Was Auchinleck More Responsible than Montgomery for British Victory in North Africa? (Egypt, greatest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In past reading about the North African campaign it would appear that General Auchinlech was removed as he was on the cusp of victory. By attacking several sectors, Auchinlech kept Rommel's forces stretched to the limit. There is some thought that Auchinleck "out-thought and out-fought" Rommel at the battle of First Alamein. Despite successes, Churchill was anxious for a knockout blow and moved to have Auchinleck replaced. No doubt the flamboyant Montgomery introduced a new dynamic to the campaign, but was he also the fortunate heir to Auchinleck's brilliant tactics that kept Rommel on the defensive and also the arrival of American reinforcements in the form of 300 newly minted Sherman tanks?
Last edited by John Walmsley; 01-21-2010 at 09:30 AM..
Reason: Corrected a statement
No. Montgomery would have won the battle of gazala where the british had huge advantages and still managed to lose. Auchinleck allowed serious weaknesses in tactics and training to continue, while leaving the initiative continuously to Rommel even when the later was badly outnumbered and had poorer quality forces commonly. He failed continuously to generate a sense of agressiveness in his troops or to concerntrate his forces adequately.
He had way to much a laid back approach to battle. He needed to be up front where the fighting was not hundreds of miles back in Cairo.
One of the other differences was that Montgomery actually believed he could beat Rommel and he got his troops to believe it also.
Absolutely. He also instituted major training to address serious weaknesses in British tactics and attacked. In contrast, with signficant advantages in all arms including better (not just more) equipment in the Battle of Gazala Auch left the initative entirely to Rommel.
One of the other differences was that Montgomery actually believed he could beat Rommel and he got his troops to believe it also.
All in all though I believe that "Monty" is not quite the general he is made out to be. He may have beaten the "Desert Fox" (Rommel) but his performance during the Normandy campaign (especially Caen and the breakout) and the fighting in NW Europe (especially the debacle called Market Garden) in 1944/1945 leaves quite a bit to be desired.
Apparently he was not very well liked by alot of his American counterparts either.
Montgomery was not a great general offensively. What does that say for Auch
He was arrogant as hell which did not play well with the US generals. Nor did his constant disrespect for Eisenhower. Indeed most senior officers without Eisenhower's legendary patience would have sacked Montgomery for the incredible way Montgomery, his subordinate, treated him.
All in all though I believe that "Monty" is not quite the general he is made out to be. He may have beaten the "Desert Fox" (Rommel) but his performance during the Normandy campaign (especially Caen and the breakout) and the fighting in NW Europe (especially the debacle called Market Garden) in 1944/1945 leaves quite a bit to be desired.
Apparently he was not very well liked by alot of his American counterparts either.
Monty was not as good a general as both he and his supporters thought, nor was he as bad as many of his American detractors thought. The Brits at Caen came up against the best troops available to the Germans in Normandy and consequently didn't fare as well as the Americans. There were American officers who temporarily served under him who actually spoke well of him, however.
Market Garden was yet one more example of two absolute truths in warfare.
1. When paratroopers are matched against tanks, the tanks generally win.
2. Ambitious plans hardly ever take into account the mundane, such as massive traffic jams and lack of bridging equipment.
There's a reason why Market Garden gave birth to the ever-popular 'Bridge too Far' phrase.
When have paratroopers ever come up against tanks and won...
Market Garden was strange in many ways but most of all because unimaginative, infinitely cautious Montgomery supported it. It is an operation I would associate with Patton first and Monty not at all.
It failed in part because of bad planning, bad intelligence, bad weather, and shear bad luck , but mainly because the allies greatly underestimated the the German army. They assumed that virtually any effort by their troops would be sucessful and thus took what should have been obvious was a very risky operation.
Dutch planners almost certainly had to tell the allies that sending tanks over the dutch roads with the ground flooded and German 88's and tigers ahead of them was crazy. It lucky they made as much ground as they did.
