Why did the British army perform so poorly in WW2?

Did they?

They did fine in every engagement but Dunkirk.

Did they?

Did they?

>>266130
>>266136
their poor performance was in the pacific theatre

I personally havn't looked it up, but it could be of any number of reasons. Improper training in regards to dealing with artillery strikes was there and i'm not sure if they used lmgs properly

>>266148
>poorly trained, maintained and motivated colonial troops, in what is a side show for Great Britain, hold off over 1 million fanatical Japanese soldiers

Did they?

>>266125

Generally their tactics were very cautious and defensive. The germans were simply pioneering tactics at the time but the brits caught on in Africa.

As for the Japs, they were mostly caught off guard and were not well supplied. Most resources with to the european theathre.

>>266148
They underestimated japs on a great scale

>>266125
I wouldn't say poorly, they performed just kinda average to good. Really it depends on who was leading, where, and when they were fighting. Like Montgomery was a very average general, he wasn't good, but he wasn't necessarily bad.

>>266163
No, they thought they did, and they surrendered earlier than they needed too.

the infantry consisted of weak willed lanklets, raised in flatlands, terrible at hiking anything but a plain or a desert.

they had their navy though which made up for everthing tho

>>266183
And the raf.

That's kinda propaganda thinking though. They lacked many of the heavy armor/anti armor weapons other nations had en masse and their training was mostly urban.

>>266130
>what are the whole normandy (all those battles around Calé), africa (until late 1942) and central italy campaigns

File: Lieutenant_General_Arthur_Percival.jpg (50KB, 535x800px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 535x800px

>>266173

Based Percival

>>266183

Not far from the truth I believe.
William L Shirer noted the same when comparing the german youth to the british youth (in the form of POWs) after the battle of France.

>>266130
>>266137
>>266142
>>266136
>>266167

Brits performed even worse than France tbqh.

>>266208
oh, forgot the arnhem campaign

>>266199
They had the Churchill which is considered a heavy tank, and the PIAT for portable anti-tank use. Though the issue with the PIAT is that it's really only effective in an up close engagement.

>>266148

contrary to popular belief, most British soldiers sent to Asia weren't ''British'', they were from African colonies

>>266246
I thought they were mostly Indian?

>>266219
>worse than france
The British didn't surrender in under 2 months tвh faм

>>266271
Probably because they're on a piece of land that's surrounded on all sides by water.

>>266136
Like Singapore!

>>266282
>water defended by RN and RAF

yeah...

>>266199
The battle for Athens was in an urban setting and the english regiments performed really bad till they got their air-support.

the war had already ended though, and i cannot imagine the average footsoldier being too passionate about fighting a former ally.

>>266159
>The germans were simply pioneering tactics at the time

the germans were using tactics that the british, specifically Major-General JMC Fuller, came up with.

>>266260
All I know is the gurkhas became the stuff of legend in wwii.

Because Empire.

The Army had been setup to oppress brown people in the various colonial holdings.

The USA's military is suffering from the same problem. Though at least Americans have nuclear weapons to keep them safe from other nations.

>>266260
>>266246

Most were Canadian lads, royal rifles and Winnipeg grenadiers

>>266148
The reasons for originally poor performance in Asia is quite simple, the japanese could fight in the jungle and the use of spies in malaya meant thorough buttfucking.

Same shit in Burma, commonwealth forces adapted to fighting in the jungle and then completely wiped the floor with them in 1944, although they were starting to fight well enough in 1943.

>>266159
>Generally their tactics were very cautious and defensive.
It's pretty much this for a decent portion of WW2.

>>266482
the gurkhas were legendary pre ww2.
I swear, all those british empirefags on /his/ don't know jackshit about the BIA which kept the empire running.
>>266505
>implying americans would ever stop talking if it was them fighting in the battle of imphal.

>>266173
>>266163
British troops were sold propaganda that the japanese force was weak and had no armoured units to keep morale up despite the government not investing any money into the armed forces there (Chamberlain bitch policies) and got imprisoned, suffered more than any other armed forces in captivity and were then told to sign official secrets act and treated as losers and cowards.

Most shameful act in British military history.

>>266148

Who are the chindits?
What was the battle of Kohima?

>>266558
you expect americans to know about that?

From what I've read, 2 reasons:
1) We stopped every 20 minutes to make tea (not a joke)
2) The American's were just stopping by England for training and giggles, for them the trip home was to go to Germany. The English however were already home, and were forced to leave to go fight ze Germans, that's gotta be pretty demoralizing.

>>266183

>the infantry consisted of weak willed lanklets

>who are the Commandos, Paras, SAS

Britain might not have had the numbers or manufacturing capacity but they had balls.

>>266158

>hold off over 1 million fanatical Japanese soldiers

The British garrison at Singapore outnumbered the Japanese by more than 2 to 1

>>266519
This. Canadians are absolute shit soldiers

>>266298
We're talking about the British Army, retard

File: HongKongMap.jpg (135KB, 800x567px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x567px

>>266519

No. "C" Force, which was hurriedly sent to Hong Kong consisted of about 1900 Canadians (mostly Royal Rifles and Winnipeg Grenadiers). They were not overly trained, but MacKenzie King allowed his arm to be twisted and have them sent to prop up the HK garrison.

