British preparations for war

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#41

Someone mentioned the Germans invading Britain, so here’s my take on that.

Operation Sealion (invasion of Britain) was canned by Hitler right after Germany’s worst day in the battle of Britain. Britain’s RAF ruined the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe, and so Hitler decided to bomb the cities. Operation Sealion was dropped BEFORE the decisions was made to switch to bombing Britain’s cities. When the heavy bombing of Britain’s cities ensued, Operation Sealion, and hopes of invading Britain by sea, were already squashed. The German’s knew that with the terrible losses to the Luftwaffe, an invasion of Britain would not be impossible, largely because the Royal Navy was still very strong and defeating it without the air superiority that the Luftwaffe once possessed, it would not be possible.
By this time, Germany’s Wolf Packs of submarines were dwindled, and of little use to taking out the Royal Navy. There was nothing the German’s could have done to invade Britain after the terrible losses to the Luftwaffe.

I suppose you could say that the RAF prevented a possible invasion of Britain before it could happen.

There is an article on the BBC’s web site that explains this, but I don’t have the link right now.

I recall that the Germans never reconciled the Army/Navy argument about whether to land on a broad front (Army) or a narrow front (Navy) although they did amass some barges (nothing like the Higgins boat) in French waters.

#42

The brits never used the tanks in good form,like the french,but the germans discovered the form of using them. well,ask this to heinz guderian!
:smiley:

#43

:lol: :lol: :lol: ,it isn´t true,because it was really cheap,so,the americans built them in huge numbers,and that was a decissive factor for the war.

#44

After WW1 and the massive losses the British and the French armies suffered there, often through bad leadership, military was a dirty word in both countries (the French lost almost a complete generation of men). Both arimies went effectively back to the old colonial policing . while the French realized that there might be a danger from the east, they drew the wrong consequences from WW1 (learning from the way the Germans fortified their entrenched positions) and built the Maginot line to hide behind. The concesus in the French population and government was to stay totally defensive.
The Germans, especially under the Nazis, had a grudge due to the Versailles treaty, and also learned from their former enemy: The use of the tank.
The British, IMO, went back to their old colonial policing military, for which the equipment of the 1920s-1930s was adequate.
Only during the Spanish Civil War did both France and Britain realise the dangers and started crash armament programmes. While the French IMO got bogged down by interservice rivalties, old fashioned brass and logistical chaos (even though they had a good engineering industry), the British concentrated on a few projects.
IMO, Chamberlain´s appeasement politics of 1938 wasn´t cowardice, but, sacrificing the Czech Republic, he bought Britain much needed time to rearm. Many changes in British doctrine and armament were only introduced between 1937 and 1939 and were nt yet completed by the time the war started (e.g. issue of the Bren LMG, the P37 web kit and the P37 BD uniform to replace the obsolete SD uniform). At the same time the RAF replaced obsolete aircraft, and introduced types like the Spitfire and the Hurricane. By 1937 the British would simply have not yet been ready for a big European war.

Jan

#45

:lol: :lol: :lol: ,it isn´t true,because it was really cheap,so,the americans built them in huge numbers,and that was a decissive factor for the war.[/quote]

I agree. I think it served well for a light tank. Heavier German tanks died by it’s gun. But it simply was not a real match of better tanks of the time. The 1st US tank that was a goodie was probably the Patton which was used right after WWII I believe.

#46

The brits never used the tanks in good form,like the french,but the germans discovered the form of using them. well,ask this to heinz guderian!

Unfortunately for the Brits Erwin is very much right. Even though the Brits had a genius like Basil Liddel-Hart writing books on armoured warfare during the 1930s, funny thing though the Germans read his books!

#47

haha, I must admit that funny :smiley:

#48

Once Britain started to re-arm priority was given (quite rightly IMHO) to the RAF second to the Navy only lastly to the Army. Despite this the BEF was the most modern army in France in 1940 as it was the only one that was fully motorised.
British tanks were always crap for the following reasons:

  1. Poor doctrine. British mechanised doctrine was a world leader in the late 20’s but it was seen by the establishment as too expensive during the depression and not really relavent to Imperial defence. Also the major proponent JFC Fuller was seen a facist and rapidly fell out of favour (though he was not a satanist as some people insist on saying!)
  2. Too many different models. During rearmament every civil engineering firm came up with a tank and the War Office bought all of them and the Army had ended up with several types of light tank, several types of cruiser tanks and several types of infantry [support] tanks none of them very good, none of them able to do more than one role very well.

