Talk:Second Battle of El Alamein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Come on guys add referances to everything we put on here, to back up what you have said otherwise its basically worthless.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mid-East Oil Fields?

In reference to this sentence in the opening paragarph "and gaining access to the Middle Eastern oil fields": I feel tht this statement is misleading at best. At the time of the Desert Campaign, the Mideast fields as we know them now did not exist. There was some exploration and drilling with a small amount of production out of Saudi Arabia, but by and large, most oil production (75% )in the 1940s was in the Western Hemisphere. To presume that the Germans considered the oil fields as a viable objective is weak at best. I can provide numbers if you like on the amount of oil production from the mideast. It is in the single digits of the percentage of world production at the time.

Also, were the Germans able to secure the few producing wells, how were they going to get the oil back to Germany (or maybe Romania) to be refined? They owned NO tanker fleet, there was no pipeline to Europe and roads to the areas were practically non-existent. Trucks traveersing the desert would end up using a huge amount of refined oil transporting the unrefined back to Central Europe.

As another example, Great Britain controlled the oil from the Mideast, but found it simpler to purchase oil from the Western Hemisphere instead of using the oil in the ground that they owned.

The ultimate goal of securing the Eastern Med was to more ably defend the Southern tier of Europe and deny the British a base of operations. There was very little shipping traversing the Med at the time of the Desert Campaigns, other than transport that was militarily important. The overwhelming majority of shipping to the Mideast and India went around the Cape of Good Hope until late in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipdigit (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the British had oil fields in what was then called Persia (now modern day Iran) and IIARC the Anglo-Persian Oil Company later became BP. The main refinery was Abadan Refinery. IIARC, the UK's main sources of oil at the time were (in no particular order) the ME, the US - mainly Texas, and Venezuela - Aruba.

IIARC, the general German plan - at least at one time - was to capture the Suez Canal and thereby deny the use of it to Britain and then to use the Canal Zone via Iran and Iraq as a stepping-stone to meet up with the Japanese after their hoped-for successful conquest of India. In addition it was hoped, the capture of the Middle East would open up the possibility for attacks by Germany against the Soviet Union from the south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, at the time, the BP Abadan Refinery was the biggest oil refinery in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.73 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

old messages

The tactical details and the description of the battle by the original author left no room for improvement :). Added the first bit "The Situation" to juice the introduction up with some figures, and added Rommel´s sick leave.

Nov 3rd 2003 cyberhunne

I removed this from the 'deception operations' category. Virtually all major battles in WWII will have had an element of deception, so if the category is to be useful it should only refer to operations that were entirely (or mainly) about deception. DJ Clayworth 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Acording to Rommel,s papers,the Axis had 95,500 man and 529 tanks. 33,000 were Germans and 62,000 were Italians.Book was edited by Liddle Hart.Also this Article dosent say that Montgomery called Churchil and sayd his plan has Failed and He might have to pull back.Churchill,s reply:is it realy immpossible to find a general who can win a battle.Can anyone confirm that Montgomery actualy did that!

According to Moran (WC: Struggle for Survival p76) and Brooke (Diaries p335/336 - entry for 29 October), Churchill did indeed make that comment, but, according to Brooke, Anthony Eden was the one who suggested that Montgomery was slacking. Scartboy (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Artillery Preparation

The article says 882 guns fired about 600 rounds each during the opening barrage - that's 529,000 rounds fired. Can anyone confirm that? Seems like a lot of ammo to expend even by Allied standards. It's much more than what was fired at the beginning of Goodwood or Cobra, for example. Just wondering. DMorpheus 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Now the article says the artillery fire totaled 125 tons of shells. OK, with 529,000 rounds and 125 tons, that's less than a half-pound per shell fired. A shell from a US 105mm howitzer weighs 32 lbs. Even the HE round from a 75mm tank gun weighs 14 lbs. Assuming the combination of 25 pounders, 5.5 inch guns, 7.2 howitzers and other ordnance averaged something in that neighborhood, something is wrong with these numbers. DMorpheus 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article uses the word "barrage" three times, but it's doubtful whether it is actually referring to barrage at all - more likely it just means artillery fire. Most of the artillery preparation for the breakout was counter-battery fire and concentrations on known ememy positions. It's highly unlikely that a barrage would have caught the German HQ, and barrages aren't "accurate" - they are designed to sweep an entire area. Cyclopaedic 16:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Article is correct in terms of rounds fired and number of guns used, one will see the referance to Pendulum of War in regards to that opening barrage.

In terms of tonnage, i will see if i can find referance for that. I dont know for sure but the numbers may not add up due to the switch in how a ton is made up since then and now you know imperial, metric long tonnes etc

As for the word barrage, several were indeed used. There was a rolling barrage during Operation superchage for instance. I dont really see the point over arguing over the wording of blowing the crap out of the desert ;)

"Seems like a lot of ammo to expend even by Allied standards. It's much more than what was fired at the beginning of Goodwood or Cobra, for example. Just wondering."

Its called Colossal Cracks, the Americans didnt really use it and it was mostly a Anglo-Canadian thing to minimise losses. The largest number of guns hitting a target, if possible coupled with air attacks so the infantry can take the objective with min losses.

you may want to look into some other operations the 21st AG ran, bigger and more deadly fire plans then this one. --EnigmaMcmxc 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be that the 125tons refers to the initial 20 minute barrage before the infantry advance (which was an intense firing to cause confusion and disorientation amongst the defenders) and the 600 rounds to Kirkman's full firing plan which lasted for five and a half hours. I don't have sources to uphold this view though. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Verification

User:Kerbabs made some edits whose accuracy should be checked by some1 knowledgeable. Ksenon 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Allies" vs. "British" ?

I am not sure why the latest edit replaces all usages of "British" or "Britain" with the less-specific "Allied". Isn't it the case that almost all the troops on the Allied side in this battle were in fact British or British empire? There was also a brigade of French and some very small other units, so I suppose the argument can be made that "Allied" is the more accurate term. But the allied force was overwhelmingly British and it seems to me better than they be so described. Just my two cents. DMorpheus 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, it is technically incorrect to refer to Indians, Australians, South Africans or New Zealanders (as opposed to UK forces) as British. Moreover it is often regarded as offensive. The official collective term at the time was "British Commonwealth". In the second place I think you'll find that the UK forces were in a minority numerically. Grant65 | Talk 23:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer to use Commonwealth then, as "Allies" includes the United States and the Soviet Union (among others). Oberiko 15:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "Commonwealth" is both accurate and specific enough. "Allied" is unnecessarily vague although it is not strictly inaccurate. DMorpheus 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The British armed forces at the time consisted of the British Imperial Forces. Contributing to these forces were: The Army of India and forces contributed by the self governing dominions; India, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Many of the african protectorates assigned units to the Imperial Forces. The principal British unit in North Africa was the British 8th Army, supported by the British Desert Air Force. All of the dominions assigned forces to the 8th Army and Air Units as requested by the Imperial General Staff, based in London. The Chief of Imperial General Staff was Lord Alanbrook. The Australian Government had no defence treaty with the U.K. (and still does not). Its forces were/are contributed voluntarily and on the basis of shared defence needs, tradition, culture, history and good-will.

'Allied', in this context is historically inaccurate and generally refers to the 'Western Allies' or the 'Allied Powers' which would include the, then, USSR. The present British Commonwealth came into existence in 1948 as a voluntary association

The forces in N.Africa were 'British'. Other non-imperial units served voluntarily with the British Forces and were equipped, rationed and paid by them. Such units were: the Free French (Gen. LeClerc) and units from Poland etc.

