I'm glad it's not a US game

[unmerged(9106)]

2. They had outdated tanks (half of them were built during WW1) and the French used them as support for the infantry rather than offensive weapons.

4. The Luftwaffe was superior to France's air force.

Thats not true frace had some very good tanks that had beter charakteristics then their german analoges, the same goes for thier planes, GB and France had more tanks and planes than germans..but they scatered them all acros the front line...so in many cases they were strongly outnumbered by germans

 

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Sebek


Thats not true frace had some very good tanks that had beter charakteristics then their german analoges, the same goes for thier planes, GB and France had more tanks and planes than germans..but they scatered them all acros the front line...so in many cases they were strongly outnumbered by germans

The idea that French tanks were superior to Germans is a myth. Some of them had greater armor and larger guns, but had other critical failings that made them vastly inferior to the German equivalents.

Berkut

 

[unmerged(9106)]

well german tanks werent that good at the beginig either Pz MkI was nothing more than armored car with thraks and MkII was a light tank with thin armor and 22mm gun (now that gona do much good) ..cech tanks were better but not too much...MkIII and MkIV were present in very small amounts and didn't have any influence on the campaingh at all
Anyway french tanks werent worse then german ones (both were far from beeing perfect)..it's all about concentraiting more units at the right time in the right place

 

[unmerged(3168)]

I couldn't agreed more Sebek, also I remember reading somewhere ( I might be wrong in saying this) that the German Tanks had Petrol engines so they could just pull into a petrol station to refuel but most of the French tanks run off diesel.

So when they need to refuel they had to sit there and wait until their supply trucks got there. With the speed of the German advance and airpower limited the movement of these supply/maintenance units. This meant that more French tanks were abandoned by their crews due to mechanical failure and lack of fuel, than were destroyed by enemy action.

 

[Damocles]

The French lost because of tactical doctrine and agonizingly poor leadership. The superiority of their tanks or planes mattered not. They were amazingly out-generaled and had no other 'plausible' excuse.

Under a different command, France had plenty of -opportunities- to defeat the Germans swiftly, but failed to do so. I believe that tales of the individual French soldiers fighting hard is a myth. There were so many surrenduring that the Germans couldn't bother to disarm them.

 

[unmerged(4273)]

Originally posted by Sebek
well german tanks werent that good at the beginig either Pz MkI was nothing more than armored car with thraks and MkII was a light tank with thin armor and 22mm gun (now that gona do much good) ..cech tanks were better but not too much...MkIII and MkIV were present in very small amounts and didn't have any influence on the campaingh at all
Anyway french tanks werent worse then german ones (both were far from beeing perfect)..it's all about concentraiting more units at the right time in the right place

Well, it is true that the French tanks weren't "worse" than the German tanks, it is also true that the German tanks were far more suited to the Blitzkrieg tactics employed by the Germans, and that the French tanks may have been less so because of less mobility and speed.

Concentrating a lot of French tanks isn't necessarily effective if they get bogged down in the mud because of narrow tread base.

 

[Spruce]

ahum,

Imho France should not be underestimated. Remember that Germany (at the start of the conflict) was well ahead of ALL the other countries.

At that moment, even the British exp. army group was overrun by the Blitz. Look at Russia etc.

The important message for the game is this = how will you deal with your enemy taking the starting point into consideration?

F.e. Russia had big armies, poorly equiped in the first years, always poorly trained and very bad commanders.

How did they break Germany? They kept on producing big armies, but they improved quality very good. They learned from the Blitz and improved particularly on tanks and planes. Also, the superior army staff consisted out of very resourcefull people.

Imho, if I play France in the game, I should be able to keep out of the conflict. Improve quality of my tanks and planes and improve tactics and strategy of the army.

If the USA would lie next to germany in 1939, they also would have been overrun!

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Spruce
Imho, if I play France in the game, I should be able to keep out of the conflict. Improve quality of my tanks and planes and improve tactics and strategy of the army.

I doubt that Germany would ever let France do that. Hitler's agenda was pretty much (with some items overlapping):

1) Unite all territories inhabited by ethnic Germans or historically part of Germany with Germany.

2) Avenge the Treaty of Versailles.

