Could the failure to come to grips with modern tank warfare be classified as a major blunder?
Disregarding the concept they developed and being very slow to re-learn it, even while watching the Germans practice something like it might…
Hi snebold!
Seeing that it was a relatively few elite German Panzer and Mechanized divisions that created most of the mayhem in both the West and East, it all ‘‘might’’ have turned out a little bit different if the same far sighted visionaries in Western Armies [and the Red Army] were backed by the military establishment like Guderian and his fellow commanders were backed by Hitler in Germany.
BTW, was it you who mentioned the book ‘‘Wages of Destruction’’ by Adam Tooze?
Been keeping an eye out for it in local bookshops but haven’t seen it yet.
Was thinking of ordering it, but I usually like to have a perusal first before I outlay big bucks.
If you have read it, would you recommend it?
Seeing that it was a relatively few elite German Panzer and Mechanized divisions that created most of the mayhem in both the West and East, it all ‘‘might’’ have turned out a little bit different if the same far sighted visionaries in Western Armies [and the Red Army] were backed by the military establishment like Guderian and his fellow commanders were backed by Hitler in Germany.
That´s an “if” that brings up a row of questions so long, that I don´t even want to try to predict the outcome;)
BTW, was it you who mentioned the book ‘‘Wages of Destruction’’ by Adam Tooze?
Yes.
Been keeping an eye out for it in local bookshops but haven’t seen it yet.
Don´t expect it to turn up there, but with the current exchange rates ordering it from Amazon.com is probably the cheapest (unless it´s taxed upon arrival in Australia). I got mine from Amazon.co/uk (no taxes within the EU).
If you have read it, would you recommend it?
Yes, and yes.
It has many interesting tables, I´ve been looking for this stuff for years and it contains some I´ve never seen.
It´s about economic policy in the Third Reich, with all that comes with it, which is a lot (so 800pages are fitting).
There´s a good account of the time from 1918-1932 and then it gets quite thourough, gives a good description of the difficulties the German economy faced during rearmament. If you´re not into economic history or the German interwar society, you´ll be bored, but I still think you´ll find it interesting from 1938 anyway as there is much material about armaments production dillemas, Hitler´s vision´s for the timing of future wars, and a few things about what the nazis planned for the east I haven´t seen elsewhere (despite searching).
I liked it and put it down with the feeling that had it been a fiction book, I could not have read it through, as the story was too unrealistic and far out, (-like every good book I´ve read concerning the Third Reich)
And if you wan´t to know things like that in last quarter of 1942 more than half the German army´s allocation of steel went to production of ammunition, or that the German per capita GDP of 1946 was as in the 1880´s, this book is a must.
I recommend it;)
Thanks for that info snebold, your recommendation has sold me…
I’m going to put in an order quick smart.
Oh, and don’t forget to put in a commission claim to the publishers.
I’d agree that the British venture to Greece was proably the most aimless endevour in Europe. Aid to Greek resistence movements would have sufficed to keep the Germans busy with having their hands full after Italian capitulation.
The Italian campaign however rough and ‘lackluster’ saved the Allied a great deal of trouble on the western front. Between the well coordinated Anglo Yugoslav effort (led by Fitzroy MacLean) to fight over 14,000 Germans and the two German army’s tied down on the Gothic Line in late '44, the MTO was hardly a wasted effort.
We have to remind ourselves however that despite the hindsight we give to the military operations at the time, Churchill saw the Germans nearing the end by 1943 and began to recognize Russia’s aims for Eastern Europe. He feverently supported a Royal Polish govt in exile and despised the Greek Communists.
Even his support for Tito in an attempt to swing them towards a pro West stance failed as Broz issued orders for the British Commandos stationed on the island of Vis and all other allied spec ops (SOE, OSS OG’s) to halt all operations and leave by the end of 1944.
There biggest mistake was not up dating there equitment and making sure that there army was fit and large from after ww1.
Britain was the first one that invent the tank in ww1 and had the biggest army in the world, but in ww2 they where way behind in tank enginerring and the German army took over Britains title of worlds biggest army.They should of keept the British Empire small and they would been ahead of tank enginerring and would have enough population to keep the biggest army.
