Famous Tank Battles

The name Fig Orchard sounds almost gentle, as if it belonged to a farm road or a quiet patch of shade in an otherwise empty desert. At El Alamein, it meant something very different. It was one of the named points in the northern sector where the 9th Australian Division tried to push the Axis line back toward the coast road and railway. After Trig 29 had become a costly anchor for the Australians, the ground beyond it had to be fought over step by step, and the Fig Orchard lay in that harsh, shallow world of wire, posts, mines, and defensive fire. Its importance was not that it was large or famous before the war, but that it sat near the enemy’s switch-line, close to the routes and positions that protected the coastal flank.

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.

For a listener following the battle without a map, the movement can be imagined this way. The Australians held ground around Trig 29, a small but valuable rise in the northern part of the battlefield. From there the fighting pushed down the forward slope toward German and Italian positions that guarded the way toward Thompson’s Post and the coast road beyond. The Fig Orchard was one of the recognizable points in that defensive system, a place where wire, posts, headquarters dugouts, and weapons made the name far more dangerous than it sounded. To take it was not merely to occupy a patch of ground. It was to loosen another joint in the Axis northern flank and keep Rommel’s attention fixed where Montgomery wanted it.

The 26th Australian Brigade carried much of this burden, with battalions such as the 2/24th and 2/48th already strained by days of fighting. These units were veteran formations, but by late October veteran did not mean fresh. Men had endured shelling, counterattacks, night movement, dust, and the exhausting uncertainty of the crumbling phase. When orders came to push toward the Fig Orchard and the positions around it, they were not advancing into an empty gap created by artillery. They were moving into a defense still held by men with machine guns, mortars, anti-tank weapons, dugouts, and observation. The Australian task was to keep the pressure alive even when the first hope of a clean breakthrough had faded.

The attack toward the Fig Orchard showed how local initiative could decide whether a plan survived contact with reality. Companies moved forward in darkness and confusion, trying to keep direction while enemy fire cut across the ground. Some posts were overrun quickly, while others held up the advance at close range. Officers and non-commissioned officers were hit, and command often passed suddenly to men who had no time to consider whether they were ready for it. This is one of the most important truths about small-unit combat. A battalion plan may be drawn at headquarters, but the plan lives or dies in the hands of platoon leaders, section commanders, runners, stretcher-bearers, and soldiers who find themselves facing a strongpoint a few yards ahead.

The ground itself made every movement difficult. The desert near the coastal sector was not a smooth parade ground but a rough, defended landscape of shallow folds, wire, old positions, mine patches, and hard soil that resisted digging. A post that looked minor from a distance could contain a mortar, a machine gun, or an anti-tank weapon placed to fire along an approach. A headquarters dug deep into the earth could survive bombardment and keep directing resistance after the barrage had moved on. The Fig Orchard area therefore became a lesson in the difference between occupying ground and clearing it. To pass through such a place, infantry had to search, assault, reorganize, and then prepare for fire from the next point ahead.

The role of tanks in this fighting was important but limited by the terrain and the defensive system. Tanks could support infantry, provide fire against strongpoints, and help discourage counterattack, but they could not simply roll through mines, wire, and close anti-tank defenses without careful coordination. When armor moved near Thompson’s Post and the tracks leading past the Fig Orchard, it had to follow lanes and avoid ground where mines or hidden guns could trap it. British Valentine tanks, useful in infantry support, were still vulnerable when exposed in narrow spaces. The lesson was familiar by now but still costly: tanks rarely win close ground by themselves. They need infantry to clear posts, engineers to open routes, artillery to suppress guns, and communications to keep each piece of the attack connected.

The Axis defenders also understood the value of the ground. German units, often mixed with or supported by Italian troops in the wider sector, used the defensive system to slow the Australians and make every advance expensive. An 88-millimeter gun or a smaller anti-tank weapon did not have to dominate the whole battlefield to matter. It only had to cover the right approach at the right moment. Machine guns and mortars could break up movement, pin a company, or force men to ground where they became vulnerable to shellfire. The defenders were not merely protecting the Fig Orchard as a place. They were using it as part of a larger shield for the coast road, the railway, and the German formations threatened by Australian pressure.

The fighting became especially harsh because the Australians were attacking through a chain of named localities that fed into one another. Trig 29, the Fig Orchard, Thompson’s Post, the road, the railway, and later the Saucer were not isolated episodes. Each one affected the next. If Trig 29 gave observation, the Fig Orchard opened or blocked movement down the slope. If Thompson’s Post remained active, it could pour fire into routes that other units needed. If the coastal road was threatened, Rommel had to respond. The battle therefore turned small geography into operational pressure. A few hundred yards gained by infantry could force decisions at corps and army level because those yards changed what the enemy had to defend.

The cost of the Fig Orchard fighting was not only in the men killed or wounded during the assault. It was also in the exhaustion of units asked to attack, consolidate, and then attack again before they had recovered. Companies that had begun as organized bodies could be reduced to fragments, with officers gone and survivors digging in wherever they could. A battalion commander might know that the larger plan required pressure to continue, while also seeing that his forward companies were too depleted to hold an overextended line. These were not easy decisions, and they should not be judged as if commanders were moving counters on a board. They were deciding how far men could be pushed before a hard-won gain became a trap.

The Fig Orchard also reveals why the northern fighting had such influence on the wider armored battle. Montgomery was preparing to shift the decisive blow, but he needed Rommel’s attention and reserves drawn toward the Australian sector. The pressure near the coast did exactly that because it threatened ground the Axis could not ignore. Rommel could not allow the coastal route to be unhinged without risking the isolation of troops farther east. Every counterattack, every gun shifted, and every reserve committed northward helped shape the conditions for the later breakthrough farther south. Infantry fighting at the Fig Orchard therefore contributed to armored success elsewhere, not by racing ahead in tanks, but by fixing the enemy and consuming his strength.

For the men who fought there, the operational meaning may have been invisible. What they knew was the immediate world of flares, wire, mortar bursts, wounded comrades, uncertain directions, and enemy posts that had to be silenced before anyone could move. They knew the difficulty of digging into hard desert under fire and the danger of being counterattacked before supporting weapons arrived. They knew that a position taken in darkness could look entirely different at dawn, when enemy observers and gunners found it. The battle’s famous reputation as a turning point can hide this experience. At the Fig Orchard, victory did not look like a sweeping pursuit. It looked like survival in a shallow scrape of earth while the next order formed behind the line.

The Fig Orchard deserves its place in this season because it shows El Alamein in its true scale: large in consequence, small in immediate experience. A gentle name became attached to a killing ground because modern armored warfare often depends on places that seem insignificant until they control movement, fire, and decision. The Australians who fought through the Fig Orchard were not merely clearing scenery before the tank battle. They were making the tank battle possible by forcing Rommel to defend the northern flank, by wearing down German and Italian infantry, and by pushing the Axis line toward a crisis it could not repair indefinitely. Progress came in yards, but those yards mattered. In the desert, a small point on the map could help move an entire army toward collapse.