Hiram Sedai Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I've been reading a book on WWI and learned about the British Expeditionary Force. I was wondering if they were as deadly in WWII as they were in the first. If any of you "Grogs" would have some website likes to share with me regarding them, I'd be very grateful. Thanks in advance. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Try http://www.greatwar.com/gwlinks.htm for many good links on WWI. www.worldwar1.com is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I am not a Grog, but: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2354/ Re-enactor site, that might help http://www.worldwar1.com/tgws/ The Great War Society. Try using Copernic for such searches. And to answer your question, I don't believe they were as good in WW2 as in WW1, because they had not caught up in doctrine with the Germans. One should also not over-emphasise the importance of the BEF in military terms. They fielded 4 or 5 infantry divisions and one cavalry division with a total of 120 machine guns. The French had something like 120 or so divisions on the front at the same time. Politically they were invaluable to the French though. They are also most famously remembered for the retreat from Mons, IIRC. From 1915, Kitchener's volunteer army (which was later wasted at the Somme) eclipsed it. All this off the top of my head, and with a serious health warning. Been a while that I had a go at the books about this. Which book have you just read? I highly recommend 'The War the infantry knew' by the surgeon of the 2nd Batallion Royal Welsh Fusiliers (a regular army batallion, part of the BEF in 1914), Graves' 'Goodbye to all that', Sassoon's 'Memoirs of an infantry officer', and an excellent and relatively recent study 'The pity of war' (forgot the author). And of course Barbara Tuchman's 'The guns of August' (very anti-German and somewhat anti-British). ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 Thank you, Gentlemen. Andreas, I'm reading "The First World War" by John Keegan. I was especially taken by the battle of the BEF vs Gen Buhler of the Germans and how the marksmen of the BEF frightened the Germans (beginning of the war IIRC) ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 The BEF was also the boys pulled out at Dunkirke. ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splinty: The BEF was also the boys pulled out at Dunkirke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunately the BEF in the Second World War wasn't quite as effective due to incompetent leadership, a lack of training, and almost no cooperation with the French. As Splinty said, the most famous BEF event in WWII was the withdrawl from Dunkirque. (By the way John Keegan has written a definitive text on WWII as well as WWI!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Unfortunately the BEF in the Second World War wasn't quite as effective due to incompetent leadership, a lack of training, and almost no cooperation with the French. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The first and the last equally apply to the BEF in the Great War. The middle one I am not qualified to judge. I think Hiram's question is a bit unclear though. Hiram, are you asking about the impact of the force as a whole, or about the quality of the soldiers when you talk about efficiency? ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: The first and the last equally apply to the BEF in the Great War. The middle one I am not qualified to judge. I think Hiram's question is a bit unclear though. Hiram, are you asking about the impact of the force as a whole, or about the quality of the soldiers when you talk about efficiency? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was pretty much fishing for links and info. As for my question, here is my line of thinking: The BEF was innovative inasmuch as they would dig positions and wait for the enemy. This was the first time that the Germans had faced a force that did that. This was obviously before the forces started trench warfare. Their marksmanship scared the crap out of their enemy at the time. Compared to the French and Russian Forces at the time, it seems (IMHO) that the BEF were some "badass mofos". I'm not a historian at all. I was just curious to see if the BEF had that big of an impact overall during WWII as they did during WWI. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wwb_99 Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 British infantry has always been badassed mofos when compared with the mass conscript armies of the continet (at least in the late 19th, early 20th centuries). In 1914 the were a professional, volunteer only force. Moreover, while the actual officers were incompetent aristocrats, the corps of seargant majors more than made up for their bumblings (at least on a tactical level). One must remeber that a British lieutennant's job is to make a speech, lead the charge, and get killed (thereby raising morale) so the Seargant major can take over and win the battle. WWB ------------------ Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts