Why did Britain perform so atrociously during WW1? Was it late forced conscription? Manpower issues? Deployment issues? Terrible leadership? Pride? All of the above?
They didn't. In fact their overall performance by 1918 was pretty remarkable and easily the best.
>>776085
Early in the war they did not perform well. Failing to defend Belgium, the earlier stages of the Mesepotamian campaign (like the seige of Kut) and barely being able to halt the Germans into a stalemate in France.
>>776140
Crap, I worded that terribly.
>>776140
I think you're overestimated the size of the British Expeditionary Force. The British have never had a large army.
I would say they did pretty well all things considered.
>>776085
Tactically, I'd say Germany performed the best given the odds. However, the British were without doubt most successful, not to mention that the British naval blockade is what was likely the most decisive element in WW1 which eventually won the war for the entente.
>>776140
When ww1 started they just had a small but elite groups of soldiers compared to everyone else. Of course ww1 warfare was a meatgrinder so most of them were all dead by the first few months. Brits still had it pretty good because they had people to recruit from all around the world.
They did?
>>776214
Mons is like Dunkirk, exaggerated a thousandfold by the propaganda division of the British government to raise morale at home.
>>776176
100,000 strong right? That's damn small,
and to be honest, high command should've known that with all the dick-measuring and army build up before the war, that they needed a larger army.
>>775995
They pretty much won the war in 1918. Their offensives were exemplary and perfectly conducted from start to finish.
>>776140
>Failing to defend Belgium
At the onset of the war the BEF numbered ~100,000 men, Germany invaded Belgium with close to a million. Instead of retreating and giving up, and in order to protect Paris and the northern front for long enough that the French could mobilise their armies in the south, the BEF alongside the Belgian Army (and later the French) held up a force several times its size in a series of defensive actions that stalled the German offensive for close to 3 months (from the initiation of the invasion in August to Ypres and the stagnation of the lines in October/November).
This LITERALLY saved Paris from the decisive attack the Germans had hoped would bring a swift victory and allowed France the time it needed to organise for a longer, drawn out and defensively oriented war, which it was not originally fully ready to fight.
So yeah they failed to defend Belgium, but there was no realistic hope of defending it from the beginning, what they DID accomplish was the defence of the northern front from, what the Schlieffen plan had hoped to be the decisive blow to France.
>>776201
I'm aware of the vital importance of the blockade. I meant to say that I was talking about land campaigns but forgot like the gay faggot OP that I am.
>>776367
blockade was pretty much what won the war though
in 1918 one of the reasons the german offensive ground to a halt was because the german soldiers were furious at how well supplied and stocked the allied kitchens were. The germans were eating sawdust
>>776345
You seem to be forgetting the massive fuckhuge overseas empire Britain had to maintain. Even at the start of WW2 which they saw coming the British had most of their forces in places like Egypt, India and Singapore.
>>776085
French were without any fucking doubt the most important player in the allied side and the most successful.
>>776352
No, the British were shitty. I guess that you are a British. British are only able to take territory from retarded civilization like Africans, Natives, Indians and Emu's. British are only able to conquer desert's lands. Never been able to win against a country without a coalition.
The French won the war in 1918. Second battle of the Marne destroyed the Germans army. All Victory are consequences of the second battle of Marne. Learn history, not propaganda. Stop showing your British's stupidity.
UK never been relevant in war, and this is the case of WW1 and WW2.
>>776390
I am German.
You are just a bad troll , your picture is that shitty turk image that is posted on /pol/.
You should be banned from this bored, this isn't some shitty satire place like /pol/
>>776390
0/10
>>776366
No, your shitty BEF was a pathetic army until 1916 and stopped nothing during 1914. They were 80 000 soldiers, completely pathetic. At this period of time, the number of soldier in the French's artillery was 400 000, just saying... And there were 4 000 000 of french with 246 000 belgians against 5 500 000 germans. Stop saying bullshit.
>>776389
UK had nothing to maintain. There weren't important Germans army in these area. UK was just a fucking perfidious player, waiting to France making the main effort and to gain the German's colonies.
>>776390
Saying the truth against the British's propaganda is Trolling ?
The fucking Truth is that the French army was always more numerous during all the war and they did the main effort for defeating the Central's power. UK's armies were ridiculous until 1916 and the victory was Thanks to the France that had a army modern as a WW2's army with the most important amount of modern tanks, trucks,artillery and planes.
The reason that Ludendorf stated to Guillaume of the defeat was the 3600 french Renault tanks.
Stop saying I'am trolling, I'am saying the truth against about WW1 and you should be ashamed as a German to not even know WW1's history.
>>776425
Butthurt frog detected
>>776425
what is the 100 days offensive, what was the whippets, where was the tank invented and mass produced, what was the british blockade, what was the arab uprising.. god.
>>776345
The UK always brought naval power and relied on allies to fight to the big ground wars. It's how we beat Napolean.
>>776425
>No, your shitty BEF was a pathetic army until 1916 and stopped nothing during 1914. They were 80 000 soldiers, completely pathetic. At this period of time, the number of soldier in the French's artillery was 400 000, just saying... And there were 4 000 000 of french with 246 000 belgians against 5 500 000 germans. Stop saying bullshit.
If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that at the onset of the invasion of Belgium, the French army was in no position to combat the Germans, it took them over a month just to get to the front, as the vast majority of the army was stationed along the Maginot Line, launching ineffective and extraordinarily wasteful assaults into the German front.
There is no contesting that the BEF was a drop in the ocean, as it was dwarfed by both the German and French continental armies, however, it was a seasoned and well equipped force that acquitted itself impressively when vastly outnumbered, and provided a very important part of the delaying force used to allow the French to properly mobilise.
Also, FYI, in WW2 the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic, both of which were almost entirely won by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were equivalent to Stalingrad and Leningrad (nowhere near as costly in terms of lives, but equally strategically important). Nothing France did in that war mattered.
>>776471
Not him, but if you're talking about the Maginot line in the context of WW1, you have no right whatsoever to lecture people about not knowing what they're talking about.
>>776478
I'm not him but that's an easy mistake to make, there were significant defences there, they were just not called the maginot line
>>776425
The French Army was so good it mutinied in May 1917 and did nothing for the rest of the year?
France had to be propped up by the USA in 1918 whilst the British spearheaded the 100 Days Offensive.
>>776492
This. The french army actually refused to undertake offensive action after 1917.
British/Canadians used combined arms tactics - the early form of Blitzkrieg - to destroy the Germans and advance deeply and capture hundreds of thousands of hungry germans (hungry because of the British blockade)
>>776492
>>776500
>The French Army was so good it mutinied in May 1917 and did nothing for the rest of the year?
Up until the failure of the Nivelle Offensive, the French were the most effective of the entente forces on the Western Front, throwing back the Germans at the Marne and bearing the brunt of Verdun such that the Somme (something which figures quite vividly in the mind of the British) was envisioned entirely just as a distraction to weaken the German pressure put onto Verdun. The French were the first to properly integrate modern squad infantry tactics, as demonstrated by the success of the French forces in the first days of the Somme offensive compared to that of the British.
Unfortunately, the Nivelle offensive completely broke the morale of the French, leading to the mutinies and a refusal to take part in any offensive operations until the arrival of the AEF.
>whilst the British spearheaded the 100 Days Offensive.
>British/Canadians used combined arms tactics - the early form of Blitzkrieg - to destroy the Germans and advance deeply and capture hundreds of thousands of hungry germans
The idea that the British The British advances in Amiens, the Second Somme and Saint-Quentin were matched by French advances at Montdidier, Noyon and Savy-Dallon. More French soldiers participated in the Hundred Day's Offensive than any other nation (Over 2.5 million men to the 1.8 million Britons and 1.9 million Americans).
The British did indeed first to successfully employ tanks in conjunction with Infantry, and it was their blockade that ultimately choked the life out of Germany, but ultimately neither would have made a difference in time if the French hadn't borne the brunt of the German offensive in 1914 or 1916.
>>776425
>No, your shitty BEF was a pathetic army until 1916 and stopped nothing during 1914. They were 80 000 soldiers, completely pathetic.
holy shit my sides are in orbit
>>776709
What great successes did the British preside over between the opening of hostilities and Verdun? The Second Battle of Ypres and the First Battle of the Somme were the only two major battles in which the British did the brunt of the fighting. At Ypres the British fought bravely but were still driven back due to Gas, and at the Somme the French were much more successful than their British counterparts (though that was partly because the French were using veteran troops while the British threw in Kitchener's trained but inexperienced volunteers). The British was a much more impressive force after 1916, but before that they were still reeling from the loss of much of its standing army in the great retreat.
>>776478
>>776487
Yeah my bad got the names mixed up, but in both wars they were the centrepiece of the French defence and where the majority of their forces were concentrated, which had to be maneuvered north to halt the German advance through Flanders, and which only got there in time due to the BEF and the Belgians slowing the German advance immensely.
>>776950
>Yeah my bad got the names mixed up, but in both wars they were the centrepiece of the French defence and where the majority of their forces were concentrated
No, they fucking weren't, that goes against the whole point of the Maginot Line, which was to allow a small amount of men to hold a massive line so that the vast majority of the French Army could be focused on operations in Belgium and the Northeast.
In 1940 13 out of 117 French divisions manned the entirety of the maginot line, and 6 were in the south guarding against the Italians. These were manned almost exclusively reservists, which the French High Command distrusted for anything EXCEPT defensive operations. All 27 Divisions of the French Standing Army and most of its reservists was concentrated in Belgium along with the BEF to meet the Germans, as had always been intended.
>which had to be maneuvered north to halt the German advance through Flanders
This is true, but this was a development that neither the German or British high commands properly anticipated because Rommel and Guderian rushed through the Ardennes. Everybody knew the battle would be in Belgium, but not even the German high command knew that the breakthrough would come farther north.
>and which only got there in time due to the BEF and the Belgians slowing the German advance immensely.
Complete bullshit. Several divisions of organic French cavalry were the only units that held the Ardennes, because it was believed that tanks would not be used there. If anything it was the French that saved the asses of the BEF, stalling the Germans after Sedan in time for the British to retreat from Dunkirk.
Just love how people completely forget how us Italians litterally won the war for you betraying Austria and Germany. I would like to know what would have been of the Anglo-French when having to defend France on two fronts. I wonder if the German would have actually encountered any resistance when entering in Paris since the French army would have had to be deployed on two different fronts on about 1.5k kilometres of frontline. MUH FUCKING LIBERTÈ. MUH FUCKING COLONIES. Suckers.
>>776999
>I would like to know what would have been of the Anglo-French when having to defend France on two fronts.
Well if the Italian Army's performance against the Austrians and the French in World War II serve as any sort of indication, the answer would be "not much worse"
>>776989
Yeah ok whatever I'm no WW2 historian (not gonna lie, WW1 is a far more interesting conflict), all I was saying is that, yes, I got the names mixed up as there were, for a very long time, extensive fortifications along the Franco-German border, most famously the maginot line which I mistakenly identified. Yeah I forget how the French were exactly deployed in 1940, but that is pretty irrelevant nitpicking at this point (not dissimilar to saying "wow you cant say shit you got a name wrong" but who am I to argue semantics).
>>777008
Implying Italians fought Austrians in WW2
Implying the Italians didnt have the third strongest navy in Europe.
