Battlefield S5/E2 - The Battle of El Alamein

I do not own, nor do I or intend to profit from this content whatsoever. "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
All right reserved to:
NBC Universal
Directed by Dave Flitton, Andy Aitken, James Wignall
Produced by Dave Flitton (series prod.), David McWhinnie, Ken Maliphant, David Rozalla
Written by Dave Flitton, Andy Aitken, James Wignall
Narrated by Jonathan Booth
Music by David Galbraith
Distributed by Public Broadcasting Service
Release date(s) 2001
Running time 6 116-minute episodes
Country USA
Language English

[@englishalan222]

Respect for the Italian tankers who went out time and time again in those terrible M-13/40s against Shermans and Lee-Grants

[@Tommytakanawa]

😮😮😮

[@MarkHarrison733]

Sherman tanks were complete garbage.

[@MarkHarrison733]

Sherman tanks were garbage.

[@JamesRichards-mj9kw]

Sherman tanks were garbage.

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Rommel subsequently paid tribute to his Italian allies. He said that he had expected too much of them. He acknowledged their bravery.

[@jvdesuit1]

There's a huge unjust ommission in the description of the El Alamein battle. Monrgomery would not have been able to lure Rommel if Geoffrey Barkas the director of the camouflage division of the British army in Cairo, had not been able in less than a month, to create a phantom army in the north and a fake one in the south. It was Barkas skills and understanding of the way camouflage should be done in the desert and with the help of his assistants Tony Airton and Brian Robb that made that possible. It's Jasper Maskelyne who had the idea of what was called the "sunshields" an ingenious device which enabled to transform into an innocent lorry the tanks. All these details which are vital in the way Rommel and his army were deceived, are explained in Geoffrey Barkas" book "The story of camouflage " (1952) and recently for the 70th anniversary of the battle in Rick Stroud's book "The phantom army of El Alamein" published in 2012 which is an amazing story of the camouflages used during the Desert war till the final battle. It's easy to attribute all the benefits to a general, but without his men in every responsibility of the operation a battle can't take place and be won.

[@giod6266]

Why are you surprised? It is tipical British way, one man takes it all!

[@chobson8602]

49:30 idiot

[@user-vg9qu3gd7t]

Very inspiring points. I just read up some articles on Tony Airton, Brian Robb, Jasper Maskelyne, Geoffrey Barkas. How they make dummy tanks with sticks and canvas, dummy pipelines with flattened fuel cans, etc. No doubt their efforts were key to victory over Rommel at El Alamein. Thank you, sir, for the enlightening points.

[@nutsackmania]

@@chobson8602 Thank you

[@BenState]

Its mentioned multiple times in the documentary.

[@cataphract8508]

All of these wwll documentaries heavily remind me of my Grandad and my GreatGrandad , they were both full-time professional Army officers in the Greek Royal Army. Miss you guys❗

[@stevehartlieb]

Where are they now?

[@rupertsmith5815]

My great grandfather fought at El Alamein in Montgomery 8th Army he will always be my hero.

[@tmdrm9817]

My grandad qas a signal in el alamein for the Royal Rhodesian Regiment.

[@mrlodwick]

And mine Sir!

[@MarkHarrison733]

Montgomery should have been prosecuted.

[@rupertsmith5815]

@@MarkHarrison733 For what ?

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@rupertsmith5815 Abusing children.

[@nickdanger3802]

"The Prime Minister in his recent speech paid a generous tribute to the way in which our great Ally America 241 had come to our help when our need was so great after the retreat from Libya this summer. He mentioned that he had visited many of the units which were going to receive the new American munitions. I had an opportunity a few weeks after his visit of seeing some of those units, and I can say that the effect produced on them by getting these new weapons was tremendous." Hansard Debate on the Address HC 17 November 1942 page

[@ashdowl]

Thank you for this upload, i have 2 grandfathers who fought in the Australian 9th division in this battle. My grandmother was also a nurse in north Africa at this time.

[@sanjayvaidya4925]

Forces of the british empire: Never explained. The Indian Army began the war, in 1939, numbering just under 200,000 men. By the end of the war it had become the largest volunteer army in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in August 1945.Serving in divisions of infantry, armour and a fledgling airborne force, they fought on three continents in Africa, Europe and Asia. The Indian Army fought in Ethiopia against the Italian Army, in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia against both the Italian and German Army, and, after the Italian surrender, against the German Army in Italy. However, the bulk of the Indian Army was committed to fighting the Japanese Army, first during the British defeats in Malaya and the retreat from Burma to the Indian border; later, after resting and refitting for the victorious advance back into Burma, as part of the largest British Empire army ever formed. These campaigns cost the lives of over 36,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded,and 67,340 became prisoners of war.Their valour was recognised with the award of some 4,000 decorations, and 38 members of the Indian Army were awarded the Victoria Cross or the George Cross.

[@KarlEriksenopinion]

but they were denied their pensions...victoria crosses are cheap bits of metal. A pension is dignity.

[@SuperLusername]

You said forces of the British empire and then go on to talk about India. A bit odd considering the fact that Indians werent the only soldiers in the British empire.

[@deanwilliams4365]

@@KarlEriksenopinion incorrect, with Indian independence it became the indian government's responsibility " by agreement" to pay all servicemen's and government officials pensions.

[@KarlEriksenopinion]

@@deanwilliams4365 True the Indian government took on all liabilities from the British colonial governmentr..who never intended to give the Indian army pensions, and thus never obliged the Indian government to take them over..

[@deanwilliams4365]

@@KarlEriksenopinion what a load of bollocks. the british administration DID pay pensions up until independence. the indian administration was paying pensions but the corruption meant that the money ended up in some indian government officials pocket. after 18 months the government abolished the pensions. you can read the english Parliaments reaction and condemnation of this action. as well as Mountbattens public comments at that time. and the british governments change in immigration policy as a reaction. in short you are just wrong.

[@englishalan222]

Respect for the Italian tankers who went out time and time again in those terrible M-13/40s against Shermans and Lee-Grants

[@mabinogion3]

"...it is perhaps simplest to ask who is the most courageous in the following situations: the Italian carristi, who goes into battle in an obsolete M14 tank against superior enemy amour and anti-tank guns, knowing they can easily penetrate his flimsy protection at a range where his own small gun will have little effect; the German panzer soldier or British tanker who goes into battle in a Panzer IV Special or Sherman respectively against equivalent enemy opposition knowing that he can at least trade blows with them on equal terms; the British tanker who goes into battle in a Sherman against inferior Italian armour and anti-tank guns, knowing confidently that he can destroy them at ranges where they cannot touch him. It would seem clear that, in terms of their motto Ferrea Mole, Ferreo Cuore, the Italian carristi really had "iron hearts", even though as the war went on their "iron hulls" increasingly let them down." Ian W.Walker (from he book "Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts")

[@The0944]

mabinogion3 Well said

[@wintersoldier8215]

As the saying went the bravest soldiers I the world were the Italians.. because of what they were forced to take into battle.

[@yourstoplay]

"The Italians were known for their mass surrenders, rather than any military achievements"

[@wintersoldier8215]

JohnnySnipe well history sure is written by the victors isn’t it? And the winning sides propaganda did a hell of a job :)

[@ssimossimo907]

As always, almost no credit given to italian efforts in north Africa: -operation compass is oversimplified: nothing said about the huge disadvantage italians had from an armoured units point of view: italian had almost only L3 tankettes, while british had medium tanks against wich italians couldn't compete in any way. In addition, italian units were almost never motorized, while british units were highly motorized. It was the general strategy that was really bad, mostly because the decisions made during the war at the highest levels of command were poltical decisions, not military ones. -70% of axis troops and armoured units under Rommel's command (afrikakorps) were italians and Rommel himself had much respect for italians, as he said many times. -in the battle of El Alamein, when germans retreated, italians held the positions (without any significant chance to win and inflicting heavy casualties to allied forces) in order to give their allies time to go back. Look at what Folgore division did in the battle and after. -the most important factor to consider when thinking about italians in WW2 was the inferiority of italian industrial capabilities, less than 10% of german one. They could not produce enough tanks or airplanes and other kind of transportations. Italy invested a great deal of resources in the modernization of its armed forces in the 30's (for the invasion of Ethiopia, Albania and for the decisive contribution in spanish civil war) and couldn't invest much in the 40's: Hitler garanteed Mussolini that the war wouldn't have started until '43. When the war started in '39, Mussolini gambled, entering the war hoping in a fast victory without a outbreak of a world war..he wasn't right. I think it's a real shame, my grandfather was an artillery captain in africa in WW2 and i'm sure he and many other brave soldiers don't deserve to be ignored or even ridiculized. When my grandpa was earning his 2 medals of honor, losing a leg and an arm while shooting point blank with one of his WW1 artillery pieces after having took the place of a dead soldier, losing half of his men and without any armoured or air support against columns of british armoured units and RAF fighters all over the place, he didn't think he would have been considered a coward or an incompetent for the next 100 years or so.

[@injured_fullback]

Matthew Turkmen not that they had choice. None of them wanted to go to war.

[@alexbrewer8592]

@@MrMturko44 you sound like an ignorant b!tch

[@free_gold4467]

I don't doubt the courage of Italians.

[@zenodotusofathens2122]

I give great credit to the italians. I am so glad you brought this subject up. Without the Italians the Germans wouldn't have all that delicious eggplant Parmesan to eat

[@rolandacevans]

Ssimo ssimo, you make excellent points but the leadership of Italian troops was very poor. Furthermore O'Connor and Wavell were excellent generals.

[@filiplindblad2694]

I used this for a school project, very helpfull. Thank you!!

[@fanteriaitaliana1956]

Rommel: "The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier." 101 ITALIAN WW2 VICTORIES & COUNTING (available online)

[@charlesfiske8976]

Thank you Vasile Luga for your generosity and informing so many of important real facts

[@AdamMGTF]

He doesn't inform anyone of anything. This is an old documentary made for TV. He's just put it on KZbin for us all to enjoy

[@alexamerling79]

Rommel himself described the Italians as "good soldiers, bad officers." Also, that is pretty badass that the Scots were playing bagpipes in the battle.

[@mohandhanoa4797]

I like good asses better than bad asses anyday .

[@Cpt0bviouss]

Such disrespect shown to those Italian soldiers who showed incredible bravery despite their equipment shortages.

[@48Nugget]

At 25:30, the officer shown when the commentary talks of General Harold Alexander, isn't actually General Alexander, but General Brian Horrocks (commander of XIII Corps at the time of El Alamein). It later shows Spitfires when the narrator describes the effectiveness of the Hawker Hurricane IID. Apols - just a nerd and a pedant about stuff like this!

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

48Nugget except that the line is delivered over footage of a Hurricane.

[@candyextreme8406]

I actually picked up on a few things too.And i think 3 times he mentions this marvelous "Tin opener" tank killer plane.Sound's like he may have some sick fetish over it.

[@greyowl7869]

What an eye for detail, Sir. You should consider the study of law. You'd be a natural! Cheers Velox Versutus Vigilans

[@lawrencemyers3623]

I noticed that too. Nor do I remember the Hurricane ever being equipped with 12 machine guns. Also, when talking about the addition of 2 squadrons of American B25s to the Desert Air Force, B17s were shown instead. When discussing the M4A1 Sherman, a M4A3E8 was shown, which didn't appear until late '44. They also showed M10 TDs when discussing the Sherman, manned by American troops. Also discussed the American M2 105mm howitzer, showing it as a towed piece. If memory serves, it saw action at Alamein as a SPG, namely the M7 Priest. Sadly, no mention is made of the outstanding 25 pounder. (BTW, I'm an American) Such inaccuracies take away from the value of this doc. Having seen other episodes of this series, this vid fails to measure up.

[@AdamMGTF]

This wasn't unusual at the time. This was made when the internet was new and archive footage wasn't widely digitised. They had limited time and resources to make a TV documentary and so used what they had.

[@Kohl423]

General O'Connor nearly won the battle for North Africa when with a tiny force he defeated very much larger Axis forces prior to the arrival of the Africa Corps.Robbed of troops, tanks and resources by the ever faulty Churchill who sent them to disaster in Crete. O'Connor became the forgotten man. Subsequently General Auchinleck won the first battle of Alemein, a defensive one, destroying a lot of German/axis equipment and denying them El Alemein. Montgomery took over benefitting from much larger resources against a weaker Africa Corps. Did Monty deserve credit for victory? Yes, of course he did but we shouldnt forget some of the under rated commanders who preceded him.

[@iroscoe]

Wavell certainly qualifies as one of those underated commanders,he did more with less rolling up all of Italian East Africa and looked set to do the same in the Western desert before being denuded of the few forces he had on Churchills wild goose chases into Greece and Iraq which Wavell rightly viewed as a lost cause and a situation which would resolve its self respectively .

[@The0944]

O'Conner was captured by a German recon team shortly after the arrival of the Afrika korp. He had previously encircled a stagnant Italian army who were ill equipped for mobile warfare and in any desert,it's all about mobility....

[@The0944]

Kohl,good point,but O'Conner didn't defeat the axis armies,he beat a mostly stagnant Italian force who sorely lacked mobility.Something that would hinder them to the end of the campaign..

[@jennataylor6806]

Ray DiNardo you know SFA

[@TakeMeBackTo1986]

Ray DiNardo Italians couldn't fight worth a shit and they had shitty weapons and commanders.... they still suck! LOL!

[@ukmediawarrior]

There are a series of books by an author called Barrie Pitt called 'The Crucible of War'. In this three book set he goes into extreme detail of the desert war under the three main commanders, Wavell, Auckinleck and Montgomery. Its a very good read where he uses diary exerts from the soldiers who were there and real accounts of what happened. For example the Italians get a lot of bad press over their performance in the desert war but people forget that the majority of them didn't want to be there, they didn't want to fight for Mussolini's ego and were more than happy to surrender. That had nothing to do with courage, they just didn't want to die for him. There is one story in those books of a young British Lieutenant who with a small group of his men over power an Italian position when attacking Tobruk to liberate it. They take so many prisoners he doesn't know what to do. He doesn't have enough men to send them back under proper guard, but he can't guard them there and he really shouldn't just let them go either. In the end using the captured Italian trucks he tells the Italian officer to load his men up and drive back toward Egypt till they find British force and hand themselves over. He figures thats the last he will see of them as they all drive away. A couple of hours later the trucks come back with the Italian drivers, but no prisoners in the back and the Italian officer asks the Lieutenant if he should drive the rest of the prisoners back to the stockade too, LOL :D

[@2serveand2protect]

Excellent channel - excellent documentaries! Big thanks for uploading! :)

[@andyzx9682]

the folgore fought like demons to the end ... without heavy weapons

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

True, they were very good and much underrated.

[@asullivan4047]

Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job making it easier for viewers to better understand what the orator was describing. Historians did a very good job of presenting actual facts from fiction. Orator presented the documentary very well. Class A research project. Rough combat operations on both sides. Rommel was more experienced but eventually stretched his forces too thin. Along with not being able to supply his forces. Special thanks to the allied forces who fought/perished/survived fighting the axis soldiers!!!

[@AdamMGTF]

It was an impressive TV series for it's time. Especially as it was made long before the mass digitisation of archive footage.

[@williamanderson2326]

How to defeat Erwin Rommel... launch your attack when he goes on sick leave.

[@funkebitz76]

Or use the AIF.

[@2serveand2protect]

...as far as I remember he took the "sick leave" when the faith of the battle was already sealed - the Italians and Germans simply weren't aware of it yet... They COULDN'T HOLD to the El Alamein line no matter what - Rommel or no Rommel. BTW - Rommel, by that genius that he was, he should have known that before attempting ANY great offensive in Africa they should have taken Malta first - he KNEW that, YET he attacked anyway. At the end he found himself with NO TANKS, NO FUEL, NO AMMO, NO MED's and NO CHANCE of EVEN DEFENDING HIMSELF, FAR LESS ATTACKING. He even written it in his own "memoires" that attempting ANY great offensives in Africa, without securing the convoys' routes from Italy by TAKING MALTA FIRST was an "UNFORGIVABLE MISTAKE". He forgot to add: HIS OWN (mainly) mistake.

[@funkebitz76]

True, but circumstance (hitler) wouldn't alow any alternative.

[@funkebitz76]

A great strategist moves and prospers in whatever field they operate.

[@funkebitz76]

Bitter pill to swallow but an easy conclusion to come by.

[@GeraltofRivia22]

2 of my great grandfathers fought in North Africa as part of the South African forces. One fought all the way to Italy, while the other was sent home for medical reasons.

[@inovakovsky]

Interesting. It is rare to find stories of South African participants in the campaign.

[@pottyscottystudios]

Just finished reading a story written by a royal engineer who was fixing the tanks and clearing enemy mines. This was the first battle he was in.

[@rolandacevans]

The style of reporting is excellent, concise, relevant and crisp without artificial drama, very easy to follow. The film footage is not only excellent but is superbly integrated. This is top rate.

[@AdamMGTF]

The benefits of having been made for TV and not for KZbin 😂

[@floppybollox3]

Typical anglo-saxon underplaying of the Italians in the battle. Although their earlier showings in the 1940-41 battles were poor, at El Alamein the Italians fielded their best divisions and the likes of the Folgore parachute division, the Giovani Fascisti and the Bersagliere proved formidable opponents in the second battle. They were largely responsable for the allied tank losses showing incredible bravery by lying in foxholes waiting for the ta¡nks to roll over them and attaching the mines to the hulls of the vehicles. They were the last Axis troops to withdraw from the battlefield, prompting Rommel to desribe them as better than his German troops on the day.

[@ziolupo259]

I agree with you. I think that a honest soldier has no problem to admit the valour and bravery of his enemy. The british never really did that with the italian troops even if we all know how hard the Folgore and the others italian divisions fought against them. It seems like something of the battle of El Alamein still burns inside of them, as if they felt it as a non complete victory. It is disappointing to see such a documentary especially because I really appreciated others of the same Battlefield series. But if the british need to behave this way to feel more confident of themselves...well...it's their problem.

[@thomasb1889]

The Italian army was excellent at that field level but above that it was incompetent. Rommel made good use of the in static positions because they were weak on transport.

[@jamesbeaumont1212]

Italian rank-and-file morale was non-existant; and why not? Why should Italian youths fight to the death for the crazy dream of a lunatic who fancied himself as a new caesar? In this the Italian troops showed themselves a lot less brainwashed than their German counterparts.

[@wischfulthinking]

Meh

[@MikeDrop136]

I've heard horror stories of the arrogance, incompetence and corruption of the Italian officer corps. The average Italian soldier, under German leadership performed as well as any other armed forces in the war.

[@Kampfwageneer]

best channel thanks for uploading the best docs man

[@Kingstone1981]

They never mention Crusader tanks :( The version available at the third quarter of 1942 (with the 57mm gun) proved itself well too.

[@Tommytakanawa]

😢

[@barbaradyson6951]

So nice to see the Hurricane get some credit, a much forgotten plane who didn't get much credit at the battle of britain.

[@BenState]

nonsense

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Battle of Britain - Everyone remembers the Spitfire. But there were far more Hurricane squadrons than Spitfires.

[@steaustin8789]

Who is the commentator on this episode boys? I think he's different? Luga?

[@AdamMGTF]

It'll be in the credits. Vasily luga didn't make this documentary. It's part of a series from the 90s.

[@stevemantle6809]

Great stuff. Although when eulogising the Hurricane IId Tankbuster, you show clips of Spitfires. Oh dear. Did you think that anyone watching wouldn't notice, or is there a shortage of aviation footage?

[@joey8062]

the true forgotten troops of north Africa,the Italians.they had some fine divisions.but they never say anything about them,poor Italians.

[@greyowl7869]

There are numerous entries and comments herein that are beyond interesting. Many people have a second hand connection to this battle. I am just beginning to plumb the depths of this spectre of WWII. Here are my thoughts on this entire conflict. After spending years reading first hand accounts of Operation Barbarossa and scholarly books (Alexander Werth is amazing as is Anthony Beevor) I pose a hypothetical question: I wonder what sorts of ends might have accrued had Hitler sent 3 million men and 155 divisions into North Africa and made for the Suez Canal instead of sending them into Russia??? Great video. Thanks for posting. Be well fellow history enthusiasts! Velox Versutus Vigilans

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Adolf Hitler was obsessed with crushing the Soviets. Simple as that.

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Adolf Hitler was obsessed with crushing the Soviets. Simple as that.

[@atte7526]

talks about the hawker hurricane, shows footage of the supermaine spitfire

[@nutsackmania]

no that was actual live footage of the ongoing battle

[@GeraltofRivia22]

Talks about the Sherman, shows footage of the Stuart.

[@BruceK10032]

At 33:45, when the Hurricane is mentioned, we do see a Hurricane. That's followed by a scene showing a formation of Spits. Later on, though, around 39:46, you're right.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

From “Eight Army’s Greatest Victories”, Adrian Turner: During that time also, the soldiers of Eight Army had won seven battles, two on the defensive, four on the offensive, and the most famous on what can only be called the defensive offensive since they had gained their victory not by their own attacks but by their successful repulse of enemy counter-attacks. It seems sad therefore that all except Alamein have tended to be forgotten and all, even Alamein, have tended to be belittled. The fashionable attitude appears to be that it was easy for Eight Army to achieve its conquests because it now had the superior numbers and the superior equipment that it’s predecessors had lacked. Such suggestions are grossly unjust. In sheer numbers of men Eight Army did have the advantage through the period of its conquests but so had it done throughout the period of its ordeals. *Indeed at Alam el Halfa, that victory on which all else depended, ‘the strength of the two sides was nearer to an even balance than it was either before or later’. It was Rommel who had increased the numbers of his German divisions from three to four, plus his independent parachute brigade; who had been joined by the finest of his Italian divisions, the Folgore; who had doubled the number of his flak regiments with their 88mms; who had at last received the ‘murderous Mark IV Specials’; whose Mark III Specials had more than doubled in number from those available in June, more than quadrupled in number from those available in July. No wonder he was confident that Alam Halfa would be his ‘decisive battle’. And even in later encounters, Eight Army would never have the overwhelming weight of numbers in its favour that it had done under Auchinleck in July.* Nor did Eight Army enjoy a qualitative superiority of weapons during the period of its conquests. On the contrary, while the Allies had had the better tanks throughout the whole of Auchinleck’s rule as C-in-C, Middle East, in August 1942, the arrival,on the battlefield of the Mark IV Specials gave the Germans a tank which was superior to all on the Allied side and would remain so despite the later advent of the best of the Allied tanks, the Shermans. Eighth Army’s disadvantage was again of course at its greatest at Alam Halfa when the Shermans had not yet reached the front line. *The German 88mm anti-tank guns had been superior to any that the British could find throughout the days of Eight Army’s ordeals - and they remained superior until the first few ‘Pheasants’ arrived at the time of Medenine.* The only difference was that at Alam Halfa, Alamein and the Mareth Line, the Axis Commanders had more than, and at Wadi Akarit almost, twice the number of 88mms that had been present during CRUSADER, three times the number that had been present at ‘First Alamein’. It should also be emphasized that throughout its conquest of North Africa, Eight Army had to overcome problems not experienced by its predecessors. It’s supply-line had to stretch further than ever before at the time of its victory at El Agheila, and even further still at the time of its final thrust to Tripoli. At Medenine also, Eighth Army’s supply-line was from from adequate, a fact which makes the admirable defensive preparations it carried out in an astonishingly short space of time all the more remarkable. In addition when Auchinleck had launched his attacks in July 1942, the enemy had had no opportunity to prepare adequate defences, while during CRUSADER he could outflank the defences altogether through the he open desert. For that matter Rommel had enjoyed the same advantage during his counter-offensive after CRUSADER and at Gazala. *By contrast when Eighth Army took the offensive at Alamein in October 1942, the Axis position could not be by-passed and was protected by half-a-million mines and all the hideous devices of the ‘Devil’s Garden’s’. At El Agheila it was possible to avoid the defences but only by crossing terrain worse than any that either Eighth Army or Panzerarmee Afrikahad yet encountered. At Beurat the front could be outflanked without too much difficulty, but the going encountered later left even the tough, experienced New Zealanders ‘speechless’; while the Homs-Tarhuna escarpment was only mastered because Eighth Army moved too quickly for Rommel to offer adequate resistance resistance there. At Mareth, Eighth Army was opposed by long-prepared fixed defences, the only way round which led to a ‘bottleneck’ so dangerous that it was feared that an attack through it would be ‘a second Balaclava’. And finally in the Gabes Gap Eight Army faced a formidable natural barrier which it had to assault head-on.*

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

@John Cornell Thanks mate. Keep up the good work.

