Editing First Battle of El Alamein (section)

==Battle==
An Italian division was to attack the Alamein box from the west and another was to follow the 90th Light Division. The Italian XX Corps was to follow the ''Afrika Korps'' and deal with the Qattara box while the [[133rd Armored Division "Littorio"|133rd Armoured Division "Littorio"]] and German reconnaissance units would protect the right flank.<ref name= "Playfair3498">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=340}}.</ref> Rommel had planned to attack on 30 June but supply and transport difficulties had resulted in a day's delay, vital to the defending forces reorganising on the Alamein line. On 30 June, the 90th Light Division was still {{cvt|15|mi|km}} short of its start line, 21st ''Panzer'' Division was immobilised through lack of fuel and the promised air support had yet to move into its advanced airfields.<ref>{{harvnb|Hinsley|1981|pp=392–393}}.</ref>

===Panzer Army Africa attacks===

[[Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-783-0110-12, Nordafrika, Panzer II, Kraftfahrzeuge.jpg|thumb|A [[Panzer II]] of the ''Afrika Korps''.]]
At 03:00 on 1 July, 90th Light Infantry Division advanced east but strayed too far north and ran into the 1st South African Division's defences and became pinned down.<ref name="Playfair3498"/><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|p=81}}.</ref> The 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions of the ''Afrika Korps'' were delayed by a sandstorm and then a heavy air attack. It was broad daylight by the time they circled round the back of Deir el Abyad where they found the feature to the east of it occupied by [[18th Indian Infantry Brigade]] which, after a hasty journey from Iraq, had occupied the exposed position just west of Ruweisat Ridge and east of Deir el Abyad at Deir el Shein late on 28 June to create one of Norrie's additional defensive boxes.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackenzie|1951|p=580}}.</ref>

At about 10:00 on 1 July, 21st Panzer Division attacked Deir el Shein. 18th Indian Infantry Brigade—supported by 23 [[Ordnance QF 25 pounder|25-pounder]] gun-howitzers, 16 of the new [[Ordnance QF 6 pounder gun|6-pounder]] anti-tank guns and nine [[Matilda II|Matilda tanks]]—held out the whole day in desperate fighting but by evening the Germans succeeded in over-running them.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|pp=340–341}}.</ref> The time they bought allowed Auchinleck to organise the defence of the western end of Ruweisat Ridge.<ref name= "Mac581-2">{{harvnb|Mackenzie|1951|pp=581–582}}.</ref> The 1st Armoured Division had been sent to intervene at Deir el Shein. They ran into 15th Panzer Division just south of Deir el Shein and drove it west. By the end of the day's fighting, the ''Afrika Korps'' had 37 tanks left out of its initial complement of 55.<ref name="Playfair341">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=341}}.</ref>

During the early afternoon, 90th Light had extricated itself from the El Alamein box defences and resumed its move eastward. It came under artillery fire from the three South African brigade groups and was forced to dig in.<ref name="Playfair341"/>

On 2 July, Rommel ordered the resumption of the offensive. Once again, 90th Light failed to make progress so Rommel called the ''Afrika Korps'' to abandon its planned sweep southward and instead join the effort to break through to the coast road by attacking east toward Ruweisat Ridge. The British defence of Ruweisat Ridge relied on an improvised formation called "Robcol", comprising a regiment each of field artillery and light anti-aircraft artillery and a company of infantry. Robcol—in line with normal British Army practice for ''ad hoc'' formations—was named after its commander, Brigadier Robert Waller, the Commander Royal Artillery of the 10th Indian Infantry Division.<ref name="Mac582">{{harvnb|Mackenzie|1951|p=582}}.</ref> Robcol was able to buy time, and by late afternoon the two British armoured brigades joined the battle with 4th Armoured Brigade engaging the 15th Panzer Division and 22nd Armoured Brigade and the 21st Panzer Division respectively.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|pp=342–343}}.</ref> They drove back repeated attacks by the Axis armour, who then withdrew before dusk. The British reinforced Ruweisat on the night of 2 July. The now enlarged Robcol became "Walgroup".<ref name="Mac582"/> Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force (RAF) made heavy air attacks on the Axis units.<ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|p=88}}.</ref>

