Battle of France

[Greywolf]

Considerating the historical France was able to :

- Build Maginot Line.
- Build a modern fleet with Imp BB and CV.
- Build 4 DCR and 6 DLM.
- Build a very advanced bomber force and develop some modern fighter ( just lack some weeks to fully deploy them intime ).
- Develop armored warfare and defensive tactical doctrine.
- Develop tanks far better than anything the German can but together.
- Develop heavy artillery and AT gun and one of the best mortar ever.

All that by May 1940.

Thus giving the player with the same industrial potential you can pretty think that by narrowing depense and research he could achieve decisive success against Germany.

But Spain MUST be kept neutral or firendly.
Italy wouldn't be such an hassle historically becaus you need 2 Division to close the Alps, far less in winter. In game you need to deploy far more troups so I guess the better idea is to ask CW to keep them really occupied.

Pushing East wont allow you to get better defensive terrain, you are already at the Rhine ( I hope it is a major defensive bonus. ) Managing Right of passage to Belgium and Nederland IS a necessity, you will be able to fortify all the way along the Rhine. the good thing is that this give you also access to Nederland Rubber and Oil ressources and some more units.

Also DONT BE SHY, dont hear the English. Fight for Sudeten NOT POLAND. Czecoslovakian army (did I hate this name in english ), is strong and heavy in armoured unit. Their country is great defensively, especially if they have still the sudeten fortified line. In '36 '37 werchmacht isn't at full possibility and is still lacking in air and armoured power. Dont do the sitzkrieg push into the Ruhr and occupy it. Try to activate little alliance with Roumania and Yougoslavia. Hopefully Germany will be back in the rope since the start and Uncle Jo wont wait a lot before coming to the aid of fellwo Czecoslovakia ( if he manage to get a passage right ( wich historically he doesnt )).

Germany with Czecoslovakia will be 2 times as powerfull than without, that 1 times too much for you to survive easily later on.


Of course all that is dependant on an historical country setup and army. If HoI have too much altered thoses in favor of game balance the above strategy wont work. So you are back to slowly build and develop wait for the german to attack let them in , cut them from backup and kill their spearhead isolated. Rince and repeat.

 

[Owl]

Greywolf, excuse my British scepticism but if what you say is correct how do you explain the fact that in real life France was comprehensively trussed and stuffed within a matter of weeks?

What do you think they could or should have done differently?

EDIT - your post seems to have grown a bit and you've answered my second question. i.e. they shouldn't have waited until 1940.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I wonder if the AI cares at all about rivers... cause in EU2 they sure didn't, and that was a big advantage for the player.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Owl
Greywolf, excuse my British scepticism but if what you say is correct how do you explain the fact that in real life France was comprehensively trussed and stuffed within a matter of weeks?

What do you think they could or should have done differently?

EDIT - your post seems to have grown a bit and you've answered my second question. i.e. they shouldn't have waited until 1940.

Well in 1940 I have a really simple fix to help France win:

Shoot Gamelin in the head.

More explicitely review the entire command chain thus there is only 1 CinC and not 2 with nearly equal authority ( Georges and Gamelin).

Put reserves where they should have been, that is inthe middle of the lines ( Ardennes ) and not along the defensive wing ( Maginot ).

Attack as soon as possible, with the insight that the german population wasn't yet very supportive of AH or the war.

Keep the push through Belgium, this plan is sound.

Order immediate counter attack from mecanized forces.

Put Weygand or Petain as CinC, Weygand much younger and daring, Petain more experimented and good to bolster Moral ( winner of 1914-1918, winner of Verdun ... ).

Simply make the defensive order applied !!! In many parts of the front when Petain reviewed the defensive setting he note several position weren't following the books ( his own in fact ): like MG fire on top of hill above river and not battering the full lenght.

More difficult because out of military hand: unsure the political stability. May 1940 happened with a governement that have resigned to the President and no new governement choosen...

Shoot Churchill in the head too and make the BeF and RAF more strong over France. No more delaying of strength to secondary operation. Concentrate on bombing the Rurh ( cant remember where to put the h ) to smitten the indsutrial support to the regim.

In 1939-1940 German people doesnt want the war and doesnt believe in a Blitzkrieg ( Polish campaign is the start of this support, France will have it definitely acquired ). Hitler is really cautious about his people support ( thus the economy notbeing on war foot nor restriction ). If industrials lessen their support to him and people can be unrested a bit by the specter of decided allies and a long and suffering war, political solution can be obtained ( probably replaced by a military push, thoses guys weren't really fond of him and his war plan too ).

Deploy the troups like Weygan show they should be to efficiently fight Blitzkrieg. German Blitz is a weapon of terror and surprise, against a well prepared defense in deep it blunt itself.

