Auchinleck retains 8th Army command

[Urban fox]

What it says on the tin ''The Auk'' was relived of his 8th Army and Middle Eastern Theatre commands following his victory at 1st Alamein and was eventfully reassigned to India. To be charitable to Auchinleck this seems to be the result of his poor relationship with Churchill rather than any inferiority in talent vis-à-vis Montgomery or the doltish Alexander.


By the the time Auchinleck was relived of command Rommel had shot his bolt and would’ve have faced the prospect of attacking El Alamein whoever was in command of the 8th Army. The long-term implications of Montgomery being sidelined or sent elsewhere and ‘’The Auk’’ being the most prominent British general are interesting.


Discuss.

 

[Markus]

Monty is credited for realizing the "limitations" of 8th Army and scaling down the objectives accordingly. He also improved training and operational security to a large degree. From "Military errors of WW2" by K. Macksey I recall a highly critical assesment of Auchinleck, Ritchie ect.

Auchinleck is given credit for the job he did in India. He served with the Indian Army fro most of his career and before the war he was one of the main proponents of expanding the Indian Army and increasing the percantage of Indian officers(Indianisation).

Err, wait! Auchinleck was CiC of the entire theatre, he wasn´t the CO of 8th Army. So credit for a victory at El Alamein would have most likely gone to whoever commanded 8th Army.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Monty is credited for realizing the "limitations" of 8th Army and scaling down the objectives accordingly. He also improved training and operational security to a large degree. From "Military errors of WW2" by K. Macksey I recall a highly critical assesment of Auchinleck, Ritchie ect.

Auchinleck is given credit for the job he did in India. He served with the Indian Army fro most of his career and before the war he was one of the main proponents of expanding the Indian Army and increasing the percantage of Indian officers(Indianisation).

Err, wait! Auchinleck was CiC of the entire theatre, he wasn´t the CO of 8th Army. So credit for a victory at El Alamein would have most likely gone to whoever commanded 8th Army.

After he fired Ritchie (rightly) the Auk was commanding the 8th army himself as well

 

[Markus]

After he fired Ritchie (rightly) the Auk was commanding the 8th army himself as well

A short term arrangement I guess, sooner or later 8th Army would have gotten a new CO regardless of what happens with the CiC, wouldn´t it?

 

[Urban fox]

After he fired Ritchie (rightly) the Auk was commanding the 8th army himself as well

Indeed, he was replaced as 8th Army Commander and Middle East Theatre Commander by Montgomery and Alexander respectively

Also while as Markus says his contributions to the Indian Army in non-combat roles was extensive, it was a was a waste of one of the Britain Army's depressingly low-supply of decent generals. He was also far less…prickish than Money which would’ve made intra-allied relationships far easier.

''The Auk'' didnt write any post-war books or memoirs and by all accounts he was a modest man who shunned publicly and thus wouldnt/didnt guard his public reputation as well as some of his more vociferous peers. Through IMHO his choice in subordinates wasn’t always great, I doubt he'd go in for a madcap plan like Market Garden or get in an ego-war with Pattion...

A short term arrangement I guess, sooner or later 8th Army would have gotten a new CO regardless of what happens with the CiC, wouldn´t it?

Eh, in large part the 8th Army was the Middle Eastern Theatre's only real fighting force and Churchill's replacing a proven commander was rather whimsical and could’ve been prevented by better communication on both-sides.

 

[BlairWitch749]

like you said, he didn't have the greatest ability in picking subordinates...junior officer training, overzealosness and lack of coordination with the chain of command was one of the greatest weaknesses of the British army

Montgomery (even if he was a control freak and an ego maniac) did an excellent job correcting a lot of this (not unlike Patton's cleaning house in the 2nd corps)

 

[Rickshaw]

Auk was dirked in the back by a combination of Churchill and Allan Brooke. The former, 'cause he lacked confidence in Auk's abilities, having seen him too much on the back foot 'cause of Rommel, not realising that Rommel held all the dice and Auk's subordinate, Ritchie was the one to blame for the losses before 1st Alamein. Allan Brooke 'cause he wanted his protégée Montgomery to be given a guernsey.

Montgomery when he took over used the same basic plan that Auk had created for 2nd Alamein. He may have fiddle around the edges a bit but at its core, it was still the same plan.

Montgomery's chances of success did not improve IMO until after the action at Tel el Arissa when the 9 Division AIF captured Rommel's SIGINT unit. Rommel had been heavily relient on that unit for all his successes. Particularly its ability to intercept the signals from the US Consul in Cairo and read his daily SITREPS. These, based upon the daily briefings that he received from HQMIDEAST, detailed unit strengths and positions. When the Italians had secured a copy of the "Black Code" from the US Embassy in Rome in 1940 and passed it onto the Germans, it mean that Rommel was reading his opponents dispositions on a daily basis. He knew what they knew. That was the real secret of Rommel's brilliance in the Desert.

Once his SIGINT unit was captured (bathing at the seaside), Rommel became blind and it shows in his strategy which he knows is a last throw of the dice.

 

[Cook]

...the doltish Alexander.

