Why did the British ARMY perform so poorly in WW2?

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden

embarrasing

They didn't.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore

>It resulted in the Japanese capture of Singapore and the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history.[6] About 80,000 British, Indian and Australian troops became prisoners of war, joining 50,000 taken by the Japanese in the earlier Malayan Campaign. The British prime minister, Winston Churchill, called it the "worst disaster" in British military history

It's made worse by the fact that the Germans in the region were utterly demoralized and scattered after their withdrawal from France. The British in contrast, high morale, high organization, their plan months in the making. All undone in a few days Germans from Railway workers, to Labourers, luftwaffe ground crews, and exhausted Heer and SS men, who trained everyone else on the spot. And all it achieved was giving the German's their confidence back, making the fighting that much more stubborn.

Picture related: Waffen-SS officer and Heer XO teaching a Luftwaffe grunt how to use a grenade.

Impaired movement from anal tearing.

I'm still not quite sure what this meme is all about. The British army has historically always been pretty tiny so why would you expect massive combat formations like on the Eastern Front from them? The only actual fuck up was Singapore which is to this day considered the most atrocious defeat in the history of the British armed forces.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid

Commando actions = general British Armed Forces efficiency

heh

t. Lindie

Ended up in a war against every industrialized nation on earth because 'muh Poland'
>Called a loser because they inevitably had to lose.

The political and diplomatic ability was shitty, but when the British military have the opinion that "Those who have never fought the Germans, have never known war" then they have to be doing something right.

Honestly Germany may have been able to get Danzig if they did not invade czechoslavakia, invading the Czech lands showed that Hitler could not be trusted and would throw away agreements that did not suit him.

pretty sure Lindie would be in the "France suck at war" camp

doesn't really help your argument

Welp. I'm convinced by this thread.

Excellent evidence. Well presented ideas and arguments.

OP you have proved your point with scientific and careful discussion of the facts.

NOT.

It's a bait thread. What did you expect?

Five

Hundred

who is the artist behind these?

>what is north african campaign
>what is east african campaign
>what is burma campaign
>what is anglo iraqi war
>what is battle of atlantic
>what is operation market garden
>what is siege of malta
>what is battle of britain
and so many others

Osprey

>mfw Operation Menace

It really is a shame the British and French weren't exterminated when we had the chance

*Osprey publishing

People presented arguments and evidence, you illiterate cunt.

Because they are filthy ANGLOS

>mifw revisionists have tried to spin monty into a good general

>Russia, France, Britain, Spain get memed on re: military history
>Countries like Sweden are flat out forgotten
>Germany gets its dick sucked despite being Europes bitchboy for most of modern history and back to back World War losers

Arguably the worst they performed was in North Africa early in the conflict.
On November 18, 1941, the British 8th Army, as the forces in the Western Desert had been rechristened, launched Operation Crusader. The British undertook that offensive with more than twice as many tanks as their opponent. In addition, some one-third of Rommel’s tanks were poorly armed Italian ones. Rommel handled his tanks more skillfully than the British, however, and he made clever and effective use of concealed antitank guns. Thus, he was able to claim the advantage over the British in the first few days of the battle, despite their four-to-one superiority in the air (and despite the fact that two-thirds of Rommel’s meagre air force consisted of obsolete Italian planes).
britannica.com/event/North-Africa-campaigns

Rommel was worth a few extra divisions though

Starving german kids managed to hold US troops for 3 years at Belgium.

>north africa
beating a third string army made mostly of italians. Also with the navy and airforce they STILL COULDN'T STOP THEIR CONVOYS!
>east africa
a massively under equipped, poorly led force completely cut off from resupply oh and they had the help of ethiopians to do this too.
>burma campaign
the british army was continually beaten back by an outnumbered, over extended japanese army while the americans and australians did the real work.
>anglo iraq
lol
>battle of the atlantic
despite having the most powerful navy at the time they still couldn't do shit until the americans stepped in
>market garden
the british soldiers performed exceptionally their leadership was pants on head retarded, i'll give you this one
>"siege" of malta
ah yes when the mighty italian navy and airforce oh wait, fucking dumb faggot the Axis never had a chance of taking Malta at any point and never made a serious effort to
>battle of britain
basically tied until the germans fucked themselves up

They didn't?

>3 years at Belgium
>US troops didnt even land north of the alps until mid 1944
>the war ended in early/mid 1945
>3 years

There is an interesting case regarding the 7th Armoured Division (The Desert Rats). In North Africa and Italy they performed very well, so much so that Montgomery personally lobbied for them to be transfered back to England so that they could land in France for D-Day. While in Normandy, however, the troops performed noticeably worse than expected, to everyone's surprised. Here was one of the single most battle-hardened divisions the allies had to offer, whom were made up of experienced, battle-hardened troops and were well equipped, yet they were in Normandy (and this would be true into the Netherlands and the end of the war) performing worse than their less-experienced peers and just generally lacking a certain elan that was expected of the them.

Then, you think about it. A great deal of the Desert Rats had been deployed since 1939, and had been seeing major combat for several years. The men we simply just tired. Not physically, necessarily, they got their fair share of leave and rotations, but it was concluded that there is a point where combat troops become TOO experienced and have seen too much (A point to placed at around 4 years or more) to where it starts negatively effecting their combat effectiveness. These men were done with the war, just finished with it emotionally and psychologically.

They did pretty good given the position Poland put them in

You mean most of history

>League of Nations tells Germany to fuck off, partitions the Sudentland, Alsace-Lorraine, and Danzig from Germany
>Danzig is a city state protected by League of Nations
>Both Poland and Germany want the clay
>Molotov Ribbentrop Pact happens
>Britain decides to send millions of lads to their doom to fight for a small square of dirt instead of waiting for either Stalin or Hitler to sperg out over each other and break their NAP

How stupid are britbongs?

shitty inbred genes and so much fucking gold at the top of the pyramid that the countrys worth sac

Poor leadership for the most part.

British troops encompassed both Canada and Australia in the war. Very seldomly we're Aussie troops under orders of Australian generals.

Honestly though OP, the British we're fine albeit a little stagnant from WW1 which was its peak. Britain could of won the war without the Americans but it would taken many more lives, years and costs for it would of been huge.

The only reason the Americans did so well in Europe was because of Patton.

>Wearing v neck sweaters in battle
Anglos confirmes for comfiest race

I think they performed fine, outside of a few armor clusterfucks where they lost a Russia of tanks.

hes an angry french guy whose always making threads shitting on britain

>The only reason the Americans did so well in Europe was because of Patton.

That's a funny way to spell Bradley.

> beating a third string army made mostly of italians

Army Group Afrika was actually one of the most well equipped formations in the entire Axis. This is because the demands of fighting in a desert required it. It had enough motorized transportation to equip an entire Army Group on the Eastern Front.

>despite having the most powerful navy at the time they still couldn't do shit until the americans stepped in

The British were already turning the tide by the time the Americans stepped in, in 1942, and in fact the Americans went through the exact same hard lessons of the Brits. In the end, the Brits sunk twice the German subs that the Americans did.

t. freeaboo

naval-history.net/WW2aBritishLosses10tables.htm

> ah yes when the mighty italian navy and airforce

You say it sarcastically, but the Regina Marina was genuinely mighty. It had the fourth largest fleet in the world after the USN, RN, and IJN.

>basically tied until the germans fucked themselves up

A myth. Read Bungay's "The Most Dangerous Enemy". The Germans had little chance to begin with, and squandered what little chance they did have. Dowding and Park totally owned them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gazala

>control+f operation compass
>no matches