Second Battle Of El Alamein Essay Example For College

The second Battle of El Alamein is one of those battles that is still being discussed; especially many hypotheses are being built about whether General Rommel would have won over the British. The second Battle of El Alamein was a complex battle, in which, however, it was the outcome of the tank battle that played a decisive role. The Germans had to push the British back beyond the Suez Canal in order to eventually get Middle Eastern oil. General Erwin Rommel’s North African Corps suffered critical losses. Erwin Rommel completely missed both the strategic and tactical initiative; for this reason, the British won the battle.

First of all, the British troops had a significant advantage over the Germans in a decisive tank battle. Erwin Rommel’s Desert Fox had a little more than 500 tanks, half of which consisted of outdated and easily destroyed Italian models (Hanson 2018). The English General Montgomery had twice as many tanks, among which were such well-known models as Grant and Sherman. Thus, on the side of the British there was complete superiority in technology, and on the side of the Germans was the legendary Rommel.

However, in this battle, the general made a strategic mistake: contrary to his custom of gathering tank forces into a fist, this time he distributed them along the front. At the forefront of the German-Italian tank army were 5 Italian divisions, one German division and a German parachute brigade (Landrum 2021). In the second echelon were located: in the south – German and Italian tank divisions, in the north – German and Italian tank and two motorized divisions, which were supposed to be used to localize enemy breakthroughs. The second echelon was located very close to the first echelon. Rommel intended to bring it into battle even before the enemy would introduce his second echelon into the breakthrough; however, the general’s plan was not carried out, and his opponents won.

Simultaneously with the concentration of troops by the British, a large-scale operation was organized to disinform the enemy, which was called “Operation Bertram”. Large false warehouses were created behind the right flank of the British troops, which were filled with empty boxes (Simonetti and Armocida 2020). At first, the Germans considered this a sign of an impending offensive, but after a while, since there was no offensive, they began to consider the warehouses a deceptive maneuver.

However, during the preparation of the real offensive, empty boxes were replaced by full ones at night, and thus, by the beginning of the battle, actual warehouses were created. In turn, on the southern flank, the British began to build a false oil pipeline. Its construction had a double effect: deceiving the enemy about the place and time of the proposed battle (it was believed that the battle would not begin until the end of construction).

By the end of the long battle, despite losses exceeding 500 tanks, Montgomery was able to break through the front of Rommel’s German-Italian tank army. The retreat of the German-Italian tank army became unstoppable. Rommel wanted to organize a defense at the Fouquet line, but the remaining forces were not enough for this. The British victory at El Alamein was the first significant success of British troops in the North African Campaign of 1940-1943. The German troops were defeated because of the advantage in the enemy’s equipment, but mostly because of the strategic and tactical mistakes of General Rommel, who did not identify the disinformation company and made the wrong decision during the battle.

References

Hanson, Davis. 2018. ” The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” International Affairs 94 (4): 928-929.

Landrum, Nathan. 2021. ” The First Battle of El Alamein.” Bound Away: The Liberty Journal of History 4 (3): 1-26.

Simonetti, Omar, and Emanuele Armocida. 2020. “El Alamein: The Battle in The Battle. How Infectious Disease Management Changed the Fate of One of The Most Important Battle of The World War II.” Le Infezioni in Medicina 3 (27): 441-449.

Patterns Of “Writing That Works” By Oliu Et Al.

A pattern of organization is crucial to guide readers and help them understand writing. I am most familiar with the general to the specific pattern because I used to have a travel agency in Cuba. The general to specific leads writing from a piece of general information to a more detailed explanation (Oliu et al., 2020). This pattern navigates readers through several steps to present all process occurrences in order (Oliu et al., 2020).

I generally utilized specific in my correspondence when I needed to provide information to my clients and business partners. For instance, I have noticed that many of my customers preferred to receive reports describing their upcoming trips that began with a broad statement and then presented details on particular destinations. My business partners also seemed to favor emails with a general announcement and a thorough account of each client and their preferences. I have become acquainted with general to specific due to my work, and although I no longer own the travel agency, I sometimes find myself using the pattern in my formal writing, such as essays and emails.

Furthermore, the division is a pattern of organization that is relatively new to me. This pattern diverges a complex subject into appropriate components, discussing each piece and explaining its connection to the main idea (Oliu et al., 2020). The division is typically employed to make a matter easier to understand by providing detailed information about every smaller aspect (Oliu et al., 2020). Although it may appear similar to the general to specific, the division can also emphasize relations between all parts of the overall topic (Oliu et al., 2020).

