Jump to content


If Dunkirk failed?

Dunkirk

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

WidowMaker1711 #41 Posted 01 October 2017 - 05:18 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11826 battles
  • 9,988
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 23 July 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

fair enough but would the luftwaffe have the ability to tie down the RAF or just have air superiority, so they wouldn't use strategic bombing on germany?

 

In a word NO. The Luftwaffes only fighters in 1940 were the Messerschmitt Bf109E and the  Messerschmitt Bf110C. The 109 was a single engined fighter with just enough range to get it to the Southern edge of London and back with up to 10 minutes at combat power. Well armed and well crewed. The 110 was a twin engined heavy fighter that had much better range but came with the flaws most early heavy fighters had. Poor maneuverability and poor acceleration. 

 

The RAF at the time was equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires which were in the process of being equipped with self sealing fuel tanks, variable pitch propellers, armoured seats, bulletproof windscreens and in the case of the Spitfire a blown hood for better visibility.

 

The 109 and 110 were better armed than their British contemporaries but werent as maneuverable. The 110 being especially susceptible and had to basically corral the waggons by flying in a tight circle to fend off the fighters. This also is shown that the 109 pilots had to be instructed to dive away to use the Rolls Royce Merlins carburettor against itself.

 

Also the British had Radar that reached into Northern France and could detect raids building as they took off. The British also had a centralised maintenance system, a centralised Air Sea Rescue detachment and since late 1938 the RAF had had a centralised photo reconnaissance unit gathering intel across Northern Europe. Whereas the Germans maintenance, ASR and photo recce was all carried out on a squadron level.

 

Manufacturing was also steaming ahead in Britain under the influence of Lord Beaverbrook. A massive new shadow factory started Spitfire production in early 1940 in Castle Bromwich. 27+ similar factories were also built across Britain. Germany didnt ramp up aircraft production until closer to the start of Barbarossa.

 

On top of all this theres the fact that any RAF Pilot shot down was on home soil whereas Luftwaffe Pilots became POWs.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


NSW Mntd Rifles #42 Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:15 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostaGundamDownHere, on 02 August 2017 - 03:02 AM, said:

 

Problems with the that argument:

-If Dunkirk had failed, it would have been a major blow to the morale of the entire Commonwealth.  Nazi Germany had been in discussion with several nations to try and pressure them into taking sides, switching sides, or staying out of the war altogether. For instance, they tried to convince Mexico to attack the US in order to draw off US troops from the war effort. It's difficult to tell if a loss at Dunkirk would have shaken colonial morale enough to for members of the Commonwealth to jump ship, but remember that Dunkirk wasn't a victory. It was a successful ending to an otherwise complete military failure. Had it been a complete fiasco resulting in 400,000 soldiers being killed or capture, I can easily imagine British colonies not volunteering to join the fight, or switching their allegiance. Fascist Spain, for instance, might have decided to join the Axis rather than remain neutral during the war.

 

-The US wasn't entirely thrilled after France surrendered and Britain limped away with a bloody nose. Imagine if Britain had lost nearly its entire army in the disastrous "defense" of France. Isolationism was high in the US at the time, and there were plenty of people who either didn't mind the Nazis or even agreed with them. (Little known fact: Henry Ford bought a copy of Mein Kampf for all his employees and considered it required reading.) Churchill also knew that the US was hesitant to even send the British supplies to fight the war, never mind joining in the conflict at all. Roosevelt also didn't feel like sending the British material aid that would just wind up at bottom of the ocean or in the hands of the Nazis. The US could simply have withdrawn its support of Britain and sued the Axis for peace.

