"Convoys: The British Struggle Against Napoleonic Europe" Topic

…and America

"During the Napoleonic Wars thousands of merchant ships crisscrossed narrow seas and wide oceans, protected by Britain's warships. These were wars of attrition and raw materials had to reach their shores continuously: timber and hemp from the Baltic, sulfur from Sicily, and saltpeter from Bengal. Britain's fate rested on the strength of its economy—and convoys played a vital role in securing victory.

Leading naval historian Roger Knight examines how convoys ensured the protection of trade and transport of troops, allowing Britain to take the upper hand. Detailing the many hardships these ships faced, from the shortage of seaman to the vicissitudes of the weather, Knight sheds light on the innovation and seamanship skills that made convoys such an invaluable tool in Britain's arsenal. The convoy system laid the foundation for Britain's narrow victory over Napoleon and his allies in 1815 and, in doing so, established its naval and mercantile power at sea for a hundred years."

Main page

link

Armand

Thanks, very interesting!

Thanks, Armand. Just ordered that one.

Fascinating topic. Bonaparte's almost non-existent knowledge of or interest in maritime issues were significant factors in his overall downfall. Germany in both World Wars made the same mistake of not committing enough resources to throttling Britain's maritime trade routes. Big armies marching around Mainland Europe are apparently so much more appealing?

Napoleon most certainly had a great interest in 'maritime issues.' He had fine ships built, and reorganized the navy's crews on a military foundation and model. What he couldn't change was the mindset of the admirals for the most part and that was a major problem with the Imperial Navy.

Happy for that my friend…

Armand

It's worth noting that convoys have had a long and distinguished history. The Spanish "plate fleets" carrying the wealth of the New World to Spain were effectively convoys.

Convoys were the standard means of wartime logistical transport for all maritime nations in the AWI and FR. In fact, the Glorious First of June was in fact a convoy defense action strategically won by France ….. the great grain convoy from America safely reached France and saved the revolutionary French regime.

B

Must be why the French refer to it as "The Glorious First of June"?

Hi Connaught,
The only reason that Villaret-Joyeuse was at sea with his fleet was to ensure that the great grain convoy from the Americas safely reached France. France was literally starving at the time and the political fate of the First Republic was considered to be hanging in the balance.

An essentially rag-tag French fleet fought bravely against a superior quality British opponent. The grain convoy safely reached France. The population was fed. The government survived.

No one cared about the tactical scorecard. The food crisis was averted and the government survived in exchange for the loss of seven ships. Villaret-Joyeuse was publicly feted and promoted.

Strategic Victory.

Look at it this way: the British revere, commemorate and celebrate Dunkirk to this day – yet driving the BEF from the shores of France was a major tactical/operational victory for Germany.

Nuff said. Moving on. Enjoy the day.

B

By the same token, the Germans' failure to destroy/capture almost 200,000 BEF and 140,000 French/Belgian troops was a Strategic Defeat?

Hi Connaught,

You wrote -

By the same token, the Germans' failure to destroy/capture almost 200,000 BEF and 140,000 French/Belgian troops was a Strategic Defeat?

The National Army Museum does not appear to consider the 1940 campaign in France a "strategic defeat" for Germany.
Go here – link

B

Perhaps because over here we can recognise a "victory" from a "defeat"?

Whatever turns you on, Connaught. Nice chatting!

B

Blutarski, you were the one who brought up the strategic qualifier.

From your link (and it's the NAM which is a somewhat disappointing visit these days), 'Hitler's failure to completely destroy the BEF allowed the nucleus of an army to be saved at Dunkirk. A further 140,000 Allied troops were brought out through Cherbourg and Brest.'

This would suggest that whilst both Case Yellow and Case Red were massive operational victories, Dunkirk and other evacuations (something we have a long history of) meant that 1940 was a strategic failure for Hitler. Britain remaining in the war restricts oil supplies and Germany now has to fuel large parts of Western Europe.

hi La Belle Ruffian,

You wrote -

Blutarski, you were the one who brought up the strategic qualifier.

