-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm assuming you mean WWII:
Depends on where you start making changes. In 1940, doubtful; earlier, and you might have something. One of the problems was the fear of another WWI-style bloodbath. Change that and start gearing up for a good defensive war early on, and they could've held out. Or, they could have stood up to Hitler at Munich, or the Anschluss.
Depends on where you start making changes. In 1940, doubtful; earlier, and you might have something. One of the problems was the fear of another WWI-style bloodbath. Change that and start gearing up for a good defensive war early on, and they could've held out. Or, they could have stood up to Hitler at Munich, or the Anschluss.
Proberly not, to defensive. Lacking a true mobil tactic, had both armored and mech divisions, but had alot of disagreement about how to use them.
Mr.Penguin
Mr.Penguin
I think that depends on how far outside of their historical capabilities you can reasonably expect them to act.
If you posit:
In an alternate universe, the French army was as well motivated, led, trained, and equipped as the Wehrmacht, then, sure, they had a chance. Numerically, they were fighting on near equal terms on excellent defensive ground (northern france is *very* defensible).
The problem with this scenario though is that I don't think it is plausible given the social and political scene in france in the inter-war years. I just can't see a plausible scenario where France remilitarized to the extent the Germans did. I don't mean this on a technical level; the French had plenty of decent equipment. I mean it on a social level where the population was ready, will, and able to fight, and if necessary die, to defend the republic, which I don't see happening.
If you posit instead their historical 1940 OOB, and only want to play around with different deployments/options, then I can't really see them winning there either. They could definately have done better than they did historically though as they sort of did the Germans a favor with their war plan.
Could they have won with their historical forces and sentiments? I doubt it.
If you posit:
In an alternate universe, the French army was as well motivated, led, trained, and equipped as the Wehrmacht, then, sure, they had a chance. Numerically, they were fighting on near equal terms on excellent defensive ground (northern france is *very* defensible).
The problem with this scenario though is that I don't think it is plausible given the social and political scene in france in the inter-war years. I just can't see a plausible scenario where France remilitarized to the extent the Germans did. I don't mean this on a technical level; the French had plenty of decent equipment. I mean it on a social level where the population was ready, will, and able to fight, and if necessary die, to defend the republic, which I don't see happening.
If you posit instead their historical 1940 OOB, and only want to play around with different deployments/options, then I can't really see them winning there either. They could definately have done better than they did historically though as they sort of did the Germans a favor with their war plan.
Could they have won with their historical forces and sentiments? I doubt it.
How would they not win ? Instead of keeping 2 Cavalry divisions guarding the Ardenes you put the 1st Army there. And instead of designating france as a "Trainin Theater" for the Allied Airforces you conduct mass reconisence flights.
Yes, but the accepted view of the French High Command was that the Germans couldn't come throught the Ardennes. That was despite French General Pretalat using almost the exact plan the germans would use in !940, durning an exercise in 1938, succesfully breaching the french lines with only 9 divisions of which only 2 where armoured divisions.The french high command suppresed the results of the exercise. They even ignored intelligence reports that showed that the german armor was building up around the sedan not belgium, the french military attache in berne even report that an attack towards the sedan was likely around the 8th to the 10th of May. ( if you don't know, the german invasion did start on the 10th of may through the sedan.) Unless they replaced most of their senior leaders france was screwed
ok I agree with that. France could win if its High Command wasnt so inflexible.
Or alternativly, France could win if Hitler hadnt called of the original invasion.
Or alternativly, France could win if Hitler hadnt called of the original invasion.
If the Wehrmacht would have tried invading Belgium, as they original planed, then we could have seen another WW1 ish style war.
Probably, but not necessarily. I'm not sure if the French could have held the line in Belgium even if the Wehrmacht came straight at them. There still would have been opportunities for the Germans to use their mobile divisions to break through the French lines and pocket lots of troops. The French army simply wasn't trained at any level to defend against armored attack.
It wouldn't have been as *big* a defeat as what happened historically, but you might very well have seen the same end result, just done with, say 4 small pocket instead of one big one (it would, one assumes take longer as well).
Everything points to the French army being just plain bad at that point in time. Ill disciplined, ill motivated, and ill trained. They were certainly badly led as well, but I don't think even brilliant leadership could have overcome their morale and training issues (equipment wise they were actually ok).
The French army of WW II was not the French Army of WW I; it was worse.
