Napalm the bocage! - Page 7




 
--
 
December 19th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Yes the 3.7 was brilliant, but had less than half the effective range of the 88

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nelson, Rommel, Napoleon, Guderian, the Tiger of Malaya, etc, beat their enemies with much inferior numbers, let alone equal terms.

The problem with the Americans is that they thought that after a few battles, Monty had acquired experience. Too bad Ike did not put the Polish general I mentioned before who ended up as a bar tender, in charge of the invasion he was far above Monty in brains and guts, or even Patton. It was a combined operation under British leadership. Patton was under Monty and he had to ask their Bitish superior permission to advance on his own. Ike's big mistake. Like I said it is remarkable that the british provided the fewest men and equipment and kept the leadership.

Monty did sit in an armchair criticizing Bradley, Ike, etc, and claiming that if they had listened to him war would have ended a few days after landing in Normandy. His mouth was as big as his ego. He was lucky that ike's brain was much larger than his ego or Monty would have been dismissed.

I have told you I am not anti British, I admire Wellington, Nelson, Slim, Tedder, O´Connor, etc, But am amazed at the incompetence of most British leaders in WW I and of Churchill, Ritchie, Mountbatten, Auchinleck, Wavell, etc, I have even defended Percival in my thread about Churchill's blunder in Singapore. It is interesting that Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Monty in NA for not finishing off Rommel in el Alamein I, but he rewarded Monty for doing exactly the same in el Alamein II. So desperate was Churchill to manufacture a heroic commander.
Ok now I get to step in argue in favour of Auchinleck, many of Montgomery's achievements in North Africa were directly attributable to Auchinlecks work and there is little doubt about the quality of his leadership with regards to the Indian Army.

Field Marshal Slim said of him...
Quote:
It was a good day for us when he [Auchinleck] took command of India, our main base, recruiting area and training ground. The Fourteenth Army, from its birth to its final victory, owed much to his unselfish support and never-failing understanding. Without him and what he and the Army of India did for us we could not have existed, let alone conquered
December 20th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
My point is that Auchinleck was replaced for doing exactly the same thing that gained Monty considerable prestige (and Auchinleck did it with more primitive equipment). Of all people, Churchill had chosen Gott over Monty to replace Auchinleck, fortunately for the allies he was shot down in transit. But then again Churchill was a great man, beyond reproach.
December 20th, 2011  
headwards
 
My understanding was that war in Europe was also a matter of honour against respectable adversaries- at least on paper- while the pacific war was extermination driven by extreme fear and racism.
--
December 20th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombs, burning millions of Jews, starving millions of Soviet prisoners and civilians seems far from honorable.
Not having a single general and extremely few pilots among 5 million Indian service men seems not only racist but absurd.
Churchill ordered the shooting down of unarmed German rescue planes in the channel during the BoB (they were also saving British pilots), not very honorable or smart.
December 20th, 2011  
headwards
 
Fair enough, however I do not think the mentality in normandy was quite as bad as the pacific- exterminating sub humans by burning them alive. The average Brit or American back home who had not experienced war firsthand may have found it difficult to support such actions against people that in many cases they were closely related to, or at least closely resembled.
December 20th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombs, burning millions of Jews, starving millions of Soviet prisoners and civilians seems far from honorable.
Not having a single general and extremely few pilots among 5 million Indian service men seems not only racist but absurd.
Churchill ordered the shooting down of unarmed German rescue planes in the channel during the BoB (they were also saving British pilots), not very honorable or smart.
Calm down there, some people don't like to write books every time they post, I think he is just saying the the war in the West was generally fought in accordance with the accepted rules of warfare and the war in the East was far from it.

Yes we know the Germans committed atrocities in the West and history has done a great job of hiding allied war crimes but compared to the acts committed in Russia by both sides and the Japanese campaign the Western European campaigns were "honourable" affairs.
December 20th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians with bombs, burning millions of Jews, starving millions of Soviet prisoners and civilians seems far from honorable.
Not having a single general and extremely few pilots among 5 million Indian service men seems not only racist but absurd.
Churchill ordered the shooting down of unarmed German rescue planes in the channel during the BoB (they were also saving British pilots), not very honorable or smart.
The rescue planes you are talking about were painted white and illegally carrying red cross markings, when in fact they were NOT picking up wounded but picking up battle fit pilots, a legitimate target. German fighters shot up RAF Air Sea Rescue high speed boats while saving BOTH British and German pilots, so its ok for the Germans to do it, but not the British.

Again you are talking more and more out of your arse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
My point is that Auchinleck was replaced for doing exactly the same thing that gained Monty considerable prestige (and Auchinleck did it with more primitive equipment). Of all people, Churchill had chosen Gott over Monty to replace Auchinleck, fortunately for the allies he was shot down in transit. But then again Churchill was a great man, beyond reproach.
Churchill was without doubt the right man for the job at the time, yes he made mistakes like everyone else, but he was far from stupid as you make him out to be. Morale in Britain was at a very low ebb with all the set backs, Churchill's speeches pulled the British public together and in my opinion America would not have given Britain the aid it required if Chamberlain had still been in power. FDR said of Churchill, "He might be a drunk, but he's a fighter."

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Yes the 3.7 was brilliant, but had less than half the effective range of the 88
Where are your ballistic evidence, I'd love to see it. Even if it were true, it doesn't matter if a tank is taken out at 3,000 yards or 1,500 yards, as long as it gets taken out

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nelson, Rommel, Napoleon, Guderian, the Tiger of Malaya, etc, beat their enemies with much inferior numbers, let alone equal terms.
That's odd, I thought Rommel was run out of North Africa. He might have won battles, but he lost the desert war due in the main to Monty. Lets not forget the small raiding parties by the SAS and LRDG, then again that's a totally different kind of warfare.

