uk's shortage.

[raf]

some questions i hope you can answer..

Although Britain wasnt ideally ready for war it had been developing ships and the spitfire some 2 years before 1939.

so why after dunkirk was there a cry for help....This was the BEF and didnt the Army have any reserves....surelly not all equipment was given to the BEF and lost.

Also the U.S sent 1 million old fifles..by the time they were gathered and sent to us couldnt our great might industrial powers of the north make a million rifles a day...

also the defence of Britain seemed to be a massive progect that was done within months ...showing the huge effort that went into it..but wasnt anything done before 1939 as a precation.

Also during the battle of britain it was said we were on our last legs...but this site has shown that we were producing more planes than the Germans. Do you think we were really that short of weapons in 1939 and after Dunkirk.

has any one got a list of figures of the weapons we had to hand.

cheers

Just to the plane thing. Yes we were producing more fighters than germany, What we weren't producing was the pilots to fly them. That took time.
Rifles. Not sure, but I don't think there were that many RO factories in 1939.

[Kyt]

Everything you wanted to know about British War Production (including the run up to the war):

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/U...WarProduction/

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Kyt

Everything you wanted to know about British War Production (including the run up to the war):

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/U...WarProduction/

Great reference site -- thanks!

[raf]

thanks kyt....may have finished reading it by 2007.

or.

as a summery what does it say...

thanks

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by raf

thanks kyt....may have finished reading it by 2007.

or.

as a summery what does it say...

thanks

Ah, dear RAF -- You really should read it in its entirety. In my most humble opinion, retrospect study and examination of WW2 -- by professional and amateur historians alike -- is suffering from a general lack of careful scholarship and sound investigatory techniques. Amateur historians in particular have a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight to offer. Again, IMHO, it behooves us all to be meticulous in our research and deliberate in presenting our findings.

James

[Kyt]

I'm afraid, raf, that your request of a summary is going to be very difficult - we're talking about an entire semesters worth of lectures!

Howver I'll try to point you in the general direction:

Originally Posted by raf

Although Britain wasnt ideally ready for war it had been developing ships and the spitfire some 2 years before 1939.

so why after dunkirk was there a cry for help....This was the BEF and didnt the Army have any reserves....surelly not all equipment was given to the BEF and lost.

By May 1940 the British Army (after the start of conscription) had 50 divisions, of which 13 divisions were sent to France as the BEF (but these 13 divisions were almost the entire pre-war professional army – the rest were mainly still in training, or some were recovering from the Norwegian fiasco, another place where the British lost a lot of equipment). However, they had lost almost all their heavy equipment after Dunkirk – e.g. they only had 100 tanks left. The British incurred 68,000 casualties

Part of the reason that equipment was so short was that even though the BEF had been commited to France, it initially went with very little equipment. This shortfall was due to the long period of pre-war defence expenditure cuts, and it wasn’t until 1936 that the finances were provided to start re-arming and modernising the British Army. However, right up to the first day of the war, beuracratic arguments meant that the “paper demands” for the War Office did not equate to actual production of weapons. In other words, the factories just weren’t ready at the beginning of the war. By May 1940, things had improved to the degree that the BEF could be supplied, but all that stock having been lost, Britain was back to square one. Even though the factories were starting to appear, the problem now was that there was a shortage of raw materials (the Atlantic war against British shipping had now been going for six months).

Also the plans drawn up for the increase in the Army projected it to be ready by the middle of 1941, and people like Churchill, who though pushing for a bigger army, failed to realise that this also required a massive increase in support services.

Originally Posted by raf

Also the U.S sent 1 million old fifles..by the time they were gathered and sent to us couldnt our great might industrial powers of the north make a million rifles a day...

I’m not sure where you got the figure of Britain being able to produce a million rifles a day (unless it was a typo and you meant bullets), but there was indeed a real shortage of small arms. As I said, the British army was expanding through conscription and they needed to be armed. At this stage of the war, there were also problems of man-power, especially as women had not been recruited in great enough numbers to replace the men. As Britain had to build ALL of its weapons (guns, bullets, bombs, aircraft, ships), it made sense to buy weapons from abroad where they were available, and thus concentrate upon the highest priorities. If you only have a finite amount of raw materials, and a finite number of facilities, and a finite amount of labour, why not buy your guns from the US and concentrate on the aircraft and ships that were essential in 1940. For example, between 35 and 40% of all available workforce were working in the ship yards, either repairing or building ships. For aircraft production, in 1938, with the push for rearmament, it was estimated that 18 months after the start of a war in late 1939, 2000 planes a month could be produced – i.e. by the beginning of 1941!

The US were willing to sell to Britain (in fact before land lease in 1941, the transactions had to be hard cold cash), because its own production far out stripped its own needs. In 1940 the US did not consider that they were under any threat from Germany or Japan. By 1941, with its own awareness rising, they wouldn’t have been so happy to sell their weapons if the Land Lease bill hadn’t been passed.

Originally Posted by raf

also the defence of Britain seemed to be a massive progect that was done within months ...showing the huge effort that went into it..but wasnt anything done before 1939 as a precation.

