El Alamein: If you still can't do combined arms, at least use a lot of artillery 

So happy to have John Parshal and his legendary wallpaper. His veiws and understanding of 1942 and IJN operations is outstanding. Thanks Woody, this podcast is top notch.

As an American of the post-WW2 generation, I'm not typical. What, with a US NAVY aviator Dad who an Aussie wife who was my Mom [Mum], I knew about El Alamein from my Uncle Bill who served in the Australian Ninth Division at that battle. He described their work as artillerymen coupled with a focus on communications to the front, laying cable, etc. He included it, Aussie humor & all, in his memoirs we have on the shelf here.

Jon Parshall has incredibile range. I had thought he was a Pacific War expert, but he keeps showing knowledge in many areas.

Another brilliant program. I learn so much every time I tune in. God bless all who make these episodes possible. Thanks again.

I remember a scene from the movie Patton between Rommel and a German officer, the officer says "British commanders and American soldiers, the worst of everything" Rommel then replies "I remind you that Montgomery is a British commander, and he has driven us half way across Africa."

The competency of Italian troops can be easily accounted for by seeing how they fought in Italy after the Italian surrender against the Germans under Allied command. They performed admirably with American equipment and with American logistics supporting them.

I could listen to Jonathan Parshall all day long.

Actually, the Sherman was a quite decent tank. It was easy to operate and repair. In 1942 it was reasonably armed with a medium velocity 75mm gun that fired both high explosive and armoured piercing shells. It was also very reliable and fast. But most importantly, the Sherman was easy to produce in quantity.

To be fair, the US army couldn't do proper combined arms until Normandy. That's when General Quesada put UHF radios in the P-47's and also with front line ground spotters.

I’m an American, and have studied WW2 for like 50 of my 56 years, and have nothing but the highest admiration of the British and Commonwealth soldiers that fought there. And despite the “Patton” image of Montgomery, I have nothing but admiration for him as a commander. And in the course of British history, El Alamein has to be one of the greatest battles. It is a victory as great as Waterloo or Trafalgar.

The British general who doesn't get the credit that was due to him was Claude Auchinleck. It was he who made the decision to prepare the El Alamein line as a fallback position. Because of his foresight he was able to stop Rommel at the First Battle of El Alamein. Auchinleck also receied tremendous from Conningham's Desert Airforce. Without the help of the RAF the 8th Army might have been routed after their defeat at the battle of Gazala.

Mr Parshall is really good value. Like his contribution a lot.

Fascinating discussion about El Alamein and touched on so many facets that the 1 3/4 hr programme just flew by!! Jon Parshall is always worth listening to, so thank you Paul for getting him on again. Great point about the conflict being between two power blocks and a single battle was never going to be "the turning point" or decide the outcome of the war.

Thanks so much for having Jon guest on your channel. He always brings a smile and some true insight to the discussion... and it will probably bring WW2TV more subscribers!

Mr. Parshall has become my favorite author based on the books I read on WWII in my youth...now I feel older and wiser. Thanks to WWII TV, I get to hear him say "shot to pieces". I concur on the 25lber, and the Assuies. Their stance at New Guinea from Miline Bay, Way, Buna and Gona.

Woody another absolutely brilliant session! Two of the very finest WW2 historians having a great meeting of minds on a key battle but in brilliant context to how Alameine strategy, force doctrine development, battle outcomes, key leadership & personalities all fit into the wider implications of 1942. For mine the way this executed more as an informed discussion and meeting of minds rather than a more pre-set presentation, really works in this case. A genuine and heartfelt Bravo Zule! and an apology for missing this brilliant session last year until today.

Yes, please dream up any excuse to get Parshall back on your show.

Fantastic discussion. Jon is superb, would love to see him come back at some point.

Great point about the British Army.

Fantastic episode! Really impressed with Jonathan Parshall. His "1942" book sounds like it will be essential reading for WW2 buffs.

Love the show, and Jon Parshall is always a great guest!

The 9th division was formed in 1939/40 and fought in Borneo until 2 months after the Japanese surrender so fought longer than most other armies. Remember when the Americans landed in North Africa they didn’t know how to fight and the British held the line against the Germans until the Americans reorganised and learnt how to use their tanks. They needed the experience in Nth Africa before they could enter Europe

Very interesting discussion. My biggest takeaway was the stellar performance of British artillery in supporting both the infantries initial defensive operations and subsequent counterattacks. I thought the tensions around Montgomery between guest and host+audience could have been explored but maybe that’s too overdone. Any time Jonathan Parshall is talking the conversation is worth listening to.

