British preparations for war

[Gen. Sandworm]

It seems to me that the British were very poorly prepared for war. Im they knew that is was coming and even if they didnt they had some time to prepare before France was invaded. Looks to me that they didnt really get on the ball untill France fell. What do you think?

[South African Military]

Well yes Britain was unprepared for the war. They had been through hell and back in the first world war, and they never wanted to go into another war. Being considerably active in both world wars would of course be a drastic thing for the country. Well, that is the reason why the Sten gun was made. Extremely simple, cheap, easy to mass produce, and quite a good gun. When WW2 broke out Britain found they didnt have a reliable submachine gun, hence the sten is made.

[Komissar Ombrok]

The Britain isn't made preparations for ground war, but the fleet of Britain was very impressive. And don't forget, about fact, that Britain was first country used tanks in war... Hitler can't do anything with Britain fleet. Submarines was only temporary method, and latest time proofed it. Britain fleet was main defense line of Britain, and all operation like "Sea Lion" couldn't be completed without destruction of britain Ships...

[Gen. Sandworm]

The Britain isn't made preparations for ground war, but the fleet of Britain was very impressive. And don't forget, about fact, that Britain was first country used tanks in war... Hitler can't do anything with Britain fleet. Submarines was only temporary method, and latest time proofed it. Britain fleet was main defense line of Britain, and all operation like "Sea Lion" couldn't be completed without destruction of britain Ships...

Sorry but i have to disagree with you. If the Germans had achevied air superiorty They would have greatly reduced the effective ness of the British Navy. Remember the Bismark was disabled by just a lucky torpedo shot to the rutter. From a Swordfish which wasnt much better than most world war1 plans. Air power vs Naval can be pretty evenly matched. Pearl harbor is another example. Of couse this would depend alot on mass production of Germans planes.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Air force - good thing, and can make a lot of troubles to Navy. But you self proof my point. The German hadn't number of planes to fully cover such great landing operation. And they have a very small time in Air. Time for active actions on the British side was about 10-20 minutes for all sturm planes... That wasn't enough...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Again alot of that goes to problems with Hitler and Goering. The lufftewaffe had great protetype by 1940 and if this were to be rushed into production this could have given the British navy alot of trouble. I have no doubt that if the Germans had continue to strike stragegic targets in England they could have acheived air superiority over english areas. Then the just need to focus on the Navy. Germany had the production to mass produce planes but they only massed produce the crappy and outdated ones.

[Komissar Ombrok]

If you read the book of Adolf Galland "First and Last", you must know, that the Hitler wants more bombers with more range of actions. But germans have no good prototypes of it. All bombers attacks on British was only to south part, and the bombers can't even make a scar on industry zones at the north. The range was very limited.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I forget the source but I will tell you that most historians agree that that RAF had only 2-4 weeks of combat effectiveness before they germans switched to bombing cities. They were winning the battle in the beginning. If the had bumped up aircraft production after this they could have controlled the english skys. Southern part ot not. Also the Germans did have a navy even if it was weak. Im sure that they could have invaded britain if they had achevied air superiority. Probably would have been early or mid 41. The British would have to throw everything they had into protecting the homeland and would have greatly depleted their combat effectiveness in other areas of the world.

I understand that the Germans lost many pilots and plane during this but it could have been done because they almost did it.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Almost did? Don't think so. We are returned to begininig of our discussion. How german can transport enough tanks and supplies to another coast? Every tank - not only 30-40 tonns of metal and 3 members of crew. Every tank such PzKv IV needs at least about 1 tonn of ammunition, 3-4 tonns of fuel, mechanics crew, reserve part, hedquarters, field evaquators, medics, food for all that people (Don't forget about prostitutes, legalized in german army, Hitler personaly create that law :) ) But not only tanks must be transfered. Infantry more than important in some type of actions... Hitler have no transport shipss for such operation... And more. The Soviet operation "Groza" ("Thunderstorm"), was planned to the 6 Jule. If the Hitler was transfered the army to Britain, they would lost all European territories in few days...

[Gen. Sandworm]

Komissar Ombrok, I think your right we are getting a bit off topic here. And almost off topic in the other forum as well. We might need to make a new forum so that they debate may continue. :D :D :D

Interesting point about the hookers. :lol:

[South African Military]

Yes it might be true that if Hitler kept up the attack a bit longer they would have reached Air superiority. But it all goes to Radar, the German air force could not believe that the British could have so many planes, they really didnt have as much as Germany thought. Radar put the planes in exactly the right place and time to meet the German Planes.

Anyway the German fighters deffinetely had a good match with the British Spitfires and Hurricanes, I would have to say that the British planes were supperior. BUT I AM GOING OFF TOPIC, so forgive me.

[Komissar Ombrok]

I think this point isn't off topic... But you all forgot very important thing. Britain had not bad air forces, but the british pilots havn't a war experience. Most of Hitler pilots have an experience in the Italy. That given to Hitler very great superiority. At this point, we must talk not about bad preparations of Britain to air war, but about better preparations of German.

[WildBoar]

Britain had been preparing for war for several years before it broke out as had most other countries involved,they all knew it was coming.

The production of aircraft and radar etc as well as the expansion programme for the RAF was well underway by the outbreak of war although it was hard to fully put the required resources into it in peace time.

The British were not as ready as they needed to be but if we had not wasted so much of our resources in France then we would have been better off to defend ourselves.As for the experience of the Germans they were much better organised for a start due to their fighting in Spain but it didn't take long for the RAF to adopt their tactics.

Also the attack fleet seemed to consist of Barges which are definitely not ideal for crossing the channel at the best of times let alone under attack and it would have been hard to land the forces required to establish a Bridgehead as every available man in the UK would have been there with a gun to repel them :)

[Percy]

The worst about Britain's preparation to war was the tank problem....
Between the 2 war , britain politic , and specially in the army, was against tank..and heavy armor....( not all but mainly!!)
That's why when the war began, britain had a few tanks and mainly light tanks...

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. This is a true about tanks. But for which type war Britain prepaired? Agressive or defensive? Tanks was need only for agressive war. The two counties made it - USSR and German. But for defensive war, the Britain was need to make more better fighter airforce and Navy.

[South African Military]

Yep. This is a true about tanks. But for which type war Britain prepaired? Agressive or defensive? Tanks was need only for agressive war. The two counties made it - USSR and German. But for defensive war, the Britain was need to make more better fighter airforce and Navy.

Ya, but in the end the British tanks where not toooo bad. Id have to go with the Churchill flame thrower. :D

[Komissar Ombrok]

Oh... The Churchill tank was more bad then T-34, tank builded before war. With tanks designed in the war like King Tiger or JS-2 he can't even compare... I'm very like the Royal Navy, British also had a good airforce, but american and british tanks was suxx... 8)

[Dani]

Agree with Komissar Ombrok's point of view!!
You just simply couldn't compare German or Soviet tanks with American or British tanks. With all respect, Americans (mostly, but also the Brits) learns a lot from studying after the war German and Soviet tanks.

[Komissar Ombrok]

For real, american might have a good tanks. The first tank of Red Army, the BT series, was developed by americn engenier W. Cristy in the 1928 or so (don' remember the date) but the american HQ decline to produce this tank, and they was sold to Soviet like a tractors... That was light tanks, but much better than PzKv-III

[Dani]

... That was light tanks, but much better than PzKv-III

Maybe you talk about PzKw II because PzKw III was a medium tank...

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks_medium/pzkpfw_iii.html

[Komissar Ombrok]

I'm using american classification of tanks. PzKw -III and IV was less than 20-tonns mass and attached to light tank class... Later models of PzKw-IV was about 21 tonns, but cost of increase armor was a speed and maneurability. I can't count it like a medium tank also...

[Dani]

OK.
Anyway I still disagree with you in ideea that BT is much better than PzKw III.

[Komissar Ombrok]

See this:

Tank: PzKw III PzKwIV BT-5 BT-7

Weight : 15,4 t 18,4 t 12,6 t 14,7 t

Gun : 37 mm (medium) 75 mm (short) 45 mm(short) 45 mm (medium)

Miniguns: 2 2 1 2

Armor : 15 mm 20 mm (lasted version of 1942 - 50 mm)
17 mm 25 mm

Engine : 250 h.p. 250 h.p. 300 h.p. (diesel) 360 h.p.(diesel)

Speed : 35 km/h 31 km/h 45 km/h 52 km/h


Can you call PzKw III better than BT-7 or BT-5? Only PzKw IV was better than BT-5, but because shortened gun in firepower was equal with BT-7. But speed characteristic of BT was much better...


BTW, is this theme for discussion in BRITISH military forum? ;)

[Dani]

Right, we have to discuss it in German Military or in Russian Miltary section.

[Komissar Ombrok]

And to continue British theme - they have no need tanks in the defense war, and have no good prototypes to produce them. Even now Britain have no big tank forces with such reason: have no need in them. More strange in preparations to war was position of France - they need a tanks... but not made them. In a real, I can't understand why Britain didn't send amount of forces to France in the first days if war...

[South African Military]

Ya of course, Id have to agree with you guys that the American and British tanks, were nothing compared to the German and Soviet tanks. It is interesting to know, that I think the British were the first to invent tanks, right? How come they didnt keep up with the technology and research. Anyway the main reason why Britain doesnt have such a large tank force today, is 1. Britian today, is not interested much with war (besides Tony Blair lol). Theve already stripped their air force by alot. They also dont have such a big budget, almost nothing compared to the U.S. and they are pretty low compared with other countries. But they always focuse on quality, and top technology, which still makes them a pretty mean fighting force. 2. Their population is also quite small. But i might be going off topic.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Yep. First time tanks in war was used by British in the WW1 at river Somma. But Britain simply havn't enough space for tank wars? they no need in them. BTW, first tanks was prected by Leonardo Da Vinchi... He draw the schemes of them, but they wasn't used til XX century...

[South African Military]

Yep. First time tanks in war was used by British in the WW1 at river Somma. But Britain simply havn't enough space for tank wars? they no need in them. BTW, first tanks was prected by Leonardo Da Vinchi... He draw the schemes of them, but they wasn't used til XX century...

Not enough space? Well I doubt they would be having tank battles on Britain, the Royal Navy and Royal air force will take care of who ever thinks of dropping off a tank. Ya alot of technology was imagined by some guy, and then made possible, with new technology. There was this one guy long time ago who predicted that we should go to the moon and launch at Florida, becuase it was closest to the equator and therefore the closest spot to get to the moon. Thats why NASA uses the space station in Florida.

[Komissar Ombrok]

That is what I told. Britain was fully trusted to Navy and airforces and don't believe in war on Britain territory. In such case, why Britain must have a tanks?

[Gen. Sandworm]

That is what I told. Britain was fully trusted to Navy and airforces and don't believe in war on Britain territory. In such case, why Britain must have a tanks?

I guessed they learned pretty quickly why they needed tanks. Again it would appear assumption was wrong. :(

[FW-190 Pilot]

how about the sharmen tank late in the war equipped with 90mm cannon, it did take out some of the tiger tanks, plus their speed is very fast, which means they are very mobile (at least better than the one offered by the germans)

[Gen. Sandworm]

how about the sharmen tank late in the war equipped with 90mm cannon, it did take out some of the tiger tanks

Alot of times the Sherman(s) had to get behind the tiger. If a group of 6 Sherman came upon a tiger usually 3 or 4 would be taken out by the time the others got around to hit it in the back to take it out. The Sherman was an engineering disaster but was somewhat effective because of the huge numbers of them that were produced.

[Komissar Ombrok]

Mobility was always weak point of germans tank. Sherman - really not bad tank equal to good medium tanks of ww2. But he was produced enough late and not in a quanity for for war.

[South African Military]

That is what I told. Britain was fully trusted to Navy and airforces and don't believe in war on Britain territory. In such case, why Britain must have a tanks?

I guessed they learned pretty quickly why they needed tanks. Again it would appear assumption was wrong. :(

Yes i suppose, they never thought that anyone could pull up such a force after WW1.

[Komissar Ombrok]

For real, that was a good point. SU initualy sold tonns of gold to create such good tanks like T-34 or KV. But they would be out of date in the end of war without modifications. Progress in war very fast and always hold new tech is very expensive.

