I don't want to make too much of a point about this because I like Sahara but were there even any Americans in North Africa in the summer of 1942?
Tobuk fell in June 1942 and the fighting involved british and Commonwealth troops and Operation Torch, the U.S. invasion of North Africa was November 1942.
I am just wondering if anyone knows the movie plot line enough and can tell me if there was an explanantion?
Thanks
The film started by saying a small group of Americans were in North Africa to train with the British.
I don't know if that's true, but it was the explanation.
Or was it to train the Brits on the Grant tanks?
That would be similar to the American pilot on the PBY that spotted the Bismark. No actual American units involved, just a few personnel passing on their knowledge of operating lend-lease equipment?
I believe there were. We had servicemen training with our British cousins even at the Battle of Britain and the Raid on Dieppe. So, yes, it more than likely could have happened.
shareMy dad fought the Nazis in Algiers (Africa), so yes, we Americans were there.
sharefrgreg92: Your Dad, fighting in Algiers, would have been part of the Torch landings, right ?
"Sahara" takes place earlier in the year and on the eastern part of the desert.
CmdrCody
p.s. My Pop was in the Pacific, driving a LCVP landing craft (like in "Pvt. Ryan") to the beach at Okinawa. You must be proud of your Dad.
[deleted]
The way I understand it, small units of Americans were attached to the British and other Allied units to train them in American weapons like the Grant tank and the P-40 fighter. They would be the equivalent of modern-day advisors.
shareI got the impression they weren't so much as advisors as an advanced party sent to gain some battle experience firsthand. The American Army was new to the desert campaign, while the British had been fighting there for two years by that time. It would have been clearly advantageous for untried American units to get some experience along with experienced British formations. Afterwards, these units would be sent back to the main American forces to pass on the combat knowledge they had acquired.
shareYou're right about that, but they were also there as instructors to acquaint the British with the M3 Lee/Grant tank. Advisors was probably the wrong word. There were also some American P-40 pilots attached to RAF squadrons in Egypt for the same reasons.
share[deleted]
Without going into the crux of your points, let me address two. In every theater, no matter who they were fighting or training with, Americans wore American uniforms, just as British soldiers wore their own national battledress. The same is true of national insignia on equipment (altho the experiences in North Africa led to a circle being painted around the star to avoid it being mistaken for a German cross at long ranges). The use of the white star marking eventually became widespread among all Allied vehicles in western Europe, not just US--when it wasn't painted out by troops in the field as too prominent a target!
shareReedmalloy: thanks for your quick response. It tells me that what was said in the opening scene should be more telling than what markings were on the disabled tanks and other vehicles.
But here is what the current Wikipedia article has to say:
"The Medium Tank M3 first saw action in 1942 during the North African Campaign. British Lees and Grants were in action against Rommel's forces at the disastrous Battle of Gazala on May 27 that year. They continued to serve in North Africa until the end of that campaign. A regiment of M3 Mediums was also used by the U.S. 1st Armored Division in North Africa. In the North African campaign, the M3 was generally appreciated for its mechanical reliability, good armor, and heavy firepower....
The M3 was replaced by the M4 as soon as these were available, and none were used in the European theatre after May 1943."
Going down the British order of battle, and relying again on Wikipedia articles, I found armoured brigades using the Vickers Valentine tank. But also, the 4th and 22nd Armoured Brigades, part of the 7th Armoured Division, had Grant (M3) tanks at El Alamein. (And the 1st Free French Brigade was there as well.) The 2nd and 24th Brigades had Sherman and Crusader tanks. The 8th Armoured Brigade had all three: Sherman, Crusade, and Grant (M3) tanks.
So the M3 tanks were well-represented in the British armoured units in 1942.
About Americans serving in the British Army in Libya:
"On the day he returned from Africa, the Army released a communiqué on American participation in the Libyan battle, which Lodge later described to the officers and men at Fort Knox. Said he: "The men who went over from this force were the equal of anything they encountered in the desert. They came out with three tanks, and they left nine less to chase them. The tank that you call the M-3 is the match of anything in the world." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,795996,00.html
Lodge had written on 11 June 1942: "..the crews swung their tanks beside British manned tanks and were promptly attacked by German tanks at a range of about 4,000 yards.All day the American crews kept up a withering fire..and knocked out at least eight German panzers..."
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=143962&start=15&sid=8a6d473782378163fffe29294076377c
Apparently Major Henry Cabot Lodge was in command of this unit, the First American Tank Detachment(Training). And it went into action in June 1942.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=143962&start=15&sid=8a6d473782378163fffe29294076377c
The following argues against the "Sahara" story taking place in 1943:
The Battle of Kasserine Pass (Axis victory) was 19-25 February 1943, and the US 1st Armored Division had M3 tanks in that battle. But Kasserine Pass was a route through the Atlas Mountains to the coastal lowlands, thus was quite far from the Sahara desert. Furthermore, when the British Somali sergeant-major in the movie described the route to the water hole, he mentioned salt marshes -- this suggests the terrain south of the Mareth Line, not any place close to the American lines in the Atlas Mountains. So... if the American tank crew had been fighting as part of the 1st Armored, the events must have taken place sometime after February 1943.
