Talk:First Battle of El Alamein/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

where the 7th Bersaglieri really responsible for taking 6000 POWs at Mersa Matruh?

Seems the claim made in this Italian book [1] that the Eyties stormed the garrison at MM is valid after reading this article [2] and this extract from a French book [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylikeadodo (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Sadly, the claim that 7th Bersaglieri took 6000 POWs at Mersa Matruh is based in confusion. The original source is Caccia-Dominioni Alamein: 1933-1962 An Italian Story (1966), p.37, which states: "The important thing was that Mersa Matruh should not cost us too much time; every hour, every minute, was vital. Fighting continued throughout the 27th and 28th. At 9.30 on June 29th, the 10th and 11th Battalions of the 7th Bersaglieri burst into the town like a blast of hot air - which was fitting enough, as the name of the 7th's Colonel was Sciroco. Unfortunately, there were only 6,500 prisoners; there could have been three times that number. The Trento, fighting with only two small battalions, the 61st and 62nd, suffered no fewer than eighty-one dead and wounded." In fact, the British X Corps had evacuated from Mersa Matruh the previous day (Playfair.I.S.O, volume.III, p.295 among others). The reference to 6,500 refers to the total prisoner haul by the Axis forces as a whole (including 90th Light Division and 21st Panzer Division). British sources attest to about 6,000 men being captured in the rout from Mersa Matruh when Xth Corps broke out (see Corelli Barnett, Desert Generals). It appears that people have misconstrued Caccia-Dominioni as 7th Bersaglieri took 6,500 POWs by itself, when in fact 7th Bersaglieri only "burst into Mersa Matruh like a blast of hot air" after the British had abandoned the place, and the 6,500 prisoners refers to the total POW haul by the entire Panzerarmee Afrika. I hope this lays this myth to rest! Paul Goldstone (Greenjacket01 (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)).

Thanks Paul; this not only lays this myth to a final rest, but is also a very good research work you have done. thanks again, --noclador (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ: you mention (noclador?) that " The reference to 6,500 refers to the total prisoner haul by the Axis forces as a whole" but if so, why does the following encyclopedia [4]say "Axis troops entered Mersa Matruh on 29 June, capturing 8000 British personnel and quantities of weapons and supplies." Maybe you are not good with numbers but why be so cocky to affirm " The reference to 6,500 refers to the total prisoner haul by the Axis forces as a whole"? It is clear that the Germans did most of the fierce night fighting, capturing a significant number of prisoners and, with the break of dawn, the defenders were exhausted, confused and demoralised, and consequently the 7th Bersaglieri were able to "burst into Mersa Matruh like a blast of hot air" and take the remaining 6000 or 6500 defenders as prisoners. And why would you "burst into Mersa Matruh like a blast of hot air" when there is no one there to contest your advance? Why not simply march into the town with heads held up high? It's like saying something like "and he took a huge bite of a Shepherds Pie" that had already been consumed. You also state (noclador?) that "In fact, the British X Corps had evacuated from Mersa Matruh the previous day", making us believe the British abandoned Mersa Matruh in the morning, afternoon or even evening of 28 June, so that when the Italians stuck their fat noses in, there was nothing there apart from a block of cheese that was half-consumed by a rodent that already packed his bags and left. However the following link [5] (Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History - Page 981) clearly states "The X Corps commander, Lieutenant General William George Holmes ordered his units to break out of the city that night and escape to Alamein." In other words, the bulk of the defenders attempted to break out of the trap under the cover of darkness of the early hours of 29 June (not 28 June as you claim) unless you'd like us to believe the British carried out a "Houdini Act" in the space of a few hours prior to midnight on the evening of 28 June that would've surely made it into the Guinness Book of World Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steyr2007 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Steyr2007 - Read Greenjackets entry above and cease to insert wrong information into the article. --noclador (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Steyr2007: 1. Before you deleted my entry, you would have seen, I hope, that the sources I provided in the entry you deleted included reputable sources such as I.S.O Playfair, and recent scholarship such as Niall Barr. Why did you reject those sources?

2. Had 7th Bersaglieri really stormed a fortress and taken 6,500 POWs, that would have been an incredible feat of arms. Could you provide an archival or reference from a scholarly source to a primary source that supports your assertion? A reliable source such as Militargeschichliches Forschungsamt (ed) “Germany and the Second World War: Vol.VI”, p.714, which has ample archival evidence, for example, states that Panzerarmee Afrika took 6000 POWs, but makes no mention of 7th Bersaglieri.

3. The break out from Mersa Matruh on 28 July was for the columns to head to the south-east for twenty miles, and then the east covered by 7 Motor Bde. In the way lay 90th Light Division, which led to the fleeing British columns colliding with 90th Light Division. See, for example, Indian Official History: The North African Campaign, 1940-43, p.416; Barr.N, “Pendulum of War”, p.30; Playfair.I.S.O, “Mediterranean”, Vol.III, p.295; Pitt.B, “Crucible of War, Vol.2”, pp.280-282; Stevens.W.R, History of Fourth Indian Division, pp.179-181; . However, XXI Corps was to the WEST of Mersa Matruh wasn’t it? (There are detailed maps showing the situation in Militargeschichliches Forschungsamt (ed) “Germany and the Second World War: Vol.VI”, p.702 and Playfair.I.S.O, “Mediterranean”, Vol.III, p283.)

Moderators: If you wish to restore my entry on Mersa Matruh and delete the vandalism, could you add another reference - Militargeschichliches Forschungsamt (ed) “Germany and the Second World War: Vol.VI”, p.714

Thanks Paul --Greenjacket01 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also: The Italian Army homepage of the 7th Bersaglieri Rgt. [6] does not mention this and the history of 7th on the homepage of the Italian Bersaglieri Association [7] does not mention anything about 6500 prisoners. --noclador (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks greenjacket/noclador for the response. Obviously you believe in your cause. However when reading the following snippet e (Le Tre Battaglie Di Alamein: 1-27 luglio 1942, 28 luglio-5 settembre 1942) states "... il 7° reggimento bersaglieri (colonnello Scirocco) con una compagnia del XXXII ... partecipato alla fase finale delle operazioni intorno a Marsa Matruh. ..." it becomes quite clear that the Italian Bersaglieri were indeed involved in the final phase of the attack on Mersa Matruh although some of us would like us to believe otherwise. Also the following snippet [8] (Storia E Politica Internazionale) states... "con un brillantissimo attacco a tenaglia: il 7 Reggimento bersaglieri vi ... La fortezza di Marsa Matruh, sorta sullo schema offerto dall'antico campo ..." is the work of experts. Now how can this think tank from Milan get it so wrong? Maybe too much Italian wine? And this snippet [9] (Batterie Semoventi, Alzo Zero: Quelli Di El Alamein) reports that "Il colonnello Scirocco, alla testa dei superstiti dei battaglioni X e XI, irruppe come una valanga nella piazzaforte. Fu una battaglia spaventosamente ..." further confirms the presence of Bersaglieri troops in the fight for Mersa Matruh. With regards to what you say are "reputable sources such as I.S.O Playfair" I'm afraid this British General failed to give the Italians any real credit at all. For example his reconstruction of Operation Brevity fails to mention the exploits of the Bersaglieri and their contribution to stopping British operation dead on its tracks. Fortunately it is on record that on August 5, 1941 German Colonel von Herff, impressed by the actions and bravery of the Bersaglieri defending Halfaya Pass, issued an order of the day stating: "The detachment which defended the plains of Halfaya Pass resisted with lionlike courage until the last man against stronger enemy forces. The greatest part of them died faithful to the flag." (see New York Times article, Italians' Bravery Praised By Nazi Chief in Africa, August 5, 1941) And you know what?, the Italian Bersaglieri Association makes no metion of this either. What is your opinion of that? I would really like to know. You also write that "Panzerarmee Afrika took 6000 POWs, but makes no mention of 7th Bersaglieri" but hey amigo the following book [10](Rommel's Desert War: The Life And Death Of The Afrika Korps by Samuel W. Mitcham, 2007) reveals to Generation X and Y that " At 5:00 P.M. on June 28, the 90th Light Division and elements of the X and XXI Italian Infantry Corps stormed the fortress of Mersa Matruh. The fighting lasted all night. In the darkness another confused breakout occurred. Approximately 60 percent of the British X Corps escaped. The Axis simply did not have enough manpower to stop them all. The next morning resistance in the town collapsed. A rearguard of 6,000 men was captured and forty Allied tanks destroyed." I guess we have to move with the times and not live ignorance like many Baby Boomers thanks to "reputable sources such as I.S.O Playfair" and works such as "Germany and the Second World War: Vol.VI" that brushed aside the many acts of valour by part of the Italians at Ruweisat Ridge, Tobruk, Mersa Matruh, etc, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steyr2007 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


