UK in the World Wars

[jdavis86]

The only nation (well, at least major - I'm not talking about the rash of countries that declared war in Germany in 1945 so they could say they were in the Allies, but didn't do anything) that I would describe as performing anywhere near and underwhelming fashion during WW2 would be Italy, and even then it had its moments, and many of its units were still top-notch. You've had plenty of evidence to highlight why it wasn't actually a poor showing, so I'll try and focus on the ones that haven't been mentioned, or elaborate on some of those that have.

The most important thing to keep in mind (after reading @FOARP's post covering WWI - in WWI the British had a first-rate army and a first-rate Navy, and pretty much bankrupted the Empire to do it - to describe their effort as underwhelming suggest's someone's research prior to posting has been a tad underwhelming as well) is that the British Empire paid very heavily for its success in WWI. Be it for out-producing Germany in Dreadnoughts, or fielding an army of the size it did, with the support it had, it cost them dearly, and they never recovered financially (or, by the start of WW2, emotionally and demographically).

So - as FOARP well puts it, they didn't underwhelmingly perform in WWI, anything but. I'd be interesting in knowing where you got this impression.

As for WW2, it's important to realise that Britain in 1939 was not Britain in 1914. The Empire may have been larger, but the combination of the drain (financial and demographic) of WWI, combined with changing economic and social practices (people in colonies wanting self-determination, which was a thing before WW2 and would have happened without WW2 - indeed, much of the British Empire didn't become independent until the 1960s, and while the subcontinent (which did become independent in the late 1940s) did become independent pretty much straight after the war, it had been agitating for independence since before WWI). Note, everything below uses 'Britain' for 'Britain and Commonwealth' for ease of writing - it's in no way suggesting Britain was anything other than one amongst a group of nations with a shared outlook.

Essentially, in the 1930s, the majority of the population (and Britain was a democracy, so this was a factor that the Government had to take into account) was strongly averse to war. Declaring war in 1938 would have been politically very dangerous, and a long war starting in 1938 with Britain looking the aggressor (and by 1938 it wasn't going to be a short war) could have destroyed whichever political party went down that path, and substantially increased the potential for a compromise peace and a far worse long-term outcome. The anti-war sentiment also limited how much money the Government could spend building up its forces and, given limited resources, the UK focussed on its navy and air force (although it still put significant effort into its army - of all the major combatants, Britain and the US were the only two that had first-class navies, air forces and armies).

So we've got British forces probably about as strong as they are likely to be, in the circumstances, at the start of the war. This means a Navy that's first-class, an airforce that's solid and growing quickly, and a small but very capable army, but one that was to take far too long to adjust to armoured warfare (and if you're looking for somewhere that the British were underwhelming, it was their bad habit of driving tanks into emplaced '88s in the western desert).

So what can we expect from this - we can expect that the British will control the seas (which they did in Europe, making some fairly bold moves in the Mediterranean that paid off, as well as a bold move in South East Asia that did not) and use the navy to ensure it can't be defeated, which it did. Had the British gone with a smaller navy and a larger army, it's far more likely that they would have been forced to surrender earlier. Further, a navy isn't a purely defensive endeavour, as the blockade of Germany in WWI proved (although trade with the Soviets pre-Barbarossa limited the impact of this until post-Barbarossa).

The air force put substantial pressure on Germany from the air (there were I think (and going from memory, so this could be a bit off) 2 million personnel manning Germany's air defences, and quite a few aircraft to - that's a pretty decent amount of manpower tied down by the RAF (initially by themselves and then in conjunction with the USAAF), and there was an impact on industrial production and morale (or those 2 million Germans would have been off on the Eastern Front, along with all their aircraft and artillery), although the extent of this impact is heavily debated.