Despite their numbers and lack of any battle experience, they did hold out quite well against the very experienced Japanese.

t.Knew 3 men who were in "C" Force. RIP Bill, Lionel and Frank.

File: 1445287468308.png (209KB, 953x780px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 953x780px

"brits performed splendidly!"

>North african theatre
>chindit disaster
>burma disaster
>gridlocked in italy
>BEF in france
>patton > monty in Sicily
>second fiddle to yanks during the liberation
>market garden
>continually shitty tanks and armaments design

>>266125
Lack of an arms industry hampered their weapons selection. For example, Chindits in the Burma campaign had to rely on aging Lee Enfield rifles and hastily-constructed Sten guns. Merrill's Marauders fared better using the newer M1 Garand rifle.

>>266522

>Same shit in Burma, commonwealth forces adapted to fighting in the jungle

By commonwealth forces, I hope you refer to Chinese nationalist divisions and Gen Stillwell's poor forgotten sons of bitches.

They had pretty much the same performance as the Americans.

So the question is, why do soldiers from liberal democracies tend to accrue more casualties on a tactical level compared to soldiers who were from Nazi Germany?

>>267462

dumb frogposter

>>266125
They sold all their guns to Germany before the war started because they wanted to be pacifists.

>>267602
but can you honestly ever provide a serious (non-trivial) counterexample of the British winning any battles of significance that were not inevitable due to weight of numbers? I can't

>>266224

As the right forward company was consolidating its objective it was suddenly counter-attacked by a troop of three Mark V Panther tanks supported by two self-propelled guns and about thirty infantry and the situation appeared hopeless.

Under heavy fire from the approaching enemy tanks, Private Smith, showing great initiative and inspiring leadership, led his P.I.A.T. Group of two men across an open field to a position from which the P.I.A.T. could best be employed. Leaving one man on the weapon, Private Smith crossed the road with a Private James Tennant and obtained another P.I.A.T. Almost immediately an enemy tank came down the road firing its machine-guns along the line of the ditches. Private Smith's comrade, Private Tennant was wounded. At a range thirty feet and having to expose himself to the full view of the enemy, Private Smith fired the P.I.A.T. and hit the tank, putting it out of action. Ten German infantry immediately jumped off the back of the tank and charged him with Schmeissers and grenades. Without hesitation Private Smith moved out on the road and with his Tommy gun at point-blank range, killed four Germans and drove the remainder back. Almost immediately another tank opened fire and more enemy infantry closed in on Smith's position. Obtaining some abandoned Tommy gun magazines from a ditch, he steadfastly held his position, protecting Private Tennant and fighting the enemy with his Tommy gun until they finally gave up and withdrew in disorder.

One tank and both self-propelled guns had been destroyed by this time, but yet another tank swept the area with fire from a longer range. Private Smith, still showing utter contempt for enemy fire, helped his wounded friend to cover and obtained medical aid for him behind a nearby building. He then returned to his position beside the road to await the possibility of a further enemy attack.

File: jungle carbine.jpg (76KB, 740x241px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 740x241px

>>267492

>aging Lee-Enfield rifles

>unaware of the purpose-designed Lee-Enfield jungle carbine.

File: quarteredsafe.jpg (29KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x500px

Required reading for this thread:

ranks up there alongside With the Old Breed as classic of frontline infantry warfare.

>>267828
>A regular Lee-Enfield with bits chopped off
>A new rifle

Still doesn't fix the fact that it's a low-capacity bolt-action rifle.

>>267856
I'm imagining how sexy the m1 carbine for general issue via lend-lease would have been

File: o-LEO-MAJOR-facebook.jpg (254KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 2000x1000px

>>267806
This is about Ernest Smith, a Canadian Recipient of the VC. Of course he found a way to make silly British equipment useful.

>>267065
Another example of how awful Canadian soldiers are would be Leo Major...

>Lost an eye from a German phosphorus grenade, then proceeded to kill 4 SS in the same fight

>single-handedly captured 93 German soldiers during the Battle of the Scheldt in Zeeland in the southern Netherlands.

>Broke his back after being thrown from a Bren Carrier which struck a mine

>single-handedly liberated the city of Zwolle in the Netherlands from German army occupation

>Decides one eye and a crippled back is nothing, comes back for more in Korea

>US 3rd Infantry driven off by 40,000 Chinese
>Leo counter attacks with 18 men
>Fought for 3 days, holding off the Chinese until reinforcements arrived, and the communists were driven back.

>>267949
Yeah the liberation of zwolle and capturing prisoners didnt mean shit since at that point germans were surrendering in droves.

>US 3rd Infantry driven off by 40,000 Chinese
>Leo counter attacks with 18 men
>Fought for 3 days, holding off the Chinese until reinforcements arrived, and the communists were driven back.

This is just horseshit

>>267996
Then why did he get a DCM for each action? (One of three soldiers to ever manage the feat) :)

>>267996

In war nobody knows who took the fatal shot. You just end up assigning the kills to whoever you feel should claim them. Eventually it becomes a company meme. The guy who gets assigned the kills is like a mascot.

