely rare, verging on unheard of, for any one nation to be an attacking force without a mix of units from other British and Commonwealth units into the bargain, so Rommel likely would have had no distinction between them, except perhaps the visually distinct Indian troops. He was complimentary towards the British Infantry, calling them brave and tenacious, but let down by unimaginative commanders. You could probably apply that compliment towards all Commonwealth infantry because the simple fact is, he likely just wouldn't have differentiated. That said, other letters have Rommel complimenting the Australians fighting spirit as he saw it; Fierce fighting followed with the Australians, whom we knew only too well from the time of the Tobruk siege, and lasted well into the night.”

Again, unfortunately the New Zealanders seem not to be mentioned. He said of the British Guards Brigade for example: ‘almost the living embodiment of the virtues and faults of the British soldier – tremendous courage and tenacity combined with a rigid lack of mobility’. Which is probably about right with the difficulties in the command doctrine at that point in the war before Monty took over. His view seems to have been that the British were excellent in defence, which can likely be applied to all Commonwealth forces. The Australians are the only force he specifically compliments when they attack, aside from the RAF or the British artillery. But ultimately. what Rommel believes isn't something we should worry about; he wasn't the genius some people make him out to be, as evidenced with his poor grasp of logistics and followups. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:FCE4:D7DF:2C92:AA12 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

The cited source does not state the basis of its claims that: "German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, who was Hitler’s favourite general, once said the Maori battalion he fought against in North Africa was the greatest fighting force he ever encountered, and “Give me the Maori battalion and I will conquer the world.” Even with his racist views, Adolf Hitler himself admired the Maori and their combat techniques."-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Why no picture of Auchinlech?

There is a picture of the Italian Commander in Chief, who played hardly any part in the battle, and none of Auchinlech. I have had a quick look at the Auchinlech article, and there are a couple there which are dated around the the time of the battle which would - I feel - properly give the prominence due as the battle was the first in which Rommel did not win (a defensive battle is a win when the attacker fails). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Charles Upham captured twice an error?

Charles Upham is described as being captured twice. Associated references are #78 and #80 Kevenh (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Result to Inconclusive

I changed the result as Inconclusive, as the result of the battle was stalemate, as per Template:Infobox military conflict. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)