Another wonderful obit

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember AW <andrew_wegg DeleteThis @hotmail.com> saying
something like:

>Ofnuts wrote:
>
>> With the population of the Channel Islands during WWII as exhibit A
>
>
>
>I think the CI are something of a special case - in a tiny closed
>community there was not the same opportunity for anonymity or hiding
>in the crowds and the presence of the Germans was far more high
>profile than it would have been in, say London, or some remore
>Yorkshire village. That doesn't excuse anything, but it might make it
>more understandable.

It certainly got fairly tough in the CI, especially toward the end of
the war, when the Allies simply cut them off and came back later.
For some inkling of what it was like, dig out "One Man's War", by Frank
Stroobant.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 5:21 am, totallydeadmail....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> John Anderton <john1_ander....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Britain has never had a large standing army.
>
> > No, but it *did* have a large army (~100 divisions) during WWI and
> > it's therefore not unreasonable to expect that, when gearing up for
> > WWI part 2, an army bigger than 12 divisions might be a good idea.
>
> We didn't have conscription in peacetime. Nobody wanted war. And, let me
> remind you, it takes *years* to build up a big army. And you aren't
> going to build an army of 100 divisions *without* a war.

I never said otherwise. Building an army bigger than 12 divisions
after a 4 year re-armament period and nine months of war, however,
*was* possible and should have been done.

>It also takes
> *years* to build up an effective wartime production economy. So that
> point  of yours is useless.

Oh, I don't know, according to my calendar 1936 (when re-armament
started) to 1940 *was* years.
>
<snip>
>
> > >Or haven't you wondered why the country was effectively
> > > defenceless after Dunkirk?
>
> > It wasn't, precisely because the limited re-armament spending went
> > mostly to the RAF and RN, which were quite capable of defending the
> > country.
>
> Wrong again. The RAF won the BofB by a whisker, and *should* have lost.

Says who ? Propagandists maybe or people with a rather odd definition
of "lost".

The Luftwaffe's primary aim was the destruction of Fighter Command, a
task they never came close to achieving and one which they never stood
a chance of achieving given the attitude of the RAF leadership which
was to fight until they sustained a certain level of casualties and
then pull back to airfields out of range of Luftwaffe fighters ready
for a surge south should an invasion occur.

> The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
> prevented successful landings, but only arguable.
>
"without air cover" is irrelevant historically since the RAF wasn't
going to allow itself to be put in a position where they would be
unable to provide at least some air cover in the event of an invasion.

Even without air cover, the RN light forces weren't in much danger
from air attack since the Luftwaffe was pretty poor at anti-shipping
even in daylight. At night they weren't a threat at all.

>
<snip>> > Which would have grown dramatically had they been allowed to
export
> > arms.
>
> You need customers. And the UK didn't have the money to buy masses and
> masses of weapons,

Yes, they did. Perhaps you should investigate "Cash and Carry" which
preceeded "Lend Lease"

>especially as war was by no means certain until early
> 1938. In 1938 most people still thought it was 'peace in our time'.

"People" may have thought that but the level of re-armament spending
shows that the government didn't.

> > > Utter bollocks. The US permitted arms sales to France and the UK in
> > > 1938. Seehttp://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005679
>
> > Nope. Nice link but wrong. The 1935/6/7 neutrality acts were amended
> > in 1939 (Nov 4th) to allow belligerents to buy arms, *not* 1938.
>
> And the UK was *not* a belligerent until 1939,

That's not what the UK government thought at the time. They were
expecting to be a belligerent imminently from late 1937 onwards so
there was no point in ordering (and paying for) arms that weren't
going to be delivered.

>so it *was* allowed to
> buy arms before then.

Technically, yes but in reality, no.

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 5:21 am, totallydeadmail... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> John Anderton <john1_ander... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> > And suffered as a result. btw, about a year after WWI began the
> > British fielded 29 divisions. That many in the BEF in 1940 could have
> > tipped the balance.
>
> I really, really doubt that, given that Blitzkrieg was such a new and
> fearsomely effective development.

It was new and fearsomely effective against weak opponents (like
second-rate French divisions) but consider that the only German
divisions really engaged in Blitzkrieg (in the sense of speed) were
the Panzer divisions and there were only 9 of those. The rest of the
army moved at walking pace so a prompt response by a well coordinated
and mobile force (like the BEF) could have de-railed the Germans.

