Saturday, May 26, 2007

Leaque Tables

There appears to be a leaque table for just about every eventuality to-day, and I was just reflecting on some of the choices that our Generals had when it came to deciding which Division should lead the next attack... many of the choices were easy - particularly Africa and Italy...where 4th Indian stood above the crowd followed by 9th Australian - 2nd New Zealand - 50th British - 7th Armoured - 2nd Polish - 78th British - 1st Canadian - 51st Highland - 8th Indian. All the rest were reserves in most cases with the Armoured Divisions being low on the totem pole.


Blogger ritsonvaljos said...

Leading an assault took some courage. Do you think it was inherent courage, training or other attribute that was the most imoportant thing for being selected?

Sunday, 27 May, 2007  
Blogger Tomcann said...

Leadership to enforce training I would say was the most important thing - the realisation of knowing what can happen in various circumstances ensures that training against many probablilities was paramount.
The discipline of the Guards 201 Brigade at Monte Camino who died with their boots and brasses polished,spelled of the utmost enforced training.
Courage is too nebulous to try and analyse.....
the leadership of Tuker - Freyberg - Graham - Keightley - Evelagh - Wimberley was most important to the success of their divisions -
equally the training schedules of Monty ensured the success of 8th Army... which was lacking in Alexander and Leese but revived latterly by McCreery - and totally absent in the US 5th army under Clark !

Monday, 28 May, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home