Obviously that guy didn't single handedly do anything. It's just that people in his company liked him and wanted him to get a medal.

>>268011
Except in this case it is well documented /his/ friend.

>>268007
The allies handed out medals like candy at the end of the war
also this >>268011


And, i looked up your claims and most are unsourced shit coming from wikipedia

>>268027
Except there is sources right in the article. You can even click on them :)

>The allies handed out medals like candy at the end of the war

Two different wars (one which Canada pretended never happened even)

There's this guy, let's call him Jeeter. He was the worst shot in the platoon. How this man became a rifleman was anyone's guess.

Anyway, one day your slowly rollin in your humvee on a crowded street, some derka comes up strapping bombs, and nobody spots him, but Jeeter pops him in the chest, and bam he's down. Jeeter just saved the whole squad.

The next time you've got a dead derka unaccounted for, Jeeter did it. He starts rackin em up like paul bunyan. That's how it starts.

>>266125

The British have always been shit at war but WWII was particularly terrible for them because of outdated tactics and equipment. The empire was too massive to support properly and the only region with manufacturing capacity was the home islands because of their monopoly system. This meant that their far off colonial troops were poorly supplied and equipped, it's why the the Japanese were able to blitz through British Asia.

>>267065
Outside of dday, they were good canon fodder then

>>267065
We had our time in WW1

>>267770

Not him, but Operation Crusader surely qualifies.

>>266125
look at these asshats jogging around tooting their horns.

they're so out of element when they aren't using longbows

>>266125
Budget cuts and Churchill

>building up to take Libya
>send some of those chaps to Greece
>it's not like now you have 2 undermanned theatres with poor supply instead of one

>>266558
Chindits are overrated for most part. Waste of men and material

>>266125
They were bombed to hell. I know europoors like to say America didn't do shit in WWII but that's horrendously not true, Americans didn't do shit in WWI but that does not apply to WW2. America and the soviets basically saved Europe's ass which is what allowed them to become world powers when the war ended.

>>266271
No, what they did was run away in even less than that, and needed French help even for that. Their participation literally just made the Battle of France worse. By the time France surrendered the British had all long fled to hide on their island.

/his/ is absolutely fuckawful tier for military history if this thread is anything to go by

I'll stay with /k/

File: 32541.jpg (23KB, 509x244px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 509x244px

>>267462
>>268108
>>269246

There's another thing that hampered the british ability to fight in the european theather at least. These are two incidents in the book Band of Brothers, the one about the 101st Airborne, 506th Infantry regiment, E-Company:

While in the Benelux countries, forgot which (probably belgium), one E-Company soldier spots a german sniper in a church bell tower. He approaches a british tanks and request that the brit blast the bell tower to bits, to which the brit replies:

"No can do, yank, I'm under strict orders not to cause any unnecessary property damage."

The same thing happened later in the same operation, I forgot which one this was but it might actually have been Market Garden (would explain a lot):

An E-Company scout spots a tiger covered in straw in a barn lying in wait for the approaching british tanks. The american approaches the british tank commander and warns him and requests that he blows up a house that's in the way as to surprise the tiger tank and then take it out. But the british tank commander gives the same reply as in the previous encounter and simply drives on forward. Once the tiger tank has a clear line of sight, it shoots the british tank which pops open like a melon and the E-Company scout describes seeing the british tank commander, ablaze, crawling out of his tank screaming.

Karma, I guess...

Anyway, the British were already thinking of the post-war reparations, whereas the americans just wanted to win the war as quickly as possible. Guess which attitude led to better results on the battlefield?

>>267599
There is no reason to try and bring politics I to this. Germans were smaller and needed to invent strategies and tactics to utilize what resources they had to avoid another WWI. And thus blitzkrieg and mobile squads centered around NCOs and LMGs, shit that all modern armies still use today.

The english always perform badly on land.

>>267493
14th army my friend

>>269479

Have you even been to /k/? It's the same shit as here. You'd have as much luck posting a thread like this on /pol/.

>>266125
Is that thomson a civilian model? I thought war ones had side charges, front handguard instead of pistol grip, and non-finned barrels.

File: Brit2.png (29KB, 599x578px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 599x578px

>>266282
>>269302
>muh island envy

every
single
time

File: Amerishoots.png (86KB, 314x715px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 314x715px

>>266125
>Why did the British army perform so poorly in WW2?

couldn't be worse than the clapistanis

>>273514
>posting the Aleutians operation
>literally a one off

Why did the british navy perform so poorly too. You guys got BTFO'd by the Japs and Germans.

They performed well in some ways and bad in others.

They invented special forces/commandos and became masters of small scale raids. After General Slim took over they became very good at fighting in jungles. Matched pretty evenly in the desert and fought as well as the US after d-day.

For a nation with a military history like the UK's they still underperformed on land.

One reason is that the UK has never had a large army. Well trained and experianced but generally very small. The need to rapidly expanding to fight in world wars has meant that it's experiance and training comes very diluted with all the green recruits of the streets. A problem nations like Germany and France didn't have due to there larger standing armies, national service and systems of reserves.

Another was allocation of resources. Up until about half way through the war Britain still had the largest navy in the world. The RAF was possibly the best airforce in Europe and the amount of bombs dropped on Germany equals the effort from the US, a much larger country. This all from s nation of around 50 million. There just wasn't the resources to invest in a huge well equipped army as well.

A third point would be the effect of ww1. After that war the uk had no stomach for large losses. Conventional tactics from d day onwards where slow and careful in order reduce casualties and much effort was taken to ro tate units in order to minimise casualties. (With the uk armies regionally recruited units an extreamly bloody battle could result in a town at home losing most of its men, something which happend in the first war). Also experianced units from north Africa, Asia etc where mot used in operation overlord so that people at home wouldn't see there lived ones fight abroad for several years only to die in the last year.

Generally brit soldiers where avearage during ww2. About the same as us but not as good as Germany. Except in the sphere of special ops etc where they were the masters.

>>273526

I would, however, point out that even though tonnage was comparable, the RAF's night bombing emphasis meant that their accuracy and hence damage during strategic bombardment was enormously less than that of the U.S.

>>273514
If you want complete fuckups you could at least look into early Torch and mainland Italy instead of repeatedly posting the same meme landing

>>273526

Another thing the yanks note in Band of Brothers goes something along like this

>We wouldn't want to have the brits lead our covert mission, but we sure as shit want them to plan it.

>>273461
No the simplified model came around in 1942.

File: battle_of_britain_propaganda_poster_mid[1].jpg (33KB, 397x640px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 397x640px

>>266125
>implying they performed badly

File: Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg (82KB, 549x700px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 549x700px

>>266125
How do you want your desert fox senpai?

>>273524
>Why did the british navy perform so poorly too. You guys got BTFO'd by the Japs and Germans.

Didn't get BTFO by the Germans, not quite sure what you're blathering on about. They didn't even have a traditional navy, just U-boats.

And the only major naval defeat against the Japs was because the battle was fought with the Allied forces from four different contingents, many of whom were speaking different languages.

>>266125
They did very well in Europe and North Africa, its Asia where they performed poorly. Not really surprising though when msot of your armed forces are held up on the other side of the world.

>>274133
Licking Bill Slims feet in supplication

File: 1447505216547.jpg (53KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x500px

>>274172
>we never got to see Slim in Europe
>we were denied a brilliant commander who could actually fucking work with his allied forces

I will never not be mad at that bullshit. Monty should have had to fuck off to the CBI and lock horns with Kai-Shek.

>>269534
>These are two incidents in the book Band of Brothers

Both of those two incidents are pretty much fiction based on interview with possibly bit senile veterans. Archive sources and pretty much every book based on 'em have slightly different interpretation of what actually happened.

>An E-Company scout spots a tiger covered in straw in a barn lying in wait for the approaching british tanks.

There were no Tigers in the area. German armored unit deployed north-east of Eindhoven was 107th PzBg. They were equipped with Panthers and JgPzIV's.

>>269479
>implying /k/ is better
Don't you remember the "why did the brits bomb at night?" thread?

>>267856

>low capacity

the SMLE carried more ammunition per magazine than any 'battle rifle' issued by either side. even the garand was two short. do not try to tell me the M1 carbine can be considered a proper rifle. it's called a carbine for a reason.

listen, you are spoiled by america's willingness to try bizarre weapons versus what fucking works. i'll admit that it was inevitable the advance to semi-automatic from bolt-action, but considering what the british were up against i'd say the SMLE was a damn fine opponent for the karabiner or arisaka.

>>269534
>Band of brothers as a credible source.
okay

>>266125

Well overall the army had a manpower and resource shortage due to the navy and air force which had higher priority.

In the pacific specifically the british had trouble adapting to the territory. Their battle plans relied on things they just couldnt do adequately in the predominately jungle terrain. They tried drawing enemies into large clearings where they had built defenses, and in those battles they did well, but it wasnt a reliable strategy they could use often.

The british army also put a very big emphasis on the chain of command. Without the officers, the men were far less effective in solving their own problems. And of course nips always had snipers trying to pick off officers, and of course it was just harder to relay orders through the jungle.

This was in contrast to the americans greater attempt to adapt to the jungle, rather than try to avoid it, and their greater emphasis on individual initiative especially with NCO's that allowed them to "make do" when shit went wrong.

The british alson didnt have a lot of navaln and air support like the americans eventually got. When the war first started the americans didnt really do any better.

File: pre-war-Britain.jpg (61KB, 500x416px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x416px

>>266125
> Why did the British army perform so poorly in WW2?

Because one's social class was all important.

It was almost impossible for a lower class Brit to rise thru the ranks regardless of their ability, (and this wouldn't change until the 1960s) with the result that most British officers held their rank due to their family and school connections instead of skill.

>>275366
That's not true to the extent you think it is. A strong nco cadre has always been important. Their were some officers and even generals who came from working or middle class backgrounds on the first world war. When you militarise ab entire generation you are going to find the better educates in officer positions.

People like General Slim didn't come from a posh background.

>>274243

The tiger part I made up because in the TV-series they showed it as a tiger. The type of tank was never specificed in the book.