The next day, 3 July, Rommel ordered the ''Afrika Korps'' to resume its attack on the Ruweisat ridge with the [[Italian XX Motorised Corps]] on its southern flank. [[Italian X Corps]], meanwhile were to hold El Mreir. By this stage the ''Afrika Korps'' had only 26 operational tanks.<ref name="Playfair343">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=343}}.</ref> There was a sharp armoured exchange south of Ruweisat ridge during the morning and the main Axis advance was held.<ref name="Playfair343"/> On 3 July, the RAF flew 780 sorties.{{efn|During the period 1 to 27 June the Desert Air Force flew nearly 15,400 sorties.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=335}}.</ref> Auchinleck later wrote in his official despatches "...Our air forces could not have done more than they did to help and sustain the Eighth Army in its struggle. Their effort was continuous by day and night, and the effect on the enemy was tremendous. I am certain that, had it not been for their devoted and exceptional efforts, we should not have been able to stop the enemy on the El Alamein position."<ref>{{London Gazette|issue=38177 |date=13 January 1948 |page=367|supp=y}}</ref>}}

To relieve the pressure on the right and centre of the Eighth Army line, XIII Corps on the left advanced from the Qattara box (known to the New Zealanders as the Kaponga box). The plan was that the New Zealand 2nd Division—with the remains of Indian 5th Division and 7th Motor Brigade under its command—would swing north to threaten the Axis flank and rear.<ref name="Mac582"/> This force encountered the [[132nd Armored Division "Ariete"|132nd Armoured Division "Ariete"]]'s artillery, which was driving on the southern flank of the division as it attacked Ruweisat. The Italian commander ordered his battalions to fight their way out independently but the ''Ariete'' lost 531 men (about 350 were prisoners), 36 pieces of artillery, six (or eight?) tanks, and 55 trucks.<ref name="Mitcham113">{{harvnb|Mitcham|2007|p=113}}</ref> By the end of the day, the ''Ariete'' Division had only five tanks.<ref>Walker.I, (2003), p.141</ref> The day ended once again with the ''Afrika Korps'' and ''Ariete'' coming off second best to the superior numbers of the British 22nd Armoured and 4th Armoured Brigades,{{efn|The two British armoured brigades started on 3 July with a total strength of 119 tanks<ref name= "Playfair343"/>}} frustrating Rommel's attempts to resume his advance.<ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|p=92}}.</ref> The RAF once again played its part, flying 900 sorties during the day.<ref name= "Playfair343"/>

To the south, on 5 July the New Zealand group resumed its advance northwards towards El Mreir intending to cut the rear of the ''Ariete'' Division. Heavy fire from the Italian [[27th Infantry Division "Brescia"]] at El Mreir, however, {{cvt|5|mi|km}} north of the Qattara box, checked their progress and led XIII Corps to call off its attack.<ref name="Mitcham113"/>

===Rommel digs in===
[[File:Rommel with his aides.jpg|thumb|upright|left|Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, with his aides during the desert campaign, 1942.]]

At this point, Rommel decided his exhausted forces could make no further headway without resting and regrouping. He reported to the [[Oberkommando der Wehrmacht|German High Command]] that his three German divisions numbered just 1,200–1,500 men each and resupply was proving highly problematic because of enemy interference from the air. He expected to have to remain on the defensive for at least two weeks.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=344}}.</ref>

Rommel was by this time suffering from the extended length of his supply lines. The Allied [[Desert Air Force]] (DAF) was concentrating fiercely on his fragile and elongated supply routes while British mobile columns moving west and striking from the south were causing havoc in the Axis rear echelons.<ref>{{harvnb|Clifford|1943|p=285}}.</ref> Rommel could afford these losses even less since shipments from Italy had been substantially reduced (in June, he received {{cvt|5000|ST|t}} of supplies compared with {{cvt|34000|ST|t}} in May and 400 vehicles (compared with 2,000 in May).<ref name="NZ79">{{Cite web |url=https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c9.html#n79 |title=Scoullar (1955), p. 79 |access-date=2 November 2007 |archive-date=16 October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016044919/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c9.html#n79 |url-status=live }}</ref> Meanwhile, the Eighth Army was reorganising and rebuilding, benefiting from its short lines of communication. By 4 July, the [[9th Division (Australia)|Australian 9th Division]] had entered the line in the north, and on 9 July the [[5th Indian Infantry Brigade|Indian 5th Infantry Brigade]] also returned, taking over the Ruweisat position. At the same time, the fresh [[161st Indian Infantry Brigade|Indian 161st Infantry Brigade]] reinforced the depleted Indian 5th Infantry Division.<ref>{{harvnb|Mackenzie|1951|p=583}}.</ref>

===Tel el Eisa===
On 8 July, Auchinleck ordered the new XXX Corps commander—Lieutenant-General [[William Havelock Ramsden|William Ramsden]]—to capture the low ridges at Tel el Eisa and Tel el Makh Khad and then to push mobile battle groups south toward Deir el Shein and raiding parties west toward the airfields at El Daba. Meanwhile, XIII Corps would prevent the Axis from moving troops north to reinforce the coastal sector.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=345}}.</ref> Ramsden tasked the Australian 9th Division with [[44th Royal Tank Regiment]] under command with the Tel el Eisa objective and the South African 1st Division with eight supporting tanks, Tel el Makh Khad. The raiding parties were to be provided by 1st Armoured Division.<ref name="Playfair346">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=346}}.</ref>

Following a bombardment which started at 03:30 on 10 July, the Australian 26th Brigade launched an attack against the ridge north of Tel el Eisa station along the coast (Trig 33). The bombardment was the heaviest barrage yet experienced in North Africa, which created panic in the inexperienced soldiers of the Italian [[60th Infantry Division "Sabratha"]] who had only just occupied inadequate defences in the sector.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=58}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo|1966|pp=70–71}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|pp=139–141}}.</ref><ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c19.html#n205 p. 205] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016120242/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c19.html#n205 |date=16 October 2008 }}</ref> The Australian attack took more than 1,500 prisoners, routed an Italian Division and overran the German Signals Intercept Company 621.<ref>{{harvnb|Stewart|2002|p=125}}.</ref> Meanwhile, the South Africans had by late morning taken Tel el Makh Khad and were in covering positions.<ref name="Playfair346"/>

Elements of the German 164th Light Division and Italian [[101st Motorized Division "Trieste"|101st Motorised Division "Trieste"]] arrived to plug the gap torn in the Axis defences.<ref name="Playfair346"/><ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=65}}.</ref><ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c21.html#n220 p. 220] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202195019/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c21.html#n220 |date=2 December 2008 }}</ref> That afternoon and evening, tanks from the German 15th Panzer and Italian ''Trieste'' Divisions launched counter-attacks against the Australian positions, the counter-attacks failing in the face of overwhelming Allied artillery and the Australian anti-tank guns.<ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|pp=141–142}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo|1966|p=74}}.</ref>

At first light on 11 July, the Australian [[2/24th Battalion (Australia)|2/24th Battalion]] supported by tanks from 44th Royal Tank Regiment attacked the western end of Tel el Eisa hill (Point 24).<ref name="Playfair346"/><ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=67}}.</ref> By early afternoon, the feature was captured and was then held against a series of Axis counter-attacks throughout the day. A small column of armour, motorised infantry, and guns then set off to raid Deir el Abyad and caused a battalion of Italian infantry to surrender. Its progress was checked at the Miteirya ridge and it was forced to withdraw that evening to the El Alamein box.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|pp=346–347}}.</ref> During the day, more than 1,000 Italian prisoners were taken.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=68}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|p=143}}.</ref><ref name="Barr114"/><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|p=114}}.</ref>

On 12 July, the 21st Panzer Division launched a counter-attack against Trig 33 and Point 24, which was beaten off after a 2½-hour fight, with more than 600 German dead and wounded left strewn in front of the Australian positions.<ref name="Barr114">{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=70}}.</ref> The next day, the 21st ''Panzerdivision'' launched an attack against Point 33 and South African positions in the El Alamein box.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=72}}.</ref>  In the El Alamein Box, the Royal Durban Light Infantry (RDLI) faced the full force of the German attacks. The RDLI did not have adequate anti-tank guns and the German artillery cut the South African telephone cables, disrupting their field artillery support. The attack was halted by intense artillery fire from the defenders. Although the South Africans repulsed the German attack, by 16:10, German tanks and dive bombers had advanced up to 300 metres from the South African positions. The 9th Australian field artillery, 7th British Medium Regiment had to assist in repulsing the German attack. At last light, the 79th British Anti-Tank Regiment was deployed to assist the South African forces, but the German attack was petering out. The South African losses on 13 July totalled nine dead and 42 wounded. 

