I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Gavin and All
-
First off, welcome aboard. For some reason it makes it easier to discuss things with someone when you can put a name to their words.
I play mostly face-to-face games, but I do play by E-mail occasionally at AAMC (www.aamc.net). I believe it is possible to play 5 player team games there if any one is interested. (Although I have read the strategies of most people here) my name there is the same as here.
Also as a side note, I believe that Rommel was probably a better general tactically than Patton. I think Rommel knew how to use his forces to the maximum ability. Patton was good at anticipating the moves of his adversaries (Sicily, Market Garden). I think Montgomery was an egotistical idiot (Sicily, Market Garden). And since he was mentioned and happens to be one of my all time favorite Generals, I think Thomas Jackson (Stonewall) was good at confusing his opponents. In fact I believe one of his sayings was always “confuse mislead and mystify” the enemy.
Just my opinions.
-
It would be interesting to hear how it goes if the two of you get a chance to play. Be sure to let us know how it goes if you do.
-
I agree Rommel was probably better than patton but I think give Montgomery more respect
-
I don’t see why everyone hates Monty. I think he is one of the best generals in history. And he would of made a good poker player :wink:. Look at his work against all odds in Africa.
-
I agree Montgomery was a great general in Africa and europe.
-
Yeah,
He was good but his attitude wasn’t the best
as he took to much credit for saving
American soldiers lives. I’ll take Patton
over Monte. Monte was extremely conservative
and waited until he had superior numbers on
Rommel (the combined allies) to fight him.
This is elementry and he wouldn’t have dared
take on Rommel and the deadly african corps
with equal numbers.Thank God for Bradley and Eisenhower they
held the western allies together. Gavin
-
In Africa Montgomery fought a very cautious war of atrition against Rommel. Rommel commented several times that he and his men were always up against fresh troops and equipment on the Allied side. How clever Monty was, I don’t know. I do know in Afica, he took no chances and let the overwelming odds in his favor win for him…
-
Monty used deception perfectly. He staged SO many false attacks preluding his attack to break out of Egypt. He attacked falsly from the sea, air, southern and southeastern flanks. This kept the German tanks guessing where to attack and not backing up the front lines. One of his chief advisors was actually a career Magician.
“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2001-12-22 05:54 ]
-
I think that monty was I solid general but he wasn’t the type that had all those brilliant strategies like rommel but he got the job done and that’s what matters.
-
Rommel himself wasn’t really fooled with Montgomery’s tactics. During the desert war, bad communications hurt the German cause. Rommel’s generals had made desisions in the field outside Rommel’s main objectives. This hurt the overall effort. The main German problem was supply (especially fuel) and replacement troops. Rommel got away with taking what he could from the British when he was winning. This as we all know changed after El Alamein…
-
I don’t know if monty could have beat rommel if it wasn’t for rommel’s lack of fuel supplies and fresh troops.
-
No, Rommel just wasn’t there :smile:. One thing that always puzzled me, for every single war decided battle Rommel was supposed to lead, he was back in Berlin. The Breakout of the British in Egypt, The defense of Tunisia, D-Day. He even tried to kill Hitler, maybe Rommel was on the allied side.
-
Rommel WAS at El Alamein. He knew the war was over after that battle. He fought on professionally, but he knew it was over…
-
What I always liked about Rommel was how he knew when the war was over and not fanatacial.
-
Montgomery an idiot?!?! Bite your tongue, friend! He was only one of the great generals at the disposal of the British Empire! All i have to say about that is look who ultimately won in north africa! Rommel could not took Tobruk in a timely manner and frequently overstretched his supply lines. Flashy generalship will usually lead to defeat.
-
“British Generals and American Troops, the best of both worlds…” - Some movie
I the British weren’t so great at commanding =)
And I didnt think Rommel was there? I could be wrong. Time to hit the books and check.
-
Now I think you’re giving Monty bit too much credit.Sure he did beat a depleted Rommel in north Africa but come on he wasn’t the best general in the history of the british empire.
-
Hey John,
Perhaps “Idiot” was a little strong. I think Montgomery was overrated. The Allies, Britain in particular, needed heroes during the war. Monty fit the bill perfectly, an eccentric 100% British Leader. I think he received more credit and support than his ability deserved. I know it is the obvious example, but I have to bring up Market-Garden. Also compare Monty and Patton’s reactions at the battle of the bulge. Also isn’t it funny that The Germans monitored Patton’s presence to attempt to determine where the invasion of Western Europe would be?
I’m going to try to get a game together early next month we can discus it further if you like.
-
I think the reason everyone doesnt like Monty is because in the movies, and french books <no offense=“” french=“” people,=“” i=“” am=“” french-canadian=“” myself=“”>always put him down. He was a cross of Rommel and Good old Ike. He had the administration skills and the battle skills.
And, in 1940-1942, Monty was all the British had.</no>
-
from 1940 to 1942 Montgomery was hardly a major figure in Britan.Monty didn’t really become a household name untill his arrival in north africa.
Suggested Topics