From the army, we can expect that initially it can't do much more than be a 'pinch hitter', but will grow in time to make a significant contribution - which it did. The British and Canadians did the hard fighting that lead to the break-out from Normandy (and were expected to have the hardest beach landings as well, although the US got unlucky here and had by far the worst of it on the beaches), and a lot of the harder fighting on the way into Germany, until the Battle of the Bulge. Early on, the British Army helped slow the Germans during their charge through France and decimated the Italian forces in Libya, but were also strategically misused at times (the deployment to Greece was optimistic to say the least), but not to a degree less or worse than other nations.

Another thing to keep in mind - just like the British had to keep a significant portion of the RN in place to defend against the Kriegsmarine, the Germans kept significant forces in France to defend against possible Allied incursions, and after the invasion of Italy (of which Empire and Commowealth troops formed the majority of land forces), the Germans withdrew key units from the Russian Front to bolster the Italian defence, aiding the Russians at Kursk (I'm not suggesting they wouldn't have won at Kursk, but having fewer elite divisions to fight is always a good thing!)

Of course, I don't subscribe to the 'plucky Britain defeats monstrous Germany' myth either - Britain was a world power, with a naval focus, and should not have been in a position where it had to capitulate to Germany (and wasn't), but I'd say that it made a contribution appropriate to its capabilities during the war, and in many cases did well (while in others did badly). It's an incredibly (incredibly) difficult job to benchmark each of the powers' performance during the period, but it's far more complicated than saying "Britain was big, so why didn't it do more?" (particularly when it did rather a lot) - it'd be the equivalent of saying "Germany's GDP was bigger than Britain's, so why didn't it sink the RN and invade the UK? As noted earlier, the only nation which I think could have done significantly better (assuming they did the same thing, but better) would be Italy.

Hope that helps, just my 2 cents, but while the idea that Britain 'saved the world' by 'holding on against all odds' is obviously fanciful, suggesting they were impotent in WW2 (let alone WW1!) is equally off the planet.

Edit: I'm not trying to suggest the UK did it easily either - anything but - the Battle of the Atlantic is a good place to start looking as to why.

Edit 2: Removed the first sentence of my reply, which was unnecessary. Apologies, I wasn't trying to be rude, you just caught me early while my brain was still 'brittle'.

Bravo, good post and I agree with many points.

 

[agentgb]

of course they were different wars.


however, their WW1 performance was VERY underwhelming to the extent I would almost classify it as "half-a**ed" due to the lack of urgency. maybe that was the British strategy...let Russia, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy beat up each other while they stay fresh and clean. I consider their WW2 effort to be much improved, but they were basically brushed aside and reduced to a damsel in distress on her island after being outperformed yet again. Thank the stars Hitler went after the monstrous USSR.


both world wars, it's difficult to consider UK anything more than an underachiever who happened to be on the winning side. maybe my expectations should have been more aligned with what they did in the Napoleonic Wars, where again, they were shown not to perform well at all in a European continental war. But hey, deja vu with Russia (or US in WW1) to the rescue.

The US & commonwealth allies & those who formed motely crue regiments freedom fighters & fighter pilots perhaps saved Britain, but could say the allies resecued the Russians with shared intel, lend lease, supplies, and our continued efforts of fighting the axis practically in every theatre of war there was, and that included the napoleonic period, tsar sure had long enough to prepare, even went into a phoney war with GB to buy himself time while we were fighting the french overseas and in spain, which is kinda deja vu given russia's track record of flip flopping to the winning side, i mean russia could have backed britain & proclaim a guarantee on poland, but it was in there best interest to double deal with the germans instead, and so ww2 started since it allowed hitler be so bold over poland, what i would call underprefoming was russia efforts in the winter war, although, russia did extremely well out of ww2, which is often refuted by people saying well they deserved it, since they contributed more via losses. Britain gave up centuries of empire building in a stubborn effort to liberate europe, literally selling the crown jewels, and silverwear in order to fight, and only not to long ago paid of our debt from ww2 to america, we may have won the war, and been on the winning side, and despite our continued efforts throughout the course, we came out losers for being the first to stand up to hitler. battle of britain that was a huge turning point, it was the first victory for the good guys, had sealion commenced, russia would have been finished for sure, better communication and support could have been set up with the japs, and may have been able to have claimed naval dominance if britain had been knocked out.

