Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
Will be watching for that. Dunkirk was a bad event, even though a lot of people (British and French - the French can't seem to remember that) got out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,267 Posts
Dunkirk ('Duinkerk'e in the original Flemish denomination) was a defeat. The German army was ready for them. They were saved by the bell. I have no problem with the history ... I have a problem with the embellishing as if the all operation was a giant succes.
The guys were lucky to be in such a large number the Brits were interested to get them out of the French shore.
How anyone could make an interesting film about the realities of those days is a mystery to me. Note that I'm not an adept of British explanations and have the pretention to be able to make up my own mind.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
Dunkirk ('Duinkerk'e in the original Flemish denomination) was a defeat. The German army was ready for them. They were saved by the bell. I have no problem with the history ... I have a problem with the embellishing as if the all operation was a giant succes.
The guys were lucky to be in such a large number the Brits were interested to get them out of the French shore.
How anyone could make an interesting film about the realities of those days is a mystery to me. Note that I'm not an adept of British explanations and have the pretention to be able to make up my own mind.
Dunkirk was a defeat at the end of the land campaign in Northern France. The British and French had been out-maneuvered, out-fought, and just out and out had their arses beaten by the Germans. But despite being cornered, they had some fight in them and for a number of reasons, Hitler didn't authorize the ground assault that would have finished the job. Result was a victory of a sort for the Allies. Around 338K came out from Dunkirk and made it home. Roughly 100K of them were French, most of whom accepted repatriation and ultimately death or capture. About 192K came out through other ports, c.144k of those were British. Of the c.150K French troops who were brought away, only about 3K rallied to Charles de Gaulle. Which probably says something about de Gaulle in 1940.
 

·
Moderator/Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,174 Posts
I fully agree it was a decisive defeat, but it heralded the British public's 'All In' approach to the rest of the war by providing an opportunity to marshal the civilian population to help the military in a time of great need.

The loss in materiel was huge, and captured British and French equipment was used effectively by the Wehrmacht for years to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,789 Posts
While the 1940 Campaign was a complete disaster, the Dunkirk rescue was high drama and I expect they'll focus on a few people who die and more people who end up in England, bloodied but unbowed. Oh yeah, and a love interest, can't have a war movie without one of those...
 

·
Silver Bullet Member an all around excellent guy
Joined
·
49,848 Posts
How about a love interest and he dies in the end? That seems the modern method.
That's the recipe usually.

In the movie Atonement, the male protagonist is at Dunkirk during the war and we discover at the end of the movie that he died there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,789 Posts
I was on a ship in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm and trying to remember how many women I'd seen in that time. We had one onboard out of like 400 men, and I think Ann Gillian showed up for a visit. Makes you wonder where all these love interests come from in war movies.
 

·
Silver Bullet Member an all around excellent guy
Joined
·
49,848 Posts
I was on a ship in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm and trying to remember how many women I'd seen in that time. We had one onboard out of like 400 men, and I think Ann Gillian showed up for a visit. Makes you wonder where all these love interests come from in war movies.
Well David, there were two staring you right in the face. Just how many women do you need stud? Are you Cuban?
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
I fully agree it was a decisive defeat, but it heralded the British public's 'All In' approach to the rest of the war by providing an opportunity to marshal the civilian population to help the military in a time of great need.

The loss in materiel was huge, and captured British and French equipment was used effectively by the Wehrmacht for years to come.
Thing is it wasn't a decisive victory for either side. Decisive victory was the polish campaign- at the end, the Poles quit fighting; or the 1940 campaigns against Norway or France. The Norwegians didn't surrender, but they also didn't do much fighting other than flea-bite resistance actions (all honor to the brave men and women who did engage in that); the French did surrender and did little to resist even after the Commies were told to change their ways in June, 1941. The campaigns were decisive and the countries involved (can add Belgium and the Netherlands if you wish). Liberation ONLY happened through the actions of outside forces.

The Brits never quit, the battle wasn't decisive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,987 Posts
I have always regarded it as a heavy defeat,but with a silver lining in that so many got away.Difficult for me to view it as any sort of victory as such.On the other hand it was a defeat that lead to resolve to fight on, rather than chuck in the towel.Just as well for the Euro's that they did to and did not take the easy way out,and seek terms,eh?.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
100,654 Posts
I have always regarded it as a heavy defeat,but with a silver lining in that so many got away.Difficult for me to view it as any sort of victory as such.On the other hand it was a defeat that lead to resolve to fight on, rather than chuck in the towel.Just as well for the Euro's that they did to and did not take the easy way out,and seek terms,eh?.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. And for the Soviet Beasts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Dunkirk was a defeat at the end of the land campaign in Northern France. The British and French had been out-maneuvered, out-fought, and just out and out had their arses beaten by the Germans. But despite being cornered, they had some fight in them and for a number of reasons, Hitler didn't authorize the ground assault that would have finished the job. Result was a victory of a sort for the Allies. Around 338K came out from Dunkirk and made it home. Roughly 100K of them were French, most of whom accepted repatriation and ultimately death or capture. About 192K came out through other ports, c.144k of those were British. Of the c.150K French troops who were brought away, only about 3K rallied to Charles de Gaulle. Which probably says something about de Gaulle in 1940.

