Military Review

Why the "Desert Fox" could not break through to Alexandria

62
Why the "Desert Fox" could not break through to Alexandria

Erwin Rommel (left) and commander of the 21st tank Division Georg von Bismarck (right)


Situation at the front


In May-June 1942, Rommel defeated the British troops at the Battle of Gazala (How Rommel defeated the British 8th Army and took Tobruk). German-Italian troops broke through the Gazala line, took Tobruk on June 21 and advanced about 600 km. German tanks were on the outskirts of El Alamein - the last line of enemy defense on the way to the Nile Delta and the Suez Canal. The British army lost 80 thousand people, mostly prisoners, most of the armored vehicles.

The situation for Britain was threatening. There was a risk of losing Egypt, Suez, the main communication between England and India, the Far East. Here military materials went to Africa, to the Far East and to Russia (through Iran). Oil from Iran and Iraq was needed to continue the war. In addition, the Wehrmacht broke through to the Caucasus. There was an opportunity to unite the German Caucasian and African groups. This could lead to the collapse of the British Empire. That is, if Hitler really wanted to defeat England, then he only needed to give a few divisions and additional Luftwaffe forces to Rommel. The Nazis could take Suez, then Malta and take Gibraltar. Create a threat to the enemy in Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Iran. After that, London would have to beg Berlin for peace.

The British themselves were in the face of complete defeat and were ready for further retreat. Trenches were hastily dug near Alexandria and Cairo. Bridges were built across the Nile, headquarters, government agencies and supplies were evacuated from the west bank. Headquarters of the British Mediterranean fleet moved from Alexandria to Ismailia. The ships went to bases in Haifa, Port Said and Beirut. In Alexandria, they were preparing to destroy the port during the retreat. There were plans to flood the entire Nile Delta.


The exit of the Germans to El Alamein


Rommel wanted to finish off the 8th British Army and take the Nile Delta up to the Suez Canal. He urged his command to continue the operation until the enemy came to his senses, not to pause. He informed the German military attache in Italy, General von Rintelen, that the booty captured in Tobruk, especially fuel, would be enough for his army for three months of war. Rommel also met with the commander-in-chief of the German troops in the Mediterranean theater and in North Africa, Field Marshal aviation Kesselring, who arrived in Tobruk. The field marshal noted that the Luftwaffe would not be able to support the offensive. Rommel declared that there might not be a second such opportunity to throw the enemy into the sea. In the end, Kesselring agreed. Hitler also supported Rommel and convinced Mussolini, although the Italian generals, as before, expressed doubts.


Kesselring and Rommel in North Africa

On June 22, 1942, Rommel ordered the Afrika Korps to continue the offensive. In the evening, the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions began to move, intending to outflank the enemy from the south. Despite the opposition of the British Air Force, the tanks of General Walter Nering entered Egyptian territory on June 23. The commander of the 8th Army, Neil Ritchie, orders the troops to withdraw to Mersa Matruh. The port of Sidi Barrani was destroyed and abandoned on 24 June. However, the pace of movement of the German-Italian troops fell. The infantry was tired. The British mined all coastal roads. British aviation was active. Only on the evening of June 25 did the Germans reach Mersa Matruh.

On June 25, Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of British Forces in the Middle East, relieved Ritchie of his post and took charge of the 8th Army himself. He planned to hold the last line at El Alamein at any cost. The 10th Corps of General Holm (10th and 50th Infantry Divisions, 151st Brigade), which had just arrived from Syria, took up advanced positions near Mersa Matruh. On the southern flank was the 13th Corps - the 1st Armored and New Zealand Infantry Divisions, the 3rd and 7th Armored Brigades, the remnants of the 7th Armored Division. In the second line at El Alamein, the 30th Corps was located - the 1st South African Infantry and the 9th Australian Division (it was hastily formed in Palestine), the French brigade.

On June 26, the Germans broke through the British front between the 10th and 13th corps. At the junction of the two British corps, the 1st Armored Division was supposed to hold the defense, but it was not there. The British fell back to the El Alamein line. On June 28, the Germans almost surrounded the 10th Corps. The advancing German and retreating British columns mixed up. British aircraft bombed their own. The Germans fired at each other. The 10th Corps escaped the “cauldron”, but lost 6 thousand prisoners, 40 tanks and a large amount of equipment and weapons. On June 29, the Italian 21st Corps accepted the surrender of the British garrison of Mersa Matruh. 6 thousand soldiers surrendered, a large number of trophies were captured.


Italian soldiers in a trench near El Alamein


Italian anti-tank position near El Alamein

Line of defense at El Alamein


The line of El Alamein was convenient for defense: about 60 km from the coast to the cliffs of the waterless basin of Qattara. This reduced the front line and excluded the possibility of a breakthrough of the enemy's mobile forces on the southern flank. The depression was covered with salt marshes and quicksand, and was impassable for troops. However, there were few fortifications. There were only three strong points ("boxes"). In the north, the "box" was located at El Alamein on the coastal highway and railroad. The city itself was fortified like Tobruk, but weaker. The second well-fortified "box" was in the center, at Bad el-Kattara, the third was at the depression, at Abu Dweis, controlling the local road.

In late June 1942, the heavily battered 1st South African Division (30th Corps) occupied El Alamein. The 18th Indian Brigade, fresh from Iraq, took up a new stronghold at Deir el Shein, between El Alamein and Bad el Qattara. Two New Zealand brigades were in the second line. The 9th Indian Brigade defended the southern sector. Then the southern flank was covered by the 13th Corps - the New Zealand Division, the 5th Indian Division. Auchinleck, following the example of the German battle groups, formed two mobile groups of infantry and artillery. They were formed from South African units and were based in the desert north of the Rumeisat range. Artillery was reorganized along the lines of the enemy. The 4th Armored Brigade was formed, followed by the 1st Armored Division (150 tanks). The bloodless 10th Corps (10th Indian Division, French brigade, Polish, Greek and other units, units) defended the Nile Delta.