So, we saved the day,

 

[Opanashc]

The US & commonwealth allies & those who formed motely crue regiments freedom fighters & fighter pilots perhaps saved Britain, but could say the allies resecued the Russians with shared intel, lend lease, supplies, and our continued efforts of fighting the axis practically in every theatre of war there was, and that included the napoleonic period, tsar sure had long enough to prepare, even went into a phoney war with GB to buy himself time while we were fighting the french overseas and in spain, which is kinda deja vu given russia's track record of flip flopping to the winning side, i mean russia could have backed britain & proclaim a guarantee on poland, but it was in there best interest to double deal with the germans instead

Seeing, how often "allies" betrayed Russia (sponsoring of February Revolution comes strongly to mind, among other things), why should Moscow not act in its own self-interests, regardless of what London said? I will not go into further details, since it is definitely off topic, except to quote Viscount Palmerston: "Great Britain has no friends, only interests"

 

[Director]

Wow. Between the 'Britain saved the world by itself' fanboys and the long discursion into the Soviet invasion of Poland I'm not sure this is worth going on with - kudos to Axe99 for a being calming voice, some good points there - but I'll make a few comments.

1) Britain had to improvise a continental-scale army in WW1, and did so. That army fought well but incurred massive casualties and nearly bankrupted the country. You can't call it impotent and you can't call it the best of the war either. Good, yes, but not the best.
2) Britain 'won the war' twice but in concert with other powers: France, Russia, Italy, Belgium and the USA to mention five. The first four also suffered horrible casualties and nearly bankrupted themselves. By any reasonable standard the British army was not impotent but it was certainly well into 1915 coming into its full power, and while it fought well and bravely it did not win the war unassisted.
3) In WW1, Britain supported a massive naval establishment and a first-rate air force in addition to its army. No country of that era was good at all things, and any sensible Briton would rather have had the best Navy and a lesser quality Army rather than the other way around. Defeat the Army and Britain can come back; defeat the Navy and she might not.
4) Same in WW2 - a world-class navy and a first-rate air force, both essential to her existence. The army never came up to German standards (who did, really?) and the stereotyped view of the army as stolid, unimaginative and slow to maneuver has more than a bit of truth to it. But Britain had that army not because they couldn't do better but in large part because they couldn't afford the casualties. Say what you will about Montgomery - and I've said a lot that's unflattering - he knew he could win a battle of attrition if it was attrition of materiel, not men, and he took the path that worked. It was slow and ugly (I am not going to start in on Montgomery, I am not), but it worked.

Britain is one of those funny cases where you have terrific theoretical thinkers (like Fuller and Wingate and Liddell Hart to name three) whose ideas are more honored abroad than at home. In the last analysis, the British Army bureaucracy bitterly resisted all attempts to change, reform or remake the army from WW1 on; the generals in WW1 were unimaginative (like most other nations') and the army in WW2 was a little prone to flatten everything with artillery and then move carefully forward over the rubble. But it worked, and the British Army contributed greatly to victory in both wars. Not 'won them by itself'... but materially contributed, and if in both wars it was of lesser quality than the other services, well, frankly the air force and navy were more essential to British survival.

 

[Had a dad]

thread title edited

 

[Czert]

I'm not for or against your pro war attitude, but I'd argue it was politically infeasible for Britain (or France) to declare war in 1938, and if they had gotten away with declaring war in the face of substantial opposition in the electorate, if they hadn't have won quickly there could have been a compromise peace that left Germany in a stronger position (and Britain and France in a weaker position) going forward. All theorycrafting, so wet thumb in the air stuff, but the idea that a DoW to defend Czeckslovakia was a no-brainer IRL is a bit simple. I do try and do it in-game when I'm playing as the UK though, and like the way PDS balances the cost-benefit of the decisions in-game are done pretty well from a gameplay perspective, given no HoI's have really been able to cope with modelling domestic political realities effectively.

when chamberlain returning to home with plane and he did have to land , he sow great amount of people at land at airport, his first thought was that they want to lych him, but was surprised and very pleased that they suported him.
So yes, you have truth that dowing germany in 38 was imposible for chamberlain goverment, but i can imagine it as posibility for churchil goverment if he was at helm.

 

[Axe99]

when chamberlain returning to home with plane and he did have to land , he sow great amount of people at land at airport, his first thought was that they want to lych him, but was surprised and very pleased that they suported him.
So yes, you have truth that dowing germany in 38 was imposible for chamberlain goverment, but i can imagine it as posibility for churchil goverment if he was at helm.

Absolutely, as I expect an electorate that was supporting a Churchill Government would be a good deal more belligerent .

 

[jdavis86]

Wow. Between the 'Britain saved the world by itself' fanboys and the long discursion into the Soviet invasion of Poland I'm not sure this is worth going on with - kudos to Axe99 for a being calming voice, some good points there - but I'll make a few comments.

1) Britain had to improvise a continental-scale army in WW1, and did so. That army fought well but incurred massive casualties and nearly bankrupted the country. You can't call it impotent and you can't call it the best of the war either. Good, yes, but not the best.
2) Britain 'won the war' twice but in concert with other powers: France, Russia, Italy, Belgium and the USA to mention five. The first four also suffered horrible casualties and nearly bankrupted themselves. By any reasonable standard the British army was not impotent but it was certainly well into 1915 coming into its full power, and while it fought well and bravely it did not win the war unassisted.
3) In WW1, Britain supported a massive naval establishment and a first-rate air force in addition to its army. No country of that era was good at all things, and any sensible Briton would rather have had the best Navy and a lesser quality Army rather than the other way around. Defeat the Army and Britain can come back; defeat the Navy and she might not.
4) Same in WW2 - a world-class navy and a first-rate air force, both essential to her existence. The army never came up to German standards (who did, really?) and the stereotyped view of the army as stolid, unimaginative and slow to maneuver has more than a bit of truth to it. But Britain had that army not because they couldn't do better but in large part because they couldn't afford the casualties. Say what you will about Montgomery - and I've said a lot that's unflattering - he knew he could win a battle of attrition if it was attrition of materiel, not men, and he took the path that worked. It was slow and ugly (I am not going to start in on Montgomery, I am not), but it worked.

Britain is one of those funny cases where you have terrific theoretical thinkers (like Fuller and Wingate and Liddell Hart to name three) whose ideas are more honored abroad than at home. In the last analysis, the British Army bureaucracy bitterly resisted all attempts to change, reform or remake the army from WW1 on; the generals in WW1 were unimaginative (like most other nations') and the army in WW2 was a little prone to flatten everything with artillery and then move carefully forward over the rubble. But it worked, and the British Army contributed greatly to victory in both wars. Not 'won them by itself'... but materially contributed, and if in both wars it was of lesser quality than the other services, well, frankly the air force and navy were more essential to British survival.

Great post here too, thank you.

 

[Czert]

The US & commonwealth allies & those who formed motely crue regiments freedom fighters & fighter pilots perhaps saved Britain, but could say the allies resecued the Russians with shared intel, lend lease, supplies, and our continued efforts of fighting the axis practically in every theatre of war there was, and that included the napoleonic period, tsar sure had long enough to prepare, even went into a phoney war with GB to buy himself time while we were fighting the french overseas and in spain, which is kinda deja vu given russia's track record of flip flopping to the winning side, i mean russia could have backed britain & proclaim a guarantee on poland, but it was in there best interest to double deal with the germans instead, and so ww2 started since it allowed hitler be so bold over poland, what i would call underprefoming was russia efforts in the winter war, although, russia did extremely well out of ww2, which is often refuted by people saying well they deserved it, since they contributed more via losses. Britain gave up centuries of empire building in a stubborn effort to liberate europe, literally selling the crown jewels, and silverwear in order to fight, and only not to long ago paid of our debt from ww2 to america, we may have won the war, and been on the winning side, and despite our continued efforts throughout the course, we came out losers for being the first to stand up to hitler. battle of britain that was a huge turning point, it was the first victory for the good guys, had sealion commenced, russia would have been finished for sure, better communication and support could have been set up with the japs, and may have been able to have claimed naval dominance if britain had been knocked out.

So, we saved the day,

mayby russia should help more uk against napolen, but that all. why stalins shoul back up weak british empire in guaranting poland indepence ? since brits didnt have power (as many here explained why uk did have weak land army) or will (as they in muchich showed) to fight for thier allies.
and wwii started not because of molotov ribentrop deal, but because of weaknes of west. in 38 stalins polici was pro-west, pro-war, anti-geman. ques what happened so he changed his mind to be in 39 pro german.
uk lost thier empire because of thier pre war policy. if no wwii hapen, thy maby keeped her empire longer, mayby even today. uk lost thier empire because thier performance in war, especialy fall of singapore. fall of singapore to japanese showed that suposed superiority of uk over other asian nation is jus myth, so there is no reason why britan - or other western states - should rule here. it was same game-mind changer as russian defeat to japese in 1905, which showed that japan is no longer backward nation an is power which have to be counted with.
britain first to stand up against hitler ? no way. poles were first in real war and if we count pre war period, first to fight against nazis were czechoslovakians (just google firefight in sudetenland in 38).
and how big causalties brits caused to germans during polish camaign and phoney war ?
yes, bob was first victory for good guys, but turning point ? no way, germany keeped steamrolling any country at thier will.
if sealion comenced, t will speed up only defeat of nazi germany, since germans will fail at sealion, no hope for them to win there.
and no way for japs to gain naval dominance even in case of knocing brits and russia out of war. just compare uk and us presence in asia.

 

[The Nothing]

About the previous title, and why UK did not perform ver well in world wars, I'd like to add some things.

In each HoI game, UK is buffed in the second world war and that's a bit dissapointing. Really. Let's put it clearly : yes UK had an overwhelming superiority on the seas. Yet, on ground it was very different. In HoI 3, or Black Ice, or Darkest Hours, each time I got a lot of UK troops spawning to help France fighting Germany, and what's disturbing is how much powerful these english divisions are. Why should they be so strong while the french ones sucks ? Afterall the campaign of france, or the norvegian ones were both fails with UK and french armies combined. Yet, only the french army deserved the right to have a malus to doctrinal research.

French tanks were overall of a good quality with some mistakes for sure, yet there were more kinds of tanks designed there, from light to super heavy tanks, like the FCM-F1, yet in HoI3 you always lack the leadership to research these and research new ship design and new aircraft design. On the other hand, UK can research anything it please, even though at the beginning of the war UK had not developed that much thing in terms of ground forces.

Then, which big victories did the UK got ? Victory against Italy in Africa : it took several years to definitely win, though Italy had overextended supply lines, poor infrastructure, and not enough ports to ship supply from Italy itself. A victory yes, but not before 1942. Why then should I be able even in hard mode in HoI3 defeat Italy in the same year it DoW me ? I'll even say I can defeat them within 1-2 months 'cause they really suck.

Singapore and Malaysia ? Lost to japanese troops. Then why is it so easy to defend these in each HoI games while in reality Japan seized all these territories ?

Dunkirk ? Ho wait, another defeat.

In the early stage of the war, UK's army acted just like polish and french ones, it was not efficient and lost a lot of battles. And then, UK had many years to adapt its strategies, build better gears for its troops, and used that time to help defeating Germany later. Far later. Give the same time to countries like Poland, like France who gets wiped out quickly and they could perform well too. Anyway HoI games never took that into account, and UK is bound to be the best of the allies, and the others to be nerfed as hell.