Though its worth noting that early German tanks: Pz I, II, and IV were also pretty crap the exception being Pz III which was OK. The US tanks were useless until the M4 in 1942. The only really good early war tanks were the Russians and they kept breaking down!

#49

yep,the tanks had a very important role en second world war,so,that could be a point against britains,the germans were the best at tank commanders,more than russians,they were the first in discovering their form of use,so,they took a decissive role in the battlefield.

…BUT the allies won the war! :slight_smile:

#50

[quote=“Erwin Schätzer(argentina)”]

yep,the tanks had a very important role en second world war,so,that could be a point against britains,the germans were the best at tank commanders,more than russians,they were the first in discovering their form of use,so,they took a decissive role in the battlefield.

…BUT the allies won the war! :)[/quote]
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs

#51

yep,the tanks had a very important role en second world war,so,that could be a point against britains,the germans were the best at tank commanders,more than russians,they were the first in discovering their form of use,so,they took a decissive role in the battlefield.

…BUT the allies won the war! :)[/quote]
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs[/quote]

tanks won wars,i don´t think aerial superiority was more important,now,air superiority is more important but,the tanks have an important role today.

#52

yep,the tanks had a very important role en second world war,so,that could be a point against britains,the germans were the best at tank commanders,more than russians,they were the first in discovering their form of use,so,they took a decissive role in the battlefield.

…BUT the allies won the war! :)[/quote]
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs[/quote]

tanks won wars,i don´t think aerial superiority was more important,now,air superiority is more important but,the tanks have an important role today.[/quote]
perhaps my english sucks, but i have no idea of what you said, can you try to rephrase it, thanks

#53

yep,the tanks had a very important role en second world war,so,that could be a point against britains,the germans were the best at tank commanders,more than russians,they were the first in discovering their form of use,so,they took a decissive role in the battlefield.

…BUT the allies won the war! :)[/quote]
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs[/quote]

tanks won wars,i don´t think aerial superiority was more important,now,air superiority is more important but,the tanks have an important role today.[/quote]
perhaps my english sucks, but i have no idea of what you said, can you try to rephrase it, thanks[/quote]
the tank wins the war,the aerial superiority was important,but tanks were more important.
today,the tank is important,but the air power rules the battlefield.

#54

thanks for the info, but agian, there are many tanks that are destroy by aircraft before they become effective. Without the mustang and the spitfire to attack ground targets, i dont think the allies tank would have much luck as they enjoy against german tiger tank

#55

you´re welcome,thanks you too.

the weak point of heavy tanks are aircraft,but,sometimes,the tank have anti-aerial support,or,heavy machineguns mounted in their top.

the infantry is the most important in every war?,no?

#56

the infantry is the most important in every war?,no?

Definitely, infantry hold ground and can take ground. Also infantry can be used in every sort of operation at a fraction of the cost.
i.e. a British Private is on £34 a day lets say including food etc he costs £50 a day. That’s a hell of a lot cheaper than a chally 2 or a F-16.

Infantry - The military option for those on a budget!

#57

oh,im going to rent a british soldiers for some days,i have lots of people outside of my door trying to kill me :lol: :lol: .

#58

Id have to say that Tanks are more important in warfare than air superiority. Tanks hold ground firmly, you can not capture a city with aircraft, you can bomb the hell out of them, make the civillians feel miserable and starve, and destroy important infrastructure, but you need tanks for advancing. Bascally Infantry are the most important in war, they are the most basic forms of warfare but they are the most important.

#59

True in WWII armies tended to run out of riflemen (ie soldiers in infantry platoons) before they ran out of tanks.

#60

The British Army had tacit plans with the French to deploy some 50 Divisions eventually in France by late 1940 to early 1941. Obviously the offensive of May 1940 precluded this plan being achieved. However Britian still had some 16 Divisions across when the offensive started.