I ordered the following files from Archives New Zealand: WAII 1 da438.2/9 Battle Report of the Operations of Panzer Army Africa For the period 26 May to 27 July 1942, vol.III. Among the relevant signals are recorded: At 1045 on 29 June Rommel signals OKW on operations at MERSA MATRUK, stating in his account fo the action that "The prisoners taken so far by 90 Lt. Div. and the Italian enveloping troops [come] to more than 5000. 36 tanks were knocked out, numerous batteries destroyed and large quantities of war material captured." On 30 June Panzerarmeeafrika reported to supreme command that the number of prisoners taken at Mersa Matruh had increased to "more than 6000" along with quantities of war material and 40 tanks. I'll take pictures tomorrow and upload them so people can see for themselves the evidence. It seems pretty clear that the figure of 6000 is for the entire Panzerarmee Afrika, and not just 7th Bersaglieri alone. --Greenjacket01 (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm joining this debate to set the record straight. I will make available official communiques released by the mouthpieces of Rome and Berlin to establish once and for all that it was the Bersaglieri that overwhelmed and disarmed the British rearguard left at Mersa Matruh. I am also looking forward to adding to this page Bollettino n. 763 del 29 giugno 1942 from Radio Rome that reports the capture of the 6,500-strong British rearguard left at Mersa Matruh by part of the 7th Bersaglieri Regiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 11:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


So Generalmesse (aka Steyr2007 and other sockpuppets) thinks that Radio Rome broadcasts are a reputable source - ooookay.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.16.204 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the Panzerarmeeafrika battle reports for Mersa Matruh, which readers are welcome to view: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_28_June_1942.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942.jpg

I trust this ends this myth. --Greenjacket01 (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very informative. As a matter of interest, what is the source of these documents / translations? Presumably the originals were written in German. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Greenjacket01. The two pages you uploaded don't seem to flow one to the next. I edited the ref in the article to document the link and described them as pages 1 and two of the battle report...but I'm not convinced they are. Can you help? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - one is for 28 June. The other is page 2 of the 29 June. I'll add page 1 of the 29 June daily battle report. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_report_of_Panzerarmeeafrika_for_29_June_1942_page1.jpg The source of the documents is from the large colection of captured documents held at the New Zealand archives (which include the war diaries, signals logs and daily battle reports of various Axis formations in North Africa, including Panzerarmeeafrika and DAK). During and after the war, captured enemy documents were translated for the Commonwealth war history project. Cheers Paul Goldstone --Greenjacket01 (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

7th Bersaglieri website does in fact mention capture of the remaining defenders at Mersa Matruh

The website in question[11] says "il 29 entrò per primo in Marsa Matruh, dove catturò i resti del nemico in ritirata e liberò i prigionieri italiani e tedeschi, meritandosi una citazione sul Bollettino di guerra n° 763 del Comando Supremo." So, it's quite clear now that the Bersaglieri captured the rearguard inside Mersa Matruh and the Italian Comando Supremo informed the world of this Italian success in military communique no. 763. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steyr2007 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources cited by Steyr2007 state that 7th Bersaglieri actually took 6500 POWs though. If Steyr2007 is going to make the claim that 7th Bersaglieri took 6500 POWs then he should provide the hard evidence to support it or stop vandalising the site. It seems to me that while 7th Bersaglieri did fight at Mersa Matruh, the 6000 POWs was the total number of prisoners taken by all the Axis forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.22.16.204 (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone in the above paragraph claims "None of the sources cited by Steyer2007 state that 7th Bersaglieri actually took 6500 POWs though" but the following extract [12]from Cesare Gori's La guerra aerea in Africa settentrionale. 1942-1943: assalto dal cielo says Sul fronte, anche Marsa Matruh era caduta ad opera del brillantissimo 9° Rgt. Bersaglieri che aveva catturato oltre 5000 uomini..--Generalmesse (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC).

9° Rgt. Bersaglieri??? what now: 7th or 9th??? 5000 or 6500??? you really do quality research! Especially as the line you link too reads: "erano interamente dotate di materiale Alleato catturato nel pingue bottino di Tobruch..."="they were entirely equipped with allied material captured in Tobruk" so: which Bersaglieri Rgt. did (if) capture what??? --noclador (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This book admits that if it wasn't for the Italians the severely depleted 90th Light, only 1,600-strong, would've not captured the 6,000 stong British rearguard at M.M.