 

-Russia: Most of Germany's casualties on the Eastern Front resulted from the failure to take Stalingrad before winter set in and during their chaotic retreat from the Russian counterattack. They initially advanced so far because they were able to catch Stalin by surprise in a three-prong attack. In real life, German forces could arguably have made it all the way to Moscow if Hitler hadn't decided to divert soldiers from the push to Moscow and relocate them to taking Stalingrad. In this theoretical, without having to worry as much about an attack from the West, he wouldn't have had to take men away from the attack on Moscow. He may even have taken Stalingrad as well, which would have destroyed Soviet morale while Germany's skyrocketed.

 

There are a lot of unknowns, but never underestimate the role morale plays in war. If Dunkirk had failed, all the Allies would have felt that loss. And the Axis didn't exactly want a war with America. They envisioned a world that was divided into three parts: Germany would control all of Europe and Africa, Japan would rule over Asia, and America's sphere of influence would be both North and South America.

 

I've only just read your post. My apologies. My workload has been crushing me lately. As an Australian I find your conjecture about the British Commonwealth rather confusing. In 1940 the large Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) were rock solid in their support of Great Britain. Between them they had an impressive capacity to wage war. Australia and South Africa had some of the largest and most modern steelworks in the Empire. After Dunkirk the productive capacity of the Dominions was focused on re-arming Great Britain. I have posted elsewhere how, in response to Dunkirk, Australia took great lengths to develop propaganda films showing that tens of thousands of Australians were armed, trained and ready to take on Germany. (The Wehrmacht had learnt to fear Australian troops in the Great War, and there is a good deal of oral history evidence to indicate that this fear had an impact on the Africa Korps facing the Australian 9th Division at Tobruk in 1941.) It is well known that, had Britain been invaded, the British Government would have relocated to Canada, the senior Dominion. Dominion leaders were also actively networking about ways in which to jointly prosecute the war. 

 

India was a concern and both Germany and Japan maintained a fantasy that they could draw Indians into the war on their side. India had the largest volunteer army in the war. This army remained loyal to Great Britain despite British military reverses. The collapse of British power in Burma in 1942 was the most likely event to cause an Indian rebellion. What did India do? It fought the Japanese to a standstill. Indians wanted independence, not invasion by totalitarian states. 

 

That's the Commonwealth. What about the Empire? African troops took Abyssinia from the Italians and fought tenaciously against the Japanese in Burma and Fijian troops fought the Japanese with all their Polynesian power I do not have much more information on independence movements, but from all I have read, the populations of the colonies generally chose to support Britain against the totalitarian Axis states. Independence waited until victory was complete. 

 

I am confident that an invaded Britain would not have been a defeated Britain. With a government relocated to Canada, the Empire could easily have been held intact and apply its impressive power to the defeat of Germany and her allies. Throughout the war the Commonwealth and Empire proved time and again that they would take the fight up to the Axis with the utmost vigour. 



NSW Mntd Rifles #43 Posted 19 October 2017 - 09:19 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostaGundamDownHere, on 02 August 2017 - 03:02 AM, said:

 

Problems with the that argument:

-If Dunkirk had failed, it would have been a major blow to the morale of the entire Commonwealth.  Nazi Germany had been in discussion with several nations to try and pressure them into taking sides, switching sides, or staying out of the war altogether. For instance, they tried to convince Mexico to attack the US in order to draw off US troops from the war effort. It's difficult to tell if a loss at Dunkirk would have shaken colonial morale enough to for members of the Commonwealth to jump ship, but remember that Dunkirk wasn't a victory. It was a successful ending to an otherwise complete military failure. Had it been a complete fiasco resulting in 400,000 soldiers being killed or capture, I can easily imagine British colonies not volunteering to join the fight, or switching their allegiance. Fascist Spain, for instance, might have decided to join the Axis rather than remain neutral during the war.

 

-The US wasn't entirely thrilled after France surrendered and Britain limped away with a bloody nose. Imagine if Britain had lost nearly its entire army in the disastrous "defense" of France. Isolationism was high in the US at the time, and there were plenty of people who either didn't mind the Nazis or even agreed with them. (Little known fact: Henry Ford bought a copy of Mein Kampf for all his employees and considered it required reading.) Churchill also knew that the US was hesitant to even send the British supplies to fight the war, never mind joining in the conflict at all. Roosevelt also didn't feel like sending the British material aid that would just wind up at bottom of the ocean or in the hands of the Nazis. The US could simply have withdrawn its support of Britain and sued the Axis for peace.

