[Juha]

Tony
I agree with Rod and to add a few thinks. Naval AA was weak because of the wrong HA fire-control system selected and wrong weapons. 133mm gun (5,25 inch) and its twin turret were too heavy but admirals insisted them because its shell had more stopping power against enemy destroyers and 2pdr pom-pom had too low muzzle-velocity and .5 inch mg was simply too ineffective against modern a/c. I think its wrong to blame RAF for those mistakes.

In Britain there was no eagerness to massive land operations in Continent and French army had the reputation of being best in the world, so it was not surprising that British army has not high priority before the war. When the BEF went to France it was IIRC the most motorized army in the world. That generals had put so much of effort to motorization wasn't RAF's fault. On the other hand France and British were the countries which had largest proportion of their tanks designed to be well armoured, British infantry tanks were only tanks in service in 1939 that fullfilled your wishes. Soviet and Germans were occupied by Blitzkrieg or deep strike theories which you seems to dispise. OK I admit you have noticed that the key of German success was the all arm idea. That is right. British formations were too tank heavy and French too specializes. But still in 1940 the side with flimsier tanks which were concentrated for deep trust clearly won the enemy with better armoured tanks of which great portion was dispersed for close infantry support. How this could happen?

Juha