Not to use the term 'British' in this historical context looks like 'PC' at work, same with the idea that offence is caused (as referred to above) I've been to most of these countries and there is no offence whatever. 86.194.54.35 (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) bruce

I think you'll find that use of "British Commonwealth" is wrong. Although founded in the 1920s, it then only included the (independent) predominantly white Dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa). This excluded India and Rhodesia, both of which had units in the 8th Army. Also, correctly speaking, the Ghurkas, coming from Nepal, were/ are neither British nor Indian. The use of "Empire" has been used to include all such states, but recognition of the part that was played by all states would be appropriate and add to the information. Although the Greek element was small (a battalion?), it maintained Greek status as a belligerent and the Poles provided a highly effective and motivated division. Just my two penn'orth. ("Allied" is wholly accurate, just as it is in relation to Italy and Northern Europe.) Folks at 137 17:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: In my references, "Allied" is commonly used when speaking of big-picture stuff like "Allied victory..." and "British", "American", "Russian" are used when describing particular Allied armies. The Allied army involved is almost universally called the "British Eighth Army", not the "British Commonwealth's Eighth Army". While it is valuable to mention the composition of the troops under British command, I think common usage should prevail here.--Toms2866 02:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have 2 cents too: I hate seeing AIF forces referred to as British but I believe the army is referred to as the British 8th Army. It was comprised of commonwealth and british forces, but its named british. Thats my view anyhow.... But please can't we use the term Allied where appropriate? It was an allied offensive after all, not a british commonwealth offensive. The allied victory in the battle oif the coral sea isnt confusing for brits even though there were no british forces there, why should americans have trouble with it in this instance? aussietiger 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It just comes about because (depending on context) British is shorthand for so much including inhabitants of the British Isles, UK citizens and in this case may mean British Empire (though by 1930s more the Commonwealth). British 8th Army is more a convention to avoid getting it mixed up with all the other 8th Armies. GraemeLeggett 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide a reference of the numbers of Free French, Greek and Polish forces involved? I think we need some standard of how many troops have to be involved (in a ratio basis) for a nation to be listed. Oberiko 11:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't find exact numbers, but (E&OE): Greeks about a battalion; Free French - a division, I think; Poles, confusing - 2nd Carpathian Brigade in North Africa augmented by between 115,000 and 160,000 released from the USSR ("Anders' Army) in time for the Italian campaign. The Poles stayed with the 8th Army in North Africa and through Italy. I'll keep looking. Folks at 137 16:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the Military History Wikiproject to try and reach a standard on this issue. Oberiko 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Was any consensus reached, anywhere? There's just been another change to this. Folks at 137 19:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was, in a nutshell, since WWII battles had many national forces lumped into groups, that we should use the groups if the nationalities is to big. ie, we'd say "8th Army" instead of "UK", "NZ", "AUS" etc.

I suppose we could apply the same thing here and say "8th Army victory", but that doesn't read very well. Oberiko 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the references to "Commonwealth" forces then? This is an anachronism, "Empire" is better. British victory seems alright, although I tend to think that "Allied victory" is more in line with other WWII battle infoboxes. Then again, some American victories which used other nations' troops have been put down as "American victory", this is definitely something the military history project should try to standardise.Chrisfow 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence "control of the Suez canal by the British Commonwealth" to "by the British Empire". While various degrees of autonomy make for a gray area for some troops, specifically Canadian and Australian, the canal was clearly controlled by the Empire, not the commonwealth. TastyCakes (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested and Oberiko above: The Greek force consisted of one brigade, incorporating(3 infantry battalions, an artillery regiment (battalion-strength), an engineer company, a machine-gun company and a medical battalion), totally 5325 men and 325 officers. They lost 89 men and also had 228 wounded. (info translated from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Greece_during_World_War_II , here http://books.google.gr/books?id=PsSZSQt8VLcC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=El+Alamein+%221st+Greek+Brigade%22&source=bl&ots=d7qD0tmD3n&sig=sOcpYY5vHdZmscOdbAz5GwNnYQ0&hl=el&sa=X&ei=7VHyU_LVK4HmyQPTsYCIAw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=El%20Alamein%20%221st%20Greek%20Brigade%22&f=false and here http://pyramisnews.gr/%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%83%CE%AC%CE%B2%CE%B2%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%BF-26-%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%84%CF%89%CE%B2%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BB%CF%8E%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%B3%CE%B9/ ). The figures show that there was significant presence (taking in mind the country's resources) although they did not carry the major load. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.5.51 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically 'British' is correct for almost all of the Empire - later Commonwealth - countries as with the exception of Canada, (and perhaps New Zealand?) none of the empire countries had any form of separate citizenship, in fact for all of these countries the personnel were in fact British subjects, i.e, the current equivalent of British Citizens.

Canada had instigated separate citizenship in IIRC 1928, whereas countries such as Australia didn't until as late as 1947-8. Other countries such as India, Nigeria, Zambia, South Africa, Rhodesia, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, etc, did the same after independence post-war. BTW, none of the non-white 'native' troops - who were also British subjects - were conscripted, conscription being confined to the white members of these countries only.

As is often the case when dealing with Britain and all things British, things are often less simple than they appear at first sight.

BTW, IIRC Egypt wasn't part of the Empire, but was a Protectorate defended by Britain after WW I under a League of Nations mandate, as was Palestine, but I may be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New Zealanders didn't get separate citizenship until 1949. For Australians it was 1948. Canadians were still British until 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Order of battle

Is there an order of battle page? MegasAllexandros 03:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Were there not also Polish and Czech forces in this battle? Certainly mu uncle served with them when beseiged in Tobruk in 1941: he said they were heroic and loyal and for the remainder of his life felt guilty that the British had let hem down by failing to secure their liberty at the end of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.143.48 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Polish Carpathian Brigade was at Tobruk but had been taken out of the line to reform in Syria (I think) as a division (expanded by Polish prisoners of war released by the Soviets). The Polish II Corps rejoined hostilities in Italy at the end of 1943.Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation

Can we get some citation on the infobox figures? Oberiko 16:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Why does the only illustration have to be spoilt by saying "this was staged"? There must be many photos not in that category! A large proportion of those taken during WWI were the same, but are rarely acknowledged as such, and it doesn't improve anything by having it. Peter Shearan 09:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing. More information never hurts, this is an encyclopdia. Oberiko 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

AN ITALIAN FRONT WITH GERMAN SUPPORT

North Africa wasn`t a "German" front but an Italian front with German support. In El Alamein fought 54,000 Italians with 279 tanks and 50,000 Germans with 211 tanks. The German troops did belong to two Italian Army-Corps: the 21. A.C. in the North and the 10. A.C. in the South. The name "Afrika-Korps" for germans and Italians is wrong. When the 8th British Army did attack, "Herr Rommel" was in Germany, in vacations. The Italian generals Nebbia and Navarrini had to face Montgomery`s attack! The defeat of El Alamein was only secondarily a German "defeat". First of all ita was an Italian defeat. Italy lost the war at El Alamein, Germany at Stalingrade, Japan in Guadalcanal.

Numbers don't tell the whole story, especially in this campaign. There is no doubt that defeat of the German element of the Axis forces in North Africa was the only thing that counted. The Italian army on its own was close to worthless, and so the battle *was* primarily a German defeat. This is not intended to disparage the Italian solders, who generally did their duty, but were hobbled by terrible leadership and an incompetent regime. But the fact is that from the time the German Africa Korps (DAK) entered the campaign until the end, destruction of the DAK was really the only worthwhile objective for the Allies. Likewise the command arrangements that placed Italians in higher command positions was more diplomacy than actual operational reality. To take an allied example, Alexander was "in command" of allied ground forces in Sicily, yet his influence on the battle was pretty close to zero. DMorpheus 18:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

EGYPT: AN ITALIAN FRONT, LIKE PALESTINE (1918) WAS A TURKISH FRONT.

