I'm not entering this debate as it will no doubt end, as many Mudcat debates do, in horns permanently locked. But I will make one point:

The problem, Keith, with trotting out opinions by one or two historians whose views support yours, is that you present just one side of an argument and then claim it as Gospel. However, there are countless other good military historians whose views may differ. Have you actually read the high quality material by the late Richard Holmes, by Peter Hart, by David Stephenson - and many, many others who may or may not disagree with Hastings or Sheffield? (I have, by the way). If you haven't then you can't just keep reiterating "top historians have said..." as though it's an unassailable argument.

Just a comment. Now, back to reality.