Also, when the American army went back into action in March 1943, it did not suffer any major defeats. Nor did it really come close to where the British were operating except in the coastal area, again quite far from Sahara Desert.
Off topic: as far as I could tell, British Somali soldiers only served in Somaliland, and the idea of using them in Burma in 1943 was abandoned. Also, all the officers and non-commissioned officers were British; no Somali soldier could have risen to the rank of sergeant-major, no matter how qualified. The Indian 4th Infantry Division did serve, and a Somali soldier could have theoretically served in that unit; but he would not have been advanced to sergeant-major.
Pretty good picture: http://warart.archives.govt.nz/files/images/NCWA_00023.jpeg
There was 3 all american crews manning M3 Grants in the 1RTR, 4th Arm Bde, 7th Armoured Division.
According to a fairly reliable British source, from the http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=143962&start=15&sid=8a6d473782378163fffe29294076377c referenced earlier.
From Time Magazine, Monday, Feb. 14, 1944
"Massachusetts' slick, handsome Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. failed to answer roll call in the Senate one day last week. Colleagues soon learned why. The reading clerk droned out a letter from the Senator: he was resigning to go back into the Army. Reporters hotfooted it around to the Senator's office, learned from a secretary that Lodge was already in his major's uniform, already off somewhere on duty.
For young (41) Senator Lodge this was a second appearance in uniform. His first was before the gates of Cairo, when General Sir Claude John Eyre Auchinleck's Britons were falling back. Major Lodge accompanied the first U.S. tanks in Africa—but he was not in one of the three tanks which fought their first battle there. On his return to the U.S., he and other Congressmen went on inactive status. Lodge got himself re-elected to the Senate for another six years. After 18 months of "grave thought," he had decided that "given my age and military training, I must . . . serve my country as a combat soldier in the Army overseas."
"...not in one of the three tanks which fought their first battle there." But three tanks did fight there, in June 1942.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885342,00.html
Nice Picture!
“To accept injustice is cowardice.” ---Gandhi
One of film's characters says that the thirsty German battalion coming toward the Bogart-occupied well was "moving southeast across the Egyptian border." This locates the action firmly on the far, the eastern end, of the Sahara - a great long way from the November 1942 Allied TORCH landings on North Africa's Atlantic and Western Mediterranean coasts.
Most of all, it must be recalled and forgiven that this is a movie, that this is a propaganda morale-building "why we fight" movie, and that this is a Hollywood movie. It's - gasp! - pretend! So the presence of a U.S. tank unit in combat alongside the British, French, South Africans, Indians, and Somalis along the Egyptian- Libyan border is pure Hollywood invention; yet 'Sahara' stands up over time - it's just a solid wartime drama.
To further illuminate my point about "pretend" in my previous comment here, let me offer this anecdote which I read in Rick Atkinson's excellent book on the Sicilian and Italian campaigns 'The Day Of Battle.':
"When a soldier spotted Humphrey Bogat in the Hotel Parca [in Naples], he asked how he could purchase a pistol like the one the actor had used in 'Sahara,' which 'could fire sixteen rounds without reloading.' Bogart flicked away his cigarette and replied, 'Hollywood is a wonderful place.' "
Wakanohana:
Wikipedia is the most unreliable of any source reference in the history of man.
I strongly suggest you go back to reading rather than writing. I also suggest you use more discerning cognitive powers. I suggest a good reference library e.g. main branch of the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress Washington, D.C., reference Library of the British Museum in London's Bloomsbury area.
Thank you for your suggestion, John Rupert. I will certainly follow your advice the next time I am in New York, Washington, or London.
Regarding Wikipedia: it is one way to approach the historical truth. I could probably delete or at least edit my original comments in this thread -- putting the action in Morocco in spring 1943 -- because I am now 99.9% sure Bogart's tank was part of the 3-tank unit fighting with the Brits in June 1942. If not for Wikipedia, I would not have found the magazine article link about Henry Cabot Lodge. While not a primary source, it is a pretty good secondary source.
Wikipedia is a great go to source. Yes it can be inaccurate, which is something everyone that uses it must keep in mind but on the whole it is a good fast place to start.
“To accept injustice is cowardice.” ---Gandhi
In a previous message, I tried to make sense of the presence of a British Somali soldier in this battle or even this theatre. My mistake.
The black sergeant-major was Sudanese, not Somali.
"Crusader" Tank.