 

-Russia: Most of Germany's casualties on the Eastern Front resulted from the failure to take Stalingrad before winter set in and during their chaotic retreat from the Russian counterattack. They initially advanced so far because they were able to catch Stalin by surprise in a three-prong attack. In real life, German forces could arguably have made it all the way to Moscow if Hitler hadn't decided to divert soldiers from the push to Moscow and relocate them to taking Stalingrad. In this theoretical, without having to worry as much about an attack from the West, he wouldn't have had to take men away from the attack on Moscow. He may even have taken Stalingrad as well, which would have destroyed Soviet morale while Germany's skyrocketed.

 

There are a lot of unknowns, but never underestimate the role morale plays in war. If Dunkirk had failed, all the Allies would have felt that loss. And the Axis didn't exactly want a war with America. They envisioned a world that was divided into three parts: Germany would control all of Europe and Africa, Japan would rule over Asia, and America's sphere of influence would be both North and South America.

 

I've only just read your post. My apologies. My workload has been crushing me lately. As an Australian I find your conjecture about the British Commonwealth rather confusing. I'm particularly confused about the mention of Mexico and Spain. 

 

In 1940 the large Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) were rock solid in their support of Great Britain. Between them they had an impressive capacity to wage war. Australia and South Africa had some of the largest and most modern steelworks in the Empire. After Dunkirk the productive capacity of the Dominions was focused on re-arming Great Britain. I have posted elsewhere how, in response to Dunkirk, Australia took great lengths to develop propaganda films showing that tens of thousands of Australians were armed, trained and ready to take on Germany. (The Wehrmacht had learnt to fear Australian troops in the Great War, and there is a good deal of oral history evidence to indicate that this fear had an impact on the Afrika Korps facing the Australian 9th Division at Tobruk in 1941.) It is well known that, had Britain been invaded, the British Government would have relocated to Canada, the senior Dominion. Dominion leaders were also actively networking about ways in which to jointly prosecute the war. 

 

India was a concern and both Germany and Japan maintained a fantasy that they could draw Indians into the war on their side. India had the largest volunteer army in the war. This army remained loyal to Great Britain despite British military reverses. The collapse of British power in Burma in 1942 was the most likely event to cause an Indian rebellion. What did India do? It fought the Japanese to a standstill. Indians wanted independence, not invasion by totalitarian states. 

 

That's the Commonwealth. What about the Empire? African troops took Abyssinia from the Italians and fought tenaciously against the Japanese in Burma and Fijian troops fought the Japanese with all their Polynesian power I do not have much more information on independence movements, but from all I have read, the populations of the colonies generally chose to support Britain against the totalitarian Axis states. Independence waited until victory was complete. 

 

I am confident that an invaded Britain would not have been a defeated Britain. With a government relocated to Canada, the Empire could easily have been held intact and apply its impressive power to the defeat of Germany and her allies. It should also be remembered that all British, Commonwealth and Empire military forces had an almost seamless military culture, organisation and command structures. This made it relatively easy to re-organise and reinforce military formations during periods of crisis. The Empire also had large integrated training schemes based in the Dominions. One example is the Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS), under which volunteer airmen received basic training in the more distant Dominions and full combat training in Canada. This ensured a constant stream of trained airmen being channelled to the defence of Britain. Throughout the war the Commonwealth and Empire proved time and again that they would take the fight up to the Axis with the utmost vigour. 


Edited by NSW Mntd Rifles, 19 October 2017 - 09:23 AM.


Metalrodent #44 Posted 19 October 2017 - 10:21 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,432
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

Relevant here, he explains how and why a German invasion was simply not feasible.


