Best British Divisions of the War?

[DixieDivision1418]

The British army fielded a number of hard-fighting divisions in the Great War, but which ones were among the best? 

 

I think a mention of the Canadian divisions on the Western front - by the end of the war, they were considered the shock troops of the Empire. I think the 36th (Ulster), 38th (Welsh), and 63rd (Royal Naval) Divisions probably deserve mention as well.

[ilkley remembers]

Been asked many times on this forum and it always provokes an interesting and lively discussion which I hope that it does again with this thread.

 

There have been a number attempts to classify the effectiveness of British Divisions most most notably by Peter Simkins and a team of historians, however, this research is more often heard about than seen and appears never to have been finished as far as I am aware. I think one problem with the research was that if you want to list your best divisions then you would similarly have to name which were the worst and more importantly justify the choice

 

It is no doubt true to say that the effectiveness and fortunes of British Divisions, no doubt like French and German units, waxed and waned throughout the course of the war depending on a variety of circumstances not least in all probability who was the commanding officer. 

 

 

 

 

[Open Bolt]

See, for example

 

[David Filsell]

From memory I seem torecall that  some years ago a group of historians was set up, I think by the IWM - before it decided to go for a crass infantilisation of  the museum - to evaluate divisional performance . I'm not sure if the evaluation was ever completed.

[Steven Broomfield]

19 hours ago, David Filsell said:

From memory I seem torecall that  some years ago a group of historians was set up, I think by the IWM - before it decided to go for a crass infantilisation of  the museum - to evaluate divisional performance . I'm not sure if the evaluation was ever completed.

 

Peter Simkins led it, along with a group of distinguished historians; it was known by their initials, but I'm blessed if I can remember what they were! Must be cracking on 25 years ago (or more) and I'm not sure it did ever reach a conclusion, though Peter Simkins did, I think, publish some of their findings.

 

'IWM ... crass infantilisation' Surely not? 

[Chris_Baker]

SHLM. Simkins-Hammond-Lee-McCarthy.

[DixieDivision1418]

27 minutes ago, Chris_Baker said:

SHLM. Simkins-Hammond-Lee-McCarthy.

A pity, so close to SMLE...

[Terry_Reeves]

There are some big problem with this sort of thing.  How is the criteria determined and by whom?   For instance, all battles are not equal. Terrain may be different as may be  the quality of the opposition. Different theatres of war throw up another problem, to say nothing about the conditions of divisions various who may have been thrown into battles having already suffered badly in another but did  not have time to recover fully before the next engagement.  All that has to be looked at over the whole piece.  Even then I would suggest there were  problems that were out of control of divisional commanders, such as poor planning by Corps or Army commanders.   Please add to the list of pros and cons.

 

TR

Edited 31 March , 2020 by Terry_Reeves

[Bordercollie]

It looks like this has come around a few weeks early this year. Probably a side effect of the great Covid-19 "lock-down".

 

 

 

[DixieDivision1418]

I'm confused, is this some kind of forbidden topic?

[Steven Broomfield]

20 minutes ago, DixieDivision1418 said:

I'm confused, is this some kind of forbidden topic?

 

Not forbidden, but it's one of those things that crops up every so often and which really has no solution. It is virtually impossible to come to a truly objective outcome, as some divisions did well at one point, and badly at another (e.g. the 51st (Highland) had its ups and downs yet everyone says it was one of the very best, while the 46th (South Midland) is regarded as poor up until late 1918 when it did superbly).

 

Also, it's a fight where everyone has a dog taking part. A regiment/battalion/brigade in which a participant has an interest, or about which one person knows a lot.

 

And then there's the flip side ... the 'Worst Divisions'. Don't even think about going there.

 

No-one is trying to stop the discussion, but it's a subject which has been chewed over again and again and never come to fruition.

[ilkley remembers]

As I mentioned in the 2nd post on this thread the Simkins led SHLM project is more often heard of than actually seem. One person who has in the pst mentioned it is Gary Sheffield in his command and Morale study and  also at a conference in Australia in 1998 when he stated that the best divisions were Guards, 9, 16, 18, 19, 24, 25, 38 and 66 suggesting that this was based on Simkins research. The research seems to have been largely Western Front Centric and did not look in depth at those that fought in other theatres. I seem to remember that Tim Travers pours some scorn on this type of study and suggests that in terms of the development of the British Army in the 1920s it was the lessons learned away from France and Flanders that were seen as the benchmark. Regular Army Divisions are quoted as being more more efficient and effective ,although, both Travers and Alexander Watson, are not entirely complimentary about them. Again Colonial Divisions are highly praised when compared to British Divisions on the Western Front. One of the most interesting studies I have seem was a Canadian study comparing the 62nd Division and a Canadian Division (the 4th I think) which concluded that in terms of battlefield outcomes there was little to chose between the 2 Divisions in the last 6 months of the war. Recent Divisional studies also make interesting reading focusing as they do on the performance of a particular division tthroughout the war. A study of the 51st for example showed its ups and downs and noted its apparent failure in March 1918 and attributed variations a/ to changes in command and b/ attitude towards training.

 

As far as the worst is concerned again Gary Sheffield notes the sobriquet of the 31st Division as being the Thirty Worst (i think that the 61st also adopted this) and others have suggested that it relates to its alleged poor performance on the Somme in 1916. The reasons for this nickname have probably been discussed on the Forum before so I won't bore you with them again.

 

Even though attempts to provide a league table of British Divisions is much derided it doesn't seem to stop people wanting to do it. Still it provides opportunities for lively discussion especially for newer members of the forum

[Coldstreamer]

Ill go with Guards Division too 

[JulianB]

Despite following relatives who were in the 1st WW - it is still a tad modern to me.

I have no criteria for choosing the best division but out of sheer personal interest I would go for the .... 41st Division (the only Division who had the same CO from beginning to the end).