[WildBoar]

Britain does or at leats did have recently a large tank force based in Germany which is where the tanks went from to the gulf.

I think Britain has finally cut it's forces too far as We will now struggle to keep up with commitments :(

[crabtastic]

And let's not forgot that in the late 1930s a full half of the British Army was in Palestine trying to keep the Zionists and the Palestinians from ripping each other's throats out...

[Voluntary Escaper]

British doctrine was to design and employ tanks as infantry support. The idea of the tank as heavy cavalry did not feature.

[67th Tigers]

Ummm, a few points here.

1. Germany did not have any naval attack aircraft, nor any air dropped torpedoes. What they used at Dunkirk and in the Channel was Stukas equipped with 200lb bombs. At Dunkirk, against destroyers stationary in a harbour the Luftwaffe scored 6 hits in hundreds of sorties. A similar result was seen at Norway. In the early Battle of Britain they had great trouble hitting 6kt merchants. I would not place any faith in the Luftwaffe's capacity to attack a Task Force travelling at 25kts, with irregular course changes defended by several hundred anti-aircraft guns.

2. In the early war, the allies had more and better tanks than the Germans at the time of the Battle of France (3,384 allied tanks vs 2,445 German and Italian tanks). It was their method of use that was interesting, as a mobile force applying strength against weakness.

[IRONMAN]

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.

[Voluntary Escaper]

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.

[Sturmtruppen]

British doctrine was to design and employ tanks as infantry support. The idea of the tank as heavy cavalry did not feature.
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!
:D

[Sturmtruppen]

The Sherman was an engineering disaster but was somewhat effective because of the huge numbers of them that were produced.
: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.

[Walther]

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

[IRONMAN]

The Sherman was an engineering disaster but was somewhat effective because of the huge numbers of them that were produced.
: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.

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.

[student-scaley]

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!

[South African Military]

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!

haha, I must admit that funny :D

[Canaris]

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!

[Sturmtruppen]

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!

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! :)

[FW-190 Pilot]

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!

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! :)
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs

[Sturmtruppen]

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!

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! :)
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs

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.

[FW-190 Pilot]

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!

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! :)
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs

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.
perhaps my english sucks, but i have no idea of what you said, can you try to rephrase it, thanks

[Sturmtruppen]

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!

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! :)
tanks are important, but i think air superiority is even more important, how many german tanks are destroyed by bombers or spitfire or mustangs

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.
perhaps my english sucks, but i have no idea of what you said, can you try to rephrase it, thanks
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.

[FW-190 Pilot]

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

[Sturmtruppen]

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
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?

[student-scaley]

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!

[Sturmtruppen]

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!
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: .

[South African Military]

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.

[Canaris]

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

[Cheshire Yeomanry]

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.

[1000ydstare]

Infantry, men on the ground, are the most important and versatile part of an army. Everything else ensures that they are safe, fed and in the right place!!!

Towards the end of the war the allies got aerial tank killing to a fine art. Hence aircraft like the Typhoon which was specifically created with ground support in mind and a few cannon armed varients of the Spitfire and Hurricane.

[Blitz]

It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. :cry:

[BDL]

It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. :cry:

Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war

[Charles]

It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. :cry:

Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war

But England received military help from US before the US entering the war... Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:

[BDL]

It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. :cry:

Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war

But England received military help from US before the US entering the war... Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:

It wasn't, the battle was won in the late 1930s with the building of the radar stations in southern England and in early 1940 when Air Marshall Dowding refused to send any more fighters to France.

Don't believe everything that Hollywood tells you!

[Charles]

It seems everyone missed a small detail for Englands preparedness. Churchill had roosevelt in his hip pocket. Without the U.S.A. no England. :cry:

Not true - the Battle of Britain was won before the US entered the war

But England received military help from US before the US entering the war... Although this might not be the real reason for Britain to win that battle :roll:

It wasn't, the battle was won in the late 1930s with the building of the radar stations in southern England and in early 1940 when Air Marshall Dowding refused to send any more fighters to France.

Don't believe everything that Hollywood tells you!

