clint
Squadron Leader
Posts: 136
|
Post by clint on Nov 21, 2017 14:52:17 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Nov 21, 2017 15:15:03 GMT 12
It was a turning point for the British Army, before El Alamein they'd not won a single significant battle. That goes too for the New Zealand Army, Australian Army, Indian Army and all the ground forces involved. Also the defence of the Suez Canal and access to the oil fields was absolutely crucial in the war, if the Italians and Germans had gotten hold of that area of Egypt, that would have severely restricted the Allies - including the Russians who'd suddenly have had an all new front open up, and it would likely have seen the Turks break neutrality and side with Germany once again.
Also El Alamein started a massive winning streak on the ground for the Allies in North Africa. From then on they had sufficient forces, aircraft and will to push the Germans right out of Africa within just a few months.
I think the journalist's assessment of Monty is warped and ridiculous. The pursuit of the Germans after El Alamein was relentless and continuous by the Allies, spearheaded by the forces like the 2nd NZ Division who were mobile infantry and had learned to move at high speed across rough country. Monty's style of war was something that had never been seen before amongst the British and Commonwealth forces, it was much more powerful in momentum going forward - usually they only moved that fast going backwards!!
This momentum kept going as Monty's forces took Sicily and then entered Italy. They rolled north pretty rapidly in that country and were only brought to a standstill by the weather, not the leadership or the opposition. Monty left the 8th Army at about that time but the massive battles in Italy were tying up hundreds of thousands of German soldiers who would otherwise have been on the Russian Front, so those great victories in the east were actually helped a lot by Monty's victory in Africa and his men in Italy. That was the Second Front that Russia has been calling for and it worked well.
Then Monty went on to lead the entirety of the ground forces in the D Day operation and the liberation of Europe, so he cannot have been all that bad. Unlike the Yanks will try to have you believe it was not Patton. Monty was his boss so is ultimately responsible for anything Patton or any other subordinate general achieved.
It seems the journo must have been reading some of the one-eyed and often false US propaganda put out about Monty's leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 21, 2017 15:42:58 GMT 12
Total number of German divisions in Africa in November 1942 = 4 Total number of German divisions on the Eastern Front in November 1942 = 181 (out of total German force of 270), of which about 20 were in the Stalingrad 'pocket' and about to be destroyed over the next few month; thus the true turning point of the (European) war. Errol |
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Nov 21, 2017 15:51:07 GMT 12
"Also El Alamein started a massive winning streak on the ground for the Allies in North Africa. From then on they had sufficient forces, aircraft and will to push the Germans right out of Africa within just a few months."
Exactly, but it took them not just a few months but more than six - what 'Mary' Coningham referred to as Monty's pilgrimage!
Errol
|
|
|
|
Post by jp on Nov 22, 2017 8:23:38 GMT 12
Actually, the author wouldn't be the first to suggest that Monty was hesitant to take advantage of forces in retreat, due to concern over casualties - Caen could have been taken easily after D-Day if a decisive move had been made on it, rather than having to level the whole city after it had been heavily reinforced, due to a hesitant advance in that direction....
|
|