[@marcobagut]

The map at 20:08 is wrong, Tobruk is in and was in Libya, not Egypt!

[@AdamMGTF]

Go back in time 25 years and tell the maker of the documentary 😂

[@marcobagut]

@@AdamMGTF Wow... How funny! Still, there is a mistake!

[@englishalan222]

My father got told off by Montgomery, told off by a field Marshal, he was proud of that, strange that he should be proud of that.

[@Apollo_1641]

Talks about sherman tanks, Shows m3 stuart instead.

[@Apollo_1641]

Talks about b25 bombers, Shows a b17 instead.

[@rachelmcdonagh9846]

LoL

[@う-頂点]

M5 stuart*, m3 has not sloped armour unless it's an m3a3 but those even has sloped armour on the sides

[@Kingstone1981]

Just so viewers don't get confused: at 43:40 there is a picture of Semovente 149/40 and not a Semovente 75/18, and at 45:22 there is a picture of a ZiS-3 76mm gun, however the author is talking about the F-22 guns of which a lot were captured in 1941, were slightly "upgraded" by the Germans and renamed into 7.62 cm Pak 36(r).

[@AdamMGTF]

A result of the time this documentary was made. Archive footage wasn't widely digitised. They used what they had

[@vanbrabant6791]

Such a great general, Montgomery: needed only twice as many men, twice as many ready planes and three times as many tanks to defeat Rommel. LOL

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@van Babant So the British should have been more concerned with fighting fairly? "We can't have more artillery and planes than the Germans, that just wouldn't be sporting! Also lets hold half of our infantry back to give them a fighting chance!" In this you're criticising the British military for doing things properly. The objective of war is to win. And that's it.

[@vanbrabant6791]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Just wanted to point out that M was not a great general, at all. Remember Market Garden Arnhem a disaster that cost the lives of many of his Polish soldiers, afterwards used by M as scapegoats for his own disastrous planning. If you ask the Poles what they think of him, they might not give the answer that you want them to ...

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@vanbrabant6791 He was a competent general. It also liberated thousands of Dutch civilians and took 100 km of German territory, it's not like nothing came out of it...

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@vanbrabant6791 'afterwards used by M as scapegoats for his own disastrous planning' where is there evidence of this?

[@inovakovsky]

@@vanbrabant6791 Monty is overrated but better than most of the peoplevwho preceeded him North Africa. In El Alemain, the Axis defended a 40 mile bottle-neck of 5+ miles deep minefields, so outflanking is less feasible than more open battlefields. An attack would face attrition where numbers would play a decisive factor.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

There is no mention of the Royal Navy providing shore bombardment in the north sector of the battle. The Italian Navy was already neutered after Matapan, Malta was already fortified after Pedestal. Why didn't the Royal Navy sortie from Alexandria? What was the risk calculation?

[@AdamMGTF]

Malta wasn't secure after pedastle.... As for why no shore bombardment. Multiple reasons. The danger of attack by submarine and the concern when it came to minefields. And of course air attack. The RN was spread very thinly. On top of that is the fact that they probably couldn't have helped much. A battleships guns have limited range. Add to the fact that the Italians effectively sank the Queen Elizabeth and Barham (I think I remember it being two capital ships) in Alexandria harbour. Meant they were out of action for a long while. The reality is. That ships off shore have limited ability to help troops on land. Especially in the ww2 era. Sure they can beat up fixed fortifications. But that's no help when it's a fluid battlefield.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

@@AdamMGTF fair point. thanks. 👍

[@AdamMGTF]

@@ricardokowalski1579 no drama. It's a very fair question. Btw I'm not fan of James Holland's TV stuff. But he wrote two excellent books on Malta and the battle of Sicily. I can't recommend them enough. Really well researched and easy to read.

[@Rebecca.8590]

Why don't we all agree It's an interesting video yet we all know facts are left out. Stop fighting on here. Just either watch it or don't.

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Agreed. I am enjoying watching the b&w archive footage. Good description of Italian and US kit. Explanation of battlefield tactics, including deceptions used. 😊

[@1987MartinT]

What's the name of the piece of music playing during the end credits?

[@bassyamaha]

Monty wasn't a fox. He won because of crushing superiority in hardware and week opposition!

[@astrogreece]

He won over Rommel, because he was not a fox, but a real wolf. Rommel had to run for his life like a rabbit. By the way, Monty did not commit suicide like the coward runaway fox who on D day filled his pants with you know what.

[@bassyamaha]

astrogreece You are pretty low on knowledge on this matters!

[@astrogreece]

bass yamaha well, I must admit what a genious you are...and very very knowledgeable. well done mate.

[@bassyamaha]

How would you know that Rommel sh....ed himself on D day? Were you his underwear?

[@astrogreece]

bass yamaha does your mama have more smart guys like youself? how old is she? I would like to meet her, if she delivers such bright jerks like yourself.

[@unitedwestand5100]

Operation Torch commenced before the 8th Army was able to break out. (3 days before) Undoubtedly, having 107k troops land behind him, was a major contributor to Rommel's desire to fall back, consolidate his forces, and shorten his supply lines. The battle of El Alamein; (23 October - 11 November 1942) Operation Torch; ( November 8, 1942 - November 16, 1942)

[@johndawes9337]

how far behind him was the 107k troops?

[@unitedwestand5100]

@@johndawes9337 ,. A better question would be how far from Tunis was the 107k. Tunis was the German supply point. The 107k were much closer to the source of the German supply train than the 8th Army.

[@johndawes9337]

@@unitedwestand5100 so you have no clue as to how far and tbh i think your idea that Rommel retreated because of Torch is as far fetched as poo from China.

[@MarkHarrison733]

@@johndawes9337 Montgomery never managed to catch up with Rommel.

[@johndawes9337]

@@MarkHarrison733 i know but he chased him out of NA.

[@11nytram11]

Monty's approach was largely dictated to him by the fact that Britain could call on no more manpower and the manpower it had was an Army made up of largely conscripts who's main concern was getting out of the war alive and were very quick to lose morale. He thus develop a method that played to the British strenghts and allowed them to be effective depite their glaring flaws and provided victory at a tollerable cost in casualties while allowing Britain to maintain its position as a major player

[@patrickwatrin5093]

Tell me something I don't know

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

That seems to be a fairly accepted view. Monty was a religious man, so he wanted to use maximum firepower to save lives of his own troops. That may account for his caution.

[@vkmtahgi]

When listing allied victories in 1942 at 1:49 the narrator says that "the forces of the british empire had also achieved a great trumph in battle. So significant that Churchill referred to it as the beginning of the end". What battle(s) is he referring to? I thought that, at that point, the British had been roundly humiliated in the Pacific theater and hadn't really had any major engagements in the European theater.

[@vkmtahgi]

@John Cornell oh yes, of course. Could have done without the snark though...

[@AdamMGTF]

Not sure what the deleted comment said. But it's fair to say that unfortunately your quite wrong. About just about everything you wrote. It's well worth reading up on the war as a whole. There are so many aspects. You could read and learn your whole life and barely scratch the surface

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Churchill was referring to Monty victory at 2nd El Alamein.

