Were sacrificed by Rommel in the attempt to counter the Allied offensive and cover the withdrawal of the Afrika Korp. On 4 November the few surviving Ariete's tanks, surrounded by an overwhelmingly superior enemy, broadcast their last message: Enemy tanks broke through South of Ariete Division. Ariete thus surrounded, located 5 kilometers north east of Bir-el-Abd. Ariete tanks keep on fighting!
At El Alamein the 5000 Folgore's paras were under attack from 50 000 of 3 UK divisions 44th (Home Counties), 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry, 7th Armoured (the legendary DESERT RATS) + Grecians and artillery.
In the following days between 25 October and 4 November, the 50th, 7th, 44th divisions, 1st and 2nd Free French and the Royal Hellenic Brigades, supported by artillery and armour, had failed to break through in the southern sector.
There's a lot of similarities between Montgomery in North Africa and Ulyses S Grant in Virginia in 1864. They both faced two of the most brillitant and daring commanders in history in Rommel and Robert E Lee. Monte and Grant knew with their superior numbers, weapons and supplies they couldn't lose a battle of attrition - and that's just what they did.
Interesting vid; a point that they seemed to miss was the Allied campaign against the supply shops across the Mediterranean which did much to deprive the Axis forces of resources.
Brilliant as am not a military man at all its now that i beging to understand what a huge diference a Great commander means to the success of his Army maybe Rommel was very good But against the best he was always second
@polygamous1 Mate you have fallen for the Monte myth. Rommel is, and this is excepted by all military historians, considerably more competent as a commander than Montgomery.
@soolerman am not sure about that to be honest but in this important battle the desert fox was outfioxed compleatly by Monty who fooled Rommel in every department
@polygamous1 Funny when ever this battle has been wargamed. And by that I am referring to academic and military wargames. No one has done even half as well as Rommel did. Its also very rare for someone to take as long as Monte did to win. His left hook was an act of desperation and the victory is a credit only to the men on the ground. Monte didn’t win El Alamein he just failed to loos it. Have a look at his other so called victories like Epsom and Market Garden or his operations in Sicily
@soolerman did he Not win? did he Not fool Rommel? didn't he lose far less men than Rommel iof this is Not Victory what is n Remember its men like him we owe our freedoms to in Sicily he was Not in charge of course British troops are fighters But every army needs a Great commander in Monty the British found theirs this is also a little personal my late uncle was wounded there
@polygamous1 I am sorry you find my remarks some what personal and I apologise. But I fail to see why. My grandfather severed under Monty twice. And three of my relatives got killed under his command and I don’t take any of it personally. The simple facts are Monty is severely over rated. The British press/people needed a hero, as you so rightly pointed out. But that job is done and fact not spin is needed to understand and hopefully avoided the same mistakes being repeated.
@soolerman am sorry too if i gave the impression i took your remarkd personally i never did but i think human nature is such that we all seem to think better of our own n even am not native born am still proud to be British n one of my uncles fought against facism its alspo what i learn in hiostory at school about Monty n its too deep in my heart that Monty was a Real hero in my heart Monty proved to e better than Rommel my uncle tols us to watch your mates killed is real hell Peace
@soolerman El Alamein was a crushing victory no matter what way you spin it. The Panzer Army was broken and fled with all the speed it could muster, persued vigerously by the 8th Army until it crossed into Tunisia.
Epsom was commaded by Miles Dempsey, as was Goodwood. Market Garden was a failure of the whole Allied command. In Sicily Montgomery faced the strongest German defense and still reach Messina on the same day as Patton, who face little resistance until he advance on Messina.
@11nytram11 Rommel was referring to the build up and the need to fight on two fronts. It is also you that call him incompetent not me. The facts are he was to systematic and cautious. He also made the mistake of being predictable. OB West assessment as well as the assessment of Model, Maxwell, Matthew and Alan Wood to name but a few. His actions also do not stand up well to modem assessment. Your other points are self defeating in themselfs mate.
@soolerman Rommel was refering to the fact that Montgomery relied on tried and tested methods and the not unproven theory that his predecessors had. That Monty kept his army well in hand and had the 8th working as an army not individual units.
Rommel knew he was facing a different kind of adversary after Alam el Halfa when he bemoaned that "the swine isn't attacking" as Monty let him break himself against the Alam el Halfa Ridge.
@soolerman I did not call Monty incompetant, I said you were trying to portray him as some kind of incompetant.You ribbished his victories, place the tactical failures of other on his shoulder and belittled him as a commander while championing Rommel.
Rommel is a cult and one of the most overrated generals in history. Kesselring once said Rommel had not aptitude for strategy or logistics and that he was a failure as an army commander because of his habit of leading charges.
@soolerman My other points are not self-defeating.
Dempsey planned & commanded Goodwood & Epsom. As commander of the British 2nd Army he was responsible for the tactical operations in the British sector of the Campaign. He was the equivilent of Bradley there & they conducted their operations under the overall guidence of Montgomery who was Allied Land Forces Commander. Credit of blame for the campaign overall rest with Monty & with the individual sectors lies with Bradley/Dempsey.
@soolerman Market Garden was a failure of the whole Allied High Command. Eisenhower never gave it the support he promised it, Bradley/Patton engaged their armies in combat so as to prevent anything being diverted from them, Monty was negligent in exersizing command, Browning/Brereton planned poorly, they &Dempsey failed to display any zeal or grip in executing it, XXX Corp didnt move quickly enough and 82nd Airborne failed to take their targets on schedule. Blame can be shared around.
@soolerman Montgomery worked out a system that worked for the Army he commanded. Colossal Cracks. It involved relying on overwhelming firepower and sacrificed maneuver. It played to the strengths of the British Army, not the German. While it may have become predictable the Germans failed to come up with anyway to counter it and the only they managed to defeat a Montgomery campaign outright was the most un-Montgomery-like campaign the British Army fought in WW2 - Market Garden.
@soolerman The assessment of the German of Monty being predictable, therefore, is kind of worthless. They may have been able to predict what he was going to do but they failed utterly in countering it.
Furthermore, a great deal of the cautiousness exhibited by Montgomery had to do with Britain's situation. They were running out of manpower. Britain could not afford for Monty to take risks if it was going to be in any position to have a say in how post-Europe was shaped.
@soolerman Stephen A. Hart's book Colossal Cracks is a bloody difficult read but it delves into the reasons behind Montgomery's approach far more than any other assessment of Bernard Montgomery career has ever done. Read that for a more complete explorations of his methods.
@11nytram11 Thanks for the info and I will have a look mate. I would suggest you look at the after-action reports of his campaigns and the reports of the time from the guys that where their. As well as the war game reconstructions done by the UK armed forces over the years. Sadly you will not get to do what I did, ie speak to guys that knew him and served under him first hand. Funny but bastered, murderer and little shit don’t get into the history books. I found them common comments as a child.
@soolerman El Alamein was a forgone conclusion once Stumme died in the initial bombardment and the Panzer Army was left commanderless. Monty's initial plan to get his armour through the minefield to act as a shield for his infantry as they crumbled the German positions failed because the Armour commanders refused to follow his orders - some even refused to advance - so he ended up relying on his infantry.
@soolerman If the British and Commonwealth troops could have defeated Rommel on their own they would have done so regardless of who commanded them and we'd now be debating the merits of Neame, Ritche, Cunningham or Auchinleck.
Rommel himself once remarked that "The war in the desert ceased to be a game when Montgomery took over." so trying to portray Monty as some kind if incompetant isn't going to cut it.
`yes you are correct the individual Italian was reasonably good. However the Italian army was a joke, tearable equipment, and badly led for the most part. They were not equipped with German arms as there were not enough available to do so. the Germans did give them a linece to produce the db605 aircraft engine. The British chased there navy out of the med. and they 'leaked' information to the allies, on top of what they were getting via ultra.
@rdx506 the only thing American tanks had going for them is numbers. other than that they were crap, even the panzer IV was a better tank, and that was designed in the 30's, better gun from the pz kmph IVg on and perity much equal on armour. even as late as '44-'45 with the Pershing it was barely a match for the panther. Not as good as the tiger, on paper, there was never a real combat encounter. The German 88mm was better than the US 90mm ,hell the 75L70 was just as good as the US 90mm .
@rdx506 The British called the M-4 the Ronson Lighter and the Germans called it Tommy Cooker because it was prone to go up in flames when hit by enemy shells. The British Tank Brigades generally prefered the Churchill because it was comfortable, great off-road, had armour capable of withstanding the most powerful of the German guns of the time and had weaponry that was effective if a bit weaker than the Sherman.
slipped away!!! yeah shure!!! monty was so scared of Rommel, he wanted more troops and material to pursue him!!! if not he would've stayed in cairo the whole war!!
@Lasarus89 Monty cared for his men! He was very cautious and wanted the odds to be on his side! When Monty arrived in N.Africa the British were back winning the war, It was Monty who won the war in N.Africa. Rommel was crazy he used to charge like a bull! So much for been the desert fox!
@martynrobin121 montgomery did not won the war in north africa... was the US industry and the Torch operation who saved UK's ass... Rommel was not crazy he knew when to atack and when to retreat and when he did it it was on the perfect moment sometimes not because he studied so deeply the situation but sometimes because of luck...
@Lasarus89 You said saved the U.Ks ass?? Monty had humiliated and crushed the Axis Alliance at El Alamein whitch was the major battle of Africa and the turning point. Rommel lost most of his Tanks,Aircraft,Fuel and WATER and thousands of troops! The Axis were crushed and the Americans hadnt even arrived!! Rommel knew Hitler wouldnt send more Resources,Supplies they were finished Monty had humiliated Rommel. When the Americans arrived it was just the case of driving the defeated Axis out!
