I saw a partial list of the Table of Organization equipment abandoned at Dunkirk. Many of the tanks were light tanks only armed with machine guns, many of the field guns 18-pounders from the First World War. Would the fact that many of the British Army's heavy weapons were obsolescent, if not obsolete against German artillery and armour, would it help or hurt that Britain had to rebuild their tank corps and heavy artillery regiments just to get back to where they were in May of 1940?
Question about the massive loss of equipment The British Army took at Dunkirk. . .
Ian_W
Banned
It hurts because the need to replace all that equipment at once meant decisions like keeping the 2lber in production rather than moving to the 6lber because they need a lot of anti-tank guns right now, and constructing tanks like the Covenanter because they need a lot of tanks right now.
That obsolete equipment inflicted some tactical defeats on the Germans during the campaign. A company of 2lbr AT guns halted a German effort to flank the Arras counter attack & kept the Germans from getting into the rear of the Brit heavy tanks. In other actions massed fires from the 18lbr regiments inflicted heavy casualties on German infantry. The British light tanks were at a disadvantage fighting some models of German tanks, but seldom had to, most of the German corps deployed for the campaign had no tanks at all, depending on the company of 37mm AT guns in their infantry regiments to deal with the British and French tanks.
The loss of the equipment made training in the UK more difficult as there was insufficient numbers of material in the UK to cover all training requirements, and concentrate on the south coast for defense.
The loss of the equipment made training in the UK more difficult as there was insufficient numbers of material in the UK to cover all training requirements, and concentrate on the south coast for defense.
Separating myth from reality for the British forces and there performance in the early war period can be difficult.
The official line is that the British where let down by the French in France (although one wonders what might have happened if the BEF was larger and fully equipped) and that due to appeasement the British forces (especially the army) where poorly trained and equipped.
As to equipment this is at best untrue. I would like to use a few examples to illustrate this.
The British was the only fully mechanised force in the field and the well documented mechanical issues with some of its vehicles where the same as with any other army in Europe.
The much lamented 2 pounder was the best anti tank gun in France and the French 20mm anti tank gun the British acquired to make up the numbers was up to the job of dealing with the light machine gun armed tanks that made up much of the vaunted panzer divisions. In this light the Vickers light tanks used by the BEF weren't that obsolescent in 1940.
The same goes for the 18 pounder field guns. These where arguably among the best field guns during WW1 and the ones used by the BEF where the later improved models. Indeed the German field guns where based on WW1 models.
The truth is that loosing this equipment hurt the British at a critical time and forced them to continue producing equipment long past its best to make up the numbers.
The official line is that the British where let down by the French in France (although one wonders what might have happened if the BEF was larger and fully equipped) and that due to appeasement the British forces (especially the army) where poorly trained and equipped.
As to equipment this is at best untrue. I would like to use a few examples to illustrate this.
The British was the only fully mechanised force in the field and the well documented mechanical issues with some of its vehicles where the same as with any other army in Europe.
The much lamented 2 pounder was the best anti tank gun in France and the French 20mm anti tank gun the British acquired to make up the numbers was up to the job of dealing with the light machine gun armed tanks that made up much of the vaunted panzer divisions. In this light the Vickers light tanks used by the BEF weren't that obsolescent in 1940.
The same goes for the 18 pounder field guns. These where arguably among the best field guns during WW1 and the ones used by the BEF where the later improved models. Indeed the German field guns where based on WW1 models.
The truth is that loosing this equipment hurt the British at a critical time and forced them to continue producing equipment long past its best to make up the numbers.
I would question how obsolecent much of the equipment was by early war 1940 standards, much of the German artillery and armour at the time was made up of stuff that is equally questionable MK I &II tanks, 37mm AT etc...
If the 2lb is obsolete in summer 1940 just what AT gun in large scale service isn't?
All of it's contemporaries. AFV like the S35, T34, or M2 are the future in terms of armor. There were new AT guns like the French 47mm, the Soviet 45mm, or the 6lbr in or near production, which were near cutting edge in 1940.
The high quality scrap steel was useful. Some of the equipment was swapped out with the Garrison formations remaining in France or Belgium. Their modern equipment went to support the attack on the USSR.
In the entire battle of France including the second phase the British deployed; 75 Matilda mark 2's, 126 A9 & A10 Cruisers and 30 A13 Cruisers! Not counting the light tanks and the ineffective Matilda mark 1's that makes a whipping 231 gun tanks! I don't think 23 tanks would make much of a difference in Malaya.
The reality is that the British fielded 10 under equipped infantry divisions and part of armoured division in France 1940. Sure loosing the equipment hurt but it needs to be put into prospective.
I was counting the matilda and the light tanks to get a total number of around 600 tanks. Given that 23 light tanks were the whole of the British armour in malaysia and the quality of the Japanese tanks even the matilda 1s in an infantry support role and more light tanks would been considered welcome additions.
Not saying it would have won the battle but it would have been very welcome by the British army in theater, that alone is a signal that it would ahve some value.
elkarlo
Banned
True, garrison units could make due with WWI equipment. It wasn't as mobile nor as rapid firing in artillery
elkarlo
Banned
Pretty much. Take out the machine guns, we'll some of them, and some of the transport and there wasn't much that really changed
Barry Bull
Donor
And when the 6 pounders AT guns were issued to units in large numbers in mid 1942, larger caliber tank and AT guns are are the verge of being introduced. The pace of tech change is maddenly quick in WWII.
BlondieBC
Banned
The older captured equipment was often used for secondary duties such as a armored vehicle or two supporting an airbase defense. So quite useful, in some ways.
marathag
Banned
But by 1940, both were worthless.
For short term, the M1916&M1917 75mm would have been a better fill in than more 2 pdrs.
vs
the WWI era gun weighed 1000 pounds more, but had a very useful HE Round, and the AP shot penetrated more armor
Every Covenanter made was a total waste of resources and effort in the factory.
would have been better for training crews to use the US Louisiana Maneuvers of 1940, to pin plywood on the side of a truck and
paint TANK on the side, while retooling to make a tank that could actually be used in combat
Just how many where ready that early? (ie in summer 1940!)
A quick goggle suggest they only had 370 by 22 June 41 for the Russian invasion and another page says that production started in June 1, 1941 and they only made 371 by the end of 41.....?
RodentRevolution
Banned
For a divisional anti-tank gun maybe but the 2pdr and 6pdr were attached to infantry battalions and thus the weight and volume of the ammunition needed to be considered. The infantry by and large do not need their own artillery, in the British Army that is what the Royal Artillery is for. What the infantry need are guns as easily moveable and concealable as possible for ambushing tanks trying to overrun their position.
Again I am going to disagree though only partially. One of the really useful life saving skills you need to learn if you want to be in tanks is how to get out of a tank when it is on fire. In fact training your muscles to cope with extended periods of time being cramped up inside the confined and sharp pointy projection filled interior of a tank is also quite useful.
Where I do agree however is that it would have been nice if the tank production board (or whomever) had decided much earlier to try for something a bit more useable than the Covenanter.