I appreciate how you and your guests strive for an all around understanding of the event under discussion.😊

Need to remember that Montgomery and other senior British officers experienced the trench warfare of WW1 which informed their opinion that for victory to be certain you needed overwhelming superiority , especially in artillery which was responsible for the vast majority of casualties . That superiority took time to build . People may say “ ah what about blitzkrieg ? “ . Blitzkrieg was a tactical rather than strategic theory and the German generals knew that in France in 1940 they were very lucky and got away with it . Joined up allied thinking , as in the Ardennes offensive , would have seen it off .

I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation between guest and host, as well as the many astute points made in the sidebar. What I took away from the episode was that for the first time, a General came along who was able to shape the 8th Army into an effective team. Regardless of what one thinks of Montgomery personally, one cannot deny that he accomplished what no other British commander had done in the desert campaign up the that point. My view is that El Alamein was a First World War set piece battle perfected by the new technologies not available then. Look at the artillery operations as is mentioned by John as an example. This was a superb show that provided great food for thought.

I served in the 12th SF with a former Luftwaffe Fallschirmjaeger who said his battalion went in to El Alamein supported by 2 tanks, 1 had a gun that would fire but turret wouldn't turn and the other had a turret that would turn but gun wouldn't fire, he also said they were getting only 1/3rd of the supplies they needed and were short of water. They walked into a mine field under heavy artillery fire which destroyed both tanks. They were cut off and surrounded by 2 full strength Canadian battalions and taking heavy casualties. The Canadians ordered them to surrender and not seeing any alternative other than to get wiped out, they accepted "the offer". He said the Canadians had lot of respect for the Fallschirmjaeger and treated them pretty them well. He said the Germans were in really bad shape going into El Alamein, short on supplies and parts and down on strength with no replacements.

i reckon the key factor is found with 1st alamein -it was the auk who showed how to stop the panzers using infantry as bait and arty on the ridges

Parshall is incredible.

A discussion that was enjoyable to listen to.. Nice perspectives put out on Monty from you two and the side bar talks. Still amazed at the the fortitude shown by the Desert Rats on overcoming those minefields over multiple days and nights of fighting. Amazing job the 'Sappers' had to do under fire. Quite a victory for the Commonwealth Forces.

When John Parshall mentions Corelli Barnett, that sealed the deal for me! Parshall shows he is a brilliant student of war and clearly had read Barnett's great book, The Audit of War.

Another great talk. I loved the discussion that evolved between you two guys.

Absolutely top-notch show...the discussion both on screen and in the sidebar was first class. Only about 3 slides but sometimes not needed as today, with discussion and debate of this calibre.....well done to both of you.

The inability to use Combined Arms on part of the British is quite staggering really, by 1939 British battalions and divisions were equipped with those weapons they needed, whilst supporting weapons such as tanks and artillery were provided at Corps level by ancillary units. It looked good theoretically, but it left British commanders dangerously reliant on fire support weapons that they did not directly control. In reality, British commanders had to go through the time-consuming business of requesting back-up, so could not react quickly or spontaneously. So, these coordination problems seriously hampered the mobility of the British. The Germans on the other hand had the structure to generate superior fire-power by coordinating the assets of several layers of command. The New Zealand 2nd Division were indeed probably the best offensive or mobile division on the Allied side, well Rommel thought so, followed by the Aussies. Agree underrated 4th Indian and South African 1st Division need much more praise. British hindered somewhat by static battle philosophy, but whilst some British divisions were poorly trained and unreliable (notably conscript), don't forget British 50th (Northumbrian) and 51st (Highland) Divisions who were excellent. Rommel also specifically acknowledged toughness of 7th Division whom he described as "the mainstay of the 8th Army", and British Guards Brigade, stating: - "The Guards Brigade was almost the living embodiment of the virtues and faults of the British soldier - tremendous courage and tenacity combined with a rigid lack of mobility. At one battle this division had mauled our German units". Whilst the Anzacs were probably the most adept and most mobile in the heat of the desert, Rommel's Commander-in-Chief Siegfried Westphal thought the British Divisions were the toughest opposition, stating: - “The hardest, toughest in attack, and most persistent in defence were the British divisions, and of these the 7th Armoured Division was undoubtedly the best. The uniformity of the British personnel was most striking. One saw not so much extraordinary audacity but the absence of failures. The 2nd New Zealand division was also outstanding in its fighting ability.” And Operation Torch involved the elite British 78th Battleaxe Division, formed from various veteran units.

I can kind of understand the British attitude towards tanks providing infantry support to a degree. I think the main culprit is the 2pdr gun of early war British tanks and it's mediocre HE round that was so ineffective it wasn't even issued in North Africa. With a proper gun like the British started receiving with the US Lend Lease Grant and Sherman tanks earlier in the war the British world likely have seen the utility of tanks in infantry support as obviously as everyone else. For some reason every other major tank power thought of this in some way pre-war and you see tanks armed with 75mm low to medium velocity guns in service with the Germans, French, and American forces as soon as they can get them.

Yay! Huge Parshall fan!

Another great program- thank you.👍

Sure Monty had the numbers advantage but he still had to overcome extremely formidable defences, 600,000 mines and a whole line of anti tank guns. Defending is much easier than attacking.

It is stunning to learn that the British Armor and Infantry were at Normandy and STILL couldn't fight beside each other. It makes it very difficult to maintain a coalition. The more I listen to historians like the ones running this program (and their zssociates), the more I understand how close run the war was at its onset. Thanks to our historian/hosts. Well done. Thank you. You turned some lights on for me. This is the THIRD time I've watched this program. I could (and probably will)watch it again.

I have the Time Life picture book on WW2 from the 60s. Read it all as a kid. It covered the North African theatre fairly well. Gruesome picture of British officer sitting on the sand with his side caŕved out by an 88 round that hit him.

The picture of Montgomery at 13:11 looks like he's stolen Bill Slim's jungle hat

Parshall is always worth a listen, what a Boss!

The Italian paratroops “Fologre” fought off numerous Allied attacks.

Auchinleck set up the game pieces of the game board for Alamein. He gets less than no credit for his choice of superb defensive ground.

'The British hadn't been winning before Alemein' I disagree.

Very interesting presentation. Thank you

Some Australian troops also captured Rommels communications intel unit early in the Battle. With men, vehicles, gear and top secret info.

Great choice of subject and great content thanks to both the presenters. Thank you.

Definitely legend . Great historian, great storyteller.

It was a logistical turnpoint with the US ramping up to full production and the German economy reaching its limits.

Learned a load more.. many thanks you guys..

Truly insightful stuff as we are coming to expect from you and your many contributors. The format knocks spots off the dryness of so many books etc and the opportunity to 'go down rabbit holes' and discuss further certain points is captivating. My view re the whole western desert campaign is the profound shift in initiative arising from intelligence. For much of 41 and 42 Rommel was blessed with Bonner Fellers giving a strategic overview of the British order of battle and more. Further he benefited from tactical knowledge from world leading field intelligence. He subsequently lost both as the Ultra information became more and more available to Montgomery. Intelligence itself did not win the campaign but it went a long way to dictating who held the initiative and was able to respond best to the very many confused encounters at critical points in the battle.

Midway was a Turning Point in that it negated the Japanese dominance in Carriers and reduced it to more or less parity. This freed even a careful command to consider going on the offensive operationally if not yet strategically.

As Churchill said about Alemein. "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

And we all saw Rat Patrol. The Desert War was three jeeps driving around with a machine gun zapping Jerries

57:20 of course Australians are the best infantry and yes the aggressive patrolling is definitely part of that , we learnt its importance in ww1 and its never let us down

Folgore fought with great distinction at Alamein and, as I recall, were allowed to surrender bearing arms by the British as they marched into captivity. This honor was not given to any other Axis unit in WWII. (If memory serves)

Really fascinating, informative, interesting conversation with this author.

Very interesting discussion with a different perspective. Long wait for the book.

General Jake Devers of US Armored Forces and my great grandfather, General Ted Brooks, flew around Africa in December 1942 into January 1943 debriefing British leadership regarding Armored combat tactics and strategy that had turned the tide against Rommel. Their analysis guided much of US doctrine and training going forward.