@martynrobin121 The Germans lost but they were certainly not humiliated given the odds against them. The Germans NEVER lost a battle that they had any realistic chance of winning. Montgomery was smart enough to realize that and put Churchill off until he had an absolutely overwhelming superiority in men and equipment.
@warager37 The Axis Alliance was moslty humiliated in N.Africa, Yet alone in 1940 the Axis had lost countless thousands of troops and the British had 160,000 Axis troops in P.O.W camps. And it was Churchill who ordered the last stand at El Alamein, After been pushed back from Libya. And the Axis troops were close to mutiny before the battle of El Alamein, The British had broke the Nazi codes and were reading Hitlers orders, R.A.F wiped out there Supplies,Resources,etc.,etc
@warager37 The Italians were very brave, And the Germans admired how the Italians fought. Most of Rommels men in N.Africa were Italians. And both German,Italian Forces were humiliated in N.Africa. El Alamein and Stalingrad marked the end of the European Axis campaigns.
@martynrobin121 Nobody wants to lose. But I think you should judge people by what they do with what they have. Given the correlation of forces - in particular, Ultra - nobody in the position of Stumme/Rommel would have won that battle. But the Germans outpunched their weight by any reasonable standard. They almost always did. You check the numbers. Germans should be humiliated by the Holocaust but hardly by their tactical performance anywhere.
@martynrobin121 The Italians were a joke, the British bagged thousands of them which is why the Germans got involved in Africa. At Stalingrad the Russians attacked through the Italians and The romaines, because they were the weak links on the German flanks.
@jsharpe45 The Italians were not a joke, They had balls of steel and were very brave. Erwin Rommel realised the Italains lacked good leaders,tactics and most of all equipment. The Italains were decades out of date. And the Germans in the East supplied there European Allies with German equipment,supplies and even uniforms. And the in 1941, Battle of Moscow the Red Army counter attacked defeated the Germans just like at Stalingrad 1942.
At El Alamein 50 000 men of 3 UK divisions 44th (Home Counties), 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry, 7th Armoured (the legendary DESERT RATS) + Grecians and strong artillery were NOt able to win against 5000 Italians Para of Folgore between 25 October and 4 November.
@OMBspa In calling the British cowards you deminish the actions of the Italians. The Italians fought a brave and highly competant defense against a foe who enjoyed superiority of manpower and material and they fought on longer than Rommel who sacrificed them to save his own skin. It is an action worthy of high praise but in levelling acusations of cowardice against the British you lessen the strenght of the opposition the Italians faced and so tarnish their efforts.
The 7 Armoured Div Desert Rats with 2000 heavy tanks has the order not to engage in battle against only 60 semoventi 70/18 Italians Second Battle of El Alamein
sinking of 18 italians hospital ships
Cpt. Todaro the Kabalo October 16, 1940 After making the sinking he did not hesitate to host the castaways on the ubot. British In the sinking of the Laconia have closed their holds with Italian POW and have cut their hands to those who tried to board the lifeboats
You must take a look a that cowards of americans, in Vietnam, Corea, in Somalia, in Libano, iraq, afganistan before open your front shit hole Take a look at what written by British enemies regarding Italians
@warager37 I agree. I was never really impressed with Montgomery. He fucked up at Market-Garden, Goodwood and Epsom. Caen was a smoking ruin after he had finished with huge allied losses and even with a 2-1 numerical superiority at El-Alamein he almost fucked that up too.
@SuperQuiller Market Garden came within a stones throw of success & would have been considered the most brilliant operation ever undertaken by the Allies had it worked. A combination of Monty's unsually hands-off approach, poor planning & leadership from Browning, Brereton & Dempsey, & Eisenhower not supporting it fully while letting Bradley's offensives continue, diverting supplys from 21st Army Group & not giving it the manpower he promised to, doomed it to failure. Blame can be shared around.
@11nytram11 Correct to an extent but the American airborne did their part and did it well and bravely. The British were let down by by the leadership but never by the the ordinary soldiers.
@2001perseus Well, the 82nd US Airbourne failed to capture the Nijmegen bridge on the first day when German resistance was very weak. This was a failure in planning - dropping the whole division south of the bridge rather than both side - and a failure of the 82nd to move with the needed urgency, which allowed the Germans to entrench near the bridge - there were 19 soldiers on it when MARKET GARDEN began - and forced the allies to fight hard to take it.
@2001perseus It was not, really, the 82nd fault. Brereton had failed to stress that the priority of the mission was to take the bridge and so Gavin focused instead of taking the roads and the surrounding heights. As a result the 82nd was not focused on the task that needed to be accomplished and this caused a delay in the XXX Corps advance by 36 hours which doomed the operation to failure.
@2001perseus Like the British and Commonweatlh troops involved, the 82nd was let down by poor planning and poor leadership - this was a failing that was indiscriminate throughout all the Allied forced involved in this operation, made worse by Montgomery's negligence in making sure everything was on track and planned properly.
