French Army depends on artillery, yet their strategy is (was?) very different from US army. A unique doctrine might be a good idea but I don't think Paradox will do this.
France has the wrong Land Doctrine
- Thread starter Duritz
- Start date
-
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.
US Army actually derived a lot of doctrine and stuff from the French in World War I.
We have not seen much about superior firepower or mass assault.
Grand battle plan doctrine are built on very high max planing, the choices are either continue on the same path with the assault choice or getting more flexibility with the infiltration path. Grand battle plan don't focus very much on any specific unit but everything will be powerful with its very large planing bonus.
What little I know about superior firepower say it focus alot on airpower, it do get a major artillery bonus to start with. Alot of minor countries used that doctrine in HOI2 as far as I know, with USA being the major power to use it.
My guess is that SF focus on high cost low manpower solutions, it may be a bit more limited then GB but the advantage is that SF is not as dependent on the planing bonus and can thus move faster.
In reality the doctrines interchanged alot, like most can see the advantages of mobility and firepower. Everyone used artillery so that can not really be used to tell which doctrine the country used.
Grand battle plan doctrine are built on very high max planing, the choices are either continue on the same path with the assault choice or getting more flexibility with the infiltration path. Grand battle plan don't focus very much on any specific unit but everything will be powerful with its very large planing bonus.
What little I know about superior firepower say it focus alot on airpower, it do get a major artillery bonus to start with. Alot of minor countries used that doctrine in HOI2 as far as I know, with USA being the major power to use it.
My guess is that SF focus on high cost low manpower solutions, it may be a bit more limited then GB but the advantage is that SF is not as dependent on the planing bonus and can thus move faster.
In reality the doctrines interchanged alot, like most can see the advantages of mobility and firepower. Everyone used artillery so that can not really be used to tell which doctrine the country used.
Last edited:
Kind of, but France pays more attention to artillery while US tries to improve air support.
And it seems like air support is why USA get superior firepower while France get grand battle plan.
- 2
I remember that in HOI2 the last part of SF is sth. like "air-ground coordination", while GB gives a great bonus to artillery(Although I will argue that this bonus doesn't fit the focus of Frence Army).
I think everyone's focusing too much on the names here. Reading the Land Doctrine DD the Grand Battleplan doctrine seems pretty close to what you're talking about with the French doctrine.
The development diary says this,
That's what this really comes down to though. In my honest opinion until we get detailed information about the land doctrines it's hasty to leap to such drastic judgements.
I'll finish off by quoating what the DD has to say about the Superior Firepower doctrine.
Emphasis mine.
The development diary says this,
So Grand Battleplan isn't about large scale offensives but actually starts out focusing if anything on defensive planning. Something, judging from what your saying, that the French did.
Once again you seem to be judging it just by the name. You're also assuming again that battleplans are purely an offensive tool when we already know that's false.
Once again from the development diary,
Grand Battleplan actually boosts infantry and artillery. Again, from what you said, the French doctrine focused on infantry supported by artillery.
Have we seen the actually numbers and effects of the land doctrines? I remember them showing off some of the Mobile Warfare Doctrine in WWW but I don't remember seeing any of the Superior Firepower doctrine or Grand Battleplan.
That's what this really comes down to though. In my honest opinion until we get detailed information about the land doctrines it's hasty to leap to such drastic judgements.
I'll finish off by quoating what the DD has to say about the Superior Firepower doctrine.
- 1
"Superior firepower" is just Paradox's way of flattering their US customers: US doctrine did not differ in any major way from UK or French doctrine. The fact that the USA was more willing to expend vast amounts of artillery and air-support on bombarding a target before assaulting it is just a measure of its industrial strength, nothing more.
- 2
- 1
Everyone used every doctrine in some extent, it was not like Germany did have a patent on mobility or something like that.
- 2
Sure, but it's possible to point to differences in the way German armies fought that can be explained through their doctrines (e.g., their extensive use of Kampfgruppen, something that in other armies were only used out of desperation; the Soviets and their small divisions), not so much, say, the US and the UK.
But the US organized their divisions into Regimental Combat Teams: Combat Command A and B and Reserve... which is broadly similar to the Kampfgruppen.
- 1
This is true for the post-war years, but in the 30's the USA put a lot of time into improving its' artillery. More specifically the USA spent a lot of time on figuring out how to get accurate artillery on target fast and how to maximize casualties from artillery bombardments. This research would culminate in Time On Target and the related tabulation machines necessary to give every gun its' own firing calculations. The USA also put a lot of work into smoothing out their artillery request procedures, so that frontline officers could easily and quickly call-in precision artillery during any kind of combat encounter. While the UK is renowned for its' great artillery and its' devastating bombardments, it is rather safe to say that the USA had a far better organization built up around its' artillery and had created systems that allowed it to play a role in most combat scenarios, no matter if it was planned barrages or not.
- 2
- 2
Grand Battle Plan with an artillery firepower-centric focus is probably close enough to French Methodical Battle to serve, although the doctrine might be called petite battle plan due to the extensive degree of meticulous coordination and control envisioned at all levels. The armor practice was IST and low-level combined arms with formation of armor divisions satarted before the war, but with a different concept from the bolder German commanders who would untether their armor from the infantry corps. Successful mehtods would doubtless have been imitated in time.
The heavier French tanks were thought the best in the world in 1939-40, which was before the era of the PzIII and PzIV, but could have been the basis of effective armored forces in a protracted war.
The heavier French tanks were thought the best in the world in 1939-40, which was before the era of the PzIII and PzIV, but could have been the basis of effective armored forces in a protracted war.
- 1
Yes, France intended to concentrate their artillery fire power while US emphasised the precision and response time of their artillery
- 1