Italy had arguably the best mountain fighting army in the world at the time, not only that but Italy also was one of the first countries promoting the use of planes in war, while the French kept saying Aviation was useless until 1940, not only this but the fact that having naval superiority in the Mediterraneum they could have easily made much more difficult for the French colonies to supply France while her navy was used almost entirely in the north against the Germans.
Italy beat the Austrians basically on her own while they had a much bigger territory and similar economical development.
Italy sucked in WW2 for other reasons like fucking Fascism but that is absolutely irrelevant to say how good the Italians would have performed in WW1, personally i think we would own Nice, Savoy and Marseille. And most likely the entire successive years would have been much different.
The English and the French would have lost a shit ton of colonies to the Italians and Germans. Even the Ottomans would have remained in existance but considering their situation they would have probably collapsed in a few decades.
>>777047
>Implying Italians fought Austrians in WW2
In World War I, that's why I mentioned the French specifically in World War II.
>but Italy also was one of the first countries promoting the use of planes in war, while the French kept saying Aviation was useless until 1940
Ah, that must be why France had 80 squadrons to Italy's 59 squadrons in 1917. And also why the Royal Flying Corps had to transfer 3 squadrons just to bail Italy's ass out after getting its ass handed to them at Caporetto?
>but the fact that having naval superiority in the Mediterraneum they could have easily made much more difficult for the French colonies to supply France while her navy was used almost entirely in the north against the Germans.
Assuming the British hadn't completely demolished the Italian navy already, as they had no trouble doing in World War I
>Italy beat the Austrians basically on her own while they had a much bigger territory and similar economical development.
Which was why, again, the British, French and Americans had to send supplies, men and materiel to the Italians after Caporetto?
>Italy sucked in WW2 for other reasons like fucking Fascism but that is absolutely irrelevant to say how good the Italians would have performed in WW1,
And what is it the Italians have in 1914 that they lacked in 1940? Elan?
>personally i think we would own Nice, Savoy and Marseille.
Italy thought it could own Tyrol, Dalmatia and Croatia too and we all know how that went.
>The English and the French would have lost a shit ton of colonies to the Italians and Germans.
Hahaha
>>776492
The mutinies were only because of the failure of the Nivelle's offensive. Nothing more. After this, the General Petain won battle at the end of the year and the French regain moral.
>>776500
>British/Canadians
The allied armies were under the commander of Foch and Petain in 1918 and this is with the Petain's strategy called " defense in dept " that you call a kind of Blitzkrieg that the war was one... And this is with the FRENCH ARMY that this strategy was used because the FRENCH ARMY had the modernity required in term of tank, plane and truck of transport that this strategy was possible.
>>776471
The French armies were fighting the Germans since the 3 Aouth 1914 and your pathetic BEF was unable to do nothing but to retread. 80 000 IS NOTHING in 1914 and the German disdained this army and planned to destroy it.
The French army defeated the Germans in 1914, not the British.
The naval battle weren't relevant. Only the Ouest front was relevant. Stalingrad is the most relevant battle of WW2, are you jocking ? Seriously ? The French had a navy of good quality, stop being so pretentious.
>>776492
The 100 days of offensive was led by French commanders, being possible thanks to the french superiority in transport, tank,planes... And most of the soldiers were french. 3.3 millions french against 1,8 British, rofl...
>>776681
En revanche, il n'y avait certainement pas 2 millions de soldats américains, peut-être à la fin, lors de l'armistice et en plus, les américains n'avaient aucun équipement ni doctrine ni expérience. De plus, c'est faux, ce sont les français qui ont utilisé avec succès les chars pour la première fois et c'était avec les renault 17. Les chars anglais en 1916 et 1917 avaient beaucoup trop de problèmes techniques et n'avaient aucune doctrines d'utilisation. Il faut attendre Avril/Mai pour que les chars deviennent l'une des causes de la défaite allemande.
>>776500
>The french army actually refused to undertake offensive action after 1917.
Why do you lie on the internet?
>>776390
Our glorious navy blockaded your country. You were forced to resort to cowardly submarine attacks on civilians, pathetic. Germany was a weak local power and would never have won in the long run.
>>776999
Italians defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so Germany lost his greatest ally and support in this war. Italians were clearly most decisive than British.
>>776748
Battle of the Somme and second battle of Ypre were two failure for the British that lost WAY MORE soldier than the Germans against way more less numerous ennemy'force.
Only the French Saved the days by taking land. Without the French, battle of the Somme is clearly a British military defeat showing how 25 British division well equipped cannot defeat 8 Germans divisions poorly equipped that showing the effectiveness of the British Army...
>>777047
The French were the First to see the Utility of the planes... In 1918, there were 3600 modern planes, superior to the germans and used in division making number's superiority for crushing the enemy's forces.
But Yes, Italians weren't well equipped and they managed to beat the Austrians... Italians were most decisive than British... Of course.
>>776461
>where was the tank invented and mass produced
i dont want to nitpick (well i do) but the french built more tanks in ww1 than the british by far
>>777047
>Implying the Italians didnt have the third strongest navy in Europe.
They were barely stronger than the French navy, and that's not even including the Royal Navy's Mediterranean fleet.
>while the French kept saying Aviation was useless until 1940
France produced more aircraft than anyone else during WWI. They also had more front line squadrons than Germany or Italy for a large portion of the war.
>Italy beat the Austrians basically on her own
The majority of military expenditures in Italy during WWI were paid for by foreign loans from Britain.
>France while her navy was used almost entirely in the north against the Germans
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyFrench.htm
>>777085
>The naval battle weren't relevant. Only the Ouest front was relevant. Stalingrad is the most relevant battle of WW2, are you jocking ? Seriously ? The French had a navy of good quality, stop being so pretentious.
>>777069
Oh well, if we want to consider the pathetic amount of reinforcements the Anglo-French sent in Italy after Caporetto a fact to say that Italy got completely bailed out... also I higherly doublt the English would have wanted to beat the Italian navy in the Mediterraneum while the Germans were goung around in their sea... Also remember that you are comparing Italys aircrafts to France's aircrafts, Italy was a nation that had been created litterally 60 years before the conflict while France was supposed to be a superpower andlet's be honest... 80 to 59 aircrafts? Thats a bit pathetic considering that only Italy would have absorbes litterally 70% of them just to equal it while the Germans would have had their own aswell as the Austrians... Also let's say that Baracca and the Red Baron were respectively Italian and German and together, if im not mistaken they took down around 50 aircrafts. Not only but Italy has naver controlled Croatia in history, ztill owns Tyrol with no problems and lost Istria and Dalmatia in WW2 (if we consider 3 islands as Dalmatia).
And yes. French and English colonies were gonna be redu ed axeactley as the Germans lost all of their colonies to their opponents after losing.
>>777146
>Oh well, if we want to consider the pathetic amount of reinforcements the Anglo-French sent in Italy after Caporetto a fact to say that Italy got completely bailed out...
When one out of every six of Italy's soldiers at Vittorio Veneto weren't actually Italians, it's pretty significant.
> also I higherly doublt the English would have wanted to beat the Italian navy in the Mediterraneum while the Germans were goung around in their sea...
Going around the port of Wilhelmshaven waiting for a chance that wouldn't come to break the blockades?
>Also remember that you are comparing Italys aircrafts to France's aircrafts, Italy was a nation that had been created litterally 60 years before the conflict while France was supposed to be a superpower andlet's be honest... 80 to 59 aircrafts?
>Also let's say that Baracca and the Red Baron were respectively Italian and German and together, if im not mistaken they took down around 50 aircrafts.
80 to 59 Squadrons. That means France had 2,870 aircraft. In 1917 Italy's 59 squadrons had 378 aircraft. The French could field nine planes to Italy's one.
>Not only but Italy has naver controlled Croatia in history,
Not from lack of trying
>ztill owns Tyrol with no problems
It only gained them after it failed to take any of them in World War one.
>and lost Istria and Dalmatia in WW2 (if we consider 3 islands as Dalmatia).
We don't, Italy was only given a few islands that were part of Dalmatia at Versailles, and it never successfully took them from the austro-hungarians.
>And yes. French and English colonies were gonna be redu ed axeactley as the Germans lost all of their colonies to their opponents after losing.
I doubt that the winners would have to give up much of anything.
>>777138
Last point, i was referring to England. We allknow that France and England were able to apply naval blocks to Germany and Austria because of the insane effort they put in the north, ships don't have the gift ofomnipresence and Germany had put to use some amazing counter tactics such as the use of so e of the best submarines of the time, in fact zo good they could actuslly threaten the Italian fleet in the Mediterraneum without fearing much... I think the effort of the Italian, the Austrian and the Ottoman navy at the same time against the French would have been absolutely devastating for the British aswell, since their allies would have completely been obliterated in the Mediterraneum. Also Ottoman's solidity was damaged by the operations the Italians accomplished against their positions in the Dardanelli
>>777146
>also I higherly doublt the English would have wanted to beat the Italian navy in the Mediterraneum while the Germans were goung around in their sea
Basically the entire purpose of the French NAvy in WWI was to sit in the Mediterranean and cooperate with the British Mediterranean Fleet in event of an Austro-Italian coalition. The French Navy in the Channel was a handful of cruisers and destroyers.
Too lazy to type it all out, so here. While the Italo-Austrian coalition would theoretically have more capital ships than the French Navy, the French Navy had considerably more cruisers and destroyers than both. In addition, the Italian war effort was funded by the British, they didn't have the cash to keep replenishing losses like the French or British. When push came to shove, the British could also theoretically support the French, as much as it would pain them to do so. Also, note French submarines.
>>777305
Not him, but did the French ever complete those 8 dreadnoughts it was constructing, or were those ignored due to the pressing nature of the war in France?
>>777378
3 were, they became the Bretagne class battleships. The other 5 were of the Normandie class, all of which were cancelled.
>>776425
>UK was just a fucking perfidious player
le dank /int/ memes
>>779395
UK being a perfidious player isn't a meme, it's a reality. UK only played WW1 for these interest and was planning to redraw from the war in 1916 because the cost of the war was too heavy for the economy even if they signed a treaty for no armistice until the end. But the Zionists talk to UK about the plan of a Zionist state and they assured to the British that if they continues the war and go to Ottoman's Front liberating Palestinia, US will use all reasons to enter in war. In exchange, the UK will have the Germans colonies in Africa and most part of the middle est being the policeman of the middle est. So they signed this secret treaty with France and Zionist but UK also signed a second treaty without France planning to shout out the French's Influence in middle est...
Perfidious player, yes. And today, the propaganda of how the 80 000 British mattered in 1914 is one of the this typical case of perfidy showing UK at the number one who defeated Germans while France was the first victim at range of the Germans canons and having a way more important army.
>>780469
Proofs?
>>780469
There may have been more French soldiers than British but the French Soldiers were way numerous than the British, well equipped and modern and causes most of the Germans casualties.
Germans caused a lot casualties to British because British always been second rank army.
Example related :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_la_Somme
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_la_Malmaison
>>780880
British propaganda
>>780958
>muh racial superiority
A French /pol/fag, eh?
>>781013
I'am not talking about racial superiority but the unmatched superiority of the French army against the British army, poorly known in Europe for being bad, shitty, inexperienced, tiny... blablabla
And the WW1 showed to us. So, I'am just trying to put the truth in light. Just the fact.
In fact, the men who always give all the credits to them, saying that they were the one, the best, who defeated the Germans are the British. Just take a look to the Anglo poster here or to the Youtube comment's in ww1's video and you will see that 90 % of the UK considered with disdain the french army, considering the french as inferior army unable to fight.
>>780469
Lies.