The advance of the German Army of Africa


The tank army "Africa" ​​was exhausted by previous successes: the infantry was drained of blood and tired, only 90 tanks remained (a third were Italian). Stocks are running out, used warehouses and trophies abandoned by the British. We advanced on trophy vehicles. However, Rommel believed that the enemy was completely drained of blood and demoralized, it was necessary to press again, and the front would finally collapse. The commander was going to repeat the maneuver at Mersa Matruh: the Afrika Korps and the 90th division would strike at the junction of the fortifications of El Alamein and Deir el Shein. After the breakthrough, the 90th Division would turn north towards the coast, and the Afrika Korps south to outflank the enemy's center and left flank. The Italians settled at El Alamein. In the very south, the Italian 20th Motorized Corps was to attack the "box" at Bad el Qattara.

In the early morning of June 30, 1942, the Germans attacked. On the right flank, the German Afrika Korps ran into the defense of the "box" of Deir el-Shein - the 18th Indian brigade and the South African battle group. On the left flank, the 90th Division, under the cover of a sandstorm, first successfully penetrated the enemy defenses, then came under artillery fire and went on the defensive. In addition, British aviation was active.

Auchinleck planned a counterattack with the mobile forces of the 13th Corps, while the troops of the 30th Corps held the line, pinning down the enemy. An offensive to bypass the enemy in the south was planned for July 2. But the Germans were ahead of the enemy. General Clément's 90th Light Division attacked again, but made little progress. The division was completely bled, having lost its strike force. British tanks launched a frontal attack on the German corps, but without success. In general, Rommel's army lost a large amount of manpower and equipment. The soldiers were exhausted to the limit. British aircraft dominated the air, destroying enemy communications.

On July 3, Rommel again threw his exhausted troops into the attack. The Germans advanced slightly and were 60 km from Alexandria. Further advance was stopped by British artillery and aircraft. In the south, the attack of the Italian corps was also repelled. The Ariete division was hit by the British and lost almost all of its artillery and tanks. Rommel took a break, the army dug in in its positions. The 90th division, advanced forward, was pulled back. The German commander was waiting for the arrival of reinforcements coming from Tripoli, including 350 tanks. They also tried to arrange supplies.


British foot soldiers entrenched at El Alamein


New Zealand crew of a 40 mm Bofors L/60 anti-aircraft gun at a firing position in the desert near El Alamein

British army counterattacks


Auchinleck tried to strike back, to push the enemy back to their original positions. The 13th Corps and armored brigades targeted el Ghazala to encircle Rommel's army. The operation began on July 5, but the British were unable to make a deep breakthrough, only pushed the enemy back.

On the night of July 9-10, the British carried out a powerful artillery preparation. The 10th Australian Division then attacked the Italian positions at El Alamein. The Italian 60th Infantry Division "Sabrata" could not withstand the onslaught and retreated. The British tried to develop the offensive. The Germans had to close the breakthrough with staff officers, anti-aircraft gunners, signalmen and other rear services. Rommel had to abandon plans for his own attack and send part of the 15th Panzer Division to the dangerous sector. The gust was eliminated, but the southern flank of the African army was weakened.

On July 13, the 21st Panzer Division, supported by bombers, attacked El Alamein, but the attack bogged down. The division commander, von Bismarck, withdrew the troops to their original positions. On the night of 13/14 July, the British struck with forces of New Zealanders and Indians. The Italian infantry divisions Brescia and Pavia (20th Corps) fought hard and were defeated. At the same time, the British attacked in the south in the "box" of Deir el-Shein. The German 21st Division repelled the blow. On July 16, the Australians again attacked on the coastal flank; on July 17, the Italian motorized divisions "Trieste" and "Trento" were defeated. Rommel again throws his units into the dangerous area to stop the British.

Rommel wrote:

“The enemy uses their superiority to destroy the Italian formations one by one, and the German formations are too weak to stand alone. One strong blow will be enough for them.”

The commander of the "Africa" ​​army invites Kesselring, the chief of the Italian General Staff, Cavaliero, and the commander of the Italian forces in Africa, Bastiko, to withdraw to the Es Sollum line. Kesselring opposed. The Italians promised reinforcements.


A British machine gunner covers a comrade digging a trench during the Battle of El Alamein


Soldiers of the 9th Australian division at the captured Italian 47-mm anti-tank gun Cannone da 47/32 mod. 35. Photo taken during the battles of El Alamein

The British are preparing a new operation in the center, after breaking through the enemy defenses, a detour maneuver was planned to the northwest in order to block the shock forces of Rommel's army. On July 21, after heavy artillery preparation and air strikes, the 13th Corps went on the offensive. On June 22, the Afrika Korps counterattacked the enemy and defeated the New Zealanders. The Germans captured many prisoners, weapons and ammunition. The British 23rd Armored Brigade entered a minefield and were shot at by German anti-tank artillery. In two hours of battle, the brigade lost 85 tanks out of 97.

In another sector, the Australians, who were tired of being at the forefront of the attack, refused to go on the offensive. The Australians, supported by the 69th Brigade, did not attack until 26 July. However, on July 27, the Germans defeated the 69th brigade, and the 2nd armored brigade, which was supposed to support the attack, got lost. In the end, the British offensive failed. The British 8th Army was also exhausted and went on the defensive on 31 July.

Thus, the Germans were unable to finish off the enemy, although the moment was favorable. The main forces of the tank army were exhausted by previous battles, Rommel did not have reserves for the development of the offensive and a sufficient number of aircraft. Tanks after reaching El Alamein almost ended, unlike the British.

Berlin concentrated all its forces on the Russian front, troops in Africa were supported and supplied to a minimum. The previous shortcomings of the theater also affected: the lack of developed communications, the supply of mobile units that had pulled ahead was difficult. The planes had not yet had time to relocate to the captured airfields.

Therefore, the British commander-in-chief Auchinleck was able to stop the army from running along the El Alamein line. Fresh troops are moving in here. As a result, the British were able to gain a foothold and hold their positions at El Alamein. In turn, the attempts of the British to go on the counteroffensive were repelled with heavy losses for the 8th Army. Both sides lost 17-18 thousand people in the battle.


Transportation of the German anti-aircraft guns. North Africa. July 1942


A British M3 Grant tank next to a wrecked German light tank


British Army in North Africa, 1942. 4,5-inch field gun in action south of El Alamein, July 1942.
Author:
Photos used:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/, http://waralbum.ru/
62 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 1 August 2022 05: 21
    +15
    All the forces of Nazi Germany went to Stalingrad ... Rommel got crumbs and, having a squad of forces, he could not defeat the British in any way.
    These battles in North Africa had a local character for WWII.
    1. Luminman
      Luminman 1 August 2022 06: 00
      +5
      These battles in North Africa were local for WWII

      I completely agree! These battles are like a battle for some height near the village of Mukhoino ...
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 1 August 2022 07: 27
      +17
      In fact, if Rommel had been able to cross the Nile, then he would have gone further without interference to the Caucasus. Both Arabs and Persians drowned for Hitler. To cut off the USSR from Caucasian oil would be a very heavy, if not fatal, blow, because the northern oil fields had not even been explored then.
      And this breakthrough could also push the Turks to take the side of the Axis.
      Get Rommel at least half of the promised supplies and reinforcements, this could become a reality. But all the reserves of Germany, both human and logistical, were thrown into the meat grinder of Stalingrad, where they were ground.
      1. Luminman
        Luminman 1 August 2022 07: 38
        +4
        Quote: Nagan
        if Rommel could cross the Nile, then he would go further without interference to the Caucasus

        Curious! And how do you imagine crossing the Nile and then marching through the desert? On a stick? wink
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 13
        +12
        Quote: Nagan
        In fact, if Rommel had been able to cross the Nile, then he would have gone further without interference to the Caucasus.

        Uh-huh ... and the Heffalump would look at the sky. After all, Iraq and Iran are completely unimportant for the Empire. smile
        If Rommel had been able to cross the Nile, then the Empire would have gone on the defensive in India and would have transferred to the Middle East forces preparing for the Burma operation.
        Quote: Nagan
        Get Rommel at least half of the promised supplies and reinforcements, this could become a reality.

        Rommel already had three times more supplies than settlement needed for armies Paulus in Stalingrad. The Italians delivered 2000-2500 tons of cargo to the ports of Africa daily. And on the front line they cried that the three divisions lacked nothing. laughing Despite the fact that the tank division in the offensive daily requires the delivery of 300 tons of supplies.
        Rommel's offensive was killed by logistics. He needed to take Malta at any cost and further, as the main task, set the capture with minimal damage to the ports of the coastal zone with the reorientation of supplies from Italy to them. That is, "frog jumps", only instead of atolls - ports. For the land supply arm from Tripoli and Tunisia devoured more supplies for its functioning than the troops on the front line.
        1. Alf
          Alf 1 August 2022 18: 39
          +4
          Quote: Alexey RA
          He needed to take Malta at any cost

          To take Malta, one must first gain air supremacy over the island, and this is exactly what the Hans failed to do.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 2 August 2022 09: 56
            0
            Quote: Alf
            To take Malta, one must first gain air supremacy over the island, and this is exactly what the Hans failed to do.

            When the backlash was specifically engaged in Malta, everything worked out for them. And when Africa-Malta-Africa began to pull them, then the limes had a chance to replenish the fighter group - and they regularly used it.
            A small handful of Hurricanes took to the air every day from hastily repaired airstrips. They regularly shot down enemy aircraft, but at the same time the fighters themselves inevitably suffered losses. By the end of January, only 28 serviceable aircraft remained. On February 15, only 11 of them remained. Now the British had to engage in battle with a ratio of forces of 1: 10. Ground personnel and soldiers of the garrison made titanic efforts to put the airfields pitted with funnels in order, but the enemy immediately reduced their work to nothing.

            By April 25, the Superintendent of the Maltese Docks reported that “virtually no workshops are operating, except those located underground. All docks are damaged. Power lines and the telephone network have been almost completely destroyed.” From April 15 to April 30, the enemy carried out at least 115 raids. Every day, an average of 170 bombers bombed Malta. The British had high hopes for 46 Spitfires, which were to fly to Malta on April 20 from the American aircraft carrier Wasp. But the II Air Corps detected their arrival with the help of radar and immediately attacked the airfields. Within 3 days, almost all Spitfires were either destroyed or damaged on the ground, and the number of serviceable fighters was reduced to 6.
            © D. McIntyre. Battle for the Mediterranean.

            The Germans lacked one step: to conduct patrols west of Malta to detect the approach of another AB with reinforcements for the Maltese IAG.
        2. ecolog
          ecolog 5 August 2022 21: 08
          +1
          this is if only when Paulus was already sitting in the boiler and supplied by air. 2500 tons of supplies is a couple of echelons along the railway. Somehow not enough for two dozen divisions conducting active offensive operations in the direction of the main attack. And there are also allied Hungarians, Romanians and Italians providing flanks.
      3. ecolog
        ecolog 5 August 2022 21: 20
        +1
        it's easy to say "get it". Rommel was already poorly and meagerly supplied, because Germany and Italy controlled the Mediterranean Sea very weakly. And then go somewhere in the desert. The Arabs and Persians did little on their own then. And the Turks ... here, again, everything again depended not on Rommel's running around the sand, but on the success of Paulus.
    3. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 1 August 2022 20: 21
      +1
      In December 42, German tanks appeared near Zimovniki in desert camouflage, strange for winter. They did not have time to repaint
    4. ABC-schutze
      ABC-schutze 2 August 2022 13: 09
      +2
      "That is, if Hitler really wanted to defeat England, then he only needed to give a few divisions and additional Luftwaffe forces to Rommel."
      ****************************************************************************
      In general, you are right...

