Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (12772)	12/4/2001 10:09:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

About Wavell.. He was good against the Italians, but way in over his head against Rommel, who possessed fewer resources than the British. Also, the British force structure was incompatible to fighting a fluid battle in the desert. British tactics originally considered tanks to be infantry support vehicles, and not as the major unit of maneuver, which the infantry should be tasked to support, as the Germans and Americans operated. Wholly different ways of fighting a war, and only through massive superiority against a weakened and unsupplied Afrika Korps, was Montgomery able to achieve his victory at El Alemain. And even then, had it not been for the Quatara Depression, which prevented German flanking maneuvers to the south, Montgomery probably would have been defeated as well. Btw, Wavell went on to further infamy by being responsible for the fall of Singapore to Yamashita. And as I recall, this was considered quite an embarrassment given the relative lack of resistance offered to the Japanese: worldatwar.net