After the first years of the war, UK performed well (except for Market Garden perhaps ) nonetheless in early stage it should be as it was in real life : very weak in terms of ground forces.

 

[FOARP]

About the previous title, and why UK did not perform ver well in world wars, I'd like to add some things.

In each HoI game, UK is buffed in the second world war and that's a bit dissapointing. Really. Let's put it clearly : yes UK had an overwhelming superiority on the seas. Yet, on ground it was very different. In HoI 3, or Black Ice, or Darkest Hours, each time I got a lot of UK troops spawning to help France fighting Germany, and what's disturbing is how much powerful these english divisions are. Why should they be so strong while the french ones sucks ? Afterall the campaign of france, or the norvegian ones were both fails with UK and french armies combined. Yet, only the french army deserved the right to have a malus to doctrinal research.

French tanks were overall of a good quality with some mistakes for sure, yet there were more kinds of tanks designed there, from light to super heavy tanks, like the FCM-F1, yet in HoI3 you always lack the leadership to research these and research new ship design and new aircraft design. On the other hand, UK can research anything it please, even though at the beginning of the war UK had not developed that much thing in terms of ground forces.

Then, which big victories did the UK got ? Victory against Italy in Africa : it took several years to definitely win, though Italy had overextended supply lines, poor infrastructure, and not enough ports to ship supply from Italy itself. A victory yes, but not before 1942. Why then should I be able even in hard mode in HoI3 defeat Italy in the same year it DoW me ? I'll even say I can defeat them within 1-2 months 'cause they really suck.

Singapore and Malaysia ? Lost to japanese troops. Then why is it so easy to defend these in each HoI games while in reality Japan seized all these territories ?

Dunkirk ? Ho wait, another defeat.

In the early stage of the war, UK's army acted just like polish and french ones, it was not efficient and lost a lot of battles. And then, UK had many years to adapt its strategies, build better gears for its troops, and used that time to help defeating Germany later. Far later. Give the same time to countries like Poland, like France who gets wiped out quickly and they could perform well too. Anyway HoI games never took that into account, and UK is bound to be the best of the allies, and the others to be nerfed as hell.

After the first years of the war, UK performed well (except for Market Garden perhaps ) nonetheless in early stage it should be as it was in real life : very weak in terms of ground forces.

However, switch over to playing the other side and you can easily defeat the AI-controlled UK in all these theatres in HOI3: I wouldn't judge how balanced HOI3 is based simply on how easy it is to whip the AI.

 

[agentgb]

mayby russia should help more uk against napolen, but that all. why stalins shoul back up weak british empire in guaranting poland indepence ? since brits didnt have power (as many here explained why uk did have weak land army) or will (as they in muchich showed) to fight for thier allies.
and wwii started not because of molotov ribentrop deal, but because of weaknes of west. in 38 stalins polici was pro-west, pro-war, anti-geman. ques what happened so he changed his mind to be in 39 pro german.
uk lost thier empire because of thier pre war policy. if no wwii hapen, thy maby keeped her empire longer, mayby even today. uk lost thier empire because thier performance in war, especialy fall of singapore. fall of singapore to japanese showed that suposed superiority of uk over other asian nation is jus myth, so there is no reason why britan - or other western states - should rule here. it was same game-mind changer as russian defeat to japese in 1905, which showed that japan is no longer backward nation an is power which have to be counted with.
britain first to stand up against hitler ? no way. poles were first in real war and if we count pre war period, first to fight against nazis were czechoslovakians (just google firefight in sudetenland in 38).
and how big causalties brits caused to germans during polish camaign and phoney war ?
yes, bob was first victory for good guys, but turning point ? no way, germany keeped steamrolling any country at thier will.
if sealion comenced, t will speed up only defeat of nazi germany, since germans will fail at sealion, no hope for them to win there.
and no way for japs to gain naval dominance even in case of knocing brits and russia out of war. just compare uk and us presence in asia.

IDK US would have had a pretty dam tough time had GB been knocked out (atleast until they had completed the manhatten project if they followed that route, but then germans would have been able to harvest heavy water unhindered so i guess that would level the playing field, and russia would have been nuked by germany) if germany had won the BOB, gained air superioity, royal navy would have been sitting ducks if attempting to defend the channel. Britain was practically a stepping stone into europe, had hitler secured britain, he wouldn't have had to build an alantic wall, they would have been able to control the suez, mussolini would have got his new roman empire, controlled the easterned oil fields, commandeer british ships & equipment that wasn't scuttled, then attack india, and supported the japs, So i'd say it was a turning point, much like that of trafalgar or the spanish armada were, it stopped an invasion but the war was far from won,

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

IDK US would have had a pretty dam tough time had GB been knocked out (atleast until they had completed the manhatten project if they followed that route, but then germans would have been able to harvest heavy water unhindered so i guess that would level the playing field, and russia would have been nuked by germany) if germany had won the BOB, gained air superioity, royal navy would have been sitting ducks if attempting to defend the channel. Britain was practically a stepping stone into europe, had hitler secured britain, he wouldn't have had to build an alantic wall, they would have been able to control the suez, mussolini would have got his new roman empire, controlled the easterned oil fields, commandeer british ships & equipment that wasn't scuttled, then attack india, and supported the japs, So i'd say it was a turning point, much like that of trafalgar or the spanish armada were, it stopped an invasion but the war was far from won,

Hitler always thought of the British as more valuable, and better allies than the Italians. More likely he would have installed a puppet British government and replaced the Italians. - Though Sea lion was impossible short of Plan Z and a Kriegsmarine the size of the RN

 

[Porkman]

Then, which big victories did the UK got ? Victory against Italy in Africa : it took several years to definitely win, though Italy had overextended supply lines, poor infrastructure, and not enough ports to ship supply from Italy itself. A victory yes, but not before 1942. Why then should I be able even in hard mode in HoI3 defeat Italy in the same year it DoW me ? I'll even say I can defeat them within 1-2 months 'cause they really suck.

If you're going to complain about British performance early in the war, at least know what they did.

Namely, the British did defeat the Italians conclusively in 1940 in North Africa within 1-2 months.

Look up Operation Compass.

The only reason the Brits didn't run them out of Libya then and there was the diversion of troops to Greece and the later arrival of the Germans.

Singapore and Malaysia ? Lost to japanese troops. Then why is it so easy to defend these in each HoI games while in reality Japan seized all these territories ?
Dunkirk ? Ho wait, another defeat.
.

The game doesn't do a good job of simulating how absolutely awful a general Percival was and how negligent the Allies as a whole were when it came to learning anything about how the Japanese fought wars despite the 4 years of exhibition in China.

The Japanese invasion of Malaya was a masterstroke. It was among the best planned and executed military operations of all time where the air, land, and naval forces worked together almost perfectly and were able rout and destroy the entire British force.

The game's AI is not able to play as well as general Yamashita, making the defence of Malaya a bit easier.

 

[Secret Master]

The game's AI is not able to play as well as general Yamashita, making the defence of Malaya a bit easier.

It's also really easy to Monday Morning Quarterback that one and just base twice as many land and air assets there. IN HOI, there is no gambling on whether the Japanese will attack British possessions in the area or not. You know it will happen, so humans just beef up the area regardless.

 

[Porkman]

It's also really easy to Monday Morning Quarterback that one and just base twice as many land and air assets there. IN HOI, there is no gambling on whether the Japanese will attack British possessions in the area or not. You know it will happen, so humans just beef up the area regardless.

I would be more charitable but then I've read up a lot about the Allied defense of Burma and how inexcusably bad that was.