      But, "before Stalingrad", in June 1942 it was still "far away". On the agenda, rather, "Kharkov" was drawn ...

      But, it seems to me that Berlin, quite reasonably, saw the "defeat of Great Britain" (that is, the withdrawal of the METROPOLY ITSELF from the war) in the active, successful conduct of the "war at sea". Blocking the provision of "islanders" with all kinds of resources. And in inflicting a "decisive" defeat on Russia ...

      And in Africa, where they operated (on both sides ...) formations of the army-corps level (with the corresponding potential ...), the defeat of the British and the Third Reich gaining access to communications and resources of the British colonies (which, for sure, the Britons would try to destroy , blow up and set on fire ...), I would not seriously change the situation and the course of the Second World War ... Only "complicated it a little." After all, the restoration of these terminals, effective control over such vast territories and extended communications, would also require the Third Reich to attract SIGNIFICANT forces and means to this remote theater.

      In the same Pacific theater, Japan's access to the resources of the British, Dutch, French colonies in Southeast Asia complicated the situation, but did not fundamentally change ...
  2. antivirus
    antivirus 1 August 2022 05: 22
    +10
    Rommel's adventure led to the "great" victory of the Britons.
    Everything was decided by the fleets and the air force for transportation (or not) to Africa.
    "Loader" always drives.
    You can be proud of logistics, you can curse it.
    Sealing the windows of car cabs from dust solved everything ... and oil seals from more oil leakage
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 1 August 2022 09: 52
      +5
      Everything was decided by the fleets


      I agree with you, colleague hi
      The winner in Africa was by far the Royal Navy, and by no means the mediocre buffoon Monty.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 18
        +7
        Quote: Sea Cat
        The winner in Africa was by far the Royal Navy, and by no means the mediocre buffoon Monty.

        You should not forget about the KVVS either - it was aviation that knocked out Rommel's supply columns in the frontline zone.
        And as for the Royal Navy ... the Italians were still able to ensure the delivery of 2000-2500 tons of cargo to Africa daily. Another thing is that most of this supply was spent on delivering itself by land along the northern coast of Africa.
  3. Luminman
    Luminman 1 August 2022 05: 55
    +4
    The Germans could capture Suez ... Create a threat to the enemy in Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Iran

    How does the author imagine Rommel's corps crossing the Suez Canal? And a march through the desert? And what about the continuous supply of troops, when the Mediterranean, and other seas too, was controlled by the British?

    After that, London would have to beg Berlin for peace.

    All these victories of the British in Africa, and the Germans too, are just local battles of WWII, which had no effect on the further course of the war. If not the British, but Rommel had won a victory in Africa, this would not have affected the turning point of WWII in any way. Churchill inflated this victory so that he could bargain for something at post-war conferences ...
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 1 August 2022 10: 07
      +3
      I am of course wildly sorry, but if the Germans occupy Alexandria, the Royal Navy withdraws from the Eastern Mediterranean.
      1. Luminman
        Luminman 1 August 2022 11: 14
        +1
        if the Germans occupy Alexandria, the Royal Navy withdraws from the Eastern Mediterranean

        Will leave. Well, how will this affect the outcome of the war?
        P.S. He will go to Malta ...
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon 1 August 2022 11: 44
          +3
          To Malta under the bombs? He will go to Aden.
          1. Luminman
            Luminman 1 August 2022 12: 17
            +1
            To Malta under the bombs?

            Both London and Birmingham were bombed. That's what she and the war ...

            He will go to Aden

            There is absolutely nothing for him to do in Aden. But to disrupt the transportation of the Axis through the Mediterranean Sea - that's it!
            1. Cartalon
              Cartalon 1 August 2022 12: 42
              +3
              Were there battleships in London? in Malta at that time, the bases were hardly based and the convoys fought through. The Mediterranean fleet would go to Aden or break through to Gibraltar, but this is too risky an operation
  4. parusnik
    parusnik 1 August 2022 05: 56
    +5
    Both sides lost 17-18 thousand people in the battle.
    During the French campaign, the Germans lost more, 27 thousand people. Fierce fighting was in Africa. smile
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 1 August 2022 06: 05
      +2
      On the Rzhev direction, the losses of the Wehrmacht and the Red Army were several thousand people daily.
      Sometimes the Red Army lost up to eight thousand soldiers a day ... the population of a small town ... a damn war.
    2. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 08: 28
      +1
      The fighting was very fierce, there were simply not so many troops. Now imagine what would happen if the Germans instead of Africa used these troops on the Eastern Front, let's say in the Caucasus. Or near Leningrad. So thank God that the British chained them in Africa.
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 1 August 2022 09: 02
        +6
        And if the Germans from the Eastern Front had brought a couple of armies for Rommel ... they didn’t consider this option?
        The British were saved by Stalingrad, which pulled over the best forces of the Wehrmacht.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 09: 45
          0
          "a couple of armies from the Eastern Front" - how? sad
          “The English were saved by Stalingrad” - do you know about the Americans?
          1. Lech from Android.
            Lech from Android. 1 August 2022 10: 32
            +1
            I know. smile
            Hitler could not remove the armies from the Eastern Front because of the threat of a counteroffensive by the Red Army.
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 14: 47
              +1
              “I couldn’t remove it in any way because of the threat of a counter-offensive of the Red Army” - what does it have to do with it, the Germans physically could not build up and supply their larger group in Africa.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 26
          +6
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          And if the Germans from the Eastern Front had brought a couple of armies for Rommel ... they didn’t consider this option?