3) Eliminate the Soviet Union and stamp out communism wherever else it reared its head.

4) Provide territory in the East for German settlement.

5) Establish the "Thousand Year Reich from the Urals to the Sea".

#1, 2 & 5 all require taking on France whether the French want to fight or not. In fact, with the USSR neutralized diplomatically and Poland taken out, France is logically next on the list. I suspect that if France had not declared war in the fall of '39 over Poland, Germany would have attacked France in the spring of '40 in any event. France needs to be ready to roll by 1940 or they are in big trouble.

Originally posted by Spruce
If the USA would lie next to germany in 1939, they also would have been overrun!

Nope. If the US had been on the continent of Europe and followed its historic pre-WWII defense policy of essentially no peacetime military, it would not have survived the Napoleonic era. If the US had been on the continent of Europe and pursued a European-style defense policy (which would have been necessary if it was to survive until 1939), with its population and industrial strength it would have been too strong for the German army of 1939 to take on. Even if its forces were organized & equipped as they were in 1939, a US armed to the same level as France (proportional to its wealth and population) would have fielded an army about 4 times the size of France. Quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

well as far as tanks quality quintity and ships and all things involved i really hope the game represents well how airpower is vital to winning and not losing. a country with a stong air force and mediocore army and or navy will always be very hard to fight and has been that way sense ww2. airpower will hopefully though ( for those who have played iron storm on the sega saturn) not be the easiet way to win but i truely hope that a strong airforce as say france but even with a poor army will be very effective against the germans because with their airforce set up and air superiority the german army is really needed more for a move in and disarm role and doesnt have to do nearly as hard fighting as the would if air power was balanced in the invasion of france.

 

[L G]

that is 1 of my first plans when i get the game, focus mainly on air power, i feel airpower is the key 2 winning a war, but u still have 2 have at least mediocre armies. but i do hope they can model air support well....

 

[unmerged(9106)]

don't overestimate air power in those days planes werent that effective as they are today...yes I agree planes a very important, you can't succsefully attack without air superiority (affensive in ardenes in 1944), but you can't win a war by just droping bombs either.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

well i feel a balance needing air to win and not lose but it being still an arm that needs ground support. i want a strong air influence but yes i undertand in ww2 you need an army to win also. as long as a strong air really matters for winning battles i am happy. unless the enemy has lots of aa and fighters

 

[unmerged(9145)]

The fact is is that the French were handed their asses on a plate, for a variety of reasons. In a 1939 start there should be little chance of anything else happening given the vast problems in leadership, tactics, and logistics that the French army suffered from.

And France did fold from a lack of will to fight. They were bitch-slapped well into next week by the Germans, suffering defeats even more stunning than those handed to the Poles. To the average Frenchman the Germans were simply unbeatable and fighting was just another way to commit suicide.

The Poles had more will than the French, under the same conditions. They fought much harder despite the fact that they, too, suffered serious problems and were roundly, and badly, defeated in every engagement.

The Germans, on the other hand, had a will to fight that was simply unmatched by any other nation in the world. They fought to the bitter end - right up to the occupation of Berlin and the near-complete destruction of their army, not to mention the slaughter of virtually an entire generation of young men. They simply *wouldn't give up*.

Conviction has alot to do with how hard a nation will fight. It always has and it always will. During WW2 Germany had more sheer determination than any other nation around; France had virtually none. This is a fact.

There's no shame in this. Every nation has its ups and downs. Remember, just over a century before this the French managed to conquer almost all of Europe, and without the technological advantages that Hitler had. The Italians were simply pathetic in WW2 and nothing would make their performance any different; but as the Romans they made more of a lasting impact on the Western World than any nation ever, in all of history.

Nationalism is great for blinding folks to the facts. France had no serious chance of ever holding off the Germans during WW2, much less defeating them. But a hundred years before that Prussia was nothing more than a punching bag for French armies, and no amount of German nationalist pride could change that. And two thousand years before that all the world was fodder under the Roman bootheel.

And so it goes.