>>276664
Still sounds like some stereotypical over the top brit gets himself killed for being polite bullshit

>>269534
>Band of Brothers

>>275366
>muh British class system

No. Just like in the Roman Empire the British army rested upon its NCOs who were normally from low backgrounds, they were essentially the backbone of the entire army like Centurions.

File: images.jpg (12KB, 238x212px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 238x212px

>>276763

Alright lads, whats going in this thread?

>>273611
The UK just took part in and planned more covert missions than the rest of the allies combined. The number of special units during the war was massive and caused the Germans a lot of problems. The original rangers and oss received their training from the brits and where very much the apprentice during the war.

Anecdotes from a couple of interviews say little other than the biases of the interviewie

>>276983
>interviewie

>>275366
I don't know about WW2, but in WW1 if you were upper class you could still be called into the mines.

>>269534
>Stephen Ambrose
>a credible historian

Pick one motherfucker

File: british tommies.jpg (109KB, 634x420px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 634x420px

>>266125
>"the brits performed poorly"
>"Rommel was a hero and the best general in the war"
>always conveniently forgetting about Rommel getting BTFO by Monty
wehraboo logic everyone

>>277005
Same thing in WW2 during the mobilisation.

>>277390
I've always believe as a non-brit that british soldiers and sailors have always been marginally or poorly led, but are very good soldiers at the lower command and enlisted level, desu.

>>267065
>>268591
>What is Third Ypres? (passendale)
>What is D-day?

Canadians bad soldiers. Really?

Im not even Canadian

>>276989
>>276983

Yep sorry. Not proof reading what I wrote.

Just too add. Britain's excellence in special forces/espionage and priority on strategic bombing may have weekend conventional forces as there were many different options for high quality recruits.

>>277005
The aristocracy and upper class took Porportionally more casualties than any other class. Something like 1/5 died compare to 1/8 for the working class. Young officers were expected to lead from the front and died very quickly

>>277423
I agree. Brit soldiers are often very good quality. It's officers less so

>>273526
>They invented special forces/commandos
No they didn't

>>277622
Pretty much did in their modern format. Who did in your view?

>>267065
Look up the defense on Hong Kong lad, they did alright for the shitty position they were in.

File: aryan_vs_anglo.jpg (67KB, 504x330px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 504x330px

Because the Eternal Anglo is a coward and not a soldier.

>>274243
>>274287
>>276755
>>277017
>this damage control

>>266125
British army fought valiantly.

It just had a run of poor leadership, and had to fight cautiously very often due to low numbers of infantry replacements.

>>277738
>this lack of education

>>277831
Yes, you are demonstrating a lack on one.

>>277935
But not taking my historical knowledge from a tv show based on anecdotal evidence? (Though it was a cool show) by only trusting single sources of evidence rather than a wider approach?

Truth is conventional us and brit soldiers where about equal by the time of d-day. One had more experiance but where iverstreached and lacking in resources, the other enthusiastic amatuers who learnt very quikly and had an abundance of supplies. Both were outclassed by the whermacht. Both over do the abilities of there generals

British commandos wreaked havoc on the Axis. America obviously did better due to relatively unhampered supply routes and more men.

>>266125
have they ever performed good in a war though

>>266148

>poor performance in the pacific theatre

William Slim would like a word with you

>>277423

I think this is actually true.

>>278884
Yes. Britain has fought more nations than anyone else and has fought more wars than any other modern state (apart from French maybe). They did very well in some wars and badly at others. Generally won though hence the empire. Rome had a pretty mixed bag too.

>>266125
In the words of JG Ballard, the British Empire was based on bluff, and it was a good bluff, but the Japanese called it at Singapore

>>280036
Command in Malaya was rotten to the core, if people with real nous were calling the shots it would have at least been a good show.

>>274151
>They did very well in Europe

How?
They ran away at the first sight of the German army in 1940 and after that they were too scared to come back on the continent until Daddy America arrived 4 years later

>>280149
Totally new way of warfare. If the US had been involved at that period same thing would have happend. US got to learn from watching from afar.

Look at kessirine pass for an idea of what would have happend to the US in 1940

>>280178
>Totally new way of warfare
Which the British themselves developed in the early 1920s. It is entirely their own fault they didn't listen to J.F.C. Fuller.

>>276808

None of you will believe me, but I met David Stirling once, many years ago.

>>277935

Have you ever read anything about Stephen Ambrose. He is historian who disregards all official records in favor of oral history... recorded decades after actual events. I'll doubt that members of easy company were lying, but their memories weren't exactly fresh after 40 years. War diaries of American, British and German units involved in action... are utterly pointless and probably best use for those is by all mean using 'em as toilet paper or fuel. Things put on paper hours or maybe a day or two at worst after the events tend to be more accurate than decades later.

Who needs troops when you have superior intelligence?
CROSSBOW
R
O
S
S
B
O
W

>>276808
I watched a documentary about their raid.
fking based

>>267828
>implying a bolt action rifle that is slightly smaller than normal will make a difference in an industrial war.

Top kek.

>>274264
You're an autismus, aren't you?

>>281250

Not him, but having read Fuller, he didn't really pioneer shit. Fuller's stuff is pie in the sky nonsense, a vision of war where the infantryman is completely replaced by mechanized forces and war boils down to pushing the button faster than the other guy.


