NO. Attack it at anchor! Like Pearl Harbor, using ships instead of planes, and unlike Mers-el-Kebir without any warning or negotiation....Gerard Heimann wrote:Copenhagen the fleet? As in mothball?
Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
I believe it's a reference to the British attack on the Danish fleet during the Napoleonic period. See for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... gen_(1807)
but remember it's wiki so don't take everything at face value without further research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... gen_(1807)
but remember it's wiki so don't take everything at face value without further research.
-
paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Here's my take on Mers-el-Kebir:
Both sides were in an extremely difficult position. The British could not afford to have powerful units such as Dunkerque and Strasbourg, less so the old battleships, even remotely within the reach of the Germans and Italians. But it is clear from the conduct of the negotiations, the long delay before finally opening fire that they tried desperately to preserve the ships and French lives.
On the French side, Gensoul and his officers had to be cognisant of the consequences at home should they capitulate. I believe that they had no intention of allowing their ships to fall into Axis hands, as demonstrated later at Toulon. But the British could not know this at the time. IIRC Gensoul did not communicate the entire list of options given to him by the British to his superiors. If he had, might this have changed the outcome?
But also, it is clear that during the attack, the British did not have their hearts in it. They ceased fire too quickly, leaving Dunkerque too lightly damaged resulting in them having to return in a few days. The escape of the Strasbourg was a result of the disposition of all of Force H too far west plus the delay in responding to the report of the ship leaving harbour. Had Somerville turned Hood around right away, today we might have another great slogging match to discuss!
So the Strasbourg reached Toulon in short order. The Dunkerque and Provence were repaired and also ended up in Toulon, all within much easier reach of the Germans, ultimately defeating the purpose of the attack. They would have captured them intact were it not for the "honneur" of the French officers and sailors.
Still, I don't see Mers-el-Kebir as a strategic mistake on the part of the British. It showed the world that they were not defeated and they were willing to stand up to the Germans by any means. The price was the negative feelings generated among the French.
To Ramuis, regarding the blockading of Mers-el-Kebir - I don't think this was a viable option in any way. You would need to maintain superior forces in the area on a continuous basis - where would they come from? In Force H, Hood was the only ship that (if pushed) could at least match Dunkerque and Strasbourg in speed. A simple foray by the Italian fleet into the western Med and Force H would have to sortie against them. Mers-el-Kebir clear! Not to mention being subject to air and submarine attack.
The Brits did what they had to do without the benefit of hindsight or forwardsight. But it is nevertheless sad that it came to that.
Paul
Both sides were in an extremely difficult position. The British could not afford to have powerful units such as Dunkerque and Strasbourg, less so the old battleships, even remotely within the reach of the Germans and Italians. But it is clear from the conduct of the negotiations, the long delay before finally opening fire that they tried desperately to preserve the ships and French lives.
On the French side, Gensoul and his officers had to be cognisant of the consequences at home should they capitulate. I believe that they had no intention of allowing their ships to fall into Axis hands, as demonstrated later at Toulon. But the British could not know this at the time. IIRC Gensoul did not communicate the entire list of options given to him by the British to his superiors. If he had, might this have changed the outcome?
But also, it is clear that during the attack, the British did not have their hearts in it. They ceased fire too quickly, leaving Dunkerque too lightly damaged resulting in them having to return in a few days. The escape of the Strasbourg was a result of the disposition of all of Force H too far west plus the delay in responding to the report of the ship leaving harbour. Had Somerville turned Hood around right away, today we might have another great slogging match to discuss!
So the Strasbourg reached Toulon in short order. The Dunkerque and Provence were repaired and also ended up in Toulon, all within much easier reach of the Germans, ultimately defeating the purpose of the attack. They would have captured them intact were it not for the "honneur" of the French officers and sailors.
Still, I don't see Mers-el-Kebir as a strategic mistake on the part of the British. It showed the world that they were not defeated and they were willing to stand up to the Germans by any means. The price was the negative feelings generated among the French.
To Ramuis, regarding the blockading of Mers-el-Kebir - I don't think this was a viable option in any way. You would need to maintain superior forces in the area on a continuous basis - where would they come from? In Force H, Hood was the only ship that (if pushed) could at least match Dunkerque and Strasbourg in speed. A simple foray by the Italian fleet into the western Med and Force H would have to sortie against them. Mers-el-Kebir clear! Not to mention being subject to air and submarine attack.
The Brits did what they had to do without the benefit of hindsight or forwardsight. But it is nevertheless sad that it came to that.
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Hi Paul,
I was merely suggesting that the British ships anchor outside to prevent the French from leavingfor the few days it would take for the two governments to negotiate a compromise.
PS: If Hood went after Strasbourg, Bismarck would be half the legend she is now due to the fact that (if) Strabourg decided to turn (due to the fact that all her main battery was in front of the superstructure
) and return fire to Hood, HMS Hood could have very well have done a repeat Denmark Strait 
GO BOOM!!!
I was merely suggesting that the British ships anchor outside to prevent the French from leavingfor the few days it would take for the two governments to negotiate a compromise.
PS: If Hood went after Strasbourg, Bismarck would be half the legend she is now due to the fact that (if) Strabourg decided to turn (due to the fact that all her main battery was in front of the superstructure
) and return fire to Hood, HMS Hood could have very well have done a repeat Denmark Strait GO BOOM!!!
-
paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Aw c'mon - give the Hood a break! (NOT the DS type of break 
)
...Much less likely vs. Strasbourg with her significantly lighter 13-inch shells, though Strasbourg might have stood up to 15-inch shell hits a bit better than her sister Dunkerque (11-inch vs. 9.5 inch belt). But I'm afraid I have lost my liking for "what if" scenarios because I have learned that there are so many variables involved that predicting the outcome is nigh impossible!
But hey...ANCHOR off Mers-el-Kebir for a few DAYS??? What're you trying to do to Force H guy???
Sitting targets waiting for u-boats, Italian subs even French subs and long-range bombers?? During the negotiations and the delay, the British Admiralty informed Somerville of an intercepted French signal ordering all available vessels to come to Gensoul's assistance. No my friend 
, this had to be settled quickly and Somerville still waited until sunset was approaching and he HAD to act.
Anyhow...in my gut I'm glad Strasbourg got away...a fine ship and crew! When I look at the picture of her under fire with four 15-inch shells bursting astern, it's a painful sight!
Provence is on the left with her guns trained to starboard. The Bretagne would be to the right of Strasbourg already ablaze from her magazine hit:
Paul
)...Much less likely vs. Strasbourg with her significantly lighter 13-inch shells, though Strasbourg might have stood up to 15-inch shell hits a bit better than her sister Dunkerque (11-inch vs. 9.5 inch belt). But I'm afraid I have lost my liking for "what if" scenarios because I have learned that there are so many variables involved that predicting the outcome is nigh impossible!
But hey...ANCHOR off Mers-el-Kebir for a few DAYS??? What're you trying to do to Force H guy???
Sitting targets waiting for u-boats, Italian subs even French subs and long-range bombers?? During the negotiations and the delay, the British Admiralty informed Somerville of an intercepted French signal ordering all available vessels to come to Gensoul's assistance. No my friend , this had to be settled quickly and Somerville still waited until sunset was approaching and he HAD to act. Anyhow...in my gut I'm glad Strasbourg got away...a fine ship and crew! When I look at the picture of her under fire with four 15-inch shells bursting astern, it's a painful sight!