[@drewayling326]

There were Tiger tanks in Africa ... we captured Tiger 131 in Africa.

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

drew ayling Yes but not at El Alamein, the Tiger captured, now in the Tank Museum at Bovington was captured in Tunisia. The Tigers, a small number arrived in Tunisia during the last moments of the North African Campaign

[@Relay300]

Great uploads, thank you.

[@markgarin6355]

Narrator kept saying '7.62mm' instead of '76.2mm'. big difference

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

He said 7.62 cm.

[@mugwump20061]

At 25:37, when they speak of Gen. Alexander, the photo shown is actually Gen. Brian Horrocks of 30 Corps.

[@RedcoatUK23]

My grandfather was a desert rat, really proud. :)

[@matteyre1122]

Same here, my grandfather was one and I am proud of him, it was one hell of a battle as a tank commander.

[@randaljbatty]

Montgomery's full brilliance wouldn't be revealed until he implemented Operation Market Garden.

[@shadowmare97]

The problem was that Montgomery's strategies were too ambitious and daring right off the bat. In desert warfare, vast distances can be traversed relatively easily, thus the problem was less acute. However in Northern Europe with things more urbanized, there is more reliance on Infantry. So the problem wasn't so much his lack of overall intelligence, it was more his refusing to adapt to changing battlefield conditions.

[@randaljbatty]

Shadowmare Yes. Far too ambitious. A lot of men died or were captured because he really wasn't much of a detailed strategist or tactician.

[@englishalan222]

Shadowmare He also had the habit of stealing other men's credit, the El Alamain plan was first drawn up by O'Conner yet he later said the plan was all his own work

[@Fireworxs2012]

Market Garden brilliance? I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic. That or you are a complete moron. *Monty was overstuffed military moron*...From the Allied viewpoint Market Garden was a failure by just about any measure..It nearly cost the Allies Western Europe and if it hadn't for been for the entrance of the United States, Western Europe would probably still be under German control. The cold truth is everyone west of Berlin outta be kissing Japan's ass for drawing the United States into WW2...Without Japan's stupidy, ya'll would be speaking German..

[@englishalan222]

Fireworxs2012 Market Garden was not a total disaster, a massive hole was punched in the German lines and XXX corps had made a significant advance. Many people think that Market-Garden was Arnheim it, was not. Arnheim was only part of the the operation. (There were four Bridges and rivers to cross) The Arnheim part of the Operation indeed failed but the rest of Market-Garden was a resounding success,

[@nickdanger3802]

Churchill "I have told the House how at the time of the fall of Tobruk the President gave the first 350 Sherman tanks which had already been issued to the American Army and we know that they played a key part in the Battle at Alamein." below 1469 Hansard WAR SITUATION HC Deb 02 August 1944

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

The Americans had also supplied Grant tanks and much vital war material. The US army wasn't yet ready to engage in the field.

[@philbyd]

After Rommel lost his spy in Egypt he didn’t win a battle

[@zachsmith1676]

Didn’t they use the body of the spy as the corpse that washes up on an axis controlled beach with the allied plans (fake ones) in order to mislead them. Apologies if I’m mixing up my WW2 history

[@williamdelong8727]

@@zachsmith1676 You have the wrong battle. The allies used a washed up corpse with fake information for Operation Husky the invasion on Sicily. The Germans and Italians bit perfectly on the fake information. The fake information plan was called Operation Mincemeat

[@GeraltofRivia22]

@@zachsmith1676 the spy wasn't even German or actually a spy. It was an American diplomatic observer who's messages were being intercepted and deciphered.

[@Roodski]

1:02:10 I was not ready for that 😂😂

[@ghendar]

This series was so great in seasons 1 and 2 and completely underwhelming in the later ones. I didn't see the Vietnam series so can't comment on that.

[@edbecka233]

I saw them and they were no great shakes either. Strange how as the series progressed, the narrators showed themselves to be fanboys of the communists.

[@AdamMGTF]

The later ones are all pretty crap. I don't remember any communist propaganda tho

[@ernestspencer4879]

Lots of comments about the Italian Units in the North African Theater here. Reasons they fared so poorly in early fights against the British was quality of their armor. Quality of the officers also a factor. Individual units (i.e the Folgore), when well led and deployed, were tough opponents. Blanket statements seldom hold up to historical fact.

[@Sq12Sq22u22]

It was NOT a BRITISH advance, it was an Australian advance, and they took Tobruk AND Bardia and they were the first in the world to stop a German blitzkrieg. Tobruk did NOT fall while the FEW Australians defended it and it ONLY FELL after they left and were releived by MORE troops, mainly South African and Free Polish forces...MORE troops and BETTER conditions than the AUstralians.

[@ramonesperanza8078]

+Sq12Sq22u22 Another Australian Anzac Myth like The Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam. The first to defeat a strong German mechanized formation and stop a Blitzkrieg attack was the Polish Army at Piotrkow in September 1939. Also the Danish Army 1st Corps in the Battle for the Hague on 10 May 1940, defeated General Hans von Sponeck 22nd Infantry Division, capturing 1,000 German soldiers.

[@caIigula]

+Sq12Sq22u22 If the attack would've been a failure, would you also so proudly praclaim them to be in error? And if the answer is "no", think about it, that this may seem hypocritical, and if the answer is "yes", would you do it so proudly? People care way to much about which ancestors fo themselves got killed and where and for what (mostly ludicrous reason, YES, religious people, I look at you), especially today, I would rather hear peole proudly claim which people they refused to kill in a war that never happened because everyone just went playing football or something else, 24.Dec.1914-style... Playing against other people instead of shooting at other people, or if someone has to be killed, why not chuck those declaring the wars into a pit and let them have it? Seemingly, also some people during the 1st WW thought about that, if Remarques' "All quiet on the western front" is to be believed... This is so sick, if I kill someone, I get punished, but if some "authoritive figure(-head)" send thousands to millions peole to die, who kill at the same time similar amount of people with brutality and collateral damage where even more, totally innocent people die, it is "normal"... Now maybe Hitler&co had to be stopped, but even today this happens, and ironically, for reasons reminding of medieval times, and no, i don't mean chivalry, but rather killing for the reason of believing in one illusion and killing others for either rejecting this illusion or having one somewhat similar or totally different, in short, LUCICROUS as it gets, no "reason" at all, friggin bunch of savages, living in the 21st century...

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

Ramon Esperanza er, the Danes didn't fight at the Hague, that was the Dutch.

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

Sq12Sq22u22 at the time the Australians were as British as those born in Britain as all were British citizens. It was only after the war did this situation change.

[@mattcullen6109]

@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 really ? My extremely aussie uncles fought in ww2.

[@nigellawson8610]

Napoleon is reported to have said about a general, "Is he lucky!"

[@paulheywood69]

Oh yeah ,market garden was a fuckin disaster !! He abandoned any hope of getting the paras back across the Rhine leaving the job to 101st airborne?he made no provision for 30corps being late , and the whole deal was hurriedly conceived and born to failure!! Montgomery should a stayed in the desert directing tanks

[@docbill25]

The evacuation of the 1st Airborne was not the job of the 101st Airborne, they were in the Eindhoven area. The closest US forces were the 82nd Airborne.. However the task of bringing them out fell to the 43rd Wessex Inf. Division.

[@malcolmanon4762]

So how about the smashing of the Germans in Normandy, what do you think of that?

[@bassyamaha]

***** It was the Yanks an Allied Air Force not Monty!

[@marshallallensmith]

And I'm sure you would have performed so much better huh ? Armchair general...idiot.

[@marshallallensmith]

Okay...

[@jac9963]

Oi..!..That lad in that tank at 00:51 seconds in was an absolute flying moonbat... What a lunatic..(!!)...

[@jac9963]

Imagine seeing him coming for ya..!!....Do you reload the bazooka, or try sidestepping the mad bastard at the last second?!.. ... Either way, you're fkd..(!!).

