Best possible outcome for the British in Dunkirk?

What would have been the best possible outcome for British forces during Dunkirk and how would this have affected the war.
 
Evacuate enough 2pdr AT guns that plans to put the 6pdr into production in 1940 aren't stopped.

6pdr AT guns wreak havoc in the Western Desert in 1941.
 
What would have been the best possible outcome for British forces during Dunkirk and how would this have affected the war.

Not strictly what you are asking but it was related

The Rifle Brigade is evacuated from Calais as it should and could have been rather than a BS Churchillian reason to try and show the French Britain was still fighting so leaving it there knowing it could not hold out for longer than it did.

It had done its job and it should have been withdrawn via DDs

The Brigade was one of the most experienced formation's in the art of combined arms operations something lacking in the rest of the tribe at the time.

Also the 51st Highland Division being withdrawn sooner from the River Somme positions which it clearly could not cover and ultimately 2 of its Brigades and Divisional troops not going into the bag when all of their 'allies' surrendered around them at St Valery

I ma sure a use could have made of an old regular Division

Perhaps the majority of the 2 veteran French Divisions - 2nd Light Mech and the 68th Infantry which had both fought so hard defending the town get the opportunity to escape on the 3/4 June or the Op is pushed for a further day and they evacuate on the night of the 4/5 June?

Having fought 'side by side' maybe more of those troops would end up joining the free French

Fewer Destroyers sunk or badly damaged during Dynamo along with fewer transport ships being sunk particularly would obviously pay great dividends given the work load of the RN DDs
 
Was there any way the RAF could have damaged the Luftwaffe worse in the air battle over Channel ports? Say trading off another 100 fighters lost for 300 German aircraft?

Somehow doing more damage to the probing German armored corps, so they are a little weaker in June & the advance south is delayed by another week the help recover the Pz Divisions strength.
 
Was there any way the RAF could have damaged the Luftwaffe worse in the air battle over Channel ports? Say trading off another 100 fighters lost for 300 German aircraft?
IIRC there were several hundred Luftwaffe pilots who had been shot down during the fighting and were being held as prisoners of war by the French that once the armistice came into effect they were promptly released and re-joined their squadrons for the Battle of Britain or other duties. It would have been nice if the British could have found some way to take them with them, but that would probably require hindsight to organise since at that early stage the plan was still to evacuate, be moved along the English coast, and then land back in Normandy or Brittany to continue the fight with the French.
 
It seems to me the Brits asked about evacuating the German prisoners. Including ground pounders there were a few thousand. The French wanted them to swap in the cease fire.

There were several hundred thousand Polish soldiers in France, including two new trained infantry divisions. Getting all those Poles to the ports & getting them all out is almost the reverse of losing the BEF @ Dunkirk, 100,000+ Polish soldiers added to the Commonwealth forces in 1940 makes for some interesting possibilites in the autum and winter of 1940-41.

Among those Poles were the team who had originally broken the Enigma system. They remained trapped in Vichy France, hidden from the Germans until 1943 when they were forced to attempt escape. Getting that little group to Bletchley Park in latter 1940 would be helpful.
 
How about making Dunkirk into a Tobruk and holding it instead of evacuating? A Asterix version of ww2. "Hitler has taken all of Europe. All of Europe? All except one city in the north of France"
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I think I agree with the general sentiment that there's not much to do better at Dunkirk itself - a few more blown bridges might mean my great-uncle gets out as well rather than dying holding the pocket, but overall it's a rather spectacular feat.

But the real key is doing better in other evacuations. If you could get out the Poles, some more experienced troops, more AT guns (French ones too?), the German PoWs - especially the airmen - and generally evacuate fighting power as well as men, then you've got the recipe for a better situation for the British in the summer of 1940.
 
Simple, have Gort spend a few minutes thinking about the basics of what the withdrawal to Dunkirk will mean and then have him send someone post-haste to London to ask the Admiralty what they can do to make the evacuation safe and methodical. That means parties being sent out days earlier to construct jetties, as well as more AA guns to protect the place. The docks were trashed because some bloody fool ordered that all the guns (including the AA guns) were disabled or destroyed. Having someone actually think about what the evacuation will need in terms of resources will change things a great deal. Oh and have a word with the RAF. Plus the rifle brigade that ends up in Calais would be far better used defending Dunkirk.
 
The best outcome for Dunkirk is not to be there, but instead to be at Calais where the distance to Britain is shorter (so better air cover) and the port facilities are better.
 
Evacuate the heavy equipment also.
Whilst it would all be nice the only thing that's absolutely vital, aside from the men themselves, are the anti-tank guns. The British had the new 6-pounder ready to begin production about then but they lost so many of the already in-service 2-pounder guns and had the invasion scare that the decision was made to continue 2-pounder production to replace them rather than switch over to 6-pounder production which would have seen a six month or so gap in production. They get enough 2-pounder guns out and they'd feel safe enough to make the switch over.


The Rifle Brigade is evacuated from Calais as it should and could have been rather than a bullshit Churchillian reason to try and show the French Britain was still fighting so leaving it there knowing it could not hold out for longer than it did. It had done its job and it should have been withdrawn via destroyers.
Makes sense.


Also the 51st (Highland) Division being withdrawn sooner from the River Somme positions which it clearly could not cover and ultimately 2 of its Brigades and Divisional troops not going into the bag when all of their 'allies' surrendered around them at St Valery.
That's something I've wondered about, what the hell were the 51st (Highland) Division doing down there anyway? Considering that the rest of the British Expeditionary Force stayed under British command, with the slightly complicated chain of command associated with that, and fought as a group it just seems rather puzzling.



Somehow doing more damage to the probing German armored corps, so they are a little weaker in June and the advance south is delayed by another week the help recover the panzer divisions strength.
The counter-attack at Arras seems the most likely choice for something like that. If they'd been a touch more lucky and things had gone a bit better with 7th Panzer Division being given a seriously mauling before the Anglo-French troops retreat is could have made Hitler and Oberkommando der Wehrmacht even more cautious than our timeline. Less pressure allows the British to evacuate more men and materiel whilst also delaying Fall Rot and the advance south.


It seems to me the Brits asked about evacuating the German prisoners. Including ground pounders there were a few thousand. The French wanted them to swap in the cease fire.
Annoying but certainly understandable.


There were several hundred thousand Polish soldiers in France, including two new trained infantry divisions. Getting all those Poles to the ports & getting them all out is almost the reverse of losing the BEF at Dunkirk, 100,000 plus Polish soldiers added to the Commonwealth forces in 1940 makes for some interesting possibilities in the autumn and winter of 1940-41.
I actually started a thread partly about that, alongside the British playing hardball a bit with the Soviets and in-part basing their supplies on the Soviets evacuating the 200,000 or so Polish prisoners of war via Persia, but it didn't get much interest. By 1944 more evacuees would potentially give them three full corps of an armoured and two infantry divisions each allowing them to form their own small two corps army in Normandy, probably under 21st Army Group. Would extra weight of troops allow them to close the Falaise gap? It's certainly a tempting idea.


How about making Dunkirk into a Tobruk and holding it instead of evacuating? A Asterix version of ww2. "Hitler has taken all of Europe. All of Europe? All except one city in the north of France"
Tobruk held because it was at the end of a long and tenuous Axis supply line. A small enclave in northern France is going to allow the full might of the Luftwaffe to bomb it around the clock whilst they're fully supplied and operating from close home bases, likewise expect constant artillery shelling from batteries being constantly supplied by railway. Without the distraction of the Eastern front it's going to be nothing but a meat grinder for the British and Commonwealth troops unfortunate to be sent there.


The docks were trashed because some bloody fool ordered that all the guns (including the AA guns) were disabled or destroyed. Having someone actually think about what the evacuation will need in terms of resources will change things a great deal.
That actually happened? Sometimes I'm still honestly surprised that Britain was able to survive and stay in the war during the early years. A bit better planning and co-operation doesn't cost anything and would certainly seem liable to help immensely.
 
Top