Only extern political support would be to Finland through Sweden if possible ( the idea is to buy scandinavian solidarity and at least have Sweden stop supplying Iron to Germany ).


----------------------
----------------------

France lost in1940 not because of his gear or his army. France Lost mainly due to the inapt conduct of operation by his higu Command echelon, and his political instability at this time that unable for a replacement of said command.
As I always quote , here is the ORDER from french CinC at operationstart in 1940:
' Without wanting to interferate in the conduct of operation, I will suggest to the field command officier ...'
Geez how charismatic...

As many many many other simulation and replay have shown ( I dont count boardgame ), without serious simulation of this weakness, even with the stupid start set-up, Germany cant achieve the historical result, and only achieve a narrow win in late 1940 at best. With a french redeploy of the strategical reserves Germany dont get through and usually are contained then beaten by economical asphyxion, strategic bombing and people and military unrest.

Historically France roll Snake eyes and Germany Double boxes...

But of course all that is merely possibility as history is know to be prone on rolling low.

 

[unmerged(11931)]

france lost because they were stupid. France lost because they were france. A french general said "The ardennes, if lightly defended is nearly impossible to breach"

Somewhere along the line the french replaced the word "Lightly" with "Nothing" and forgot about the "Nearly" part and it was "Impossible to breach".

Also the problem with Split commands. The BEF, ArFr, and low country armies had very little coordination.

Overall the french did three things wrong that hurt them the most.

1) They split there armies inhalf 2/4 on the Maginot, 1/4 in Belgium the other 1/4 scattered around the country.

2) There state of the art airforce sat on airfields for 6 months during the "Sitzkrieg" or phony war. Hardly any of them went up to engage the germans during the Blitz. Most were straffed on the ground. The french had a very good airforce. They had Curtiss-Hawk 75's and Dewoitine 520's. Both planes out matched the german 109 easily. But again, there not much use sitting on an airfield. They should of been patrolling friendly skies and flying CAP since DAY 1 of the war in 1939.

3)French armor was to Slow, to spread out. R-35's, Char-B1, and S-35's. All great tanks. But the problem is the french like to put a litte here, and a little there. Which allowed them to be cut in piece meal. It wasnt until late in may 1940 did the french actually organize what the germans would of considered an effective armored force.


And again. The ardenne move was what really clenched it. Im just so shocked on the French stupidity here. Why did they bother with the maginot line? THe germans NEVER attack there. They always go through the low countries. Both world wars. It should of dawned on the french not to ignore the wooded areas on there flank, which allowed the krauts to get behind them.

 

[gzav]

as France, attack as soon as Germany remilitarizes (sp?) the Rhineland. that should do it, in fact, IRL, when Hitler decided to reoccupy rhineland, they had a backup plan to retreat beyond the rhine if the french started moving.hitlers own generals said that if france had attacked then,they would have won, because in 1936, germany wasnt powerful enough.
g

 

[Maximilian I]

Originally posted by leakypen19
....france lost because they were stupid. France lost because they were france.....

try to be a bit less offensive. with hindsight it`s easy to say, that a certain action was plain stupid, but it might have seemed bright without it.

consider yourself warned (or even banned, if I give it ot the admins), if you talk again about a nations "stupiditiy". there is NO such thing as national "inferiority".

 

[unmerged(11931)]

"try to be a bit less offensive. with hindsight it`s easy to say, that a certain action was plain stupid, but it might have seemed bright without it.

consider yourself warned (or even banned, if I give it ot the admins), if you talk again about a nations "stupiditiy".


Were do you come off saying that I really meant it in a "All french people are stupid sense". I did not and it was not inferred. There is no hindsight about it. The french army made a STUPID call when it came to defending the ardenne. Its that simple. There is no hindsight to it. You would have to give me a darn good reason if I were a leader to leave my flank THAT exposed as my forces advanced towards brussels and antwerp. To just 'assume' it was impassable. When you know what the germans had already done in poland and norway.

Ok Im sorry. Ill try to be less offensive. I really didnt mean to offend any frenchman. They suffered alot out of any nation in both world wars. Sorry.

Oh,

"there is NO such thing as national "inferiority"
I dont know what this gook is about. But again I say that the french army was stupid to do what they did. Not the entire nation. God knows De gaulle knew what he was talking about, nobody wanted to listen.

 

[Maximilian I]

Originally posted by leakypen19
"try to be a bit less offensive. with hindsight it`s easy to say, that a certain action was plain stupid, but it might have seemed bright without it.

consider yourself warned (or even banned, if I give it ot the admins), if you talk again about a nations "stupiditiy".