The weak attack at Arras caused some concern to the Germans. A
stronger attack could have delayed the German advance enough for the
Allied troops heading north (who included the cream of the French
Army) to have time to sort themselves out and attack south-east.

The French campaign wasn't the walkover many people believe, there
were several points where a relatively small increase in the strength
of the Allied forces could have tipped the balance.

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 9:36 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....TakeThisOut@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <7eb1c81c-2167-493d-9cc7-57fb0e97b....TakeThisOut@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, Phil Launchbury <ph....TakeThisOut@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> >> the early 1930's yet still retained utter anachronistic elements in
> >> their army like cavalry!
>
> > Not utterly anachronistic. Cavalry (well, mounted infantry really) was
>
> In other words - dragoons, not cavalry.

That's what the Polish "Cavalry" was. They weren't intended to fight
from horseback, although they did on occasion when they were
surprised.

>And I assume that you are
> referring to Cossacks?

Yes.
>
> They died in huge numbers when used as conventional forces.

Because that was a bad way to use them.

>Their main
> role was scouting and small sabotage units.

Where they were very successful, especially during the winter when
they were more mobile than the Germans. I'm not sure about the "small"
bit though. Battalion-sized sorties behind German lines weren't
uncommon and I've a feeling brigade-sized sorties also occurred (have
to check though)

> >> Had the Channel not been there the Germans would have been in London
> >> shortly after they arrived in Paris.
>
> > If the channel hadn't been there the British army would have been a
> > whole lot bigger (and the navy smaller)
>
> And it still wouldn't have done any good. Because they (like the
> French) were assuming that WW2 would be fought on the basis of WW1.

I think you're missing the point that "no Channel" would alter
British, and European, history so dramatically that you can't make any
predictions based on what happened historically.
>
> >> treaties of non-aggression that existed at the time. For a lot of
> >> countries to re-arm to a significant degree would have violated those
> >> treaties.
>
> > Well, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all re-arming at this
> > time so what was your point ?
>
> That they were doing it in violation of the treaty?

Which treaty ? In the case of Germany and the Treaty of Versailles,
yes, most definitely.

>And the re-armament
> was in specific sectors (especially air with the RAF being kept in
> parity with the Luftwaffe).

The mere existence of the Luftwaffe violated the Treaty of Versailles

>A mass army mobilisation (which requires
> conscription) would have been too expensive.

Yes, which is why I didn't suggest it. I referred to WWI army sizes
for a reason, there was no conscription prior to WWI but if the rate
of Army build up seen in WWI had been repeated in WWII the BEF would
have been much larger.

> The Germans got round that by conflict-training (Spain etc) a cadre of
> very skilled soldiers who then (on outbreak of war) were responsible
> for training the green troops.

If you mean they got around the Treaty of Versailles, then, no, they
didn't. They ignored the Treaty (which stipulated an Army of 100,000)

>Using that system they got a *very*
> effective army very quickly.

Britain also had a cadre of skilled soldiers and could have got a
larger army quickly (though it wouldn't have been as large as the
German Army, obviously)

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 9:47 am, Phil Launchbury <ph... DeleteThis @launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <1icc66s.t5b1im1ecybiwN%totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk>, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > John Anderton <john1_ander... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
> > prevented successful landings, but only arguable.
>
> And (as the
> British and Japanese proved) ships without air cover were horribly
> vulnerable.

To aviators well-trained in naval attacks. Thankfully the Luftwaffe
only had 1 squadron of those.

>Who cares if you lose a flight of torpedo bombers if they
> take out a battleship/cruiser/destroyer doing so?

Er, first you need a functioning aerial torpedo. The Luftwaffe didn't
have one of those in 1940. Second you have to hit said destroyer which
is manoeuvring at 30 kts which is not easy.

> >> Nope. Nice link but wrong. The 1935/6/7 neutrality acts were amended
> >> in 1939 (Nov 4th) to allow belligerents to buy arms, *not* 1938.
>
> > And the UK was *not* a belligerent until 1939, so it *was* allowed to
> > buy arms before then. Idiot.
>
> Indeed. Which is why all the equipment in the BEF was home-sourced. In
> some cases almost dating back to WW1.

"Indeed" the British could buy arms so they didn't ? Are you agreeing
with TOG or disagreeing ?

> And in one crucial case (tanks) about 10 years behind Germany in the
> development curve.

The British tanks were roughly on a par with the Germans in terms of
the material but lacking in terms of organisation and tactics.

