Talk:British Army during the Second World War

Second World War

I am proposing that the article be moved to "British Army during the Second World War". The reason for this request is that the "Second World War" is the term used by the Official British and Commonwealth histories of the conflict. World War Two is the American name.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind either way but Wikipedia seems to use World War II more then Second World War, I always thought it was a MOS thing. Another consideration would have to be Great War or World War I. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Based off various sources the term “Second World War” seems to be prevalent in books wrote by British historians etc although this is of course not 100% universal. For example the British Military Official History series of the war (also the term used by the commonwealth histories such as the Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand) historians such as John Buckley, Terry Copp (a Canadian historian), David French, and Michael Howard to name a few.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the second consideration, just looking at again the official histories i believe it would First World War but am by no means an expert in that field.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Prehaps we should take this to the MILHIST talkpage and discuss sweeping changes to all articles with simlar names?

Moving as per suggestion and as per ENGVAR; it is, after all, the British Army. Albrecht (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The above user made the discussed changed and stated the following summary: "(moved British Army during World War II to British Army during the Second World War over redirect: Move as per talk and as per Wikipedia:ENGVAR, which suggests that national varieties of English be preserved in articles pertaining to those countrie)"

Can i ask why his edit has been reverted without discussion or without a summary even being provided...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I've just assessed this article as B-class for the Military History Wikiproject. As requested by User:Jim Sweeney, I have the following comments on how the article could be further developed:

• The introduction isn't consistent with WP:LEAD - the first para should summarise the entire article's content - the first sentence is particularly confusing as it's about the state of the Army at the beginning of the war  Done
• There's very little material on the common soldiers - how were they trained, how did they sustain their morale, how were junior officers selected and how did they generally perform?
• Much of the 'special forces' section is about units such as SOE which weren't part of the Army  Done SOE removed
• A section on how the Army's equipment evolved and compared against that used by other countries would be interesting  Done
• There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the manpower shortages which forced the Army to be reduced in size from mid-1944 onwards, with combat divisions being disbanded to make good casualties .  Done added to infantry division section

[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• TA

Just to tag on a comment of my own:

By 1939, the regular army comprised 30 cavalry or armoured regiment and 140 infantry battalions, supported by 29 yeomanry regiments (eight still horsed), 12 tank and 232 infantry battalions in the Territorial Army.[7] They were formed into six Regular Army divisions and 12 Territorial Army divisions,[8] which was increased to 32 divisions in the Spring of 1939, when the Territorial Army was expanded to 26 divisions.[9]

I think it may be worth wild to note here, since this is where the Territorial Army is introduced, how they had far less funding than the regulars, how its training was inferior to the regulars, and how the expansion of the TA provided its own problems.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• 21st AG Casualties

By 1944, the army had seriously underestimated the infantry casualties their forces would suffer in North West Europe, and the number of divisions that would be required to win the campaign.

Ashley Harts notes that this was not a problem that suddely arose in 1944, the Army knew about it 1943; 20 October 1943 the War Office recognised it would have to strip 6 lower established divisions for drafts to 21st AG. 28 December 1943 UK Home Forces states that the required infantry drafts "may exceedtotal available personnel". (Hart, Colossal Cracks, p. 44) The next page Hart contuines that the British were well aware of the problem.

Based on the tables on pages 46-47 it seems the British were also well aware of how many men they would loose and predicted accordingly. For example by 8 December 1944, excluding a few forms of infantry, they predicted 171,855 casualties - the actuallity was only 109,396 casualties.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Second Army

The Second Army was commanded by Lieutenant-General Sir Miles Dempsey and served under the 21st Army Group.[59] It was responsible for the assault beach landings in Normandy on D Day. The landings part of Operation Overlord, were conducted by I Corps on Sword Beach and XXX Corps on Gold Beach. A third British corps, VIII Corps, was attached in June 1944. During the advance across France I Corps was assigned to the First Canadian Army, and it was replaced by the XII Corps.[60]

The general jist of the above is basically wrong. I and XXX Corps were the first wave formations. VIII and XII Corps were follow-up units, both of which were already under Second Army control during the Normandy Campaign. When First Canadian Army was activated I Corps of course transferred over but XII Corps was already part of Second Army and had already been in action. II Canadian Corps was activated during the Normandy Campaign and initially served under Second Army until First Army activated.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworded

• Tenth Army

The Tenth Army was formed in Iraq and from the major part of Paiforce which had participated in the Anglo-Iraqi War. It was active in 1942 and 1943, under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir Edward Quinan and consisted of the III Corps and the Indian XXI Corps.[66] Its main task was the maintenance of the lines of communication to the Soviet Union from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian and the protection of the South Persian and Iraqi oilfields which supplied Britain with all its non American sourced oil.[67]

Just a minor comment but Paiforce did not take part in the Anglo-Iraq War, it was formed following those events.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworded

• Overall Casualties

Total British Army casualties were dead: 210,197,[235] wounded: 284,049.[236] and prisoner of war: 180,488.[236]

I believe there may be a flaw with these statistics as well. David French's figures may be rounded but i wouldnt have thought they would have been that off, for such a well researched book, by over 100,000 men. He states British Army casualties ammounted to only 385,000 killed and wounded not the 494,246 has claimed above.

The report cited suggests that 244,621 British (and men from the colonies but not the Dominions nor India) were killed and have had there burial sites ID'd. The report does not indicate this 210,197 dead figure on page 10. Is this report only for the Army or are the other branches (the Airforce and Navy) counted as well? Do the men from the colonies (excluding the Dominion and Indian forces) count as fighting within the British Army i.e. would these colonial forces include such the Arab Legion, who fought beside our men, but were not British Army. On the looks of things the report raises more questions than it answers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Infantry Division etc

I dont really have the time right now but i will look through my sources sometime this week but i think it should be mentioned how the infantry division was much more mobile than the Germans i.e. the levels of motorised transport available to shift the division about etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

strength and number of division

which by the end of the war had over 3.5 million men in over 60 divisions.

I believe this statement is completely inaccurate; David French utilising secondary sources and war office documents states the Army reached its Second World War peak in June 1945 at 2.9 Million Men.(French, Raising Churchill's Army, p. 64)

French also points out that the government issued orders, in December 1940, for the Army to be increased to 55 divisions. In March 1941 the target was increased to 59 1/3 divisions. The final plan issued in May 1941 called for roughly 61 divisions of which the British Army was to find roughly 39 of these. "The remainder was to be furnished by India, the Dominions, and the exiled allies."(French, Raising Churchill's Army, p. 186)

Various points are made throughout the book and is also brought up in Ashley Hart's Colossal Cracks that the British Army hit manpower shortages in mid-1944 and had to start cannibalising divisions to bring others up to strength. Looking at the list of proper army divisions, as seen the in the list article, one will note that many of them were disbanded.

On page 8 he notes, for instance, that excluding airborne formations the British Army could only muster 7 armoured divisions and 23 infantry divisions in July 144; 30 in total. 30 in total, with an army that continue to shrink as the war progressed the statement it had by wars end 60 divisions is simply impossible!

The statement in the lead is also at odds with the source used further in the article, which correctly states, 3.5 million men had served in the army during the course of the war.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Text amended there were 60+ divisions formed but with disbandments etc there was never 60 at the same time. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Coolio--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When was the Mobile Division (UK)/1st Armoured Division formed?

"The lack of funding, and having no requirement for a large armoured forces to police the Empire, was reflected in the fact that no large scale armoured formations were founded until 1938; by the outbreak of the war two armoured divisions were in existance in comparison to the seven armoured divisions of the Wehrmacht."

I have references supporting that the 7th Armoured Division was formed in 1938 as the Mobile Division (Egypt) however the 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) article claims that the 1st was formed as the Mobile Division in 1937. Does anyone have any information on when the 1st was formed so we can adjust the above quote in article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This [1] on page 41 would suggest 1938. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Guards Armour

The Guards Armoured Division, whose tank regiments were converted infantry battalions, was organised as four groups each of one tank and one motor infantry battalion, both from the same regiment. Each of the division's two brigades had two such groups.