I did not realize that so many of the French were repatriated-I assumed they stayed in England until the second front. Looking at these numbers gives a fresh outlook on the French situation with De Gaulle.
 

·
Diamond Member
Joined
·
13,476 Posts
George Washington had several "defeats" in which he got away with his army intact, more or less, until we won. Sometimes not outright losing, if you do it often enough, is a type of victory in and of itself.

Lee did similar after his defeat at Gettysburg https://www.amazon.com/Retreat-Gettysburg-Logistics-Pennsylvania-Campaign/dp/B00ERUYAZ0 perhaps the most under reported least know battle of the Civil War

Not a spoiler, but almost everybody who has seen it has said the just "thought" they knew what happened, and were quiet surprised that they hadn't heard of this before
 

·
Silver Bullet Member an all around excellent guy
Joined
·
49,848 Posts
George Washington had several "defeats" in which he got away with his army intact, more or less, until we won. Sometimes not outright losing, if you do it often enough, is a type of victory in and of itself.

Lee did similar after his defeat at Gettysburg https://www.amazon.com/Retreat-Gettysburg-Logistics-Pennsylvania-Campaign/dp/B00ERUYAZ0 perhaps the most under reported least know battle of the Civil War

Not a spoiler, but almost everybody who has seen it has said the just "thought" they knew what happened, and were quiet surprised that they hadn't heard of this before
The retreat is surprisingly well-detailed at the Gettysburg museum and tours as part of the aftermath of the battle. And you are right, it is fascinating and thought provoking.

The other amazing "aftermath" story is the wounded in Gettysburg following the battle. You just have to go to Gettysburg and walk it to grasp the scope of what occurred there - I did. A lot of men suffered for a long time. Some men penned letters right where they lay after being shot - while awaiting death. One church drilled holes in the floor to drain the blood pooling in its sanctuary from the wounded.

Oh- and the torrential rain storm which shielded Lee's retreat? Wounded men drowned in the low lying areas, some men even drown in areas to which they'd been evacuated for treatment.
 

·
Diamond Member
Joined
·
13,476 Posts
Yeah.. logistics, regardless if in the advance or retrograde, while not as sexy as combat, are far more important as an indicator of an armies leadership IMHO than what the win loss batting average is .. What you can do with what you got, which is oftentimes way more or way less than the other guy, and how well you do it.. Sherman's march to the sea is another example. Lee's foraging lists going up to PA and how well he filled them, despite the outcome of the battle at Gettysburg itself, and getting away with almost all of it back across the Potomac was the victory.. as they explain in the movie I linked to.. it restored the balance between the Armies of the North and South.. I think Dunkirk falls in the same Category starting with the decision by the RAF to not reinforce the fighters groups in France and having an Army left to defend the shores of England.. complicating and enlarging beyond available resources the Germans ability to invade.. aside from the need for naval and air superiority .. the basic how much they would have to put ashore to have a credible chance to blitzkrieg England had to be a factor in how much air and sea superiority was needed. Adding over 330,000 troops on the beaches waiting in England, instead of in POW camps may have changed the course of the war.. yes Dunkirk was a total defeat, Germans won, why the celebration ? how could England rejoice ? At first blush, simple questions that could befuddle some , while being obvious to others.

Sherman had maps detailing what was worth foraging by grid square along the line of march, actually determining the line of march for the most part, balancing what he needed for the troops, against what he could afford to drag along with him, and how fast he had to cover ground.

All different , all similar, all logistics driven..

Another video by the same guy that did the Retreat from Gettysburg, speaking of logistics .. is his detailed analysis of the horse, and it's performance in war, both in combat and logistical roles https://www.amazon.com/Unsung-Hero-Horse-Civil-War/dp/B00ESJ6H56 .. not just simple numbers of horses involved.. how much each horse could carry or drag and for how long under what conditions and with what degree of logistical support for the horses needs .. Most cavalry units had to plan for about 4 horses per trooper .. special facilities to rest and repair broken down and burned out horses .. the factor of under fed horses in situations like Lee's retreat from Gettysburg or the lack of intel because Stuart left Lee blind partly because of horses rode too hard for too long .. Cavalry was far more about who had the freshest horses than the bigger numbers and better troopers or superior tactics ... Lee lost about 20,000 head of horse IIRC on the retreat from Gettysburg The Horse then, was the equivalent of the 700 "Little ships" at Dunkirk .. both were what made it all possible.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top