Crusader Mark III: first to bear the six-pounder
Prior to the climactic battle of El Alamein, most Crusaders had been retired from regular frontline units, replaced by much more effective M3 Lee/Grant medium tanks. The move was even accelerated when the first M4 Shermans arrived en masse. The Crusaders were relegated, with M3 Stuarts, to screening and scouting forces, to exploit breakthroughs, or relegated to secondary sectors. However, when the need for a new heavy cruiser tank, expressed since 1940, appeared compromised, a stopgap measure was taken in March 1941.
There were trials to adapt the very effective 6-pdr (57 mm/2.24 in) AT gun to a tank turret, and finally the Crusader was chosen. This was the first time this already well-proven gun was mounted on a tank. This led to a complete redesign of the interior, a new increase in frontal armor (now 51 mm/2 in), no more auxiliary turret, better protection for the turret mounting and around the ammunition racks, and some improvements to the ventilation system. The crowded turret, equipped with exhaust vents for the gun fumes also dictated a drastic reduction of crew (now three, the commander was also the loader).
The Mark III was now propelled by the Liberty Mk.IV, latest evolution of Nuffield V12. The new gun, with 50 rounds (against 110 for the previous 2-pdr), was provided with some AP rounds, and had a far better punch against existing Axis tanks, notably Panzer III and IV. The Mark III replaced all existing versions and was largely produced, form early 1942 to mid-1943. But, by then, the Crusader was seen increasingly as obsolete, being already replaced by more capable Cavalier, Centaur and Cromwell tanks, the new long-awaited generation of “cruisers”. Despite of this, they played their part in the second battle battle of El Alamein. Their great speed could still be exploited in some occasions. Many were equipped with a Anti-Mine Roller Attachment (AMRA) kit, to deal with the huge German minefields, during the first hours of the offensive.
Crusaders (almost only Mark IIIs) were still seen in action in Tunisia by 1943, Sicily, and Italy. But by mid-1944, many were converted on the stocks, or remained in home defense units, and were used for tactical drilling until 1945. The Mark III remains the biggest production of the entire Cruiser VI series.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/Cruiser-MkVI_Crusader.php
Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley
At the end of the movie it is revealed that the British helpd at El Alamein. So the hold at the well is during Oct/Nov 1942 (although then you still have to explain the Americans in the international mix here).
shareGo back to the middle of this thread. The events portrayed in this movie took place in June 1942. Tobruk was captured by the Germans on June 20 1942, the first battle of El Alamein began on July 1 1942.
Thanks for setting me straight. I had read all the entries in the thread but did not realize that the comments were to the first El Alamein battle. I assumed it was to the more famous one.
Given that they tell the survivors the British have held (and the lag in info), I assume we are looking at mid-to-late July, 1942 at the end.
jstang, the events in the movie could be relatively accurate as far as time period but not time duration. The initial battle, after which the American tank crew was told to retreat south into the desert, may have happened 2 or 3 weeks prior to the news reports they heard at the end. That sort of literary license is common and perfectly okay in a fictionalized account of an historical event.
I've just had the pleasure of viewing "Sahara" again. And while I have nothing additional to impart regarding the events or the time when they occurred, I just have to note once again that this must be one of the best war movies ever.
shareBy the way, This film will be on TCM this week.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae
By the way, This film will be on TCM this week.The joy that is Memorial Day.
These comments have been interesting. I also wondered about American tanks being there when the British and Montgomery were turning the tide, holding a line. Even if the comments had not justified their presence I still would have enjoyed the film just as a war movie, not a documentary.
I first saw in 1943 in its first theatrical release in Davenport Iowa. I was 7 years old, and killing time while my parents were elsewhere that afternoon. It is the first war movie I remembered om detail. I loved the motly bunch, Americans, Brits, Germans, Free French, Somali guy, Italian prisoner of war... one french guy preferred stinky french cigarettes and the other french guy prefered Bobart's brand. I know it wasn't filmed in the actual Sahara, even at age 7 -- I knew Hollywood made films. One of my all time favorites to this day. Later when I saw James Mason as the Nazi general I remembered Sahara again and was glad I was never sent to the desert to fight, although in my USMC enlistment I did get orders to go to 29 Palms for tank and artillery training. I didn't go, something came up and I spent the years at Camp Pendleton and taking a bus to Hollywood on weekends.
Trivia-
In early August, Winston Churchill and Alan Brooke—the Chief of the Imperial General Staff—visited Cairo on their way to meet Joseph Stalin in Moscow. They decided to replace Auchinleck, appointing the XIII Corps commander, William Gott, to the Eighth Army command and General Sir Harold Alexander as C-in-C Middle East Command. Persia and Iraq were to be split from Middle East Command as a separate Persia and Iraq Command and Auchinleck was offered the post of C-in-C (which he refused).[111] Gott was killed on the way to take up his command when his aircraft was shot down.[112] Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery was appointed in his place and took command on 13 August.[5][nb 8]
Wikipedia
Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley