Why did the British army fight so poorly in the second world war compared to the first world war?

Because they also had to fight the French, the Russians, the Americans...etc

Had it only been Germany vs Britain, the German police would've arrested the British army

>In WW1 the British took at least 800,000 casualties. In WW1 they took a measly 300,000-400,000 and won.

That would've been relevant if Britain had been the only country in its faction
But since that's not the case, all it shows is that Britain contributed even less in WW2 than they did in WW1

Dieppe was a Canadian operation

They didn't lose to offensives lead by the French the Germans lost the war when brave and clever Tommy Atkins invented the tank and rolled over them. Plus Brits didn't mutiny like the French rofl

>wahhh germany had to fight all these countries

shouldn't have fucking declared war on them all then

Tbh relying on others to do the fighting and then taking the credit for it is a time-honored british tradition.

>They didn't lose to offensives lead by the French

Ackshually....

>tanks in WW1
>relevant

They sent all their best people into machine gun fire first time around because of incompetent leadership.

How do you think people actually got across no man's land?

Planned by Britain

By running, often aided by artillery fire, whether either suppressive or simply for direct slaughter.

This notion that people slowly walked across a muddy ditch to be mown down by machine gun fire is simply wrong. Offense quite often worked, at least temporarily. The bigger problem was holding your gains in the face of the inevitable counterattack than it was actually seizing a portion of trench.

>1v1 me bro no channelnoobing
why are /int/posters so autistic?

...

Wrong you utter spacker people would use tanks and cover from machine fire

Lead (and manned for the most part) by France
Even America had as many troops as Britain

>Germans were clearly superior
Incredibly dumb statement, the Germans got smashed in 1918 and a good proportion of that was done by the British

>British poster asks why Germany lost if they were suprior to Britain, thus making it look like it was a 1vs1 stuff
>Other poster replies that it wasn't 1vs1
>"Waaah, why are u so autistic, war aint 1v1 dude"

>a faggot that couldn't even bomb krauts properly

Yes, that's why there were no offensives or casualties sustained by the defenders against offensives before the tank made its debut in Flers-Courcelette.

Tell me, oh wise user, why the French and German casualties at Verdun were nearly matched despite the Germans contintually attacking French trenches, and there not being tanks involved in the fighting.

Germany only lost Verdun because they never had any cover. If they had Tanks they would have rolled into Paris.

>a good proportion of that was done by the British

This is what anglos actually believe.

>despite the Germans contintually attacking French trenches

Not the guy you replied too, but it was actually the contrary
The Germans took a part of the French lines by surprize and the French spent most of the battle trying to take it back (until the moment they finally succeeded and thus won the battle)
Your point still stands though

Nice delusion
Here are, from the most to the least relevant, the countries that contributed to beating Germany in 1918

1. America
2. France
3. Belgium
4. Portugal
5. Siam
6. Britain

>america
>relevant in either ww

wew

Not him but Germany would've won WW1 if not for American involvement. I'm saying this as a non-American.

Yeah, I'm sure England could have liberated western Europe by itself. We just got in the damn way with our endless supplies if everything and millions of soldiers.

>granpapa jose wore a pretty pink apron while making weapons for the men to fight with so basically we won

"""as a non american""" ok jamal

You know, this post makes me sad. Because someone is actually trying to give a serious answer on what is obviously an /int/ tier retard thread.

You're welcome, btw :^)

>"""as a non american""" ok jamal
If you think I'm happy that Germany lost that war then you cannot be more wrong, the result ended up in dissolution of my country. But America was the factor that turned the tide in 1917.

>on what is obviously an /int/ tier retard board.

ftfy

I'm sure the fact their civilians were starving to death in the streets due to Britain's blockade had nothing to do with it. Nope. It was that powerful and scary American army of 1917

This, sadly. Veeky Forums is a flagless playground for roleplayers.

Britain is the one country Europeans pointed and laughed at in both wars.

> Time and again they'd engage German forces that were far inferior on paper

Is this a joke? Germany and their Italian allies held the numerical superiority in men and tanks in the beginning of the German campaign, and still the British managed to push back Rommel and hold Tobruk for months. The main thing screwing the British army over was the fact that the North African theater was neglected by the British preventing them from making any major successes until they got the men to attack at El Alamein. Not to mention the terrain and logistics disadvantage they had to face as well.

So why were the Germans starving in the streets?

There weren't.

>The state of Veeky Forums

Amiens, the Second Battle of the Somme, the Second Battle of Cambrai? Never mind the fact that the weight of the German attack landed on the British. Also, during the Hundred Days Offensive the British took more casualties than the French and captured more prisoners than the Americans and French combined. If you're going fling shit at least do it on a topic that you aren't completely ignorant of

Yes they were, due to the blockade not because the Americans ate all the food rofl

>Implying the British weren't fighting other nations as well
>Implying making alliances isn't a sign of superiority

Daily episode of Anglo delusions

>and captured more prisoners than the Americans and French combined.

Only because the French were more prone to massacre the Germans than Brits
If you look at the total number of casualties (and not just prisoners) inflicted on the Germans, France is well above Britain in that offensive

>The Blockade of Germany, or the Blockade of Europe, occurred from 1914 to 1919. It was a prolonged naval operation conducted by the Allied Powers during and after World War I[1] in an effort to restrict the maritime supply of goods to the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. It is considered one of the key elements in the eventual Allied victory in the war. The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000.[4]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany

t. Lindybeige

>it's a little Britain pretending it's relevant episode
Yawn

>Denying the Blockade of Germany happened
>This level of delusion

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if you source me

The Mid-East command never held less than 340,000 men, which is a hell of a lot more than the Axis were committing to the theater. Tobruk held, not because of any particular virtue of British defenses, but because he was at the extreme end of a logistical tether that could barely supply DAK (and the Italians). Battles like Gazala were lost with a heavy numerical and material superiority in favor of the Brits.

>The main thing screwing the British army over was the fact that the North African theater was neglected by the British preventing them from making any major successes until they got the men to attack at El Alamein

No, and in fact El Alamein (the second one, I assume) still only committed about half of the force available in theater. The main thing screwing the British army over at least in Libya was the same thing screwing Rommel over; the local supply infrastructure was bad to nonexistent, and you couldn't actually manage to commit the forces you had in any kind of coherent fashion, limiting each army to relatively tiny trickles of force and preventing decisive confrontation. But the British always committed more than the Axis did.

>Not to mention the terrain and logistics disadvantage they had to face as well.

The British had the overwhelming logistical advantage, not a disadvantage. Egypt had a functioning railroad network, Libya did not. It meant that men and supplies could be assembled and moved in a way that the Axis simply could not replicate and doomed any offensive before it started. Granted, that didn't help them do much when pushing into Libya itself, which was where most of their defeats were, but the long term strategic/logistical advantages were definitely in Britain's favor.

who do you think gets to decide who wins wars, you impious tard?

Not island niggers.

>The Mid-East command never held less than 340,000 men
Of which 36,000 were fighting in North Africa in 1940. And in case you forgot, they defeated a force four times their size and took all of Cyrenacia in three months before being chased back by a German-Italian force twice their size when they were at the end of their logistical tether. You can´t get much more glorious than that.

>Egypt had a functioning railroad network, Libya did not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Coastal_Highway#World_War_II
Not to mention the Axis could just ship in the supplies from Tunisia, while British supplies had to suffer constant harassment being shipped through the Mediterranean and on Malta.

>But America was the factor that turned the tide in 1917.
Their combat troops were largely irrelevant until 1918, and even without any Americans the Spring Offensive would still have petered out. There would still be manpower for a counterattack (just not so much as with all of the fresh blood that the Americans provided), and most importantly the blockade would still be in plac. Time was on the side of the Allies.

Britain decided who won the Napoleonic wars and both world wars.How can continentals even compete : ^ )

>Have no tank production
>Allies in Constantinople and Sofia on the brink of collapse
>Blockade still intact
>Lack of cavalry to sustain large offensives

Yeah, they could've totally won the war

Are you seriously suggesting that the Germans had an easier time getting supplies to Africa than the British? How fucking stupid are you?

>f which 36,000 were fighting in North Africa in 1940

And over a hundred thousand were sitting on their asses in Egypt for want of being able to actually fight in Libya.

>they defeated a force four times their size and took all of Cyrenacia in three months

Fighting Italians. Nobody is going to pretend that this is some kind of achievement.

> German-Italian force twice their size when they were at the end of their logistical tether.

And yet, it took them about 3 weeks to do that. Meanwhile, when it was reversed at the end of 1941, and the Germans and Italians were at the end of their logistical tether, it took months of buildup and a failed attempt or two to roll them back.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Coastal_Highway#World_War_II

So, you mean something that is explicitly NOT a railroad. The Libyan Coastal road or sometimes "Rommelbahn" was shit for transporting supplies, because trucks are way less fuel efficient for large scale transport than trains are; an enormous amount of Axis motor transport capacity was merely servicing the motor transport itself.

>Not to mention the Axis could just ship in the supplies from Tunisia, while British supplies had to suffer constant harassment being shipped through the Mediterranean and on Malta.

The overwhelming majority of British supplies were shipped in through Suez and the Red Sea, from places like India or South Africa, well out of the Italian reach.

Why was Britain, compared to other powers, so much comparatively weaker in 1939 than it was in 1914?

Nice meme

Because they got cucked by the United States at Versailles.

Why are those girls looking at me?

The Germans had a fucking ally literally on the doorstep of the continent. There is no way they had a harder time getting their shit to Africa.

>Dunkirk
You mean when french soldiers litterally sacrificed their lives so english soldiers could flee ?

No he means the the time Britain lost 70,000 men trying to defend France and then evacuated 140,000 French soldiers.

No he means when one of the Germans greatest military blunders happened, and not a British strategic victory happened. Those forces could have been crushed if they had adequate leadership

Which allied country fought the best in WWI?

How does any of that disagree with what I said?

>t. Bong

So what if it was the Russians and and Germans togetter against France and Brittain?

Ps: when was the last time you won a war without begging your daddy USA for help or calling for coalitions?

1982, you?

>1982

Topkek, was that the war against Argentinians?

>We won against other europeans 1vs1 too, yeah Argentinians are white therefore europeans!

>you

1939-1945

>getting occupied for four years
>fighting on the nazi side in all your colonies
>"""""""""""winning the war"""""""""""""

jesus christ, we divided the wrong fucking country in 1945

what is this? amateur hour? real bomber coming through

>le witty bismarck reference

fuck off

It wasn't, really. Far less so than say, Germany or France.

No, he's right. The Germans had to ferry everything through the Med, which was contested waters, and then haul them, by inefficient trucks in the desert, across a highway that was hundreds of kilometers long.

The British, meanwhile, could route supplies and reinforcement through the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, and then along railroads, in a completely secure fashion. Hell, it was so bad that Rommel's 1942 offensive was literally predicated on stealing supplies from the British as he advanced.

Wut
I'm Russian, you know, the country that really won WW2 while you were hiding

>inb4 "you lost ww1 lol"
Yeah, but we were alone on our front while you were hiding behind French and Americans

>Russian

Sorry, I assumed you were a Frog by the butthurt. I have no problem with Russia nor was I going to say anything about WWI

>the memeblockade
>relevant

You lost WW1 despite fighting in the winning side. How pathetic you can be?

>Siam
what the heck?

Right, because that's what happened.

Canada
Not even joking

Not him, but Siam fought a token amount in WW1, and they had attempted to intervene in other European or "western" conflicts for some time; they also, for instance, offered aid to Lincoln in the ACW. It was a small force (IIRC, the Siamese expeditionary force in WW1 was like 1,200 men), and mostly done to raise visibility and buy some goodwill among the colonial powers of Europe to try to help forestall any efforts they might make against Siam itself down the line.

>piggyback Prussia and Russia
>WE DID IT ALL
British historiography in a nutshell.

>Anglos
>best fighters
This is a history board not a wewuzian board

>muh per capita

On the whole probably France.
Per capita probably Bongland.

British history is hilarous

Britain had a bigger population than France, so if France fought better than Britain overall, they did so per capita as well
The real answer is Canada (Australia is a strong contender but their huge failure at Gallipoli disqualifies them)

Bongs pretty much just used their colonies as Pokemon, a huge bulk of the troops in Europe were Pakis and niggers.

This
Basically half of Britain's total numbers were from colonies (compared to 10% for France)