South African casualties were relatively light due to their skill in withstanding the German attacks negated their casualties. Had the El Alamein Box been captured by Rommel's forces, the consequences for the Eighth Army would have been devastating; the El Alamein line would have been ruptured, and Australian forces would have been cut off from the Eighth Army and forced into a general retreat to the Nile Delta.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Jacobs |first=Colonel (Dr) C. J. |journal=Military History Journal |issue=2 |date=December 2004 |title=The Role of the 1st South African Division during the First Battle of El Alamein, 1–30 July 1942 |url=http://www.samilitaryhistory.org |publisher=The South African Military History Society |volume=13 |pages=1 |via=Database}}</ref> Rommel was still determined to drive the British forces from the northern salient. Although the Australian defenders had been forced back from Point 24, heavy casualties had been inflicted on 21st Panzer Division.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|pp=73–76}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|p=145}}.</ref><ref>Maughan (1966), [http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf pp. 565–566] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208210804/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf |date=8 December 2015 }}</ref> Another attack was mounted on 15 July but made no ground against tenacious resistance. On 16 July, the Australians—supported by British tanks—launched an attack to try to take Point 24 but were forced back by German counter-attacks,<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|pp=78–80}}.</ref> suffering nearly fifty per cent casualties.<ref name="Johnston03p86">{{harvnb|Johnston|2003|p=86}}.</ref>

After seven days of fierce fighting, the battle in the north for the Tel el Eisa salient petered out. Australian 9th Division estimated at least 2,000 Axis troops had been killed and more than 3,700 prisoners of war taken in the battle.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=81}}.</ref> Possibly the most important feature of the battle, however, was that the Australians had captured Signals Intercept Company 621, which had been  providing Rommel with priceless [[Signals intelligence|intelligence]] from British radio communications.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=66}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|pp=112–114}}.</ref>

===First Battle of Ruweisat Ridge===
[[File:The British Army in North Africa 1942 E14235.jpg|thumb|A soldier inspects an Italian M13/40 tank that was knocked out near El Alamein, 11 July 1942]]
[[File:The British Army in North Africa 1942 E14520.jpg|thumb|A German 88mm anti-tank gun captured and destroyed by New Zealand troops near El Alamein, 17 July 1942.]]
As the Axis forces dug in, Auchinleck—having drawn a number of German units to the coastal sector during the Tel el Eisa fighting—developed a plan codenamed Operation Bacon to attack the Italian [[17th Infantry Division "Pavia"]] and ''Brescia'' Divisions in the centre of the front at the Ruweisat ridge.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=347}}.</ref> Signals intelligence was giving Auchinleck clear details of the Axis order of battle and force dispositions. His policy was to "...hit the Italians wherever possible in view of their low morale and because the Germans cannot hold extended fronts without them."<ref>{{harvnb|Hinsley|1981|p=404}}.</ref>

The intention was for the 4th New Zealand Brigade and 5th New Zealand Brigade (on 4th Brigade's right) to attack north-west to seize the western part of the ridge and on their right the Indian 5th Infantry Brigade to capture the eastern part of the ridge in a night attack. Then, the 2nd Armoured Brigade would pass through the centre of the infantry objectives to exploit toward Deir el Shein and the Miteirya Ridge. On the left, the 22nd Armoured Brigade would be ready to move forward to protect the infantry as they consolidated on the ridge.<ref>{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=348}}.</ref>

The attack commenced at 23:00 on 14 July. Shortly before dawn on 15 July,  the two New Zealand brigades took their objectives, but minefields and pockets of resistance left behind the forward troops' advance created disarray among the attackers, impeding the move forward of reserves, artillery, and support arms. As a result, the New Zealand brigades occupied exposed positions on the ridge without support weapons except for a few anti-tank guns.<ref name="Playfair349">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=349}}.</ref> More significantly, the two British armoured brigades failed to move forward to protect the infantry. At first light, a detachment from the 15th Panzer Divisions, the 8th Panzer Regiment launched a counter-attack against New Zealand 4th Brigade's 22nd Battalion. A sharp exchange knocked out their anti-tank guns, and the infantry found themselves exposed in the open with no alternative but to surrender. Approximately 350 New Zealanders were taken prisoner.<ref name= "Playfair349"/>