The book "Rommel's Desert Commanders" [13]reports "A very daring officer, Kleemann drove east with almost reckless abandon and cut off the British X Corps (10th Indian and 50th Infantry Divisions) east of Mersa Matruh on June 27, despite the fact he had only 1,600 men at the time, was outnumbered more than 10 to 1, and was 15 miles from the nearest Axis unit. Fortunately for Kleeman, the British did not try to breakout until the following evening, and, by that time the 90th had been reinforced by elements of the Italian X and XXI Infantry Corps. Only 60% of the British corps escaped in the confused breakout. The next day, Kleeman and the Italians captured Mersa Matru--Generalmesse (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)sh, along with a rearguard of 6,000 and 40 destroyed tanks.

Reverts of Ronpillao

It appears to me that on the evidence I have seen ([WP:AN/I]]) that the editor Ronpillao is yet another sockpuupet of the banned editor user:Giovanni Giove. After three reverts of what I believe to be a sock puppet of a banned editor I wish to make it plain that I am not going to edit war, I've asked an admin to look at this and I will make no further reverts. The actions I have taken thus far have been to be WP:BOLD in order to combat the disruptive edits of what I believed in good faithe to be a disruptive editor. Justin talk 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've been tidying up the footnotes and bibliography. In this process I've noticed some footnotes referencing a book by "A. Stewart". It's not in the reference list and I can't find a likely candidate searching at WorldCat. Anyone know what it is? If not I will remove the footnotes (not the end of the world since they are duplicates). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, The source is Stewart, Adrian, "The Early Battles of Eighth Army: 'Crusader' to the Alamein Line 1941-1942", Pen & Sword Books, West Yorkshire, 2002. --Greenjacket01 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the bibliography (although I couldn't find the exact edition you mentioned, I don't suppose it matters). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruin Ridge

I deleted some very garbled sentences on Ruin ridge (which appears to have been confused with the battle for Tel el Eisa). The Axis forces operations report for the 17 July may be a useful summary: "“At dawn this day 2 strong battle groups [i.e. 2/32 Bn and 2/43 Bn] of 9 Australian Division advanced from the area Bir Makhkahd in a southwesterly direction along the Qattara track. The enemy overran the right wing of Div. Trieste as well as a Bersaglieri strongpoint of the Italian XXI Corps, reaching the area north of Sanyet el Miteiriya [i.e. Miteriya ridge or Ruin Ridge] in a rapidly carried out thrust. In order to seal off the break-in, considerable forces had to be moved out of the central front sector. Battle Group Briehl, Recce Detachments 3 and 33, together with elements of Rifle Regt 104, halted the enemy advance south of the Sanyet el Miteiriya. This compelled the Panzer Army to discontinue the attack in the central front sector which had as its aim the reoccupation of the old positions of the Italian X Corps. In the afternoon of 17.7, hard-pressed by the German units, effectively supported by the Luftwaffe, the enemy withdrew to the north-east. By evening the area Bir el Maqtua and Height 21 had been taken back by German troops. In the night 18/18.7 the units organised themselves for the defence. 1 battalion of Div. Trieste, as well as one arty detachment of Div. Trento, had been lost, but the enemy too had again suffered heavy losses. 200 prisoners were collected and a number of tanks have been destroyed.” Italian-German Army Battle report for the 17 July KTB 1222. --Greenjacket01 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored some of your deletions to the the Ruin Ridge section before I read the above comment. I'm trying to remember if it was originally put in by the Italian sock puppet - but it is reasonably referenced so deleting it could be construed as POV. I think I'll go and do a detailed check of the references before doing anything else. Any chance of uploading the battle report and linking it to this article? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, The deleted paragraph regarding the Ruin ridge attack of 17 July is a conflated rendering of selective sources that I'm afraid creates a rather misleading impression. Some Australian troops from 'B' Company 2/32 may have been taken prisoner by Italian defenders when they were pinned down in the open in the morning. However, the counter-attacks were made by German battlegroups - it was these counter-attacks by German tanks which drove the Australians back to their startline. This is explained in a variety of sources, including Johnston.M and Stanley.P, "Alamein: The Australin Story" (2002), pp.83-85; and Barton Maughan's official history (which is available online at http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf I'll photograph the Axis battle report for 17 July and upload it. --Greenjacket01 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting page and little accuracy