[@papakilatube]

Dunkirk was "amazing"? No, it was the ignominious end of a disaster. Montgomery also designed and executed Market-Garden, another disaster.

[@JohnoO_O_]

18tangles Market Garden 90% successful? Hardly a disaster, it liberated most of Holland and Belgium

[@jennataylor6806]

how about Hurtgen Forrest you know Americas biggest disaster in Europe.

[@JohnoO_O_]

No it was Operation COBRA actually

[@jennataylor6806]

John S what was?

[@JohnoO_O_]

It was a bombing prelude to an offensive to break out of Normandy. Instead of hitting the Germans the majority of the bombs fell on our own positions, with obvious consequences. In contrast the Ardennes was a tactical fuck up, while the Hurtgen forest was merely avoidable. That's why Op COBRA gets my vote

[@kansaspatriot2051]

At 40 minutes they're talking about the Hurricane IIb but the footage is all Spitfires.???

[@mabinogion3]

The usual anti-Italian propaganda crap. Some divisions were taken prisoners because they had no means of transport. "1st and 7th Armoured Divisions' plan to trap 90th Light Division also hit trouble. The 1st Armoured came into contact with the remnants of 21st Panzer and had to spend most of the day pushing them back 8 mi (13 km). Meanwhile, 7th Armoured was being held up by the Ariete Armoured Division which in the course of the day was decimated while giving stout resistance. This action is described by Rommel in his diary: 'I was later told by Major von Luck, whose battalion I had sent to close the gap between the Italians and the Afrika Korps, that the Italians, who at that time represented our strongest motorised force, fought with exemplary courage. Tank after tank split asunder or burned out, while all the time a tremendous British barrage lay over the italian infantry and artillery positions.' This day also saw the destruction of the Littorio Armoured Division and the Trieste Motorised Division. Berlin radio claimed that in this sector the "British were made to pay for their penetration with enormous losses in men and material. The Italians fought to the last man." The British, however, took many prisoners, since the remnants of italian infantry divisions were not motorised and could not escape from encirclement. Bologna and the remainder of Trento Division tried to fight their way out of Alamein and marched in the desert without water, food, or transport before surrendering exhausted and dying from dehydration. Harry Zinder of Time magazine: 'It was a terrific letdown by their German allies. They had fought a good fight. In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition. Two armoured divisions and a motorised division, which had been interspersed among the German formations, thought they would be allowed to retire gracefully with Rommel's 21st, 15th and 19th light. But even that was denied them. When it became obvious to Rommel that there would be little chance to hold anything between El Daba and the frontier, his Panzers dissolved, disintegrated and turned tail, leaving the Italians to fight a rear-guard action.' Rommel telegraphed Hitler for permission to fall back on Fuka. As further Allied blows fell, von Thoma was captured and reports came in from the Ariete and Trento that they were encircled. At 17:30, unable to wait any longer for a reply from Hitler, Rommel gave orders to retreat. Due to insufficient transportation, most of the Italian infantry formations were abandoned and left to their fate. Any chance of getting them away with an earlier move had been spoiled by the dictator's insistence that Rommel hold his ground, obliging him to keep the unmotorised Italian units well forward until too late. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_El_Alamein

[@joey8062]

i wish they would make a documentary in English about the Italian Elite units, their weapons and story of the war instead of just Germans and British.

[@Chris_Intel]

Italian soldiers were as good as any other European soldier ,they had courage and they were well trained and disciplined ,they respected the enemy and they behave as they ought to in every situation. Italian soldiers were among the most civilised soldiers and respected their POWs .Desert war was the most civilised battlefront for a soldier to serve in ww2 ,all opponents respected each other and followed Geneva convention to the letter !!!

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

The German's stole the transport so they could retreat. Imagine being stranded in the desert with no water, no military supplies and no transport. Little wonder that the Italian infantry surrendered.

[@acolytexiv]

In fairness, I think "Battlefield" episodes were originally broadcast in 2 parts, so it's probably there as a recap.

[@rommel8433]

Only supply defeat Rommel

[@andreasimoncini2793]

@Hissam Ullah literally every single German engagement could have used more tanks. But they didn't have any. Hitler didn't steal away Rommel's tank,they just didn't have any to give. They were getting mauled so bad by the Russians on the Eastern front that sending more tanks to a sideshow where you have 50% chance of them sinking in the Mediterranean was a no-go.

[@almarivera7862]

Excuses.. take this L axis

[@johnburns4017]

*Eisenhower:* ‘General Montgomery is a very able, dynamic type of army commander’. *Eisenhower on D-Day and Normandy:* 'He got us there and he kept us there'. *General Günther Blumentritt:* ‘Field Marshall Montgomery was the one general who never suffered a reverse’ *Genral Hasso von Manteuffel on the Bulge:* ‘The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough’. *Patton on Monty:* 'small,very alert, wonderfully conceited, and the best soldier - or so it seems - I have met in this war’.

[@sweetmelody4610]

As disrespectful or even irrelevant as they may seem, I think that the allies would have held their own against the axis powers in Europe and North Africa even if the United States hadn't stepped in. The two most decisive victories of the war against Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy had been won in El Alamein (British) and Stalingrad (Russian) and that was before the US stepped in, at that point it would have been unlikely Rommel's forces would ever recover anyway in North Africa, and it's not like the Americans had anything to do with assisting the soviets in the east. There's no doubt the war would have taken years, if not decades without their assistance but I can't take these Yanks seriously who believe they are responsible for the fall of Berlin and such. Of course you can argue that a great deal of weaponry used by the Brits was from the US, but then Britain were responsible for supplying the Russians in their masses during the Nazi invasion.

[@ZackyDaley]

The Chratheostic I see your point, but I also see the holes. Rommel was a good man, so he hated Adolf and conspired against him. Rommel was given an ultimatum to take cyanide and die, essentially murdered by the command of hitler. The Brits also did not supply Russia, and if they did it was minimal. That is why the weapons are different its not like they built other weapons to send to Russia. Britain is my favorite power that took part in that war, and did the most (other than Russia), however, without the united states, could have been 5 more years of global conflict, Japan may have broke their treaty with Russia, there could have been civil war in austria and germany. I think we can both agree the US played a far more bigger role in the pacific than on the western or north africa front, but it was a crucial role.

[@themadhammer3305]

Zackery Daley you didnt see the big hole that is the artic convoys between 1941 and 1945. About 1400 merchant ships delivered essential supplies to the Soviet Union under the Lend-Lease program, escorted by ships of the Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and the U.S. Navy. Eighty-five merchant vessels and 16 Royal Navy warships (two cruisers, six destroyers, eight other escort ships) were lost. Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine lost a number of vessels including one battleship, three destroyers and at least 30 U-boats as well as a large number of aircraft. The convoys demonstrated the Allies commitment to helping the Soviet Union. So yeah nothing was done to assist the russians

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

The Chratheostic The victory at El Alamein was made possible only by massive US supplies. P-40s, Shermans, Thompson, Half-tracks, Baltimores, Struets

[@englishalan222]

18tangles at the time of El Alamnein the Sherman was the best Allied tank in the west, previous British were undergunned with 2 pdr and thinly armoured The P-40 was not as good as the Spitfire, however British industry could not manufacture enough Spitfires to meet all requirements. So it was the P-40s are nothing for a lot of squadrons, in that respect the P-40 was vital. The Stuarts were a very good rec vehicle, fast and usefully armed for a rec vehicle, it was not designed to take on tanks. Armoured cars cannot carry infantry, Britain had no half-tracks themselves, the half-track was the only Armoured personnel carrier in British service at the time and they were all American. Baltimore, similar to the P-40s, not enough Beaufighters could be built to meet demand. Thomspon was a sub-machine gun, the Bren a light machine, the Thompson was very popular with the British as the Stem was prone to jamming In short El Alamein could not have been won without US lend Lease

[@pillmonsta]

+likesmilitaryhistory Alan Moore "The victory at El Alamein was made possible only by massive US supplies" This statement is false. First off the *massive US supplies* amounted to a total of ~250 M4A1 Shermans and some cargo trucks. The Shermans were distributed among the other roughly 1,000 tanks which made up the 1st Armoured division of the 8th Army. The M4 were def not superior to British tanks either, however they could be mass produced via US car makers, something not possible in the UK. To put things into perspective, during the 2nd battle of Alamein 120 Shermans were under the command of New Zealand 2nd Division, of these 120 tanks approximately 100 were taken out by German 88's at nearly 2miles. = ~75% loss. Iirc an M4A1 had an effective range of 1.5 miles. Later the British added a more formidable 17pdr gun (76.2) but overall it was still inferior to the Panzers (except maybe Panzer III) Btw the British 8th Army was not British, it was a COMMONWEALTH force made up of ~10 divisions primarily from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, SA and India. Every country (bar India) had it's own general but the army as a whole was under British command. Most the millitary hardware and materials in 1942 were supplied by Commonwealth nations, remember the US had just landed a few weeks before 2nd El Alamein whereas ANZAC and other forces had been fighting for 2 years...... Fwiw the primary reason for Operaton Torch was so the americans could get some combat experience.

[@danhemming6624]

The fact that I am free to watch this.

[@77cambria]

there is so much crap here it hurts, what the British were the single fighting machine, give me a break - not a freaking word about the hundreds of Polish soldiers that died here

[@englishalan222]

And Australians, Free French, New Zealanders and South Africans. Yet the term British is used loosely , as all those others were part of the British army and under British command

[@77cambria]

gowno

[@englishalan222]

I never said they were not at divisional levels

[@jamiengo2343]

They fought for Britain as they were part of the Empire.

[@Rebecca.8590]

You don't see us Canadians complaining cause we know we fought under British command.

[@HorroRviXenKate]

gr8 doc tks for posting

[@joey8062]

these documentary's are horrible. What about the Elite Italian units in North Africa. Italian Armored Division Ariete" and the "133rd Italian Armored Division Littorio,Bersaglieri and others at?? British never seem to respect Italians or France

[@englishalan222]

I totally agree, many Italian units fought with extreme courage

[@englishalan222]

18tangles That does not prove the Italians are cowards, just that they did not believe in what they were fighting for or that they were badly led. The partisans in northern Italy fought with outstanding courage

[@englishalan222]

18tangles That true, and the fought a very tough battle at Karen in Italian East Africa

[@joey8062]

Alan Moore people seem to froget some naval battles such as operation harpoon

[@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819]

joey8062 because in 1940, when the French were in overall command they fucked up the defence of their own country leaving the British high and dry by seeking a separate peace with Hilter. By the time of El Alemain the Germans were the major player on the Axis side of the dessert war, just like the Americans were in western Europe after D-Day. The individual Italian soldiers were as brave as any, but as an army they were a glass hammer.

[@markharrison2544]

The Second Battle of El Alamein was strategically more important than the Battle of Stalingrad.

[@joyschneider5003]

I have been reading some of the comments about the brave British soldiers who fought at El Alamein. Most of you need to study your history books, you have times, dates, places and people wrong. My father fought at El Alamein and was badly wounded. How many of you know that thanks to the Americans who had the lend lease programme saw that the Brits were equipped with brand new Sherman tanks to fight the battle. My dad was a tank driver of one of those great tanks. Montgomery may have had his faults but the men would do anything for him. My father shared many memories with me and I studied all I could about the North Africa campaign. So before you make comments make sure you know what your talking about. My Father won many medals for bravery so God bless the British 8th Army and all of those that have served their country.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Joy Schneider 'How many of you know that thanks to the Americans who had the lend lease programme saw that the Brits were equipped with brand new Sherman tanks to fight the battle. My dad was a tank driver of one of those great tanks.' Your words. But those Sherman Tanks at Alamein werer diverted to 8th Army from an American Division who were not in a position to use them. Far from being great the Sherman was a death trap due to its propensity to catch fire. Its high profile added to its vulnerability. Even the British Firefly version did not really make a it a match for German heavy tanks.

[@scottkrater2131]

The Sherman wasn't the best tank of ww2, but it was 100 times better than the crap the British were producing which is y the Brits left their own crap in North Africa when they invaded Sicily and Italy.

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Maybe. But securing Suez was vital for the British. Churchill was obsessed with the Mediterranean theatre, much to the irritation of his American allies. 😂

[@1lowsky]

if the germans had as many man and gasoline Rommel would've kicked the shit out of Monty.

[@JuanKuzov]

1lowsky maybe maybe not

[@1lowsky]

we'll never know, that's for sure... :)

[@allenwilliams1306]

But he didn't, and I think that's the point. You attack only when you have superiority, especially when your opponent has supply lines which are severely stretched and can be further hampered by a superior air force. It is not genius, I grant you.

[@1lowsky]

you are right. it's hard to fight against the whole world...

[@1lowsky]

you are right, he didn't. it's hard to fight against the whole world, even if it's for a good cause..

[@11Kralle]

Rommel was an ingenious infantry-tactician for trench warfare - his later rise to the rank of general was merely due to favoritism. Nowadays he is depicted as the most abled commander in the field; which is bogus. People should read more about WW1 to understand the follow-up.

[@candyextreme8406]

"The "Germans had no answer to the Sherman" how biased this narrator is.

[@jdsol1938]

at the time it was true 6 months later it wasn't, but the sherman wasn't the most produced tank in WWii it was the t34

[@thevillaaston7811]

But the key weapon in the desert was the anti tank gun.

[@optic140]

The Germans after D day called the Shermans "Tommy cookers.".

[@jdsol1938]

could be, but it sounds like "history channel" to me

[@AdamMGTF]

In fairness I'd say the Germans didn't have an answer. The Sherman was made to a great standard. In huge numbers. And was shipped across an ocean to get to the fight. And yet the Germans lost battle after battle against armies equipped with them. It doesn't matter if the Germans had things like the tiger. The allies had a better combined arms package. Backed up by a robust (and in Americas case, an untouched) home front. Germany may have had an answer. It was the king tiger. The mouse. The V2. The me262.…. None of it good enough.

[@alextsitovich9800]

Summary: 1) In the war only legendary heroic generals took part. "General Montgomery faced general Rommel in the desert". "Rommel attacked...". 2) Co-working of aircraft, artillery and infantry was started only after one legendary heroic general invited the other legendary heroic generals from their forces to his headquarters. 3) The war was won by wonder weapons. Wonder aircraft, wonder tanks, wonder guns made it. But the Germans had no wonder tanks, they had promises only. That is the reason of their lost. 4) Numbers has no value. You should look for them through the entire 2 hours video. And it is not the fact that you will find them.

[@filipposaracchini1976]

This is british propaganda. You show no respect for our people, you think we are only pizza, pasta, mafia and mandolin? Why you said that the 7th armored division was sent against the 21th armored division and not against the Folgore division? Because you are ashamed that they have destroyed 208 tanks?? "In war, truth is the first casualty". Aeschylus.

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

How could the Folgore (Who are very good I grant you) destroy more tanks than the entire 7th Armoured had?

[@filipposaracchini1976]

Sorry, I was not clear; The Folgore division destroyed many tanks (Crusaders and Sherman) and combat vehicles (Bren carriers, Daimler Dingo etc), mainly from 7th armored division, but others also from the other divisions they fought in the night between 25 and 26 october 1942 (I'm talking about the 44th and the 50th division of infantry, the French foreign legion brigade and the Greek Brigade). To my opinion the british and the commonwealth soldiers (expecially the australians) were the most brave and fierce fighters among the allies, more than the americans and the russians, and I have great respect for them; But a lot of italians fought and die in that battle, and this documentary is very offensive to us :/. We lost a lot of battles in WW2, it's true, but at El Alamein our soldiers (not only the Folgore, but even the Bersaglieri and the Ariete armored division), have preserved our military honor, and I am proud of them. May the fallen of El Alamein (Italians, Germans, British and from Commonwealth) rest in peace. Thanks for question my friend ;). "The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier" Erwin Rommel

[@likesmilitaryhistoryalanmo9568]

Read up on the Battle of Keran. A British reporter had this to say about the Italians....Keren was as hard a soldiers' battle as was ever fought, and let it be said that nowhere in the war did the Germans fight more stubbornly than those Savoia battalions, Alpini, Bersaglieri and Grenadiers. In the five days' fight the Italians suffered nearly 5,000 casualties - 1,135 of them killed., the gallant young Italian general, had his head blown off by one of the British guns. He had been a great leader of Eritrean troops. The unfortunate licence of wartime propaganda allowed the British Press to represent the Italians almost as comic warriors; but except for the German parachute division in Italy and the Japanese in Burma no enemy with whom the British and Indian troops were matched put up a finer fight than those Savoia battalions at Keren. Moreover, the Colonial troops, until they cracked at the very end, fought with valour and resolution, and their staunchness was a testimony to the excellence of the Italian administration and military training in Eritrea.

