ScoobyDriverWannabe

DYK

Super soakers are on the way also...

Leslie

They cut the military to the bone just before WW2 as well!

Les

Chip

Does that mean were heading for WW3 Les?

Chip

Adrian F

i think leslie is saying they didnt see that war coming in time to stop troops being sent to die in out of date aircraft and tanks because of budget cuts

Lack of well equipped armed forces doesnt stop people attacking you until you have time to rearm

hodgy0_2

Rubbish

Adrian F

hodgyO_2 there was the 10 year rule through the 20's and 30's and rearmament only began in 1935 and although this brought some equipment in place for the start of WWII the quantities was woeful there were many short falls which caused British service men to be sacrificed for example sending men to the front with Boys anti tank rifle to use against German tanks or air man to try and support the BEF in fairy Battles where casualties were 80% or not having a Tank that had a gun that could destroy Germans main battle tanks in 1940 all due to under funding

Not having enough escort vessels to protect convoys bringing food from America meaning main merchant sailor's died in the Atlantic

hodgy0_2

Yes, I am well aware of the inadequacies of some of our weaponry in 1940 (in the case of Tanks, this was never really resolved - even with massive spending)

And the fact that our spending on Arms did not match the Germans is hardly surprising as the Germans were preparing for war, we were not. The argument over our policy of appeasement has been done to death anyway.

As a percentage of GDP, our military spending averaged 8/9% rising to 15% in 1939

The fact that it fell in the 20’s is not surprising as we had just finished a rather large war – and were bankrupt.

To say we were unprepared is historical fact to say military spending was cut to the bone is simply rubbish

and our Navy was actually much much stronger than the Germans, the lack of escort vessels has more to do with not understanding the importance of submarine warfare, not simply a lack of money

Leslie

Adrian seems to be that bit sharper off the mark!

I spent a good many years actively trying to stop that happening anyway, as I am sure you realise!

I think we all did very well in that respect too.

Les

Leslie

Before being so rude, try comparing our aircraft numbers against those of the Germans.

You say that we had been recovering from the earlier war, well thats one reason for having poor defences as far as numbers were concerned. We had always been known for having a strong navy anyway.

How well would we have done without American support?

Les

hodgy0_2

our aircraft numbers where just under half the germans,

but whatever the actual numbers are, your assertion that our military was "cut to the bone" is just plain rubbish, sorry but it is

Adrian F

Hodgy)2 i agree with Leslie as we all know we woefully under prepared for war in 1939 it takes many years to build up viable military forces and but for the Americans we would have lost the war and i think that is the proof of being under resourced

We sent Fleet air arm aircrew to attack German ships in biplanes we would send off 20 or 30 fighters to attack German raids numbering 300+ planes in 1940

Germany may have been preparing for war but our military forces role was to be strong enough to deter them or beat them it was neither

tony de wonderful

They could cut it another 50% no doubt, but the problem is no other jobs for the ex-soldiers to do.