Disaster at Dunkirk

What if the German military had struck the surrounded forces at Dunkirk? I'm bad at making timelines and apologize. I see something along the lines of the still fall of France and the UK is open to negotiations. While there is still the threat of the RAF the UK did fear a loss at Dunkirk and opened fire on the French troops attempting to join the retreat.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The forces defending the perimeter beat off the uncoordinated attacks by the tired and disorganised German forces.

The pushing forward of armour without waiting for supporting infantry and artiller causes panzer losses to be particularly heavy, affecting the rest of the campaign.

After the stalling of the attacks, many troops and their equipment are successfully moved from the pocket and back to France, allowing a mobile reserve to be created. The remaining perimeter is held to tie down forces in the German rear and is resupplied by sea.

This misdirection of German forces allows the French army time to reorganise in front of Paris, and the front stabilises.

After the war, Rommell is found responsible for the war crimes committed by his troops at Airanes and hung as a war criminal.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I would read that timeline.

Take that wehraboo boys!

Much of the analysis of the Miracle at Dunkirk focussed on the role of Erwin Rommel in convincing Hitler to override the professional advice of the German general staff and push forward the attack without giving the attacking forces to reorganise, bring forward infantry and artillery.

Modern opinion is that Erwin Rommel was fundamentally a political appointment with little military ability, who parlayed command of Hitler's bodyguard into the Panzer division that he destroyed in front of Dunkirk.
 
I'm not quite as bleak as Ian_W's assessment of German chances, particularly on May 23rd-24th. It would have been a gamble, but the Germans had carried worse gambles on luck and skill elsewhere.

Of course they also lost better gambles too. And after the 24th, the odds do turn seriously against a German success. With all of France in the balance it was certainly wiser to let the army that was running away duly run away, while conserving forces for the final battle of France. The idea that the destruction of the BEF would have somehow lead to the surrender of Britain is a fantasy. Churchill had actually written them off, and considered their survival an unexpected windfall - either way he still had the RN and the RAF. So trying to destroy the BEF would have been a risky gamble with nebulous benefits.

If the Germans do go after Dunkirk and it turns into a disaster, the Germans are probably only going to get a couple of Panzer divisions mauled before Hitler calls it off. The British are still going to continue evacuating, because good defensive ground or not, the Dunkirk pocket is still untenable and their whole point of retreating there was to GTFO, which is an objective that Gort won't change. Losses against the British will hurt the Germans, but with catastrophic French losses already suffered it still leaves the Germans more than enough force to win the last phase of the Battle of France. It may be a closer fight, but the odds at that point still greatly favor the Germans. It will be an even bigger morale boost then the OTL evacuation though. Enough to encourage the French to fight on from North Africa maybe? Something to ponder.

I suppose that might suggest the Germans should have taken the plunge and given Dunkirk a poke but that's 20/20 hindsight. In late May the Germans still didn't know how many forces the French had remaining, nor how badly paralyzed their command was. Fog of war and all that. The smart decision was not to blow everything by over-extending... as they would later do at Moscow.
 

Ian_W

Banned
I'm not quite as bleak as Ian_W's assessment of German chances, particularly on May 23rd-24th. It would have been a gamble, but the Germans had carried worse gambles on luck and skill elsewhere.

But they werent facing the Rats of Dunkirk !
 
Modern opinion is that Erwin Rommel was fundamentally a political appointment with little military ability, who parlayed command of Hitler's bodyguard into the Panzer division that he destroyed in front of Dunkirk.
However, his advance panicked the allies and mostly cut them off from Calais, so he cost them a lot of materiel. To quote wikipedia:
"The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers (dead, wounded, missing, or captured) from 10 May until the surrender of France on 22 June. 3,500 British were killed and 13,053 wounded. All the heavy equipment had to be abandoned. Left behind in France were 2,472 guns, 20,000 motorcycles, and almost 65,000 other vehicles; also abandoned were 416,000 short tons (377,000 t) of stores, more than 75,000 short tons (68,000 t) of ammunition and 162,000 short tons (147,000 t) of fuel. Almost all of the 445 British tanks that had been sent to France with the BEF were abandoned."
However much Rommel actually cost the Germans, I suspect he cost the British rather more, so on the balance he was pretty successful.
 