German "mechanized" doctrine involved less than 10% of their divisions being armored, and using them in a support role, a hugely important support role, but a support role nonetheless, providing localized power instead of completely replacing the infantryman, who remained the core of the German force.

Gin

>>280149
>They ran away at the first sight of the German army in 1940

i love it when frogs get upset about Dunkirk.

You're welcome btw.

>>276742

Well, you weren't there were you?
The interviewee from the book was. Don't know why you'd lie about something like that. It's a wartime memoire and there's a shitload of fantastic stuff in it but they all claim that it's true because in war, fantastic things happen.

I do not doubt it, especially not since that mentality is repeated twice by two different soldiers in the book.

>>277017
>>277831
>>278040

We're not disputing minutae details in uniforms here, these are related anecdotes which neither you or I can disprove. Not even Ambrose knows for sure if that happened or not.

Is it likely that it happened? Yes, if for no other reason that the book is all about him sitting down and asking soldiers to tell them about their experiences during ww2.

Why doubt it? You have no reason to and to be honest, Ambrose is a much more credible source than you are in this particular subject.

>>282897
Frogs arent the only ones to despise Britain for Dunkirk, you should visit /int/.
As a German, I truly despise how you guys act like you won WW2 while actually you did nothing relevant into that war aside from having your island turned in a gigantic US military base

>>283327
>Ambrose is a much more credible source than you are in this particular subject.

I'm going to suggest easy way out. Accepting war diaries of 15/19th the King's Royal Hussars, 44th Royal Tank Regiment and 107th PzBg as more credible sources over Ambrose bullshit based on interviews made decades after actual events as more credible sources.

>>278972
France actually has a better record of winning than most other nations in Europe in terms of sheer wins.

But everyone forgets to spout the surrender meme.

>>266125
They were awful because they didn't have company level radios and only company level machine gun squads.

Their training was inferior compared to the German and their philosophy on warfare was wrong.

The British didn't stand a chance without all of their gimics (radar, enigma, commando raids and etc), they're basically a meme country.

>>278884
>>278972
>>283732
The thing is that Britain has factually never won an european war (aka not against zulus, mughals or other backward tribes) by itself.
In every european war, Britain heavily relied on allies.
Meanwhile, Spain, France, Russia and even Germany (if you count Prussia) won some european wars without allies

>>282243
The mechanized forces werent a support role, they were the head of the break through and assault forces.

>>283779
>light machine guns don't count :^)

>>266125
Because the Army was woefully under-funded in the inter-war years. The British Army of 1939 was practically the same army of 1918. All the money went to the RAF and Navy.

>>283781
>this meme again

Britain has never had designs for land on mainland Europe, at least since the Medieval age. Britain always fought to maintain a certain balance of power in Europe, and in order to do this you must create alliances. As an army the British have always been pretty good and the Navy was always one of the best in the Europe.

>>284135
The British army was shitty though
>>283921
They didn't have that at Platoon level

Germans used Machineguns aggressively at platoon level, with MG-34s or MG-42s acting as a platoon's firepower.

File: PepeDresden.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>283547
>As a German

looooooooooooooooooool

>>284178
>hahahaha he's a German! hahahaha

GERMANS HAVE SOULS!

>>266125
cause Churchill literally convinced everyone to fund the army with the assumption that there would never be a war again

>>284156
What is the Bren gun?

>>284295
Wasn't deployed outside of a company level context.

>>284300
What exactly do you mean by not deployed outside of the company level?

>>283803

> head of the break through

Correct.

>and assault forces.

Incorrect. German doctrine was to break through with infantry and artillery. Armor was supposed to be in an exploitation role.

>>267828
Which had a zeroing problem and large recoil

File: hide b8.jpg (50KB, 780x535px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 780x535px

>>269534

>Stephen Ambrose as a source

Poor b8 0/10

>>272415

>thinking 'Blitzkrieg' was an actual doctrine
>thinking the German MGs were any good
>not knowing about von Seeckt
>not knowing about deep battle

Leave this board, retard.

>>284218
>GERMANS HAVE SOULS!

*Had.

we blew them all up with Dresden :)

>>283314

Wartime memoirs are not infallible. Seriously, 'Death Traps' is a memoir. 'Lost Victories' is a memoir. These are recognized as being some of the most fact-light books on WWII.

Also, veterans tend to take onboard popular culture references to the conflicts they fight in as the years go on - look at all the US servicemen who encountered 'Tigers' in Normandy, even though barely any were deployed in theatre at all and almost none in the American sector.

File: JESZCZE POLSKA NIE ZGINELA.jpg (173KB, 772x800px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 772x800px

>>283547

Stay mad, fritz.

>>266183
That doesn't really apply to Scots though

Maybe that's why they were the most effective soldiers in the British Army

>>284156

Both of those meme guns were shit. Hard to manufacture, over-fast firing, horrible to maintain. Literally the worst guns of WW2.

http://warisboring.com/articles/a-lot-of-what-we-think-we-know-about-world-war-ii-is-wrong/

>>276808
what is this?

>>284610
>warisboring.com

Into the thrash it goes

>>284688
A warning not to skip leg day.

