Performance of the British army in WW2 - how good?

[r16]

sorry , the post seems disorganized , is this a machine translation of a link ?

 

[Dachs]

sorry , the post seems disorganized , is this a machine translation of a link ?

Don't ever change, r16.

 

[ace99]

Can't tell if self-aware comedic genius or oblivious ESL....perhaps both?

 

[r16]

rather the Starfleet Admiral .

even if this is not exactly about Enver's actions it must also be mentioned that his work in Central Asia wasn't good enough even for him ; he considered the Sünusi of Libya a far better material to lead in combat or political movement.

 

[Domen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39cenrIQW0

But that's wrong, in fact the greatest country is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61tnRXsI3Y

Since when do civilians have any say in government policy? Don't be foolish.

Government of a state should do things which are good for citizens of this state. So you can't claim that it is "better to go down fighting". If government policy is about going down fighting, then it must be a bad government. It has nothing to do with whether civilians have a say or not in government policy.

 

[History_Buff]

Government of a state should do things which are good for citizens of this state. So you can't claim that it is "better to go down fighting". If government policy is about going down fighting, then it must be a bad government. It has nothing to do with whether civilians have a say or not in government policy.

Everyone agrees that they should. The point is that the don't, because the civilians and the people in charge of them often disagree on what that is. After all, you don't just want to surrender and become Congress Poland do you?

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39cenrIQW0

But that's wrong, in fact the greatest country is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61tnRXsI3Y

You sir just made my day! That poor girl looking around having no idea whats going on...

 

[Lord Baal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39cenrIQW0

But that's wrong, in fact the greatest country is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61tnRXsI3Y



Government of a state should do things which are good for citizens of this state. So you can't claim that it is "better to go down fighting". If government policy is about going down fighting, then it must be a bad government. It has nothing to do with whether civilians have a say or not in government policy.

Most governments are bad governments by this definition, including the majority of democracies. No one is disputing the quality of the Ottoman government vis-a-vis its own people, merely that the civilian populace has any way whatsoever over government or elite actions. While undoubtedly the general populace has some say over government and elite actions - the ever-nebulous "public opinion" - this is far more often directed by elites for their own purposes, rather than dictated to the elites by the people.

Case-in-point, the current push for gun control in the US seems to be popular, but elites are blocking it due to their relationships with vested interests (please don't turn this into a gun control thread people). An example of the opposite is that the people of the UK didn't want to make peace with Napoleon in 1814, but the government pushed for it nonetheless. Fortunately, Napoleon did everyone a favour by outright losing the war and being forced to capitulate, so Castlereagh didn't get roasted on a spit by angry Londoners.

 

[History_Buff]

(please don't turn this into a gun control thread people)

But big government! Ron Paul! 2nd Amendment! Tyranny and the enslavement of us all! These are real issues that we need to talk more about!

 

[Haig]

In many early campaigns I think, while the navy and air force performed brilliantly, the land forces were mediocre at best. Norway and Crete good examples.

Still the Hitler's fear of British invasion was crucial when it comes to the outcome of Barbarossa, as the Germans had 20% of land forces and 40% of luftwaffe in Europe(including hundreds of thousands in Norway!) awaiting for British landing.

So British would have lost without Soviets, and Soviets without British..

and even later they had to fill out their D Day beach invasion forces with Free French and Canadian units.

People have an impression of a tiny tiny British army in the Second world war. After D-DAY of 1944 while the British attention was in Montgomery's forces in France, the British had 500 000 men in Italy (including Polish corps and a Jewish Brigade, so the total of British empire troops wasnt 500 000)
and 300 000 British troops fighting Japanese in Burma campaign.

Royal Navy had one million personnel, don't know numbers for RAF.

* * * * *

World War I was mentioned too, I think British performance there was good on the Western front. It was a war where the British fought in the main battle line (western front) for the whole duration of war, and in the end they performed and perfected true all-arms combinations of attacks. Very same tactics smashed them in France in 1940 though!

 

[Lord Baal]

The vast majority of those troops in Western Europe were occupation forces, not to counter an invasion.

 

[Jackson2626]

The performance of the British Army in WW2 can be summed up in one word, horrible. Total failure in Europe, an absolute failure in Singapore. A failure that opened the door for a Japanes advance into the South Pacific. An advance that was finally halted and reversed by American effort, and minor Australian effort. Really the true cause was the high command, as British generals may go down as some of the worst in history. Completely inept and incompetent, to the point where you wonder how they got commands in the first place.

Let's talk plainly, the German army in 1940 before France was conquered, was less powerful than it was in 1941. The German Army got a great boost by amalgamating French resources and their industrial base. I believe that the ball was really dropped here, because the War may have never reached the scope that it did had things went differently. Now fast forward to 1943, where Patton completely outclassed Montgomery in Sicily, and fast forward again to 1944 where the British were completely stalled at Caen. And it wasn't until Cobra when things started moving and the Normandy campaign was wrapped up. Market Garden was a disaster and a needless sacrifice of well trained paratroopers. Then after Market Garden, Montgomery went North to play grab ass in Belgium.

I have already stated how bad Singapore was and how insignificant the Burma Campaign was.

Now, I am not saying that British soldiers are inadequate, but their leadership was so bad. Afterall, the organization of the American military is originally based on the British military and the original Americans were British colonists. So without Great Britain there is no United States, period. But the minions who have controlled Britain for the last 100 years are fools and A HOLES.

People should understand that 1776 was the full liberation of British people in America and it allowed for the British people to pursue their full potential. They were freed from the religious orders and monarchies that were controlling Europe. 76' was pro British, and most of the loyalists and British POWs became Americans when the war ended. I really love the British people, but I despise their politicians and monarchy which subdues and destroys GB and Ireland.

The vast majority of those troops in Western Europe were occupation forces, not to counter an invasion.

It makes no difference whether the US Army was fighting static divisions, paratroopers, Armor or SS. Once fully mobilized the American army was an unstoppable force that could have smashed all the way to Moscow had we wanted to. In actuality if Patton had been given the green light, he would have been in Berlin weeks before the Soviet's. If not months.

Also, in 1944 the best Germany had at the time was on the Western Front. The Eastern front was a multi national contingent that included Hungarians, Romanians, Finns, Poles, etc.

Germany also put many of their better troops in Sicily and Italy

Moderator Action: Please don't make SEVEN consecutive posts without response. Edit your original reply if you want to add on more content. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[innonimatu]

France added little to german military production. If you believe otherwise then present the numbers and sources.

Otherwise, are we are supposed to take your word that the germans had their best units in western Europe even while the soviets were advancing hundreds of kilometers and capturing resources vital to the german war effort, up to the oil from Romania that finally knocked out their ability to conduct large-scale mechanized warfare? That they handed over their thanks to their worst units to fight the biggest tank battle in history?

 

[Jackson2626]

France added little to german military production. If you believe otherwise then present the numbers and sources.

Otherwise, are we are supposed to take your word that the germans had their best units in western Europe even while the soviets were advancing hundreds of kilometers and capturing resources vital to the german war effort, up to the oil from Romania that finally knocked out their ability to conduct large-scale mechanized warfare? That they handed over their thanks to their worst units to fight the biggest tank battle in history?

Well let's observe the order of battle. Fallschirmjäger, with the Hermann Goring Division fought on he Western Front. The Panzer Lehr Division fought on the Western Front, along with the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Divisions. The 2nd Panzer Division which was almost entirely lost in the Falaise Pocket. These units represent some of the best Germany could field at the time.

 

[Jackson2626]

Believe me, I am not discrediting the Eastern Front, but in all honesty Germany could have put a lot more effective mobile divisions in the East had they not been fighting the Western Allies. Also, how can you say that France didn't have a sufficient industrial base, when the Royal Navy very much concerned themselves with either capturing the French Navy or destroying it?

 

[red_elk]

...the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Divisions.

...both of which fought on the Eastern front for the most part of the war.
German army took about 80% of their casualties on Eastern front. Allies opened second front only after Germany was weakened enough and it became apparent that it will be defeated by USSR soon.

 

[Jackson2626]

Not true at all. When you factor in the amount of troops captured, then Germany suffered a similar amount of casualties on both fronts.

 

[Jackson2626]

...both of which fought on the Eastern front for the most part of the war.
German army took about 80% of their casualties on Eastern front. Allies opened second front only after Germany was weakened enough and it became apparent that it will be defeated by USSR soon.

Well the 1st and 2nd SS returned to the Eastern Front, only after the War in the West was seemingly over. The Soviets were sometimes harsh on civilians, whereas US soldiers were respectful to civilians. Makes sense that they would move more SS to the East in the very end.

 

[red_elk]

Not true at all. When you factor in the amount of troops captured, then Germany suffered a similar amount of casualties on both fronts.

80% of German military losses were on Eastern front, including POW and missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#OKW_War_Diary

You can possibly get the 50% figure only if you include German civilian casualties due to Western Allies air raids, such as Dresden bombing.

Well the 1st and 2nd SS returned to the Eastern Front, only after the War in the West was seemingly over.

Both participated in Kursk battle, even before Western front was opened.

 

[Jackson2626]

80% of German military losses were on Eastern front, including POW and missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#OKW_War_Diary

You can possibly get the 50% figure only if you include German civilian casualties due to Western Allies air raids, such as Dresden bombing.


Both participated in Kursk battle, even before Western front was opened.

Really, but cause right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_II) clearly shows that Germany suffered well over 5,000,0000 casualties on the Western Front.