Ah, for that I really do think it's worthwhile you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of the above reference. It covers the move from disarmement to rearmament in the last 2 or 3 years before the war (go on - it'll take you half an hour )

Originally Posted by raf

Also during the battle of britain it was said we were on our last legs...but this site has shown that we were producing more planes than the Germans. Do you think we were really that short of weapons in 1939 and after Dunkirk.

as Kitty stated, by the beginning of the Battle of Britain, it's wasn't just the numeber of aircraft available but the shortage of pilots. A lot of the most experienced pilots were exhaustede after the battle for France, and in covering the Dunkirk evacuations. They had to be rotated out, and those who replaced them on the front line were experienced - leading to high loss rates. It was this pilot attrition, combined with the almost complete destruction of the front line airfields that has lead to the view that Britain was on her last legs. the RAF did a great job in surviving so long. However, it was the mistaken change in strategy on the part of the Germans tocity bombing, AND the fact that they over-estimated RAF losses and under estimated the RAFs ability to replace the planes, that saved RAF from further destruction.

Originally Posted by raf

has any one got a list of figures of the weapons we had to hand.
cheers

I'll try to get you those figures in a day or so, unless some-one else is able to provide them

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by jamesicus

Ah, dear RAF -- You really should read it in its entirety. In my most humble opinion, retrospect study and examination of WW2 -- by professional and amateur historians alike -- is suffering from a general lack of careful scholarship and sound investigatory techniques. Amateur historians in particular have a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight to offer. Again, IMHO, it behooves us all to be meticulous in our research and deliberate in presenting our findings.

James

I agree with you James - to a degree

I think that historical research is a fascinating activity, and with the advent of the wibbly wobbly web, life has got a lot easier. And the study of original documents and reports is, for me, a great way to pass the time.

But we also have to be aware that historical research takes time and some practice, and I don't think we should criticise anyone who doesn't have one or the other. I'm lucky in that I get paid to do very little , and so can spend time in my reading, and as a trained researcher, I've developed some lateal-thinking skills. But we're all amatuers here, who want to share our passion for the study of the war, and I've learnt a lot from everyone else.

As an aside, I should also point out that my reply above was rather rushed, and so may seem to ramble (yep, I'm making excuses for shoddy work ).

[Owen]

To give you some idea of the amount of supplies lost in France
From "The Fight for the Channel Ports" by Michael Glover
page 235

There was a lack of decision on the part of GOC L of C on the policy of the destruction of ammunition left in the depots, which resulted in may thousands of tons [24 400] falling into the hands of the enemy.

the Kent Fortress Destruction Unit , had started to deal with the huge fuel stocks and....had destroyed 33 000 tons of petrol and avaition spirit.

page 236

four hundred more lorries could have been saved if the evacuation [from Cherbourg] had been delayed for 24 hours.

page 237

Between 20 May and 18 June in the area between Calais and Brest the British lost some 25 000 men, either killed or made prisoner, from the fighting formations alone.

12th Division was destroyed in a single day's fighting.

page 186
As for available Artillery after Dunkirk a War Office Report said

there were only 420 field guns in the British Isles.Of these one-third, 144 guns, would be going to France with [the second BEF]

listed on the same page are
supplies in France, south of the Somme there were
rations for 18 250 000 men
46 469 tons of petrol
1808 tons of diesel fuel
12 334 tons of aviation spirit
68 000 tons of ammo
25 00 tons of ordnance stores, from clothing to lorry spares
50 000 rifles
hundred of LMGs and MMGs
60 tanks at base workshops
at least 5000 other vehicles.

Most if not all that was lost.
Which meant there was b*gger all left in the UK.

As for trained troops the two Divisons earmarked for the Second BEF (52nd Lowland and 1st Canadian ) were the only two fully armed and trained Divisions that could be sent and left a huge gap in the defence of Britain.



raf you said

surelly not all equipment was given to the BEF and lost.

Well, here is a speech of Churchill's from here
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdunkirk.htm

11) Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons (4th June, 1940)

Our losses in men (at Dunkirk) have been 30,000 killed, wounded and missing. Against this we might set the far heavier loss certainly inflicted upon the enemy. We have lost nearly 1,000 guns and all our transport and all the armed vehicles that were with the army in the north.
The best of all we had to give, has gone with the B.E.F. and although they had not the number of tanks they were a very well and finely equipped army. They had all the first fruits of all our industry had to give, and that is gone.
An effort the like of which has never been seen in our records is now being made. Work is proceeding everywhere night and day, Sundays and weekdays. Capital and labour have cast aside their interests, rights and customs, and put them into the common stock.
Already the flow of munitions has leapt forward. There is no reason why we should not, in a few months overtake the sudden and serious loss that has come upon us without retarding development of our general programme.

[jamesicus]

Originally Posted by Kyt

.......... I think that historical research is a fascinating activity, and with the advent of the wibbly wobbly web, life has got a lot easier. And the study of original documents and reports is, for me, a great way to pass the time.

But we also have to be aware that historical research takes time and some practice, and I don't think we should criticise anyone who doesn't have one or the other.

Oh I am not criticising anyone in that sense -- I recognize the problems full well. I am really beating the drum for in depth research before findings are reported as valid and reliable information.

James