>>>>> That is exactly correct. I committed the unforgivable sin of pointing out that, while Admiral Howe had won a convincing tactical victory against Villaret-Joyeuse and French Fleet at the Glorious 1st of June; Villaret-Joyeuse on the other hand had achieved an important strategic victory by safely delivering the the "Great Grain Convoy" from North America to France at a time when the entirety of France was threatened by a massive famine and the revolutionary government was mortally fearful of being overthrown by a starving populace. Why do you think Villaret-Joyeuse was praised, decorated and promoted after the battle? It was not for having lost seven ships of the line in a sea battle. This was apparently taken as an insult to the reputation of the Royal Navy.

From your link (and it's the NAM which is a somewhat disappointing visit these days), 'Hitler's failure to completely destroy the BEF allowed the nucleus of an army to be saved at Dunkirk. A further 140,000 Allied troops were brought out through Cherbourg and Brest.'

>>>>> Between the 2nd week of April and the 3rd week of June, Germans overran and captured Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. The British had about 400,000 men in France by May 1940; they managed to extricate about 300,000 men via Dunkirk … partly because Hitler ordered a halt to the German pursuit. I'd love to see precise figures on overall manpower losses – KIA and captured – but the British histories are not entirely explicit on the point.

This would suggest that whilst both Case Yellow and Case Red were massive operational victories, Dunkirk and other evacuations (something we have a long history of) meant that 1940 was a strategic failure for Hitler. Britain remaining in the war restricts oil supplies and Germany now has to fuel large parts of Western Europe.

>>>>> I will respectfully disagree with your opinion that overrunning the entirety of western Europe in less than three months does not qualify as a strategic victory. Dunkirk was certainly not a strategic victory, or even really a victory at all – more like a very lucky escape. Winston Churchill said after the Battle of France – ‘We must be very careful not to assign to this the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.'

>>>>> Dunkirk (IMO) had relatively little influence over the future course of the war except as a moral uplift to a shocked nation. But ….. this is, to be sure, getting quite far afield from the Glorious 1st of June.

Blutarski, I'm well aware of Churchill's quote, hence not referring to a strategic victory or defeat but rather a failure on the part of Hitler to also knock Britain out of the war. It sets the conditions for an Allied victory in 1945, which never fails to impress me given the date the US and Soviet Union commenced hostilities with Germany.

Whilst SS-GB and the like are fanciful, to my mind at least, in their ideas of German occupation of Britain, I have little doubt that a mass surrender of British troops will see a change of government and some form of negotiated settlement with Germany, including access to oil supplies. I do find it touching that you think so highly of us though, that Dunkirk was just a moral uplift rather than a seminal point (and not just in British Second World War history). 'Very Well, Alone Then' (plus the Dominions and Commonwealth; I recommend Edgerton's 'Britain's War Machine').

Do you really see US neutrality changing to a Germany first declaration of war in those circumstances or the von Ribbentrop pact not holding Russia in place long enough for Barbarossa (or an ill-fated Soviet pre-emptive strike)? Without Mediterranean disruption to timelines and fewer requirements to garrison the West (400k in Norway alone), a Soviet victory in the East by 1945 looks less likely.

I think without Dunkirk the war that unfolds bears very little resemblance to the Second World War as we know it and likely lasts much longer. It did take place though and as a result Hitler ends up fighting on two fronts with limited resources (to bring it back to Napoleonics).

Hi LBR,

You wrote -

Blutarski, I'm well aware of Churchill's quote, hence not referring to a strategic victory or defeat but rather a failure on the part of Hitler to also knock Britain out of the war. It sets the conditions for an Allied victory in 1945, which never fails to impress me given the date the US and Soviet Union commenced hostilities with Germany.

>>>>> We are getting very far afield from "The Glorious First of June". What started as a debate over what constitutes a "strategic victory" seems to have evolved into a discussion over German grand strategy early in WW2. From that perspective, Dunkirk indeed played a role; it finally convinced Hitler that his desire to establish some sort of diplomatic "modus vivendi" with Great Britain short of war was doomed to failure.

As regards the notion of US neutrality, the historical record of US policy in the years leading up to 7 Dec 1941 was a very clear indicator that Roosevelt NEVER intended to maintain the United States in a neutral diplomatic posture – quite the opposite in fact.

Whilst SS-GB and the like are fanciful, to my mind at least, in their ideas of German occupation of Britain, I have little doubt that a mass surrender of British troops will see a change of government and some form of negotiated settlement with Germany, including access to oil supplies. I do find it touching that you think so highly of us though, that Dunkirk was just a moral uplift rather than a seminal point (and not just in British Second World War history). 'Very Well, Alone Then' (plus the Dominions and Commonwealth; I recommend Edgerton's 'Britain's War Machine').

>>>>> Don't get me wrong. I do not in any way disparage the great emotional significance of Dunkirk to the British public – it could hardly have been otherwise; the "Miracle of Dunkirk" was an apt name for the event. But I am acutely aware of the effectiveness of state propaganda machines (and EVERY nation state has at least one!!!) in massaging such events to advance or promote particular state policy interests.

Do you really see US neutrality changing to a Germany first declaration of war in those circumstances or the von Ribbentrop pact not holding Russia in place long enough for Barbarossa (or an ill-fated Soviet pre-emptive strike)? Without Mediterranean disruption to timelines and fewer requirements to garrison the West (400k in Norway alone), a Soviet victory in the East by 1945 looks less likely.

>>>>> The United States, thanks to Roosevelt, was already an active and committed (though still technically undeclared) ally of Great Britain in its war against Germany long before Pearl Harbor and the ensuing but largely perfunctory flurry of war declarations that ensued. The record is quite clear on that point.

I think without Dunkirk the war that unfolds bears very little resemblance to the Second World War as we know it and likely lasts much longer. It did take place though and as a result Hitler ends up fighting on two fronts with limited resources (to bring it back to Napoleonics).

>>>>> IMO, it is impossible to know with any real confidence the possible political consequences (both in the USA and in GB) of a failure of the Dunkirk evacuation effort.

B

Blutarski, again, you brought Dunkirk up.

I agreed that it was a major operational victory, followed up by Case Red and the defeat of France.

I'm merely pointing out that the required strategic victory (nullification of France and Britain) before turning East was not achieved. Given your views on 1st and assumptions about French politics, I'm surprised this is contentious.

We all have opinions, but I think assuming that with 300,000 British prisoners in mainland Europe and Churchill's previous track record in the Dardanelles, there is little change to events out to late 1941 and beyond, is 'interesting' to say the least. I can only imagine what Joseph Kennedy's rhetoric and Hitler's peace offer would have looked like in those circumstances.

Absolutely Dunkirk was (and has been since) used for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't mean it can't also have been a key event. They are not mutually exclusive and I defer to the memoirs of those returning (including my grandfather), detailing the reception they received, just heartfelt emotion at the time.

Wars are not won by evacuations, I agree, but in this case, nor was it lost.

And on the topic of Napoleonic convoys, does anyone have recommendations of board games relating to this subject? I think it would be an interesting challenge.

Hi LBR

I think it best that we just drop our WW2 discussion at this point. Nice chatting.

- – -

Re AoS campaign rules that might be adapted to convoy campaigns, the best I can suggest is that you try to track down Albert Parker (a US PhD Age of Sail historian). He wrote a very comprehensive set of of campaign rules that could accommodate convoy operations. It has probably been ten years since I was last in touch with him however.

B

Hi LBR,

Re AoS campaign/convoy rules – what you want is a copy of

"WOODEN WALLS – Fleet Combat in the Sail Era"
by Albert C E Parker
copyright 1991. 2002

It has pretty much everything required (including maps and even weather patterns to conduct both fleet and convoy campaign operations on a theater basis.

You might be able to reach Albert here –
link

"Bloody Red Flag" is apparently Albert's latest gaming project, which hooks up to "Close Action" (a well known USA hex-based AoS miniatures rule set by Mark Campbell.

You might want to also check out his various AoS books.

B

"an active and committed (though still technically undeclared) ally of Great Britain" who charged for every single piece of equipment they provided?

Blutarski

Many thanks for taking the time to provide those links. I don't game AoS myself and was more interested in the idea of gaming convoys/blockades as a logistics/resource allocation exercise, hence wondering if anyone had done something in that vein as a board game. I'll keep looking.

Britain could not have won the war at sea without the crucial help of the Prussian, Austrian, Russian, and German navies.

And the valiant Swiss Navy.

I cannot believe the Portuguese Navy has been omitted!

B