Talk:First Battle of El Alamein

message: I would like to place on record the interview I did, diaries I was given and the results of subsequent research at the Public records office and Imperial War Museum library archive.
Between the 2nd July and 29 October 1941, members of 106 Army Troops Company Royal Engineers, began the construction of the defence line at the railway halt of El Alamein. Their work involved clearing fields of fire, blasting gun pits, construting roads and preparing HQ locations. Their work also included fortifications on Ruweisat Ridge and the surveying of defensive 'boxes'.What is particularly interesting is that the location and all of the emplacments were selected by NCOs as no officer was present, since they were in Alexandria planning for their next task. 
They were soon called away from this work and the unit was sent to Kabrit to join 'L' Commandos section, A New Zealand batallion for combined arms training at the Commando Training School, HMS Saunders. This was the real birth of the SAS although subsequent historians have overlooked the involvement of other units.
My problem is that I have failed to find any reference in official souces of their work at El Alamein. Sadly much of the units War Diary was lost when they were captured after they were told to stay in Tobruk and help defend the place, presumably becuase they had gained much valuable experience at defences. (The SAS plans had been scaled back by then).
I published the diaries, interviews and research in 2004 Ordinary Heroes, The story of 106 AT Coy RE Kindle ASIN: B006FXUKYW  and would like to add a note about the intial siting and construction of the line. 
Should I add it to this article or create a new one about the construction?
Morcar1066 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'm sure 106AT Coy RE were a splendid unit but I think you are assigning way too much importance to this episode. If you read the Official History (The Mediterranean and the Middle East Vol III) you will see that (my paraphrase) "Since before the war the 'Alamein line' had been recognized as the possible site of a position for defending the Delta of Egypt......and various troops and civil labour gangs had been employed there from time to time....but preparations for [other operations meant] work at El Alamein naturally fell very low on the list of things to be done" (p.332). The line wasn't a line but three defensive 'boxes' about 15 miles apart. One box (on the coast) had been dug but only partly wired and mined while a second had been dug but not mined and the third had hardly been started. The Official History goes on: "Such was the slender framework of the position to which the British were were withdrawing: the term 'Alamein line' at this time meant only a line on the map" (also p.332). I guess the work done by 106 AT Coy would have been on the first box (which was around the railway halt). But without meaning to belittle their contribution, how much impact would a single company have had? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 19:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who sited the defences at El Alamein? 

message: Changed result to Allied victory as per Template:Infobox military conflict result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.Keith-264 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: There is a picture of the Italian Commander in Chief, who played hardly any part in the battle, and none of Auchinlech. I have had a quick look at the Auchinlech article, and there are a couple there which are dated around the the time of the battle which would - I feel - properly give the prominence due as the battle was the first in which Rommel did not win (a defensive battle is a win when the attacker fails). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no picture of Auchinlech? 

message: Charles Upham is described as being captured twice.
Associated references are #78 and #80 Kevenh (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Upham captured twice an error?