"Why Create Popski's Private Army?" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Can you buy a 15mm pre-painted Sherman for $3 USD at your local store?
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Movie Review
|
| Cattle Dog | 03 Apr 2025 8:05 p.m. PST |
Was the creation of Popski's Private Army a duplication of effort and resources?
Why create another unit who's role could have been filled by pre-existing units such as: Libyan Arab Force, SAS, SBS, LRDG and Commando units.
Was this an egocentric behaviour?
Any references to the identified need and the case against its formation.
Regards Allan |
| SBminisguy | 03 Apr 2025 9:25 p.m. PST |
The British forces were back on their heels, so any crazy idea with commitment behind it was entertained! |
 ochoin  | 03 Apr 2025 9:37 p.m. PST |
Popski's Private Army is in the great tradition of British eccentrics – yes, I know Peniakoff was of Russian-Jewish extraction but an Englishman at heart. Special Forces was a new concept, without dogma or protocols, so having a bunch of more or less independent units rather than some clumsy hierarchical monolith, was probably seen as desirable. It was obviously not "any crazy idea" but a response to a concept put forth by Churchill, himself. I'm just guessing so no references & possibly worthless speculation on my part but it might get the ball rolling. |
| troopwo | 04 Apr 2025 5:48 a.m. PST |
Most of those units were raised somewhat independantly of each other in a time when they all figured that they each had specific defined roles. The miseries of army secrecy and compartmentalization of knowing what any other unit was doing was one of their great detriments in that they each tended to replicate their roles and ideas individually. There was a great deal of overlap and of contradicting ideas and tactics. Additionally, there is a great tradition of regimental conformity in the british traditional system. Given the massive expansion of forces, there were an incredible number of truly skilled and talented people who for whatever reason simply do not do well in traditional units. The matching great tradition of the british army is oddball eccentrics who stand out, have the ear of someone in a position of authority that allow them to create the oddest units imaginable. Think of it as a creative way to divest yourself of all the oddball characters who do not fit in during you dining in nights. The units get rid of the non-conformists simutaneously, either they go down in glory as a benefit or they dissappear into obscurity after getting eliminated. The only disadvantage is when the specialist unit gets too popular or the idea is over rated and resources are depleted chasing an idea that is past best use. Think of all that transport supporting the last Chindit Brigades how they could have been better used supporting the 14th Army as a whole. The biggest problem would be what the fact that all these specialist forces did not have a unified command responsible for all their training, support and best usages. Most of these odd forces originated in the 1940s.
Ask yourself what year Special operations Command was set up for the US? Maybe after the Iran desert fiasco? |
| SBminisguy | 04 Apr 2025 6:52 a.m. PST |
The US also had its share of unorthodox special units in WW2 -- like the Alaska Scouts (aka Castner's Cutthroats), Merrill's Marauders, the Alamo Scouts, etc. |
| MajorB | 04 Apr 2025 7:23 a.m. PST |
All is explained in Peniakoff's autobiographical book link |
 deadhead | 04 Apr 2025 10:23 a.m. PST |
Funny thing that the Germans never created these oddball units as listed above. The Brandenburgers and Otto Sk were maybe the nearest to it, but I guess it was not the German nation's way. There has long been the argument that Elite units deplete the regular line units of their best NCO material and, we must remember, what was the best feature of German ground units? Their NCO leadership. |
| SBminisguy | 04 Apr 2025 10:55 a.m. PST |
The Brandenburgers were interesting, but I only ever play them as Axis bad guys with NUTS Desert Raiders since they were true believer N@zis, but really impressive in most of their operations which were all behind the lines in Allied uniforms and equipment. Their deepest penetration op was a failure, though -- Operation SALAM, a deep penetration of British lines in 1942 to deliver two German spies into British-held Egypt. While the operation to get them there was successful, the special radio the spies were supposed to use got broken, and they had no way to contact the German Abwehr or escape. The spies ended up partying their pants off with forged British currency until they were captured. |
| Marc33594 | 05 Apr 2025 6:53 a.m. PST |
The German's preferred putting together elite forces, such as elements of their paras, for one off operations with the personnel returning to their parent unit after the ops. But would argue there were still some "oddball" units Deadhead for example the meereskampfer link :)
Like with Shermans never say never my friend. |
| deadhead | 07 Apr 2025 10:49 a.m. PST |
Well those naval units, I guess I did have vague ideas about. Semi-suicidal attacks on the Normandy landings,in tiny submersibles, for example. I had never imagined they achieved the successes of the Italian naval special forces, who showed incredible bravery and skill in sinking two British battleships, fortunately in the shallows at Alexandria, a Cruiser in Suda Bay and blowing up that bridge still to be seen, unrepaired, at the entrance to Grand Harbour in Malta. |
|
opens up the all-plastic M5 Stuart kit recently released.