[@filipposaracchini1976]

I know the battle of Keren; my grandpa fought in East Africa ;)

[@filipposaracchini1976]

+likesmilitaryhistory Alan Moore If you are interested check on internet for "Battle of Culqualber" ;). It was our "Thermopylae" if you know what I mean :)

[@seniorsabali8759]

Thx for the video

[@nickdanger3802]

Churchill Sept 42 "In spite of the heavy losses which I mentioned, the Army of the Western Desert is now stronger actually and relatively than it has ever been. In fact, so large have the new reinforcements which have reached this Army been, that what is to a large extent a new Army has been created while the fighting has actually been in progress. The principal measures which rendered this possible were taken before the disaster of Tobruk, and, indeed, before the opening of the battle at Gazala in May. They were part of the general preparation which, looking ahead, we made for the hazards and stresses of the Desert campaign of 1942. As far back as March last I asked President Roosevelt to lend me shipping to transport an additional 40,000 or 50,000 men to the Middle East so as to have something to veer and haul upon, so as to have a force which could be turned to the various theatres in which danger might develop. The President consented and placed at our disposal a number of American ships, and in consequence at the critical moment we had rounding the Cape a very large and well-equipped force which could be directed immediately to Egypt. It is to that that the improvement in our affairs, the maintenance of our affairs, in that region must largely be attributed. Besides this a broadening stream of drafts to replace casualties, of equipment, tanks, anti-tank guns, "Ack-Ack" guns and vehicles of all kinds has been flowing from this country and from the United States to the Middle East, and we now 90 have in Egypt a very good, strong, well-equipped and resolute Army barring the further advance of the invader." "I am strengthened in this view by the results of the heavy fighting of last week. Owing to the restraint and understatement which have been practised in the Middle East communiqués in deference to the taste of the House, the scale and intensity of these operations have not been realised, or have -only now begun to be realised. General Rommel has been much hampered by the sinkings of so many of his supply ships by our submarines, as well as by the British and United States air attacks renewed again from Malta and also from Egypt." Hansard WAR SITUATION HC Deb 08 September 1942

[@thevillaaston7811]

And for Torch. Britain supplied the bulk of the shipping.

[@11nytram11]

Additionally, Monty was handicapped in how adventurous he could be in his planning because he didn't have an inexhastable pool of manpower to call upon. The United States had millions upon millions of troops to call on, and no end of reserves they could put into the front line to replace losses, but by 1943 the British and Commonwealth had no reserves left and were forced to break up existing formation to provide replacement for battle losses. The Commonwealth couldn't afford reckless offensives

[@11nytram11]

No, that's not an accurate comparison. Monty didn't believe the force opposing him outnumbered him - he knew it didn't because of the accuracy of ULTRA - but he didn't see the point in attacking before his force had the optimum strenght possible, he saw builing up his numbers and material the same as building up his advantages and increasing his chance of victory. If any American Civil War General can be compared to Monty in operational terms then it is George Henry Thomas.

[@Flapjackbatter]

Exactly. I think theese series are pretty haistilly slapped together. I think. In the program about Scandinavia , forexample : Not a peep about the battle of Hegra fortress. One of the most known encouners between the nazis and Norwegian forces.

[@bluebearphotography]

Love this channel watch it all the time great histery that our 21st centry are losing

[@BenState]

Now watch some videos on spelling.

[@TruthNerds]

43:00 "In the course of the war, over 48,000 [Shermans] were built, more than any other thank, anywhere in the world." *cough* T-34 *cough* … over 50,000 built during the war. (If - maybe - you are counting the T-34/76 and the T-34/85 separately, then you'll have to do the same for the Sherman variants.)

[@julianshalders6047]

The German 88 artillery gun was deadly, Aussie Tobruk rats legendary 🙏💓🦘

[@YrCofiWirionNa]

25:29 thats a picture of Brian Horrocks not Alexandr

[@englishalan222]

Brain Horrocks was my Fathers commander after the D-Day landings, when he was appointed to command XXX Corps

[@IanCross-xj2gj]

Good spot.

[@Pavllvs_I_Amadevs_Milani]

I came hoping to hear of the Folgore, i was dissapointed not to. My Grandfather and his 11 brothers fought in North Africa for Italia and his allies.

[@ukmediawarrior]

If you take out all the times it repeats itself this documentary would be about an hour long, lol.

[@edbecka233]

I wonder if this was the seed of the way the hysterical channel et al keep recapping after every commercial. Those self-appointed elites must really think that we, the Great Unwashed, have such a short memory span that they must repeat, repeat, repeat...

[@AdamMGTF]

It was 2 different episodes. It's been edited into one long one for KZbin

[@ernestspencer4879]

9th Australian racked up some serious mileage - after El Alamein they were posted to New Guinea.

[@sheeplovetoast9718]

When you find out through medals your grandfather fought here

[@commandershepherd8987]

Comparing Monty to Rommel is like comparing Larry the Cable Guy to Albert Einstein. Montgomery was a pompous asshole and only cared about stealing glory for himself, instead of the lives of his men. Rommel was loved by the men under his command because he took care of them, took measures to avoid wasting lives, and also treated captured Commonwealth and American soldiers well and with respect. This earned him the admiration of both friend and foe. Monty never had that reputation.

[@bigwoody4704]

Great analogy

[@68orangecrate26]

Never volunteer for tankettes…. Go full tank. If you’re gonna be SPAM in a can, make the can a big one. Best Regards, Captain Obvious

[@issa3522]

I salute all those warriors who took part in those terrible battles including the professional German soldiers for their courage and bravery in the face of the adversities and bitter hardships.

[@zacharywigglesworth274]

The upgun panzer 4 could easyly deal with sherman tanks. In fact the panzer 4 was the tank that the sherman incouted in normandy and this panzer 4 slow the sherman attack to a battle of inches.

[@AdamMGTF]

War isn't top trumps. Nor is It a video game. It doesn't matter what tank is "better" than another. An army is about combined arms and it's ability to fight effectively.

[@pickititllneverheal9016]

Chief Big Wind Montgomery 😂

[@DrMerle-gw4wj]

It was a great victory, but for the Royal Navy. Their ability to consistently defeat the Italian Navy and stop adequate resupply to Rommel allowed the Brits under the command of the completely incompetent Montgomery to defeat otherwise far superior forces under far better leadership.

[@nickdanger3802]

Much to the delight of the ground troops, the P-40 Tomahawk pilots dispatched seven of the enemy, probably destroyed one and damaged another eight, for the loss of one Tomahawk. The British force destroyed a total of ten enemy aircraft. Early in December, 3 Squadron re-equipped with the Curtis P-40E Kittyhawk. This aircraft was a development of the basic P-40, but was more heavily armed than its predecessors. In the meantime 450 Squadron had deployed to Gambut Main, where it joined the Desert Air Force on 16 February 1942. Six days later Sergeant R. Shaw claimed its first aerial victory: a JU-88 shot down in flames. Weapons and Warfare RAAF FIGHTERS: THE DESERT CAMPAIGNS page

[@PrincessRoyalDawn]

This episode talks more about North African battles than S2/E1 Battle for North africa.