Dear reader, you think only after a MILITARY point of view. But you have to think POLITICALLY, too. Palestine in 1918 is considered a Turkish front, though the Turkish armies were rather weak and the German Asien-Korps were strong, just like the Afrika-Korps in 1942. Nevertheless everybody considers Palestine a Turkish front because the aim of General Allenby was the defeat of Turkey. So, the aim of Montgomery was the defeat of Italy. He himself said this when he landed in the "toe" of Italy in September 1943. Indeed Roosevelt`s slogan "Germany first" was wrong. His slogan should be "Italy first" because he attacked Sicily in 1943 and the Normandy in 1944.The Italian generals Nebbia and Navarrini weren`t formal commanders but the commanders of the 21th and of 10th Army Corps. Were the Italian generals incompetent? Well, think on Clark in Monte Cassino, think on Lucas in Anzio. Competent generals? A rarity!

Is this a parody? Think Politically?! Political power grows from the barrel of a gun - especially in war. Show me a successful Italian campaign against the Allies. Greece? Just as well the Germans intervened. Ethiopia? Must be joking. North Africa? Well it wasn't the Italians that stopped the British advance. Malta? Three old biplanes saw off the Regia Aeronautica. The submarine war? Doenitz couldn't get rid of Italian subs quick enough - they couldn't even report sightings and the weather. The best Italian force was the Regia Marina and even then the political leaders messed up - no oil reserves, no air cover. Italians had to believe in their cause and junior partner in the Axis was not it. Defeat the Germans and you defeated the Italians. BTW, please sign your contributions. Folks at 137 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

THE ITALIAN ROLE IN WWII (answer)

Dear Mr. "Folks", I will answer by a list of facts only. -The Italian air attack to Malta (June 11, 1940) opened the hostilities against Great Britain and extended WWII to the Mediterranean Sea and to Africa. So Italy is important (if we want in a negative sense)just for this action. -The attack to Greece was an humiliation for Mussolini just like the Soviet attack to Finland was an humiliation for Stalin. The reason for the Italian failure was boorish racism: Greek were considered "an inferior race" and a few of Italian divisions were able to defeat Greece. Unfortunately for Italy the Greeks had many -and stronger (3 infantry regiments instead of 2)- divisions. Nevertheless the war against Italy bled Greece and when the Germans attacked (1941)the Greek Army were already exhausted. Also Hitler recognized this fact. -The defeat in El Alamein was first an Italian defeat because (Ciano-Ribbentrop Agreement of 1940) in case of a German-Italian victory in WWII, Egypt had to become an Italian protectorate. This is the reason because I say we should think politically, too. -Italian victories without the Germans? Menton and Lanslebourg (June 1940), Kassala, Kurmuk, Gallabat in Sudan (July 1940), Moyale (Kenya) (July 1940), British Somaliland (August 1940), Buna Oasis (Kenya) (September 1940, Sidi-el-Barrani (Egypt) (September 1940). In Russia (September 1941) the Italian divisions took 10,000 Soviet prisoners. -the Italian submarines sunk during the war 900,000 Tonn.(568,573 Tonn in the Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean). Among the victimes the Ocean Liner "Empress of Canada" in 1943. The Italians sunk 2 British battleships (later repaired) and sunk 6 cruisers (among them the heavy cruiser "Manchester" in 1942), 15 destroyers, 49 submarines. -In East Africa the lasted 17 months and saw about 60 battles. The battles of Keren, Amba Alagi, Kulquaber, and Gondar were very hard. Please respect -at least- the British Fallen. An Italian Guerrilla warfare lasted, after the formal end on November 27, 1940, until May / October 1943 (see internet "La guerriglia italiana in Africa Orientale"). About 7,000 scattered Italian soldiers fought this guerrilla hoping for a Japanese help or for an Italian-German help from Egypt. -The Royal Italian Air Force attacked Gibraltar 14 times. The Air Force of the RSI 1 time. This was "folks"!

Point remains: in North Africa, it was the DAK that had to be beaten. Evidence? Look at Operation Compass. Graziani's 250,000 strong 10th Army had failed against the 36,000 local British garrison and after 10 weeks the British had captured 130,000 Italians (losing 2000) and captured Cyrenaica. The rest of your points may be factual, but need context and this is not the forum - except to comment that there may have been 14 attacks on Gibraltar, but there was only one on Taranto. Impact not numbers. Folks at 137 09:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

-THE REASON for the Italian failure was boorish racism: Greek were considered "an inferior race"

Mussolini had great respect for Greek People.I challenge you to found a racist statement of Mussolini against Greek people

The average Italian was not exactly enamoured with being at war with Britain, as Italy had been Allied with Britain in WW I, hence many Italians had no argument with the Allies, and it is fair to say that for many of them their heart simply wasn't in it, hence the willingness of so many Italian troops to surrender. The Italian Fascists - who wielded the power in Italy - where another matter, and many were just as fanatical as their Nazi counterparts. It was these who by skilful use of propaganda made the Italian people think that the war was popular with their fellow compatriots, when in fact it actually wasn't. Hence the generally favourable Italian reaction to the Allied landings in Sicily and Italy later in the war.

So for the average Italian conscript soldier there was very little motivation in fighting well, whereas for the average British and Empire soldier, who knew the wider issues at stake, there was every reason to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.4 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

INSTEAD OF "GERMAN DEFEAT", AT LEAST "GERMAN-ITALIAN" DEFEAT

At least the last sentence of this article should be changed: instead of "German defeat" and "end of the German expansion" let`s write "German-Italian defeat" and "end of the German-Italian expansion". Also the name "German Panzer Army Afrika" isn`t correct. In Italy this army is called "ACIT - Armata Corazzata Italo-Tedesca". Italians never fought for "German expansion"!

Indeed it was the other way around, one of the stated aims of the German Army in Africa was to aid the re-conquering of Italian Africa. At this time, the DAK was known as the German-Italian African Army or some-such. I will look it up, make sure of it, and change it. Chrisfow 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

When is a Tank a Tank, and when is it a Panzer?

In this article in the stats is the mention of "530 tanks(only 230 panzers)". Pray tell me what the 300 tanks are that aren't panzers? I always thought tanks in this context were panzers and all panzers were tanks. Wallie 23:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be that of the 530 tanks, 230 were German made (Panzer I - IV) and the remaining 300 were either Italian or captured. Still, unless there's a source, it will have to be questioned (and likely removed). Oberiko 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Panzers are the German tanks, and the rest are Italian. The distinction is important, because most of the Italian tanks were obsolete and unreliable Fiat M13/40s. Various sources give different figures for the Axis tank forces before the battle:

• Michael Carver, El Alamein: 220 panzers, 339 Italian tanks: total 559
• B. H. Liddell Hart, History of the Second World War: 242 panzers, 280 Italian tanks: total 522
• H. G. Von Esebeck, Afrikanische Schiksalsjahre: 230 panzers, 300 Italian tanks: total 530

This the source i used as it was closer to the previous estimate given.Raoulduke47 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this is, is to use the term "tank". There British, German, Italian tanks etc Panzer basically means "tank" so to avoid confusion why use the term unless of course referring to a specific model i.e. the Valentine, the M13, the Panzer III etc --EnigmaMcmxc 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IIRC Churchill decreed sometime in around 1940-41 that all enemy tanks of whatever nationality were to be referred to in signals as "panzers" whereas British and allied tanks were to be referred to as "tanks". He did the same for submarines - enemy ones were to be called "U-boats" and friendly ones "submarines". That's why you might get a reference to an Italian or Vichy French submarine being called a "U-boat" in contemporary British sources, and also Italian tanks being called "panzers". This was intended to reduce the possibility of confusion between friendly and non-friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Source of quote

