Jump to content


Photo

Brit infantry in WWII - what went wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
488 replies to this topic

#481 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,773 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 October 2008 - 2018 PM

Yes, but again if they had taken some RAF troopies they could have added more to the Army, or more from the RN later in the war...
  • 0

#482 baboon6

baboon6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,865 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Interests:military history, current affairs, sport (rugby, cricket, football), Bushmills whiskey, wine, bad 80s pop music (Howard Jones, Human League etc).

Posted 29 October 2008 - 0726 AM

Yes, but again if they had taken some RAF troopies they could have added more to the Army, or more from the RN later in the war...


Not quite sure what you mean. AFAIK some personnel were transferred from the RAF to the Army around 1944, and quite a few RA anti-aircraft gunners were transferred to the infantry. Recruiting for RAF ground crew was eventually stopped and those who washed out as aircrew were given the choice between the Army and the coal mines.
  • 0

#483 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 October 2008 - 1523 PM

...and those who washed out as aircrew were given the choice between the Army and the coal mines.


Let's see...get killed in a couple of months by a German bullet or get killed in twenty years by black lung. Who says that British weren't great humanitarians?
  • 0

#484 Colin Williams

Colin Williams

    Faible Tonnage

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,394 posts

Posted 30 October 2008 - 0039 AM

Colin, you must also remember one in three battalions in each Indian infantry division was British (in the Middle East at least) and by 1943 several of these had seen action- 4th, 5th, 10th and part of the 8th in the Middle East and East Africa, the 17th, 14th and 26th in Burma, and the 9th and 11th in Malaya (though of course these last two were lost almost in their entirety; the 9th had only two brigades and no British battalions). So another 22 or so British infantry battalions at least had seen at least some action (and some of them quite a bit) in that timeframe. This is not counting infantry in independent brigades (most significantly the variously-numbered Guards brigade in North Africa) or in the armoured divisions.



But almost all the British officers above battalion in the Indian divisions were part of the Indian Army and consequently isolated to some degree from service with the rest of the Army. Auchinleck is the only exception I can think of off the top of my head. All the rest either stayed with Indian divisions in the Med or were sent off to Burma. Although my original point was regarding British divisions, I think the impact of experience by the British battalions in the Indian divisions was minor, primarily because those battalions were shot up, captured, or shot up&captured during their service in North Africa. This was also true for the 22nd/201st Guards. The Gazala battles did in some of the British battalions in Indian brigades, with the fall of Tobruk taking care of the Guards and 11th Indian Infantry Brigade, while the battles of Matruh and 1st Alamein decimated the rest. To a lesser extent the pattern held for the KRRC/Rifle Brigade units with the armoured divisions. These lost heavily in Crusader, Gazala and Alamein. Of course the motor battalions were something of a group unto themselves, although a few officers crossed over to command in regular infantry units in NW Europe and Italy.
  • 0

#485 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 02 November 2008 - 0536 AM

Yes, but again if they had taken some RAF troopies they could have added more to the Army, or more from the RN later in the war...


Whooa, easy there Murph :) The RN was sucking hind manpower tit from the start, they were decommissioning battleships before the end of the war to find warm bodies and these were guys keeping everyone fed, fueled and equipped via the convoys. There was precious little slack there to trim.

As I read things the RAF was the main problem, particularly the huge expansion of Bomber Command, they soaked up the best of both leadership and technical talent (for air & ground crew) leaving both the Army and the RN short. The Army's best junior officer/NCO material in WWII ended up flying Lancasters instead of leading rifle sections, platoons and companies, and taking the same sort of casualties as their predecessors had leading the lads over the top in WWI. Not that I can see any way around that, it isn't like the RAF didn't need top quality manpower to do the job.

shane
  • 0

#486 baboon6

baboon6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,865 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg, South Africa
  • Interests:military history, current affairs, sport (rugby, cricket, football), Bushmills whiskey, wine, bad 80s pop music (Howard Jones, Human League etc).

Posted 02 November 2008 - 1621 PM

Whooa, easy there Murph :) The RN was sucking hind manpower tit from the start, they were decommissioning battleships before the end of the war to find warm bodies and these were guys keeping everyone fed, fueled and equipped via the convoys. There was precious little slack there to trim.

As I read things the RAF was the main problem, particularly the huge expansion of Bomber Command, they soaked up the best of both leadership and technical talent (for air & ground crew) leaving both the Army and the RN short. The Army's best junior officer/NCO material in WWII ended up flying Lancasters instead of leading rifle sections, platoons and companies, and taking the same sort of casualties as their predecessors had leading the lads over the top in WWI. Not that I can see any way around that, it isn't like the RAF didn't need top quality manpower to do the job.

shane


Well of course not all, but a very high percentage. Such was the problem that Canada and to a lesser extent South Africa loaned hundreds of junior officers (mainly infantry) to the British Army in 1944/45.
  • 0

#487 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,902 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 02 November 2008 - 2333 PM

Well of course not all, but a very high percentage. Such was the problem that Canada and to a lesser extent South Africa loaned hundreds of junior officers (mainly infantry) to the British Army in 1944/45.


Very true, I can only claim that it was after 3am and apologize for my exaggeration - oh and I think NZ helped out with officers too.

shane
  • 0

#488 John(txic)

John(txic)

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Location:The Land of the Sabbath and of the Priest
  • Interests:Aviation History<br />Naval History<br />Military History<br />Black Metal<br />Death Metal (the melodic sort only, mind!)<br />Electric Folk

Posted 03 November 2008 - 1341 PM

The Army's best junior officer/NCO material in WWII ended up flying Lancasters instead of leading rifle sections, platoons and companies, and taking the same sort of casualties as their predecessors had leading the lads over the top in WWI.
shane



Can anyone speculate as to which would have been the most hazardous choice between the two?

Bomber Command haemorrhaged crews at times, whilst the fighting on the ground ate up subalterns at an alarming rate (similar to Great war figures, ISTR). So: were they lucky to have been creamed off into Bomber Command, or put into greater peril?
  • 0

#489 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2008 - 1416 PM

Can anyone speculate as to which would have been the most hazardous choice between the two?

Bomber Command haemorrhaged crews at times, whilst the fighting on the ground ate up subalterns at an alarming rate (similar to Great war figures, ISTR). So: were they lucky to have been creamed off into Bomber Command, or put into greater peril?


Don't look at it as an either-or proposition. Imagine how bad it might have been if more young men had to fight on the front line, over a longer period of time, against Germans who had a greater number of guns, tanks, planes, and more supplies of all kinds from a secure rear. However much quality manhood was lost, it was less than it was possible to lose, had aerial attack of the German homeland not been undertaken. (Taking cover from the de rigeur outrage of SBC haters and doubters...)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users