          Alternatives were considered. The most popular result is that Rommel's army stands up without supplies before reaching El Alamein. smile
          In real life to Rommel for supply housing there was a shortage of 2000-2500 tons of daily supplies in the ports (for comparison, 6A in Stalingrad required 900 tons). And you want to throw a couple of armies at him.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 22
      +5
      Quote: parusnik
      Both sides lost 17-18 thousand people in the battle.
      During the French campaign, the Germans lost more, 27 thousand people. Fierce fighting was in Africa. smile

      A rather original conversation with Wrangel immediately took place after his remarks about robberies, in which all corps were accused, except for the 2nd, which I mentioned above. I spoke to him about the military awards of the ranks of my corps. He interrupted this conversation with the words: “Well, what can I say about awards! After all, your losses are negligible; the 1st and 3rd corps have big losses, but there is no need to talk about your corps. " I could only answer that I punish my command personnel for heavy losses in units, and if heavy losses are not accidental, but a constant phenomenon, then I expel the officers from their posts for their inability to lead troops into battle. Victory must be achieved "with little blood", for this we receive a military education.
      This original, not to say criminal, view of the heavy losses of units as proof of their valor, was deeply rooted in our old army. Such a view must be fought, and constant (I emphasize that not accidental, which are always possible, especially with modern technology) heavy losses should indicate the inability of the commander to lead the troops, i.e. about his unsuitability for his position. The higher the position of the chief, the more difficult it is, of course, for him to protect his troops from losses, but nevertheless in this direction he can influence the grouping of his forces corresponding to the basic principles of military art and the education of his subordinate commanders.
      © Slashchev
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 15: 05
        +2
        He is so sweet, he could tell the authorities the truth in the eye. good
      2. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 1 August 2022 16: 04
        +2
        Slashchev, of course, should be taken very carefully. The syndrome "... and I'm d Artagnan" was very developed in a person. Kutepov is bad, Witkovsky is stupid, etc. Again, a lot of personal grievances.
        R.S. At the same time, I fully agree with the thought expressed by him.
        1. Sergey Valov
          Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 16: 52
          0
          I agree completely. drinks
  5. Usher
    Usher 1 August 2022 07: 16
    -2
    Overton window in its purest form. Not the Nazi troops or just the Nazis or the Nazis. And now they are called "Germans".
    1. Fat
      Fat 1 August 2022 09: 31
      +1
      Learn more about the Overton window. Give everyone the concept of this far-fetched theory in the 90s of the last century. In the case of a military-ideological confrontation, this construct is useless for analysis.
      1. Usher
        Usher 1 August 2022 14: 48
        -1
        Imperceptibly, step by step, changing attitudes towards events or phenomena, by substituting concepts or attitudes towards them. Agree, when "Germans" instead of "fascists" write on a geopolitical topic on a kind of "respectable" site, the attitude is already changing. At least the youth who have no brains. And then "Koli from Urengoy" grow up. This is how the US media write, about the protection of "democracy", they hammer and hammer everywhere. And the dumb audience gets the impression. That the US Army is protecting the country in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.
        1. parma
          parma 1 August 2022 16: 06
          +4
          Quote: Usher
          Imperceptibly, step by step, changing attitudes towards events or phenomena, by substituting concepts or attitudes towards them. Agree, when "Germans" instead of "fascists" write on a geopolitical topic on a kind of "respectable" site, the attitude is already changing. At least the youth who have no brains. And then "Koli from Urengoy" grow up. This is how the US media write, about the protection of "democracy", they hammer and hammer everywhere. And the dumb audience gets the impression. That the US Army is protecting the country in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

          Um ... and the Germans were not fascists, if anything ... they were Nazis, or National Socialists, if without abbreviations ... but the trouble is that the leadership of the union could not allow them to be called socialists, the union was socialist ... for example, in the west of them they call either the Nazis or the Germans / Germans, because they did not have and do not have such ideological restrictions ...
          1. Foul skeptic
            Foul skeptic 1 August 2022 16: 39
            -3
            Um ... and the Germans were not fascists, if anything ... they were Nazis, or National Socialists, if without abbreviations ...

            It's like insisting that a tomato is not a tomato, but a tomato.
            1. Sergey Valov
              Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 16: 59
              +2
              You are mistaken, a fascist and a Nazi are not synonymous. Fascism was in Italy, Nazism in Nazi Germany. Pay attention to the GDP, which is very correct and accurate in his words - he never called the current Ukrainian regime fascist, only Nazi.
              1. Foul skeptic
                Foul skeptic 1 August 2022 17: 26
                -3
                You are mistaken, a fascist and a Nazi are not synonymous.

                Let dictionaries and reference books speak for me:
                Quote: Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
                NAZISM (from the name of the fascist National Socialist Party of Germany (Nazi) is one of the names of German fascism.

                Quote: Efremova's explanatory dictionary
                Nazism m. One of the names of German fascism.

                Quote: Big Law Dictionary
                Nazism (from the name of the National Socialist Party of Germany) is the name of the ideology and practice of the Nazi regime in Germany in 1933-1945. the essence of n. are totalitarian terrorist methods of power, as well as the official gradation of all nations according to their degree of usefulness. means of implementing ideas. became military aggression and genocide. in a number of its essential features similar to fascism.

                Quote: Explanatory Dictionary of Ozhegov and Shvedova
                NAZISM, a, m. German fascism. | adj. Nazi, oh, oh.

                Quote: Small Academic Dictionary
                Nazism -a, m. German fascism.