"The desert, quivering in the heat haze, ..." (long quote) No source is given next to this - is it still from Phillips, quoted (deservedly) in the account of Kidney Ridge earlier in the entry? Regards to all, Notreallydavid 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Role of ULTRA

This article makes no mention of how full access to Nazi radio messages had a decisive impact on the battle of El Alamein. 1. Practically every supply ship leaving Italy for North Africa was sunk, leaving Rommel desparately short of fuel and other supplies. 2. Rommel was required to report freqently and in detail to the Nazi High Command. Montgomery knew in advance his enemy's situation and battle plans. In particular, Montgomery knew how well his deception operations were working. Mikeg3 12:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Knowing the enemy's plans or situation and defeating them are two different things. Certainly Ultra gave the allies an advantage, but there are many other factors in every campaign and it is not self-evident that Ultra was "decisive". DMorpheus 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rommel's supplies only had to travel the relatively short distance from Sicily.

Montgomery's (and his predecessor's) OTOH had to come from the UK either via the dangerous route from Gibraltar and Malta and face heavy air attack, or come up the Suez Canal via Cape Town or Durban. Most of his aircraft had to be ferried in stages from RAF Takoradi on the Gold Coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.147.22 (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Everyone knows that Britannia rules the waves. N'est-ce pas? Juan Riley (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the British would have had fewer troubles if their ally hadn't been unwittingly informing the Germans of their every move beforehand from sometime in 1940 until June 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.22 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

116,000 men

Is possible to know how many of those 116,000 mens were italians, and how many germans? And is possible to know haw many were italian colonials troups (ascari)? Thanks

54,000 Germans and 62,000 Italians. I have not heard of any Italian colonial troops in this area. IIRC, they were mostly deployed in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Raoulduke47 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. i put it on the article

Colonial troops in North Africa would be the Lybians, iirc there was at least 2 divisions during Compass but i think they were wiped out, not sure if Lybians made up any of the then present Italian units.

Casualties?

Article contridicts self. In summary at top, it says 13000 allied casualties. Yet, just above the "aftermath" section, it says 23,500. Very confusing, please clarify or change.

I think the aftermath section is referring to the events immediately after the battle, seeing as how it also says Rommel lost 75,000 men, 1,000 guns and 500 tanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.29.87 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Another contradiction, the article says, "The Australians suffered 200 casualties in that attack and suffered 27 killed and 290 wounded." Since casualties includes both killed and wounded, that would be "200 casualties = 317 casualties". Um? IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright assertion

User:Cassandravivian has just posted the following text on this article:

SOME ONE HAS TAKEN MY TWO BOOKS ON THE WESTERN DESERT OF EGYPT AND, NEARLY WORD FOR WORD, HAS PUBLISHED THEM HERE. THIS IS AN ABOMINATION. THE BOOKS ARE ALAMEIN. TRADE ROUTES ENTERPRISES. THE WESTERN DESERT OF EGYPT, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN CAIRO PRESS. 2000, 2007 I WANT THE NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS, SNAIL MAIL ADDRESS, AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU CAN PROVIDE. I HAVE NOT CHECKED THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE BATTLE FOR NORTH AFRICA ON WIKIPEDIA, BUT, IF PUT HERE BY THE SAME PERSON, MY GUESS IS THE SAME PROBLEM WILL EXIST THERE. CASSANDRA VIVIAN ==

I'm unsure how best to handle this, as I don't own the books in question (I just spotted this on the list of recent changes). As a consequence, I am posting on the user's talk page, advising the user to look at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. In the meantime, as I cannot assess the extent of the problem, if it indeed exists, I am reverting the user's edits on the article itself whilst this issue is investigated. If anyone else has any insights, please do post them here -- thanks! – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Place names

People can i ask, but is it possible you can look up how to spell some of these place names i.e. Tell el Aqqaqir

I have had to replace many completely misspelled versions of this example in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of the spellings have changed since that time, also British, German and possibly Italian spellings of Egyptian and other North African place names may all be different - Arabic place names have to be transliterated to Roman (Western) script phonetically so there may be some variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Freyberg

To my understanding he played an important role in the battle via planning and execution a bit more then the other division or corps commanders etc

I know its a small thing but this was the reasoning i had behind placing him in the commanders list under Monty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 12:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Kirrages on this point. Writing the name of a corps commander in the infobox implies a split in Montgomery's command. --Raoulduke47 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea i guess that makes sence, ok am good with that. Dont want to sow confusion. Cheers --EnigmaMcmxc 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NZ Official History

I think we need to clear this up, were does this title belong?

The book as far as I understand is out of print and is now only available as an online document (hosted by the kiwi government iirc).

Where I have used it as a reference in the article I was working from the online document and not an actual printed copy of the book.

So where does it belong?

A: In the external links section since it is only an external document.

B: In the sources section, with the details set out like the other books and a link to the online document.

C: In both sections as it currently stands.

--EnigmaMcmxc 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely be in the sources section because convention states that short references in the footnote section should always relate to a full document citation in the sources or references section. I therefore always fully cite books and websites (even if not a book) in the sources section if there is a specific reference in the footnotes to it and sometimes even if not, if it has formed an important part of my understanding of the topic. The fact that the book is published online is a red herring: it is a faithful representation of the original (down to page numbers) so one is reading the book regardless of the media in which it comes. In this context it's interesting to note that the {{cite book}} template includes a url perameter to allow for books published on the web.

The External Links section seems to be used as a sort of "Other reading" section. I have in the past deleted an entry here if it is already in the sources section but for some reason it has proved controversial. Frankly a duplicate appearance in both sections is not the end of the world in my view, but the sources section is more important than the external links section. So I vote B or C. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for clearing this up for me! --EnigmaMcmxc 12:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian casualties at Alamein

I see GeneralMesse has made an edit with an alternative number for Italian deaths. Very interesting. However, having read the referenced link I wonder if the number refers to the total Italian dead buried at the Italian war grave at Alamein which I believe holds the dead from a greater period than just the second battle. I'm not sure, because the article has been translated from Italian very poorly into English (using the babelfish website which is a very useful tool for simple translation and to get approximate meanings but is pretty useless in this case) and the meaning is not clear. Does anyone have a view on this (or a further supporting citation?). Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there was two sets of casualties figures one from Playfair and one from Niall Barr I cant remember at the moment why I chose one over the other, perhaps it showed higher casualties. When I get home I will provide casualties figures from both books. Unfortunately they are the only ones I have on the battle.

On the plus side I work practically next to the library which has “War without Hate” and two other books called Alamein one by Stephen Bungay and the other by Jon Latimer (I put money down that most of the book is a copy and paste job from the Official History haha) so I will see what they quote for all losses and post them too. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Barr figures:

States "British estimates, based on intercepts .... German Casulties .... Italian losses ammounted to 971 dead, 933 wounded and 15 552 captured."

states his source as WO201/439, TNA. Which is 8th Army claims up to 23:59 on 3rd November.

WO 201/439 in the National archives states this is reports of telephone conversations Oct-Nov '42.