The effectiveness of the troops themselves was never in doubt but their efforts were exhausted in the wrong capacity.
@11nytram11 Largely I agree with you, where I differ is over the cruciality of the delay at Nijmegen. Even without that delay 30 corp still would have been stopped short of Arnhem by a handful of 88s and their support troops. That is down to Montgomery who despite the availability of RAF and US tankbusters which would have cleared the way did not include any in operation planning. Whether this was due to a desire not to share credit or complacency I don't know but he not the 82nd is to blame.
@2001perseus Nobody has actually blamed the 82nd for the failure of the operation, their failure to take the Nijmegen Bridge is only seen as a contribution to the overall failure. Generally the XXX Corps gets the most blame for not moving quickly enough then Montgomery gets the lions share of the blame for all the planning, tactical, strategic and logistical mistakes - indeed few credit the Germans for responding well to the initial surprise.
@11nytram11 I think I misunderstood and thought you were apportioning lack of success to the 82nd, clearly you don't. You have looked into this very deeply indeed. Personally I think it could have worked if air support had been involved and I suspect it was not, due to petty inter service rivalry getting the better of good judgement. Delegation or not it was Monty's operation and he should have planned air support to help those men beyond simply supply drops. So many brave men lost, sad.
@2001perseus Monty's failure was not in the planning, tactics, strategy or logistics of the operation but in overall negligence. For some reason he was in a funk in his HQ, perhaps felling hard done by for losing the Allied Land Forces Commander role, & so once he got permission to put the operation into effect he delegated everything to others. Browning and Brereton planned the operation and they and Dempsey commanded it. Monty was not himself in letting them have a free reign.
@SuperQuiller Caen was the most hotly contested part of the Battle for Normandy. There were 6 and a half German Panzer units opposing the 2nd British Army - only 1 and a half against the Americans, and it took no less time for the British against heavy resistance to take Caen and push into the region beyond it than it did for the Americans to clear the Cherbourg Peninsula and break out at Avranches against lesser resistance. So citing Caen as some kind of drastic failure doesn't really stand up.
Modern documentaries have an advantage when they use new research based on recently discovered evidence, such as declassified documents, as they can throw a fresh light on the wartime propaganda and postwar myths which influenced a lot of earlier documentary film making. As others have pointed out, however, there's nothing new, no "Lost Evidence", in this. At least it doesn't try to make out that it was the Americans who won the battle, but give Hollywood a little more time.......
@mjeshaw: Why did you have to mess up a perfectly good comment with the snarky jab of - "At least it doesn't try to make out that it was the Americans who won the battle, but give Hollywood a little more time.......?" Hells Bells, we weren't even there. But we sure would have made the victory happen sooner - sometimes a snarky jab just brings out the snark in me.
After Battle of British the British empire just got stronger got there brave british morale back and started to win battle after battle and it was american supplies who helped them do this and we thank them very much. A turning point in the way the germans failed to invade britain and now they failed to take north africa nazi italian forces the german armies could deal with the british after 1941 and when there allies america started sending troops over 1942 the british and allies unstoppable
I have decided these modern documentries are not that good really. They focus on computer graphic, cheap re-enactments, and they repeat themselves so often that it takes 30-60 minutes to say what older docs used to say in 5-10 minutes. They are made for the dim witted with short attention spans that spend their time surfing for flash.
Oh well what can you do, better then nothing I guess
@Peorhum You said it all. If you want some decent documantary, then I suggest all Battlefield series, which can be found here on youtube. There are at least 2 focusing on North Africa campaign. Overall strategy maps, order of battle, numbers etc. They have it all.
185 Airborne Division Folgore
132 Armoured Division Ariete
Were sacrificed by Rommel in the attempt to counter the Allied offensive and cover the withdrawal of the Afrika Korp. On 4 November the few surviving Ariete's tanks, surrounded by an overwhelmingly superior enemy, broadcast their last message: Enemy tanks broke through South of Ariete Division. Ariete thus surrounded, located 5 kilometers north east of Bir-el-Abd. Ariete tanks keep on fighting!
Then they were destroyed to the last tank
OMBspa 2 weeks ago
At El Alamein the 5000 Folgore's paras were under attack from 50 000 of 3 UK divisions 44th (Home Counties), 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry, 7th Armoured (the legendary DESERT RATS) + Grecians and artillery.
In the following days between 25 October and 4 November, the 50th, 7th, 44th divisions, 1st and 2nd Free French and the Royal Hellenic Brigades, supported by artillery and armour, had failed to break through in the southern sector.
OMBspa 2 weeks ago
There's a lot of similarities between Montgomery in North Africa and Ulyses S Grant in Virginia in 1864. They both faced two of the most brillitant and daring commanders in history in Rommel and Robert E Lee. Monte and Grant knew with their superior numbers, weapons and supplies they couldn't lose a battle of attrition - and that's just what they did.
dancinkindofguy 4 weeks ago
Interesting vid; a point that they seemed to miss was the Allied campaign against the supply shops across the Mediterranean which did much to deprive the Axis forces of resources.