Enjoyed this now that I finally listened to the end. After the first 15 minutes I thought it was going to descend into the usual American bashing of Montgomery, but it actually didn't, so that was a relief. What wasn't addressed is that Montgomery very cleverly predicted the battle would last circa 12-14 days and he was spot on. The anticipated casualties were also predicted by him reasonably accurately. Lastly, I feel Montgomery is overly criticised (not here in this discussion, thankfully) for letting Rommel escape after El Alamein but few realise that the 8th Army still did an amazing 1,300km in 20 days from El Alamein to El Agheila November 4th to 23rd 1942. And that was immediately after fighting a near two week gruelling battle and getting through half a million mines. It wasn't Montgomerys fault that the retreating Axis force, much lighter and less encumbered and with a head start, managed to keep that bit ahead of him. If anyone knows of a longer and faster advance by any other army in WW2, particularly immediately after fighting a major battle, well Id like to hear about it.

Word of the day: " Pollyglot"..... carry on.

More of a general comment about the morale victory that 2nd El Alemaine privided, but i think one of the things the Montgomery does not get enough credit for was being the first British general who didnt give into the pressure Churchill was placing on various field commanders to attack prematurely. For that alone he deserves praise and his following success speaks for itself.

When the Italians were well led, despite their equipment problems, they were not too bad. Their parachute divisions were first rate.

In my humble opinion, “Patton” as a movie is a terrible depiction of history at many levels. Yes, brilliant performance by George C. Scott, tremendous musical,score….. but…… Just a side note, the US Army worked very hard with the limited resources at its disposal in the 1930’s to develop the doctrine of what became known as “concentrated fires from distributed positions,” to achieve rapid concentration of time on target fires from dispersed firing units. The development of The distributed fire control center (our fire direction center) was based on the revolutionary concept (at the time) of tailoring the build of a specific radio technology on the requirements of the Fire Direction Center. That radio technology was the military and civilian FM radio, and the US Army held all 14 patents for FM radio technology until their expiration. Perhaps the two single greatest applications for FM radio in my life was its role in my Army career and driving across my native Texas with AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” with the volume set to “11”. Loved this segment, as it demonstrates the brilliance and professionalism of British Commonwealth artillery men in this campaign. On the ground, over time and on their own they developed and implemented exactly the intent of that doctrine, in a desolate, harsh and unforgiving hell of a theater. Well done.

Woody/Jon, Great presentation. Very informative. For the first time, I felt emotive in a WW2TV presentation! Thanks. Bob

I remember starting to learn about WW2 reading the Warlord and Victory magazines and annuals.

Brilliant discussion. We need more of the same with Jon. Wish I could have asked what either of think of how we might have survived 1942 if we'd had today's social media

46:44 artillery for the win , again a Vietnam reference at the battle of Long Tan Aussie and New Zealand artillery was firing 6 rounds a minute per barrel then multiply that by a regiment . We learnt this at Alamain

Monty's force at El Alamein was not the first highly diverse - in terms of nationalities - British-led Army. Remember Wellington's army at Waterloo ? Regarding Rommel - I wonder how different would be his image post-War if he'd fought on the Eastern Front

British artillery was superb in WW2. On the 25 Pounder though, yes, it had a high rate of fire but it NEEDED a high rate of fire to do the job because of the small shell it fired. The US and German 105s could do the same job with far less ammo expediture. An overlooked good feature of the 25 pounder is its better range than the US or German 105. However,Parshall is right to stress the responsiveness of British artillery. That's what it's about. That's how they greatly exceeded German capability.

Certainly Alamein was when the Brits in Africa stopped getting in their own way as much as Rommel did.

Alexander was a timid General he did not demand Clarks replacement when he went to liberate Rome against orders thus allowing the German Army to escape I think that was the tipping point where the British were shoved to the side. Monty made it his business to identify with his troops And kept them in the picture The Auke I do not think so.

Frank Chadwick talks about the lack of combined arms in the British Army in his brilliant work entitled "The Honor of the Regiment." Regimental traditions of many years had an impact on the reluctance to embrace any universal tactical doctrine.

I used to know a chap who was some kind of maintenance officer for a dozen trucks in the desert, " I never lost a truck". He said "we just didn't have the equipment in the beginning". And added something like - but when the Americans came in things changed.

An absolute pleasure watching this treatise on a battle with so many nuances.

After 80yrs Americans still Monti bashing, not sure why, what American general would you put in command of the battle ?