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

John Anderton <john1_anderton.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Britain has never had a large standing army.
>
> No, but it *did* have a large army (~100 divisions) during WWI and
> it's therefore not unreasonable to expect that, when gearing up for
> WWI part 2, an army bigger than 12 divisions might be a good idea.

We didn't have conscription in peacetime. Nobody wanted war. And, let me
remind you, it takes *years* to build up a big army. And you aren't
going to build an army of 100 divisions *without* a war. It also takes
*years* to build up an effective wartime production economy. So that
point of yours is useless.

>
> >Also, practically *all*
> > of Britain's army materiel (tanks, artillery, etc) went to France in
> > 1939-40.
>
> Just because practically all went to France doesn't mean the BEF was
> big enough for the task at hand or as big as it should have been given
> the situation (WWI part 2).

See above.
>
> >Or haven't you wondered why the country was effectively
> > defenceless after Dunkirk?
>
> It wasn't, precisely because the limited re-armament spending went
> mostly to the RAF and RN, which were quite capable of defending the
> country.

Wrong again. The RAF won the BofB by a whisker, and *should* have lost.
The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
prevented successful landings, but only arguable.

>
> <snippage>
>
> > > USA - Largest economy on earth and the "Arsenal of democracy"
> >
> > That phrase wasn't used until the end of 1940 when Roosevelt made his
> > famous speech (well, Fireside Chat, actually). The US had a very
> > embryonic arms industry before 1940
>
> Which would have grown dramatically had they been allowed to export
> arms.

You need customers. And the UK didn't have the money to buy masses and
masses of weapons, especially as war was by no means certain until early
1938. In 1938 most people still thought it was 'peace in our time'.
>
> >(the US Navy excepted).Hardly any
> > fighters, hardly any bombers, a small standing army.....
>
> Which was pretty dumb given the rise of nationalism in the 30s
> >
> > but,> until Poland got stomped on, wouldn't even sell arms to their WWI
> > > Allies, let alone do anything more concrete to help.
> >
> > Utter bollocks. The US permitted arms sales to France and the UK in
> > 1938. Seehttp://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005679
>
> Nope. Nice link but wrong. The 1935/6/7 neutrality acts were amended
> in 1939 (Nov 4th) to allow belligerents to buy arms, *not* 1938.

And the UK was *not* a belligerent until 1939, so it *was* allowed to
buy arms before then. Idiot.
>
> > OK, now you've proved yourself to be as much of a historian as Stevie
> > Wonder is a plane-spotter,
>
> Same to you

Nope. Read back.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

John Anderton <john1_anderton RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> And suffered as a result. btw, about a year after WWI began the
> British fielded 29 divisions. That many in the BEF in 1940 could have
> tipped the balance.

I really, really doubt that, given that Blitzkrieg was such a new and
fearsomely effective development.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & SL125
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 12:05 pm, Phil Launchbury <ph....TakeThisOut@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <1d77c4b3-3947-4ba9-b2fe-5dc8ff4dd....TakeThisOut@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:27 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....TakeThisOut@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <72028e74-c133-4165-a9d6-8b654da60....TakeThisOut@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> >> > On Feb 15, 5:21 am, totallydeadmail....TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> >> > Gentleman) wrote:
>

> > Nope. That's not right at all. It may have ceased operating from the
> > southern airfields but it certainly wouldn't have ceased to operate.
>
> And how long do you think the northern airbases would have lasted under
> attacks from planes based in Holland, Denmark and Norway?

Since those planes would have been unescorted bombers, quite a long
time. Unescorted bombers over England didn't tend to survive long.

> >>At the time of the strategy-switch they were (from
> >> memory) down to less than 48-hours worth of capability.
>
> > What is this "capability" measured by ?
>
> Availability of pilots. Most of whom were on the brink of exhaustion
> and combat-shock.
>
> > southern airfields (but I doubt it) but since the number of planes
> > roughly rose throughout the battle "capability" can't be "number of
>
> Planes are useless without pilots. And there was a critical shortage of
> trained and combat-ready pilots.


> > planes" and they weren't out of pilots, so what was it ?
>
> Err - they were. Sure - they were training more but they were utterly
> green. And lasted a very short time against the more experienced
> Luftwaffe pilots.

Hence the plan to rest and train them out of Luftwaffe fighter range.

> >> Utter rubbish.
>
> > Care to elaborate ? If it wasn't, what was it ? Sightseeing over
> > southern England ?
>
> No - your assertion that "they never got close to destroying Fighter
> Command" is utter rubbish.