Playfair states Italian captured by the 5th was 4'148 and by the 11th 22, 071 in referring to the German and Italian POWs he stated that the figures can be given with more certainly then perviously when he was talking about tank and planes losses etc

He does not appear to mention the dead and wounded for the German or Italians and only talks about the 8th Army personal losses which he also brakes down into percentages for each nationality which may be of use to note somewhere within the article:

8th Army losses by nationality:

British : 58% Australians: 22% New Zealanders: 10% South Africans: 6% Indian: 1% Other Allies: 3%

I checked out Stephen Bungay book yesterday and it doesnt appear to have any figures stated within the book on losses, War Without Hate was in another libaray acorss town along with the Latimer one and couldnt be assed to go see what they said haha

The Comando Supremo website states the following for losses:

"November 4 - Rommels Axis forces are forced to retreat from El Alamein. Italian soldiers withdraw on foot through the desert. Eventually 16,000 Italians are captured in 14 days. Rommel loses 32,000 men, 1,000 guns and 450 tanks. The Afrika Korps now only consists of 35 German tanks and almost 100 obsolete Italian tanks. British Commonwealth Forces lose 13,500 troops, but win in a decisive victory over the Axis Forces"

Rather bias and rather wrong so no good eh?

Kiwi Official History:

"The Axis casualty figures for the whole of October and November have been assessed as 12,900 Germans and 22,800 Italians, a total of 35,700. Of the 27,900 prisoners included in this total, more than "

The Rommel Papers: footnote by Bayerlein - "Italian troops (approximations only, figures cannot be guaranteed), 1,200 killed, 1,600 wounded, and 20,000 prisoners. (figures obtained from Offiziller Bericht des Oberkommandos Afrika.)"

Appears Rommell doesnt discuss losses himself and talks mostly about tank numbers etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

captured and catualties

Nomally they not include captured as catualties.

Why it says casualites and losses, it covers both ;) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tank Strength

Question here, Playfair states there was 1,029 tanks ready for action and i have provided this in the strength section with a footnote showing how that broke down, however in the footnote i have also noted that he stated there was 200 tanks available as replacements and up to and over 1000 tanks in the workshops.

The question is, should we leave the tank strength as it is with the footnote stating about all the ones in the workshops or note that the 8th Army tank strength was over 2000 tanks? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As it is. The interesting number is always for the atrength available for combat. The number in the workshop is of some interest however: for most of the Western Desert Campaign the Germans were much better at retrieving tanks (both their own and British) knocked out in battle and restoring them back into their combat formations. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

India

Should the combatant list, list her simpley as "India" or the "Indian Empire" as it currently is? Which was the politically correct term of the time? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

7th Bersaglieri takes on Aussies riding British tanks on 28/10/1942

This NATO website http://www.nato.int/kfor/chronicle/2006/chronicle_09/chronicle_09.pdf clearly proves the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment fought till the last man on the night of 28/29 October 1942 and that only 20 wounded survived. I suppose approximately 100 wounded Bersaglieri died overnight because of their wounds and that another 200 or 300 were crushed alive manning anti-tank guns by the advancing British tanks or shot, grenaded or bayonetted to death by the supporting Australian infantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What the article states and what you typed (article opens up at home, but didnt in work - i applogise for removing it) is that all died bar 20 who were captured. It doesnt imply as you stated they somehow managed to escape fromthe butchers. Hyphosising on how they died and the way you wrote it up is somewhat inapproabriate. They fought corregously to allow there comrades to excape, that should be noted.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we should add anything to the article based on what you "suppose", I think we should only add to the article if it can be proved with references. --mgaved (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation of High Standard of Work

This article represents a very high standard of work and research. Everything comes together as it should and the statistics, chronology, geography and sequencing of events, together with the style of reporting, indicate a professional historian and/or a retired military officer with staff experience in writing operational orders/analyses. Congratulations are certainly due here. Some small observations: the selected bibliography could be broadened (some contemporary german sources would be useful) and references to the British Commonwealth could be tidied up. The brigade details could also be clarified (eg 'Durham Light Infantry' and the 'Royal Sussex Regiment'). There is more information available now about v.Thoma. If the original compiler of the article would like to send me a message, I will take a look at my material here and forward what I have. otherwise: very very good. and thanks. bruce (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Bruce

The source section is for only the books and other media which have been used to create the article. Its now becoming somewhat frowned upon to have massive lists of books on the article which have not been used.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Further_Reading.2FBibliography

For more information.

You have confused me regarding clarifying the brigade details, what exactly do you mean?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Key for maps

Maybe I just haven't spotted the link for this, but it seems a shame for someone to go to all the effort of making such detailed maps only to render most of the detail useless to readers by the omission of a key. Can anyone tell me what the crosses, circles and other symbols attached to each regiment mean? Drumandbeast (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean like on this map? link

Above the flags: X = Brigade XX = Division

The cross through the flags means infantry divisions, the oval means Armoured Divisions and a cross with an oval is mechanized infantry (although the units stated as such on the maps are techically more motorised infantry then mechanized infantry)

They are map symbols used by NATO: APP-6a, paticular the "Common Combinations" section

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

London Radio

A statement was added here, I regard this as being a little dubious, I cannot find source for it and I think it unlikely that London Radio would have broadcast such a grammically incorrect statement. Can anyone provide a source, or should I remove it? Harland1 (^t/_c) 13:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. This needs to be looked into. I'll see if I can come up with an answer in the next week or two, work and studies permitting thougg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.6.163.30 (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Order sent to Rommel from Hitler

After a few edits in the article i have reproduced in full the order sent to Rommel from Hitler. Liddle Hart the editor or the Rommel Papers added the full version to the bottom of the same page so the source info is spot on in the article.

However it is a bit lenghly, below is the exact version that Rommel himself recorded - basically a summary. I have checked both and am pretty sure they are both bob on so use whichever one you wish to.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"To Field Marshal Rommel. In the situation which you find yourself there can be no other thought but to stand fast and throw every gun and every man into the battle. The utmost efforts are being made to help you. Your enemy, despite his superiority, must also be at the end of his strength. It would not be the first time in history that a strong will has triumphed over the bigger battalions. As to your troops, you can show them no other road than that to victory or death. Adolf Hitler"

References

Soldiers of 16 nationalities fought on the Allies' side?

Hi, guys, I read it from a book that soldiers from 16 nationalities fought for the Allies in this battle. This description surely includes British colonies. I wonder if anyone can help clarify these 16 please?

Here is my count:

UK, Brtish India, NZ, AU, SA, Free France, Greece, British Malaya, Gurkha.

Vulturedroid (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I dont think anyone from Malaya would have fought in this battle however prehaps the numbers are made up by - and this is a personal guess - palestinian jews, men from the other African colonies and possibly the odd American (several American tankers had fought at Gazala and i believe elements of the USAAF (and possibly Canada) flew combat missions over this battlefield).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Maybe the numbers are made up by the Foreign Legion?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am doing a reasearch paper on this topic and ill be sure to post some —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon218 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source but I seem to recall that some other nations of the British Empire were also present: some Jamaicans, some Trinidanians, some Africans possibly. Sorry to be so vague. Also it might be a worth a mention somewhere in the article that historically the battle was the last battle to be fought by the British Empire without US backing. All subsequent battles had American involvement and usually their dominance too. SmokeyTheCat 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there some sort of Canadian involvement in North Africa? It might not have been a huge involvement but I'm pretty there must have at least been a few Canadian soldiers in the battle. I don't have much to cite it, the closest I can get to citing it is that I have a neighbour who's father was in North Africa and he was part of the Canadian Army. Stingray444--Stingray444 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No Canadian units were involved in the fighting in North Africa. You'll see from the official Canadian History here that Canadian involvement in North Africa was confined to 201 officers and 147 NCOs being posted for three month periods to British units from Jan 1943 (during the Tunisian Campaign) to gain experience. Canadian units took part in the fighting in Sicily and Italy however. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Soldiers?