                Quote: Kuznetsov's Explanatory Dictionary
                NAZISM; m. German fascism. Fight against Nazism. Prevent the revival of Nazism.

                Fascism was in Italy, Nazism in Nazi Germany.

                Then maybe, if it doesn’t bother you, you can answer, which of these things was not in the Third Reich?
                Quote: Umberto Eco
                1) Cult of tradition; cultural syncretism, implying a disregard for contradictions in ancient revelations containing the highest truth.
                2) Rejection of modernism, irrationalism.
                3) The cult of "action for the sake of action", distrust of the intellectual.
                4) Rejection of skepticism: doubt is treated as betrayal.
                5) Xenophobia, racism.
                6) Bourgeoisness, reliance on the middle class.
                7) Nationalism; obsession with conspiracy theories, cultivating a sense of being under siege.
                8) The enemy is portrayed as extremely powerful so that the followers feel humiliated, and at the same time weak enough to be overcome.
                9) Life is understood as a continuous war, and pacifism as cooperation with the enemy.
                10) Elitism, contempt for the weak.
                11) The cult of heroism and the cult of death.
                12) Machismo, sexism, rejection of non-standard sexual behavior.
                13) "Electoral populism": individuals are perceived only as a single monolithic People, whose will is expressed by the supreme leader. Rejection of parliamentarism.
                14) Using Newspeak.

                Pay attention to the GDP, which is very correct and accurate in his words - he never called the current Ukrainian regime fascist, only Nazi.

                Excuse me, I can't argue - I don't follow everything that Mr. Putin says so closely.
              2. Usher
                Usher 2 August 2022 09: 06
                -2
                Quote: Sergey Valov
                You are mistaken, a fascist and a Nazi are not synonymous. Fascism was in Italy, Nazism in Nazi Germany. Pay attention to the GDP, which is very correct and accurate in his words - he never called the current Ukrainian regime fascist, only Nazi.

                A typical excuse of a latent Nazi / skinhead / Azov, etc. "fascist is not Nazism" ko-ko-ko !!! What do you want me to vparit here? That Germany under Hitler was NON-fascist? Do you think they would not have allowed our ancestors to be soaped?
          2. Usher
            Usher 2 August 2022 09: 15
            -2
            Quote: parma
            Um ... and the Germans were not fascists, if anything ... they were Nazis, or National Socialists, if without abbreviations ... but the trouble is that the leadership of the union could not allow them to be called socialists, the union was socialist ... for example, in the west of them they call either the Nazis or the Germans / Germans, because they did not have and do not have such ideological restrictions ...

            To be honest, what you wrote is some kind of chaotic nonsense. I don't care what's in the west, they are stupid and limited. If they didn’t know, then there are Germans / Germans who lived and live in the USSR / Russia and they recognize themselves as Germans / Germans, so, according to your logic, are they “or Germans and in the West they don’t distinguish them”? There is a specific definition for the population and soldiers of Nazi Germany and its allies, fascists / Nazis / Hitlerites. And not tolerantly neutral "Germans". Do you still need to respect them?
            1. parma
              parma 2 August 2022 10: 01
              +2
              Quote: Usher
              Quote: parma
              Um ... and the Germans were not fascists, if anything ... they were Nazis, or National Socialists, if without abbreviations ... but the trouble is that the leadership of the union could not allow them to be called socialists, the union was socialist ... for example, in the west of them they call either the Nazis or the Germans / Germans, because they did not have and do not have such ideological restrictions ...

              To be honest, what you wrote is some kind of chaotic nonsense. I don't care what's in the west, they are stupid and limited. If they didn’t know, then there are Germans / Germans who lived and live in the USSR / Russia and they recognize themselves as Germans / Germans, so, according to your logic, are they “or Germans and in the West they don’t distinguish them”? There is a specific definition for the population and soldiers of Nazi Germany and its allies, fascists / Nazis / Hitlerites. And not tolerantly neutral "Germans". Do you still need to respect them?

              Apparently it is you who are limited with such reasoning (about someone’s stupidity and narrow-mindedness) ... I’ll tell you more, there are a lot of Germans living in the USA (in the states, in general, the Solyanka population team, if you suddenly didn’t know unlimited you are ours), who also consider themselves Germans ... and representatives of dozens of peoples of the world lived in the union, but all the same, everyone called Soviet soldiers and citizens “Russians”, and even now nothing has changed - Russians are called “Russians”.
              Regarding the same Nazis and fascists, there is a big difference. The main idea of ​​fascism is that human life and personality are nothing, the state (apparatus) is the most important thing. The standard of living of citizens for fascism is not particularly important at all, since they are only “ants” (the regimes in Italy, Spain, Portugal were similar in this). For National Socialism, the main idea was that the goal of the state was the dominance of the titular nation (later also peoples close to it culturally) and the struggle for all sorts of benefits for it with its neighbors. The life and way of life of a single representative of the titular nation for the Nazi regime is very important, unlike fascism.
              So in Italy until the very end of the war (when the king changed his shoes in the air and went over to the side of the allies, and the Duce fled to the Germans) there were no ethnic cleansing and Jewish pogroms, in Germany they began even before the complete seizure of power by the Nazis. Germany began to transfer the economy to a war footing only in 1942, before that the civilian sector for the front almost did not work, while Italy switched to a rationing system with the outbreak of war.
              1. Usher
                Usher 2 August 2022 10: 27
                -3
                Blah blah blah, again stupid excuses "fascists are not Nazis" and verbalism. Again Kolya from Urengoy. What about the fact where you live? But how to interpret the statement?
                for example, in the West they are called either Nazis or Germans / Germans, because they did not have and do not have such ideological restrictions ...
                That is, they have Nazis or Germans or Germans. How convenient, yeah))) It's like for example: there are hymenoptera, there are wasps, there are hornets, there are bees, there are bumblebees. A normal person will distinguish between insects, and a stupid person will put everything in one basket of revenge))) We have in historiography specifically called the "suit" of a person, who he was. And "you" in the West do not have such "ideological restrictions"; you call everyone the same. So according to the liberal, there are no M and F))) There are just people)))
  6. tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 1 August 2022 08: 17
    +1
    Two New Zealand brigades were in the second line. The 9th Indian Brigade defended the southern sector. Then the southern flank began to cover the 13th corps - the New Zealand division, the 5th Indian division .... The bloodless 10th corps (10th Indian division, French brigade, Polish, Greek and other units, units) defended the Nile Delta.