The plan was to pull back if 11 Group got down to 50% strength, since
they never implemented the plan, it's reasonable to assume 11 Group
didn't get that low. There was also the other three Groups to
consider, they were smaller than 11 which itself made up 50% of
Fighter Command so, if 11 Group had got down to 50% strength, Fighter
Command would be at 75% strength overall.

< 75% strength is not "destroyed" in my book.
>
<snip>
> > By Nov 1940 it was academic since the BoB was over, as was the threat
> > of invasion for 1940 and by 1941 Germany had other things on her mind
> > and Fighter Command was in pretty good shape.
>
> We are not talking about Nov 1940.. We are talking about early 1940.

Well *you* were talking about Taranto which occured in Nov, I was
talking about after Dunkirk (i.e. June 1940 onwards.), neither of us
was talking about early 1940 so I don't know what gave you that idea.
>
> >> At the start of the war - no. But *if* the Luftwaffe had had air
> >> superiority over the channel it would have been a very different story.
>
> > I was talking about "if the Luftwaffe had air superiority" so no, it
> > wouldn't be a different story.
>
> Huh? So if the Luftwaffe *had* suceeded in forcing the RAF out of
> Southern England they *would* have had air superiority.

No, if you scroll back up a bit, you'll find that I described two
scenarios, one which involved the German's having air superiority, one
without. Your reply, quoted above, was in response to the first of
these.

>And could have
> used mass-attacks against shipping which would have (combined with what
> parts of the Kriegsmarine were available) been able to set up a
> corridor for an invasion fleet.

As I thought I'd explained, the Luftwaffe would *not* stop the RN in
1940 and the parts of the Kriegsmarine available wouldn't do enough
either.

>
> >> But it was specifically *targetted* spending. In particular it was
> >> spending on the RAF. Army spending was minimal.
>
> > Yes, I believe I mentioned that up thread a bit.
>
> So then why would you expect BEF to be bigger?

You seem to be concentrating here on what historically happened
whereas I'm suggesting it could have been done differently. i.e. more
funding and a clearer directive on what the Army was going to achieve
in the coming war.
>

> > Which Britain thought she might have to do after Germany re-occupied
> > the Rhineland thereby apparently showing that she wasn't afraid of
>
> But Britain didn't formally declare war until after Germany had attacked
> (and overrun) Poland.
>

Yes but she *thought* she *might* have to do so before that. Things
just didn't play out that way.

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 1:15 pm, Phil Launchbury <ph....RemoveThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <1c761da9-a9c8-45d4-94f0-4e5b2a599....RemoveThis@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:47 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....RemoveThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <1icc66s.t5b1im1ecybiwN%totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk>, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> >> > John Anderton <john1_ander....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
> >> > prevented successful landings, but only arguable.
>
> >> And (as the
> >> British and Japanese proved) ships without air cover were horribly
> >> vulnerable.
>
> > To aviators well-trained in naval attacks. Thankfully the Luftwaffe
> > only had 1 squadron of those.
>
> But if they had had air superiority they could use massed saturation
> bombing to destroy both ships at sea and ships in port.

No, they couldn't *hit* small ships at sea and if Fighter Command had
evacuated Southern England the RN would move north and west too so
there wouldn't be ships in port within Luftwaffe fighter range.
Battleships were largely immune to the Luftwaffe at this time.
>
> >>Who cares if you lose a flight of torpedo bombers if they
> >> take out a battleship/cruiser/destroyer doing so?
>
> > Er, first you need a functioning aerial torpedo. The Luftwaffe didn't
>
> It wouldn't have taken them long to get one. They could have easily got
> the designs from Japan.

But they hadn't and didn't historically.

> > have one of those in 1940. Second you have to hit said destroyer which
> > is manoeuvring at 30 kts which is not easy.
>
> Stukas were able to target stuff moving a lot faster than that on
> roads..

They could certainly hit tanks etc. with cannon but hitting a specific
vehicle (rather than one out of a column of vehicles) was rather more
difficult. Their record on sinking destroyers and smaller vessels when
they were moving was not that impressive.

> >> Indeed. Which is why all the equipment in the BEF was home-sourced. In
> >> some cases almost dating back to WW1.
>
> > "Indeed" the British could buy arms so they didn't ? Are you agreeing
>
> No. They didn't buy arms because a) the various treaties didn't permit
> it,
Which "various treaties" ?

