Logic being that because of a needed tactical stop- the brits then refused to brew tea, as they usually did?
All the best British heroes did- Scott, Franklin, Lord Cardigan, Edward Pakenham, etc. Leading your men to certain death is very British.
Logic being that 3 tanks could not travel the 20 km to Arnhem and relieve the paratroopers there. They stopped in Lent not to drink tea. They stopped because they could go no further. There was still fighting behind them for all of XXX Corps to get through. Less than a platoon of tanks would do no good. A beachhead for the rest of the army to use was more important that three tanks being destroyed before they left Lent. And it was a contested beachhead. They fought sporadically through the night. They weren’t sitting around drinking tea in a safe rear area.
I’ve read Ambrose. I liked “Citizen Soldiers.” That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its flaws. Ambrose mostly recounts oral history taken decades later rather than using scholarship and research into historical records. That leads to glaring errors in things like Band of Brothers. Ambrose is a fun read and it’s always interesting to hear old war stories but you have to remember he’s relaying the memories of old men.
Sure. They stopped for what the British considered solid tactical reasons- which the Americans disagreed with. I am not claiming they stopped just to brew tea- that is silly. What i am saying is that of course they did brew since they were stopped anyway.
“The Americans?” I think you are hitting the main issue of using oral history as historical fact without knowing it.
The book Brazen Chariots is by Robert Crisp, a Brit tank commander in North Africa. He recounts during a battle Regimental Command came over the radio saying “You may brew up”! He commented that he had no doubt that some men died while laughing.