Were do you come off saying that I really meant it in a "All french people are stupid sense". I did not and it was not inferred. There is no hindsight about it. The french army made a STUPID call when it came to defending the ardenne. Its that simple. There is no hindsight to it. You would have to give me a darn good reason if I were a leader to leave my flank THAT exposed as my forces advanced towards brussels and antwerp. To just 'assume' it was impassable. When you know what the germans had already done in poland and norway.

Ok Im sorry. Ill try to be less offensive. I really didnt mean to offend any frenchman. They suffered alot out of any nation in both world wars. Sorry.

Oh,

"there is NO such thing as national "inferiority"
I dont know what this gook is about. But again I say that the french army was stupid to do what they did. Not the entire nation. God knows De gaulle knew what he was talking about, nobody wanted to listen.

yes, seems to be just a misunderstanding. you`re right, the decisions of the french high command were not that bright, but saying "france lost because they were stupid. France lost because they were france" is stretching it a bit, don`t you agree? your post just "generalized" "french" stupidity. now you`re talking about de Gaulle, who made some bright moves. if that`s your opinion, you should have made it clear, instead of talking about "stupid", as you called them, frenchmen.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Anyways, back on track here.

Like leakypen19 was hinting at, the main thing France had against it was its military leaders.
Had they been smarter, and applied tactics like those of Germany, they would have been on the upper hand. They had nearly twice as many tanks, most of better quality, a powerful air force, and a strong defensive line. Had their army been better organized and commanded, Germany would have had a lot harder time...

 

[unmerged(9938)]

Originally posted by Trip
Anyways, back on track here.

Like leakypen19 was hinting at, the main thing France had against it was its military leaders.
Had they been smarter, and applied tactics like those of Germany, they would have been on the upper hand. They had nearly twice as many tanks, most of better quality, a powerful air force, and a strong defensive line. Had their army been better organized and commanded, Germany would have had a lot harder time...

...and let's not forget the all time low moral of the French soldier caused by the devestating losses during the Great War fresh in mind, the tiresom inactivity of the phony war and the instability of the French government.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes yes, that's why I included the little word "main" in my post.

 

[Darkrenown]

Leaky, is that sig really needed?

 

[Greywolf]

A lot of misinformation there that need to be corrected

Originally posted by leakypen19
france lost because they were stupid. France lost because they were france. A french general said "The ardennes, if lightly defended is nearly impossible to breach"

And the US show they have certainly far more respect for the Ardennes unpregnability some 4 years later ?

Somewhere along the line the french replaced the word "Lightly" with "Nothing" and forgot about the "Nearly" part and it was "Impossible to breach".

This sound familiar, I wonder if this doesnt actually happen insome report. Need to dig it.

1) They split there armies inhalf 2/4 on the Maginot, 1/4 in Belgium the other 1/4 scattered around the country.

Agreed, and tottaly with my view : French CinC made an inept deploy. How did that make all the frenchmen stupid ? especially those who say this was a mistake ?

2) There state of the art airforce sat on airfields for 6 months during the "Sitzkrieg" or phony war. Hardly any of them went up to engage the germans during the Blitz. Most were straffed on the ground. The french had a very good airforce. They had Curtiss-Hawk 75's and Dewoitine 520's. Both planes out matched the german 109 easily. But again, there not much use sitting on an airfield. They should of been patrolling friendly skies and flying CAP since DAY 1 of the war in 1939.

Wrong, they did patrol. But the H75 and D520 was only a small part of the french air force in 1940 and many plane where only MB and MS406 that are inferior to the 109E. BTW H75 is also inferior to 109.
Also following your idea a smaller airforce in the course of reequiping his air squadron should intensively use them to gain air superiority against a stronger air force ? definitely not the thing to do as the loss in modern aircraft will slow the reequipment of other units and will lack in latter on.
French air force wasn't destroyed on the ground. Except in Hollywood or Staffle propagand. His light bomber was sacrificied by trying to destroy the bridge near Sedan agaisnt heavy AA and escort. The fighter did a good job but they were jsut not enough of them in the good planes.
I will try to find the url of a site that depict the exact loss of BoF day by day if you want to see them.

3)French armor was to Slow, to spread out. R-35's, Char-B1, and S-35's. All great tanks. But the problem is the french like to put a litte here, and a little there. Which allowed them to be cut in piece meal. It wasnt until late in may 1940 did the french actually organize what the germans would of considered an effective armored force.

R35 is slow but was getting replaced, B1 is slow but strong enough not to care, especially as he was supposed to reach battle area on faster truck. S35 is definitely not slow.

France used there armored force in the exact same mode than the german. In fact , just that was shown at Abbeville they definitely lack good infantery suport and coordination.

The problem is that the DCR or DLM front units commander cannot engage at will due to Gamelin over-worrying about his position and need to have their counter attack approved. THe only time a french commander counterattack right on a Pz Div the 2 units were mutually put out of combat.

The idea that France used his tank piece meal come from German war diary and De Gaulle memories. In the fact this was a false impression due to the combat situation. The core of the French and UK armored units entered deep into Belgium as fast as possible, effectively moving themself out from the Pz Way and not right to them as they were thinking they are heading.

The result is that the german main thrust only encountered loose bataillon of armored units from division in formation and reserve.
If the 3 full DCR were to be deployed in the reserve then massive tank battle would have happenned.

Another reason was the psychological impact of French behemoth, similar that what would happen against KV2 and KV1 latter on. It was often than a single B1Bis or a platoon cause a large problem to invaders, often necessiting large amount of material to get destroyed. This impacted in the idea and give german the impressino they were fighting only small tank unit deployed with infantery.

Finnally, in 1940 France have a lot of rogue tanks from disused model, some dating from WWI like FT17, some being replaced like R35 and so. As the French SPG weren't yet ready to be assigned to units and to bolster moral those small tanks units were given to infantry division as complement of Gun and MG allotment.

Basically I think that if you look at a Geman late war infantry division you will found that he have many AFV added to his organisation but you dont tell the German doesnt know how to correctly use tanks as you know about Pz Div existency. Looking the same for France in 1940, apparently tank where dispersed in infantery units, but that is jsut because you forget to look at the DCR and DLM.

 

[InnocentIII]

IMHO France's primary problem was political. They couldn't get Belgium to ally with them to co-ordinate defense (IIRC Belgium said French moves into their territory to blunt a similar German move would be met with force). They also refused to fortify against Belgium.

The result was a great line of defense that ended before it should have, leaving an easy route to attack for anyone willing to violate Belgium's neutrality.

BTW - I'm all for criticizing France, but recall that they did DoW Hitler, knowing full well he'd turn the vast bulk of his force on them as a result.

 

[unmerged(2447)]

France lost due to one very important psychological reason. Their people and military were still in the malaise created during and after WWI. France was determined to fight a defensive war given the massive casualties of WWI. When you add their complete myopia for defending the Ardennes (given the original Von Schlieffen plan of WWI called for roughly the same thing that occurred in 1940) and the inability to recognize the tank as an offensive weapon best utilized en masse, it is amazing they lasted six weeks. The French were better equipped than their German counterparts, further hammering home the point that not only do you need good equipment to wage an effective campaign, but trained soldiers to execute and brilliant officers to conceive and implement the battle plans. Remember, Caesar destroyed the Gauls while outnumbered 10-1 and Alexander did the same to the Persians at 5-1 odds.

Just my two cents. I cannot wait for this game. I'm sure my wife will be cursing it just like Europa Universalis 1&2 in no time.

 

[Razgovory]

The real reason we have this argumant on the battle of France is that France should have done better. If you just look at the numbers they should have stopped the Germans or maybe even won. But they didn't. I personally believe that reason was morale. The germans just had quick victory in Poland and their spirts were high. If the French invaded they would have force the germans to divert forces from France and fight on German ground and not French. I think the Phony war also sapped French Morale. While there was fighting in Norway and Poland and out to sea; There was no real air battles. I know the British dropped leaflets instead of bombs on Berlin. I remember Reading William L Shirers account of the Western Front. He said he saw French soldiers playing football on one side of the line and on the other he saw Germans watching them and occationally cheering one side. It made the French think that the war was not real. All the while the German army was gaining experinece in Poland.

 

[Snall]

umm...im just gonna vote that German soldiers r better. Its starting not to matter much..but, to use a French word, the elan of the German soldering corps has always been a lil higher then other countries..proabably because it has such a rich culture and only (relativly) recently has been able to make a state out of their nation..much like the problems in the Arab world form Colonialsm and the huge empires made there...anyway..im off track and tired now..

 

[LordStark]

Long live the Maginot Line!

 

[unmerged(1492)]

This is going to be interesting. On the one hand, if I play the 1936 as france. I think I would want to put the maginot in northern france and station most/if not all my garrison forces on the line. Place my armor behind it. I would not help the low countries. Also, i would make sure I bombed the ruhr. It is close, and can be bombed. Try and win an alliance with the Swiss (ya right ) or maybe try and keep italy nuetral.


Oh ya leaky pen c'mon dont be so freakin harsh. The french did there best. I dont like insulting the french. Lest we americans forget who came to save our asses and help us woop the brits at yorktown? Lets also not forget the great gift of the statue of liberty?

Vive la france!
God Bless America!