>b) they didn't really have the money (the Great Depression was
> still on)

Nope. The great depression was 1929-36, I've been consistently talking
about 1936 onwards and they *did* have the money because they spent it
on US arms after Nov 1939

>and c) why should they? Britain was still one of the premier
> engineering centres in the world.

Because, as mentioned before, British industry couldn't keep up with
demand by 1938/9
>
> > The British tanks were roughly on a par with the Germans in terms of
> > the material but lacking in terms of organisation and tactics.
>
> Rubbish. The best tank that the British had (and the only one capable
> of surviving a German attack) was the Matilda II. And that had a top
> speed of about half compared to the standard German battle tank.

With armour that was pretty much impervious to any German anti-tank
gun (except, the, relatively few, 88mm AA guns) and a gun that could
take down the PzI, PzII, PzIII and Pz38(t) easily and the PzIV on a
good day. Doesn't sound like 10 years behind to me.

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

On Feb 15, 11:48 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....RemoveThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <65fa7927-80aa-4e61-86b2-42c33342d....RemoveThis@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:36 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....RemoveThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <7eb1c81c-2167-493d-9cc7-57fb0e97b....RemoveThis@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> >> > Well, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all re-arming at this
> >> > time so what was your point ?
>
> >> That they were doing it in violation of the treaty?
>
> > Which treaty ? In the case of Germany and the Treaty of Versailles,
> > yes, most definitely.
>
> Does the Hoover Plan mean anything to you?

Yes, but since it got canned in 1932 I don't see how it's relevant to
re-armament from 1936 onwards.
>
>
> > If you mean they got around the Treaty of Versailles, then, no, they
> > didn't. They ignored the Treaty (which stipulated an Army of 100,000)
>
> Only in the late 1930's.

Which is the time frame I'm talking about.

>Their army during the Spanish Civil war peaked
> at about 12000 men.
>
> > Britain also had a cadre of skilled soldiers and could have got a
> > larger army quickly (though it wouldn't have been as large as the
>
> Only by doing what Germany did (conscription) which didn't happen until
> the war was declared.

Yes

>And didn't happen in any large quantities until
> the end of the Phoney War.

Which is my point. It didn't happen earlier but it could and should
have given the experience of WWI

Cheers,

John
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

John Anderton wrote:

> On Feb 15, 9:47 am, Phil Launchbury <ph... RemoveThis @launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
> > In article <1icc66s.t5b1im1ecybiwN%totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > > John Anderton <john1_ander... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
> > > prevented successful landings, but only arguable.
> >
> > And (as the
> > British and Japanese proved) ships without air cover were horribly
> > vulnerable.
>
> To aviators well-trained in naval attacks. Thankfully the Luftwaffe
> only had 1 squadron of those.
>
> > Who cares if you lose a flight of torpedo bombers if they
> > take out a battleship/cruiser/destroyer doing so?
>
> Er, first you need a functioning aerial torpedo.
>
No you don't. The Americans took out the Jap carriers at the Battle of
Midway with bombers - their torpedo aircraft were cut to pieces but the
dive bombers did the job. The big lesson the Americans learned was that
their dive bombers were the best weapon against ships, the Germans used
bombers against Russian and Malta convoys quite successfully too. The
Royal Navy would have gone the same way if the Stukas had been able to
attack unopposed. The Tarranto attack with torpedoes was successful but
mainly 'cos the Italian fleet was in harbour, caught by surprise and no
air cover to speak of.

The whole point of dive bombing is that the pilot can compensate for
evasive turns and the bomb is released at the last possible moment so
that a hit is almost certain. Dive-bomber pilots don't need special
naval attack training - it's just another target albeit moving and they
have been used against Tanks and other vehicles, they do need
protection from fighters though. Warships of the day were armoured
against torpedoes but very few had armoured decks, a 500lb bomb would
penetrate two or three decks before exploding right in the guts where
the engines, fuel and magazines are kept.



--
Alan
ZX10R - Green of course
Tiger - A pleasant shade of green
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

In article <7eb1c81c-2167-493d-9cc7-57fb0e97b197.RemoveThis@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> On Feb 14, 5:18 pm, Phil Launchbury <ph....RemoveThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <0e3913ad-afdf-4b0c-91b1-7754f3402....RemoveThis@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:

> And suffered as a result. btw, about a year after WWI began the
> British fielded 29 divisions. That many in the BEF in 1940 could have
> tipped the balance.