Rommel was ultimately defeated by the interdiction of his supply lines across the Med by Allied air and naval forces. Auchinlek wasn't the greatest of generals, and he made several strategic and tactical errors. We must remember, though, that he was not only responsible for North Africa, but for Persia and the Middle East as well. Auchinlek was also significantly hampered by his supply lines.
The early North African campaign required movement that was actually the reverse of the European campaign. The British were moving fom East to West out of eastern Egypt and the Suez, while the Afrika Korps was moving from West to East out of bases in Tunisia and Libya. Most of the British supplies, and particularly the tanks and other heavy equipment, had to go all the way around Africa, subject to the predations of Doenitz' U-boats along the way. By contrast, Rommel's supplies only had to cross the fairly narrow portion of the Mediterranean between Italy/Sicily and Libya/Tunisia. The Brit's stubborn defense and resupply of the island fortress of Malta was the only thing that kept the central Mediterranean from becoming an Axis lake. By the time Monty showed up around August of 1942, the British supply line situation had improved considerably, while Rommel's supply situation was getting much worse.
As to the question of when paratroopers came up against tanks and won, consider the 101st and Bastogne. It was purely a defensive battle, yes, and the surrounding German panzer and artillery units shelled the bejeebers out of the 101st, but they held the vital crossroad until relieved.
IIRC (and its quite possible that I don't), this was when Allied airborne forces realized that the projectile from their new anti-tank weapon, the bazooka, was ineffective against the armor of the Tiger II heavy tank or that of the new Panther medium tank. They had to shoot the tracks and bogie wheels, immobilizing the tank but not destroying it.
Last edited by Nighteyes; 08-05-2010 at 12:50 PM..
On the topic of Auchinleck alone his position was a little different then the one Montgomery held. Auchinleck was C-in-C Middle East and responsible for all operations from North Africa to Persia and the Middle East. There were various other commanders responsible for direct command of 8th Army. First was Alan Cunningham who led 8th Army into Operation Crusader and sustained heavy losses before being relieved by Auchinleck who took personal command and drove the Axis back to El Agheila. He then placed Ritchie in command and returned to his job as C-in-C based in Cairo. Auchinleck's folly was that he believed that the Axis were at their breaking point when they had in fact just been reinforced. The Axis quickly struck the scattered British forces and drove them back to Gazala. Again, Auchinleck was not in direct command, Ritchie was, but directed the operation and believed the Axis would strike the center of his position and found himself outflanked. During the withdraw he sacked Ritchie and once again assumed personal command withdrawing to more defensible positions that resulted in the First Battle of El Alamein. The British counter attacks following this battle were poorly conceived and executed and they failed to achieve anything significant, again this could be placed on Auckinleck.
During this entire time he was facing a constant storm of political pressure from Churchill who wanted to achieve a victory prior to the Torch Landings. Furthermore, Auckinleck was an odd choice to begin with as his experience was primarily leading Indian troops and he had a strained relationship with British and Dominion troops and his subordinates. All of this added up to him being removed from command.
However, Monty was not the first choice, nor did he receive the same command that Auckinleck had. Harold Alexander was chosen as C-in-C for the Middle East and William Gott was given command of 8th Army. When Gott was killed before taking command, Montgomery was appointed to lead 8th Army and inherited a position of strength.
Auckinleck was offered command of the Middle East and Persia as these had been taken away from Alexander's North Africa command, but he refused. He was sidelined until '43 when he resumed his previous position as C-in-C of India where he rebuilt the 14th Army from scratch that was responsible for any success the British had in prosecuting the Burma Campaign.
When it came to North Africa, Alexander handled the politics and C-in-C position and left Monty to do the fighting and gave him the support he needed.
In retrospect it would be more fair to compare Auchinleck to Alexander and in that respect he was a very capable theater commander, though was operating outside of his experience that consisted entirely of commanding Indian forces. Auchinleck would have preferred to operate in the same manner that Alexander and Montgomery did, but he lacked a commander like Montgomery to lead 8th Army.
I think comparing Auchinleck to Montgomery is like comparing Eisenhower to Patton. Different jobs with different skill sets. When given a command that suited his talents Auchinleck proved exceedingly capable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
