Anyone want to pose Alam Halfa the precursor to the Battle of El Alamein?

I think the First Battle of El Alamein in July 1942 was more important in stopping Rommel than Alam Halfa. The latter battle was not such a near run thing and only happened because Auchinleck held his ground at El Alamein just over a month before. Basically, I argued the reasoning for the importance of First Alamein (and thus Alam Halfa) in my first post in this thread.

Nic

The whole Africa campaign was a non-issue from the outset when put in perspective as Hitler would only allow Rommel 1 panzer division. The fact that this was the only real pseudo European English holding meant that they would pool all available resources into the fight. Rommel never really had a chance and it was only through bold tactical maneuvering that Rommel got as far as he did. By the time he reached Alamein, the Afrika Corps was out of gas, but figuratively and literally.

Andrew

Rommel had two Panzer divisions, the 15th and the 21st, as well as Italian armour. Hitler did reinforce Rommel periodically, and Rommel's greatest achievements came after this happened. For example, his greatest victory at Gazala, which resulted in the pursuit to the Alamein Line, came after the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica bombed Malta, temporarily neutralizing it. Rommel received the reinforcements he needed (included PzIII and PzIV "Specials" with high velocity guns) and was able to concentrate these forces against the British armour and win a tight victory. Once Malta was left alone by the Axis and the RN resupplied it, the island once again stopped Italian shipping from reaching Tripoli and Benghazi and the supplies that reached these ports had as much as 1400 miles to travel, under the harassment of the RAF. Hitler did indeed hamper Rommel (he lost interest in the campaign and, for example, he refused to give the Italians, whose job it was to supply Panzerarmee Afrika, access to the Ploesti Oilfields), but he showed that he was willing to rush troops to North Africa in exeptional circumstances. He reinforced Rommel at certain points in the campaign to allow him to go back over to the offensive, and (though it seriously backfired) Hitler sent another few hundred thousand troops to Tunisia after the defeat at Alamein and the Torch landings, up to the days before the fall of Tunis. Certainly, if Rommel had have beat the 8th Army in detail at Gazala or El Alamein, Hitler would have strengthened this force greatly as it would add another pincer to the war against Russia. Rommel certainly had his chances to finish 8th Army off, even as early as the Crusader battles. Neil Ritchie, who commanded 8th Army at Gazala and during the retreat from that position, intended to stop and fight Rommel around Matruh (I think), which was not suitable terrain for the defence. If he had done this, it is likely that Rommel could have bagged the entire 8th Army, which was the only force capable of stopping him in Egypt and the Middle East. Auchinleck, C-in-C Middle East (who also had command over Egypt, a very sizeable burden), saw the threat and the consequences if 8th Army was destroyed and ordered Ritchie to withdraw to the Alamein Line. In fact, Auchinleck was so concerned about keeping his fighting force intact, that he was willing to withdraw to the Nile Delta if need be (Monty played this up to make it appear that his predecessor planned to retreat further, but this was an exaggeration). We must remember that, until the Second Battle of El Alamein under Montgomery, the British did not really have totally overwhelming superiority against the Germans and Italians. Before Alamein, the war in North Africa was a very close-run thing and Rommel could have won. Had he done so, Hitler could have sent a sizeable force there to cross the Suez and move through the Middle East into Iran and the Caucasas. Hitler would show he could send large numbers of reinforcements to Africa in 1943 and in 1942 when the Axis attacked Malta, they showed that the island could be rendered useless, if not captured, allowing the transfer of troops to be quick (the Axis could go straight across the Mediterranean, rather than around the Cape like the Allies) and unhampered. North Africa was a campaign of great importance in the war, for more than just the fact that the Allies learned how to fight there. Of course, just as events in North Africa could have effected (and did to some extent) the Russian campaign, events in Russia effected the campaign in the Western Desert. Once again, we see that the theatres of a world war do not take place in isolation, but are directly or indirectly affected by on another.

