boctok Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 Might anyone have an answer/theory as to why troops from the East Surrey regiment, in 1915 based/training in Dover, often travelled first to Southampton, and then crossed to France (Le Havre) to join the BEF, instead of taking the significantly shorter route/crossing direct from Dover to France? Since they were destined for the BEF in the Ypres area, sailing direct from Dover would have been a much quicker journey surely? My theories as to why: - The East Surrey regiment appeared to have a base in Rouen, up the Seine from Le Havre, so perhaps this was simpler? - Was the longer (more indirect) crossing safer - as any Germany destroyers had a greater area to cover - rather than the 'obvious' short crossing from Dover? - Was there more shipping capacity / dock facility available at Southampton/Le Havre, and thus the longer route was more efficient? Much appreciate any answers or alternative theories. Thanks/Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 (edited) In April 1915 the 50th Division infantry components (travelling from Gateshead/Newcastle area) sailed from Folkstone to Boulogne, the transport, HQ & mg sections sailed Southampton to Le Havre. I've always been under the impression that a large part of it was due to different port facilities and capacity. Pre-war it looks like the Boulogne/Folkestone route was very well established. Craig Edited 28 April , 2019 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_history_buff Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 My Great Grandfather was sent out to India in 1871 when the trooping season began, and sailed from Portsmouth. A generation later, most of the troopships seem to have been leaving Southampton. Given that Aldershot and its overspill was in the same county, this makes sense in peacetime. I suppose this legacy was to lead to the establishment of the base at Le Havre in 1914. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 47 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: I've always been under the impression that a large part of it was due to different port facilities and capacity. Add to that the congestion on the rail lines serving the various ports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 (edited) Michael has a good point in congestion. Southampton port and railway lines had been increased over the years, with another railway line into the port being finished 4 days after mobilisation with Southampton well positioned for Aldershot and Salisbury Plain. Then there is the tidal situation at Southampton with double high tides and why the larger ships and cruise liners still use Southampton. Still quite shallow of Dover with at low tides The Goodwin Sands to take into account (you can walk on parts of these sands at low tides). Railway communications played a large part, Southampton being central southern England was easily accessible from most parts of the Country by all railway companies and chosen as embarkation port No.1. After mobilisation, for the first 24 hours after the troops started moving, one train every 10 minutes passed into Southampton docks, only 1 was late and that by 5 minutes. I cannot imagine Dover ever being able to cope with anywhere near that number given the communications in Kent at that time. The congestion would have been huge with the amount of trains on Kent's limited railway lines. Hence more efficient to answer your question. Other ports were used for separate essential parts of Army needs, such as Newhaven for stores etc. Why they were moved from from Dover to Southampton I do not know given that Dover by that time had become an established route. Andy Edited 28 April , 2019 by stiletto_33853 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 28 April , 2019 Share Posted 28 April , 2019 (edited) Southampton was a 'traditional' trooping port and, as mentioned, the rail and other facilities were there. Additionally, there was plenty of land (Southampton Common in the early days - huge swathes of land on the Downs north of the city latterly) for training and encampments. Southampton had, and continues to have, very good rail links with the rest of the country. The source of a specific regiment, or its destination when it got to France, would have no influence. If you think about it, sending the East Surreys from Dover, but the East Yorks from Hull and the DCLI from Falmouth would hardly help concentration of units in France. Southampton was still used in peacetime and again in Round Two. Heavy equipment tended to be shipped from other places (in 1939 my father's RASC unit sailed from somewhere in South Wales). Edited 28 April , 2019 by Steven Broomfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boctok Posted 28 April , 2019 Author Share Posted 28 April , 2019 Thanks very much for everyone's comments and observations. Very helpful indeed! Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 30 April , 2019 Share Posted 30 April , 2019 (edited) Hello Patrick Another factor in not using Dover was that the French were extremely reluctant to let the British use Calais, where a British base was not established until late April 1915. I don't know whether they were afraid that the British would try to reclaim the area after Mary Tudor lost it in the 1550s, or whether the port freight facilities were not suitable. The other bases - Boulogne, le Havre and Rouen - were planned and organised to enable reinforcements and supplies to any part of the British line. Possibly for a similar reason, the French always insisted on having a French Corps holding the extreme northern end of the Western Front, on the coast. Ron Edited 30 April , 2019 by Ron Clifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1418 Posted 30 April , 2019 Share Posted 30 April , 2019 Hi Folkestone has predominantly been used due to the better transport links for rail services and port facilities than Dover at the time. The boat train was especially popular and had purpose building jetty’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 2 May , 2019 Share Posted 2 May , 2019 (edited) On 28/04/2019 at 11:48, Steven Broomfield said: Southampton was a 'traditional' trooping port and, as mentioned, the rail and other facilities were there. Additionally, there was plenty of land (Southampton Common in the early days - huge swathes of land on the Downs north of the city latterly) for training and encampments. Southampton had, and continues to have, very good rail links with the rest of the country. Ahhhh Southampton Common, the last time I walked across the common I tripped over a 1944 US mortar bomb. When the bomb disposal got there they stated they usually get about 4 call outs annually to the Common for ordnance of one type or another and promptly blew it up. Andy Edited 2 May , 2019 by stiletto_33853 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Clifton Posted 2 May , 2019 Share Posted 2 May , 2019 I wonder how many call-outs they got for pieces of "Kitchener's chocolate"? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now