- 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
re: How well did the French Army of 1940 fight against the Germans?
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:20 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:20 pm to fr33manator
Still are.
0
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:29 pm to Hogbit
quote:
Bis and tirpitz were powerful ships, probably as good as our iowa class, which came much later in the war.
They were still a waste, and counterproductive to the war effort.
The Iowa class was faster, had better (and more) guns, better shells, could engage from farther out, and had far better radar.
Iowa class were the best battleships of WWII.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:30 pm to Champagne
quote:
Saumur in June 1940
That’s one of my favorite stories.
The cadets performed admirably.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:30 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Iowa class were the best battleships of WWII.
And we’re outdated the second they touched water.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:33 pm to beerJeep
quote:
And we’re outdated the second they touched water.
That's why the two other Iowa's were cancelled and the Montana class (much larger than the Iowa's) was stillborn.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:35 pm to Champagne
The Bama argument huh? Best loss.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:49 pm to beerJeep
quote:
But had the Germans brought the Uboats and surface fleet down on Britain during the Battle of Britain
Recall you had a crazy man in charge of the Third Reich who became convinced that any idea he had was superior to those of others - narcissistic personality disorder or equivalent.
He wanted to reduce Britain by air. The Germans were getting spread pretty thinly by that point, particularly over the water.
quote:
t would force the British to bring their surface fleet out to play as well.
Why? Were they going to invade? Britain was on the defensive and actually on their own supply lines. Any sortie against the Royal Navy would have been risking the force (particularly the surface force) with little hope of gain. It was becoming increasingly clear that ships lose versus airplanes and all navies were dealing with that reality.
quote:
Being that the Germans had the supply/air superiority across the mainland
They weren't fighting the Battle of Britain over the mainland - they were fighting it over Britain.
quote:
they would have been better able to protect their heavy assets in the surface fleet than the British theirs.
Not in the Channel and not in British waters. I don't know what else to tell you.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:52 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Iowa class were the best battleships of WWII.
Bismarck was advanced for the time, but by late war all BBs were obsolete. Certainly the Iowas and the Yamatos seem untouchable on paper by any British or German ship of the war - just the scope of the ships and the resources committed to their design and construction. The Yamato was a "no compromise" type ship with the biggest/best of everything.
And still so fragile (relatively speaking) when attacked by aircraft...
This post was edited on 11/24/19 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:54 pm to BuckyCheese
If you say so.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 10:59 pm to Champagne
Not having radios in their tanks didn't help.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 11:03 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Why? Were they going to invade? Britain was on the defensive and actually on their own supply lines. Any sortie against the Royal Navy would have been risking the force (particularly the surface force) with little hope of gain. It was becoming increasingly clear that ships lose versus airplanes and all navies were dealing with that reality.
My thought process is with the kraigsmarine and uboats close to the isles providing bombardment support as well as a tight ring of blockades by the uboats would force their hand. Come out and try to push them back or starve to death.
The luftwaffe has the British Air Force confined to the British isles, so I’d think that would render them unable to use the air force against the kraigsmarine, or at least limit their effectiveness.
quote:
They weren't fighting the Battle of Britain over the mainland - they were fighting it over Britain.
Yes, but with the mainland secure they had the supply routes and ability to bring in reserves at will. If they would have thrown more than just the luftwaffe they could have pushed Britain out. They were inches from the ropes imo.
And yeah, I know I know, op sea lion and all that.
quote:
Not in the Channel and not in British waters. I don't know what else to tell you.
I guess I just have a churchillian wwi style view of the navy. It’s there to be used and destroyed. Not to sit back in port afraid to come out. Would have been costly, no doubt, but at the end of the day I think sending the luftwaffe in alone was doomed from the get go.
I’m wayyyy out of my comfort zone talking about the navy though so I’ll defer to you since you definitely seem to have a much firmer grasp on that aspect than I.
Posted on 11/24/19 at 11:11 pm to Hogbit
quote:
If you say so.
I do.
Feel free to point any inaccuracies.
btw-The armor design was far superior on the Iowa's as well. The Bismarck/Tirpitz were poorly designed ships with piss poor armor considering their displacement.
The Iowa's would have taken out the much heavier Yamato/Musashi due to their superior design, speed, armament and fire control.
To those howling "they were obsolete due to airpower!". No shite. That wasn't the argument.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 1:23 am to Champagne
illiterate rednecks with no concept of history are the only ones who question the valor and strength of the French military for the last 600 years(the last 25 years not withstanding)
that includes WW2. the Ardennes breakthrough is a giant anomaly
that includes WW2. the Ardennes breakthrough is a giant anomaly
Posted on 11/25/19 at 1:33 am to WinnPtiger
quote:
no concept of history are the only ones who question the valor and strength of the French military for the last 600 years
They were beat pretty soundly in the Franco Prussian war
Posted on 11/25/19 at 1:49 am to WinnPtiger
quote:Calm your tits Nancy
illiterate rednecks with no concept of history are the only ones who question the valor and strength of the French military for the last 600 years(the last 25 years not withstanding)
Posted on 11/25/19 at 3:54 am to beerJeep
quote:
And still got their shite rocked....
I don't think they got their shite rock so much as they got outmaneuvered. The German breakthrough at Sedan could have been prevented if not for the downright treasonous performance by General Charles Huntziger ignoring the threat posed to the French Army at Sedan until it was too late.
Even then, French commanders could have prevented a breakout by Guderian's panzer divisions had they counterattacked. The majority of them were too far to the rear, however, and lacked real-time intelligence from their soldiers on the ground.
It's difficult to stand and fight as an army when enemy infantry and armor divisions are racing into your rear with nothing standing in their way but civilian refugees.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:01 am to Champagne
quote:
And pray tell us about the many books you've read on this campaign.
I prefer “The German Generals Talk” among others...I’m not going to recount my library here for you, let’s go with Patton’s maxim here, “fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man” and the Maginot Line is exhibit A
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:17 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Even then, French commanders could have prevented a breakout by Guderian's panzer divisions had they counterattacked. The majority of them were too far to the rear, however, and lacked real-time intelligence from their soldiers on the ground.
You are talking about a force that was soon to crush most of the Russian field armies and conquer an area 100x the size of France and inflict millions of casualties. They had lightning in a bottle in 1940 and were on the cutting of of communications, armor, air support etc. France never stood a chance and it was a foregone conclusion.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:22 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
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.
Negative.
The real bleed for the Germans was the Balkans and the Battle of Britain. There were just too many soldiers and equipment tied down in occupations and casualties in those areas.
The fall of France was not nearly as significant.
Revisionist historians attempting to 'look at this in a new light' like to ignore or write off things like the fact that the French Army was not properly equipped or organized to fight a mobile war, even after they have multiple chances to learn how war had changed since 1918:
- Polish-Russian war
- Italian wars in Ethiopia
- Spanish Civil War
Mobile warfare wasn't something the Germans just invented in 1939. It was as simple as the Germans studying and learning from the interwar conflicts, and the French ignoring them. The French Army was just fine in set piece, frontal assault battles, sure. They'd been set up like that. They just hadn't realized that war hadn't worked that way for a decade, even when generals inside their own command structure tried to push for a focus on mobility.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:24 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
To those howling "they were obsolete due to airpower!". No shite. That wasn't the argument.
They certainly weren't obsolete.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News