Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
There is a reference to this in Cornelius Ryan's The Last Battle.
With the added advantage that the paper of official party circulars was better for rolling cigarettes.
Churchill was old school. They thought that low casualty rates meant the army wasn't trying hard enough.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Why was Britain in particular, so reluctant to suffer casualties during WWII, in comparison to the casualties it suffered during WWI. Before we can attempt to answer the question, it is necessary to put the WWI casualty figures in to perspective, and not just repeat the myth, that Britain suffered extraordinary casualties in WWI. Other than the United States of America, Britain of all the major participants in WWI, suffered the lowest rate of casualties as a percentage of total population, both nationally and as an Empire. But the number of casualties suffered was for the British exceptional, only exceeded by those suffered in the English Civil War. The British way of war, was simple, and had been since the Civil War, Britain fought a war of material, and paid its Allies to suffer the casualties. Thus massive expenditure on the Royal Navy, a totally professional force, with promotion based on merit, and strict examination for officers to enter. While any fool who had the money could buy a commission in the infantry or cavalry, only the engineers and artillery didn’t require money to buy a commission. England, which is and was the dominant nation/kingdom in the UK, was fundamentally different to the other European nations. An attitude best summed up by the reputed newspaper headline, Thick fog in the channel, France/Europe cut off.
England had an has a completely different legal system to Europe, along with a different political system, financial system, and military system. The aristocracy in England in comparison to that in the majority of Europe, was very small. And this combined with the English inheritance system, only the eldest son inherited both the title and the land, the remaining sons went into the Army number two son, the Navy number three son, the Church number three son and the law number four son, any others did as best they could. And while the eldest son might serve in the Yeomanry, which up until WWII, had no obligation to serve overseas, this was as much a political statement as it was a military commitment. After the English Civil War, and the rule of the generals, there was a general agreement never again, the Army was to be kept small and on a very tight leash. England/Britain had its oak walls, both to keep Jonny foreigner out, and project its power overseas, mostly outside of Europe. Then along came WWI, and Britain was thrown into a major continental conflict, which required it to raise a massive Army. Large numbers of the eldest sons who would have normally stayed at home, as they did during the Boer War, volunteered to fight, as did their younger brothers, who had gone into the law, and Church and other occupations. Some families saw three generations wiped out, grandfather, father and all the sons, while among the working class, entire communities saw fathers and sons, or brothers and cousins all killed.
By the time of WWII, the young officers who had been through the hell of the trenches in WWI, were now the politicians and senior officers, who were going to be in change. Add to this was the major changes in demographics post WWI, millions of working class men got the vote, as did progressively millions of women. By 1930, virtually every man and woman over 21 years old was able to vote, and this changed dramatically both the make up of parliament, and the opinions of the representatives in parliament. With close to a million young spinsters, women whose prospective husbands had died or been crippled in the war, and another million women who were widows or mothers who had lost one or more of their sons. Parliament, and unlike various European nations, Britain was and remained a parliamentary democracy throughout the inter war years. Parliament had to be far more responsive to the views of its constituents, many of whom were dedicated to peace at any price. And this applied throughout the war, Winston was only one vote of confidence away from being out of office, thus even he couldn’t push the crack on with it regardless of casualties principle to hard. So Britain followed its traditional way of war, pay someone else to take the casualties, the Soviets, which had the advantage of killing off potential future opponents, and use machines and material (gold) rather than men. It took until the Korean War for the Americans to take the same approach, though they went over the top in Vietnam. That is why even today Britain has such a small army, but a comparatively large Navy, with two aircraft carriers.
RR.
England had an has a completely different legal system to Europe, along with a different political system, financial system, and military system. The aristocracy in England in comparison to that in the majority of Europe, was very small. And this combined with the English inheritance system, only the eldest son inherited both the title and the land, the remaining sons went into the Army number two son, the Navy number three son, the Church number three son and the law number four son, any others did as best they could. And while the eldest son might serve in the Yeomanry, which up until WWII, had no obligation to serve overseas, this was as much a political statement as it was a military commitment. After the English Civil War, and the rule of the generals, there was a general agreement never again, the Army was to be kept small and on a very tight leash. England/Britain had its oak walls, both to keep Jonny foreigner out, and project its power overseas, mostly outside of Europe. Then along came WWI, and Britain was thrown into a major continental conflict, which required it to raise a massive Army. Large numbers of the eldest sons who would have normally stayed at home, as they did during the Boer War, volunteered to fight, as did their younger brothers, who had gone into the law, and Church and other occupations. Some families saw three generations wiped out, grandfather, father and all the sons, while among the working class, entire communities saw fathers and sons, or brothers and cousins all killed.
By the time of WWII, the young officers who had been through the hell of the trenches in WWI, were now the politicians and senior officers, who were going to be in change. Add to this was the major changes in demographics post WWI, millions of working class men got the vote, as did progressively millions of women. By 1930, virtually every man and woman over 21 years old was able to vote, and this changed dramatically both the make up of parliament, and the opinions of the representatives in parliament. With close to a million young spinsters, women whose prospective husbands had died or been crippled in the war, and another million women who were widows or mothers who had lost one or more of their sons. Parliament, and unlike various European nations, Britain was and remained a parliamentary democracy throughout the inter war years. Parliament had to be far more responsive to the views of its constituents, many of whom were dedicated to peace at any price. And this applied throughout the war, Winston was only one vote of confidence away from being out of office, thus even he couldn’t push the crack on with it regardless of casualties principle to hard. So Britain followed its traditional way of war, pay someone else to take the casualties, the Soviets, which had the advantage of killing off potential future opponents, and use machines and material (gold) rather than men. It took until the Korean War for the Americans to take the same approach, though they went over the top in Vietnam. That is why even today Britain has such a small army, but a comparatively large Navy, with two aircraft carriers.
RR.
I do wonder if this will make Slim's and O'Connor's legends even greater, or ruin the latter. Others have commented that O'Connor might not be well-suited to the jungles.
A fully motorised GAD seems to be a potentially powerful armoured fist, capable of moving fast if the situation allows for it. I can see them making massive gains in the latter parts of the war.
Still not happy about the 'vanguard' name being used for an AA gun and 'Venom' being a MBT, oh well.
Not to worry, Churchill will get wind of it during the proving stage and demand they swap the names.
T
They can call officially call the tank whatever they like. If it sounds a bit of a mouthful or unbritish the good fellows of the RAC will give it a suitably silly nickname hence the A11 became the Matilda/Tilly and the Covenator became the Covie (when not being called less flattering names!). I wonder what the Tankies will make of the Venom?
And then a visiting retired officer of 11th Battalion the Lancashire Fusiliers declared that it should be that 'The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing.'
"One turret ring to rule them all, one turret ring to bind them..."
Nah. You REALLY don't want the turret ring binding....
ninja'd, sadly, but here is the version i thought of:
"One LARGE turret ring to rule them all, One turret ring to turn them, One turret ring to bring them all and in the battle, fire them."
Why would they need an armoured division for an occupation? For all the modern-day hullabaloo that the nukes were great atrocities, the death toll of an invasion of Japan or a slower bombing campaign ending in famine would have had a much larger death toll in all probability. A contested invasion of Japan is a very difficult operation and the British high command must know this.