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


NSW Mntd Rifles #45 Posted 31 October 2017 - 12:18 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMetalrodent, on 20 October 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

Relevant here, he explains how and why a German invasion was simply not feasible.

 

Excellent analysis.



OlivePrime17 #46 Posted 11 December 2017 - 03:48 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 502 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    11-27-2017
In the end,Germany was never going to win if the war continued. Even if Dunkirk was a success and the Germans had taken Moscow, they still would have lost. The USSR had most of their production facilities in the Ural Mountains by then, so Moscow would have only been a moral victory for Germany, not a strategic one. Germany didn't have the manpower or resources to survive a long war.  They thought the British would sign a peace accord, after France fell. When Britian refused, it sealed Germany's fate. Also as others have said, it was mainly USSR that bled Germany dry, of men, resources, and moral.

Al Bundy8971 #47 Posted 11 December 2017 - 07:33 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29006 battles
  • 641
  • [-L7-]
  • Member since:
    07-29-2015

Hypothetical's in history are always entertaining. What made Germany successful in the beginning stages of the war was surprise, speed, and technology. After the initial victories over unprepared countries, the allied technology and war machine caught up and most of the front lines were stalemates/defeats for the Nazi's. At the end of the day, it was one country (barring Japan because that was a different front) vs. a coalition, and they ran out of manpower/materials to keep up.

 

If Germany would have pressed Dunkirk with full divisions and captured the bulk of troops there, it would possibly have delayed the war a bit, but the same outcome was inevitable.



GardogOne #48 Posted 11 December 2017 - 09:12 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22541 battles
  • 293
  • [-NBD-]
  • Member since:
    12-27-2016

View PostNicholas Sapien, on 19 July 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

would the axis win or did the allies still have a chance?

 

We know america would have still ended up going to war against the Japanese, cause I doubt dunkirk would change the mind of the Japanese. Would America still declare war on Germany even if they knew Britain took a heavy hit? Would this effect the supply lines to Russia? Can Russia handle Germany alone? Would Britain have been finished off in operation sea lion?

 

 

 

The question could be would Nazi Germany still declared war on the USA?   



NSW Mntd Rifles #49 Posted 12 December 2017 - 09:33 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostGardogOne, on 12 December 2017 - 07:12 AM, said:

 

The question could be would Nazi Germany still declared war on the USA?   

 

Surely that is academic. After the Japanese entry into the war there would have been tremendous pressure for the USA to declare war on Germany and Italy.

SightlessRogue0 #50 Posted 12 December 2017 - 03:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19927 battles
  • 2,850
  • Member since:
    05-16-2017

View PostPATRIOTICxTBro, on 19 July 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

 

seeing as 80-90% of German casualties happened on the eastern front I think Russia would have been fine. the important question to ask is if Hitler didn't become so enamored with taking Stalingrad and went straight for Moscow or the oil fields to the south what would have happened?

 

the soviets did not wind up but without the unlimited and continuous supply of equipment and raw material from Canada and the US the Russians would have had to fight with nail clubs very quickly. They had mines and manifactures but even with all their goodwill it was not enough and that is without counting the mediocre quality of ammunition and the rest. I read before internet in a military encyclopedia that the sniper bullets and artillery shells were to be produced by the ally ... with the standard Soviet ammunition you could miss an elephant in a hallway.

Edited by SightlessRogue0, 12 December 2017 - 03:59 PM.

I use Google translator for english language

Lots of juggling in french text, sometimes translator in trouble with that. If you do not understand what I write, tell me.


PATRIOTICxTBro #51 Posted 12 December 2017 - 06:36 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15281 battles
  • 1,895
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013

View PostSightlessRogue0, on 12 December 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

 

the soviets did not wind up but without the unlimited and continuous supply of equipment and raw material from Canada and the US the Russians would have had to fight with nail clubs very quickly. They had mines and manifactures but even with all their goodwill it was not enough and that is without counting the mediocre quality of ammunition and the rest. I read before internet in a military encyclopedia that the sniper bullets and artillery shells were to be produced by the ally ... with the standard Soviet ammunition you could miss an elephant in a hallway.

This has nothing to do with the question at hand. It was asked what would happen if Dunkirk had failed not what would happen if North America hadn’t got involved.



xxFUZZYDUNLOPx #52 Posted 13 December 2017 - 12:57 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32990 battles
  • 562
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Lots of interesting points here, I'll add a couple

 

If the BEF had either all been captured or killed its unlikely that Churchills government would have survived.  likely succesor Lord Halifax would most likely accept German peace terms. There may have been many brave Anzacs willing to fight but the British ruling class were not willing to fight Germany.Churchill was the exception. Their biggest fear was that war with Germany would weaken Europe and make it vulnerable to communism. This was the main driver of appeasement policy. Giving Germany a free hand in europe was considered the lesser of 2 evils. Remember the ruling class in France and Britain were absolutely terrified of communisim. This was a significant part of the willingness of the French leadership to accept armistice. 

 

Part of any German peace proposal would have probably resolved Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean. Whatever compromise achieved would have 2 effects. Firstly no need for Rommel and the Afrika corps, they can take part in the eastern front. Secondly Italy with so many troops freed from fighting Britain its unlikely its disastrous campaign against Greece would require German assistance ditto Yugoslavia. German assistance to Italy against Yugoslavia delayed Barborossa by a few months, which may have been critical in taking Moscow.

 

A friendly British government may have assisted German efforts in its invasion against the Soviet Union. Supplies and even millitary equipment. A reliable supply of oil would be vital to German war effort. 

 

This would also effect German/Japanese relations,and therefore USA relations with Japan

 

 

 

 



DefiantSpurr #53 Posted 14 March 2018 - 08:31 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14239 battles
  • 2,666
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    11-11-2014

View PostxxFUZZYDUNLOPx, on 13 December 2017 - 12:57 AM, said:

Lots of interesting points here, I'll add a couple

 

If the BEF had either all been captured or killed its unlikely that Churchills government would have survived.  likely succesor Lord Halifax would most likely accept German peace terms. There may have been many brave Anzacs willing to fight but the British ruling class were not willing to fight Germany.Churchill was the exception. Their biggest fear was that war with Germany would weaken Europe and make it vulnerable to communism. This was the main driver of appeasement policy. Giving Germany a free hand in europe was considered the lesser of 2 evils. Remember the ruling class in France and Britain were absolutely terrified of communisim. This was a significant part of the willingness of the French leadership to accept armistice. 

 

Part of any German peace proposal would have probably resolved Italian ambitions in the Mediterranean. Whatever compromise achieved would have 2 effects. Firstly no need for Rommel and the Afrika corps, they can take part in the eastern front. Secondly Italy with so many troops freed from fighting Britain its unlikely its disastrous campaign against Greece would require German assistance ditto Yugoslavia. German assistance to Italy against Yugoslavia delayed Barborossa by a few months, which may have been critical in taking Moscow.

 

A friendly British government may have assisted German efforts in its invasion against the Soviet Union. Supplies and even millitary equipment. A reliable supply of oil would be vital to German war effort. 