While the 2nd New Zealand Division attacked the western slopes of [[Ruweisat Ridge]], the Indian 5th Brigade made small gains on Ruweisat ridge to the east. By 07:00, word finally reached the 2nd Armoured Brigade, which started to move north west. Two regiments became embroiled in a minefield, but the third was able to join Indian 5th Infantry Brigade as it renewed its attack. With the help of the armour and artillery, the Indians were able to take their objectives by early afternoon.<ref name="Playfair349"/> Meanwhile, the 22nd Armoured Brigade had been engaged at Alam Nayil by 90th Light Division and the ''Ariete'' Armoured Division, advancing from the south. While—with help from mobile infantry and artillery columns from 7th Armoured Division—they pushed back the Axis probe with ease, they were prevented from advancing north to protect the New Zealand flank.<ref name="Playfair351">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=351}}.</ref>

Seeing the ''Brescia'' and ''Pavia'' under pressure, Rommel rushed German troops to Ruweisat. By 15:00, the 3rd Reconnaissance Regiment and part of 21st  Panzer Division from the north and 33rd Reconnaissance Regiment and the Baade Group comprising elements from 15th Panzer Division  from the south were in place under Lieutenant-General (''[[General der Panzertruppe]]'') [[Walther Nehring]].<ref name="Playfair350">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=350}}.</ref> At 17:00, Nehring launched his counter-attack. 4th New Zealand Brigade were still short of support weapons and also, by this time, ammunition. Once again, the anti-tank defences were overwhelmed and about 380 New Zealanders were taken prisoner including Captain [[Charles Upham]]<ref name="Playfair350"/> who gained a second [[Victoria Cross]] for his actions, including destroying a German tank, several guns, and vehicles with grenades despite being shot through the elbow by a machine gun bullet. At about 18:00, the brigade HQ was overrun. At about 18:15, the 2nd Armoured Brigade engaged the German armour and halted the Axis eastward advance. At dusk, Nehring broke off the action.<ref name="Playfair350"/>[[File:Commonwealth_and_British_Prisoners_-_1st_battle_of_El_Alamein.jpg|British, Australian and New Zealand POWs awaiting transport to the Italian mainland.|thumb]]Early on 16 July, Nehring renewed his attack. The 5th Indian Infantry Brigade pushed them back, but it was clear from intercepted radio traffic that a further attempt would be made. Strenuous preparations to dig in anti-tank guns were made, artillery fire plans organised, and a regiment from the 22nd Armoured Brigade Gsent to reinforce the 2nd Armoured Brigade.<ref name= "Playfair351"/> When the attack resumed late in the afternoon, it was repulsed. After the battle, the Indians counted 24 knocked out tanks, as well as armoured cars and numerous anti-tank guns left on the battlefield.<ref>{{harvnb|Bharucha|Prasad|1956|p=422}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|pp=143–146}}.</ref>
In three days' fighting, the Allies took more than 2,000 Axis prisoners, mostly from the Italian ''Brescia'' and ''Pavia'' Divisions; the New Zealand division suffered 1,405 casualties.<ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|pp=118–142}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Scoullar|1955|pp=232–298}}.</ref> The fighting at Tel el Eisa and Ruweisat had caused the destruction of three Italian divisions, forced Rommel to redeploy his armour from the south, and made it necessary to lay minefields in front of the remaining Italian divisions and stiffen them with detachments of German troops.<ref name="Hinsley405"/>

