British Unit with low Exp

[mariandavid]

I did not claim that the British were the best or that the Americans were the worst; I simply challenged you claim that the British were in all respects inferior. The differences between them were the result of time, culture and assets and both had strengths and weaknesses. Both were critically inferior to that of Germany for the first few years of the war. I merely pointed out that the American army was fortunate (as the British were not) that they did not encounter the Germans when their first-class army had been diminished by nearly three years of war.
 
 

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

You Yanks are the most sensitive people on earth.

Who'da thunk it? [:'(]

Meanwhile Stilwell is being rehabbed in other threads. [8|]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid
I simply challenged you claim that the British were in all respects inferior.

British Army leadership was poor, the rest of the situation was pretty good though. At least such is the impression I get reading German accounts of fighting the British Army. von Mellenthin's book on the subject says endlessly how 8th Army was much better equipped than the German/Italian forces, and how British logistics in particular was far superior.

Of course, with Ritchie in charge one might say it was all rather moot.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too.

Some military historians have noted that British commanders improved at all levels as meritocracy and rigorous officer selection became the norm during the war. Brooke's lament to his diary is made (IIRC) in the early stages of the war and perhaps over much is made of it; Brooke's diary is equally scathing about the quality of the US high command.

In game terms, I guess the British armed forces and their commanders need to get a raw deal because otherwise Malaysia might become defensible and Operation Matador might even become a possibility with the wheels coming off the SRA assault for the Japanese player almost immediately.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
Some military historians have noted that British commanders improved at all levels as meritocracy and rigorous officer selection became the norm during the war. Brooke's lament to his diary is made (IIRC) in the early stages of the war and perhaps over much is made of it; Brooke's diary is equally scathing about the quality of the US high command.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Brooke wasn't all that much himself as a military genius. [:D] Though he did have the cojones to stand up to Churchill which was a quality badly needed and possessed by few.

I think it's true that British army high command was poor, though. Churchill bitched and moaned about it himself behind closed doors, wanting to know why British divisions with plenty of air power, plenty of materiel, all the manpower needed, still managed to make a mess of things.

Not always, of course. And I suppose every army had its debacles.

[Anthropoid]

As somebody naive to the literature, I just cannot help myself and have to ask: did it, or for that matter does it really matter how "good" they were? Van Creveld shows pretty convincingly that the Germans were, what? two or three times "as good" as the Yanks? Even more better than the Russians . . . Nonetheless they lost. That makes me entertain the idea that, it doesn't really matter how good a military is, it matters how well a nation uses the military assets at its disposal in concert with its foreign policy. Sure having a weak military and a contumelious foreign policy could spell disaster (South Ossetia?), but then having a token military and a amiable foreign policy (witness modern Canada?) could be a sure fire path to "victory!" When a nation tries to do things beyond, the capacities of its military either in terms of scale, specificity or time it seems to start highlighting how "bad" that military is (The CSA biting off more than she could chew even though arguably having a "better" military at the outset), while in other instances a military that clearly showed itself to be really "good" (Germany late 1930s?) ultimately was not able to make enough of a difference to make up for psychotic foreign policy.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
As somebody naive to the literature, I just cannot help myself and have to ask: did it, or for that matter does it really matter how "good" they were?

To an extent, sure. But as some German general said, "We cannot fight the whole world." [:D]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Nik makes a good point on RAF veterans bringing the wrong message. The key I suspect was how quickly they adapted to the realisation that their tactics were wrong. A good example is the veteran RAF/RAAF Spit squadrons sent to Darwin that were thumped by Zero's. That is often quoted - what is not is that their excellent leaders checked with the locals, reviewed tactics and met the Zero's on equal terms in their next attack a few days later. It makes me realise how right the AE developers are to base their ratings on averages not the always highlighted extremes of success and failure.

crsutton: You are quite correct in quoting Lord Alanbrook's words. However when the field marshal wrote he was referring to the loss of regular officers - those that would have been brigade and division commanders in 1940. My objection to Outlanders comments was that he was stating that the entire British officer corps was deficient - 95% of whom were by 1942 ex-civilians. Strangely the US army had much the same problem. Although it suffered far few officer casualties than the Commonwealth in WW1 it was doing so from a far smaller base - I believe Marshall uttered comparable complaints in the pre-war years.

You are right, British officers at the junior level were actually quite good. There was of course a shortage, but that was the case with every army in the war.