 

This would also effect German/Japanese relations,and therefore USA relations with Japan

 

 

 

in the hypothetical situation there was also a possibility of British troops being used on the eastern front to fight the " the common for".

politically at that time it would of be easy to push the anti-communist narrative and take advantage of the rampant nationalism rife in the UK

 


Subscribe to my YouTube! 

https://www.youtube....ser/immortalfae

 


KILTED YAKSMIN #54 Posted 14 March 2018 - 06:30 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 60808 battles
  • 2,248
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014

View PostCruiser Abukuma, on 23 July 2017 - 02:12 AM, said:

 

lol wat... the RAF wasn't even close to full fighting force when the original beginning was supposed to take place.. This of course being back when the RAF were seeking reinforcements from the U.S.. However the actual invasion got postponed multiple times allowing great britain to bolster the RAF.. Had everything took place on time the RAF would have been scrambling and would've succumbed..  as for your bb fleet theory... That's not entirely true.. It depends of fleet composition. And if you are going to go the extra mile and try to say the RAF taking out bismarck is proof.. i'd reccomend you look back at what happened when bismarck wasnt by herself and or with one to two back up ships.. case in point the glorious loss that was the hood.. Had germany had their active fleet all together.. not their entire fleet mind you.. so take bismarck, tirpitz, the hipper class, and even their carriers which they did have mind you.. including graf zeppelin and her unfortunate fate.. you'd have a whole different story... I don't think you realize who you are arguing with here.. In regards to ways germany or japan couldve won the war.. I have many... The battle of britain being one of them... but please keep making your argument as it interests me to see people who disagree with these statements and try to have their own form of an argument

 

the RAF did not sink the Bismark.

WidowMaker1711 #55 Posted 14 March 2018 - 06:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11826 battles
  • 9,988
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostKILTED YAKSMIN, on 14 March 2018 - 06:30 PM, said:

 

the RAF did not sink the Bismark.

 

No that award goes to the RN with some help from the FAA and RAF Coastal Command.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


KILTED YAKSMIN #56 Posted 15 March 2018 - 04:50 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 60808 battles
  • 2,248
  • Member since:
    02-16-2014


NSW Mntd Rifles #57 Posted 19 March 2018 - 09:11 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostSightlessRogue0, on 13 December 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

 

the soviets did not wind up but without the unlimited and continuous supply of equipment and raw material from Canada and the US the Russians would have had to fight with nail clubs very quickly. They had mines and manifactures but even with all their goodwill it was not enough and that is without counting the mediocre quality of ammunition and the rest. I read before internet in a military encyclopedia that the sniper bullets and artillery shells were to be produced by the ally ... with the standard Soviet ammunition you could miss an elephant in a hallway.

 

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here. It is totally irrelevant to the topic. If you want to argue about who did the most the help whom there's a ton of examples that could be thrown back. The USA did not win World War II on its own. to assert or imply such a thing disgraces the sacrifice of the Soviet peoples, the Chinese, the Indians (who had the largest volunteer Army in the world), and numerous other nations who made critical contributions to victory over the Axis.

Albapfalzd3 #58 Posted 20 March 2018 - 03:17 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 23005 battles
  • 2,913
  • Member since:
    04-07-2017

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 14 March 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

 

No that award goes to the RN with some help from the FAA and RAF Coastal Command.

 

The RN didn't sink her either, she was scuttled. With that being said, she would have been sunk by the RN eventually if the KM hadn't beat them to it.

 

Roy



WidowMaker1711 #59 Posted 20 March 2018 - 03:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11826 battles
  • 9,988
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 20 March 2018 - 03:17 PM, said:

 

The RN didn't sink her either, she was scuttled. With that being said, she would have been sunk by the RN eventually if the KM hadn't beat them to it.

 

Roy

 

Theres still a debate over that too. As some eyewitnesses reported her as listing before the Germans say she was scuttled. But then with the damage she had already sustained and in the heat of a battle in the North Atlantic it could just be the way she was rolling. I suppose we'll never know conclusively either way.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


NSW Mntd Rifles #60 Posted 22 March 2018 - 01:47 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 38472 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostAlbapfalzd3, on 21 March 2018 - 01:17 AM, said:

 

The RN didn't sink her either, she was scuttled. With that being said, she would have been sunk by the RN eventually if the KM hadn't beat them to it.

 

Roy

 

Are you sure you're not confusing the Bismarck with the Graf Spee?





Also tagged with Dunkirk

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users