Provence is on the left with her guns trained to starboard. The Bretagne would be to the right of Strasbourg already ablaze from her magazine hit:
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Paul,
Nice pictures. I get your point, if a French sub was in the immediale area (not in the harbor) I am sure it would have had a fun time with all the nice, big, juicy targets just outside I forgot the Dunquerkes were really Pocket BB's, they did not have the 15in (it was 15in right) quads of the Richelieu class. Well, still... Hood was really a BC (look what happened to her against a real BB ). What was the armor of Hood compared to Strasbourg
Still, I give the Strasbourg a 25% chance of blowing the BC HMS Hood sky high before the rest of Force H got there to bombard her
PS: Mind putting those two pics on the Sinking Ships Topic under Naval History?
Nice pictures. I get your point, if a French sub was in the immediale area (not in the harbor) I am sure it would have had a fun time with all the nice, big, juicy targets just outside
I forgot the Dunquerkes were really Pocket BB's, they did not have the 15in (it was 15in right) quads of the Richelieu class. Well, still... Hood was really a BC (look what happened to her against a real BB ). What was the armor of Hood compared to Strasbourg Still, I give the Strasbourg a 25% chance of blowing the BC HMS Hood sky high before the rest of Force H got there to bombard her PS: Mind putting those two pics on the Sinking Ships Topic under Naval History?
-
paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
IMHO if Hood had been able to slug it out with Strasbourg, it would be Strasbourg that would come off the loser - but that's sort of what your probability suggests. She would have been crippled by shells, gutted by torpedoes from Ark Royal's aircraft or British destroyers and ended up on the bottom of the Mediterranean with heavy loss of life. This is why I'm glad she got away.
Though the French classified Dunkerque (note spelling) and Strasbourg as "fast battleships", to me (and the Brits for that matter) they were much more akin to BC's - moreso than the German Twins. They were designed to catch and destroy the German panzershiffe (pocket battleships) and were armoured against 11-inch shells. Strasbourg's belt armour was about 1.5 inches thicker than Dunkerques, making it 11 inches maximum vs. Hood's 12-inch main belt. Strasbourg had overall thicker deck armour than Hood but thinner turret protection. Remember, Hood is considered by many as the prototype fast BB.
The main thing is that Hood's shells were about 700 lbs heavier - French 13-inch shell at 1200 lb with British 15-inch shell at over 1900 lb. Hood would have a much better chance of defeating Strasbourg's armour than the other way around.
Since I already posted Bretagne's sinking in the other thread, I don't think these pictures are needed - especially since Strasbourg was not sunk!
Here's Strasbourg outside the harbour firing at the British:
(If you want to see the whole series of Mers-el-Kebir pix plus some from Dakar go to http://mers-el-kebir.net/ and click on "Chronologie" at the top. The site is in French.)
Paul
Though the French classified Dunkerque (note spelling) and Strasbourg as "fast battleships", to me (and the Brits for that matter) they were much more akin to BC's - moreso than the German Twins. They were designed to catch and destroy the German panzershiffe (pocket battleships) and were armoured against 11-inch shells. Strasbourg's belt armour was about 1.5 inches thicker than Dunkerques, making it 11 inches maximum vs. Hood's 12-inch main belt. Strasbourg had overall thicker deck armour than Hood but thinner turret protection. Remember, Hood is considered by many as the prototype fast BB.
The main thing is that Hood's shells were about 700 lbs heavier - French 13-inch shell at 1200 lb with British 15-inch shell at over 1900 lb. Hood would have a much better chance of defeating Strasbourg's armour than the other way around.
Since I already posted Bretagne's sinking in the other thread, I don't think these pictures are needed - especially since Strasbourg was not sunk!
Here's Strasbourg outside the harbour firing at the British:
(If you want to see the whole series of Mers-el-Kebir pix plus some from Dakar go to http://mers-el-kebir.net/ and click on "Chronologie" at the top. The site is in French.)
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
-
paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
Nice new forum! Kudo's to Jose....
