Anglo Boer war.

[Njaco]

Oh most agreed. Fascinating what she did to keep her little empire. Probably not far removed from the US in modern times. Politics may be different but we still have Bosnia, Mogadishu, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, etc. I'm not heavily into the causes beyond why the British or even US were doing what they were doing. Its the battles and chess plays that are of interest.

 

[mosquitoman]

Little empire? It was the biggest empire ever!

 

[Njaco]

sheesh, doesn't sarcasim work here?

 

[Emac44]

sheesh, doesn't sarcasim work here?

Nope. Not with an Englishman when he has missed out on his tea and crumpets Niaco

 

[Njaco]

 

[mosquitoman]

You're right there, I need a cuppa

 

[Emac44]

Mossie thats why the English Empire failed. To much bloody TIFFIN TIME

 

[Njaco]

Here's astupid question. Any battle lost because of aherence to tea time? Something more along the lines as was protrayed in "Zulu Dawn"?

 

[Emac44]

Here's astupid question. Any battle lost because of aherence to tea time? Something more along the lines as was protrayed in "Zulu Dawn"?

Yes actually the Attack at Sulva during the Gallipoli Campaign 1915. British Troops came ashore advanced and stopped to make tea. Whilst Australians and New Zealanders in another part of Gallipoli were attacking the Turks to draw attention from the British Landings. The ANZACs have never forgotten it Nijaco. Aussies and Kiwis were slaughtered in a full blown attack in places like the Nek (AUSSIES) and The Kiwis had their own battles where they were slaughtered. Not so much as an observance of tea making Just a bloody stuff up by British High Command. that isn't a slight against our English Forum users of course. But British High Command wasn't highly thought off by the ANZACs on a whole during both World Wars

 

[Njaco]

Maybe thats why they had to show Monty how to do it at El Alamein and Tobruk? It was just a question and I hope I don't get burned by others for the question as I'm sure the US had similar mistakes.

 

[Emac44]

Monty was different Njaco. He had the ability to be abled to get common with the Common Soldiery of the Commonwealth. I think in the case of Montgomery he was approachable in aspects I can not explain fully. It came from him having actually served in the trenches during WW1 that he had this attitude. An American would possibley see it as a bit stuffed shirt or over cautious but we see it differently or should I say I do. I would say to you Njaco some one like Patton or Macarthur was a right royal pain in the arse and very much prima donnas in their aspects. But then again I view that as a Non American. As for Tobruk and El Alamien. The 2nd battles of El Alamien were victories for the British and Commonwealth Forces. But the North African Camapign including Tobruk was a see saw battle across hundreds of miles of deserts. One could say Rommel ****** up at times in North Africa as well Njaco. Rommel over stretcehd his capabilities and often and came unstuck at times at the end of an over stretched supply lines and paid the consquences for it. Just as the British had and did.

 

[Njaco]

I think we in the US are more enamoured with personalities sometimes than with performance. Monty and Patton did their bit and were major reasons why the Allies won. I just chuckle sometimes at the indepth analsys of their character. It makes interesting discusion but who care? We won. IMHO.

As far as El Alamein I was commenting on how Monty was not making headway until the Anzacs broke thru. Tea time be damned!

 

[The Basket]

I think the Falklands were Britains last imperial war.

Rommel was very reckless which is ok when it worked and bad when it did not.

The British Empire was based on money. Queen and country was a cover.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

and a motivator.

It sounds much better to say you are fighting for Queen and Country than to say I'm fighting to save the British East India Trading Company.

 

[Njaco]

or McDonalds. I think as long as humans have grouped together to govern themselves there has been one element who were or are more intelligent than the rest and those who come from a postion of wealth. When it comes to power, that has been the struggle instead of relief of the populace (which is used as a means of justification).

 

[Emac44]

Course the British Empire was based on Money. But it worked and did so for nearly 250 years. Njaco during WW1 the Aussies were paid 8 shillings a day where the poor old British Tommy was only paid a shilling a day. This hadn't changed much during WW2 either. So who do you think Monty would trust more? His 8 Bob a Day Warriors or his 1 Shilling Tommies? Its ok Njaco I am joking its not a serious question

 

[Aussie1001]

Point made.....

 

[trackend]

Course the British Empire was based on Money. But it worked and did so for nearly 250 years. Njaco during WW1 the Aussies were paid 8 shillings a day where the poor old British Tommy was only paid a shilling a day. This hadn't changed much during WW2 either.

Very true EM my old man did get a weekly payment in the navy called hard layers pay of 1s for being in combined ops on top of his 17s 6d a week (which is 87p or about $2 AUD / $1.70 US) and at the end of the war received a bounty of £20.

 

[Emac44]

Very true EM my old man did get a weekly payment in the navy called hard layers pay of 1s for being in combined ops on top of his 17s 6d a week (which is 87p or about $2 AUD / $1.70 US) and at the end of the war received a bounty of £20.

Don't spend it all in one shop hey Track

 

[plan_D]

"It sounds much better to say you are fighting for Queen and Country than to say I'm fighting to save the British East India Trading Company."

If you were in the Royal Navy you wouldn't be fighting for the East India Trading Company, the East India Company had a navy of its own. You might be a pressed man from the East India Company, but then you're not fighting to save the East India Company anymore.