In message <[log in to unmask]>
KENNETH HAMILTON <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Contrary to that there is the case of the fort at the mouth of the
> Yare at Great Yarmouth. Barring one short lived battery in the late
> 18th century, all of Yarmouth's sea defences were aimed at placating
> the populace rather than actual defence.
I've often wondered if there wasn't a similar intent behind Ironside's
1940 plan.
The country was at a very low ebb, emotionally, following Dunkirk and
there may have seemed very little hope of thwarting a German invasion.
His plan, whilst it used vast amounts of scarce resources, at least
gave the population a hope of repelling the invaders and involved
everybody, civilians and military alike, in working together on a
scheme for the common good.
Having said that parts of the plan had very good defensive strategies
and would almost certainly have held up enemy units for a considerable
time. Overall, though, there seems little hope that it would have
worked with the limited manpower and weaponry available at the time.
His plan is often criticised as being a very static form of defence
and this is the reason given for Brooke taking over the role of CinC
after a comparatively short period. Yet, if you look closely at
Ironside's planning, it did involve mobile columns which would have
been brought to bear in the most threatened areas and there use the
static defences. Probably his main reason for this was the shortage of
trained and able personnel available to him.
Chris Shepheard
--
Chris Shepheard writing as himself
[log in to unmask]
from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk
|