im trying to figure out after dunkirk the uk were very short of arms. rifles, guns, tanks, trucks but it was mostley the B.E.F who were equiped at dunkirk. the US sent us a million rifles, surely they could have sent alot more and better at that time. if they did why anounce it was a million ww1 rifles. ive seen some figures before on this forum that states we had quite a few AA's, guns, cannons tanks etc after dunkirk. but again i read there was only one armed division montys. sapper adds that he only had 1 bullet. were were all the rest i find it hard to believe with our industry and our build upto wwII that after a few months we had nothing. if the battle of france had continued for a few more months are we to say that the uk troop would have run out. isnt it the case that we had the equipment but was supplied to our other allies thanks
the US sent us a million rifles, surely they could have sent alot more and better at that time. if they did why anounce it was a million ww1 rifles. Better? The only rifle I can think of at the moment that might have been both obsolete and in stores is the M1917 (British Pattern 1914). In 1940, at the time of Dunkirk, the majority of U.S. infantry were armed with M1903 Springfields. Production of the M1 Garand was at this point only a dribble compared to what would be needed later. JT
After the First World War the British Government came to the conclusion that there would not be another major war for at least 20 years. Therefore, the military was scaled back dramatically. The problem was that every year after the same conclusion was reached. It was not really until the Munich Agreement in September 1938, that Britain really started to re-arm itself. My grandfather's RE company in France at the time of Dunkirk, had to hold a bridge for a short period until relieved by the infantry. He was issued with five bullets! He was rather proud of the fact that he managed to get back to England with his Enfield (and five bullets). A lot of equipment was lost in France but not everything was sent to the continent in the first place. Also after Dunkirk, with the threat of invasion, the idea was to get every man in the country armed with something more than just a pitchfork. That being the purpose of the small arms shipped from the US. The British Government deliberately spread a rumour that they were receiving thousands of Tommy Guns (Thompson sub-machine guns) from the US, in a bid to frighten Jerry. Lee
Some of the Tommy Guns went to France with the Second BEF as this photo shows. A soldier of the 52nd Lowland Division poses with his Thompson sub-machine gun and a Bedford MWD truck in France, 13 June 1940.
A great photo Owen. Here's another one of a Tommy Gun in action: PS I should explain that's from a German propaganda leaflet, hence the "Wanted for murder" nonsense!
I have never seen a Tommy gun, and I doubt that very many other service men have! Sapper Brian - they were very common in infantry battalions, even in 1944-45. This is one with a soldier in Italy, April 1944:
im trying to figure out after dunkirk the uk were very short of arms. rifles, guns, tanks, trucks but it was mostley the B.E.F who were equiped at dunkirk. the US sent us a million rifles, surely they could have sent alot more and better at that time. if they did why anounce it was a million ww1 rifles. ive seen some figures before on this forum that states we had quite a few AA's, guns, cannons tanks etc after dunkirk. but again i read there was only one armed division montys. sapper adds that he only had 1 bullet. were were all the rest i find it hard to believe with our industry and our build upto wwII that after a few months we had nothing. if the battle of france had continued for a few more months are we to say that the uk troop would have run out. isnt it the case that we had the equipment but was supplied to our other allies thanks Raf, Its hard to beleive but its true, the land army was in a sorry state. United States was no better, probably worse shape. THe BEF was a tiny force, on paper it looked well equiped but in real terms it was far from ideal and it was so small it didnt have a great deal of equipment to start with. Kev
The Unofficial Tommy Gun Page Between February 1940 and the end of the year, the British placed a total of thirteen orders for 107,500 Thompsons with contracts totaling $21,502,758. From George Forty's Handbook of The British Army he says on page 197 about the Rifle No.3 Mk 1, P14 that some 785,000 were sold to the UK from the USA. More on P14, >> P14 To summarise, the P14 is a British design, based on a German action, manufactured in America!
There seems to be a lot of cross information doesn't there. All may not have been aware what actually was available at the time however by the information below there were stocks in storage and stocks that had arrived. Quote: Originally Posted by freebird Hey don't forget the Canadian 1st & 2nd div's were in Britain in the fall of 1940! 1st Canadian Div December 1939 2nd Canadian Div August 1940 Australian 18th Brigade Australian 25th Brigade (Raised in England) 2nd Echelon, 2nd NZEF - On assembly on 12 January 1940arrived in England 16th June 1940 Quote: Papakura: 'C' Squadron, Divisional Cavalry Regiment 21st Infantry Battalion HQ NZE (details) 7th Field Company, NZE 11th Forestry Company, NZE Ngaruawahia: HQ NZA (details) HQ and 31st, 32nd Batteries, 7th Anti-Tank Regiment, NZA 5th Field Regiment, NZA Palmerston North: 28th (Maori) Infantry Battalion Trentham: HQ NZ Division (details) Divisional Signals (details) 22nd Infantry Battalion HQ 5th Infantry Brigade (4th and 5th Anti-Tank Companies attached) Burnham: 23rd Infantry Battalion HQ Railway Construction and Maintenance Group 9th Railway Survey Company, NZE 10th Railway Construction Company, NZE Added to this there were 130,000 French troops lifted from Dunkirk. In June 1940 the British Army had 22 infantry divisions and one armoured division. The infantry divisions were, on average, at half strength, had only one-sixth of their normal artillery and were almost totally lacking in transport. There was a critical shortage of ammunition such that none could be spared for practice. VII corps was formed to control the Home Forces' general reserve, and included the First Armoured Division. Although: These munitions etc were received from the US just after Dunkirk in July 1940" - 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles, - 130 million rounds .30 ammo. - 87,000 machine guns (various types) - 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo. - 900 75mm field guns - 1,075,000 75mm shells - 308 3" Stokes mortars - 97,680 Stokes mortar shells - 25,000 BAR's - 21,000 revolvers - 1,000,000 revolver cartridges So not quite defenceless one would think.
