The British are selfish for leaving the French at Dunkirk

[timshatz]

The French were still using tactics for 1914. It is ultimatly there own fault they were defeated by Germany.

Period!

They were also short on will. And wars are, in the end, about the will to fight. France's will was seriously lacking in the 36-40. If they'd had the will, they would've gone to war over the Sudentenland or attacked Western Germany while the Polish Campaign kept the Wermacht busy. They did not. True, they had plenty of problems with their methodology (inferior doctrine), tactics and communications system. All of which would've been difficult to overcome. But building the Maginoit line put them in a mentally defensive point of view. The Germans were coming, the French were ready, but not willing and probably not able.

 

[Chief]

Good Lord. Who does this guy think he is, or rather Who do the French think they are. What major war have they ever won. Albeit, they were a major part in the victor of the great war, but I'm sorry they are not in any possion what so ever to go spotting off about past military news. They've never won a war(World War 1 excluding)
Like I said before the French are in no position to yell at ANY military. As far as I see it. What is the French military. The only think they have that anybodies heard of Worldly is their being a Nuclear Power. All the French do anymore is COMPLAIN LIKE LITTLE *****es. Here's a hint,"before spouting off about the past hows about actually helping out in a modern world crisis militarily speaking. Vetoing Everyone for Everything. Does not represent power it represents an *** that needs a boot to be inserted!

 

[Gnomey]

The French ruled most of Europe in the times of Napolean, only being defeated by the Russian winter and the British and Prussians at Waterloo in 1815...

 

[plan_D]

Napoleon was defeated by Britain in 1805 too. But sent him to exhile instead of hanging him, which allowed him to raise another army which led to Waterloo.

 

[Chief]

all right, point taken. My point is that they're in no position now to be complaing about anything. Yes, in the past they used to be an immensely strong nation, but like I said thoughs days are all but gone. They are aiding in today's war on terror. But we had to literally drag to the frontlines. Let alone to stop complaining. That's basically their biggest military strategy. annoying everyone to the point where everyone forgets about the main topic and focus on coddling France. They talk big now how about they actually practice what they preach.

 

[Hop]

What I'm wondering about is the replenishment between Dunkirk and late Aug 1940, when an expected German invasion COULD have occured.

British War Production by Michael Postan gives some details:

Tank production - June 115, July 129, August 126

25 lb guns - June 42, July 60, Aug 72

3.7 in AA guns - June 136, July 183, Aug 136

Other artillery - June 303, July 357, Aug 297

Rifles .303 - June 7837, July 8722, Aug 8919

Wheeled vehicles army - July 9624, Aug 8779

 

[timshatz]

British War Production by Michael Postan gives some details:

Tank production - June 115, July 129, August 126

25 lb guns - June 42, July 60, Aug 72

3.7 in AA guns - June 136, July 183, Aug 136

Other artillery - June 303, July 357, Aug 297

Rifles .303 - June 7837, July 8722, Aug 8919

Wheeled vehicles army - July 9624, Aug 8779

Is there any way to find out what they may've gotten from the US at this time? I know a fair amount of WW1 equipment that was lying around (Destroyers for example and the M1917 Rifle) were sent over. But I believe this was all before Lend Lease.

 

[syscom3]

Just conjecture on my part, but it looks like the Brits could have reconsituted their forces from Dunkirk as light infantry within a couple of months.

 

[plan_D]

With effective artillery support. The beaches would have been covered, even if German troops did get ashore.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Probably yelling at the kids on the lawn too.

 

[redcoat]

Is there any way to find out what they may've gotten from the US at this time? I know a fair amount of WW1 equipment that was lying around (Destroyers for example and the M1917 Rifle) were sent over. But I believe this was all before Lend Lease.

Supplied from the USA during the BOB.

- 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles,
- 130 million rounds .30 ammo.
- 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo.
- 900 75mm field guns
- 1,075,000 75mm shells
- 308 3" Stokes mortars
- 97,680 Stokes mortar shells
- 87,000 machine guns (various types)
- 25,000 BAR's
- 21,000 revolvers
- 1,000,000 revolver cartridges


British ships began loading the estimated 70,000 tons of equipment on June 11th, the first of 6 ships to leave, SS Eastern Prince arrived in the UK on the 23rd with 48 75mm field pieces, 12,000 rifles, 15,279 machine guns and over 37 million rounds of .30 ammo. A dozen ships would sail before the end of June , 15 more before the last week of July; Nearly all arrived before the BOB got underway in earnest.
The US had estimated cost at some $300 million, but with depreciation Britain was charged less than $38 million (Note - Canada also sent 70,000 of its WW1 stores of Ross rifles to the UK ASAP, and purchased 80,000 .30 cal. US Enfield rifles for $1.8 million to make up the loss

Note, The .30 lee enfields were only issued to Home Guard units.


Hope this is of help

 

[syscom3]

Thanks for the info Redcoat.

Looks like even if the Germans did figure out a way to invade England, it was sure going to be a bloody affair for them.

 

[timshatz]

Supplied from the USA during the BOB.

- 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles,
- 130 million rounds .30 ammo.
- 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo.
- 900 75mm field guns
- 1,075,000 75mm shells
- 308 3" Stokes mortars
- 97,680 Stokes mortar shells
- 87,000 machine guns (various types)
- 25,000 BAR's
- 21,000 revolvers
- 1,000,000 revolver cartridges


British ships began loading the estimated 70,000 tons of equipment on June 11th, the first of 6 ships to leave, SS Eastern Prince arrived in the UK on the 23rd with 48 75mm field pieces, 12,000 rifles, 15,279 machine guns and over 37 million rounds of .30 ammo. A dozen ships would sail before the end of June , 15 more before the last week of July; Nearly all arrived before the BOB got underway in earnest.
The US had estimated cost at some $300 million, but with depreciation Britain was charged less than $38 million (Note - Canada also sent 70,000 of its WW1 stores of Ross rifles to the UK ASAP, and purchased 80,000 .30 cal. US Enfield rifles for $1.8 million to make up the loss

Note, The .30 lee enfields were only issued to Home Guard units.


Hope this is of help

Great info Redcoat. Just what I was looking for and more. Excellent.

 

[timshatz]

Redcoat's post shows the British had a lot more firepower than generally understood by most with regards to the ability to fight a land war. They had the guns and a decent load of ammunition (not great but 1,000 rpg of 75MM artillery ammo is a good amount). It is commonly thought that the Brits were short to the point of non-existant when it came to artillery. This proves that while not exactly overstocked, that had a decent supply.

Questions of the condition of the guns, ammo and other equipment (most of them were probably WW1 vintage) when they actually came out of the box. Old equipment can be brutal to work with. The point that the rifles were sent to the Home Guard may be suggestive of this point. Or, it could be that the Army wanted to simplify it's logistics and all HG got .30 and all regular formations go .303. The numbers do not tell the story but they do say the Brits had more weapons than is commonly thought.

Coming back to the point about the crosschannel invasion. I agree with Syscom that this was going to be bloody for the Germans. But the real question was could the Germans keep themselves supplied effectively enough for offensive operations and, if that failed, enough to defend what they did capture in the initial invasion. The supply problems the Germans would've faced probably would've been insurmountable. Their Navy was not particularly large, their Air Force probably would've been fighting far from their bases (some 109 and 110 units would've been in England, how many is unknown) and the Channel in Winter is brutal. Everything England had would've been focused on that stretch of water, the ports on both sides of it and the German Invasion area. While the Germans have to move supplies across the Channel, the British are fighting in the middle of theirs. Makes life simpler from a logistical standpoint.

Considering how much trouble the Luftwaffe had supply the 6th Army in Stalingrad 2 years later, I can not believe the odds were seriously in the Wermacht's favor. Too many "if's" and not many good answers.

One last open question, does anyone know what the weather was like in the Channel from 10/40 to 3/41? Actual reports, things of that nature?

 

[syscom3]

We discussed in another thread whether the Germans could have invaded England, and the evidence suggests a resounding "NO".

But, if per chance they did manage to put some troops on the beaches, it looks like the Brits could have bottled them up and worn them down from attrition.

 

[timshatz]

We discussed in another thread whether the Germans could have invaded England, and the evidence suggests a resounding "NO".
QUOTE]

I don't know if that would've carried much weight with Hitler. The guy was unpredictable at best. Common sense would've told him not to declare war on the US December of 1941 ("Don't you have enought problems Adolph?"), but that didn't account for much. Not a case of would he do it but COULD he do it. And the way he gambled and shot from the hip, he could've done it.

 

[syscom3]

I don't know if that would've carried much weight with Hitler. The guy was unpredictable at best. Common sense would've told him not to declare war on the US December of 1941 ("Don't you have enought problems Adolph?"), but that didn't account for much. Not a case of would he do it but COULD he do it. And the way he gambled and shot from the hip, he could've done it.

What Hitler wanted and what the German army could have actually done was two totally different things.

As that thread pointed out, the Germans had little if any amphib capability, were going to land at defended beaches and were probably were going to be attacked by British land forces immediatly. Couple in the logistical margins for resupply and reinforcements, and all the signs were there for it to be a fiasco for them.

The single biggest issue I have with a scenario of a German invasion of the British isles, is the resupply. The German navy didnt have the types of ships to deliver the goods onto unimproved beaches. The assumption of the Germans taking sea ports that hadnt been demolished is an assumption of best case planning, which usually means your plan is going to fail.

 

[redcoat]

One last open question, does anyone know what the weather was like in the Channel from 10/40 to 3/41? Actual reports, things of that nature?

If the Germans wanted to invade it would have to be before the end of September, after that, the weather conditions around the Channel are normally unsuitable for attempting a large scale landing. ( and both the British and Germans were aware of this fact)

 

[Twitch]

The error of all the "coulda/woulda/shoulda" is that Germany could have done just about anything Hitler set his mind to. If in 1933 his primary desire after taking power was to subjugate GB by invasion he would have done it. Talk of no amphibious capability or anything else the Germans didn't have is pointless since the theme of the thread is now "coulda." And it is silly to imagine German engineers NOT being able to design and produce specific vehicles or equipment if the word had been given years before the BoB.

As it was is one thing and what it coulda been is quite another8)

 

[plan_D]

Are you implying that Germany could have created a navy larger than the Royal Navy, while creating the Luftwaffe and Heeres that it did AND an invasion fleet that was at least half the size of the Allied invasion fleet in 1944 ... in six years? This is while building up the infrastructure in Germany.

I don't think so. Germany achieved a lot but forging a navy and supply fleet larger than the combined industries of U.S, Great Britain and it's Commonwealth without the slave labour of Axis Europe is quite unbelievable.