It never ceases to amaze me how elitists and forgiving (or short of memory) the British are. Churchill rose to power basically because he came from a prominent family and had made some fame by escaping from the Boers (few real heroes in a war where a most capable militia beat the hell out of the BA, until they starved to death their women and children in concentration camps).
There must have been at least a dozen smarter, more experienced men eligible to become first lord of the admiralty, yet this pseudoaristocrat with little or no naval experience takes the post and performs dismally, but comes back time and again to perform dismally, until the Americans save him.

Hi 42RM,
I could go into detail, but watch the discovery channel's episode about the Folklands, in which British officers explain that had the Argentinians had more than a handful of WW II mines in Port Stanley or attacked the ships with their planes a little differently, the British would have lost and that they were running out of supplies, so had the Argentine forces held out for a few more days the fleet would have had to withdraw. Also the Argentine forces ran out of exocets, etc,

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

It never ceases to amaze me how elitists and forgiving (or short of memory) the British are. Churchill rose to power basically because he came from a prominent family and had made some fame by escaping from the Boers (few real heores in a war where a most capable militia beat the hell out of the BA, until they starved their women and children in concentration camps).
There most have been at least a dozen smarter, more experienced men elligible to become first lord of the admiralty, yet this pseudoaristocrat with little or no naval experience takes the post and performs dismally, but comes back time and again to perform dismally, until the Americans save him.

a lot of crap

Originally Posted by 42RM

Would you please explain this!

Dont't ask him:he only will produce more crap

samneanderthal

Now you mentioned a woman out in the Crimea, now would you be talking about Mary Seacoal by any chance.

Hi Lee,
I was referring to Florence Nightingale, but am glad you mentioned one of the true and little known heroes, Mary Seacole.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

It never ceases to amaze me how elitists and forgiving (or short of memory) the British are. Churchill rose to power basically because he came from a prominent family and had made some fame by escaping from the Boers (few real heroes in a war where a most capable militia beat the hell out of the BA, until they starved to death their women and children in concentration camps).

Yes Churchill came to power from a prominent family, so what!

The Boers were a Militia? There is no vaccine against stupidity.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

There must have been at least a dozen smarter, more experienced men eligible to become first lord of the admiralty, yet this pseudoaristocrat with little or no naval experience takes the post and performs dismally, but comes back time and again to perform dismally, until the Americans save him.

Hi 42RM,
I could go into detail, but watch the discovery channel's episode about the Folklands, in which British officers explain that had the Argentinians had more than a handful of WW II mines in Port Stanley or attacked the ships with their planes a little differently, the British would have lost and that they were running out of supplies, so had the Argentine forces held out for a few more days the fleet would have had to withdraw. Also the Argentine forces ran out of exocets, etc,

Who are these dozen men who would have done a better job then Churchill, where are your CHECKABLE facts?

What the Argentines did NOT have was the support of the local population.

One of the main reasons Britain won the Falklands War was the experience of the British military being a decisive factor. Experience the Argentines didn't have.

The Argentine Army made a very poor showing indeed: with better officers, better supply lines, with more aggressive tactics, Argentina could have at least fought the British to a standstill, and perhaps driven them off the beaches at Port San Carlos. But they did not.

I'd like to leave you with one thought, but I'm not sure you have anywhere to put it!

samneanderthal , I think you sometimes take your wishful thinking for granted. War isn't a simple matter. Try, for once, to put yourself in the shoes of people you call incompetent and without any knowledge of the outcome of their decisions. When for instance a reccon patrol comes back and failed to find an enemy force that's probably not due to incompetence but bad luck.

Hehe well I will bow out of this fight because I agree with him about Churchill, great speech maker but pretty much incompetent at everything else especially running wars, far too many Kiwis died to Churchill's follies for me to be positive about the man.

However that will be my only input into this as we are heading off topic and I don't agree with the premise that Dowding or Park were were wrong.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Hehe well I will bow out of this fight because I agree with him about Churchill, great speech maker but pretty much incompetent at everything else especially running wars, far too many Kiwis died to Churchill's follies for me to be positive about the man.

I don't know about Churchill but didn't some British commanders used Commonwealth troops (NZ , India, Australia, Canada) first to soften up the enemy's defences and then use British troops to claim the victory? That is not to say the British troops were not able to do it by themselves.

When you consider the populations of the UK and Australia, or even worse, NZ and the distance from these countries to Alexandria, etc, The ratio of Brit/ANZAC under O'Connor, Ritchie, Auchinleck or Monty is surprisingly low, especially considering the imminent Jap threat.
When you consider that 5 million Indians served in WW II and there was not a single Indian General you also wonder.