The Guards Armoured Division's OOB for Normandy contricts this statement:

• 5th Guards Armoured Brigade
  • 2nd Armoured Battalion Grenadier Guards
  • 1st Armoured Battalion Coldstream Guards
  • 2nd Armoured Battalion Irish Guards
  • 1st Motor Battalion Grenadier Guards
• 32nd Guards Brigade
  • 5th Battalion Coldstream Guards
  • 3rd Battalion Irish Guards
  • 1st Battalion Welsh Guards
• 2nd Armoured Recce Regiment Battalion Weslh Guards
• 2nd Household Cavalry

(fortin, p. 37)

A layout that is like the other armoured divisions of the time. However following the Normandy Landings the 7th Armoured Division, unofficially it would seem, reorganised itself into the manner described in the quote and several sources clearly state following the in the steps of the 7th Armour but only AFTER Operation Goodwood did the 11th and Guards organise themselves in such groups - an infantry battalion and armoured battalion (including Recce Regt) working together.(sources for this can be found in the Operation Perch and Battle of Villers-Bocage articles; i will attempt to migrate this information over at some point). One should note that the Infantry Brigade went into action prior to the armour even assembling - see Opertion Epsom and during Goodwood the 2nd Welsh and 5th Coldstreams operated with one another.(Fortin, p. 36)

Fortin notes on p.36 that the balanced structure, mentioned in the quote, was not adopted until 30th July and then it was with mixed regts: 1st and 2nd Grenadiers, 2nd Irish/5th Coldstream in the Arm bde. 2nd Welsh/1st Welsh, 1st Coldstream/3rd Irish in the 32nd bde.

I have only seen mention of the Irish Guards group during Market Garden, by which time i presume there was also a Coldstream Guards group.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, no quibbles, so long as the adoption of four mixed groups is mentioned. Paper OOBs were for the benefit of the Royal Army Pay Corps rather than commanders in the field. Mixing and matching of tank and infantry in the GAD was semi-permanent; the groups acquired all sorts of precedences and arrangements based on officers' seniority etc. It also caused tactical weaknesses e.g. in Market Garden, when the tanks ought to have been racing to the rescue of Frost's 2nd Parachute Battalion at Arnhem, the senior Grenadier Guards officer regarded himself as hobbled because his infantry battalion was still clearing Nijmegen. (The incident is well-reported, in Cornelius Ryan, A Bridge Too Far, etc. This does not seem to have been the case outside the comparatively rigid confines of Guards regiments. HLGallon (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The division was formed with two armoured brigades the 5th as above and the 6th which became 6th Guards Tank Brigade (United Kingdom) the 6th was replaced in 1942 by the 32nd Guards brigade. The 6thh had the following units under command. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• 4th Motor Battalion Coldstream Guards
• 4th Armoured Battalion Grenadier Guards
• 3rd Armoured Battalion Scots Guards
• 2nd Armoured Battalion Welsh Guards

Campaigns section

Is it possible that we can change the name of the section?

I would propose an alternative but i cannot think of anything. I only ask as the title, followed by the sub titles, to me suggest that their was six campaigns the British Army was involved in: 1939–1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

US English

Just checking, when i referred to the American tank formations i used the term "armor" over "armour" however would this only be approbriate if i had of named a division i.e. the US 1st Armored Division etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SP ARTY

To counter the German Sturmgeschütz III assault guns the British designed their own self propelled artillery the Bishop, Deacon, Priest and Sexton.

Are we sure this is the claim by Bailey? For starters the Decaon is a SP-AT gun, the Priest was American designed and built and the Sexton was Canadian designed and manufactured. Additionally they were not used in the same role as the StuGs were, StuGs are assault guns and the British did not use their SP-ARTY in this way. Examples of German SP-ARTY would be the Wespe.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The British infantry tanks were the closest they had as an equivalent to the StuG Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Will change wording --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Eighth Army

"In the early years of the war Eighth Army suffered from poor leadership and repeated reversals of fortune until the Second Battle of El Alamein when it advanced across Libya into Tunisia and joined the First Army in 18th Army Group.[92]"

I think we need to elaborate on this point; it wasnt just poor leadership (in fact FM Carver makes the point that leadership was not the major problem under Ritchie etc in a work attempting to restore the latters reputation in the desert war), geopolitical issues (believe that is the correct term) ala the Middle East, East Africa, Austrilia, Greece, Burma etc, logistical issues (the main reason behind the two reversals (after Compass, and before Gazala), army doctrine, equipment, training, etc etc ... as well as leadership.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish

"By 1944, the army had seriously underestimated the casualties their forces would suffer in North West Europe"

Rubbish! See Ashely Hart's work Colossal Cracks. British casualties were expected to be much higher than they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, Hart (p. 53) says that while the War Office overestimated total casualties, it underestimated infantry casualties by 17%, causing a shortage of infantry reinforcements. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes quite. Please see page 47, table 3.2 All ranks medium definition (which excludes only a few areas of the army). 171,855 casualties were expected by the beginning of December, when in actuality only 109,396 had been inflicted. Therefore the claim in the article that the Army “seriously underestimated” the casualties that would be received in the campaign is either a) wrong b) out of date, or c) not defining what the author (a different one from the more modern work of Hart) actually stated

Your reply poses more of a straw man than anything else. Page 51 onwards, goes into debunking the myth D’Este created of there being excess troops left in the United Kingdom, and on page 53 states: “The infantry reinforcement crisis of 1944, therefore, 'represented a long-term problem that the war office undoubtedly exacerbated by its underestimation of infantry casualty wastage rates for the Normandy campaign. In fact, the War Office estimation of total casualties for all branches in the campaign's first six months remained higher than the total losses actually suffered. ... However, predicted infantry casualties proved significantly lower than actual infantry wastage.”

The North West Europe campaign was more than just the Battle of Normandy, and the British Army was made up of more than just infantry (infantry being, iirc, one of the smallest branches of the army). The point Hart makes is that the infantry casualties made up a overwelming percentage of the armies losses when compared to the other services, and that this one branch of the army was underestimated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.174.9 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have re-worded the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to german article

The german link of this article directs to "Geschichte der British Army" which doesn´t mention WW II at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_Army should direct to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_der_British_Army - which fits exactly. as i´m not familiar with the guidelines of english wiki i don´t want to change that on my own. yet there´s (sadly) no article about british army in WW II in german wiki. best regards -- Truelobo79 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British Army was an Empire Army

The British empire was the largest the world had ever seen. The army was spread all over the empire in different names. The British Indian Army was over 2.6 million alone in 1944. The British had a pool of men of over 345 million to pick from to form armies. The article concentrates on armies mainly recruited in the UK which is wrong. 94.194.246.10 (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

However, the British Army and the Britiah Indian Army were complelty separate entities. British troops who made up a third (roughly) of the strength of the Indian army divisions were - iirc - not techically part of the British Indian Army. So to have two pages discussing and this one concentrating as it does, makes sense.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

They were still British forces whether run as separate entities or not. They were a pool of men the British could dip into. They were under British command from Whitehall. 94.194.246.10 (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not deny that, although the separate articles for separate entities does make sense. The argument you are making (I would highlight for your own interest in the subject, Perry's Commonwealth armies - iirc that is the title, I am not with my books right now - that somewhat makes the same argument. Perry highlights the various manpower and potential divisions the empire could call upon. Although he does not go into the logistical, industrial, or political issues of doing so as his work is mostly about the organization of the various armies.) Is more suited - IMO - on the military history of the UK article than here, although I would agree that some sort of mention of the Indian Army should be included as you added to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

All the histories I've seen treat the British Army as a distinct entity from the British Indian Army. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Army during the Second World War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709063710/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbritishA.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbritishA.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702042650/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx to http://www2.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ordersofbattle.com/UnitData.aspx?UniX=6203&Tab=Sub
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618090429/http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/Finances%2C%20Statistics%20and%20Service.pdf to http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/Finances%2C%20Statistics%20and%20Service.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Training

Added here as too detailed for the article it was intended for.Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

world war 2 1931 to 1945

time line 1931 10 1945 76.178.105.116 (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)