Printable View
What happened to all the Enfields lost in the battle of France (including Dunkirk)? Is there a figure of how many were estimated lost by 1941?
Were they just rounded up for scrap, used for training or ?
Maybe they were collected up for their historical value (early collectors)?:madsmile:
If you subtract the number of rifles brought from France from the number of men brought from France in the Dunkirk evacation, you come to a shortfall in the order of 100,000 rifles.
Jerry worked as hard as he could, but he never did have enough weapons in 7.92x57 to arm everybody, although he did have enough (most of the time) so that only one standard of amunition had to be carried to the Front. Regiments being pulled off the Eastern Front for rebuild (and there were a LOT of those), for example, would leave their 7.92mm weapons behind for their replacements to use and when they got to where they would be taying, would be issued with captured weapons.
Also, large numbers of captured weapons would be turned over to occupation authorities for the use by the occupation troops and by local authorities who required weapons. An effort was made to keep rifles, for example, away from a ready source of uncontrolled ammunition. In the case of Norway, for example, many households had a supply of 6.5x55 ammunition...... so the Norwegian Krags were removed to an area where that ammunition would not be available to the Underground.
Photos do exist of SMLE rifles being carried in Occupied France.
Nice thing is that His Majesty got most of his rifles back in 1945. Some still soldier on to this day in plces. Greece, for example, was using SMLEs and Number 4s until comparatively recently and had Harley-Davidson WLA and WLC motorcycles (745cc sidevalve twin models with tank shifters and foot clutches) in regular service at least into the 1970s. The Harley, much as with the Lee-Enfield, was pretty close to indestructible.
Hope this helps a bit. Likely I'm wrong, anyway!
.
Thanks, I always read of the severe shortages of rifles after the evacuation but never have seen an estimate so even that helps.
Maybe the Lee-Enfield (all makes and models including the Lee-Metford) are the most traveled in history?
Here is a picture of a pile of all sorts of weapons gathered on the beach. Brens, Enfields, Berthers, what else?
What an amazing picture.............. Is that a Boys rifle laying along the bottom edge?
My neighbours father who was captured in France with the Royal Berkshire Regiment remembers POW camp guards guarding Russian 'slave' POW's being armed with British No1 rifles and the guards in his own camp having Brens in the watchtowers. I have only ever seen one picture of Brens in use by German troops and that was on a twin AA mounting at the submarine base in France. It was in the near background and definately Brens with the curved .303" magazines. That goes some way to agreeing that they were used, albeit by the back end/rear echelon troops/Navy etc
Here's another: a cheery Fallschirmjäger in Italy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
German Paratroops - German with Bren MG
Evidently a discerning individual who can appreciate a quality bit of kit. ;)
Mark
And another person who just can't leave that carrying handle alone :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by peregrinvs
What figures are you using? Just curious as, AFAIK, there isn't actually an accurate number of rifle losses - most are huge over-estimates. I believe the even some of the numbers that appear in contemporary 1940 government reports later turned out to be wrong, as they were extrapolated from surveys of only certain categories of troops - mostly the mixed "odds and sods" from support units that had to be sorted out in the assembly areas at Dover and Newhaven. Many of the line infantry units returned to UK fully-equipped with small arms for their remaining manpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by smellie
You have to be very wary of clichés about Dunkirk and its aftermath, as a lot of the "well known facts" are misconceptions. Not only did the majority of the Army bring its rifles back from France, there was in fact no shortage of rifles at all for the regular army, the reserves and the new divisions in 1940 - Britain had 1.25 million rifles immediately available after Dunkirk. Thats actually enough for at least 90 divisions on 1940 scales. In June 1940 Britain had 27 divisions formed (one reason - apart from the RN - why there was never any real prospect of a successful German invasion) and was in process of raising another 23 - 40. All of these 27 Divisions were fully equipped with rifles and MGs, and there was enough heavy equipment (tanks, arty, etc) in UK to fully equip about 12 divisions. The perceived "shortage of rifles" actually refers to the immediate need of the Home Guard of c 1.5 million men, followed by the general war estimate to raise British, Empire & Commonwealth forces of about 4.5 to 5 million men - hence the orders for c. 4 million No4s rifles.