Alexander was one of the outstanding British generals of the war. Doltish is not a description any professional soldier would ever use in reference to him.

 

[Nytram01]

Alexander was one of the outstanding British generals of the war. Doltish is not a description any professional soldier would ever use in reference to him.

Alex was a pushover who failed to exersize hands on command even when it was desperately needed. He coasted by on the work or more talented subordinates like Montgomery and McCreery. He was ideal for Coalition leading stuff but he didn't make plans, he didn't deal with tactics or strategy, he wasn't capable of exersizing control over people, he was the British Eisenhower. However, I agree that he wasn't doltish as he was personally brave and very professional, even if he didn't quite have what it took to be an effective field commander at the highest levels.

 

[Nytram01]

The problem with the Auk in North Africa is that he tried to make the British Army operate in fluidic, mobile style of warfare it had neither the training, doctrine or equipment to handle. Also he never created a close working relationship between all the arms of his forces and was really quite dreadful at picking good subordinates.

Not before Montgomery did the 8th Army cordinate their action in a combined arms doctrine but rather operated as infantry, artillery, armour and airforce seperately. Perhaps Montgomery's greatest and most often overlooked contribution to the 8th's conduct was the combination of the HQ of all arms of his Army into one main HQ from which the action of all of them could be properly cordinated.

The Auk may have had confidance that he could defeat Rommel but Churchill, Alanbrooke and most of the officers and men in the 8th (Dorman-Smith the main exception) didn't. A change was needed as the Auk had lost the trust of the men above and below him and had he remained in command it would have invited disaster.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Would another commander than Montgomery have tried to outpace Rommel and ended up with the tiger turning and slashing them?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Nytram01]

Montgomery when he took over used the same basic plan that Auk had created for 2nd Alamein. He may have fiddle around the edges a bit but at its core, it was still the same plan.

I'm sure you meant to say that Montgomery used the same basic plan the Auk created for Alam el Halfa, not 2nd El Alamein. Auchinleck had absolutely nothing to so with 2nd El Alamein.

If you did indeed mean to say that the Auk created the basic plan Montogmery used for Alam el Halfa then you are wrong anyway as the plan the Auk created and the one Montgomery used were completely different at a basic level. The Auks plan was one of a fluidic defense using three different lines of defense to maneuver around the Alam el Halfa ridge and counter-attack an attempt to drive the 8th Army from their positions. Montgomery's plan was a static defensive on one position where his dug in armour and artillery would hold the attack from the Panzer Army Afrika while the airforce engage from the air. Montgomery's was a vastly more simple plan than the Auk's and far more easy to understand. Eric Dorman-Smith and Basil Liddell Hart may have waxed lyrical about the inventiveness and genius of the Auk's plans but at the time the officers of the 8th were far happier with Monty's simple solution.

The two plans were similar as they both centered around the Alam el Halfa ridge but as that was the dominant geographical feature of the entire El Alamein line then it would have been obvious to a general who possessed even the lowest level of competance that the Alam el Halfa ridge was vital to the defense of the position and had to be held if the 8th wanted to remain at that position or taken if the Panzer Army Afrika wanted to drive their enemy from it.

 

[Devolved]

What it says on the tin ''The Auk'' was relived of his 8th Army and Middle Eastern Theatre commands following his victory at 1st Alamein and was eventfully reassigned to India. To be charitable to Auchinleck this seems to be the result of his poor relationship with Churchill rather than any inferiority in talent vis-à-vis Montgomery or the doltish Alexander.


By the the time Auchinleck was relived of command Rommel had shot his bolt and would’ve have faced the prospect of attacking El Alamein whoever was in command of the 8th Army. The long-term implications of Montgomery being sidelined or sent elsewhere and ‘’The Auk’’ being the most prominent British general are interesting.


Discuss.

Auchinlek as said before had lost the confidence of his superiors and of his men. The low morale was the first thing Montgommery noticed when he took command. He had to spend a lot of time touring the army and giving motivational speeches.

Given the vast amount of supplies that arrived in the late sumer of 1942 it is likely that ANY GENERAL could have won at Alamein if they just kept throwing men and tanks at Rommel long enough but no general matched Montgommery's professionalism. Rommel didn't win any battles against Montgommery as far as I know. He had already run rings around Auchinlek.

 

[Just Leo]

During the time Archie Wavell was in command of the Middle East, Churchill did nothing but nag, nag, nag at Wavell, causing him to divert attention away from the battle at hand and pay attention to the battle of Churchill. Montgomery's greatest victory was in ignoring Churchill's pleading for action and run his own war.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

How dare some of you mock the great Montgomery, the man who won the Second World War...singlehandedly according to his autobiography.

 

[jmc247]

Rommel knew he was playing some long odds in trying to take Egypt, but with the constant increase in British weapons and men both from the UK and US and the soon to arrive US forces in Africa he knew time was running out on him.

The balance of power in men and supplies had decisively shifted against the Afrika Corps by early to mid 1942. In order to take Egypt Rommel would likely have had to have done it in late 1941.

If Auchinleck stays in then the Afrika Corps loses as in the origional timeline and Monty loses his self proclaimed title as savior of the British Empire.