===Miteirya Ridge (Ruin Ridge)===
To relieve pressure on Ruweisat ridge, Auchinleck ordered the Australian 9th Division to make another attack from the north. In the early hours of 17 July, the Australian 24th Brigade—supported by 44th [[Royal Tank Regiment]] (RTR) and strong fighter cover from the air—assaulted Miteirya ridge<ref name= "Playfair351"/> (known as "Ruin ridge" to the Australians). The initial night attack went well, with 736 prisoners taken, mostly from the Italian ''[[102nd Motorized Division "Trento"|Trento]]'' and ''[[101st Motorized Division "Trieste"|Trieste]]'' motorised divisions. Once again, however, a critical situation for the Axis forces was retrieved by vigorous counter-attacks from hastily assembled German and Italian forces, which forced the Australians to withdraw back to their start line with 300 casualties.<ref name="Playfair351"/><ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|pp=83–85}}.</ref><ref>Maughan (1966), [http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf pp. 572–574] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208210804/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf |date=8 December 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Stewart|2002|p=130}}.</ref> Although the Australian Official History of the 24th Brigade's [[2/32nd Battalion (Australia)|2/32nd Battalion]] describes the counter-attack force as "German",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11283.asp |publisher=Australian War Memorial |title=Australians at War: 2/32 Battalion |access-date=27 December 2007 |work=Australian War Memorial website}}</ref> the Australian historian Mark Johnston reports that German records indicate that it was the ''Trento'' Division that overran the Australian battalion.<ref>{{cite book |last=Johnston |first=Mark |title=Fighting the Enemy: Australian Soldiers and Their Adversaries in World War II |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zOgMy7rBFCoC&pg=PA13 |date=16 April 2000 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-78222-7 |page=13}}</ref>{{efn|Barton Maughan—Australia's official historian—has written that "two forward platoons of the 2/32nd's left company were overrun, 22 men were taken prisoner"<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/awm52/8/AWM52-8-3-36-016.pdf |title=Maughan (1966), p. 575 |access-date=6 January 2008 |archive-date=27 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227210124/http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/awm52/8/AWM52-8-3-36-016.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> but fails to shed more light on this attack.}}

===Second Battle of Ruweisat Ridge (El Mreir)===
[[File:The British Army in North Africa 1942 E14114.jpg|thumb|A 25-pdr field gun of 11th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, in action, July 1942.]]
The Eighth Army now enjoyed a massive superiority in material over the Axis forces: 1st Armoured Division had 173 tanks and more in reserve or in transit,<ref name="Playfair353">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=353}}.</ref> including 61 [[Grant (tank)|Grants]]<ref name="Hinsley405">{{harvnb|Hinsley|1981|p=405}}.</ref> while Rommel possessed only 38 German tanks and 51 Italian tanks<ref>Maughan (1966), [http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf p. 577] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208210804/https://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/19/chapters/12.pdf |date=8 December 2015 }}</ref><ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c29.html#n328 p.328] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016060853/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c29.html#n328 |date=16 October 2008 }} and [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c29.html#n337 p.337] </ref> although his armoured units had some 100 tanks awaiting repair.<ref name="Playfair353"/>

Auchinleck's plan was for Indian Infantry 161st Brigade to attack along Ruweisat ridge to take Deir el Shein, while the New Zealand 6th Brigade attacked from south of the ridge to the El Mreir depression. At daylight, two British armoured brigades—2nd Armoured Brigade and the fresh 23rd Armoured Brigade—would sweep through the gap created by the infantry. The plan was complicated and ambitious.<ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c29.html#n319 pp. 319–337] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016060853/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c29.html#n319 |date=16 October 2008 }}</ref>

The infantry night attack began at 16:30 on 21 July. The New Zealand attack took their objectives in the El Mreir depression<ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c30.html#n338 pp. 338–351] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081022193840/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c30.html#n338 |date=22 October 2008 }}</ref> but, once again, many vehicles failed to arrive and they were short of support arms in an exposed position. At daybreak on 22 July, the British armoured brigades again failed to advance. At daybreak on 22 July, Nehring's 5th and 8th ''Panzer'' Regiments responded with a rapid counter-attack which quickly overran the New Zealand infantry in the open, inflicting more than 900 casualties on the New Zealanders.<ref>Scoullar (1955), [https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c31.html#n352 pp. 352–363] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725155323/http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Egyp-c31.html#n352 |date=25 July 2008 }}</ref> 2nd Armoured Brigade sent forward two regiments to help but they were halted by mines and anti-tank fire.<ref name="Playfair355">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=355}}.</ref>

The attack by Indian 161st Brigade had mixed fortunes. On the left, the initial attempt to clear the western end of Ruweisat failed but at 08:00 a renewed attack by the reserve battalion succeeded. On the right, the attacking battalion broke into the Deir el Shein position but was driven back in hand-to-hand fighting.<ref name="Playfair355"/>