Ian_W

Banned
However, his advance panicked the allies and mostly cut them off from Calais, so he cost them a lot of materiel. To quote wikipedia:
"The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers (dead, wounded, missing, or captured) from 10 May until the surrender of France on 22 June. 3,500 British were killed and 13,053 wounded. All the heavy equipment had to be abandoned. Left behind in France were 2,472 guns, 20,000 motorcycles, and almost 65,000 other vehicles; also abandoned were 416,000 short tons (377,000 t) of stores, more than 75,000 short tons (68,000 t) of ammunition and 162,000 short tons (147,000 t) of fuel. Almost all of the 445 British tanks that had been sent to France with the BEF were abandoned."
However much Rommel actually cost the Germans, I suspect he cost the British rather more, so on the balance he was pretty successful.

Not in TTL.

In TTL, political appointee Erwin Rommel convinces Hitler to force the attack continued the attack after it ran out of orginisation and supplies, the German Army gets bounced by the Rats of Dunkirk and most of the stuff you list continues to be used against the Germans in France.

Remember, this is about Disaster at Dunkirk, not OTL.
 
You've failed to explain how they actually get out. See, the perimeter around Dunkirk was formed on 28 May, but Calais surrendered on 27 May, so Germany now has the best port in the area. Sure the British have some good stuff, but no practical CAS, and their tanks have proved to be slow and unequipped with HE, which means they'll have trouble facing up to 88s.

Defence they can do well, offence, not so much.
 
The absolute worst outcome for the Germans is a pair of panzer divisions getting trashed, which isn't going to alter the outcome of the French campaign. The French aren't going to succeed against 140 divisions any more then they did against 142. The British are still going to cut their losses and withdraw back to Britain as per OTL. The morale boost might be enough to convince the French to evacuate and fight on from exile, which would have big impacts on other parts of the war, but it isn't going to change much right then and there.
 
I'm not quite as bleak as Ian_W's assessment of German chances, particularly on May 23rd-24th. It would have been a gamble, but the Germans had carried worse gambles on luck and skill elsewhere.

Of course they also lost better gambles too. And after the 24th, the odds do turn seriously against a German success. With all of France in the balance it was certainly wiser to let the army that was running away duly run away, while conserving forces for the final battle of France. The idea that the destruction of the BEF would have somehow lead to the surrender of Britain is a fantasy. Churchill had actually written them off, and considered their survival an unexpected windfall - either way he still had the RN and the RAF. So trying to destroy the BEF would have been a risky gamble with nebulous benefits.

If the Germans do go after Dunkirk and it turns into a disaster, the Germans are probably only going to get a couple of Panzer divisions mauled before Hitler calls it off. The British are still going to continue evacuating, because good defensive ground or not, the Dunkirk pocket is still untenable and their whole point of retreating there was to GTFO, which is an objective that Gort won't change. Losses against the British will hurt the Germans, but with catastrophic French losses already suffered it still leaves the Germans more than enough force to win the last phase of the Battle of France. It may be a closer fight, but the odds at that point still greatly favor the Germans. It will be an even bigger morale boost then the OTL evacuation though. Enough to encourage the French to fight on from North Africa maybe? Something to ponder.

I suppose that might suggest the Germans should have taken the plunge and given Dunkirk a poke but that's 20/20 hindsight. In late May the Germans still didn't know how many forces the French had remaining, nor how badly paralyzed their command was. Fog of war and all that. The smart decision was not to blow everything by over-extending... as they would later do at Moscow.


If the French fight from Africa, Italy might have needed an earlier German bailout, which means Admiral Raeder's Med strategy gets implemented.
 
If the French fight from Africa, Italy might have needed an earlier German bailout, which means Admiral Raeder's Med strategy gets implemented.

If the French fight from Africa, Libya probably falls before Raeder's Med strategy could concievably be implemented. Furthermore, the logistical infrastructure doesn't exist in the region for the kind of advances Raeder envisions, the Allies Germany needs to rely upon are either too incapable (Italy) or too unwilling (Spain, Turkey), and a prolonged naval-air war plays to Anglo-French (and later American) strengths and German weaknesses...

There are reasons why Hitler found Barbarossa the preferable alternative to a Med Strategy. The difficulties of the strategy (which would be exacerbated by continued French participation) combined with the perceived weakness of the Soviet Union (that was more apparent then real, admittedly, but the Germans don't know that) still act against it.
 
If the French fight from Africa, the Italians might as well give up. Against the British they've got distance on their side, because it's a long crawl over not terribly good roads from Tobruk to Tripoli. From Tunisia however, it's a very much shorter route to bag everything west of the Gulf of Sidra. It's also a very much shorter route for resupply as well. So if France fights on, North Africa is decided in 1941.
 
If the French fight from Africa, Italy might have needed an earlier German bailout, which means Admiral Raeder's Med strategy gets implemented.

That's also assuming that the Italians even decide to jump on the axis bandwagon in Dunkirk fails.
 
Top