Except that Britain had believed that the French defenses would hold.
The BEF was there only to plug the northern gaps in the defenses. When
the Germans walked round said defenses the BEF had to switch to a
completely different role - one for which it was unprepared.

> They (i.e. Britain) most certainly did 'gear up for WW2'. Have a look
> at British military spending from 1936 onwards.

They might have done a lot of technology improvement but you can't
start massively increasing your army 'just in case' - because that
would (long term) destroy your economy. Just look at how long it took
Britain post-war to get back to prosperity.

>> Blame the militray planning.
>
> I do

French *and* British. And the British main fault was in believing the
French protestations that their defenses were impregnable.

>> the early 1930's yet still retained utter anachronistic elements in
>> their army like cavalry!
>
> Not utterly anachronistic. Cavalry (well, mounted infantry really) was

In other words - dragoons, not cavalry. And I assume that you are
referring to Cossacks?

They died in huge numbers when used as conventional forces. Their main
role was scouting and small sabotage units.

>> Had the Channel not been there the Germans would have been in London
>> shortly after they arrived in Paris.
>
> If the channel hadn't been there the British army would have been a
> whole lot bigger (and the navy smaller)

And it still wouldn't have done any good. Because they (like the
French) were assuming that WW2 would be fought on the basis of WW1.

>> treaties of non-aggression that existed at the time. For a lot of
>> countries to re-arm to a significant degree would have violated those
>> treaties.
>
> Well, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all re-arming at this
> time so what was your point ?

That they were doing it in violation of the treaty? And the re-armament
was in specific sectors (especially air with the RAF being kept in
parity with the Luftwaffe). A mass army mobilisation (which requires
conscription) would have been too expensive.
The Germans got round that by conflict-training (Spain etc) a cadre of
very skilled soldiers who then (on outbreak of war) were responsible
for training the green troops. Using that system they got a *very*
effective army very quickly.

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit 

In article <1icc66s.t5b1im1ecybiwN%totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk>, The Older Gentleman wrote:
> John Anderton <john1_anderton RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Britain has never had a large standing army.
>>
>> No, but it *did* have a large army (~100 divisions) during WWI and
>> it's therefore not unreasonable to expect that, when gearing up for
>> WWI part 2, an army bigger than 12 divisions might be a good idea.
>
> We didn't have conscription in peacetime. Nobody wanted war. And, let me

Indeed. Conscription was to be avoided because it took people away from
their daytime jobs (and hence the ecomony suffered).

> remind you, it takes *years* to build up a big army. And you aren't

As I said in my other response - Germany *partly* got round that by
having a highly-tained (and combat experienced) cadre specifically
tasked with troop-training just before (and during) the start of the
war. One of the reasons why the Wehrmacht lost so much effectiveness
after the Russian campaign is that most of this training cadre died
during that campaign.

> Wrong again. The RAF won the BofB by a whisker, and *should* have lost.

Thank goodness the switched from hitting air bases to bombing towns..
Not nice for the towns but it enabled the RAF to recover.

> The RN? Yes, it's arguable that without air cover, it could have
> prevented successful landings, but only arguable.

It would have taken the Germans longer to get across the channel (they
would have to build better troop transports for one thing - the
converted barges they were using were pretty useless in anything other
than a calm sea!) but they would have got there eventually. And (as the
British and Japanese proved) ships without air cover were horribly
vulnerable. Who cares if you lose a flight of torpedo bombers if they
take out a battleship/cruiser/destroyer doing so?

> You need customers. And the UK didn't have the money to buy masses and
> masses of weapons, especially as war was by no means certain until early
> 1938. In 1938 most people still thought it was 'peace in our time'.

This is the other thing - we look back in hindsight knowing the exact
times that things kicked off. They didn't have the luxury of knowing
what was going to happen and when.
So if Britain *had* built up a massive army and the war hadn't happened
Britain would have gone bankrupt and no longer been able to afford an
army at all!

>> Nope. Nice link but wrong. The 1935/6/7 neutrality acts were amended
>> in 1939 (Nov 4th) to allow belligerents to buy arms, *not* 1938.
>
> And the UK was *not* a belligerent until 1939, so it *was* allowed to
> buy arms before then. Idiot.

Indeed. Which is why all the equipment in the BEF was home-sourced. In
some cases almost dating back to WW1.

And in one crucial case (tanks) about 10 years behind Germany in the
development curve.

Phil.

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
 >> Stay informed about: Another wonderful obit