True, US aid began in the beggings of 1941 :oops:

[Blitz]

Get real! With out U.S.A. help$$$$$ etc. England & Russia, would be down the drain! As a result, well, the "cold war" is a 'small' example of what uncle joe(roosevelt,churchill) brought upon Europe. Tragic, to say the least. The first sign was when Churchill said to Truman at Potsdam,"We stuck the wrong pig". Pathetic!

[BDL]

Get real! With out U.S.A. help$$$$$ etc. England & Russia, would be down the drain! As a result, well, the "cold war" is a 'small' example of what uncle joe(roosevelt,churchill) brought upon Europe. Tragic, to say the least. The first sign was when Churchill said to Truman at Potsdam,"We stuck the wrong pig". Pathetic!

Mate, the British (and the Commonwealth/Free French/Polish/Belgian etc) won the Battle of Britain, all on their own. Once the Battle of Britain was won, the UK was safe from invasion, therefore to say "without the US, no England" is incorrect. Also, the US did very well out of loans given to the UK during the war, while they almost bankrupted us after the war.

[Firefly]

Get real! With out U.S.A. help$$$$$ etc. England & Russia, would be down the drain! As a result, well, the "cold war" is a 'small' example of what uncle joe(roosevelt,churchill) brought upon Europe. Tragic, to say the least. The first sign was when Churchill said to Truman at Potsdam,"We stuck the wrong pig". Pathetic!

Whats pathetic, the Cold War, the fact that the Cold War was allowed to happen, or the fact that you think some of the other posters here are?

Please expand.

[Bladensburg]

Blitz, Churchill had not been in office long enough by the time the BoB started for him to make any progress in getting any sort of aid from the US. In any case almost everything the US "gave" was actually paid for ( still being paid for, in fact).

[Sturmtruppen]

Get real! With out U.S.A. help$$$$$ etc. England & Russia, would be down the drain! As a result, well, the "cold war" is a 'small' example of what uncle joe(roosevelt,churchill) brought upon Europe. Tragic, to say the least. The first sign was when Churchill said to Truman at Potsdam,"We stuck the wrong pig". Pathetic!
yes,you are right,usa gave help to other countries in many wars,and the help has mostly been decisive,without american forces,giving important losses to the axis, and giving a great help for the freedom,maybe now we were under the nazi empire, eating struddel and with grey uniforms and with funny short moustaches :shock: .

Im happy that the americans helped in the war,i also think that without their help,the allies and soviets would easily be defeated (the nazi war machine was by far,the most effective).
the battle of britain wasn't the entire war,it was?

[Blitz]

Fiefly, I'm not sure of what your post meant. About pathetic ,cold war? I am not trying to sound like I don't like anyone on this forum. Opinion and debate. I am 100% sure If the U.S. had not entered the war, England would be in worse shape than she is now. And England never paid back the U.S. nor did any other country, but one. I can't think of it .No offence meant. I almost get the impresion there are a few 'English' on this forum.

[Sturmtruppen]

I almost get the impresion there are a few 'English' on this forum.
and you cannot be more right,they are the majority of the forum !,you will find that also they are some of those who have the biggest post number (appart from me :D ),and most of the british are english,except for firefly that is a haggis and i don't know if there are another non english british members.

[Firefly]

Fiefly, I'm not sure of what your post meant. About pathetic ,cold war? I am not trying to sound like I don't like anyone on this forum. Opinion and debate. I am 100% sure If the U.S. had not entered the war, England would be in worse shape than she is now. And England never paid back the U.S. nor did any other country, but one. I can't think of it .No offence meant. I almost get the impresion there are a few 'English' on this forum.

I wasnt taking offence, I I just wanted to know what you thought was pathetic as it effects my understanding of your statement.

I think the Brits may just have paid our war loans back, not sure though. But we didnt qualify for the Marshal Plan either :cry:

[Bladensburg]

I believe the loans should be paid back in late 2006.

Of course the US has made much more money out of the companies and capital that Britain surrendered to the US to fund the war than they ever did out of the loans. Most of the post-war economic boom in the States was as a direct result of the things they got at rock bottom prices during the war.