The serious problem in Asia is that the British officers stationed there tended to cling to the old "colonial system" of caste and rank to the determent of morale and cohesion. This problem in Asia was much more pronounced than say in the Western Desert. In Singapore in December of 1941, there were strict barriers between regular army officers and the white Indian officers who were treated as inferior. A native Indian officer could not be served in any officers club or stay in a hotel with whites. (or ride in the same train car for that matter). British regular army officers treated Austailian officers even worse-looking upon them as rank amatuers. An Australian officer's uniform could a get one denied service in a first class restaurant or hotel. This caste sytem carried on into the ranks as well with Australian troops and native ally troops getting very poor treatment over the white enlisted men-who themselves were not a happy or well treated lot. Indian troops were more often used for manual labor and the Indian ranks and officer corps were rife with Nationalist sentiment and hatred for the colonial system that they were being forced to defend. British colonial society has grown rotten and the ills of that society had thoroughly infected the Allied forces. It was an nasty stew of discontent and resentment and goes well towards explaining why 80,000 Allied soldiers were severly butt whipped by 40,000 Japanese.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know....

I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too.

You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent.

Sure. Thats kinda the point though, no? The old joke of British WW1 soldiers, when the war was over, heaving a sigh of relief and declaring, "Thank god thats over, we can get back to soldiering."

The Germans prepared, the British did not. Nothing to do with WW1 lost generations, all to do with preparation/militarism, or the lack thereof.

[mariandavid]

I keep brooding over this experience issue and have become convinced (at least to my satisfaction!) that the difficulty is that increase is linear in AE - and I honestly cannot see any alternative. Take the Indian Army - I agree that in 1943 many of its units would have no better than a 40+ level, however a mere six months later their performance would equate to a level of 60-70 at the very least. The problem is that one cannot simulate the dramatic change that could take place given the right circumstances: In this case take the best general you have from his division and put him in charge of training (this is Savory, for some better known as the definitive historian of the British side of the 7 Years War - an intellectual as well as a practical soldier); turn two entire combat units into training divisions (the 14th and Burma); take over vast chunks of western Bengal for training; ruthlessly purge your combat units of unsuitable soldiers and send them where they may do some good; develop a deep, practical and intensive training regime and rotate all battalions through it. Do all this with complete and unquestioned authority and things change in a hurry.
 
So in answer to the very first post. If you take a below average Indian unit and start it with an efficiency of 10-15 and train it without a break for over two years then you get it to the point it should be at. It didn't happen that way but I guess the system requires it.
 
 
crsutton: ""You can't compare the two. The Germans worked hard to make up the losses between the war and trained a professional army. And unlike the Brits class barriers to advancment in the German army were not as severe providing a greater pool of talent.""
 
Not true I fear -this is an old myth. After 1918 what mattered in the British Army was not class but a minimum level of wealth (the money needed to enter Sandhurst or Woolwich). This is the period when the middle-classes became the main contributors to the upper levels of the British Army - think Montgomery. The Germans were much more severe -partly because of the size restrictions imposed by the Allies, but equally because of the importance of class and family and tradition of entry. Hence the endless proliferation of names (von Manstein etc) that previously appeared in the armies of the Kaiser and the King of Prussia.
 
I was once told (but cannot confirm) that entry to the German officer corps was also artificially restricted during the war. It seems that unlike just about every other army the number of officers of each rank was limited, regardless of local need and casualties. Hence German battalions being commanded by captains or even lieutenants that could not be promoted because the limit had been reached.
 
Sorry - drifting off topic a bit at the end there!

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Many of Truant's ships were single Italian merchats sunk in the Med against what one must assume was rather flaccid ASW measures by the Italians. Many of Morton's kills were under great duress and kill-or-be-killed conditions. One Wikipedia excerpt from the wild Third Patrol:

Ah yes, one must assume that the Italian war effort was entirely third rate when compared to any other power. After all there aren't any Italian foanboys around to upset. [:'(]

The same flaccid Italian ASW efforts that sank 16 RN subs, more than twice that of the Germans. And the Italians stopped playing earlier [:D]
As for Morton's sinking being under kill-or-be-killed conditions, that's normally the way that war works. I'm assuming from your post that the IJN were fantastic at ASW making sinkings against them much harder than against any other navies....

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: String



Well the US army did have the privilege of being on another continent with no real threat to its home country and having a year or so to prepare for its first real offensive operations and not really getting into the fray in numbers before 1-2 years, while the British were constantly in action since early 1940.

I am not sure I agree.

Britain declared war on Germany on or about 1 Sep 39. Germany invaded France & the low countries on 10 May 40. The BEF had 8 months and 10 days to prepare. The U.S. entered the war on 7 Dec 41. The 1st Mar Div invaded Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 Aug 42. The Marines had 8 months to prepare.