I always thought Wikipedia to be the best online coverage of the North African campaign until I read this page. Greenjacket01 does the entire Italian community a disservice with his grossly inaccurate portrayal of the fighting capabilities of the Bologna, Trento, Pavia, Brescia, Ariete, and Littorio Divisions. He uses information from the Australian and New Zealand official histories as if they had actually used Italian sources. He gets the specifics of the capture of Mersa Matrouh wrong (see discussion page). His dependence on non-Italian sources has compromised his analysis of the fighting at Tell el Eisa, Ruweisat. and Miteiriya. With regards to the fighting at Tell el Eisa he has foolishly commented that "Sabratha did not launch a counter-attack that drove 2/48 Bn from Point 24" (see history page). But as Rommel himself noted the Sabratha Division in the form of a battalion after having retaken Tel el Eisa was indeed present in the frontline: "Next day, the 16th July, the British attacked again, this time only locally. After intensive artillery preparation, the Australians attacked in the early hours of the morning with tank support and took several strong-points held by the Sabratha"(see The Rommel Papers, page 256). As an Italian parachute commander observed, the Sabratha Division was responsible for "the splendid recapture of Tell el Eisa, carried out by the 1st Battalion 85th Infantry under Colonel Angelozzi on the afternoon of July 14" (see El Alamein 1933-1962, page 78). Wartime bias in Australian and New Zealand official histories, which focused on the exploits of German forces, have dismissed Italian units as cowardly and inept. These racist attitudes of the 1950's and 1960's have clouded Greenjacket01's judgement, leading him to omit Italian successes on the El Alamein front on 14th,17th, 22nd and 27th July. If the Anglo-Saxon primary sources he has previously cited makes it hard for Greenjacket01 to credit any acts of valour or any display of military competence by the Italian Army in the fighting, Giuseppe Rizzo's BUCHE E CROCI NEL DESERTO (Editrice Aurora, Verona 1969), Davide Beretta's BATTERIE SEMOVENTE ALZO ZERO (Mursia, Milano 1968), Giuseppe Lombardi's LA DIVISIONE BRESCIA DA EL AGHEILA A EL ALAMEIN (Reggio Calabria Tip. De Franco 1961) and Paolo Caccia Dominioni's El ALAMEIN 1933-1962 (Milano, Longanesi Editore 1963) should help other contributors contribute more positively to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.115.136.131 (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No way an Allied victory

This was a shambles for the allies. Whole units were wiped out. Wallie (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but it did at least stop Rommel's advance, albeit at a very high cost. Something that Monty conveniently swpt under the rug once he took over command of Eighth Army. Skinny87 (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The verdict now says "Tacticaly inconclusive" (true; they fought each other to a standstill), "Strategic Allied Victory" (also true; Rommel's advance to Cairo and Suez was stopped in its tracks). Xyl 54 (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: And Skinny is correct; the "Auk" never really got the credit he deserved. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaguered or Lagered?

Leaguered is not as appropriate in this context as lagered. Before I edit, any commentary? EDIT: add sig 66.207.216.102 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

My dictionary indicates leaguered or laagered but not lagered (unless you are suggesting they were on the beers!). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes laagered = a camp or encampment, especially within a protective circle of wagons. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary that's only definition #1 which is qualified as "esp. S. Afr.; definition #2 is qualified as Mil.: " a park for armoured vehicles". Its etymology (origin) is given as Afrikaans from Dutch. Leaguer is defined as "=LAAGER". So either are acceptable depending on how "English" a word you want to use. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Tank strength

The infobox lists the tank strengths as 1,114 Allied and 585 German; this can't be right, surely? That is more than both sides had at Gazala, which is where they'd come from. Have we got the right battle of Alamein, here? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats right. In fact both sides only got few tanks serviceable at the start of the fighting, due the high attrition on the Axis side and the very larges tank losses on the Allied side at Gazala. I fixed it. StoneProphet (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

An obvious mistake in the footnotes that I cannot figure out how to correct

Barton Maughan—Australia's official historian—has written that "two forward platoons of the 2/32nd's left company were overrun, 22 amen were taken.

"Amen" is clearly a typographical error for something, such as "men". Why is it so hard to correct this? 98.67.98.176 (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressed, thanks for highlighting it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong images

I've taken out a couple of images from here; of a German MkII and of some Matildas. They were both dated 1941, so they're a bit anachronistic; was the Mk II still in service by the time of 1st Alamein? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Battle_of_El_Alamein/Archive_1&oldid=1214175101"