re: How well did the French Army of 1940 fight against the Germans?

quote:

---

I’m just of the opinion that had the Wolfpack subs would have been used closer to the mainland and ports rather than the shipping lanes they would have been more impactful during the Battle of Britain.

---

Again, the Germans were relying on their WWI experience - subs for them were almost purely for commerce raiding. They couldn't go toe-to-toe with the Royal Navy on the surface, so that was their next best thing. Even the Bismarck was going to do commerce raiding - sinking the Hood was the wildest stroke of luck. (Of course, Churchill said the Royal Navy had one mission after that, so maybe a double edged sword?)

Navies are funny - you have to commit enough resources to at least achieve local parity to even try to fight on the surface. Otherwise, it is essentially all wasted. And surface ships are mind-boggling expensive so they become golden handcuffs. Again, the preview of this is WWI - you had such rapid advancements in naval gunnery that ships were being designed, built and by the time they were commissioned, they were obsolete - so if you couldn't afford to maintain such a surface fleet with this constant change over, you needed an asymmetrical weapon - like the submarine to even the odds a bit.

You saw something similar with aircraft in WWII, but individual costs were much lower and aircraft are much more organically susceptible to incorporating new technology into older designs so the impact was not as severe.

quote:

---

World War I

---

One of my favorite conflicts to study. I’ve been getting into the Franco Prussian war lately. And also the 30 years war. The early gunpowder era is fascinating

quote:

---

The early gunpowder era is fascinating

---

The pike and shot era is interesting af.

Nothing like a bunch of Italians in metal cuirass and plate mail marching in formation with pikes and Arquebus

quote:

---

The german surface force was a waste.

---

But it was quintessentially German - the Germans badly desired a surface fleet almost from the nation's birth in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war - both for an overseas empire and to check the Royal Navy. Although they initially saw Britain as a potential long-term ally and trading partner, their inherent aggressiveness drove long-time enemies France and Britain into agreement to slow down/stop the rapid German expansion of power in the late 19th century.

They went whole hog - wanting to at least compete on quality, if not quantity, with the Royal Navy. Wilhelm II (the eldest grandchild of Queen Victoria) was first cousin to Britain's George V and considered himself at least partially English. He threw himself into the development of the nascent German navy, particularly once he assumed the throne. Certainly by WWI they could compete with the Royal Navy on quality. But naval warfare is about scope, reach, logistics, range, supply, weather, just a whole range of things that Brits just organically get (with their centuries of experience) and not just about this many tonnes, this size gun, this much armor in the belt, this much armor on the deck, etc.

Another example of this German peculiarity can be seen in their tanks (something they certainly DID understand by 1940 as well as anyone) - I mentioned the Panther vs T-34 production numbers earlier in the thread. With the Germans, they would put these beautiful welds on the turrets of their tanks - things of beauty - master craftsmen worked on it. Now, I'm not saying they lollygagged, they worked quickly, but to this kind of standard. If a weld didn't pass inspection - they would often RECYCLE THE TURRET AND START OVER - They were building their tanks to last forever.

The Russians? Their welds sucked to begin with. And with a commissar with a pistol threatening you if you didn't make the production/time goals, sometimes the weld didn't even run the length of the fitting. "Good enough" was good enough for something expected to last maybe 10 days in combat, if they were lucky.

quote:

---

Any good book/podcast/documentary recommendations for World War I?

---

Carlin's Blueprint for Armageddon (Hardcore History) is something like 18 to 20 hours in 6 parts - and it is magnificent.

(And the usual suspects for books - July 1914 and The Guns of August are excellent jumping off points for WWI. I'm in the middle of A World Undone which is a more survey book for the entire conflict if you want a "one volume, one conflict" solution, but the Carlin's Hardcore History above would cover all of the broad strokes, too.)

quote:

---

Any good book/podcast/documentary recommendations for World War I?

---

Blueprint for Armageddon. Multiple times.


Hands down the best piece of media I’ve ever consumed on WW1

quote:

---

Blueprint for Armageddon. Multiple times.


Hands down the best piece of media I’ve ever consumed on WW1

---

I loved it too, any other must reads or listens?

The Great War With Indy Neidell


Another excellent piece

Thanks man, I’ll have to check it out