It might still be a little difference to face more or less the whole Wehrmacht on the Western front than to face 2.000 Japanese soldiers in the beginning of Guadalcanal when you land 14.000 troops there. Comparing strategic level with tactic level is tricky IMO.

[BigBadWolf]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace



I remain unconvinced that the German Army represented a credible threat to the British Isles.

Well, today we know Germans couldn't hope to invade Britain, with all the historical data we have, but how much of that was known to the British in WW2?

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
If your logic that being at war makes it significantly harder to develop a proficient Army were true, how would you explain the Red Army's success?

That's easy. All you need is endless supply of manpower, Lend and Lease and bunch of commissioners with a PPD-40 shooting at everyone who tried to retreat. [:'(]

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Many of Truant's ships were single Italian merchats sunk in the Med against what one must assume was rather flaccid ASW measures by the Italians. Many of Morton's kills were under great duress and kill-or-be-killed conditions. One Wikipedia excerpt from the wild Third Patrol:

Ah yes, one must assume that the Italian war effort was entirely third rate when compared to any other power. After all there aren't any Italian foanboys around to upset. [:'(]

The same flaccid Italian ASW efforts that sank 16 RN subs, more than twice that of the Germans. And the Italians stopped playing earlier [:D]
As for Morton's sinking being under kill-or-be-killed conditions, that's normally the way that war works. I'm assuming from your post that the IJN were fantastic at ASW making sinkings against them much harder than against any other navies....

Ah, but your fellow British fanboys insist the only 'first-class' opponent was the Germans, c.1939.

Therefore, the Italians are, at best, second-rate.

Therefore, the superior Italian ASW vs. British subs must reflect the poor quality of Bitish sub captains.

Therefore, the low game stats of British naval leaders are historical and accurate.

Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place![&o]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place![&o]

I take it I'll see you in the other thread arguing that Fletcher and Stilwell do not in fact deserve higher stats, then. [:'(]

[frank1970]

Now get real, gentlemen!

Neither the German nor the Japanese nor the Italians had any ASW abilities to speak of. The Allies were the best, plain and simple.
Therefore the Germans have the ultimate sub skippers. Just ask yourself, whether any of the Allied sub skippers would have sunk his tonnage against Allied ASW.

People trying to minimize the British subs´achievements should just compare the plain size of the Med with the Pacific to get some impression about the problems British, Italian and German subs had to fight with in the Med.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Kudos to the devs for getting it right in the first place![&o]

I take it I'll see you in the other thread arguing that Fletcher and Stilwell do not in fact deserve higher stats, then. [:'(]

Not until you concede that Crutchly was, in fact, less aggressive than Fletcher![:D]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Not until you concede that Crutchly was, in fact, less aggressive than Fletcher![:D]

Actually the Fletcher thing is interesting as I assume in game that 'caution' isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd quite like a highly competent but cautious commander at times.

I don't know the game mechanics, though. Maybe aggression actually is always good in game?

[vinnie71]

Well I seem to have stirred a hornet's nest! But my point is that despite what apologetic historians claim, the British army (not RAF or navy) didn't really perform that well. Let's face it, it took them a few years to find a Montgomery to command their main army, and failures were re-employed, again and again. The myth that the British army officer corps was deficient because is just that: a myth. I don't even want to compare it to the German army (which followed a completely different path between the wars) but with the US where despite the prewar limitations that they imposed upon themselves, they were more than able to react decisively and force their enemies to fight on their own terms.

As to the supposed lack of preparedness of the British for the forthcoming war is just another myth. They had been preparing for war since at least 1937 in the economic sphere and militarily as well. Also they didn't declare war on Germany on their own, they had the French supporting them. And before people start trashing the French army, it wasn't as bad as it is pictured. After all it defended Lille with a frenzy, making Dunkirk possible and fought well in the second half (often overlooked) part of the campaign of 1940. And frankly the BEF didn't face the biggest part of the Wehrmacht either. Frankly the sheer ineptitude of the British army officer corps couldn't be better demonstrated than at Dunkirk! It was the navy and airforce that saved their bacon...

I'm not saying that all the officers were crappy, just the top brass (mostly). The quality of the lower grades was generally good but the top brass were mostly part of an old boys network. There was a glass ceiling (in modern parlance) to advancement, which was absent say in America or Germany (though not in Italy). They also tended to snob Dominion officers despite the fact that these countries provided the shock troops and generally augmented British strength in all theatres. This was even more evident in the Far East where there were few British troops but the officer corps was wholly British.

Of course one must not think that all services suffered from the same problem. The RAF and RN had high calibre officers who showed their abilities throughout the war. For example Vian and Cunningham come to mind for the RN...