I've found a few things of interest in the time the forum was down:
First, a Youtube video showing actual footage at Mers-el-Kebir during the British attack and its aftermath. It starts with the arrival aboard Dunkerque of Foxhound's "last" message, followed by the arrival of the first British salvos. You see a near miss off the Strasbourg's stern while almost simultaneously the Bretagne is straddled and hit - apparently twice. She bursts into flame and burns fiercely as Strasbourg pulls away after which she blows. The Provence is shown with guns trained to starboard but no obvious damage, as is Dunkerque. Later there is footage aboard Provence as her crew battles fires and the shattered stern of the Mogador is shown. The aftermath shows bodies littering the decks of Provence or Dunkerque and the burial services.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bpPAmO0KHQ&feature=related
I also found the website of the survivors of the battle (via a link on HMSHood.com) where they express their opinion of the root causes. They stress that the root cause was squarely with Winston Churchill and his obsession with impressing the Americans, securing their support and getting them into the war. They say this is borne out in "declassified" documents. (Compare to his statement on his desire for Prinz Eugen to be intercepted by and fire on a US warship..) They feel that the argument that the French ships were in danger of falling into German hands was a smokescreen, used to conceal Churchill's real agenda. They feel that the wounds of Mers-el-Kebir are still deep and open although they are happy that reconciliation is taking place (e.g. with the attendance of Hood Association members at a recent memorial).
http://www.ledrame-merselkebir.fr/index.php?p=21
Now in fairness to Ramius' statement that preciptated this thread, I'd like to quote Admiral Sir James Somerville on the battle. He described it as ""the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us…we all feel thoroughly ashamed…". These were his feelings in the aftermath.
Maybe the world generally viewed it differently and Churchill certainly got his desired reaction from America. The question is was it really necessary or worth it? I really don't think 1,297 French sailors had to die for Britain, in its time of greatest need, to secure support from America.
Paul
I've found a few things of interest in the time the forum was down:
First, a Youtube video showing actual footage at Mers-el-Kebir during the British attack and its aftermath. It starts with the arrival aboard Dunkerque of Foxhound's "last" message, followed by the arrival of the first British salvos. You see a near miss off the Strasbourg's stern while almost simultaneously the Bretagne is straddled and hit - apparently twice. She bursts into flame and burns fiercely as Strasbourg pulls away after which she blows. The Provence is shown with guns trained to starboard but no obvious damage, as is Dunkerque. Later there is footage aboard Provence as her crew battles fires and the shattered stern of the Mogador is shown. The aftermath shows bodies littering the decks of Provence or Dunkerque and the burial services.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bpPAmO0KHQ&feature=related
I also found the website of the survivors of the battle (via a link on HMSHood.com) where they express their opinion of the root causes. They stress that the root cause was squarely with Winston Churchill and his obsession with impressing the Americans, securing their support and getting them into the war. They say this is borne out in "declassified" documents. (Compare to his statement on his desire for Prinz Eugen to be intercepted by and fire on a US warship..) They feel that the argument that the French ships were in danger of falling into German hands was a smokescreen, used to conceal Churchill's real agenda. They feel that the wounds of Mers-el-Kebir are still deep and open although they are happy that reconciliation is taking place (e.g. with the attendance of Hood Association members at a recent memorial).
http://www.ledrame-merselkebir.fr/index.php?p=21
Now in fairness to Ramius' statement that preciptated this thread, I'd like to quote Admiral Sir James Somerville on the battle. He described it as ""the biggest political blunder of modern times and will rouse the whole world against us…we all feel thoroughly ashamed…". These were his feelings in the aftermath.
Maybe the world generally viewed it differently and Churchill certainly got his desired reaction from America. The question is was it really necessary or worth it? I really don't think 1,297 French sailors had to die for Britain, in its time of greatest need, to secure support from America.
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
I'm not so certain.Maybe the world generally viewed it differently and Churchill certainly got his desired reaction from America.
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
One observation I would make on Paul's comments above is that it is today still a sensitive issue and it is easy to criticise with hindsisight and perhaps not fully appreciative of all aspects.
Churchill is now an easy target. But don't forget that without Churchill it is likely that some sort of surrender would have happened in early summer 1940, in which case well who knows there may not even be a France today.....