>>283547
>you did nothing relevant into that war aside from having your island turned in a gigantic US military base
He kinda has a point.

>>283564

Does these contradict anything stated so far? Please provide examples.

>>284584

I don't doubt that but that doesn't suggest that any of these things did not happen.

>>283547
>>284710

Meanwhile in reality, America did not become the senior partner in the allies until 1944 well after the normandy landings, when they finally had enough troops actually fighting the Germans to outnumber Britain.

Everyone's idea that the US just rocked up in 1941 and was just like 'never fear, America's here' and took control when they were in someone else's country, who had been fighting longer and had a bigger stake in the game is incedibly arrogant.

The Brits were mostly responsible for the success of D-Day, doing nearly all the planning, most of the naval effort (including driving landing crafts to US beaches) and it was all commanded by Monty who didnt hand over to the politician Eisenhower until a bridghead was established.

>>266651
Actually one of the biggest mistakes of the war was siphoning off the best soldiers to the commandos and SAS and leaving the line infantry with the retards

>>284820

Wasn't Eisenhower made overall commander in chief before the invasion of italy, early in 1943?

>>284885

He was 'supreme commander' but basically just acted to diplomatically liase between the allies and left planning to his deputy Bleddel-Smith.

For the actuall landing, all ground (monty), air and naval contingents were controlled by 3 British commanders.

>>284820
Eisenhower was supreme commander breh.

File: 1447841553547.jpg (349KB, 1612x1057px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1612x1057px

ITT: Salty Brits

>>284820
You seem to be forgetting that the USA made by far the largest contribution of men & machines. Not to mention that they took the most fortified beaches.

>>284862

The British army's regiment system mean that, comparatively it got better recruits than the US army.

In the US all the best would, where they had a choice, go for the airforce or Navy. In Britain being in some regiments, e.g the guards, still had enough of a cachet that it was a sought after choice.

>>284972
>we threw more money at it so we must be the best

lol

>>284987
>year of our Lord 2015
>shifting the goal posts
If an American general was supreme commander, and America made the largest contributions, I would call them the senior partner.

>>285006
if a nation was stupid enough to lose 300 people when no japanese were present, then they really shouldn't be senior commander desu.

>>267462
Chindit? A disaster? They did what they could, and did that well.

File: biad.png (34KB, 957x558px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 957x558px

>>285010
What are you even talking about?

>>285018

>>273514
just because you didn't like it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

>>285029
Isn't that also the Canadians fault? And Eisenhower was never in the Pacific.

>>267462
>burma disaster
No it wasnt.

because if it was, China would be knocked out of the war.

>>273539
Then came the mosquito :]

>>284972

Utah was a cakewalk, less than 200 men of the 4th ID died, while Omaha was a mess that nobody knew would be that fortified.

The UK had 60,000 troops to the US 70,000, but provided most of the navy, landing craft and two thirds of the aircraft used during the landing.

Not to mention that once they got off the Beaches the British had the most exposed important flank, facing the Panzer divisions stationed in Caen

File: Taranto raid.png (155KB, 323x778px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 323x778px

ITT: Yanks forgetting Bongs' bombs and torpedo clonks

>>285006

Eisenhower commaded D-dayin the same way that the Queen commands England. He had no military experience, left all the real work to other people and was there because he was a good politician and could keep the allies together when Monty was a cunt (see him becoming Potus after the war)

>>285037

The Mosquito isn't a 4 engined strategic bomber.

File: Rave.gif (2MB, 243x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 243x199px

>The only good Clap tank is the one the Brits modified

>>285139
haha well memed

>>285139
>being this ignorant

File: Noface.gif (546KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 200x150px

>>285152
>be sherman
>get bullied by everything
>be firefly
>get bullied by less things

american 'engineering' is just like american 'chocolate'

vomit.

File: AinsleySalad2.jpg (74KB, 594x406px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 594x406px

>>285172
>make a tank that's 300 foot tall and can only shoot forwards or right
>make another tank that goes on fire if someone looks at it
>use rivets, so when the tank gets hit all the crew get shot by rivets

ameripoor ''''''''''''''''''''engineering''''''''''''''''''''

>>266125
cause they suck

>>285039
>but provided most of the navy, landing craft and two thirds of the aircraft used during the landing
Source?

>>285178

You do realize that the Shermans blew the fuck out of PzIIIs and IVs, and managed close to 10:1 kills to losses in the mobile battles across France against Panthers, right?

That the single biggest killers of Shermans were mines, followed by fixed anti-tank guns, German armor was almost completely ineffective against them.

>>285187
>make another tank that goes on fire if someone looks at it
Are you for real? This is like, the biggest myth surrounding the Sherman.

>>285242

To be fair, it has at least a little bit (often misunderstood) basis in reality.

German anti-tank doctrine said to repeatedly fire even on destroyed tanks until they burned if at all possible, if it looked like they weren't going to be in a position to stop the enemy from recovering them.

A lot of Shermans burned, not because the Sherman was particularly flammable, but because the Germans were trying to cook the ammo to make it harder to bring them back into action or to use them to fix up other Shermans elsewhere.