Thunderbox, no offense, but where exactly did you come up with this information? I am specifically curious about the losses at Dunkirk, versus rifles available for issue in the summer of 1940. I have seen figures quoted as high as 250,000 small arms lost in the French campaign and its aftermath. Also-- the new book by Max Hastings "Winston's War" states there were only 75,000 rifles and 3000 BREN guns (if I remember correctly) available for issue in the immediate aftermath of the debacle in France. There's a helluva disparity there! I also simply cannot believe this in light of the known emergency U.S. shipment of close to a million small arms such as the 1917 Enfield rifle from war reserve stocks to help make up for the Brit's losses in France. That million rifles we shipped over was used to arm the Home Guard and free up the available SMLE's to arm the rapidly expanding Royal Army. The First Canadian Division dispatched to Britain in 1941 went over equipped with Model 1917 Enfield rifles and left their issue SMLE rifles at home for training new Canadian divisions. All this historical fact would seem to lead to the inevitable conclusion there was indeed a major shortfall in small arms in the immediate aftermath of Dunkirk.
Like any good troops I suspect most of the British troops effectivley rendered the majority of their rifles hors d' combat before leaving France or surrendering to German forces. I would also suspect that most of the rifles left anywhere on the beaches may have not been in an operable condition after lying out exposed to salt spray and the elements for a few days or weeks before being salvaged from the battlefield. I speak with some authority on this, having survived Hurricane Ike and helped clean well over 200 rifles and handguns belonging to friends or relatives in the wake of the storm. A goodly number of these weapons were fit only for the scrap yard after being submerged in brackish water for a few days. It would thus seem rational to draw the logical conclusion that most of the SMLE's left behind on the evacuation beaches were fit for little more than rebarb for the Atlantic Wall or tomato stakes when all was said and done. I would opine there never was any large scale issue of the Lee Enfield series rifles by the Germans to second line formations during WWII simply because the weapons no longer existed in any quantity or condition acceptable for issue.
Anyhow, a good thread and interesting to speculate.
There is actally quite a bit of documented stuff on axis captured weapons. The one I found very interesting was the use of US M1 Carbines by axis powers. It seems they captured several from resistance fighters and put them to use. I have also seen pics of axis troops with SMLEs, I suspect, they were prison guards or maybe some other non essential service. For the life of me, I can't see why it's so hard to understand why any nation, wouldn't reissue captured weapons to certain non essential troops of press them into service on the front, if need be, especially if there was plenty of capture ammunition to go along with them.
My uncle, told me that in the African campaigns and in Italy, they were allowed to examine and play with captured axis stuff but not allowed to carry any of it into combat. Plenty of good reason for this but there wasn't a shortage of weapons or ammunition that they were issued or trained with either.
smellie,
As far as subtracting the number of rifles from the number of men brought from France, I can account for the discrepancy by at least two units and show why this method of accounting is probably not too accurate.
Two of my uncles were evacuated from Dunkirk...One a Captain in the Royal Engineers and the other a bandsman. As the first would have been armed with a revolver, while the other, being assigned to ambulance and stretcher bearer duties, thus rather busy at the time, probably wouldn't have been armed with a rifle either. Obviously there were many other service personnel not issued rifles, so to assume each man getting back without one represents one rifle left on the beach, seems a bit of a stretch.
Don't remember at the moment where I read it, so will have to do a bit of research, but, I do remember at least one account of the evacuation stating that most men did bring their small arms back with them.
Terry
David Boyd has a very good website that gives info on UK stocks of weapons after the 'battle of France' here.
Figures are from the Ministry of Supply of stock held in the UK.
To add to the info given on the website in June 145,984 rifles (all types) underwent repair,9,887 new NoI MKs III and III* were delivered and 75,000 Ross rifles were delivered to UK stock.(plus 4,544 Thompson smg's)
In July, 28,764 repaired rifles,11,222 new NoI MKs III and III*s,and 8,760 Thompson smgs.
August, 10,593 rifles repair,18,919 new NoI MKs III and III*s, and 20,800 Thompson smgs.