For example, Oliu et al. (2020) state that they used the division to design the table containing descriptions of each pattern of the organization as elements of the general subject. Therefore, I can use this pattern in several situations, especially during academics. In particular, I can utilize the division during my classes to organize notes by creating tables to comprehend new information. Moreover, I can use the pattern to present a report to my co-workers. I would have to practice employing the division to familiarize myself with it better, but I am certain it can improve my writing.

Upon reading Chapter 2, I gained two insights on arranging facts and ideas in writing to communicate my thoughts more effectively. Firstly, I have realized that I should re-examine the information I intend to present, such as explanatory text and images (Oliu et al., 2020).

While I am used to organizing my statements and discussions, I sometimes forget to reconsider the order or the necessity for certain elements. Secondly, I have recognized that it is critical to modify my writing depending on the audience, as the same text can be presented and perceived differently (Oliu et al., 2020). For instance, I used to document different reports on the same topic for my clients and business partners at the travel agency. Although I considered several parties’ perspectives at the agency, I have noticed that I do not do so these days. My insights are not new to me, but they have reminded me about significant aspects of writing. I understand that re-examining my ideas and their layout in a written form is important to reach my goals and meet the needs of a specific audience.

Reference

Oliu, W. E., Brusaw, C. T., & Alred, G. J. (2020). Writing that works: Communicating effectively on the job (13th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Dividend Policy At Linear Technology

The M&M theory is used to guide the management of corporates of all sizes: large, medium, and small-scale. The theory proposes that company value should not be affected by its capital structure. It implies that the company’s revenues, profits, and other financial metrics should not be influenced by its value on the stock market. Although the first version of the M&M theory was meant for ideal markets with no asymmetric information, bankruptcy, or taxes, the current version covers all of them.

Linear Technology works in a conventional business environment influenced by regulations, competition, taxes, asymmetric information, and bankruptcy. Currently, Linear Technology is subject to tax obligations like any other commercial enterprise. The current markets are inefficient, indicating that the company does not enjoy tax relief. The company’s financial structure is also not leveraged putting pressure on its financial structure. The company policies state that it should be cautious when signaling to stock strategists about its growth and dividend payment strategy as it could compromise its market value. It implies that the company is facing agency problems that must be resolved. With a clear communication channel between the company management staff and shareholders, It signals the shareholders regularly on its business position.

The Chief Financial Officer’s recommendation that the company begins paying higher dividends is an early decision. The company’s market valuation registered a fast growth between 1994 and 2000. However, the company value plummeted between 2000 and 2002, questioning the validity of the need to increase dividends. Usually, company value is calculated based on future value. With declining share prices, the company value also dropped, and the management should focus on a structured approach to remain competitive in the markets.

Linear Technology’s policies are formulated to fit the needs of all stakeholders: investors, employees, customers, and regulators. The dividends paid by publicly traded companies such as Linear Technology are influenced by revenues, investment plans, and prevailing challenges. As a result, the recommendations by the Chief Financial officer on why the company should increase dividends paid to its shareholders depend on the company’s performance. The company revenue has been declining, implying the net profits have also dropped. In my opinion, Linear Technology has a fair payout policy based on the company’s performance and net profitability. However, the recommendation to increase dividends paid to shareholders comes at a time when the company is on its downfall. I think the company does not have a residual dividend policy at the moment as it has not been mentioned or referenced in its dividends policy.

Initially, the company chose to pay $0.05 per share which accounted for about 15% of the total earnings of the 1994 financial year. According to the Chief Financial Officer, the company chose a maintainable value over time. As a result, the company can only pay dividends to its shareholders as long as it generates profits. Otherwise, the shareholders will be on the losing edge. Since the company decided to pay dividends quarterly in 2000, it has increased to over 25% of total earnings.

Conclusively, the company payout policy is favorable to investors as only a few companies pay a dividend to their shareholders. Starting with low dividend rates ensured the company could maintain paying its shareholders. However, a steady decline in stock prices implies the company might not remain profitable in the future. Consequently, the company might find itself struggling to pay its shareholders. In my opinion, the current dividend payout policy is not efficient. The policy should be defined as only paying dividends when the company makes profits.

error: Content is protected !!