A messier Dunkirk

The Dunkirk evacuation was basically a huge Allied sucess with the vast majority of the troops in the perimeter getting to England. I'm wondering what factors, from the point in time when the allies had already established their defensive perimeter around Dunkirk , would have led to a more mixed result, say about only half or thereabouts making it out. Better weather for the Luftwaffe? A concentrated German attack once the perimeter had been established?
IIRC, at the start British hopes were for maybe 100k of the BEF to make it back, not the full 220k who actually did, so clearly they had some fears about a debacle happening.
 
The Dunkirk evacuation was basically a huge Allied sucess with the vast majority of the troops in the perimeter getting to England. I'm wondering what factors, from the point in time when the allies had already established their defensive perimeter around Dunkirk , would have led to a more mixed result, say about only half or thereabouts making it out. Better weather for the Luftwaffe? A concentrated German attack once the perimeter had been established?
IIRC, at the start British hopes were for maybe 100k of the BEF to make it back, not the full 220k who actually did, so clearly they had some fears about a debacle happening.

even if the Brits only get 100k back, there will be no Sea Lion.
 
Maybe there could be a diplomatic solution between Nazi Germany and the UK. But i think it would also take some victories in the Mediterranean for Germany and Italy to achieve such a diplomatic solution.
 
Typically when alternative 'Dunkirk' battles are thought through, argued over, or played out the Germans take heavier losses as well. The air battle becoming more intense and longer has a severe and noticable effect on the German air force. That become improtant a couple months later in the air Battle of Britain. While tank losses of the Germans would not be severe in the context of the overall campaign a extended battle along the coast usually means a delay of a week or more executing the attack into northern France, to Paris and beyond. That delay costs the Germans a bit more in terms of losses, in men/tanks/and air. Here the additional losses of aircraft and pilots are more important in any subsequent BoB since here the Brits lose next to nothing vs the German losses.

Sticking just to the air battle, a more violent action at Dunkirk is liable to cumalatively add 150-250 aircraft to the approx. 700 combat machines the Germans lost in OTL campaign of 1940. RAF losses might be half that, giving the Brits perhaps a net of around 100 aircraft in a subsequent air battle over Britain.
 
There might be a way you could bugger it on the British side: somebody at the Admiralty says, "We're not risking destroyers in those close waters". They force the Army to rely entirely on the fabled (but less than fully effective) "little ships". (It was the cans that took off the bulk of the survivors.)

OTOH, there was an option to evac from other ports, so DDs could be used there.

That said, if the Brit/French distribution is changed at all, does this change the dynmics between Winston & La Grand Charles? Does this mean there's an (even slightly) increased chance of more French troops, from the Empire? An (even slightly) increased chance of France making colonies into Commonwealth? (Thus avoiding the Vietnam War...)
 

Cook

Banned
IIRC, at the start British hopes were for maybe 100k of the BEF to make it back, not the full 220k who actually did, so clearly they had some fears about a debacle happening.

Actually the expectation was that they'd only be able to extract 40,000 men, mostly non-combatants.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
About the aircraft bit, wouldn't the losses be primarily hurricanes or spitfires if they sent aircover to the beaches which the British were lacking in the begining of the BoB. Not sure, I've seen it mentioned somewhere.

Probably wrong.
 
Actually the expectation was that they'd only be able to extract 40,000 men, mostly non-combatants.


I think that really low estimate was probably down to;

"Well everything else that could possibly go wrong this week has happened so lets just assume it's going to be a complete disaster to save time."
 

Cook

Banned
I think that really low estimate was probably down to...
The low estimate of 40,000 was because nothing like it had ever been attempted before; the closest anyone had come to an amphibious evacuation of an army was at Gallipoli, which had taken considerably longer both in planning and execution and had not been carried out under fire.
 
The low estimate of 40,000 was because nothing like it had ever been attempted before; the closest anyone had come to an amphibious evacuation of an army was at Gallipoli, which had taken considerably longer both in planning and execution and had not been carried out under fire.

Good point.

The Royal navy does have something of a history for amphibious landings and evacuations even if not on this scale or directly under fire so they probably would have some idea of what could be accomplished.
 
Kongzilla said:
wouldn't the losses be primarily hurricanes or spitfires
Mainly, I'd guess. There was cover, but the troops on the beaches could hardly see it.

This is another way you can bugger the Brits: Dowding says, "I'm not expending any more fighters over France when we're facing imminent German air attacks at home.", & Portal (then Air Minister, IIRC) & Chamberlain (still PM then, IIRC) back him up.

Between this & the "no DD" order, you are no way, nohow getting 340,000 men out of Dunkirk.
 

Cook

Banned
I'm wondering what factors, from the point in time when the allies had already established their defensive perimeter around Dunkirk , would have led to a more mixed result...
I recommend Julian Thompson’s Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory. Not only is he a professor at the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London and an outstanding historian, but he is also a retired Major General, with a hell of a lot more insight into what is and is not achievable in combat. It is without doubt the best book on the subject I’ve run across.

http://www.amazon.com/Dunkirk-Retre...7&sr=1-1&keywords=Dunkirk:+retreat+to+Victory
 
I recommend Julian Thompson’s Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory. Not only is he a professor at the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London and an outstanding historian, but he is also a retired Major General, with a hell of a lot more insight into what is and is not achievable in combat. It is without doubt the best book on the subject I’ve run across.

http://www.amazon.com/Dunkirk-Retre...7&sr=1-1&keywords=Dunkirk:+retreat+to+Victory

Another very good one is Dunkirk by Hugh Sebab0Montefiore.

I think the only way for Dunkirk outcome to make a difference is if no Churchill e.g. shot down during a trip to France.
 
Top