Good post. I mostly agree with you, except fot the quoted part. The USA had far more support, at least in the logistic and engineer fields. I cant say about intelligence or medical.
UK in the World Wars
- Thread starter darth254
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Good post. I mostly agree with you, except fot the quoted part. The USA had far more support, at least in the logistic and engineer fields. I cant say about intelligence or medical.
I dont think he is trolling.
And it is not the first person that talks about underperformance in the UK part. I think it all comes down to define "underperformance", after all. It comes down to the expectations one has before knowing what happened, or having just a superficial knowledge. So, in the end, we are talking about expectations, mostly. Something that it is subjective.
The British did have an absolutely major role in WWI, and declaring otherwise makes no sense, but on the Italian front they had a smattering of troops - 3 divisions at Vittorio Veneto, compared to the 51 Italian divisions. The Austrian offensive after Caporetto was stopped by the Italian 4th Army on the Monte Grappa and then on the Piave, after which the diminutive British and French reinforcement came.
- 3
I'm assuming it's based on the Uk having a similar sized population and industry to Germany the largest of the Axis powers, so she should deploy a similarly sized and effective army in 1939, forgetting that Britain is an naval power, trying to fight a global war in three major theatres.
- 2
- 1
The French divisions in the low countries did perform admirably during the withdrawal action, but the performance of the BEF was arguably fantastic.
In what ways do you think the British Army under performed in the Battle of France?
The French made up the majority of troops, and Gamelin was in charge. The British deferred to the French, because they simply had more skin in the game.
So "giving more flak" to the French is not unwarranted.
- 3
- 2
Post-Caporetto, the Italian army got better fast, clamped on the Austrian advance, and trounced any attempt to get further until the faceroll that was Vittorio Veneto. The first part of the war was forgettable, but the second part was not badly conducted.
- 2
- 1
"The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier."
Erwin Rommel
- 1
Not when the claim is "Italians did not do anything well in WWII."
You could claim, "Italian army successes did not contribute substantially to Axis progress" or "Aside from some specialized forces like the frogmen and Bersaglieres, the Italians performed poorly." But to claim that they did not do anything well in WWII is just plain false.
- 1
- 1
To be more precise, the Italian soldier was poorly equipped and even more poorly led, against people for which they had no plans of note, in a war they did not overly care for (even if "not our war" altogether would not be correct). When they had a good reason to fight? Well...
Of course in an army of a few million a small number of individuals will perform well but their impact was negligible. Although you are correct, such wide-sweeping statements are patently false.
[QUOTE="Porkman, post: 20428215, member: 6234)
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.[/QUOTE]
Yah, general percival was very incopetent when it comes to defence of singapore. he thought that japs will not come by land,m despite thier land invasion of burma, thier landing in malaysia and coming south on foot..absolutely no preparation to defend on land, every efort was put to defend naval inasion, which should cost japanaese ships causalties they should not afford andd booth parties knowed it, but otoh land invasion....
and i dont think that malaya invasion was perfect coordnation between army, naval and airforce. since if you look at every other japanese operation during pacific campaign where smetimes army and naval forces refused to cooperate....
what magc was used during malaya camaign to overcome this rivality between army and navy ? and yes, rivality between these two was so big and legendary that army didnt have own tranport ships for thier operations, but at very end of war army did builded own carriers converted from transport ships.
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.[/QUOTE]
Yah, general percival was very incopetent when it comes to defence of singapore. he thought that japs will not come by land,m despite thier land invasion of burma, thier landing in malaysia and coming south on foot..absolutely no preparation to defend on land, every efort was put to defend naval inasion, which should cost japanaese ships causalties they should not afford andd booth parties knowed it, but otoh land invasion....
and i dont think that malaya invasion was perfect coordnation between army, naval and airforce. since if you look at every other japanese operation during pacific campaign where smetimes army and naval forces refused to cooperate....
what magc was used during malaya camaign to overcome this rivality between army and navy ? and yes, rivality between these two was so big and legendary that army didnt have own tranport ships for thier operations, but at very end of war army did builded own carriers converted from transport ships.
The Ariete armored division performed very good in North Africa with inferior tanks, particularly at Bir el Gobi.
The Folgore Parachute Division fought heroically at Second El Alamein (in a lost cause).
The remnants of the Tridentina Alpina fought heroically at Nikolayevka (again in a losing cause).
Giovani Fascisti...
Monte Cervino Ski Battalion...
As for the navy... The X MAS Flottiglia performed excellent, particularly in the Raid on Alexandria. And the Regia Marina contested the mighty RN for control of the central Mediterranean for 3 years. Allied convoys were diverted all the way around the continent of Africa. Allied relief convoys to Malta were major naval operations that resulted in heavy Allied losses, and the vast majority of Axis supply convoys to North Africa managed to get through. Rommel's supply issues were more with port capacity and truck transport than with the amount of naval convoys. Finally, I know some like to mock the performance of the Italian battleships by pointing out Littorio and Vittorio Vento never hit an opposing capital ship with their main armament, but really, their orders were to not get sunk -- and maintain the fleet-in-being doctrine -- a job they performed admirably. And the reverse is equally true. The British capital ships never managed to lay a glove on them. Despite every British effort to sink them -- like they sunk the Bismarck -- the Littorio and Vittorio Veneto stayed in the fight and remained a threat. They may have been damaged by bombs or torpedoes, but they were not sunk and in fact never even hit by a British capital ship. I think a destroyer may have landed a shell though, but that is about it. All the Italian BB's were equally elusive. Only the Roma was sunk, and that was by a German radio-controlled bomb after the surrender.
As for the OP and the UK in the World Wars, if I were a Brit, I'd just say, "Scoreboard, Baby! 2-0"
- 2
Yah, general percival was very incopetent when it comes to defence of singapore. he thought that japs will not come by land,m despite thier land invasion of burma, thier landing in malaysia and coming south on foot..absolutely no preparation to defend on land, every efort was put to defend naval inasion, which should cost japanaese ships causalties they should not afford andd booth parties knowed it, but otoh land invasion....
and i dont think that malaya invasion was perfect coordnation between army, naval and airforce. since if you look at every other japanese operation during pacific campaign where smetimes army and naval forces refused to cooperate....
what magc was used during malaya camaign to overcome this rivality between army and navy ? and yes, rivality between these two was so big and legendary that army didnt have own tranport ships for thier operations, but at very end of war army did builded own carriers converted from transport ships.[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
First, the invasion of Malaya happened before the invasion of Burma. But the point still stands since the Japanese were just fine moving over land in China.
When you say the Japanese wouldn't come by land to Singapore... well they didn't. They crossed from Johor in small boats to the western side of the island.
I don't know why the Japanese army and Navy were able to put aside their rivalry to work well together during the Malaya invasion, but they did. The Navy protected army ships, sank the Renown and the Prince of Wales, and kept the British and Dutch surface ships at bay.
The ability of the Japanese to land behind set British positions was critical to their victory.
Finally, neither the army nor the Navy had many "transport ships." Most of the shipping for the Malaya invasion and other troop transport operations was requisitioned civilian shipping. The Army and the Navy did have a few purpose built troop transports.
- 1
The Italian command was, for the most part, not equal to the task of carrying on war in the desert, where the requirement was lightning decision followed by immediate action. The training of the Italian infantryman fell far short of the standard required by modern warfare. … Particularly harmful was the all pervading differentiation between officer and man.
Rommel too.
Take it easy, man. Didn't pretend to offend anyone. I wasn't stating a absolute truth. Just commenting, that if you (not you) considerer that UK army did almost nothing, then the Italians get in a worse position; i.e., they did nothing well. I wasn't saying that they were better off for the axis. Has to be said that the Germans had to go cleaning after them some times.
Last edited:
Except the Bersagliere were not ordinary Italian infantrymen but the elite light infantry corps of the Italian Army and they performed astoundingly well, even by German standards. Otherwise Rommel is right, the average Italian infantryman lacked in training and motivation and their officers were almost criminally inept, being the product of almost two decades of nepotism within the Italian officer corps. Furthermore the Italian industry was not up to the task of designing or producing military equipment at the rate required during WW2.
The difference between Italy and the UK is ultimately that while Italy is recognized as a rather ineffectual participant in WW2 (only getting the Navy somewhat right), the UK is often heralded as the war winner, the stubborn Bulldog that outlasted the Germans (particularly among British historians). One might actually suggest that after Italy, the UK was the country that performed the worst of the remaining super powers, especially in terms of Army. This particular view will draw the ire of many, particularly Brits, whereas no one contends that Italy failed on a grand scale.
- 4
Was clearly a turning point, Battle of Britain was really the first British strategic victory after a chain of losses. It proved that Germany wasn't invincible, giving the British people and military forces some confidence. In the aftermath of the Luftwaffe's defeat and inability of Germany to invade, both the US and Soviet Union were able to reorient their strategic thinking from a defense of the homeland to consideration of how to destroy the German war machine. Prior to the Battle of Britain, the US strategic objectives ranked the defense of the Western Hemisphere highest, above preserving Britain's independence or any thought of going against Germany in the Eastern Hemisphere.
What the germans accomplished throughout the course of ww2 could have been considered impossible, no one thought at the time that france would fall so quickly, that they would push as far as they did into russia, the germans pushing to india? why not the italians, and even if they didn't, if they controlled the suez, the potential would be there, the mere threat would have been enough. Royal Navy would be sitting ducks if defending the channel if the germans achieved aerial supremacy, if the altantic convoy war directed more of the RN muscle away from the pacific, i can asure you that a lost BOB, would have resulted in the RN being britains only defence from an invasion, & a costly one at that, perhaps foddering ships and attempting to scuttle/blockade the french harbours to prolong the invasion. Also your right, the RN may not have surrended, but just like in france, shipyards, radar and other tech could have been utilized by the germans, a sucessful invasion of britain would have probably resulted to a similar situation like that of france. Also on the manhatten project, it didn't start to 1942, in this alternative reality, britain has fallen, north africa looks dismal, with the italians mopping up, belgiums congo uranium deposit doesn't seem to far away, and the americans being the isolationist, they may have probably looked more inwards due to the loss of britain, potentially losing alot of britains contributuions to field craft & espionage, since britain was practically responsible for the forming of the OSS later to become the CIA.
Last edited:
- 3