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.
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."
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