The action at Mers-el-Kebir was a throughly unpleasent business, but as I have said eleswhere war is not a game of cricket.
Churchill is now an easy target. But don't forget that without Churchill it is likely that some sort of surrender would have happened in early summer 1940, in which case well who knows there may not even be a France today.....
The action at Mers-el-Kebir was a throughly unpleasent business, but as I have said eleswhere war is not a game of cricket.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
-
paulcadogan
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 am
- Location: Kingston, Jamaica
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
As I think more on this subject, it ocurred to me that we tend to focus on the outcome - the British bombardment that caused so much death and destruction - and not on the whole process. On the British side, the bombardment was not a foregone conclusion, with a number of alternatives given to Admial Gensoul. Still one can see the difficulty in his responding favourably to something like this when facing 24 15-inch guns!
Why didn't he quickly receive Captain Holland as an envoy from an ally? Why not demand a direct meeting with Somerville aboard Hood? Why not communicate the entire contents of the British ultimatum to his superiors instead of just reporting "Sink your ships within 6 hours or we will force you to do so" and stating that "French ships will meet force with force"? Could he not have agreed to put to sea, leave the Mediterranean and head for Dakar or Martinique?
With regards to Churchill, I was just reporting what the group was saying and asking whether the attack really made a difference to US support for Britain. Churchill knew that if Germany was to be defeated, US involvement was the key, so naturally anything that he felt might bring this closer was "desirable" to him. So I don't doubt that he wanted to display British resolve to the US.
But question: How long would it have taken for the US to enter the war with Germany if Japan had not attacked?
Paul
Why didn't he quickly receive Captain Holland as an envoy from an ally? Why not demand a direct meeting with Somerville aboard Hood? Why not communicate the entire contents of the British ultimatum to his superiors instead of just reporting "Sink your ships within 6 hours or we will force you to do so" and stating that "French ships will meet force with force"? Could he not have agreed to put to sea, leave the Mediterranean and head for Dakar or Martinique?
With regards to Churchill, I was just reporting what the group was saying and asking whether the attack really made a difference to US support for Britain. Churchill knew that if Germany was to be defeated, US involvement was the key, so naturally anything that he felt might bring this closer was "desirable" to him. So I don't doubt that he wanted to display British resolve to the US.
But question: How long would it have taken for the US to enter the war with Germany if Japan had not attacked?
Paul
Qui invidet minor est - He who envies is the lesser man
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
No, not with the state of negotiations with the Germans.Could he not have agreed to put to sea, leave the Mediterranean and head for Dakar or Martinique?
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
Basically the French were between a rock and a hard place with agreement with the Germans
although I do think they would have scuttled the ships to stop the Germans/Italians getting there hands on them if it really came down to it.
Where the Fleet commanders good at negatiations by any interest, or were they more of Bull in a China Shop type of people?
although I do think they would have scuttled the ships to stop the Germans/Italians getting there hands on them if it really came down to it.
Where the Fleet commanders good at negatiations by any interest, or were they more of Bull in a China Shop type of people?
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
The problem for the admirals was that they had no room for negotiation. The French were not authorized to do what the British demanded.
Re: Mers-el-Kebir and Toulon
It is difficult to understand the situation from today's perspective, but it had a powerful effect on world opinion in July 1940, and it restored much of Britain's lost prestige in the USA:
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/The_French_navy_NYT.pdf
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/war_to_the_bitter_end.pdf
as revealed by these NY Times articles.
Britain needed to keep USA public opinion onside, and they also sent a powerful message to General Franco, informing him, of what might happen to the Spanish Navy, if he strayed too far in assisting the Axis.
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/The_French_navy_NYT.pdf
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/war_to_the_bitter_end.pdf
as revealed by these NY Times articles.
Britain needed to keep USA public opinion onside, and they also sent a powerful message to General Franco, informing him, of what might happen to the Spanish Navy, if he strayed too far in assisting the Axis.