    This is how the Anglo-Saxons always fight, with colonial troops, monduses, New Zealanders, Australians, Indians, even Greeks with Poles and "others", with the world on a thread, and Britain wins.
  7. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 08: 20
    0
    “I would have to beg Berlin for peace” - the author apparently does not know that five months later the Allies landed in North Africa, after which the defeat of the Germans in Africa became only a matter of time.
    1. House 25 Sq. 380
      House 25 Sq. 380 1 August 2022 12: 05
      +2
      the author apparently does not know that five months later the Allies landed in North Africa, after which the defeat of the Germans in Africa became only a matter of time.

      In the event that the British were driven across the Nile and the British fleet left for the Red Sea, it was deadly dangerous to land in North Africa ...
      In addition, these events developed after the capture of Malaya by the Japanese, the inglorious loss of Singapore (Asian Gibraltar) and the emergence of a threat to India from the east ....
      All this overlapped each other and was reflected in the psychological state of the British ....
      Although, of course, there was no reason to beg the Germans for peace ...
      1. Sergey Valov
        Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 14: 44
        +2
        “landing in North Africa was deadly ...” - by the end of 1942, with any development of events in Egypt / Libya, the Germans and Tunisia did not have any forces to confront the allies. Even if we hypothetically assume the capture of Alexandria by the Germans, then the British would simply retreat to Palestine, in Iran there was a fairly large Soviet-English military contingent that could well have been reinforced. Rommel's troops were suffocating from insufficient supplies. The Italian fleet, both military and merchant, suffered horrendous losses, although it fought bravely. By the end of 1942, the Germans did not physically have the strength and means to resist the allies in Africa.
        There was practically no threat to India from the east; by the middle of 1942, the front there had stabilized in Burma due to the lack of troops from the Japanese, who were stuck in China.
        After the US entered WWII, the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion, although the Germans did not yet understand this.
        1. House 25 Sq. 380
          House 25 Sq. 380 1 August 2022 16: 02
          +1
          it was deadly dangerous to land in northern Africa ... ”- by the end of 1942, with any development of events in Egypt / Libya, the Germans and Tunisia did not have any forces to confront the allies.

          The removal of the British fleet to the Red Sea (in Palestine there were no corny ports for it) and the front line along the Nile transferred the central Mediterranean into the hands of the Italo-German aviation and the Italian fleet ....
          It is much easier to supply a group in Tunisia under such conditions than in Benghazi and Tobruk ....
          Much is known about how the allies "crawled" to Tunisia, what hardships and hardships they suffered, failures and defeats even in "hothouse" conditions ....
          Without the simultaneous movement of the British from Egypt, the defeat of the Italo-German group in Tunisia in 1943 was simply impossible ....
          1. Sergey Valov
            Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 17: 17
            +1
            “It is much easier in Tunisia than in Benghazi and Tobruk” - I agree, it is easier to supply. But by that time, a significant part of the merchant fleet had already been knocked out of the Italians and there was primitively nothing to transport goods. In addition, the Americans, having landed in Africa, very quickly transferred aviation there and the communications of the Germans and Italians were again under threat.
            "crawled" to Tunisia - they advanced quite quickly, because they came to overcome about 1500 km.
            “Without the simultaneous movement of the British from Egypt, the defeat of the Italo-German group in Tunisia in 1943 was simply impossible ....” - why is it impossible? In principle, the Germans could not allocate more troops for Africa, they would still have to supply Rommel, except that it would be even more difficult to do because of the remoteness. Rommel's retreat, on the contrary, rather prolonged the agony of the Germans in Africa.
            1. House 25 Sq. 380
              House 25 Sq. 380 1 August 2022 17: 45
              +1
              In real history, Rommel was not only thrown back from the Nile, but in connection with this, the Axis did not capture Malta ...

              After reaching the Nile, the number of the Italo-German grouping would be significantly reduced: it is difficult to force the Nile in any direction ...
              The released forces and means (especially aviation and navy) were already thrown against Malta in the autumn, the capture of which created practically a "bridge" for supplying troops in North Africa ....
              Obviously, on the same dates, Rommel's movement to Tunisia began and no "run" that took place in reality simply could not happen ....
              By occupying key passes in the Atlas Mountains, the Axis would make it physically impossible for the Allies to move further east...
              Although, if the situation had developed in this way, the operation "torch" simply would not have been carried out ....
              hi
              1. Fat
                Fat 1 August 2022 19: 34
                0
                hi Alexander. But at first, the operation planned in 1942 to capture Malta did not take place. Operation Hercules and, perhaps, Goering became the main opponent of the planned mission (after the failure in Crete in 41). At first, Rommel threatened to go in the "first wave" of the landing under discussion, but later changed his mind. "I will quickly occupy Cairo and Suez" - with approximately these words, the field marshal expressed his attitude to the pace of preparations for the invasion.
                As a result for Nazi Germany, Rommel's success in lifting the ban on the performance of the hit "Lili Marlene" on the Berlin radio and the appearance, completely unpredictable, of caipirinhas on the eastern front - yes ...
  8. kor1vet1974
    kor1vet1974 1 August 2022 08: 40
    +5
    That is, if Hitler really wanted to defeat England
    First of all, he needed to capture Gibraltar. And he had problems with that. And all the rest if from the evil one ..
  9. Luminman
    Luminman 1 August 2022 09: 12
    +1
    Quote: kor1vet1974
    First of all, he needed to capture Gibraltar. And he had problems with that.