The Arabic version of this article includes in the infobox that soldiers from the Kingdom of Egypt. The article actually has them as second in the Allied list, though I'm not sure in what order countries should be listed. Does anyone have any information on the presence or lack thereof of Egyptian Soldiers?Naraht (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Egypt was an independent state during WWII (although treaties arising from the period of colonial dominance prior to independence in 1922 gave Britain responsibility for Egypt's external defence and allowed Britain to use the country as a military base and occupy the Suez Canal Zone). Egypt did not declare war on Italy and Germany and was therefore not a combatant and not directly involved in the Western Desert Campaign. Egyptian troops, which were trained by the British, were indirectly involved by manning some rear echelon defenses within Egypt thus freeing British troops for front line service. I am not aware that Egyptian forces were ever involved in combat although if anyone can find a source to counter this I would be interested. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

About Folgore mithology

Let me add, that the Folgore never fough alone, except small episodes. The minefields were one of the advantage. The Pavia division (ALMOST ALWAYS FORGOTTEN by Folgore historians) was another, as it fought pratically merged with Folgore. There are books written by Pavia artillerimen, that state as Folgore was critically helped by their gun, especially the early days. In many sectors, simply, the british tanks cannot advance because the mines, and artillery fired on them with deadly results for hours. In those situations, Folgore infantry simply did almost nothing if not put their head low. This was also witnessed by a former Folgore infantryman 2 years ago in a El Alamein battle monography. Just i need to check my library to find them and eventually post. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.245.89 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent reversion of addition of block quotes

Gday, I have just made the following reversions of a large amount of block quoted material, here - [1] and here - [2]. I don't have an issue with these incidents being included in the article; however, block quotes should be used sparingly (see WP:QUOTEFARM). This is a very large topic (i.e. the Second Battle of El Alamein) and minor incidents should not be covered in excessive detail per WP:UNDUE. If you feel these incidents are important to the narrative and should be included pls summarise the material in no more than a sentence or two at the most. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

CE

Tidied the Aftermath section, which has a narrative of the Eighth Army advance to Tunisia. Does the Western Desert Campaign end at El Agheila or the Tunisian frontier? I'd shorten the pursuit to Agheila and link to the article there for the rest.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on the elephant in the room

I hate long essays on talk pages so I shall try to make this brief. This is a very well written, thoroughly referenced and informative article. However, is it just my (perhaps biased) perception that it appears to have been carefully edited to avoid explicit mention of any significant positive contributions by the US? One could even make the argument that the inclusion (or the wording used) in the Subsequent operations section of a battle that takes 3 months later had a similar motive. Juan Riley (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the only US contribution to the battle was in the supplying of the first 300 Sherman tanks that were built.

IIRC, the first involvement of US ground troops in any fighting in the Mediterranean Theatre was during Operation Torch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done much to the article but here Outpost Snipe the USAAF gets credit where it's due. If I get round to revising this article and there are any missing Septics to note, they'll get their due too.Keith-264 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Just on the tank counts could the above editor please add up Shermans, Grants, and Stuarts and their percentage of the net British tank count (all as noted in the article--if you can find them)? Juan Riley (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess all I can say now is that you amuse me. Is this to be history in the in of the beholder? Juan Riley (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You're being a bit rude.Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Really? I try to give you folk who edit this article something to think about. I give you time. And then I note you failed to ponder factual history. Did I suggest a huge change? I hinted at one minor tho significant Background/Prelude issue which was glaring by its absence from say one sentence in the text. You are being dense...intentionally. And that does amuse me. Juan Riley (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might just explicitly state what it is you feel is missing from the article IRT US involvement? What units do you believe are not mentioned etc. Also can you suggest sources? I for one am not aware of any significant US involvement but if you have sources that show otherwise they can of course be included. That said there really isn't anything stopping you from just adding the information yourself either. Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If there had been any significant US involvement at El Alamein then other editors would have included it. Unlike some people, Brits don't have such fragile egos that they need to exclude other nationalities from being mentioned in articles where their contribution was significant.

BTW, I wrote 'supplied' Re; the 300 Shermans, rather than 'given by' as IIRC they were paid for, in advance of them being built, with the last of the UK's gold reserves under Cash and Carry in 1940 prior to Lend-Lease. In 1940 the US government made it a condition that they would not allow Britain to raise any loans on Wall Street with-which to continue the war against Germany unless Britain liquidated all its US assets to US buyers, at what were in effect, bargain-basement prices. This is why Lend-Lease was eventually needed, as once Britain had sold-off all its US assets it not longer had the capability to earn dollars with-which to buy US supplies. At that time (and for most of the US's history up to 1940) the UK was by far the biggest foreign investor in the US. Hence all supplies for Britain had to be paid for in cash - hence 'Cash and Carry'.

The original poster may be under the unfortunately widespread misconception that large quantities and supplies of military aircraft, vehicles, ships etc., were 'given' to the UK and Empire forces for nothing. That is not true. The US received in return 99-year leases - the 'Lease' part of 'Lend-Lease' - on numerous British Empire territories around the world on which to build air and naval bases. Upon the ending of the war, the 'lent' equipment, ships, etc., was then required to be returned to the US, and except where the US requested it be disposed of or scrapped, it was. In contrast, as the UK territories were leased to the US for 99 years, the US still has many of them as-of 2015, the leases being due to expire in 2039.

So any US-supplied equipment wasn't 'given' to British Empire forces. It was paid for, in one way or another. And if you don't believe the US got its money's worth, ask a Realtor what a 99-year lease on a piece of land large enough to build an air or naval base in a strategically important part of the world is worth. Then multiply that by 10 or so, or whatever the number of US bases in UK territory was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to say other than you (unsigned editor above) have a narrow understanding of the issues. Read up on WWI war debt and exactly why Lend-Lease was cooked up by FDR. More importantly, every piece of military equipment supplied (under whatever cover) to British forces at this very stage in the war was a serious compromise of the US's Pacific effort. None of this is actually germane. It did exist...it was arguably a major contribution to the battle (outnumbering German-Italian armor 2-1 with the entire margin being US supplied armour) and yet it is not only a footnote in the article, tis a footnote that many would not be able to piece together. If that is your view of objective history.... Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? If you have sources to cite, cite them.Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So to summarise we are only talking about material support (the tanks). Is that correct Juan? Isn't this already mentioned in the article here: "On the other hand, the British Commonwealth forces were being re-supplied with men and materials from the United Kingdom, India, Australia and New Zealand, as well as with trucks and Sherman tanks from the United States." (although this isn't currently referenced). To be honest I can't see why any more than that would be necessary unless there were a number of reliable sources which covered the issue and made the case that it was decisive or somehow greatly effected the outcome (per WP:UNDUE). Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have Hunnicutt's Sherman on an inter-library loan at moment. So I can probably source/clarify the provision of the Shermans (M4_Sherman#First_combat). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is mostly pointless. Counting tank types and assuming their effect on the outcome of the battle is WP:SYNTH at best, if not outright WP:OR. If there's a source that states the US had notable impact on the battle, then add the statement and source -- no discussion needed. Without that source, the US impact statement cannot be added -- nothing to discuss. We can only simply state there were US tanks, which we already do. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have been reticent to get into an argument on what I felt to be a glaring issue in this article. I have ignored the "...Brits don't have such fragile egos..." comments by some editors--even as they embarrassingly expose them. I have ignored the ownership implying tense of comments like "We can only simply state...". Importantly AnotherClown above asked me 2 days ago "Isn't this already mentioned in the article here:" and then quotes a line that actually mentioned the US...which had been inserted by another editor that very day. To answer AnotherClown yes that line does address the issue. Tone and wording will always be an issue. And far be it from me to step on non-fragile egos. But at least the US supplying something...anything to the British Eigth Army in advance of this battle is mentioned in the text--which it wasn't before. And was that not the issue? Juan Riley (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're a hoaxer.Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

All, please remember to WP:AGF.

