- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How well did the French Army of 1940 fight against the Germans?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:08 pm
Dude on Quora says: Curiously, before the end of 1942 and with a few rare exceptions, no other land army was able to fight tactically as effectively against the Wehrmacht as the French army of 1940.
It was an extremely powerful army that was caught up in the surprise of the Ardennes breakthrough and was rushed by new tactics never seen before in a crushing defeat due to speed.
The French military doctrines were not "backward", it was the Germans who succeeded by the surprising success through the Ardennes to impose their tempo of the war of movement.
The opposite was possible and nothing was played in advance.
It was a military campaign opposing the "blitzkrieg" against a kind of powerful wall of concrete and defensive firepower.
The French "wall" was quite capable of crushing the German "blitzkrieg" and was not in itself an archaic military doctrine.
The Germans had a significant number of hard times in a military campaign that was in fact extremely brutal and deadly.
Nearly 200,000 German losses, in 6 weeks of campaigns, attest to this.
A non-exhaustive list of these "hard times": Battle of Hannut (12-13 May 1940), Battle of Monthermé (13-15 May, 1940), Battle of Gembloux (13-15 May 1940), Battle of Stonne (15-25 May 1940), Battle of Dunkirk (27 May-4 June 1940), Battle south of Amiens (5-9 June 1940), Battle of Rethel (7-9 June 1940), Battle of Saint
It was an extremely powerful army that was caught up in the surprise of the Ardennes breakthrough and was rushed by new tactics never seen before in a crushing defeat due to speed.
The French military doctrines were not "backward", it was the Germans who succeeded by the surprising success through the Ardennes to impose their tempo of the war of movement.
The opposite was possible and nothing was played in advance.
It was a military campaign opposing the "blitzkrieg" against a kind of powerful wall of concrete and defensive firepower.
The French "wall" was quite capable of crushing the German "blitzkrieg" and was not in itself an archaic military doctrine.
The Germans had a significant number of hard times in a military campaign that was in fact extremely brutal and deadly.
Nearly 200,000 German losses, in 6 weeks of campaigns, attest to this.
A non-exhaustive list of these "hard times": Battle of Hannut (12-13 May 1940), Battle of Monthermé (13-15 May, 1940), Battle of Gembloux (13-15 May 1940), Battle of Stonne (15-25 May 1940), Battle of Dunkirk (27 May-4 June 1940), Battle south of Amiens (5-9 June 1940), Battle of Rethel (7-9 June 1940), Battle of Saint
This post was edited on 11/24/19 at 8:09 pm
22
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:09 pm to Champagne
Did you know that despite an overwhelming disproportion of means in their favour, all the first German assaults were repelled at Sedan by an unfortunate infantry division of the 2nd French reserve fighting against 3 Panzer divisions, 1 mechanized regiment supported by 1,300 aircraft?
Exceptional German officers and non-commissioned officers were able to motivate their troops, sometimes in panic, and restart the attacks.
To this are added many heroic and "abnormal" French feats of arms such as Saint Dié and Saumur in June 1940.
The Germans succeeded in a decisive knocking out by surprise.
The agreed narrative of the history of the campaign of France is a restrospective illusion based on the final result and lacking critical thinking.
There are several studies by first rate French, German and American historians that demystify the point of view of an intrinsically doomed to the defeat army in the face of an intrinsically superior Wehrmacht because of "strategic errors" or "backward" military doctrine of their main opponent.
Exceptional German officers and non-commissioned officers were able to motivate their troops, sometimes in panic, and restart the attacks.
To this are added many heroic and "abnormal" French feats of arms such as Saint Dié and Saumur in June 1940.
The Germans succeeded in a decisive knocking out by surprise.
The agreed narrative of the history of the campaign of France is a restrospective illusion based on the final result and lacking critical thinking.
There are several studies by first rate French, German and American historians that demystify the point of view of an intrinsically doomed to the defeat army in the face of an intrinsically superior Wehrmacht because of "strategic errors" or "backward" military doctrine of their main opponent.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:10 pm to Champagne
quote:
How well did the French Army of 1940 fight against the Germans?
They fell in 6 weeks.... so... uh.... not well.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:12 pm to Champagne
quote:
The French "wall" was quite capable of crushing the German "blitzkrieg" and was not in itself an archaic military doctrine.
That’s like saying, well we could have won but we didn’t. And seeing as the nazi flag flew over Paris, I’d say their armies weren’t very successful.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:15 pm to Champagne
quote:
The French "wall" was quite capable of crushing the German "blitzkrieg" and was not in itself an archaic military doctrine.
Except when they went where it wasn’t
Dumbest thing ever posted
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:19 pm to Champagne
Poorly. They got crushed
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:24 pm to beerJeep
quote:
They fell in 6 weeks.... so... uh.... not well
Perhaps. But they destroyed a sizable portion of the Luftwaffe.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:28 pm to Hogbit
You haven't read one damn book about the Battle for France in 1940 have you?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:29 pm to Champagne
Problem has never been the bravery or fighting ability of French soldiers.
It's always been their commanders putting themm in impossible situations
It's always been their commanders putting themm in impossible situations
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:29 pm to TigerStripes06
And you have read how many books on this campaign?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:30 pm to Strannix
And pray tell us about the many books you've read on this campaign.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:30 pm to beerJeep
Those six weeks cost the Germans everything in the end.
The loss of material for Nazis was a stomach wound. Followed by the Battle of Britain, near self amputation.
There's lots of things to be pissed about France in WWII near all of it is after they went Vichy and the rest is trying to pretend the resistance was even close to Northern Europe's actual resistance. But those six weeks bleed the Germans on a strategic level that would culminate in stopping short of Moscow. It's a for want of a nail that happened on both sides.
The loss of material for Nazis was a stomach wound. Followed by the Battle of Britain, near self amputation.
There's lots of things to be pissed about France in WWII near all of it is after they went Vichy and the rest is trying to pretend the resistance was even close to Northern Europe's actual resistance. But those six weeks bleed the Germans on a strategic level that would culminate in stopping short of Moscow. It's a for want of a nail that happened on both sides.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:30 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
But they destroyed a sizable portion of the Luftwaffe.
More so because the doctrine during the invasion of France was more dictated to supporting ground troops over French airfields and air superiority.
By supporting the ground troops, they faced far more anti-air fire than had they been going simply for air superiority first.
Losing 1/3 of your aircraft in 6 weeks is one hell of a loss though.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:30 pm to Hogbit
And you know this from your extensive study on the topic.
Tell us about the many books you've read on the topic.
Tell us about the many books you've read on the topic.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:31 pm to Champagne
Relax, Froggy.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:33 pm to Champagne
quote:
Tell us about the many books you've read on the topic.
Think we got it the first two times, champ.
Reading books is fine. Helps the brain.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:34 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Those six weeks cost the Germans everything in the end.
Eh. I think the war was still winnable for the Germans up until the invasion of the USSR. That is the point that germany sealed their fate imo.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:38 pm to Hogbit
The French Army was actually much better trained and equipped than the German Army. At the time the French Army was considered the preeminent Army in the world.
The French were defeated by two factors:
1. German generals were significantly smarter and more capable than their French counterparts, on average.
2. The German army was on drugs (this is always sort of mentioned in passing as an “interesting” footnote, but it was actually a huge advantage. Many French soldiers accounts mention their astonishment at how quickly the German troops moved and how exhausted they were in the face of German troops who never got tired.
An example of terrible French leadership: the German advance into France was stalled by the largest traffic jam in history. All their trucks, tanks, and soldiers spent nearly three days stuck on a two lane road through the forest. French scout planes sighted them and reported to HQ that a massive invasion force was stuck on the road for miles. This road was well within the range of the primary French bomber base. They could have literally obliterated the German Army and ended the war right there with minimal casualties, but the French commander-in-chief didn’t believe multiple scout pilot reports because he had a personal rivalry with the French Air Chief. Instead he ordered his troops to hold their positions on the Maginot Line and left his bombers grounded. After three days the Germans finally poured through and caught the French completely by surprise.
I firmly believe that a French force led by somebody like Patton or Rommel would have been marching into Berlin within a year of the outbreak of war.
The French were defeated by two factors:
1. German generals were significantly smarter and more capable than their French counterparts, on average.
2. The German army was on drugs (this is always sort of mentioned in passing as an “interesting” footnote, but it was actually a huge advantage. Many French soldiers accounts mention their astonishment at how quickly the German troops moved and how exhausted they were in the face of German troops who never got tired.
An example of terrible French leadership: the German advance into France was stalled by the largest traffic jam in history. All their trucks, tanks, and soldiers spent nearly three days stuck on a two lane road through the forest. French scout planes sighted them and reported to HQ that a massive invasion force was stuck on the road for miles. This road was well within the range of the primary French bomber base. They could have literally obliterated the German Army and ended the war right there with minimal casualties, but the French commander-in-chief didn’t believe multiple scout pilot reports because he had a personal rivalry with the French Air Chief. Instead he ordered his troops to hold their positions on the Maginot Line and left his bombers grounded. After three days the Germans finally poured through and caught the French completely by surprise.
I firmly believe that a French force led by somebody like Patton or Rommel would have been marching into Berlin within a year of the outbreak of war.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:42 pm to Champagne
It always pisses me off when the French are shite of for their surrender. The notion that the French were a bunch of "surrender monkeys" is absurd. the Battle For France lasted only 45 days and the French suffered 85,000 KIA.
The French were out matched, overwhelmed, and let down by their generals and politicians.
The French were out matched, overwhelmed, and let down by their generals and politicians.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 8:43 pm to SD Tider
quote:
I firmly believe that a French force led by somebody like Patton or Rommel would have been marching into Berlin within a year of the outbreak of war.
Think of the photo ops, with all the French soldiers kissing their middle-aged math teachers and burning paternity test equipment.
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News