>>285054
That's just aircraft carriers being overpowered

>>285200

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_day

>The invasion fleet was drawn from eight different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 landing craft of various types, 736 ancillary craft, and 864 merchant vessels.[11] The majority of the fleet was supplied by the UK and Canada, who provided 892 warships and 3,261 landing craft.

>The RAF supplied two-thirds of the aircraft involved in the invasion.[75]

>>285178
The Sherman was so good that wheraboos have to compare it to meme tanks like the panther and tiger.

>>285187
Yes, Shermans caught on fire a lot. They did not, however, explode like the T-34 was like to do.

>>275366
My grandfather, of a noble Northern Irish family, joined the navy as a soldier. His ship sunk twice (and twice did he rescue his bassoon). After that, he decided to enlist as an officer and quit moralist bullshit.

>>285281
Not to mention early in the war the Americans decided to stuff as much ammo as possible into their tanks to save on logistics.

Turns out having to replace the whole tank was something of a burden on logistics and they stopped doing that.

File: smug pepe dresden.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>283547
>As a German

File: 1369867353135.jpg (426KB, 1304x2103px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1304x2103px

Brits been riding the coat tails of nations with man power and the will to fight for centuries.

Germans and Russians during Napoleons era, French during WW1, Americans and russians during WW2. buncha wankers.

I dont know enough about the 30 years but I bet they were pouring money into some foreign army like the have always done.

>>287604
England was totally irrelevant in the 30 years war.

>>287604
>Germans and Russians during Napoleons era
kek

>>287604
We like to win more than we like to fight.

>>287645
kek, English put in a half ass effort in Holland and ran and hid on there island while watching the Germans fight up and down the Rhine and into Italy.

Didnt step foot on the continent until there was a large enough Prussian, Austrian or Russian army they could give support to.

>>269534
>Fiction as source.

>>287656
>Prussia
>Austria
absolute jokes

>>287698
They had the balls to fight, sucks for them they couldnt sit behind a moat for a decade.

>>287707
Prussia 1806 senpai
get bootybothered over the UK for whatever reason, and for how long as you want, they won't be as pathetic as Prussia

>>287604

>manpower

It's easy to forget because they're more equal now, but pre-industrial Britain had a third the population of France, Russia or Austria. They were about equal to middling nations like Prussia and Spain.

>>285216
That ratio is kinda false though.
Like 60%+ of the time, a supposedly knocked out Sherman was back in the fight a week or two later, whereas the Germans couldn't retrieve/repair their tanks.

>>287663

What's fiction?

>>283547
Heh

I think you might have flustered some brit babies by telling the truth

>>287656

>what is the peninsular war

>>288272
>>what is the peninsular war

>what is the retreat from Moscow

File: French militaryhistory.jpg (279KB, 1633x787px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1633x787px

>>283732
>implying

>>284300
The Bren was a section weapon you mong.
It was magazine-fed but that's due to doctrinal differences, the idea was more precise limited bursts and rifle fire were optimal suppression.

>>288360
i knew there would be an american flag even before i checked
please refrain from posting in the future, thank you

albion is only good at being perfidious and fighting against ppl living in huts armed with spears

Britain was completely unprepared, like all other Euro countries. They'd been at the top of the world for centuries, and couldn't even conceive of anyone beating them.

Honestly, it's an extension of WWI attitude. The militaries of WWI were completely retarded.

>>288360

I like the massive jump from the Gallic Wars to the HYW, as if France hadn't fought for over a thousand years.

>>283547
Oh did Germany conquer Britain? I must have missed that part.

>>266136
If your intention was to evacuate it's not a failure.

>>288178
>Prussia 1806 senpai

19 DAYS
9

D
A
Y
S

>>281264

He died 25 years ago anon.

>>288689
>The militaries of WWI were completely retarded.
no

>>289137

Yes. I met him in London in the late 1970s.

/old guy

>>289173

Noice.

>>289182

I was in my teens, and had written him a letter asking about SAS stuff. He invited my dad and I to visit his office at 22 South Audley Street, which we did. He was working for Shell or something at the time.

It was only later that I noticed the address spelled 22 SAS--the Territorial Army SAS unit. Not sure if coincidence.

>>283547
>back to back world war losses

>>288238
And yet total losses of Shermans due to enemy tanks was only attributed to 14.5%, with 6,000 Shermans lost in 44-45, that means about 870 or so killed by German tanks.

They got a lot more back in return; the big killers of Shermans were towed ATGs and mines.

>>286519
>Norn
>noble
You're an occupier and a genocider, fucktard. Also, no one in the UK considers you a real noble. To them you're an opportunist piece of green shit.

>>289431
Is that destroyed beyond salvage or a mere "crew loss"?

>>289700
I don't have my materials in front of me to check, but I do think it was destroyed beyond salvage.

>>289203
>Territorial Army SAS unit
22 are the regs
21 and 23 are the reserves

which one of you analdevastated meme kings has been shitting up /hwg/?

Did they?

>>288717
It's still fucking hilarious even if [spoiler]only slightly wrong[/spoiler]


>>288383
British Tank Doctrine was also absolutely retarded and nearly on par with France's as 'Doesn't work at all.'

>>289444
kek, stay butthurt plastic paddy