Ant Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I'm reading a book at the moment entitled 'How it happened-WW II' which contains over two hundred first hand accounts of the war from sources ranging from common soldiers and civillians to journalists and generals, in chronological order. Anyway, I've just finished the section on the North Africa campaign which not only got me even more excited about the upcoming CMAK release but also provided a very interesting piece on the nature of warfare in the desert. Might be of some interest to somebody. Alan Moorehead, war correspondent: More and more I began to see that desert warfare resembled war at sea. Men moved by compass. No position was static. There were few, if any, forts to be held. Each truck or tank was as individual as a destroyer, and each squadron of tanks or guns made great sweeps across the desert as a battle squadron at sea will vanish over the horizon. One did not occupy the desert any more than one occupied the sea. One simply took up position for a day or a week and patrolled about it with bren gun carriers and light armoured vehicles. When you made contact with the enemy you manoeuvred about him for a place to strike, much as two fleets will steam into position for action. There were no trenches. There was no front line. We might patrol five hundred miles into Libya and call the country ours. The Italians might as easily have patrolled as far into the Egyptian desert without being seen. Always the essential governing principal was that desert forces must be mobile: they were seeking not the conquest of territory or position but combat with the enemy. We hunted men, not land; as a warship will hunt other warships and care nothing for the sea on which the action is fought. And as a ship submits to the sea by the nature of its design and the way it sails so these new mechanised soldiers were submitting to the desert. They found weaknesses in the ruthless hostility of the desert and ways to circumvent its worst moods. They used the desert. They never sought to control it. Always the desert set the pace, made the direction and planned the design. The desert offered colours in browns yellows and greys. The army accordingly took these colours for its camouflage. There were practically no roads. The army shod its vehicles with huge baloon tyres and did without roads. Nothing except the occasional bird moved quickly in the desert. The army for ordinary purposes accepted a pace of five or six miles an hour. The desert gave water reluctantly, and often then it was brackish. The army cut it's men, generals and privates, down to a gallon of water a day when they were in forward positions. There was no food in the desert. The soldier learned to exist almost entirely on tinned foods, and contrary to popular belief remained healthy on it. Mirages came that confused the gunner, and the gunner developed precision-firing to a finer art and learned new methods of establishing observation-posts close to targets. The sandstorm blew, and the tanks, profiting by it, went into action under the cover of the storm. We made no new roads. We built no houses. We did not try to make the desert livable, nor did we seek to subdue it. We found the life of the desert primitive and nomadic, and primitively and nomadically the army lived and went to war. The Italians failed to accept these principles, and when the big fighting began in the winter it was their undoing. They wanted to be masters of the desert. They made their lives comfortable and static. They built roads and stone houses and the officers strode around in brilliant scented uniforms. They tried to subdue the desert. And in the end the desert beat them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Interesting. An early piece I'd have guessed. Any idea from which year this dates? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward McEneely Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Originally posted by Doodlebug: Interesting. An early piece I'd have guessed. Any idea from which year this dates? My guess is that it's from Desert War: The North African Campaign 1940-1943, which is a compilation of Moorehead's wartime trilogy: Mediterranean Front, A Year of Battle, and The End in Africa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Hunter Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Can you please give me the ISBN number of that book? I have tried to look it up by title but I found nothing covering only WWII. -Thanks -TH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward McEneely Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tank Hunter: Can you please give me the ISBN number of that book? I have tried to look it up by title but I found nothing covering only WWII. -Thanks -TH I just looked it up on Amazon.com; the ISBN there is 0140275142 for the paperback edition, which is listed as $22.00 retail. I'm planning on picking it up myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 As I said I got that from the current book I'm reading which I named above. The date given in that book is Autumn 1940 although as he talks about the winter battles and the italian defeat I would have put it closer to early 1941. I've noticed that a couple of dates given in the book appear to be wrong. I haven't heard about the other book mentioned but it sounds interesting, may have to look for that one next. The ISBN no. of my book is: 1-84119-303-8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 If you mean Moorehead's book Amazon.co.uk link Amazon.com link Both sites have it on special offer. I'm not sure about the book that Ant was talking about, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted September 9, 2003 Author Share Posted September 9, 2003 Links are good Thanks Firefly This is the book I'm reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841193038/qid=1063126582/sr=1-20/ref=sr_1_2_20/026-7213353-8749214 Lokks like he edits quite a few other interesting stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Barrie Pitt wrote an outstanding, comprehensive and readble two-volume history of the war in North Africa which I highly recommend. Los Crucible of War; Western Desert 1941 Crucible fo War: Year fo Alamein 1942 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Originally posted by Los: Barrie Pitt wrote an outstanding, comprehensive and readble two-volume history of the war in North Africa which I highly recommend. Los Crucible of War; Western Desert 1941 Crucible fo War: Year fo Alamein 1942 Excellent book I agree, the paperback version comes in 3 volumes nowadays, subtitled Wavell's Command, Auchinleck's Command and Montgomery and El Alamein 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Originally posted by Firefly: If you mean Moorehead's book...I have a hardbound copy of this book under the title of March to Tunis. I think I've read it twice. It's an enjoyable read, but written from a limited perspective. I think most historians on the subject would say that he sometimes gets the details wrong, so I would be careful about citing it as an authority without taking the precaution of obtaining corroborative materials. But he is very good at communicating the atmosphere of the time and place. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 I agree about using Moorehead as a definitive source, Michael, he's a journalist not a historian and his book(s) are really a collection of his despatches. He hailed from a time when journalists were expected to be good writers though, and they're a good read if you take them for what they are, eyewitness accounts that do a good job of conveying the feel of the strange war in the desert. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Moorhead can be a pretty fair historian too. I thought well of The Blue Nile. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Hunter Posted September 9, 2003 Share Posted September 9, 2003 Thanks for the info about the book. I'm going to order it asap. Sounds very intresting.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.