Along those lines, the "we" in my "We can only simply state" includes all WP editors, which certainly includes everyone on this talk page.

Back to the article content subject: Currently, the US tanks are counted, which is sourced, but their impact on the outcome is not, because that is not sourced. I think we're done here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AGF doesn't include ignoring the obvious.Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As User:A D Monroe III said, this is done. At least the elephant has been acknowledged. Not sure what connotations "hoaxer" carries in someone's vernacular--nor what is so obvious. Juan Riley (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Juan, sorry I don't follow your comment above saying that the information about the Shermans had been added "that day", according to WikiBlame its been in the article in some form since at least 2008 [3] (but possibly earlier) so as I said it was already covered. Anyway as you said this is sorted so I guess there is nothing further to discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I really shouldnt go here...but that last post was absurd. User:AnotherClown: Did you not quote an article line in your comment showing how armor supplied by the US was within the article text? Was that line not just added that day by another editor? Was there a similar line any time in the recent past history of the article that somehow got deleted? How much trouble did you go to to show that "sherman" had been mentioned before in this article (or footnotes) even though in essence that was not the issue? The issue is over. I am sure you are waiting for me to edit that line. Well get over it. I tried to help you make a better more factual article. Your problem if you keep hunting for search algorithms to prove yourselves right to yourselves and write history as you perceive it. Juan Riley (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try and bite my tongue about your over reaction here. My point is that the information about the US supplied Shermans seems to have already been in the article at the time you started the discussion (as far as I could tell). After you said it wasn't I used a tool to see when it had been inserted as I thought I had misread the article in the first place. Anyway I'm not waiting for you to edit anything, I've barely had any involvement in this article to date and my interaction in this thread was one of trying to understand the issue which (I thought) you were trying to highlight. I've already stated that if you felt something was missing and you had a reliable source for the information it should be included, as have several other editors. Why you are choosing to get defensive about my question is beyond me. If you still think the article is deficient then pls go ahead and fix it. Anotherclown (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

So in answer to the original poster, There Is No Elephant.

See Tizard Mission to see what the UK gave to the US in 1940, for free, and then see how often the 'superior technology of the US' is mentioned in US articles without any mention of where the US obtained it from. Perhaps the original poster might like to go round the appropriate US articles on the Pacific War etc., and ask their editors about the inclusion or not of the effect of British technology such as centimetric radar on the outcomes. See also the Allied technological cooperation during World War II page, where almost all the new development made came from the UK, and was given to the US for nothing. That's modern radar, jet engines, gyro gunsights, various explosives, specialised equipment such as Hobart's Funnies, etc.,

I only mention the above because almost without exception these 'American inventions' are often described as such, with no mention of the fact that they were actually devised by the British, never mind that these important technological achievements worth millions of pounds in licensing fees were actually in most cases given to the US for nothing - a bit like a form of 'Foreign Aid'.

I would do this myself, but as written above, not having a 'fragile ego' that makes me feel the need to have my country's influence, significant or not, mentioned in every article, I won't bother.

BTW, at the time of El Alamein the US was actually at war with Nazi Germany, Hitler having declared war on the US in December 1941, therefore as the US was actually doing very little against Germany on the ground at the time perhaps the 300 Shermans were meant by FDR to show that the US was at least prepared to make some effort. OTOH, perhaps it was because the British had already paid for them. IIRC, the British Tank Mission of 1940 had considerable influence over the design of what became the Sherman, and IIARC, they had already paid cash in advance in 1940 for the first 300 off the production line at a time when the US was still neutral. As an insurance against non-supply (for whatever reasons) of the Sherman, they had also instigated design and production of the Ram in Canada, so if the Sherman had not been available they would have used that instead.

Oh, I nearly forgot. The US couldn't have made much use of those 300 Shermans in the Pacific at the time of El Alalmein, simply because the US had no Landing Ship Tanks or Landing Craft Tanks to land them-from. The British had only just devised them and passed the designs/concepts on to the US a while before. Besides, the British made-do with obsolete Grants and Lees throughout the Burma Campaign, Japanese tanks being very poor in comparison to German ones and easily knocked-out by a QF 6 pdr/57mm at ranges well over a mile. And contrary to propaganda films such as Objective, Burma!, the US had very little involvement on the ground there either. Come to that, neither did the Chinese.

If the US had made any significant other contribution at El Alamein it would already have been in the article.

... and in answer to the unwritten question, what would have happened if the US or USSR hadn't come in on the side of Britain in WW II, the result would still have been that whatever happened, the average German would still have ended up living in a hole in the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.131 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for all your well thought out objective comments. Juan Riley (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.13 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I revisit to be amused. Juan Riley (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

John Terraine, in The Right of the Line: The Royal Air Force in the European War 1939-1945, Hodder & Stoughton 1985, pbk Sceptre 1988, p.384, remarks on Allied air superority at Alamein, 'The build-up of what was still, in October, known as the United States Army Middle East Air Force (US Ninth Air Force from November 12) under Major-General Lewis H. Brereton, was indicative: IX Bomber Command, comprising two Heavy Bombardment Groups, six squadrons (one B-17, five B-24), a Medium Bombardment Group (four squadrons of B-25s) and a Fighter Group (three squadrons of P-40s). Overall control of the USAMEAF was vested in General Brereton in consultation with Tedder [AOC-inC Middle East] and the Middle East Cs-in-C. The Americans retained a measure of control over the Heavy Bombardment Groups, but the day bombers and fighters were directly under Coningham [commander Western Desert Air Force]. All told, the Allied air forces in the Middle East in October 1942 numbered 96 squadrons.'

So the US element on call for Alamein, one P-40 group and one B-25 group under RAF command, was pretty small. Terraine, p.385, goes on:-- 'November 3 was certainly the busiest and probably the most successful day of air operations. In the space of 24 hours the RAF flew 1,208 sorties and dropped 396 tons of bombs on the now crumbling enemy (in addition to a further 53 sorties by US day bombers and 72 by fighters). However, British fighter losses that day amounted to 16, with 11 more damaged. In the whole battle, October 23 - November 4, the RAF flew 10,405 sorties, and the Americans 1,181; the British lost 77 aircraft and the Americans 20.' This disparity, with the Americans flying about a tenth as many sorties as the British but losing about a quarter as many aircraft, may indicate lack of operational experience. Terraine continues, 'On the Axis side, the Germans (1,550 sorties) lost 64, and the Italians (1,570) lost an estimated 20.' So the Americans did rather worse than the Italians in losses per 100 sorties; though not as badly as the Germans, who seem to have got monstered -- the three squadrons of RAF Spitfire Vs are thought to have had a disproportionate effect on German losses.

