How did the Tower of London figure in British plans for the defence of the UK against German invasion? It is a fortress explicitly designed to hold off attack. But I don’t remember any mention of how it was prepared, if at all, to resist modern firepower. On the Defense of Britain database I don’t remember seeing any pillboxes, fortified buildings or other works being located within supporting distance of the Tower. I know of at least one castle in southern England that was upgraded with concealed pillboxes.
Ideally, you probably want to stop the Germans before they get to central London.
I was under the impression that the Tower of London was primarily intended to protect the contents of the tower of London, which would be best hidden elsewhere, rather than project any real strategic advantage. Fitting the entire population of London into one tiny castle would involve a lot of squeezing.
Some other random castle in the south would have a garrison that might represent a potential threat to forces and supplies moving near it until it had been neutralised, which would slow an advance. By the time they get to London, they have already achieved your primary objective and you are going to have a lot of troops available to starve the tower out and no pressing reason to do it.
This all leaves aside the fact that the ability of any castle to resist modern weapons for more than ten minutes is pretty dubious to start with. We probably wouldn’t to encourage the Germans to explode the shit out of our history.
One thing that might not be obvious to everyone is that all castles aren’t alike.
If you were invading Edinburgh, say, then you might factor the castle more into planning, but that’s as much down to the terrain that the castle occupies as the ability of the walls to actually protect anything occupying that terrain.
This is what I wonder. Would the tower even be worth defending since it’s a big target for artillery. Troops dispersed in slit trenches do better against artillery simply by being more spread out. However, given that there were defense lines around London and there were in fact some pillboxes in central London (I remember that there was at least one enfilading one of the Thames bridges), I think that the Brits were determined to defend such a symbolic location. Certainly, the tower was good at holding off infantry and with a few MG nests in some towers could have held out for a while. At least until heavy guns were brought up.
The Tower of London lost its defensive purpose several hundred years ago. It’s also surrounded by subsequent buildings in the City, so really isn’t a great option as far as being militarily useful. Some castles and defensive structures further along the Thames Estuary were used - I think Tilbury may have been one, Dover Castle another.
The Tower, however, is too small, too crowded in, too close to the centre of the city and probably too old. It was, however, used as a prison for German soldiers, and a giant allotment for feeding the locals.
Defensive lines were about defending the capital, not one historic building, unless that’s what you meant?
Yeah, I wonder if the Tower was part of the defensive network. The point about it being too crowded-in is valid. But was it proposed to be used as a sort of uber-pillbox enfilading Tower Bridge or the Thames?
It did however have a small resident garrison - as it still does - and, as there had to be troops stationed in and around London anyway, it was a convenient place to house some of them, with the army taking over those parts of the building temporarily vacated by the Royal Armouries.
One imagines that if it had ever got to the point of the Germans fighting street-by-street to take the City, the Tower would have been one obvious focus of resistance, but mainly because a fortress last upgraded two centuries earlier would still be slightly better than the office buildings and slum dwellings in the vicinity which had no defensive function whatsoever. Not that one need assume that this would have been any more successful than the Germans’ defence of central Berlin in 1945.
Completely anecdotal, but when I went to the Tower, one of the persons on the Tour asked the Tourguide Beefeaters this exact same question (and mind you the Beefeaters are all former Army and Royal Marines) and his answer was that the Tower had been defortified centuries ago.
As SanVito’s link notes, Rudolf Hess was held in the Tower after his bizarre peace mission failed: Rudolf Hess - Wikipedia
In his excellent what-if historical novel SS-GB, with Great Britain under Nazi occupation, Len Deighton has King George VI held prisoner in the Tower in Nov. 1941.
I think it’s safe to assume that it wasn’t 
You need to realise that the Tower of London is well over 900 years old. There wasn’t much around it at that time.
This is an image from wikipedia, showing the surroundings of the Tower in 1597, over 500 years later.
Just under 300 years after that Tower bridge was completed in 1894.
Yes, but my question was about the situation in 1941.
Ah sorry, I thought that you were speculating about it’s original creation in that post.
As far as the war goes, as people have said. It was probably far too small, badly sited, and historically valuable to form part of any kind of defensive network.
It’s pretty hopeless as a castle, on account of it being marooned in the middle of a city that wasn’t there before.
If you are asking about general “hiding the important people from the bombs” kind of stuff, then check out the Churchill War Rooms.
I visited this bunker site on a trip to London several years ago and found it quite interesting. I imagine my wife was just being a good sport about the whole thing.
I would imagine not at all. Since the Tower is abut 40miles/60 km inland, repelling a ground attack would essentially be pointless. If the German invasion had come, the fight would have been over by the time they got within range.
The Tower might have been able to hold off an attack from a small detachment of light infantry, but it would have been undefendable against artillery, armor, or of course, aerial bombardment. The Tower did sustain significant damage during the Blitz.
The Tower of London held people in, not out. And certainly wasn’t designed with the idea of German bombers in mind, and a ground assault in the middle of London means the Germans have already won.
The Tower had to be held so that there could still be at least one raven to preserve England from falling. The Barbary apes were only effective in Gibraltar.
Been there. It was indeed Cool.
anson2995, being inland did not preclude a place from being part of the British defences. The defensive network stretched all over southern and central England. Lines of pillboxes stretch north/south and east/west. However, others have made a good point about the tower being too centrally located and overlooked by nearby buildings.
Candyman74, yes, the Tower has been used as a prison. But it’s original intent and design was indeed to keep people out, not in.
But your question was whether it would have been part of a defense against an invasion, and unless the Germans were going to invade by parachuting into the Thames, I don’t see how the Tower of London could have played a role.
Pillboxes could have helped repel troops from entering the castle itself, but I’m not sure why the Germans would want to get in.
Yes, I asked if the the Tower was part of the defenses against a German invasion. Invasion doesn’t end at the beach. Or ten miles inland. It ends with the defeat of either the attacker or the defender. The Brits were prepared to fight to the end and defend every square inch. They were prepared to fight all the way from the beaches to London and further north. If the Germans had somehow made it through the web of defenses and were attempting to cross the Thames, the locals fighting them would still be fighting the invasion. I was wondering if the Tower was part of the defense of London. Apparently it was not.