The British did not have the biggest Army in WWI, Germany, France, Russia all had more. I’m not sure but by 1919 the USA’s may have been bigger too. There was no will to keep the Army the size it was in 1918 and more importantly no need. No country did until the 30’s.
NOPE, britain was the largest army right before ww1 and Germany had the second largest before ww1. Usa only took over britain after ww2.And look what happen too Britain for not keeping her large army, she was nearly run over by Germany, so England there was a ned to keep a large army and keep up with eginerring. Cheers.
Um, Britain didn’t have close to the largest army prior to WWI…
And you, with your 21.40 trolling posts a day, are getting tiresome…
I think the size of an army is relevant to the population. England’s population(not counting the Empire, just the UK) was less because the population was smaller. Russia, on the other hand, had a huge army because they had a huge population. If England had a population of about 100 million(give or take a few ;)), sure, they would have had a 10 million man army. With Russia and The States having the biggest population, it was a given that they had the biggest armies.
Hate too say this, but all of youre information and others on here is exacley the same as the History channel.
So all of you a trolls too. cheers.ps are you sure England didt have the biggest army prior too ww1, cause i just watch a program a couple of months and Engalnd had the biggest army,Germany 2nd biggest.USA didt even have there own troops ships.
Thats what i was talking about, if they kept the empire really small.
Englands population would of been larger.
Turn off the History Channel and do some real research, any programme Britains Army was biggest is just bo*****s.
August 1914
British Army 247,000 Regulars (with all reservists this would go up to 700,000 but not immediately). To defend the largest Empire in the World, immediately available to seve in France 150,000 men in 7 Divisions.
German Army 1.75 million men plus the same available at length through mobilisation.
French Army 1.1 million.
Tsarist Army 3.5 million men.
When I went to school this makes the British by far the smallest.
The British Army was a small, efficient, highly trained crafty force. As stated, the BEF in 1914 August the 2nd, was 247,000 men. They engaged the German Imperial Army in Belgium and Northern France in what was a very small sector of the front. The BEF disn’t even launch its first offensive until March 10, 1915 at Neuve Chapelle. Get one thing straight aly.j the BEF never became the largest army in WWI or II. Their size was formidable after Kitchner’s New Army, the Derby Scheme and finally conscription in 1916 - but Russia, Germany and France (in that order) had FAR more men.
Could we please get back to the original issue. I love WWI history but we’re taking this off topic.
Apart from tanks, which equipment should Britain have updated?
How would this have altered the British result in France in 1940? In Malaya and Burma in 1942? In the Middle East, Greece and Crete 1940-42?
What was wrong with the SMLE?
What was wrong with the 1937 pattern webbing, which was pretty fresh when WWII started?
What was wrong with British artillery?
What was wrong with the Hurricane and Spitfire?
And so on.
To be truthful in the Matilda II they had one of the best tanks of it’s time too.
I agree with the above. The Matilda II and its sister tank the Valentine MkIII were only really outclassed in 1942 by the German Pzkw VI Tiger in Tunisia.
I think most people observe the early reversals from France, Norway, Greece, Singapore and North Africa as somehow the fault of outdated equipment and even poor training.
Plus the Germans were still using the bolt action rifle as the main infantry small arm during the Blitzkrieg. And their main transportation of supplies and material to the front was the horse and carriage throughout the war.
England’s greatest mistake I’d state again is the Dardanelles expedition in 1943 right as the Italian invasion was developing and the resources were needed there.
I tell you why,the spitfire was faster than the m/schimitt,but the m/schimitt out classed the spitfire in any other way.
British artillery was out classed by the Germans-Germany had rockets,had anti rocket guns,had v-2 weapons, what did the british have, a descent army with out class weapons. The only thing Britain had over Germany was that Britain had a bigger navy than Germany thats all.I also read ww2 books and study ww2. If britain was up with Germany with technolghy, there would not of been the battle of Britain.Britain had too fight so hard for the first time in her life cause she never kept up with production like other countries did.
I just saw a docomentry stating England 1st and Germany 2nd, where did you get youre information from the internet?
Aly,
This info is widely available on the net but also any reference book you care to mention, the BEF was only 6 Divisions, this was nearly half Britains standing Army. Germany sent many times that into France, how do you think Germany was able to fight on two fronts with an army smaller than UK’s.