[pdf27]

And England never paid back the U.S. nor did any other country, but one. I can't think of it .No offence meant. I almost get the impresion there are a few 'English' on this forum.
Yes it did - all the war material the UK got prior to the passing of the lend-lease act was under the previous "cash and carry" rules. We turned up, paid cash for the weapons, and shipped them out in our own ships. We basically handed over the entire national reserves, and took out as many loans as we could get. Lend-Lease was only instigated by Roosevelt because he realised the UK would run out of cash without it and would have to cease buying US kit - with seriously adverse security consequences for the US.
The Lend-Lease act was passed on March 11th 1941 - and the war had been going on since September 1939!

[Blitz]

What I meant by pathetic, was that Churchill admitted to roosevelt Stalin should have been the one who got ko'd. Which he well knew before han

And,NO, they didn't pay it back. First I've heard about 2006. The heck with the cash. I would rather have back the American lives lost for naught.

The bankers and munitions makers etc. are the ones who proft. Going to war was the end for England.

[FluffyBunnyGB]

Whether the US entered the war or not, the Germans were likely to lose.

There have been many references on this site and others to the unworkability of Op SEALION, meaning ther Germans would have had to keep troops in occupied Western Europe to stop the UK causing too much trouble.

In the early '40s, about 1/3 rd of the World was part of the British Empire. No lack of manpower there then (and thanks again for your help chaps).

Opening a second front against the USSR was the war-loser.

Although the Germans got as far as the outskirts of Moscow, by then the major arms factories had been moved out of reach. After that it was only a matter of time.

Assistance from the US shortened the war by years, and helped preserve the Commonwealth in the Far East, but the USSR would have won sooner or later.

If you don't believe me, look how many divisions were committed to the Ostfront vs Westfront. The number of troops in Western Europe was almost insignificant, and still the Soviet troops pushed forwards. 80% of all German military casualties in WW2 were on the Eastern front. 4 million troops. . . . . . . .

Rememberance Sunday is almost upon us. As I stand there at a cenotaph, I shall give thanks to the troops of all nations, including the US, who fought the Nazis. They were an evil bunch and had to be stopped.

It's a shame that some of the folk that contribute to this site (although I have my suspicions that it's only one person with a new ID) lack the generosity of spirit of their compatriots who came to the aid of the free World in WW2.

[Crab_to_be]

I have split a lot of the off-topic comments from this thread. They have been sent to Off-Topic: General.

[student-scaley]

Getting back to British preparations for ww2 it's interesting to note that in the mid 1930s there was a large excercise on Salisbury plain where armoured forces took on a ww1 era force (cavalry etc) needless to say the armoured force won. What's inceredible was that the war office took no notice of the result and declared it a fluke!

[1000ydstare]

They also didn't think the airforce needed many heavy, long range bombers.

Hence the hampdens and other small bombers at the start of WW2.

The swordfish was still in service till the end of the war too!!!

[student-scaley]

Though i would argue the swordfish did prove it's worth on several occaisions, if it a'int broke don't fix it.

[pdf27]

Though i would argue the swordfish did prove it's worth on several occaisions, if it a'int broke don't fix it.
The main point about the Swordfish is that it could fly off very small carrier decks, such as we had. The higher performance aircraft (such as were used by the USN and to an extent later in the war by the RN) required much larger carrier decks, which weren't always avialable.

[Crab_to_be]

The Fairey Swordfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish) made a significant contribution to the sinking of the Bismarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck). That an aircraft considered out of date in 1939 could achieve such success against one of the most powerful warships of the time is something the MoD should pay close attention to when considering present day fleet air capability.

[Cuts]

The Fairey Swordfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Swordfish) made a significant contribution to the sinking of the Bismarck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck). That an aircraft considered out of date in 1939 could achieve such success against one of the most powerful warships of the time is something the MoD should pay close attention to when considering present day fleet air capability.

You don't mean............ Sea Harrier ? :shock:

But, but - they're outdated...

[pdf27]

To be fair, my understanding of the reasons for phasing them out is that unless you remove them and replace them with GR.7s/9s the carriers have essentially no offensive air capability. Since that's the business we're in right now, there are IMHO good reasons to replace them with the 7s/9s.
Also, ASRAAM does have a significantly bigger engagement envelope than Sidewinder - and coupled with the Sea King AEW that does leave a reasonable air defence capability. Not as good as what we're losing, but remember we are gaining other things instead that look like being more useful.