JimTLonW6 1 month ago
Brilliant as am not a military man at all its now that i beging to understand what a huge diference a Great commander means to the success of his Army maybe Rommel was very good But against the best he was always second
polygamous1 1 month ago
@polygamous1 Mate you have fallen for the Monte myth. Rommel is, and this is excepted by all military historians, considerably more competent as a commander than Montgomery.
soolerman 1 month ago
@soolerman am not sure about that to be honest but in this important battle the desert fox was outfioxed compleatly by Monty who fooled Rommel in every department
polygamous1 1 month ago
@polygamous1 Funny when ever this battle has been wargamed. And by that I am referring to academic and military wargames. No one has done even half as well as Rommel did. Its also very rare for someone to take as long as Monte did to win. His left hook was an act of desperation and the victory is a credit only to the men on the ground. Monte didn’t win El Alamein he just failed to loos it. Have a look at his other so called victories like Epsom and Market Garden or his operations in Sicily
soolerman 1 month ago
@soolerman did he Not win? did he Not fool Rommel? didn't he lose far less men than Rommel iof this is Not Victory what is n Remember its men like him we owe our freedoms to in Sicily he was Not in charge of course British troops are fighters But every army needs a Great commander in Monty the British found theirs this is also a little personal my late uncle was wounded there
polygamous1 1 month ago
@polygamous1 I am sorry you find my remarks some what personal and I apologise. But I fail to see why. My grandfather severed under Monty twice. And three of my relatives got killed under his command and I don’t take any of it personally. The simple facts are Monty is severely over rated. The British press/people needed a hero, as you so rightly pointed out. But that job is done and fact not spin is needed to understand and hopefully avoided the same mistakes being repeated.
soolerman 1 month ago
@soolerman am sorry too if i gave the impression i took your remarkd personally i never did but i think human nature is such that we all seem to think better of our own n even am not native born am still proud to be British n one of my uncles fought against facism its alspo what i learn in hiostory at school about Monty n its too deep in my heart that Monty was a Real hero in my heart Monty proved to e better than Rommel my uncle tols us to watch your mates killed is real hell Peace
polygamous1 1 month ago
@soolerman El Alamein was a crushing victory no matter what way you spin it. The Panzer Army was broken and fled with all the speed it could muster, persued vigerously by the 8th Army until it crossed into Tunisia.
Epsom was commaded by Miles Dempsey, as was Goodwood. Market Garden was a failure of the whole Allied command. In Sicily Montgomery faced the strongest German defense and still reach Messina on the same day as Patton, who face little resistance until he advance on Messina.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@11nytram11 Rommel was referring to the build up and the need to fight on two fronts. It is also you that call him incompetent not me. The facts are he was to systematic and cautious. He also made the mistake of being predictable. OB West assessment as well as the assessment of Model, Maxwell, Matthew and Alan Wood to name but a few. His actions also do not stand up well to modem assessment. Your other points are self defeating in themselfs mate.
soolerman 1 week ago
@soolerman Rommel was refering to the fact that Montgomery relied on tried and tested methods and the not unproven theory that his predecessors had. That Monty kept his army well in hand and had the 8th working as an army not individual units.
Rommel knew he was facing a different kind of adversary after Alam el Halfa when he bemoaned that "the swine isn't attacking" as Monty let him break himself against the Alam el Halfa Ridge.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman I did not call Monty incompetant, I said you were trying to portray him as some kind of incompetant.You ribbished his victories, place the tactical failures of other on his shoulder and belittled him as a commander while championing Rommel.
Rommel is a cult and one of the most overrated generals in history. Kesselring once said Rommel had not aptitude for strategy or logistics and that he was a failure as an army commander because of his habit of leading charges.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman My other points are not self-defeating.
Dempsey planned & commanded Goodwood & Epsom. As commander of the British 2nd Army he was responsible for the tactical operations in the British sector of the Campaign. He was the equivilent of Bradley there & they conducted their operations under the overall guidence of Montgomery who was Allied Land Forces Commander. Credit of blame for the campaign overall rest with Monty & with the individual sectors lies with Bradley/Dempsey.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman Market Garden was a failure of the whole Allied High Command. Eisenhower never gave it the support he promised it, Bradley/Patton engaged their armies in combat so as to prevent anything being diverted from them, Monty was negligent in exersizing command, Browning/Brereton planned poorly, they &Dempsey failed to display any zeal or grip in executing it, XXX Corp didnt move quickly enough and 82nd Airborne failed to take their targets on schedule. Blame can be shared around.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman Montgomery worked out a system that worked for the Army he commanded. Colossal Cracks. It involved relying on overwhelming firepower and sacrificed maneuver. It played to the strengths of the British Army, not the German. While it may have become predictable the Germans failed to come up with anyway to counter it and the only they managed to defeat a Montgomery campaign outright was the most un-Montgomery-like campaign the British Army fought in WW2 - Market Garden.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman The assessment of the German of Monty being predictable, therefore, is kind of worthless. They may have been able to predict what he was going to do but they failed utterly in countering it.