Nic

in my opinion the battle of britain whilst maybe not the most important was the most significant because if we lost and the RAF was destroyed then the rest of the war would have turned out differently. although germany lacked the amphibious capability to land troops on british soil in 1940 that would have changed rapidly, designs for lcts etc were ready for production but were never needed. given german engineering ability they wouldnt have taken long to build themselves a fleet of landing craft!

with the threat of invasion imminent british troops would have had to be held in reserve in britain, meaning no troops to fight rommel in the desert, which would have led to the flank attack on russia by the africa korps, dramatically effecting the war on the eastern front add to this the elimination of supplies to russia from britain and probably the US ( cos we would have needed em ) and the russkies would have gotten a kicking!

with no british re-enforcements the 14th army in burma would have collapsed allowing the japanese control of burma with the ability to either launch an invasion of india an easy task without the british control of the indian army, or transfer more troops to the pacific or manchuria ( more problems to the russkies ).

the japanese might have not needed to attack pearl harbour if they had achieved gains elsewhere, in reality it would have probably been delayed. but i dont think the US would have been too interested in europe if the japs were in greater strength on all the pacific islands including hawaii ( probably )

back to the germans! contrary to many accounts the invasion of britain wouldnt have been a walkover, although london would have probably fallen quickly, in the countryside the germans woul have had to face thousands of british partisans all heavily armed!
i know this because i live in a village in the midlands between the cities of sheffield and nottingham (the industrial heartland of the country at that time) and every village had an arms dump closeby, hidden in nearby forests etc. these were intended to supply the villagers with arms to fight the germans! (most non-british people will not appreciate the fierce patriotism of all the british peoples).

now ive had my rant of the day ill calm down, that damm history it gets me so worked up!

Joe

Friends--keep those cards and letters coming. I am going to tally and post on Friday where we stand. Some great ideas here.
thanks
djj

I'm going to go ahead and nominate Midway for the Pacific Campaign. This battle swung the tide in favor of the Allies and erased any hope of Japan being able to even stabilize and consolidate their conquests.

As for the European Campaign, I'd go with the strategic bombing campaign over Germany (both day and night, RAF and USAAF missions). This campaign laid ruin to Germany's ability to produce the material needed to fight the war. It ravaged her industrial power and destroyed her population centers. It took the war to Germany in a way no other battle could at the time. It wasn't pretty, and I'm not attempting to glorify it, but it worked.

Jason--interesting point about the air campaign....nice topic "was it effective?"

Jason--interesting point about the air campaign....nice topic "was it effective?"

I have heard it said that amateurs discuss tactics, while professionals think in terms of logistics. With that in mind I nominate the Battle of the Atlantic. Without lines of communication from the industrial might of the USA to Europe, Germany would easily have defeated the allies through simple attrition.
v/r,
Cob

With that in mind, I could make a case for the US Navy's combined sub and aircraft campaign against Japanese shipping in the Pacific. It wreaked havoc on the IJN's ability to keep the far flung island outposts supplied and move troops around.

Well done! Highly valid considerations. The aspect of the air campaign and sea actions against Japan should cause us all to consider ---- "was the Bomb necessary?"

With 20/20 hindsight, we could question every major decision made by every major commander in every theater on every front of every war.

Was dropping the A-bomb necessary? Some very intelligent people apparently thought so, and one very powerful man made a decision to do so. I'm reasonably sure he weighed all the options and gave it a lot of thought. I know that I, for one, would NEVER want to have to make a decision of such magnitude. Hundreds of thousands of lives hung in the balance, on both sides. Truman and his staff knew that an invasion of Japan would have been a very costly affair. They also knew that after five years of bloodshed throughout the world, they had to end the war, as quickly as possible. Perhaps an extended sub and air campaign would have done the same thing, but at what cost? More lives lost on both sides, and the war dragging on for another year or two.

I'm sure that Truman's decision was something that weighed heavily on his mind right up until the day he passed.

Jason - -well, I do not believe Truman regretted his decision. The American public stood behind him for his decisiveness. On the other hand, I think he more than once seriously questioned his action or lack thereof in Korea. If I were him in retrospect, I'd lose quite a number of good night sleeps over that one.
DJ