Talk:Battle of Alam el Halfa

Operation Brandung

Brandung was the name of Rommel's offensive which resulted in this battle. Oberiko 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tactical German Victory?

I have a problem with the description of the battle being a 'tactical Axis victory'. Surely it was a tactical stalemate? It also needs to refer to the very different Commonwealth tactics laid down by Montgomery - ie the British tanks not charging strainght forwards to be impaled and destroyed by the lurking German 88 screen. I think Rommel put it best - "The swine isn't attacking." Darkmind1970 15:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Axis tactical victory".Raoulduke47 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Too Short?

I really do think that this article is too short and nowhere detailed enough. After all, it was quite an achievement for 8th Army, after such a disasterous and tactically barren series of losses, to rally under new leadership and deliver such a stingine rebuff to Rommel's forces? Darkmind1970 16:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi there, I concur with Tom that there are still a few things that need to be cited for B/GA etc. The first three paragraphs in the Allied defences section are uncited and they contain several statements that could easily be contested. On another note, you need to expand the lead somewhat. Per WP:LEAD you need about three paragraphs to fully summarise the main article though that is not required for B (it is for GA/A/FA). Regards. Woody (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, assessed as B. In terms of the Lead, as long as the information is cited within the text then there is no need to cite it within the lead. Have a look at WP:LEADCITE. Unless there is something controversial in the Lead, then it doesn't need citations. Anyway, that is a debate for A/FA, certainly not for B! Well done. Regards Woody (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Axis forces

A slight edit to the withdrawl of Axis forces after the battle - the article initially stated that 164th Light Division and 'Ariete' Division was with 'Folgore' Parachute Division. This is incorrect. 164th Light Division was deployed far to the north on the coast. 'Ariete' was on the extreme southern flank. 'Folgore' was more than 10 miles away to the north opposite the New Zealand Box north of Deir Munassib (and repelled the attack by the British and New Zealand brigades). A detailed Italian account of the battle of Alam Halfa can be found in Montanari.M, 'Le Operazione in Africa Settentrionale', Vol.III, El Alamein, pp.523-625. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenjacket01 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tactical Axis Retreat

I was reading the article in Suomi and there was some info relating how it was a tactical Axis victory through their ability to disengage and retreat tactically by holding back an attempted counterattack using artillery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.242.162 (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Allied defences

"the former commander of the 8th Army—General Claude Auchinleck—set out the basic defensive plan but had included a number of contingency plans for defensive works around Alexandria and Cairo in case Axis armour broke through. After visiting the front lines, Montgomery ordered that these contingency plans be destroyed and emphasised his intention to hold the ground around Alamein at all costs."

Isn't it about time that this deliberate self-promotional lie put about by Mongomery was discredited? Auchinleck's Appreciation of 27 July, as written by Dorman-Smith says:

"though the Axix forces are strong enough for defensive action, they are hardly strong enough to attempt the conquest of the Delta except as a gamble and under very strong air cover."

And if Montgomery ordered the destruction of the contingency plans, can anyone provide a reference as to who destroyed them? It seems that as late as 21 and 29 August they were still being amended.

Quevedo (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Montgomery didn't destroy all plans for withdrawal. He merely announced to the troops that he had ordered them to be destroyed. Not the same thing.

He did this so that the previously disillusioned troops he was taking command of would know that if they fought over a place it wouldn't then be given back to the enemy, and their lives wasted, by a subsequent British withdrawal - as had occurred so many times previously.

It's called psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.247 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Operation Brandung

Hi,

which source says that Operation Brandung was the codename of the last major Axis offensive? Here, I think that there is a need for an inline citation. Greetings, --Niklas 555 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

US Air Involvement

The question of US Air Force involvement has arisen. I don't want to put a detailed description in the article because that would over-emphasise its importance and unbalance the article. However, the "Halverson Detatchment" of US Liberators were in the Middle East by June (Playfair p.245) and became permanently established in Egypt and was being reinforced by the transfer from the US in June and July of 27 Hudsons, 80 Kittyhawks, 57 Mitchells and 35 Liberators (pp. 282-3). The employment of USAAF aircraft during Alam el Halfa is mentioned in p. 385. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Type of fuel?

"After Albert Kesselring had agreed to lend some Luftwaffe fuel, Rommel had enough for 150 mi (240 km) per vehicle with the troops and 250 mi (400 km) for other vehicles.[12] " - although this statement is referenced, I personally doubt that it is possible to run a truck on fuel which is originally intended for an aircraft! Would have been nice, but reality is different! 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe had motor vehicles too. Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Alam el Halfa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021084922/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/hart/hart.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/hart/hart.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021084922/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/hart/hart.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/hart/hart.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

XXI Infantry Corps

As far as I can tell, Giuseppe De Stefanis was the commander of the XX Motorised Corps. I don't know who the commanding officer of the XXI Infantry was at the time of the battle, but it seems inaccurate to attribute him to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abev3485 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You're quite right, apologies; according to this [1] p. 247 it was Eneo Navarini Keith-264 (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)