The so called Tiger of Malaya, this has been discussed over and over again. Basically he could be resupplied with fresh troops and equipment, the British couldn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
The problem with the Americans is that they thought that after a few battles, Monty had acquired experience. Too bad Ike did not put the Polish general I mentioned before who ended up as a bar tender, in charge of the invasion he was far above Monty in brains and guts, or even Patton. It was a combined operation under British leadership. Patton was under Monty and he had to ask their Bitish superior permission to advance on his own. Ike's big mistake. Like I said it is remarkable that the british provided the fewest men and equipment and kept the leadership..
Monty was in command of D Day, and did a damn good job, yes Monty did have experience. Britain didn't have the leadership, Ike was supreme Commander, not Monty. As for Britain supplying the fewest men and equipment. Ok what's the total population of Britain compared to the US? Any idea. Obviously not. Britain offered the US Hobart funnies which they declined, apart from a few DD Tanks, Britain also designed, built then set up the Mulberry Harbour which did a fantastic job for the time it was in operation

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Monty did sit in an armchair criticizing Bradley, Ike, etc, and claiming that if they had listened to him war would have ended a few days after landing in Normandy. His mouth was as big as his ego. He was lucky that ike's brain was much larger than his ego or Monty would have been dismissed.
I suppose Monty did have a big ego, what General Officer doesn't. Bradley made a **** up at the Falaise Gap and then blamed Monty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
I have told you I am not anti British, I admire Wellington, Nelson, Slim, Tedder, O´Connor, etc, But am amazed at the incompetence of most British leaders in WW I
Your not anti British? I'd hate to met someone who is. I agree the British WW1 leaders were incompetent, as Monty pointed out in his memoirs "General Officers never went near the front line and didn't have any idea of the conditions troops were fighting in." One General Officer exclaimed when actually visited the front line "Good Lor do our men actually live and fight in these conditions???" Monty stated that too many General Officers were promoted beyond their capabilities, something he attempted to put right when he was in the right position.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
I have even defended Percival in my thread about Churchill's blunder in Singapore.
It wasn't Churchill who blundered in Singapore, he took over a disaster waiting to happen thanks to successive British Governments after WW1. Governments who refused to supply modern equipment to the Far East. Even when I was in the Far East, we were the last to receive updated equipment

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
It is interesting that Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Monty in NA for not finishing off Rommel in el Alamein I, but he rewarded Monty for doing exactly the same in el Alamein II. So desperate was Churchill to manufacture a heroic commander.
Its strange that most British troops in theatre had a high regard for Monty.
December 20th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
The rescue planes you are talking about were painted white and illegally carrying red cross markings, when in fact they were NOT picking up wounded but picking up battle fit pilots, a legitimate target. German fighters shot up RAF Air Sea Rescue high speed boats while saving BOTH British and German pilots, so its ok for the Germans to do it, but not the British.

Again you are talking more and more out of your arse.
I am going to call ya on this one, the reason Churchill gave for shooting them down was that he believed that they were reporting convoy movements in the channel and it is because of this order that the Germans responded in kind by sinking RAF rescue boats, the fact remains that they were marked as rescue aircraft and they did rescue pilots who would most likely have drowned otherwise.

Quote:
Churchill was without doubt the right man for the job at the time, yes he made mistakes like everyone else, but he was far from stupid as you make him out to be. Morale in Britain was at a very low ebb with all the set backs, Churchill's speeches pulled the British public together and in my opinion America would not have given Britain the aid it required if Chamberlain had still been in power. FDR said of Churchill, "He might be a drunk, but he's a fighter."
As I have said I really don't like Churchill I do admire his resilience and aggressiveness and he was the ideal man to lead a country at war but a lousy man to plan a campaign and his desire to latch on to half arsed ideas got a lot of men killed.
December 20th, 2011  
LeEnfield
 
 
A certain gentleman seems to be making up the history as he goes along, The rescue planes were considered fair game as they were returning battle harden pilots back in the fray, which meant they would probably soot down more British and commonwealth pilots. Talking about pilots I lived near RAF Station Biggin Hill as a lad and I met a number of Indian pilots and senior officers. Also the German fighters were happy to shoot up any one they saw around and even I as a young lad came under machine gun fire on more than occasion, and it was known for them to bomb and shoot up schools in there reign of terror.

Also he was on about the invasion Europe, now there were beach heads on D Day two were American two were British and one was Canadian, also of the six thousand ships that took part in the invasion two thirds were British and Canadian
December 20th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I am going to call ya on this one, the reason Churchill gave for shooting them down was that he believed that they were reporting convoy movements in the channel and it is because of this order that the Germans responded in kind by sinking RAF rescue boats, the fact remains that they were marked as rescue aircraft and they did rescue pilots who would most likely have drowned otherwise.
I don't agree, RAF rescue boats were not painted white nor did they carry a red cross, the German aircraft were. As I said, they were not picking up wounded but combat fit pilots. That's akin to using ambulances to transport troops and equipment



Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
As I have said I really don't like Churchill I do admire his resilience and aggressiveness and he was the ideal man to lead a country at war but a lousy man to plan a campaign and his desire to latch on to half arsed ideas got a lot of men killed.
Churchill made mistakes like everyone else, but he had the guts to order operations that to many, left a foul taste in one mouth such as the sinking of the French fleet. I firmly believe that action alone proved to FDR that Britain meant business and were not going to roll over as easily as Joe Kennedy stated in his report.
 


Similar Topics
WW2 Trivia
Air Force Cadence
Pentagon confirms using white phosphorous in Iraq
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq