British Defences

[sapper]

AS a matter of interest my Home Guard base was at Redbridge, Southampton. Just in case anyone reads these pages and remembers?
Sapper

[sapper]

Oh I forgot to mention, there is one, pre d day fortification at Studland in the isle of Purbeck "Fort Henry"
Sapper

[Dpalme01]

If Im getting it correctly, after France fell, Britain was extremely vunerable, but then they made an effort to start defending themselves. It sounds sort of how the US was at pearl harbor. They were extremely weak on the west coast. If the Japanese had gone for the continental US, they could have probably even held it.
The british had defended themselves rather far inland by the end of the war

Some of those tactics/conditions sound so wild, dangerous and almost useless that it would be a joke if any army were in that condition again.

Thank you all. Sapper- your testimonies and accounts are especially appreciated

[sapper]

To be honest we were defenceless. The great war was still having a great influence in Britain. It was only 21 years since the end of a war that had drained Britainof its manhood, before the next one was upon us.

The years pre-war were times when little, if any preparation for war was made. What little defence there was, was to say the least..... totally inadequate.

It is a time that I recall only too well.
Sapper

[angie999]

Originally posted by Dpalme01@Jun 21 2005, 11:58 AM
Some of those tactics/conditions sound so wild, dangerous and almost useless that it would be a joke if any army were in that condition again.

Quoted post

But you always have to remember with the Germans and cold steel that they don't like it up 'em.

(Joke to anyone familiar with the Dad's Army comedy series)

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by sapper@Jun 21 2005, 07:30 AM
The British defences were absolute rubbish. had the Germans invaded they would have been in London by mid-day.

After the fall of France we had one Division that was fully armed....just one. That was my old Division. Monty's Div, Third British Infantry.

They cobbled together enough arms to make it viable, but we had nothing else, The div was supposed to return to France to continue the fight, but before that could take place, France capitulated.

The Home Guard was armed with Pikes from the British Museum! Sticky bombs. Molotov cocktails and first world war rifles.

I was in the Home Guard at that time, and was sent out at night to defend the flyover bridge that led into Southampton, we were issued with two rounds for our rifles!
One was accidently fired, so I had to defend that bridge from incoming German Para's with one rifle bullet!

Sounds almost farcical now...Then? it was exactly like that.
Sapper

Quoted post

Most of what you said is extremely accurate, but the 1st Canadian Division was also in fairly good shape, despite its brief trip to France. The division only lost about 12 or so men, mostly through road accidents, and never saw the enemy. It did not leave too many vehicles behind, either. Because it was in good strength and made of big tough Canadians, it was held as GHQ Reserve near London...and stayed there for three years.

Ultimately, 1st Canadian Division saw its first action in Sicily in 1943.

[jamesicus]

..... he did mention that some men had brought weapons that they had kept since WW1.

One of my uncles had his Webley revolver from WW1 -- my father had a French bayonet he had appropriated.

[halfyank]

The main thing though about the British defenses is that first the Germans had to GET THERE. That meant crossing the Chanel when the RAF and RN put every asset they had into stopping them. Like the British admiral supposedly said about the French, "I don't say they can't come, I just say they can't come by sea."

[angie999]

We should not laugh too much at some of the improvised weapons etc. which appeared rather briefly in 1940.

This was a time when the US army could have only put five divisions in the field, less that the BEF in 1914. The beginnings were underway in introducing conscription and building it up, but they still had no tanks to speak of and were using pipes to simulate anti-tank guns and mortars in training. All sounds a bit familiar.

So, we were not alone in 1940 in a sense.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by angie999@Jun 22 2005, 04:42 AM
We should not laugh too much at some of the improvised weapons etc. which appeared rather briefly in 1940.

This was a time when the US army could have only put five divisions in the field, less that the BEF in 1914. The beginnings were underway in introducing conscription and building it up, but they still had no tanks to speak of and were using pipes to simulate anti-tank guns and mortars in training. All sounds a bit familiar.

So, we were not alone in 1940 in a sense.

Quoted post

In maneuvers in 1940 and 1941, the Americans put signs on cars that read "Truck" and signs on trucks that read "Tank" to fill in for the vehicles not yet off the Chrysler assembly line. When George Patton ran out of gas in one maneuver, he bought fuel and tools from a gas station with his own money. Patton was independently wealthy, having inherited and married money. On the other hand, other officers were broke, but still expected to "entertain." They would borrow silver service sets from department stores and return them. After a while, the department stores told them they would offer no more loans -- the sets were coming back scratched beyond repair.

US Army logistics sergeants found their blankets still bloodstained from the Argonne, and lanterns on shelves that read "Mfg 1863." Another division lost a mule carrying supplies during a maneuver when it shot down a river and vanished, so it reported that anything missing from their inventory had to be on that mule. It was the most heavily-laden mule in history.