It wouldn't have been as *big* a defeat as what happened historically, but you might very well have seen the same end result, just done with, say 4 small pocket instead of one big one (it would, one assumes take longer as well).
Everything points to the French army being just plain bad at that point in time. Ill disciplined, ill motivated, and ill trained. They were certainly badly led as well, but I don't think even brilliant leadership could have overcome their morale and training issues (equipment wise they were actually ok).
The French army of WW II was not the French Army of WW I; it was worse.
I believe it had a chance, but it would require major changes. The main reason for the defeat was the manstein plan which cut of a good part of their army. They would have to start using the elastic defence doctrine instead of static/ww1 style warfare. They would need mobile reserves and better air force.
The french army send in belgium was pretty mobil. Several tank division and motorized one with quiet a good AT capacity. They didn't get a chance to fight really at their level 'cause the cut from sedan made them forced to retreat until they were caught in Dunkerque.
For the motivation of french troops, after the dunkerques disaster the 40 divisions (mostly infantery) left made much more difficult fight than before. Some unit stick to their position to oppose the german but they were only ignored and let behind until encircled.
They fight pretty hard but have really no chance to win anymore. The whole defeat was mostly a HQ failure.
The french lack of fighting spirit in the first few days came mostly from organisation and economical problem.
Most of the soldiers only get a one undred rifle shoot training 'cause of economical restriction on ammunition. So the first weeks of real fight will "train them enought" at good cost. Problem is after one week everything was over.
Even the cutting of Guderian supply line should have been succesfull if the tank attaack won't have been split in 4/5 point and gathered in one. Again it's mostly a HQ fault.
Given the HQ and the lack of training i think France didn't get a chance in 1940. But i disagrea with the tank and mobility problem. France can't paid the price of a blitzkrieg tactic in 1940. A better defensive line in the ardenne and the use of concentred tank reserve tactic should have been a way to stand the german assault.
After, the french plan was that the anglo-saxon mobilize much more troops in France and that the economical blocus break the german economy. I think it was a reasonnable and very effective plan but he was very badly prepared.
Last edited:
Not offensive, but maybe defensive, if they hadn't been demoralized by the blitzkrieg tactic..
Yeah, the french problem wasn't the lack of tanks or vehicals, it was the inability to use them effectively in the face of the tactics adopted by the Germans.
What are you basing this ? On the way two French Cavalry divisions behaved when they were confronted with the might of the Wehrmacth ?
Yes, they did have the ability as the french DLM's showed in Belgium. They stoped the 2nd and 3rd Panzer in their tracks and inflicted heavy damage.
The Fact is the French were beaten on the strategic level. If they had a more flexible high command or even a more flexible structure in their chain of command the outcome could have been much different.
Those two "cavalry" divisions had no single horse. In fact they were the best French formation avaible, fully mechanized and the protype of the modern mech division.
The French had a chance, if they could have settled for an attrition war, as they doctrine and equipment would have been superior to the German in this case.
Also, Mainstain plan could have failed, I suggest
"K-H Freiser's "Blietzkriege-Legende : der Westfeldzug 1940"
Basicly if the French had held at Meuse the German army would have been stopped, with a gigantic traffic jam going from Germany proper trough the Ardenes.
As for the French spirit, they were stunned, but they did fight, and put a much tougher fight in Juni with much inferior forces then in Mai.
Also, the allies were producing at fully capacity while Germany wasn't, the margin wouldn't have become larger '41.
The French had a chance, if they could have settled for an attrition war, as they doctrine and equipment would have been superior to the German in this case.
Also, Mainstain plan could have failed, I suggest
"K-H Freiser's "Blietzkriege-Legende : der Westfeldzug 1940"
Basicly if the French had held at Meuse the German army would have been stopped, with a gigantic traffic jam going from Germany proper trough the Ardenes.
As for the French spirit, they were stunned, but they did fight, and put a much tougher fight in Juni with much inferior forces then in Mai.
Also, the allies were producing at fully capacity while Germany wasn't, the margin wouldn't have become larger '41.
yes, they had a chance - with better co-operation within single armies. And bit of luck.
German use really blitzkrieg - and it´s week point is IMHO unprotected flanks (see DeGaule´s assault)
German use really blitzkrieg - and it´s week point is IMHO unprotected flanks (see DeGaule´s assault)