Hope this gives a flavour to the situation :)
A similar thread on Brens - Bren gun figures 1940 and the fall of France
ATB Kevin
This has been an interesting topic,
Kev G's list of new No.1 MK III's would most likely be "Dispersal" rifles? Or were some new production from Lithgow and Ishapore?
In Junes MoS report it only mentions "a small steady supply is coming from Australian production"Quote:
Originally Posted by P-07ShortLee
ATB Kevin
Does Hastings cite his primary source for the figures ?Quote:
Originally Posted by barbarossa
ATB Kevin
Kev, borrowed the book from the local library and I do not recall if it was cited. However, Hastings has a track record for accurate nonfiction and accessed many of Churchill's personal papers from the era in the writing of the book.
I'm no professional and I'm certain Laidler might have a better handle on this but will say that there is a distinct difference between rifles being repaired and hence out of service and not on issue and those which can be counted as ready for issue or on issue. Whatever, the situation in June 1940 was pretty dire with lots of lost equipment that could not be quickly replaced and wartime production had not really started to gin up just yet. Think about whatcha got going on at that moment in time--RSAF is basically out of the rifle making business, the No.4 rifle is still a pipe dream not yet in production for another year and BSA is piddling along making a few thousand rifles a month. In June 1940, the BSA plant hadn't even been bombed yet and the beginning of the Blitz was two months away.
Yeah, there was a serious small arms shortfall in summer 1940 alright. Let's not lose sight of the fact that, as the above quoted table bear out, there was equipment for 27 divisions to defend the Home Island. Not a single rifle left in war reserve to arm anyone else. Where are the requisite reserve arms or new made equipment to arm the Commonwealth forces already being raised for wartime service?
Basically, it all boils down to one thing--in June 1940, there simply was no quick way to make up for the small arms lost in France. A most untenable situation!
Regards
Jerald Stamps
I haven't yet seen Hasting's book, but the figure of 70,000 rifles available in UK is orders of magnitude out - thats most likely just his repeat of estimated losses in France. I'm not sure Hastings has done any specific research about Dunkirk - he tends to use "standard facts" to pad around his core book theme. Most of the cutting edge "new" research with regard to small arms is actually done by enthusiasts known to these forums.
The gross numbers of rifles in UK hadn't changed significantly over the inter-war period:
There were about 2.2 million No1s in store after WW1, and these numbers would have been reduced slightly by the 1920s refurbishments and distributions around the Empire and client states (although the Dominions would have already been fully armed following WW1). There were probably about 1.25 to 1.5 million No1s in UK at the outbreak of war.
A further 700,000 P14s were reported in store in the late 1930s with respect to a proposed conversion project (another c.400,000 P14s not accounted for, some gone in overseas aid, some probably in depots but not covered in this particular report).
There is some evidence that "backloading of stores from France had occurred well ahead of the subsequent evacuations.
Churchill war report to the Commons 4th June 1940:
(We shall fight on the beaches, etc")
"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 the development of our general programme."
Churchill war report to the Commons 18th June 1940:
("the Battle of France is over... I expect the Battle of Britain to begin..."etc)
"During the last few days we have successfully brought off the great majority of the troops we had on the lines of communication in France—a very large number, scores of thousands—and seven-eighths of 53 the troops we have sent to France since the beginning of the war, that is to say, about 350,000 out of 400,000 men, are safely back in this country. Others are still fighting with the French, and fighting with considerable success in their local encounters with the enemy. We have also brought back a great mass of stores, rifles and munitions of all kinds which had been accumulated in France during the last nine months." (my bold)
"We have, therefore, in this island to-day a very large and powerful military force. This force includes all our best trained and finest troops and includes scores of thousands of those who have already measured their quality against the Germans and found themselves at no disadvantage. We have under arms at the present time in this island over a million and a quarter men. Behind these we have the Local Defence Volunteers, numbering half a million, only a portion of whom, however, are yet armed with files or other firearms. We have incorporated into our Defence Forces every man for whom we have a weapon. We expect a very large addition to our weapons in the near future, and in preparation for this we intend to call up, drill and train further large numbers at once. " (my bold)
Churchill was referring to land forces, with reference to the invasion threat, so this tends to confirm that about 1.5 million men were armed (- principally with rifles, according to the scales of the time). If you read Churchill's assessments (in speeches or his diaries) you will see that his information of the facts changes significantly between the 4th June (just after Op Dynamo was complete), the 18th June (after a fortnight of sorting out the returned forces) and later dates. It probably took weeks or even months for the armed forces to properly audit their France losses and update war diaries and divisional returns, and many key facts - such as small arms returns - may not have been accurately established until much later, by which time they were more or less irrelevant at Parliament and in the historical record.
It should also be noted that there were service rifles (No1s) not accounted for and held back from the Home Guard that were instead ear-marked for the inflow of regular army trainees.
You can also deduce the approximate number of No1s available quite simply: the No1 was the main service rifle up until 1942/3. In that time UK deployed about 55 divisions in the field, and about 2 million men under arms of all types ( the RAF, RN, depots and support troops also had large quantities of rifles, of course). Apart from a few thousand BSA MkIIIs and Dispersals, no significant quantities of No1s were manufactured (eg the thousands of SMLEs seen to day are about 99% WW1-dated). Note that, for example, there is no evidence of P14 (or M17, '03) use by the regular army outside of sniping and basic training - even during the invasion scare months of June-September 1940.
Had a little chuckle at that, LDV armed with files! I hope they were using Dreadnaught or Bastard files!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderbox
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
I cut and paste from Hansard, so it must be true! Maybe it meant files as in paper files - fighting the Nazis in Whitehall by chucking lever-arch binders out of the windows at them...
The figures are taken from Ministry of Supply data for deliveries back into UK stock (1st Sept 1940 and Dec 1st 1940)Quote:
Originally Posted by barbarossa
ATB Kevin
It's said that noone who got off the beaches in the 'small boats', - the boats that took them from the beaches to the bigger ships - took a rifle with them. They took up too much room, were too unwieldly and they'd never get onto the big boats if they had a rifle
Its an interesting topic; like most here, I have about 30-40 books relating to Dunkirk, and there are as many anecdotes about people chucking their rifles and kit away as there are those where Tommy x clambers up the netting sans trousers but with his rifle and dignity intact. Vide the number of accounts where "troops with rifles" are sent to one end of the vessel for AAAD duty, whilst everyone else empties their chargers to feed whatever MG the boat has. I've personally met about a dozen Dunkirk vets that I know about, but only ever asked one about this topic in recent years. He was (IIRC) Middlesex in 3 Div, and recalls quite adamantly that his lot boarded from the Mole, not only with personal weapons - but complete with their Vickers guns, including CES. (Incidentally, he really rated Monty as Div Comd - saying that his lot always felt they were manoeuvring under effective command, rather than being in any sort of disorganised retreat.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I wonder if there are enough vets left in the Dunkirk association to give a reasonable sample for a questionnaire? Apart from the rifles issues, I'm also curious about the (apparently) high loss of Brens compared to the fact than many (more unwieldy) Vickers appeared to have at least made it back into the evacuation zone - even if they did get the bodies less working parts dumped in the sea thereafter. I have a theory (to do with vehicle mountings and the scale of magazine issue) arising from a few anecdotes, but its practically impossible to find this sort of detail in published accounts.
Good posts, really put things into perspective.
Is it possible the some of the abandoned/discarded rifles were put to work by those who remained? Or do you think the choice would have been made nearer the water when faced with the condition (crowding) of the vessels?
I got this off the BBC web-site. It's just one eye witness account but this guy came off the beach with his rifle, and he was in the Service Corps!
Eric Pemberton, 82, was in the Royal Army Service Corps during World War II. He spent four long days on the beach at Dunkirk, but says he was one of the lucky ones.
You didn't know what was going on around you.
The Germans had got within shelling range, so we used to get in the dunes when we could, but we were helpless there too really. We just had to take it as it came.
Being a young man, these sort of things don't worry you, but if it happened now I'd be scared stiff.
They keep referring to the 'Dunkirk spirit' - everybody helped everybody. On the beaches there was no panic. We all took our turn when we waded out at night.
I was lifted out of the water by the Ramsgate lifeboat crew who put me onto a rowing boat. It took us out to a lifeboat and from there they rowed us out to a Dutch coal boat and that took us to Ramsgate.
