A while back I asked the question "What did the Wehrmacht get wrong in WW2" because there's this tendency to put German equipment tactics, etc on a pedestal.
I got some great answers so thanks.
On a similar note, historians seem to be fairly scathing about the British Army in WW2. Max Hastings in particular seems to consider the British as badly underperforming.
Was there anything the British Army consistently did well throughout the war? Or got better at?
I'm mainly intrerested in things at the unit/tactical level rather than grand strategy but anything goes.
Thank you.
I'd hate to just leave you with a link, but I can find no better way to explain something I've already covered before. The British 14th army's transformation under Field Marshal William Slim is definitely worth examining in the light of the British army getting things "right". From getting things handed to them quite severely by the Japanese in 1941 and 1942, the British Army in Burma went through a dramatic transformation, culminating in the fantastic Burma campaign of 1945. I've written a mini-bio on Bill Slim here, but I would be more than happy to answer any particular questions you might have on the British army in Burma.
^ these answers I've given previously are especially relevant
Max Hastings in particular seems to consider the British as badly underperforming.
If I'm right, his more recent work All Hell Let Loose is somewhat more charitable of the British, and less laudatory of the Germans.
Was there anything the British Army consistently did well throughout the war? Or got better at?
The British Army in theory utilized a form of "mission command" in it's pre-WWI and pre-WWII Field Service Regulations. By 1944, staff work and generalship had greatly improved, allowing for this decentralized command style to be effectively utilized in theatres such as Italy and Burma, and even Northwestern Europe, despite Montgomery's insistence on having a strong 'Grip' on the conduct of operations.
The Royal Artillery was fairly consistently lauded by it's German foes, and was a key part of the operational method utilized by the British in Italy and Northwestern Europe. In the latter case, indirect fire was somewhat inaccurate and had mixed success in Normandy, as 21st Army Group Operational Research was to show, but improvements in fire control and fire plans produced great results, most notably the highly sophisticated bombardment that preceded Operation Veritable in 1945. EDIT: Artillery played an especially important role in Montgomery's operations, which aimed to keep British casualties at an acceptable level, in light of growing British manpower shortages.
At the tactical level, British combined arms tactics improved based on combat experience in 1943-44, most notably the creation of Task Forces, and the reorganization of armoured units into Brigade Groups in Northwestern Europe. British 6 and 17 pounder anti-guns proved capable of defeating German Armour, though the 6 pounder had better luck against heavier targets like the Tiger and Panther when it was firing armour-piercing, discarding sabot rounds. By the end of the war, the Churchill Tank' later models (specifically the A27) had heavier armour than the Tiger, and were renowned for their mobility in the most difficult of terrain, be it the desert or the Normandy hedgerows. The Comet entered service in late 1944, and proved to be an excellent tank, while the speed, reliability, and manoeuverability of the Sherman and the Cromwell placed them on an even footing with the Panzer Mk. IV and most German self-propelled guns at the time, such as the Stug IV and III. Losses to Panthers and Tigers had gained attention in Normandy as the terrain had placed British armour at a disadvantage, and had produced close range frontal fighting in which the armour and armament of those German tanks was superior. The British were also quite innovative, with 'Hobart's Funnies' being an excellent example, as well as British counter-mortar efforts in Northwestern Europe, utilizing radar.
The British Army was by no means the worst army in the war, and certainly wasn't the best (then again, neither was the German Army I'd argue). When it came to combat in the early years of the war, 1940-42, inexperience, poor doctrine (or poorly applied doctrine) and training, as well as strategic miscalculations meant that it's performance was mixed at best. Heading into 1944-45, there was also a serious manpower shortage that the British had to contend with, as well as the declining status of Britain in the Alliance and as a Great Power. Despite this, the British Army proved to be a capable and innovative force, and the results achieved by Montgomery and Dempsey in Northwestern Europe, Leese and McCreery in Italy, and of course 'Bill' Slim in Burma, are testimony to that fact.