Famous Tank Battles

After the opening of Second El Alamein, Montgomery faced a problem that every commander dreads: his army had made progress, but not the kind of progress that ends a battle. The Eighth Army had broken into the Axis defensive system, yet the armored formations had not burst into open country, and the minefields had not yielded cleanly to the plan called Lightfoot. The battle now entered the phase Montgomery described as “crumbling,” a deliberate attempt to wear away the Axis line by repeated pressure, local attacks, artillery fire, and the steady use of superior resources. This phase matters because it strips El Alamein of any simple legend. The battle was not one magnificent tank charge, but a grinding effort to turn partial success into cumulative damage until Rommel’s defense could no longer repair itself.

If you would like to move beyond the podcast, you can see my available books at Military Author dot me. And at Trackpads dot com, you will find magazines and galleries with hundreds of thousands of photos and videos to explore.

Crumbling began from a sober recognition of what had gone wrong and what had gone right. The infantry had reached important ground in several places, and the Axis front had been forced to respond under heavy pressure. But the lanes through the Devil’s Gardens were still difficult, the armor was constrained, and the enemy’s anti-tank defenses remained dangerous. Montgomery’s answer was not to abandon the offensive, and not to fling every tank forward in frustration. He chose instead to keep pressure on the Axis line, widen the footholds, destroy local strongpoints, and force German and Italian reserves to move, fight, and consume fuel. In ordinary language, he meant to make the enemy defense decay faster than it could be restored.

For the men at the front, crumbling did not feel like an operational concept. It felt like noise, exhaustion, and repetition. A battalion might be ordered to take a patch of ridge, a shallow depression, or a cluster of enemy posts that looked insignificant to anyone not standing there. The attack would need artillery support, engineers, ammunition, stretcher-bearers, anti-tank guns, and communication lines. If the ground was taken, it had to be held through shelling and counterattack. If the attack failed, survivors had to regroup while another formation prepared to try elsewhere. The phase was intimate because it reduced a famous battle to small units fighting for limited ground, often at night, often without any sense that the whole front was moving.

The geography of the battlefield made this method necessary. El Alamein’s narrow corridor prevented Rommel from sweeping easily around the British flank, but it also meant that Montgomery could not simply bypass the Axis defenses either. The front was compressed, mined, and watched by guns. Every useful track, ridge, and lane mattered because it helped determine where infantry could move, where tanks might deploy, and where artillery observers could see. A little rise in the desert could become valuable not because it was dramatic, but because it gave a view over approaches or shielded men from direct fire. Crumbling was fought in these small spaces. The Eighth Army was trying to build a larger victory from pieces of ground that barely looked important until men started dying for them.

Artillery became the daily language of this phase. British and Commonwealth guns fired to suppress enemy positions, break up counterattacks, hit batteries, and keep defenders under constant strain. The gunners did not merely open the battle and then fall silent. They were part of the continuing machinery of pressure. Their shells helped infantry cross exposed ground, covered consolidation after objectives were taken, and punished Axis movement when reserves tried to shift from one sector to another. Yet artillery could not solve everything. Many defenders survived bombardment in dugouts or behind cover, and once the fire lifted, infantry still had to move forward. The guns could tilt the odds, but they could not remove the need for close combat.

Engineers remained central because the minefields did not disappear after the first night. New routes had to be opened, old routes improved, and damaged lanes repaired or remarked. Traffic had to be pushed forward in darkness and dust, then reorganized again after shellfire, breakdowns, or mine strikes. Every local attack needed a path for ammunition, anti-tank guns, and evacuation. Crumbling was therefore not only a tactical process at the front line; it was a constant struggle to keep the battle physically connected to the rear. If a forward company ran short of ammunition because vehicles could not find the route, its position became fragile. If an anti-tank gun could not be brought forward, infantry might hold ground only until the next armored counterattack.