"785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles," Now that's an interesting figure. What was the U.S. doing with all those Lee-Enfields in the first place? And what cartridge were they chambered for? RE: The revolvers. Ordnance declared the M1917 cal. 45 revolver obsolete, and shipped about 20,000 Smith & Wesson M1917s to Britain. JT
thanks spidge, was the shortage thing a moral boosting thing by the government. i know we lost alot in dunkirk but there seems to have been reserves and new supplies daily. what was the uk figures guns,tanks,ammo, planes etc just after d,day
"785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles," Now that's an interesting figure. What was the U.S. doing with all those Lee-Enfields in the first place? And what cartridge were they chambered for? Perhaps leftovers from the Great War? Were not a goodly number of US troops initially issued with L-Es, like they were with the French Chauchat?
Raf, if you go to war you take most all of your equipment with you for the 'hot' bit and leave behind only what you feel is necesary for home defence. This is what they did, and they lost nearly everything in the process. I'll dig out some figures for tank strength post dunkirk this evening, if i remember right they make grim reading. It doesn't really matter for that immediate post-loss period that you can produce more eventually, the point is that the enemy was still fully equipped (even boosted with captured gear) and a potential massive threat. It's one of the few periods in Alanbrooke's diaries that has a real tang of desperation about it as they could barely organise a decent defence army, let alone an offensive one at the time. Cheers, Adam.
Perhaps leftovers from the Great War? Were not a goodly number of US troops initially issued with L-Es, like they were with the French Chauchat? Not that I've ever heard of. The principal service rifle, especially during the early months of U.S. involvement in WWI, was the M1917 (Pattern14) rifle chambered for the U.S. .30 caliber round (.30-'06). I suspect if we remove the word "Lee" from that list, we might be closer to the truth, since Americans refer to the M1917 rifle as an "Enfield." Here's a bit from one of Ian Hogg's books" "The Model 1917 is identical in appearance with the British Pattern 1914 rifle, so much so that during WWII (when a million or so Model 1917 rifles were sold to Britain for the Home Guard) they were marked around the butt with a two-inch stripe of red paint to draw attention to their caliber." JT
thanks spidge and von von. i acknowledge your knowledge, but correct please corret me !! the BEF took most of the equipment leaving the regular army with little. if you send all you equipment into battle why leave the main force at home ?? with these figures that spidge produced These munitions etc were received from the US just after Dunkirk in July 1940" - 785,000 .30 cal. Lee-Enfield rifles, - 130 million rounds .30 ammo. - 87,000 machine guns (various types) - 6 million rounds .30 cal. machine gun ammo. - 900 75mm field guns - 1,075,000 75mm shells - 308 3" Stokes mortars - 97,680 Stokes mortar shells - 25,000 BAR's - 21,000 revolvers - 1,000,000 revolver cartridges So not quite defenceless one would think. was there enough for the BEF, regular canadian and french i think sapper should have at least got another bullet incase he missed !!!
You divide that up among the sheer number of men theoretically under arms and, while nobody can say it was nothing, it doesn't really amount to much. A serious lack of tanks, Heavy weapons & transport for a start. Not much to rely on if the modern & well equipped Wehrmacht did ever get across the channel. There really was a very vulnerable point for Great Britain when without the RAF & Navy she'd have had little else to defend herself with other than a belligerent spirit. I'll go and have a proper look for the tank status mate. For a start, (from the Oxford Companion) they lost nearly 64,000 vehicles & 2,472 guns. You don't replace that in a hurry no matter how desperate.
From David Fletcher's 'The Great Tank Scandal' When the survivors of the B.E.F. struggled home in June 1940 they brought back with them thirteen tanks - six light and seven cruisers. They left behind in France another 691, not counting armoured cars and carriers... They joined 340 tanks and armoured cars - not including scout cars, carriers and obsolete training machines - still in the United Kingdom. So take away the armoured cars and you are left with less than 300 tanks in Britain in June 1940. Desperate times indeed.
I was interested to read that Sapper had not seen a Thompson. Were there more Stens than Thompsons used by UK forces in Europe after Dunkirk and Sapper if I remember correctly weren't you an engineer and didn't they usually have carbines or SMGs rather than rifles? What was the focus of the British Arms industry? Did they equip divisions or regiments completely or spread around equipment to all divisions and leave more understrength ones on the table?