Furthermore, a great deal of the cautiousness exhibited by Montgomery had to do with Britain's situation. They were running out of manpower. Britain could not afford for Monty to take risks if it was going to be in any position to have a say in how post-Europe was shaped.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman Stephen A. Hart's book Colossal Cracks is a bloody difficult read but it delves into the reasons behind Montgomery's approach far more than any other assessment of Bernard Montgomery career has ever done. Read that for a more complete explorations of his methods.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@11nytram11 Thanks for the info and I will have a look mate. I would suggest you look at the after-action reports of his campaigns and the reports of the time from the guys that where their. As well as the war game reconstructions done by the UK armed forces over the years. Sadly you will not get to do what I did, ie speak to guys that knew him and served under him first hand. Funny but bastered, murderer and little shit don’t get into the history books. I found them common comments as a child.
soolerman 1 week ago
@soolerman El Alamein was a forgone conclusion once Stumme died in the initial bombardment and the Panzer Army was left commanderless. Monty's initial plan to get his armour through the minefield to act as a shield for his infantry as they crumbled the German positions failed because the Armour commanders refused to follow his orders - some even refused to advance - so he ended up relying on his infantry.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@soolerman If the British and Commonwealth troops could have defeated Rommel on their own they would have done so regardless of who commanded them and we'd now be debating the merits of Neame, Ritche, Cunningham or Auchinleck.
Rommel himself once remarked that "The war in the desert ceased to be a game when Montgomery took over." so trying to portray Monty as some kind if incompetant isn't going to cut it.
11nytram11 1 week ago
British forces were loyal with the enemy.
pierix27 4 months ago
`yes you are correct the individual Italian was reasonably good. However the Italian army was a joke, tearable equipment, and badly led for the most part. They were not equipped with German arms as there were not enough available to do so. the Germans did give them a linece to produce the db605 aircraft engine. The British chased there navy out of the med. and they 'leaked' information to the allies, on top of what they were getting via ultra.
Rommel couldn't stand there high command
jsharpe45 6 months ago
@jsharpe45 bullshit more pow than kia gutless wonders
jewjits 5 months ago
Anyone present at that battle will admit that that best tank in the battle was the American M-4. The second-best tank was the M-3.
rdx506 7 months ago
@rdx506 the only thing American tanks had going for them is numbers. other than that they were crap, even the panzer IV was a better tank, and that was designed in the 30's, better gun from the pz kmph IVg on and perity much equal on armour. even as late as '44-'45 with the Pershing it was barely a match for the panther. Not as good as the tiger, on paper, there was never a real combat encounter. The German 88mm was better than the US 90mm ,hell the 75L70 was just as good as the US 90mm .
jsharpe45 6 months ago
@rdx506 The British called the M-4 the Ronson Lighter and the Germans called it Tommy Cooker because it was prone to go up in flames when hit by enemy shells. The British Tank Brigades generally prefered the Churchill because it was comfortable, great off-road, had armour capable of withstanding the most powerful of the German guns of the time and had weaponry that was effective if a bit weaker than the Sherman.
11nytram11 5 months ago
Rommel was a good man....
futurebestseller84 8 months ago
rommel should have been the fuherer
slyrader1 9 months ago
lol the brits got you FUKAS :D
terminator6267 11 months ago
the brits did well
sterlingmenthol77 11 months ago
slipped away!!! yeah shure!!! monty was so scared of Rommel, he wanted more troops and material to pursue him!!! if not he would've stayed in cairo the whole war!!
Lasarus89 11 months ago
@Lasarus89 Monty cared for his men! He was very cautious and wanted the odds to be on his side! When Monty arrived in N.Africa the British were back winning the war, It was Monty who won the war in N.Africa. Rommel was crazy he used to charge like a bull! So much for been the desert fox!
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 montgomery did not won the war in north africa... was the US industry and the Torch operation who saved UK's ass... Rommel was not crazy he knew when to atack and when to retreat and when he did it it was on the perfect moment sometimes not because he studied so deeply the situation but sometimes because of luck...
Lasarus89 10 months ago
@Lasarus89 You said saved the U.Ks ass?? Monty had humiliated and crushed the Axis Alliance at El Alamein whitch was the major battle of Africa and the turning point. Rommel lost most of his Tanks,Aircraft,Fuel and WATER and thousands of troops! The Axis were crushed and the Americans hadnt even arrived!! Rommel knew Hitler wouldnt send more Resources,Supplies they were finished Monty had humiliated Rommel. When the Americans arrived it was just the case of driving the defeated Axis out!
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 The Germans lost but they were certainly not humiliated given the odds against them. The Germans NEVER lost a battle that they had any realistic chance of winning. Montgomery was smart enough to realize that and put Churchill off until he had an absolutely overwhelming superiority in men and equipment.
warager37 8 months ago
@warager37 The Axis Alliance was moslty humiliated in N.Africa, Yet alone in 1940 the Axis had lost countless thousands of troops and the British had 160,000 Axis troops in P.O.W camps. And it was Churchill who ordered the last stand at El Alamein, After been pushed back from Libya. And the Axis troops were close to mutiny before the battle of El Alamein, The British had broke the Nazi codes and were reading Hitlers orders, R.A.F wiped out there Supplies,Resources,etc.,etc
martynrobin121 8 months ago
@martynrobin121 I don't conflate the Italians with the Germans. The Italians had evary reason in the world to be humiliated; the Germans did not.
warager37 7 months ago
@warager37 The Italians were very brave, And the Germans admired how the Italians fought. Most of Rommels men in N.Africa were Italians. And both German,Italian Forces were humiliated in N.Africa. El Alamein and Stalingrad marked the end of the European Axis campaigns.
martynrobin121 7 months ago
@martynrobin121 Nobody wants to lose. But I think you should judge people by what they do with what they have. Given the correlation of forces - in particular, Ultra - nobody in the position of Stumme/Rommel would have won that battle. But the Germans outpunched their weight by any reasonable standard. They almost always did. You check the numbers. Germans should be humiliated by the Holocaust but hardly by their tactical performance anywhere.
warager37 7 months ago
@martynrobin121 The Italians were a joke, the British bagged thousands of them which is why the Germans got involved in Africa. At Stalingrad the Russians attacked through the Italians and The romaines, because they were the weak links on the German flanks.
jsharpe45 6 months ago
@jsharpe45 The Italians were not a joke, They had balls of steel and were very brave. Erwin Rommel realised the Italains lacked good leaders,tactics and most of all equipment. The Italains were decades out of date. And the Germans in the East supplied there European Allies with German equipment,supplies and even uniforms. And the in 1941, Battle of Moscow the Red Army counter attacked defeated the Germans just like at Stalingrad 1942.
martynrobin121 6 months ago
British are only cowards.
At El Alamein 50 000 men of 3 UK divisions 44th (Home Counties), 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry, 7th Armoured (the legendary DESERT RATS) + Grecians and strong artillery were NOt able to win against 5000 Italians Para of Folgore between 25 October and 4 November.
OMBspa 2 weeks ago
@OMBspa In calling the British cowards you deminish the actions of the Italians. The Italians fought a brave and highly competant defense against a foe who enjoyed superiority of manpower and material and they fought on longer than Rommel who sacrificed them to save his own skin. It is an action worthy of high praise but in levelling acusations of cowardice against the British you lessen the strenght of the opposition the Italians faced and so tarnish their efforts.
11nytram11 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 7 Armoured Div Desert Rats with 2000 heavy tanks has the order not to engage in battle against only 60 semoventi 70/18 Italians Second Battle of El Alamein
sinking of 18 italians hospital ships
Cpt. Todaro the Kabalo October 16, 1940 After making the sinking he did not hesitate to host the castaways on the ubot. British In the sinking of the Laconia have closed their holds with Italian POW and have cut their hands to those who tried to board the lifeboats
OMBspa 1 week ago
@warager37
You must take a look a that cowards of americans, in Vietnam, Corea, in Somalia, in Libano, iraq, afganistan before open your front shit hole Take a look at what written by British enemies regarding Italians
Amedeo Guillet - Telegraph
Mario Traverso - Telegraph
Luigi Arbib Pascucci
Decima Flottiglia MAS
Battle of Nikolayevka
Raid on Alexandria (1941)
OMBspa 2 weeks ago
@warager37 I agree. I was never really impressed with Montgomery. He fucked up at Market-Garden, Goodwood and Epsom. Caen was a smoking ruin after he had finished with huge allied losses and even with a 2-1 numerical superiority at El-Alamein he almost fucked that up too.
SuperQuiller 7 months ago
@SuperQuiller Market Garden came within a stones throw of success & would have been considered the most brilliant operation ever undertaken by the Allies had it worked. A combination of Monty's unsually hands-off approach, poor planning & leadership from Browning, Brereton & Dempsey, & Eisenhower not supporting it fully while letting Bradley's offensives continue, diverting supplys from 21st Army Group & not giving it the manpower he promised to, doomed it to failure. Blame can be shared around.
11nytram11 6 months ago
@11nytram11
Did my masters research paper on Market Garden,and you are absolutely correct.
jsharpe45 6 months ago
@11nytram11 Correct to an extent but the American airborne did their part and did it well and bravely. The British were let down by by the leadership but never by the the ordinary soldiers.
2001perseus 2 months ago
@2001perseus Well, the 82nd US Airbourne failed to capture the Nijmegen bridge on the first day when German resistance was very weak. This was a failure in planning - dropping the whole division south of the bridge rather than both side - and a failure of the 82nd to move with the needed urgency, which allowed the Germans to entrench near the bridge - there were 19 soldiers on it when MARKET GARDEN began - and forced the allies to fight hard to take it.