    Yes, there were no problems. It's just that the war vector for Germany was in a different direction ...
    1. Sergey Valov
      Sergey Valov 1 August 2022 09: 47
      +3
      There were problems. Franco did not allow the passage of the Germans through his territory. The German landing in Gibraltar was not real.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 55
      +6
      Quote: Luminman
      Yes, there were no problems.

      There was also a very large one - there was no overland route to Gibraltar.
      Caudillo was ready to defect to the Axis - but only if the Axis took over the food supply to Spain. Because their own agriculture was pretty much killed by the civil war, in addition, Madrid did not control part of the country's territories. But the Axis itself had nothing to eat - the reduction in meat rations even got into Halder's diaries, and the grain had to be included in the 1941 balance of the planned robbery on the territory of the USSR.
      On the other hand, the United States provided Spain with a food loan that covered most of its needs.
      Therefore, Franco played for time and with all his limbs fought off any alliance with the Reich, not saying yes or no, but putting forward increasingly impossible demands as conditions for this alliance. Caudillo understood that in the event of a transition to the side of the Axis, Spain would be removed from the American allowance, one could not count on the German, and the Civil War would again flare up in Spain.
  10. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 1 August 2022 10: 03
    +5
    The situation for Britain was threatening. There was a risk of losing Egypt, Suez, the main communication between England and India, the Far East.

    What does the loss of Suez have to do with main line of communication between England and India?
    From the moment Italy entered the war until its withdrawal from the war, the route through the Mediterranean Sea was not used. The only time (EMNIP, in 1941) British ships crossed the entire sea from west to east to deliver tanks to Egypt. And that's it.
    All communication with India until 1943 went around Africa. And only the Maltese convoys went around the Mediterranean.
  11. Arabfun
    Arabfun 1 August 2022 10: 59
    +2
    Quote: Usher
    Overton window in its purest form. Not the Nazi troops or just the Nazis or the Nazis. And now they are called "Germans".

    Don't worry, Hollywood hit the fascists harder than any printed words. Let's remember how Indiana Jones in the "Ark .." entered and exited the windows and doors of the truck on the move, and also helped the Nazis to exit through the windshield. Whatever you call them, but the Nazis in the film are shown as very bad people, remember the sadist with a hanger. Given the popularity of Jones, this loophole to bring Aryan ideology into the youth is well closed. I think in Ukraine this film is banned by censorship? Or part of the population is fighting on the side of the Americans, and part of the Nazis.
  12. House 25 Sq. 380
    House 25 Sq. 380 1 August 2022 12: 10
    +1
    The author, how did the Germans plan to cross the Nile?
    Yours faithfully, hi
  13. Luminman
    Luminman 1 August 2022 20: 12
    0
    Quote: parma
    and the Germans were not fascists if anything ... they were Nazis, or National Socialists

    National Socialism is a form of fascism...

    and how did the Germans plan to cross the Nile?

    No one planned to force the Nile ...
  14. vova1910
    vova1910 2 August 2022 23: 08
    0
    Was Beirut in 1942 English? Lebanon has always been a French colony and, accordingly, in 1942 it was under the Pétain administration, British ships in Beirut would have been met with guns.
  15. zenion
    zenion 2 August 2022 23: 27
    0
    It's scary to read the comments. It seems that the notes of the cadet Bigler, an acquaintance of the good soldier Schweik, were intercepted here.
  16. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 5 August 2022 12: 38
    0
    Given how well Rommel fought and caused problems for the British in Africa, he greatly influenced the outcome of the war. But fortunately for us, due to a series of wrong political decisions, little attention was paid to the African front. But if Rommel crossed the Nile, he could take control of the Suez Canal. And what is Suez - this is the MAIN transport artery connecting the West and Europe. Cutting off the Asian colonies from the European metropolises (including the main pearl of the British crown - India) would SIGNIFICANTLY worsen their supply and fleet maneuvering. After all, if a ship (be it transport or combat) from India sailed to Greece, it would sail in a couple of weeks if it sailed through the suets. And almost a month and a half, or even 2, if I had to swim around Africa.
    So Britain, and the external governments of those European countries that fled to Britain but also had colonies in Asia, throughout the war still received resources for the war from the colonies. Now imagine how the fate of the war would have turned out if Britain, stuck on its islands, had also lost its full material support.
    Purely technically, Hitler could, after the division of Poland, take advantage of the lull and allocate forces to the African front to intercept the Suez Canal and all of northern Africa under his control. This would also give rise to the fact that Turkey would join the side of the Third Reich. And the accession of Turkey directly threatened to lose the Caucasus, with all its sources of oil for the USSR. Germany itself, after controlling North Africa and Suez, having cut off Britain from the colonies, could try to carry out an amphibious landing operation in an attempt to capture Britain. And since Britain would then already be cut off from the resources of the colonies, the chances of successfully repelling the attack would be much less. And if Hitler had captured Britain on the western front, the second front would never have appeared, since there would have been no springboard for its preparation. This means that there would be fewer soldiers in France and Belgium, and there would be more on the eastern front. Even we would have problems, our liberals like to exaggerate the importance of Lend-Lease. But the "patriots" like to UNDERSTAND the value of Lend-Lease, and this is also bad. But the main thing is that most of all land lease resources came from the territory of Britain. And that means losing Britain. Supply, for some time, dropped sharply.