|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 4, 2017 14:45:04 GMT
The British army like all armies, had officers who got defeated on the field and two officers who got a lesson in tank warfare off Rommel were General Alan Cunningham and General Neil Ritchie, but here are four officers who many rate as good officers.
General John [Jock] Campbell Won the VC as a Brigadier at Sidi Rezegh, later took over 7th Armoured but died in car accident just three weeks into the post.
Lieutenant General William [Strafer] Gott Commanded the 7th armoured division until replaced by Campbell, was in the running to take over the 8th Army from Auchinleck, but was killed when his plane was shot down over Egypt.
General Bernard Paget It was said the Paget was the best Infantry trainer since John Moore.
Field Marshal John Dill Served mainly in the US during WW2, but was well respected by the Americans, died in the US in 1944 and is buried in Arlington cemetery.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 16:28:08 GMT
Ian: I never said the British Army did not have good officers. What I said was that none of them were particularly good at handling armor. I stick by that.
Of the ones you listed Campbell was the only one who I think had great potential as a leader of armor in the manner it was employed in WWII. He never got the chance to prove himself in divisional level command.
The rest were very good, BUT it was not the officer material that was at fault, it was the doctrine they operated under.
When you look at armor doctrine, there is a world of difference in the way the US and Germans did things as opposed to the British.
The biggest shortfall of the British Army in WWII, as regards to armor doctrine is that they collectively had a case of the slows. Had the doctrine been different, had they listened to their own pioneers in the subject, that would not have happened.
The first thing a nation does is develop strategy. That nations Army then takes that strategy and develops doctrine. From that doctrine they develop the tactics that are applicable to the doctrine, At that point, and only at that point, do they develop the organizations and weapons systems to be used to fulfill the requirements of the doctrine.
Your strategy was to fight a war on the European land mass, plus have sufficient forces to protect the Empire. That strategy never envisioned total war coming to the Empire, rather little brush fires in need of putting out. Therefore your strategy and the doctrine that supported it was Infantry centric, not a bit changed from WWI. That was what was being taught in your service schools to two generations of officers. When you couple that with the fact that your top leadership was all WWI vintage, therein lies the problem.
We on the other hand, as well as the Germans threw out the World War I book in 1920, and found new ways. What the Germans did with their armor was nothing more than an adaptation of Sturm Taktik of late WWI. We looked at a more open style of warfare based upon our experiences in the ACW and on the western plains, and developed our doctrine from that source.
All these things are why I keep repeating, you cannot concentrate on guns and tables of organization if you want to understand. You must first understand what makes armies tick.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 7, 2017 18:58:49 GMT
The first British and Commonwealth casualties to die from Japanese fire were the crew of an RAF Catalina which was shot down by fighters on 7th December 1941. The Catalina was trying to locate the fleet when it ran into aircraft that were covering the Japanese invasion fleet on its way to capture the British airfield on Kota Bharu, the battle to take this objective took place exactly 70 minutes before they attacked Pearl Harbor.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 7, 2017 23:43:49 GMT
What a helluva footnote in history for those brave men! Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 9, 2017 15:01:21 GMT
Ian What affect if any will the latest elections in Britain have on the army as well as other services in the UK? Is the "hung parliament" going to affect the Brexit procedure? Has Great Britain descended to the level of bitterness we have between the 2 parties and their supporters in this country? Good Luck. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 9, 2017 15:13:11 GMT
Dave I am ashamed of the lot of them, we shall now have a period of uncertainty with leaders of the main parties in covert phone calls to each other trying to form coalitions to get the required number of seats, you need 326 to lead the country and no party has reached this number. So I expect that the conservatives will try and form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists, which will cause a lot of problems down the line as the UN party is only interested in all things Northern Irish, but these bunch of berks we call politicians will now act like a bunch of whores, willing to sleep with anybody in an effort to get the required seats. Pathetic the lot of em.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 11:38:10 GMT
Recalling how combined arms [armour – infantry – artillery] was used in practice, I would like to harken back to my wargame days and how we would set up a fictional game, now I don’t want to bring up old games so I will attempt to create a scenario in which the British player in acting as a commanding officer [say a Colonel or Brigadier] of such a battle group, and his objective would be a village which was reported to be held German infantry.
Now this officer [me] has at his disposal; A Squadron of cruiser tanks [5 x troops each containing 3 x Sherman’s + HQ of four more] A Company of Motorised Infantry [3 x platoons + carrier platoon] A self-propelled battery of 25 pdrs [2 x troops each containing 4 x Sextons]
Now I have a map which shows the village, the road layout and the terrain [woods on each flank]
Now I don’t know what my opponent has in the village, but because he is the defending player he has only half the points that I have to pick a force.
Now would you feel confident that you had at your fingertips around 200 troops, 20 tanks and eight artillery pieces at your disposal? Would dismount you infantry and infiltrate the woods either side? Would you send your carrier platoon forward with tank support to flank the village?
Now this is the beauty of wargaming, and no one gets hurt.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 13:08:38 GMT
Is there anything in that village you need? If the answer is no, put 30 rounds from each howitzer on it, move around it, and continue your forward movement.
You are a mobile force use your mobility. Let follow on forces clean the place up.
You don't have to fight for every place the enemy choses to defend. They are defending because they want you to fight them there. Don't fulfill their wishes.
#######################################################
The artificiality of the game environment is that the game is set up with two opposing forces which are because of the game itself taken out of the context of the whole surrounding picture. Those counters are put there to fight each other. If not, there would be no game. That itself is divorced from the reality of the overarching conflict. In other words, if you as the British gamer decided to follow my solution, there would be no game, so pop a top and sit back to watch a Rugby game, because you are going to do no gaming this afternoon.
Limiting this to the game scenario however, and trying to make it as real as possible, the task force commander must ask himself, does this place the Germans are defending have any value to me? Does the town center contain a vital road junction? Is it on high ground, that if I possess it will afford me observation of enemy territory needed for future operations? Does the high ground the village sits on afford the enemy observation of friendly forces to my rear, to the point where they could call down artillery on those friendly forces? Is Adolf Hitler having a beer in the corner bar on Main Street? You get the idea. You all get the idea.
If the answer to all these questions is no, then you do not need this fight. The enemy needs this fight. That is why they are there, for the purpose of making you expend forces for something that has no purpose. If there is no need to go to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread, you don't stop at the grocery store, you bypass it an continue on your journey. Let the grocery store's bread go stale for all you care. You have no need for it. Save your money until you need that loaf. Then spend your money wisely.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 14:41:41 GMT
Aw Chuck, I have just drew a map and stuff; The village lies on the one of the main routes over the river and has a bridge which can take the weight of armour. Once this bridge and village is secure then the this would allow an advance to open country and enable the allies to continue their advance east.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 14:52:27 GMT
Now what I don't know is that the village and farm are defended, this force is made up of 1 x re-enforced platoon [about 50 strong] with three MG positions [located in buildings] and two 75mm anti-tank guns [one has a direct view towards the bridge and the other covers the fields to the left of the road. Infantry occupy the trench systems that line the river and farm.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 15:22:30 GMT
You have not given me any reason to want to take that place and expend forces doing it.
Blow the place away with artillery. Carl can give you chapter and verse. Bypass the town. Bridge the stream either up or down stream and continue your drive onward. That enemy platoon is not self sustaining. They will die on the vine. The bridge you seek by expanding, lives, equipment, and treasure, will be in your hands in a day or so, without the expenditure of one life to purchase it.
This is the difference in thinking between the British doctrine that says take it, and the American doctrine that says leave it alone. and the apple will fall from the tree by itself, as soon as you use your forces to shake the tree that supports the apple. Bypass and haul ass. Go for the roots of the tree, not the apple.
Go have yourself a beer and watch that Rugby game while your engineers are bridging that stream, so you will be fresh to lead your mobile column into the rear to shake that tree at its roots.
I don't know enough about the development of the AVLB in WWII, but today as Colt can testify, we would bridge that stream in about ten minutes, and without breaking sweat.
The one thing you forget in your combined arms lineup to set the stage here is that there are always engineers up front with your attacking force. Never leave home without them. Their skills and capabilities save lives that need not be lost.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 15:40:24 GMT
I thought that taking places like this is the norm when advancing through terrain in northern Europe, its ok when you know whats there but what if any follow up units walk into that place the next day and get a surprise.
I don't think it is a British tradition to expend lives for no reason, we had enough of that between 1914-18, many villages were held by fanatics, especially in western German. I have read stories of towns like this in Italy being held by small units of Fallschirmjaegers and holding up the allied advance for days.
But at the end of the day its a bit of fun, just thought that if you did have orders to take the place we may have saw some professionals show their expertise.
If the village was of no importance, then the Germans would have simply blown the bridge and scarpered, but I was thinking of the rapid advances which took place after the allies broke free of the bocage country and villages with stone bridges became important hubs for both sides with the allies using them to advance and the German using them to retreat.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 15:44:46 GMT
In my initial force I had a platoon of engineers and a recce platoon with light tanks, I also considered having a battery of field artillery located some miles behind and this would free up the sextons to act in the role of infantry support.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 10, 2017 15:56:13 GMT
You are the poster boy for British doctrine Ian. Every pore of your skin effuses it.
Follow up forces do not walk into a place and get surprised as long as you tell those follow on forces that there were Germans there yesterday. That what radios and telephones are for. Shoot, move, AND communicate.
British doctrine of that time was based upon the notion of tidiness of the battlefield. That is a holdover from World War I trench warfare. Leaving something in the rear for them is like suggesting that your sister marry a convicted rapist and ax murderer. American on the other hand move through situations like a tornado through your living room. We may miss destroying a piece of furniture or two, but our idea is that we don't care, and someone has to look out for be looking out the scroungers and looters that inevitably follow. They have to eat too.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 10, 2017 16:00:36 GMT
I don't know if I should take that line as an insult or what, it certainly sounds disrespectful and I should be rather shocked, only for the fact of knowing you like I do, I will take it as you didn't mean anything by it. So do you think that I should wrap this whole military escapade up and take up water colour painting instead? The map was good though, well I though so anyway.
Look, lets shut this down as I want to go and watch Scotland v England.
|
|