The armored forces were still important, but their role was often frustrating. Tank crews had expected, or at least hoped, that the offensive would release them into a more mobile battle. Instead, many found themselves used in limited thrusts, defensive deployments, or movements constrained by mines and anti-tank fire. This did not make them irrelevant. Armor helped protect gains, threatened enemy reserves, and added weight when local attacks needed support. But the phase showed that armored warfare can be slow even when tanks are present in large numbers. A tank’s engine may be powerful, but the battle around it can reduce its movement to a few cautious yards. At El Alamein, steel and horsepower had to wait on cleared ground, artillery cover, and command judgment.

The Axis defenders were under severe pressure, yet they remained formidable. German units had experience, strong tactical habits, and a deep understanding of how to use anti-tank guns with armor and artillery. Italian troops held important sectors and fought in conditions made worse by shortage, bombardment, and the growing Allied advantage in the air. The defense could bend locally, lose outposts, and still strike back with guns or counterattacks. This is why the crumbling phase cost so much. The Eighth Army was not pressing against a hollow shell. It was pressing against a defense that still had teeth, and every attempt to wear it down exposed attackers to men who understood the value of delay.

Rommel’s problem was that delay itself was becoming expensive. His army had limited fuel and limited reserves, while Allied artillery and aircraft made movement dangerous. When a position was threatened, he could not shift forces with the same freedom he had enjoyed earlier in the desert war. A counterattack might restore a local situation, but it consumed petrol, risked tanks, and wore down crews. A reserve held back too long might arrive after the ground was lost. A reserve committed too soon might be trapped in the very attrition Montgomery wanted to impose. Crumbling was designed to force those choices repeatedly. The Eighth Army could afford a long battle more than the Axis could, and that imbalance lay at the heart of Montgomery’s method.

For soldiers on both sides, the days blurred. Heat, dust, shellfire, night movement, broken sleep, and the constant fear of mines created a world in which time was measured by attacks, rations, ammunition, and casualties. Units that had fought one night might be ordered to hold the next day, then prepare for another push after dark. Wounded men passed back through crowded lanes, while replacements and supplies moved forward along the same dangerous routes. Commanders tried to keep track of battered companies, shifting boundaries, and uncertain reports. The name El Alamein can sound clean and decisive after the fact, but during the crumbling phase it was a battle of endurance, where men often saw only the next objective and the next burst of fire.

This phase also revealed the difference between attrition as waste and attrition as method. Montgomery has often been criticized for caution, and there is room to debate whether opportunities were missed or whether the battle could have been handled differently. But crumbling was not simply a lack of imagination. It was a way of turning the Eighth Army’s strengths into pressure against the Axis weakness. Britain and its allies had more artillery ammunition, more tanks in reserve, more fuel, better supply depth, and increasing air superiority. Rommel had tactical skill and tough troops, but he could not easily replace what he lost. The logic of the phase was harsh: make the enemy spend what he cannot afford.

In the longer history of armored warfare, crumbling is a reminder that mechanized battles are not always swift. The popular image of tank warfare emphasizes breakthrough and pursuit, the moment when engines roar and the front dissolves. El Alamein shows the other side of the story. Before movement can become exploitation, an army may have to batter through mines, guns, and defensive depth with infantry, artillery, engineers, and logistics. The tank remains central, but its freedom is created by the failure of the enemy’s whole defensive system. Crumbling was the work of making that system fail. It was not glamorous, but it was modern war in one of its most revealing forms.

By the end of the crumbling phase, the Axis line had not yet collapsed, but it had been weakened in ways that mattered. Positions had been lost, reserves had been drawn in, ammunition and fuel had been consumed, and the defenders had been forced to fight on Montgomery’s timetable more than their own. The Eighth Army had paid heavily, and the breakthrough still remained ahead, but the balance was shifting. El Alamein was becoming less a test of whether the British could enter the Axis line and more a test of whether Rommel could keep a battered defense alive under repeated pressure. Crumbling turned the first break-in into a sustained contest of endurance. It prepared the ground, morally and materially, for the next crisis: the Axis counterblows that would try to throw the offensive back.