- 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 11/25/19 at 4:38 am to cokebottleag
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:38 am to cokebottleag
Still waiting to hear how many books the OP read on the subject.....
0
Posted on 11/25/19 at 4:53 am to WinnPtiger
quote:
the Ardennes breakthrough is a giant anomaly
Was it?
The Germans came through the Ardennes in the Franco-Prussian war, TWICE in WW1 (1914, 1918), and twice more in WW2 (1940, 1944)
Posted on 11/25/19 at 5:01 am to Champagne
quote:
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
The Germans had hard times in Russia, these figures are insignificant in scale, the French effort in WW2 is historic in how bad it was in every way shape and form.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 5:09 am
Posted on 11/25/19 at 5:18 am to Strannix
quote:
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.
Part of their initial success in the Soviet Union was due to two major factors:
1. Stalin had all of his senior military officers shot in the purges of the mid and late-30s.
2. Stalin was in denial for the first week or two of Barbarossa, refusing to believe Hitler was attacking him. And then spent another week in a shell before finally resolving to lead again. So for almost the first month of conflict, the Soviets were without a leader at the very top of the pyramid.
The Soviets were woefully unprepared for a German onslaught in the summer of 1941. They had proven this in 1939-40 when they had struggled so badly against Finland in the Winter War.
The French Army in 1940 > the Red Army in 1941.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 5:22 am
Posted on 11/25/19 at 5:26 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Those six weeks cost the Germans everything in the end.
I would say the Eastern front cost Germany way more than the battle for France.
While I still think once America entered the war we were going to win it would have drug out years longer if Hitler hadn’t been such a terrible military strategist and should have listened to his generals.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 6:11 am to KLSU
Forget the French Campaign. It was a massive German success. The French Army was led by so called generals refighting WW1 and they cost France dearly, and the Brits were just as guilty.
In the East, Hitler was his own worst enemy. The entire campaign was too ambitious but they might have achieved much had he left things to his generals.
They had Moscow, had Hitler not sent Guderian south to take Kiev first. I don't think the Russians could have held. What taking it might have accomplished? It would have been a massive psychological blow and it would have basically cut Russia in two, most roads and rail running through there.
Stalingrad was more foolishness. They did not need to take the city, they could have cut off and bypassed the place. Indeed that campaign and the push deep into the Caucasus was a recipe for disaster.
In the East, Hitler was his own worst enemy. The entire campaign was too ambitious but they might have achieved much had he left things to his generals.
They had Moscow, had Hitler not sent Guderian south to take Kiev first. I don't think the Russians could have held. What taking it might have accomplished? It would have been a massive psychological blow and it would have basically cut Russia in two, most roads and rail running through there.
Stalingrad was more foolishness. They did not need to take the city, they could have cut off and bypassed the place. Indeed that campaign and the push deep into the Caucasus was a recipe for disaster.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 6:24 am to beerJeep
quote:Been twice.
The only place in France I want to visit is verdun.
Really sobering to go there with your own son.
Go other places in France, ftr.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 6:26 am to antibarner
The Germans gave away one of the biggest plums of the French campaign - the French Mediterranean fleet and ports. They allowed these to remain in Vichy hands. These ships could have been invaluable in capturing Malta and denying the British Navy access to the Med. Bye, bye Egypt and oil. A quicker resolution of the North African effort means more resources available for Barbarossa.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 7:09 am to Champagne
French were doomed by two things -
- political decision to make the Marginot line. After WW1 being mainly fought on their soil the politicians determined that the next war would be fought elsewhere. This put way too many assets along a fixed line.
- terrible generals making terrible decisions.
The French fought well. But the bad decisions were impossible to overcome.
- political decision to make the Marginot line. After WW1 being mainly fought on their soil the politicians determined that the next war would be fought elsewhere. This put way too many assets along a fixed line.
- terrible generals making terrible decisions.
The French fought well. But the bad decisions were impossible to overcome.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 7:30 am
Posted on 11/25/19 at 7:29 am to SoFla Tideroller
The French Med fleet essentially sits out the war. However the British still had bases at Cyprus and at Haifa...not to mention it still maintained partial control of access from the Atlantic at Gibraltar.
The French commanders let their army and Navy down.
The French commanders let their army and Navy down.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 11:03 am to WinnPtiger
Read about how savage the french were in the Algerian Civil War....they actually decimated the Algerian rebels...DeGaulle sold Massu, et al out
Posted on 11/25/19 at 11:18 am to beerJeep
quote:
Tanks
French - r35 light tank b1 heavy s35 medium.
Germans- panzer 3/4, various TD platforms
Advantage - armor, French.
Oh hell yes. The french Char B1 Bis was a badass motherfricker. Overly complicated, but badass.
French tanks were doomed though, 2/2 to lack of RADIO equipment.
German panzers were simply much better organized due to communication advantages held.
French tank pron:
Posted on 11/25/19 at 11:23 am to KiwiHead
quote:
The French Med fleet essentially sits out the war.
One of the stories of WWII that I find interesting is when the British actually attacked the French Fleet off Algeria after France signed the Armistice with Germany to prevent the fleet from being turned over to the Axis.
The British killed over 1,000 of their former allies.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:05 pm to cokebottleag
quote:
They certainly weren't obsolete.
Yeah, they kind of were.
I mean, December 7th, 1941 announced to the world that the BBs days were done. Capital ship engagements were becoming increasingly rare and certainly few decisive engagements were fought by BB/CA forces against BB/CA forces during the war, especially in the Pacific.
But CV on CV engagements were almost all decisive and important. Surface warfare was relegated to providing screening as well as ASW and AA support for the flattops. Yes, the BBs and gun cruisers had a role in shore bombardment, but even there aircraft is a more flexible and adaptable alternative.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 12:05 pm
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:07 pm to jimbeam
quote:
see some folks have been watching Netflix.
Bro, don't be speak about Champaign's CHOSEN PROFESSION in such a blasé tone
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:10 pm to Champagne
I don't about 1940, but at Bir Hakeim in North Africa and elsewhere the French gave the Germans hell and won.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:23 pm to Ace Midnight
I would argue the Fall of Singapore spelled the end of the convention surface fleet at the time.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:29 pm to Champagne
The French take a lot of shite for 1940. But their failures were not due to lack of fighting but rather lack of strategic foresight. Sure the Germans made them sue for peace in six week. But in that six weeks the French made the Germans pay heavily. It wasn’t the cakewalk most people mistakenly think it was.
This post was edited on 11/25/19 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:41 pm to Tigerstark
quote:
French were doomed by two things -
- political decision to make the Marginot line. After WW1 being mainly fought on their soil the politicians determined that the next war would be fought elsewhere. This put way too many assets along a fixed line.
- terrible generals making terrible decisions.
The French fought well. But the bad decisions were impossible to overcome.
Lack of air support was really the decisive fulcrum in 1940.
For all the French frick ups (putting enormous resources and effort into the Maginot line, indecisive and weak general and political leadership, antiquated armor tactics, etc.), had they been able to match the Luftwaffe in quality and quantity of fighters and bombers, they would have held off the Germans. That's pretty much the story.
shite, if the British had committed their air wholesale in the first week or two (and it is eminently understandable why they didn't), then the Germans would have been stopped right in their tracks as well.
Posted on 11/25/19 at 12:41 pm to fr33manator
quote:
German engineering and Prussian militarism made the Germans particularly dangerous. It is said their artillery men were some of the best in the world.
I know the Germans always get labeled as the best of artillery but in the supernova in the East podcast Carlin talks about how historically good American artillery was.
Anyone know if our artillery is historically underrated or was this Carlin just setting the stage about how effective our artillery was in that part of the pacific?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News