There were about 400 non-Empire Allied casualties in the battle. Those would be mostly from the Free French and Greek brigades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamba Tendal (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC) Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If the other poster will care to check I believe I did originally write ground troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

According to a 1957 ISTAT study, Italian casualties in North Africa were 521 killed and 214 missing during October 1942, and 602 killed and 282 missing in November 1942. Maybe it can be of use.--Olonia (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a better source.--Olonia (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ships & supplies

In case it can be of use for future expansion of the "Prelude" section (I do not know how to properly integrate the info in the text), I list here some data about convoys and supplies sent to North Africa in the prelude of the battle. The data come from the book "La difesa del traffico con l'Africa settentrionale dall'1.10.1942 alla caduta della Tunisia" of the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, pages 77 to 104 and 270 to 288:

In the timespan between 1 October 1942 and 4 November 1942:

Merchant ships which sailed from Italy towards Libya, 36; of these: 23 arrived, 10 sunk, 3 damaged and forced to turn back. Merchant ships employed in coastal transport from Tripolitania to Cyrenaica, and from ports of western Cyrenaica to ports of Eastern Cyrenaica (not counting motor sailing vessels): 11 arrived, 3 sunk.

Supplies sent during October 1942, 83,695 tons, of which 46,698 tons arrived, 55,8 % (one of the worst months, for the Axis, in the "convoy war" between Italy and North Africa).

Laden tankers which sailed for Libya between 1 October 1942 and 4 November 1942 (the amount of their cargoes are not specified):

• Panuco, damaged and forced to turn back to Taranto on 19 October;
• Saturno, reached Tripoli on 20 October;
• Alfredo, damaged but reached Tobruk on 25 October;
• Arca, sunk on 26 October (she was sailing from Istanbul to Leros, but she was due to carry on to Libya);
• Proserpina, sunk on 26 October (according to Internet sources, whose reliability I do not know, she was carrying 4,553 tons of fuel, of which 888 destined to Luftwaffe, 2,500 to the Panzerarmee and 1,165 to the Italian forces);
• Luisiano, sunk on 29 October;
• Portofino, reached Bengasi on 4 November, but was bombed and sunk while moored in the harbour on 6 November, with her cargo (or part of it) still aboard;

Several cargo ships also carried fuel along with other supplies, but this is only explicitly said some times (that is, there are more):

• motorship Sestriere, reached Bengasi on 7 October with 3,030 tons of fuel;
• auxiliary cruiser Zara, laden with fuel barrels (unspecified quantity), sunk on 2 November;
• steamer Alga, carrying fuel barrels (unspecified quantity) amongst other supplies, sunk on 9 October;
• motorship Tergestea, sunk on 26 October (according to Internet sources, whose reliability I do not know, she was carrying 1,000 tons of fuel);
• steamer Etiopia, laden with fuel barrels, reached Tobruk on 3 November, but bombed and sunk while moored in the harbour on 6 November.

--Olonia (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor point

How could there be 20 "American" aircraft in the casualties section since the "Americans" were not belligerents? Please correct by deleting such casualties. They must be erroneous. Juan Riley (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

They. were.Keith-264 (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Care for a little nuance with that home grown sauce? Ah no? Well okay with me. Juan Riley (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It's. cited. Keith-264 (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You never answered the question about how casualties can be incurred by folk who weren't belligerents. But I don't really expect an answer. Just being a gadfly. Perhaps I should go find a conscience to prick? Juan Riley (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You.want.wiki.history.to.read.like.you.imagine.it.should? Juan Riley (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. User:Keith-264 I.am making.fun.of your.attempt.to.make.fun.of.me. How.does.it.feel.pushing.your.WWII.POV? It amuses me.Juan Riley (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article--link below. Not sure of my POV but the fact that this article neglects these, perhaps revisionist, views makes this a rather dated and self serving one. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221706/Battle-El-Alamein-Was-Montys-finest-hour-just-pointless-bloodbath.html Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Montgomery took over the 8th Army with orders to destroy Rommel and his Army.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. See WP:NOTAFORUM

:It's actually fairly obvious. Of course there were no US troops involved. If there had been, their commanders would have disobeyed or failed to successfully carry out - despite being allocated the 'easy' bits - Monty's orders and the battle would probably have been lost, and then the same leaders and their supporters would still be trying to shift the blame onto Montgomery today. That's what they always did.

... let's see now ....

• Omaha Beach - turned down all of the 79th Armoured Division's specialised vehicles except for the DD tanks, which they then launched from too far out and which then got swamped by heavy seas. No such problems on Gold, Sword, or Juno.

• Mulberry A - unlike Mulberry B, which was assembled properly by the Royal Engineers, the floating roadways at Omaha were lashed together using ropes rather than the properly engineered steel locking pins as "it's only supposed to be temporary", as a result, it was torn apart in the storm a few weeks later.

• The Breakout from Normandy - where Montgomery was criticised by them for being "too slow", neglecting to mention that Monty's British and Canadians were facing seven-and-a-half full strength Panzer Divisions (including most of the Waffen-SS ones) outside Caen whereas their own troops were facing only one-and-a-half.

• Operation Market Garden - where despite being advised to use gliders (as the British had successfully done earlier in Operation Deadstick) so that they could land close to the two bridges they were required to take intact, and which were crucial to the success of the whole operation, they instead chose to jump from aircraft, leading to the paratroopers landing all over the place and giving the German defenders the time to gather their wits and blow the Son bridge.

• The Battle of the Bulge - where having allowed the cock-up to happen in the first place, their leaders then tried to shift the blame to Montgomery by accusing him of criticising the performance of the US soldier, whereas he did quite the opposite, AND got the same leaders out of the s**t by leading a proper defence - their job, not his.

• The same leaders then criticised him during Operation Veritable for his "slowness" completely neglecting to consider the fact that he had had to postpone the operation for over a month giving the previously hard frozen ground time to thaw and soften because he been obliged earlier to move most of his British and Canadian armour to protect the Meuse because of their cock-up in the Ardennes.

"... and that M'Lud, is the case for the defence ....".

A Pretty Conclusive Proof, don't you think.

BTW, A Happy New Year to you all.

No source for American casualties

this supposedly cited source doesn't seem to show anything about the American casualties. Therefore I believe it should be taken out of the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

20 American aircraft. If you want details of the human casualties look them up.Keith-264 (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264You are only mentioning the unsourced info in the infobox. This either needs to be cited or deleted. The article in which JuanRiley brought above has a part that states: "For nearly two weeks, 200,000 men and officers from Britain and the Empire — without the Americans — fought against more than 100,000 Germans and Italians in one of the most bloody and attritional battles of the war."(N0n3up (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC))

Try reading with your eyes open. Casualties section: The artillery lost 111 guns and the DAF lost 77 British and 20 American aircraft.[130] (130 = footnote 130.) Please stop carping on the talk page and do your homework. Oh, happy new yearKeith-264 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Keith-264 Once again, those infos in the infobox are unsourced. I pointed to a source above that mentions Americans not being belligerents. And the way you said ry reading with your eyes open while pointing out a section I've mentioned as unsourced makes me wonder if it's some kind of sophistry tactic. A flag-waving pro-American patriotically motivated perhaps? (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

I'M ENGLISH you ignoramus. read the footnote instead of wasting energy playing games. You do know that the USAAF was operational in the Western Desert don't you? See here Outpost Snipe for another example of your American non-combatants

About 70 Axis tanks and self-propelled guns in two waves, about 1,200 yards (1,100 m) west of Outpost Snipe, were to attack the British tanks beyond the ridge to the east, after a five-minute bombardment and a Junkers Ju 87 Stuka attack. As the formation of 20 Stukas, escorted by 20 Fiat CR.42s and 20 Me-109s approached, it was intercepted by 16 Curtiss P-40s of the 64th Fighter Squadron and the 65th Fighter Squadron, USAAF, which claimed six Axis fighters. The Axis formation was then attacked by 24 Hurricanes of 33 Squadron and 213 Squadron RAF, which claimed two Stukas, four CR-42s and three Me-109s for a loss of three Hurricanes.[27]

Keith-264 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of El Alamein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932852,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2