What evidence do you have for this ?
At the time of attack France, including those behind the Maginot line, had 57 divisions before the reservists were called up, of those divisons 52 were infantry, three were cavalry(with H-35's) and 2 light mechanized, also 14 of those divisions were in North Africa. Not one division was a full armored division. You take away the maginot line and the other areas France had 16 divisions to "attack" Germany. Of those 16 divisions seven were on the Western Front and 9 were facing the Italians; not exactly a typical offensive line up.
How does this change anything ? The Germans were chaneled werent they ? The French just didnt think to chanel them through the forests.
How does this change anything? I don't think you understand. The point was you said they would be channeled into France and destroyed. The fact was they never intended on fighting in France..they also hoped that they would recieve support from others to help counter the German number advantage. Germany foreseeing this used thier own plan against them.
wth does this sentence even mean ?
I was explaining to you that the doctrine of defense was just as I had said and I used your own post as example. To fight a static war of attrition and to make sure the war was on another countries soil and not thiers by virtue of checking a German advance.
Yes..and ? French politicians didnt belive they could get away with a huge butches bill. How does this contradict anything about French offensive power ? They didnt attack because French leaders did not want to, in this game YOU are the French leader.
While I won't dispute the politicians assessment, I believe that it had just as much to do with the wide spread panic of "Communist" divisions might pop up with the army gone, along the price they would have had to pay.
How does this contradict anything about French offensive power ? The German commander of the Western Front in 1939 himself said that if the French had attacked then all he had was 8 divisions to stop them.
Because if you don't have an offensive doctrine...why the hell would you gear your forces for offensive abilities. France had lost the technological war with Germany and the manpower battle as well. They viewed thier only chance as defensive with the help of Britian.
As earlier posted, take away the French troops posted in the line and Frence has 9 divisions 2 of which are motorized, against what Germany has. Not exactly overwhelming odds givin that at the time it was assumed that you needed a 2:1 advantage when attacking a fixed position. Had they managed to beat Germany there then any French advance would be painfully slow.
Obviously you dont know the cases Iam refering and instead chose to follow the grand historical interpritation of 'Yah all the French ever did was spread their tanks into infantry divisions'.
Your right, could you please give some tangible information as to what your talking about. If this was the case then there has got to be something about it other than just what you say. I'm following the rule not the exception because France DID indeed incorperate its tanks into infantry divisions. France tried in vain to actually establish true armored divisions, but from what I have read they were too slow in implementing this before the German invasion.
The point is, this was not true. When French armored divisions met German armored divisions of the same strengh and number the French gave as good as they got. Thus if the Germans did not face 2 cavalry divisions when they burst through the Ardenes but rather 2 armored divisions they would have failed.
Had France used two full armored divisions in the Ardennes then the war would have been protracted, but the fact was they were still losing battles to the Germans regardless. You know that the cavelry divisions had elements of French armor didn't you. The Germans still had the mobility factor which the French lacked because of slow tanks and very little mobile units ect.
No, they didnt. In Belgium the 2nd and 3rd Panzer divisions got a huge bloody nose. They didnt bypass anything.
Please give me something so I can view it. Yes they did, German doctrin prohibited, if at all possible, the collision of armor battles as they knew thier tanks were outgunned and preferred to out maneuver thier opponent to give the Germans the initiative again.
Lets see, 360,000 Italians. With full dominanace of the air, tanks and heavy artilerly couldnt defeat 20,000 Frenchmen.
You have got to be kidding right? Full dominace of tanks and heavy arty? Thats an oxy-moron when using it in reference to the Italians
Its a whole different ballgame when you factor in the Germans with thier concept of war. They had 9 divisions not 2 btw. I don't think that the Italians had that much advantage because this is where Mussolini said, "It is the material I need. Even Michelangelo had need of marble to make statues, if he had only clay he would have been a potter."
As the player you would control when to call mobilisation..
True, but like it has been said a billion times, this is going to be historical in nature and France could not just call up its reserve forces for the simple fact that they "know" its coming. There will be repricussions I would imagine. The Polish invasion gave France the reason, if Germany bypasses this and hits France first then Germany, in a gameing sense, has again gained the "initiative."
France would be not unsuspecting since you as a player would know exactly where to put your troops.
I would imagine that given France's reliance on the Maginot Line and the fact that she had very little Liquid troops to shift here and about would not make this scenerio a real big factor. I would think that a person might want to pull the 14 divisions out of Africa, but then Italy would be the beneficiary of that move, but other than that I don't see a big swing from anywhere else.
Did Germans have a doctorine which involved a compleat combined arms co-opration
Yes, what the hell do you think a blitzkrieg was? All the elements were there, Air, check, ...land,check.
Did Germans understand how to launch a behind enemy lines parachue operation involving large scale numbers of troops
Yes, just ask the Dutch and French. Germany used paratroops as part of the invasion of France. German paratroops captured the town of Liege with the help of the 7th Panzer division.
Did German have the said number of troops?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly did to control a certain point, like I had said earlier. They had over 16,000 men when the invasion began. Add to the fact that the Luftwaffe and Army would be present too, then it can work.
Would Germans enjoy total airsupperiority to drop their troops?
They did in the actual war, what would be different here? France, just before the invasion had 735 outdated combat aircraft, Germany possessed 2,700 combat aircraft. With these numbers only the insane would dispute that Germany could achieve total airsuperiority, or at least local superiority.