A lot of people cite El Alamein as a turning point in the struggle against Rommel’s forces - but we have to remember this was all about the fight for the Allies to hold onto the Egyptian oil fields. The Germans were desperate for oil. One event, well before El Alamein, that prevented Rommel Rommel from pushing through to Egypt was the Australians and the British Artillery holding onto Tobruk. Churchill wanted them to stand firm against Rommel for 2 -3 weeks. The Aussies ( named the rats of Tobruk by Rommel ) gel on for six months! ( until relieved by South Africans - which eventually surrendered) Those six months were crucial in the Allies being able to build up their forces for counter attack

Australian and New Zealand artillery where still using the stonk in Vietnam . Dont think we have the barrels to do it anymore

When in doubt unleash arty

Great show. I can’t wait for the 1942 book to come out.

Considering that, Sir John Monash first developed Combined Arms towards the end of World War 1, and used it to great effect winning battles several time. It is most unlikely that the senior ANZAC officers were not aware of this tactic.

John gives a very interesting US view of the Battle of El Alamein.

excellent as usual

Operation compass ended with a crushing victory over the Italians. Operation crusader thanks to Auchinlek and a blunder by Rommel was a success. The background to what happened there is very different to 2nd Alamein. Also Auchinlek stopped Rommel at 1st Alamein. Montgomery benefitted from clearing house with full authority of Alexander and Churchill to get his commanders to do what he ordered.

Hard to do anything during this show. Jon Parshall is a compelling speaker.

South Australian 2/48th first Saved Tobruk in the desert Heat and dust 1st Al Alamein and 2nd then was transferred to New Guinea Mountain rain and Equator heat. Plus awarded 4 VC medals

I've heard that Rommel was a one trick pony, flanking to the South. Auk or Monty finally shut this down. Logistics for Rommel could be blamed on ultra. Also heard that Monty implemented sanitary regs that Rommel didnt care about, which debilitated the axis. Really good discussion. A bit concerned that the Brits are being defensive/nationalist with their generals on youtube. Americans have lots of generals we beat up on (eg Mac).

Time on Target was called a "serinade" by the Americans.

Great show!

So I can add F**king as a legitimate term used by historians, cool, It's also a legitimate term used by paleontologists, biologists, anthropologists 😁. Really enjoyed this one

He has his own show the unauthorized history of the WWII Pacific campaign.

9:15 insert "stonks" meme :)

Jon at the end is quite correct, in complex operations like a major battle, rarely is it one matter that determines victory. But I would say that there is one overriding matter that was the major factor. beginning in 1942 which is the focus of his book. And that was the massive material superiority of the Allies once America came into the War. The Arsenal of Democracy was still just gearing up at the beginning of 1942, but by the end of the year, it was beginning to make itself felt in far-flung battlefields, including the ones that Jon ticks off--Alamein, Torch, and Guadalcanal. Aid reaching the Soviets was limited in 1942, but by early 1943 had begun reaching the Red Army in real quantity.

Thanks!

One of the German weakness is lack of Artillery.

Some day in the near future I am going to have time to actually catch a live show. The side bar as always has interesting conversations. More so in this presentation. As for Jon I have a deep respect for his knowledge from an operational point and hope I am still alive when he finishes his book on 1942 lol. El Alamein was one of those battles I remember seeing in one of the History in pictures of WW II that my uncle had. Its too bad my relatives threw away those 3 books circa 1949 I think. I was perhaps about 10 or 11. Whenever we visited I would look through the pages and I recall the picture of the commonwealth soldiers charging with his bayonet mounted Enfield past a knocked out Pz III and the caption saying that it took place at El Alamein. Great show Woody

A very interesting presentation by Jon with yet another perspective on the battles in N Africa. Woody, its a high standard you have to keep up for the next 2 weeks of this El Alamein series to match the last 2 shows, but I'm sure WW2TV won't let us down.

Need to have someone on to talk about American artillery in ww2. Everyone seems to casually mention how it's the best artillery of the war, but they never go into any detail or explain why or how.

I think labeling this as the “American perspective” is divisive and not surprising some people looked at the presentation from an America v British perspective. Ironically, during the presentation Paul asks Jon what was Montgomery thinking? Then goes on to say lavish praise that Jon is really good at being neutral. 26:18 if it is a nuetral point of view, which I do believe, the labeling as “American perspective” seem off.