The British Army and the Liberation of Northwest Europe 1944-5

Although the British army was part of a victorious alliance in the war against Germany in Northwest Europe in 1944-5 many historians have subsequently been critical of its contribution and performance in the campaign. These historians include popular writers such as Max Hastings, Carlo D'Este and John Ellis, and their work, along with enduring fascination with the capabilities and performance of the German army in World War Two, have created something of an orthodoxy. Their criticisms have centred upon the fighting power of the British army and its apparent inability to compete with its German opponents unless heavily aided by air support and artillery. It is contended that a key factor in this shortcoming lay in the British army's inability to grasp the principles of modern manoeuvre warfare, in which movement and tempo were the most effective force multipliers. Unlike the Germans who seized control of the battlefield in their campaigns of 1939-42 the British, and to a lesser degree the Americans, clung to clumsy, ponderous, attritional methods more akin to the Great War. Consequently the campaign in Northwest Europe, particularly in Normandy, dragged on longer than might otherwise have been expected, given the resource imbalance between the Allied and Axis forces.
This research output will fundamentally challenge this prevailing orthodox interpretation of the British army's performance and effectiveness. It will achieve this in a number of ways. Firstly, it will be demonstrated that the British army was quite capable of engaging with the enemy in Northwest Europe and prevailing, even though the degree of support afforded by air power and artillery was less effective than has previously been acknowledged. Moreover, it will be shown that the British army, far from being tied to backward looking operational methods and tactical doctrines, proved to be flexible, innovative and dynamic in refining its fighting methods to deal with the problems thrown up by engaging with a
determined, desperate and experienced enemy. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that the British army's approach was more modern and politically, culturally and strategically suited to the campaign it had to fight. It was a largely inexperienced force of citizen soldiers and its commanders were unwilling to risk heavy casualties when materiel was available to shoulder the burden. This approach was underpinned by the knowledge that the Allies had such greater resources and it therefore represented sound strategic thinking to employ operational and tactical methods where possible to limit casualties, defeat the enemy, and limit the chance of setbacks.
This study will also show that the British army's approach was 'modern' in that it paid significant attention to logistics, intelligence, planning, engineering and support in order to maintain its viability, essential elements in the functioning of a 20th century army. This contrasts with the German army's approach which eschewed such factors in favour of close combat fighting, leading to long term disintegration. The British army was therefore successfully able to steer its way through the campaign, remain intact and viable, achieve its military and political objectives, and adapt to the needs of liberation and occupation.
The project will achieve these aims by utilising primary sources such as war diaries, operational research reports, theatre appreciations and memoirs in order to avoid the influences of Cold War writers and those beguiled by the methods and obduracy of the German army in the closing stages of World War Two. The resulting monograph will interweave analytical text into a campaign narrative in order to make the work as accessible as possible to a wider and general readership, as well as academics and military practitioners.
The chapters will comprise: 1. Introduction; 2. Preparation; 3. Bridgehead; 4. Caen; 5. Breakout; 6. Arnhem; 7. Winter; 8.
Finale; 10. Occupation; 11. Retrospective

The study will have an impact on three distinct groups of users or beneficiaries beyond the academic community: firstly, professional groups, NGOs and international organisations; secondly, commercial, private sector and media; and finally, museums, media and the wider public.

Firstly, the research will and already has had resonance with professional groups such as the British army and other military institutions through the delivery of findings relating to comparisons between the practices and activities of the British Army of World War Two and the modern day. This has focused on operational and tactical doctrine, weapons procurement and post-conflict / peace implementation policies. Moreover, research findings and preliminary conclusions have been delivered to NGOs and international bodies concerned with interaction between military institutions and the needs of nation building and peace implementation (e.g. International Alert, Responding to Conflict, Partners Relief and Development) . An EU funded project worth 71,000 Euros underpinned this in a series of workshops on conflict resolution and peace implementation events in which the historical case study of the British Army in Northwest Europe in 1944-5 played a key role. The experiences and effectiveness of the British Army in Northwest Europe in 1944-5 have particular resonances with contemporary policy making therefore leading to a wider impact.

Secondly, the research has had and will continue to have impact in the commercial sector through shaping and modifying the manner in which games and electronic media present history, particularly combat and conflict. The research has been used in computer gaming on a consultancy level to shape game structures and principles, by the broadcast media in its educational and documentary output, and by the wider military gaming community. Research findings have and will continue to have an impact on the manner in which the effectiveness and capabilities of the respective fighting forces in World War Two, and particularly the British Army have been understood and portrayed in games. This has been achieved through consultancy work for the BBC and Slitherine Games for example.

Thirdly, the research has impacted and will have impact on the wider public through popular military history publishing and in museums. Yale are targeting the book at the wider market, not just academic, and findings from the research have already been used in popular publishing aimed at a larger market. More short articles intended for publication in popular military history journals are a planned outcome of the research project as part of the general impact of challenging popular perceptions as to what defines military effectiveness. This has already been achieved through lectures at the Imperial War Museum, for example and publications by Oxford Analytica.