The Brits positioned themselves too far forward despite what had just happened to them in Malaya, refused the initial offer of Chinese help, then didn't listen to the Chinese generals when they tried to tell them how the Japanese fought. Finally, they decided that the best idea ever was to put British troops from India and Chinese troops under the command of an American while operating in an entirely separate country Burma, and expect them to coordinate well together.

Why do they need to coordinate well?

Because the Americans and the Brits thought that the best thing to do with a hastily organized multinational force composed of troops who had no history of working together and were fighting in a foreign country to both of them was to launch an offensive...

 

[scroggin]

UK being a naval and economic powerhouse just seemed to have such an underwhelming performance in the World Wars. I guess in WW2 you can make at least make a strong case they showed awesome grit for stomaching it out alone against Nazi Germany until the Nazis invaded the USSR, but still......what were the main factors for such poor showing?

Ok here is what I think of Britains performance in WWII. The RAF was the youngest and most innovative branch of the military their performance was brilliant . The main task of the Royal Navy was to ensure the convoys got through, this was done very well.
The army was a different story, their main problem was leadership. Because they hadn't lost the last war there wasn't the same pressure to make change that Germany had. They didnt get rid of the poor performers and promote the young innovative leaders that had proven themselves in WWI.

Becoming an officer was limited to the "upperclass" they were selected from graduates of expensive schools by selection boards who looked for someone of their type. If rommel had been in the british army he wouldnt even have become an officer. Montgommery only made it because a rich benefactor had sponsored his schooling. Monty had to serve in the indian army prior to WWI because the wages for an officer in the British Army were insufficient for someone who didnt have other sources of wealth. This meant a lot of good talent was missed, and the officers didnt relate to their men very well.

If you read Mongomerys memoirs, officer training in tactics and strategy was poor to non-existant. He had to do a lot of his learning outside the curriculum. He found the british army had far to many leaders who were un-innovative and tradition bound rather than innovative and tradition inspired.

France fell because of French leadership and strategy. British performance in france was actually good. Norway was a debacle because it was organised by politicians rather than the military, the lesson was learnt, all future campaigns were planned and organised by the military. Germany had the same problem later in the war but hitler never learnt. From alamain onwards the britsh army did well.

The British schooling system turned out boys who were tough, disciplined and obedient. The training and traditions of the british army made them into tough tencious solders. The system of recruiting units from the same area made for very close knit units with soldiers who would risk their lives for each another.

The other main weakness of the British army was in equipment. Other than the first year of deployment for the matilda II and sherman they almost always had inferior equipment. But they learnt to win by being tenacious in defence, cautious in attack and not attacking till they had superior numbers.

 

[jdavis86]

If you're going to complain about British performance early in the war, at least know what they did.

Namely, the British did defeat the Italians conclusively in 1940 in North Africa within 1-2 months.

Look up Operation Compass.

The only reason the Brits didn't run them out of Libya then and there was the diversion of troops to Greece and the later arrival of the Germans.



The game doesn't do a good job of simulating how absolutely awful a general Percival was and how negligent the Allies as a whole were when it came to learning anything about how the Japanese fought wars despite the 4 years of exhibition in China.

The Japanese invasion of Malaya was a masterstroke. It was among the best planned and executed military operations of all time where the air, land, and naval forces worked together almost perfectly and were able rout and destroy the entire British force.

The game's AI is not able to play as well as general Yamashita, making the defence of Malaya a bit easier.

Exactly what I was going to say! It seems like people post a lot of stuff without having much of an understanding of events in the war.

 

[wingo]

I was going to post about how I agree that British underperformed, but reading all good posts here I have to admit they could not be best on sea, air and land. Still, they did not fare very well on land, no better than French, and French get all the flak... despite saving Britains ass at Dunkerque.

So, could it be said UK underperformed compared to how they are usually portrayed?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I got to page five of this thread, and I can't believe some of you are taking the OP's bait. It's clear from his posts just how little he knows about Britain's performance during either war. Honestly, why bother?