If you're going to defend Montgomery you have to have a thick skin and if we all agreed there would'nt be much discussion, eh. So, no problem.

Yes, Gott was to replace Auchinleck but IMHO a Brit armour man was not what the Brit/Com army needed in North Africa. I don't know that Montgomery was liked but he was respected by his contempories in the Brit/Com forces, at least in NA and unlike his predecessors. Undoubtedly his way of waging warfare was different to the US way but it does'nt follow that his way was wrong or less effective. The British generally were more effective in defence than in attack, their caution in attack may be attributable to some degree to their training and the relationship between officers and men. Their organisation also seemed to function more effectively in defence. Over all this was the fact that some units had been fighting over a long period of time and the few remaining vets had developed caution as a form of life preservation which was contagious.

Undoubtedly when the US entered the war they made the greatest contribution from then on. But don't forget that others before then had contributed heavily to destroying Axis war capacity and to holding ground that otherwise would have to have been retaken in order to defeat the Axis.


------------------
sand digger