Compounding the disaster at El Mreir, at 08:00 the commander of 23rd Armoured Brigade ordered his brigade forward, intent on following his orders to the letter. Major-General Gatehouse—commanding 1st Armoured Division—had been unconvinced that a path had been adequately cleared in the minefields and had suggested the advance be cancelled.<ref name="Playfair356">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=356}}.</ref> However, XIII Corps commander—Lieutenant-General [[William Gott]]—rejected this and ordered the attack but on a centre line {{cvt|1|mi|km}} south of the original plan which he incorrectly believed was mine-free. These orders failed to get through and the attack went ahead as originally planned. The brigade found itself mired in mine fields and under heavy fire. They were then counter-attacked by 21st Panzer at 11:00 and forced to withdraw.<ref name="Playfair356"/> The 23rd Armoured Brigade was destroyed, with the loss of 40 tanks destroyed and 47 badly damaged.<ref name="Playfair356"/>

At 17:00, Gott ordered 5th Indian Infantry Division to execute a night attack to capture the western half of Ruweisat ridge and Deir el Shein. 3/[[14th Punjab Regiment]] from [[9th Indian Infantry Brigade]] attacked at 02:00 on 23 July but failed as they lost their direction. A further attempt in daylight succeeded in breaking into the position but intense fire from three sides resulted in control being lost as the commanding officer was killed, and four of his senior officers were wounded or went missing.<ref name="Playfair357">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=357}}.</ref>

===Attack on Tel el Eisa resumed===
[[File:Destroyed Panzer IIIs near Tel el Eisa 1942.jpg|right|thumb|Destroyed Panzer IIIs near Tel el Eisa]]
To the north, Australian 9th Division continued its attacks. At 06:00 on 22 July, Australian 26th Brigade attacked Tel el Eisa and Australian 24th Brigade attacked Tel el Makh Khad toward Miteirya (Ruin Ridge).<ref name="Playfair357"/> It was during this fighting that [[Arthur Stanley Gurney]] performed the actions for which he was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. The fighting for Tel el Eisa was costly, but by the afternoon the Australians controlled the feature.<ref name= "Playfair357"/><ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|pp=88–93, 97}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|pp=208–211}}.</ref> That evening, Australian 24th Brigade attacked Tel el Makh Khad with the tanks of 50th RTR in support. The tank unit had not been trained in close infantry support and failed to co-ordinate with the Australian infantry. The result was that the infantry and armour advanced independently and having reached the objective 50th RTR lost 23 tanks because they lacked infantry support.<ref name="Playfair357"/><ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|pp=93–96}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|pp=212–214}}.</ref>

Once more, the Eighth Army had failed to destroy Rommel's forces, despite its overwhelming superiority in men and equipment. On the other hand, for Rommel the situation continued to be grave as, despite successful defensive operations, his infantry had suffered heavy losses and he reported that "the situation is critical in the extreme".<ref>Panzer Army Africa Battle Report dated 22 July 1942 K.T.B. 1220</ref>

====Operation Manhood====
On 26/27 July, Auchinleck launched Operation Manhood in the northern sector in a final attempt to break the Axis forces. XXX Corps was reinforced with 1st Armoured Division (less 22nd Armoured Brigade), 4th Light Armoured Brigade, and 69th Infantry Brigade. The plan was to break the enemy line south of Miteirya ridge and exploit north-west. The South Africans were to make and mark a gap in the minefields to the south-east of Miteirya by midnight of 26/27 July.<ref name="Playfair357"/> By 01:00 on 27 July, 24th Australian Infantry Brigade was to have captured the eastern end of the Miteirya ridge and would exploit toward the north-west. The 69th Infantry Brigade would pass through the minefield gap created by the South Africans to Deir el Dhib and clear and mark gaps in further minefields. The 2nd Armoured Brigade would then pass through to El Wishka and would be followed by 4th Light Armoured Brigade which would attack the Axis lines of communication.<ref name= "Playfair358">{{harvnb|Playfair|Flynn|Molony|Gleave|2004|p=358}}.</ref>

[[File:Valentine tank Mk3 desert.jpg|left|upright=1.3|thumb|A [[Valentine tank]] in North Africa, carrying British infantry]]
This was the third attempt to break through in the northern sector, and the Axis defenders were expecting the attack.<ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|p=176}}; {{harvnb|Bates|1992|p=216}}.</ref> Like the previous attacks, it was hurriedly and therefore poorly planned.<ref>{{harvnb|Bates|1992|p=217}}.</ref> The Australian 24th Brigade managed to take their objectives on Miteirya Ridge by 02:00{{efn|Playfair states that the "...timing soon fell behind, but by 3&nbsp;am the Australians had taken their objective"<ref name= "Playfair358"/>}} of 27 July.<ref>{{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=102–106}}; {{harvnb|Bates|1992|p=219}}.</ref> To the south, the British 69th Brigade set off at 01:30 and managed to take their objectives by about 08:00. However, the supporting anti-tank units became lost in the darkness or delayed by minefields, leaving the attackers isolated and exposed when daylight came. There followed a period during which reports from the battlefront regarding the minefield gaps were confused and conflicting. As a consequence, the advance of 2nd Armoured Brigade was delayed.<ref name= "Playfair358"/><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|pp=178–179, 181–182}}.</ref> Rommel launched an immediate counter-attack and the German armoured battlegroups overran the two forward battalions of 69th Brigade.<ref name= "Playfair358"/><ref>{{harvnb|Barr|2005|pp=179–181}}; {{harvnb|Johnston|Stanley|2002|p=107–112}}; {{harvnb|Bates|1992|pp=224–225}}.</ref> Meanwhile, 50th RTR supporting the Australians was having difficulty locating the minefield gaps made by Australian 2/24th Battalion. They failed to find a route through and in the process were caught by heavy fire and lost 13 tanks. The unsupported 2/28th Australian battalion on the ridge was overrun. The 69th Brigade suffered 600 casualties and the Australians 400 for no gain.<ref name="Playfair358"/>

The Eighth Army was exhausted, and on 31 July Auchinleck ordered an end to offensive operations and the strengthening of the defences to meet a major counter-offensive.

[[File:Italian high-water mark on road to Alex edited.jpg|thumb|Commemorative stone put up by the [[7th Bersaglieri Regiment]] on the road from Alexandria to El Alamein at the high-water mark for the Italian advance. The inscription reads: ''Mancò la fortuna, non-il valore'' (A lack of fortune, not of valour).]]
Rommel was later to blame the failure to break through to the Nile on how the sources of supply to his army had dried up and how:
{{blockquote|then the power of resistance of many Italian formations collapsed. The duties of comradeship, for me particularly as their Commander-in-Chief, compel me to state unequivocally that the defeats which the Italian formations suffered at Alamein in early July were not the fault of the Italian soldier. The Italian was willing, unselfish and a good comrade, and, considering the conditions under which he served, had always given better than average. There is no doubt that the achievement of every Italian unit, especially of the motorised forces, far surpassed anything that the Italian Army had done for a hundred years. Many Italian generals and officers won our admiration both as men and as soldiers. The cause of the Italian defeat had its roots in the whole Italian military state and system, in their poor armament and in the general lack of interest in the war by many Italians, both officers and statesmen. This Italian failure frequently prevented the realisation of my plans.|Rommel<ref>Liddell Hart (ed), 'The Rommel Papers' (London 1953), pp.261–262.</ref>}}

Rommel complained bitterly about the failure of important Italian convoys to get desperately needed tanks and supplies through to him, always blaming the [[Comando Supremo|Italian Supreme Command]], never suspecting British code breaking.<ref>{{harvnb|Gannon|2002|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Kgb14s5UNmAC&pg=PA81 81]}}.</ref>

According to Dr James Sadkovich and others, Rommel often displayed a distinct tendency to blame and scapegoat his Italian allies to cover up his own mistakes and deficiencies as a commander in the field.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Sadkovich |first=Dr James |date=May 1991 |title=Of Myths and Men: Rommel and the Italians in North Africa 1940–42 |journal=International History Review |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=284–313 |doi=10.1080/07075332.1991.9640582}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Robinson |first=James R. |date=September 1997 |title=The Rommel myth |journal=Military Review |volume=77 |pages=81–89}}</ref> For example, while Rommel was a very good tactical commander, the Italian and German High Commands were concerned that he lacked operational awareness and a sense of strategic objectives.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kirkland |first=Major Donald. E |date=May 1986 |title=Rommel's Desert Campaigns: a study in Operational level weakness |journal=School of Advanced Military Studies |pages=4–36}}</ref> Dr Sadkovich points out that he would often out-run his logistics and squander valuable (mostly Italian) military hardware and resources, in battle after battle, without clear strategic goals or an appreciation of the limited logistics with which his Italian allies were desperately trying to provide him.<ref name=":0" />