11nytram11 2 months ago
@2001perseus It was not, really, the 82nd fault. Brereton had failed to stress that the priority of the mission was to take the bridge and so Gavin focused instead of taking the roads and the surrounding heights. As a result the 82nd was not focused on the task that needed to be accomplished and this caused a delay in the XXX Corps advance by 36 hours which doomed the operation to failure.
11nytram11 2 months ago
@2001perseus Like the British and Commonweatlh troops involved, the 82nd was let down by poor planning and poor leadership - this was a failing that was indiscriminate throughout all the Allied forced involved in this operation, made worse by Montgomery's negligence in making sure everything was on track and planned properly.
The effectiveness of the troops themselves was never in doubt but their efforts were exhausted in the wrong capacity.
11nytram11 2 months ago
@11nytram11 Largely I agree with you, where I differ is over the cruciality of the delay at Nijmegen. Even without that delay 30 corp still would have been stopped short of Arnhem by a handful of 88s and their support troops. That is down to Montgomery who despite the availability of RAF and US tankbusters which would have cleared the way did not include any in operation planning. Whether this was due to a desire not to share credit or complacency I don't know but he not the 82nd is to blame.
2001perseus 2 months ago
@2001perseus Nobody has actually blamed the 82nd for the failure of the operation, their failure to take the Nijmegen Bridge is only seen as a contribution to the overall failure. Generally the XXX Corps gets the most blame for not moving quickly enough then Montgomery gets the lions share of the blame for all the planning, tactical, strategic and logistical mistakes - indeed few credit the Germans for responding well to the initial surprise.
11nytram11 2 months ago
@11nytram11 I think I misunderstood and thought you were apportioning lack of success to the 82nd, clearly you don't. You have looked into this very deeply indeed. Personally I think it could have worked if air support had been involved and I suspect it was not, due to petty inter service rivalry getting the better of good judgement. Delegation or not it was Monty's operation and he should have planned air support to help those men beyond simply supply drops. So many brave men lost, sad.
2001perseus 2 months ago
@2001perseus Monty's failure was not in the planning, tactics, strategy or logistics of the operation but in overall negligence. For some reason he was in a funk in his HQ, perhaps felling hard done by for losing the Allied Land Forces Commander role, & so once he got permission to put the operation into effect he delegated everything to others. Browning and Brereton planned the operation and they and Dempsey commanded it. Monty was not himself in letting them have a free reign.
11nytram11 2 months ago
@SuperQuiller Caen was the most hotly contested part of the Battle for Normandy. There were 6 and a half German Panzer units opposing the 2nd British Army - only 1 and a half against the Americans, and it took no less time for the British against heavy resistance to take Caen and push into the region beyond it than it did for the Americans to clear the Cherbourg Peninsula and break out at Avranches against lesser resistance. So citing Caen as some kind of drastic failure doesn't really stand up.
11nytram11 6 months ago
Modern documentaries have an advantage when they use new research based on recently discovered evidence, such as declassified documents, as they can throw a fresh light on the wartime propaganda and postwar myths which influenced a lot of earlier documentary film making. As others have pointed out, however, there's nothing new, no "Lost Evidence", in this. At least it doesn't try to make out that it was the Americans who won the battle, but give Hollywood a little more time.......
mjeshaw 1 year ago
@mjeshaw: Why did you have to mess up a perfectly good comment with the snarky jab of - "At least it doesn't try to make out that it was the Americans who won the battle, but give Hollywood a little more time.......?" Hells Bells, we weren't even there. But we sure would have made the victory happen sooner - sometimes a snarky jab just brings out the snark in me.
1942ann 7 months ago
After Battle of British the British empire just got stronger got there brave british morale back and started to win battle after battle and it was american supplies who helped them do this and we thank them very much. A turning point in the way the germans failed to invade britain and now they failed to take north africa nazi italian forces the german armies could deal with the british after 1941 and when there allies america started sending troops over 1942 the british and allies unstoppable
martynrobin121 1 year ago
I have decided these modern documentries are not that good really. They focus on computer graphic, cheap re-enactments, and they repeat themselves so often that it takes 30-60 minutes to say what older docs used to say in 5-10 minutes. They are made for the dim witted with short attention spans that spend their time surfing for flash.
Oh well what can you do, better then nothing I guess
Peorhum 1 year ago
@Peorhum You said it all. If you want some decent documantary, then I suggest all Battlefield series, which can be found here on youtube. There are at least 2 focusing on North Africa campaign. Overall strategy maps, order of battle, numbers etc. They have it all.
Lachausis 1 year ago
@Lachausis Yeah, the battlefield series are good. Very detailed
Peorhum 1 year ago
This curly haired armchair warroir commentattor pisses me off !!
terfle1106 1 year ago
@terfle1106 You too? He doesn't necessarily piss me off, it's just that he's such a dweeb.
hipcat13 11 months ago