They took my rifle off me and I had my first cup of tea for four days and my first sandwich for four days - so I thought I was a lucky lad.
One of the best books about Dunkirk is a recent one: "Dunkirk; Fight to the Last Man" Hugh Sebag-Montefiore ISBN 978-0-141-02437-0 Very scholarly work that covers most of the detail.
One of the bits which is missing from all histories about the Dunkirk evacuation is obvious to the military eye: none of the commanders involved has been indiscreet enough to mention the actual staff plan for the evacuation - ie which units were prioritised for evacuation (initially, of course, they only thought they'd save a few thousand) and which ones were assumed to be lost (not counting the sacrificial perimeter rearguards). By looking at the personal accounts, its possible to deduce what happened: the intact line infantry units were directed to the town and the Mole for immediate evacuation, followed by major formed divisional units, such as gun batteries and engineer squadrons. The odds-and-sods divisional and lines of communication troops, straggling back in small units and groups, were directed to the beaches four or five miles away. This reflects what happened in Greece, Crete and Norway, where brutal-but-logical decisions had to be taken about who to save and who to abandon to captivity.
This evacuation plan is reflected in the profile of the accounts: most of the "beach & small boats" accounts come from RASC, Signals, unit echelon troops, etc. This is also reflected in anecdotes that refer to lack of small arms or acquisition of small arms: the line infantry units mostly marched to the Mole with their full equipment - as you'd expect with infantry. The support troops, by contrast, had been heavily dependent upon motor transport. Anyone who has served can probably confirm that the back of a flaggies' wagon is more like a hamster nest of cooking equipment and cushty sleeping arrangements - with rifles usually buried somewhere at the bottom. Many accounts report the loss of rifles when transport was either shot up or abandoned. Many other reports also tell of disarmed men retrieving arms from such vehicles.
Good points brought up by Thunderbox.
Digressing a bit, but in any interview with a veteran, you're really hardly liable to hear one say something like
'.......I was scared xxxtless so I legged it down to the water, threw my kit off and just jumped into the boat'
'Oh, and what did you do with your rifle..?'
'Rifle......, what rifle......., when you're as scared as I was, it was in the boat and off me old son! You don't think I'm going to be trapped in France for 4 shillings a day do you?
I read a while ago Julian Thompson's book on Dunkirk, and it emphasized that the majority of the troops marched off in good(ish) order from the mole onto navy destroyers, carrying their arms. There's certainly no shortage of anecdotes of pongos shooting from ships with brens and rifles at German dive bombers. These personal accounts include those who were picked them up in small boats, as well as those rescued by destroyers coming alongside the mole. Not that anecotes prove anything, of course, although they add to the overall picture. Good thread though and very interesting.
I guess there must have been chaos in many areas and it's hard to imagine what was going through the minds of those stuck on the beaches within sight of the boats , but I suspect that any lad who chucked his kit and swam for it wouldn't have been allowed to queue-jump the lines of infantry standing shoulder deep out at the boats ... he would've probably found a line of underwater bayonets pointing his way back to the beach !
There may have been little boats picking up individuals though on the fringes .
The sand dunes must have been thoroughly sifted for milsurp treasure long long ago . Best dealers of crusty rifles were usually Belgian .
I guess either the Germans or the Belgians must have dredged the harbour around the Mole and the canals that criss-cross the Dunkirk hinterland - the quantity of dumped kit in the waterways must have been enormous. I imagine there must be lot still there, even in an era of metal detectors. Fairly large items are still turning up in Arnhem, which has been picked over for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by bouletbill
I was trying to find one amusing account (I think it is one of the Imperial War Museum's audio archives): one of the boats pulled a young lad out of the sea; he not only had his rifle and ammo, but was in fact in full marching order with boots, helmet, webbing, large pack, small pack, groundsheet & greatcoat (no idea how he managed to float). It turns out that he was so terrified of his Company Sergeant Major, that he'd decided to leave nothing behind!
Here's a cleaned and restored 1939 Bren that was found at the Bray Dunes:
BREN MK1 LMG on 1939 tripod
Mark