Sir Humphrey - It would indeed be embarrassing, however this is the 1930s so the press is much more deferential and actually knows what the words 'National Interest' mean. Were it to leak I would expect the editor to have a chat with the chaps down the club and agree not to run the parts that would diminish Britain's standing in the world and cause consternation in the Empire.
trekaddict - While I'm still sorting the exact details, particularly with the Cavalry/Tank blokes, I hope it's a cunning plan.
While there should be a plan for conscription I'm not sure there will be, no-one is planning for a general European war or a vast British Army to fight in one. I think we all know that's probably a mistake.
DonnieBaseball - The Cavalry will be the problem, I came across a quote from the time something along the lines of "Asking the Cavalry to give up their horses for trucks is like asking a great musician to give up the violin and devote himself to the gramophone."
There's so many things wrong with that I don't know where to start, but I think it illustrates the scale of the problem.
Carlstadt Boy - It is going to happen, I'll include a screenshot of the even in the next update how's that?
trekaddict - Staying with the British one purely on the basis of the name 'Operational Stages' sounds like the kind of thing the IGS would do. Of course as it is generally thought to be the worst doctrine in the game (long term anyway) I will be supplementing it with a few events.
Incognitia - Indeed, there's only so much you can do to change an Army's culture over the short term (short of the shock of utter defeat or something similar).
Derek Pullem - You just reminded me of the Yes Minister episode where the Army fiercely fight against extra funding as it will mean they have to adopt conscription.
trekaddict - OTL solution was the General Service Corps, it pooled all the specialists and any surplus manpower and redistributed it as needed. It was also involved in the reallocation and retraining jobs (for instance when the manpower crunch really hit late war and several AA units became artillery units). So you could just take that organisation and beef it up a bit, make it the central point for all conscripts.
However that is not my solution, I have something else in mind.
Kasakka - Very true. It took till spring '39 for even a limited form of conscription to be introduced in Britain, even then it took so long to implement it was overtaken by the start of the war.
Nathan Madien - Sadly entirely true, the Cavalry really didn't want to learn how to use their tanks and no-one forced them. Things did get a bit better in the late 30s after they accepted mechanisation was irrevocable, but it was far too late by then.
trekaddict - Discussing it can hurt if anyone finds out!
merrick - I think Chetwode must have come to believe the old truth 'No good deed goes unpunished'. His reward for fixing the mess of the Indian Army is to be given the job of fixing the over-arching mess of the whole Army.
I hadn't thought of the Fisher parallel but it's not a bad one, the only problem is that Chetwode is only writing a report, it's going to be Deverell who implements it. He's not a bad officer, but he's no Fisher. Still the CIGS has no term of office so could be replaced if necessary.....
Duritz - Wash your mouth out! That Boys Rifle is the cutting edge of anti-tank weaponry design, a brand new prototype undergoing field tests. Don't you know the anti-tank rifle is being developed by all the major powers, if Britain doesn't get one we'll be left behind! (
)
Seriously it's not that bad a weapon, for the 1930s. It just really should have been replaced for frontline units by 1941 (against Pz II/III and anything Italian it was OK). Admittedly that sort of comment applies to a great many weapons on both sides so it's not exactly insightful.
Sir Humphrey - I wouldn't be so sure, didn't it get a tungsten round in OTL?
Karelian - The question is do you try for the big bang all at once approach or the step by step. The former is the harder fight but the latter risks the reforms stopping half way through due to a change in priority or personnel.
Davout - Professionalism has been a perennial problem for the British Army, colonial policing does not encourage studious thinking. The Admin problem really depends on the staff involved, good staff can make it work but average/bad staff really struggle.
Interesting point on Churchill's book, somewhat depressingly there were major post-Boer War reforms (Haldane Reforms) which aimed to fix most of the problems Chetwode has identified. Show up quite how bad things were back in the 1880s that the 1930s problems were still an improvement.
Vann the Red - He also plans to promote world peace and work with children and animals.
KaiserMuffin - Britain's been struggling for decades with the regimental structure. For all it's many faults it is perfect for colonial policing, sending small detachments of great distances for long periods. It's also outstanding for morale and was (probably) the main reason the British Army didn't mutiny in WW1 while certain garlic munchers did. You don't muck around with such a system lightly.
Duritz - No need for a few thousands words from me it's already been done;
The Indescribably Exciting Tungsten Story
Davout - That's harsh! I'm predicting reaching 1943 somewhere around 2028 on my current rate of progress!
C&D - The RFC/RNAS got badly thrashed a few times in WW1 when new German aircraft left them badly outclassed. Mind you they also inflicted more than their fair share in exchange when the pendulum swung back towards them. This left the RAF with a good understanding that technology moves quickly and so do tactics, not lessons they forgot.
The Army meanwhile while occasionally surprised (Gas, Stormtroopers) and sometimes innovative (creeping barrage, tanks) never experienced a fundamental change. It's important to remember many of the battles at the end of WW1 were fairly standard infantry and artillery battles, merely refined versions of 1915/16/17 battles. There was no massive change to shake them out of their complacency nor the sting of defeat to prompt self examination.
trekaddict - Is is just a matter of scale? An air force or navy has relatively few people while an army is at least an order of magnitude larger, sometimes two orders larger.
To change an airforce doctrine you need only train a few pilots and maybe controllers and radio men, no-one else can affect doctrine. Conversely if you want to implement change in the army you have to train/equip almost everyone. In fact given the 'Everyone is a solder' attitude most forces have it is everyone. So not only is the army larger but they all have to change. That's big inertia.
Nathan Madien/Ciryandor - Vibrating tank phones? Never heard of that one and it sounds quite alarming.
