Customer Reviews

Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War against Germany 1919-1945

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Ever since Carlo D'Este's DECISION IN NORMANDY was published, the performance of the British Army in Europe in the Second World War has been a subject of much debate. The army has been accused of having poor morale, poor leadership, poor tactics, poor operational strategy, poor equipment, and just about anything derisive that could be written about an army. Some of these accusations are well supported by historical evidence, other accusations have little basis. David French's RAISING CHURCHILL'S ARMY presents an assessment of the British Army in the Second World War, that is strongly supported by historical evidence. He disproves many accusations against the army while concentrating on its principal failing, an inadequate indoctrination of combined arms tactics. Anyone interested in understanding (or attacking) the British performance in the Second World War should read this book.

I was expecting a book about the expansion of regiments, brigades and the creation of new divisions but it's a lot more in depth than that. It's about the creation of an army that could defeat the Germans, through changing tactics, communications and weapons. It's somewhat of a dry read but the argument is very strong that the British, despite their best intentions simply failed to develop their soldiers in a fashion that could beat the Germans. In the end the army had to go about things within its limitations.

There's quite a bit of good detail to support all this. The difference proper communications made is very well argued. I also learned, after reading about it for years - why British tanks had such a limited turret ring. Another quote that stuck in my mind was a British officers dismissal of a German exercise in the 1930s with the comment - when in 'battle' all the German responded "in the same way", implying that British flexibility made for superiority - except the Germans were actually showing the strength of drill, which allowed even junior officers to attack/react quickly in appropriate manners - whereas the absence of drills in the British army and the wide variety of interpretation of the 'manual' was actually a significant weakness. Montgomery saw this and drills, common to all units, became a focus as the war went on.

There is not a great deal of battle accounts but more the findings that followed - again, in the authors opinion, often misinterpreted by the British command. He does look at weapons and the use of artillery in particular and does discuss the manpower issues that the British faced. As I said a bit dry but I liked it. It was informative and looked at things from angles I had never considered.

The blurb on the back adds this "the first serious analysis of the combat capability of the British army in WW2. It sweeps away the myth that the army suffered from poor morale, and that it only won, by adopting Haig WW1 type tactics. Interwar strategy identified technology as the means to reduce casualties but shortages and "doctrine" were great weaknesses"

If anyone wants to understand why the British Army fought the Second World War the way they did, this is the book for you. In fact I would say it is essential reading for anyone interested in the British contribution during the war.

French looks at how the British Army learnt from the lessons of the First World War and applied them in the inter-war years but points out how they did not go far enough and establish common doctrine. He analyses how the various factors of the inter-war years, lack of common doctrine, lack of the needed equipment, economic and political factors played their role in the setbacks the British Army saw during the first half of the war; but also how they played their role in the few successes the army was able to achieve at the same time.

French then examines the second half of the war and when the equipment the army needed finally started to arrive in the numbers required, how manpower shortages effected the operational and tactical ability of the army, and how key personalities, such as Bernard Montgomery, asserted their influence on the army and began to correct the flaws within; leading to a force that was confident it could take on and defeat their opponents, which it did.