Max

 

[Juba]

Re: difficult

Originally posted by TomA
I think it's just really difficult to create a WW2 game that allows players to control history and still provide the Axis with the chance to win. In reality, France did really suck in the war (perhaps worse then Italy). The main reason for this seems to be that the French Army was still utilizing outdated military strategies, while the German blitzkrieg revolutionized warfare. It would be difficult for a EU type game to simulate the onslought of the blitzkrieg strategy, so the only options are to make France weaker then normal, or to allow France to resist for quite a long time and consideretly slow down the Axis attack, rendering the war much more uneven then it was.
Think about EU. When the computer or a player plays as China it is nearly impossible for them to perform as bad as China fared in history, so they do much better.
If this transfers over to HoI, then the French player wouldn't possibly fold in 6 weeks, which would keep the rest of the war from being anywhere near as interesting as the real war. So, I could understand why US games have France weaker then they should be!

The reason why the French folded so quickly was not due to their army being below par but because it was misplaced. They placed too much trust in their Maginot Line and the "impossible" terrain of the Ardennes forest and therefore when the Germans struck through the Low Countries and the Ardennes the majority of the French army wasn't there to stop the invasion. Stopping an attack once it has gotten rolling is one of the hardest things to do in warfare especially during WW2 so therefore the French army cannot be blamed for this. Just look at any of the offensives in WW2. Also remeber that the BEF got was driven off the continent so quickly they had to leave their weapons behind just so there would be enough space for the men on the ships so then the British army would have to be as bad as the French.
It is true that the French were out dated in their doctrines especially their armoured doctrine but this was the case in every country other than Germany so France cannot be blamed for this. Also unlike the rest the French had to pay the price immediatly while the Brits had time to implement changes after the experiences of the BEF in France.
So yes the player wouldn't fold because he could correct the mistakes of the French by simply repositioning their armies and reorganising their armoured forces.

 

[Juba]

Originally posted by maxpublic
The Germans, on the other hand, had a will to fight that was simply unmatched by any other nation in the world. They fought to the bitter end - right up to the occupation of Berlin and the near-complete destruction of their army, not to mention the slaughter of virtually an entire generation of young men. They simply *wouldn't give up*.

Well I think that's a bit too big of a generalisation. Certainly the troops in the west front especially before Normandy would certainly not fight to the bitter end. When the battle came to the home ground of the Germans there were those that surrendered or ran away after the first shot but of course there were the fanatics who'd fight to the death. You're thinking of the Waffen SS here not the German army as a whole. The SS was the section that when told to jump would immediatly shout "how high?" and when told 1km and would kill themselves in the process how trying to jump to 1km. The other units were different however, remember the fate of the Sixth army?

 

[unmerged(7737)]

tradeoffs

I think it is important to realize that any nation during the prewar time period is going to have to make severe tradeoffs between military/strategic concerns and diplomatic/political ones. Its easy to say that I would make the French military strong and efficient but this has to come at a cost politically, Afterall the people and or systems/strategies/tactics that were in place were there because those in charge felt that was the right mix or feasible mix. Changing outcomes requires changing ideas and people. France in particular highlights these potential tradeoffs. For example: Several posters here have pointed to the turmoil in the French political system as a weakness in their ability to fight the war. In this case wouldn't severe military restructuring also have an effect on the French will and or desires? Remember that new methods rarely have the confidence of people until proven effective. Would a politically stronger but defeated France have a Free French movement at all? Also wouldn't initial losses, through bad player planning, to the Germans from a better organized but less confident, than historically, French military cause it to collapse quicker? Additionally, wouldn't a country like France having a stronger military fear Germany less and be less quick to defend Poland? Converselly, wouldn't a less militarilly strong but more politically cohesive France be more fearfull of the reoccupation of the rhineland and declare war then? Basically, a relative strength vs. relative fear security dillema. In France the outcome of WWI gave it a different dynamic than other countries and if the game is structured properly it should be pretty difficult to vastly improve the French position.
Also remember that Hitler was able to accomplish what he did by playing with the attributes of those he oppossed and attacking their weak points. In a game like the one this proposes to be Germany, for example, might have a an extra hundred submarines in 1939 and no Bismark or Tirpitz. Don't get caught planning for or fighting the historical war.

 

[Juba]

Originally posted by Patriote
I did some kind of a research on this subject last year... The French lost b/c:

1. Their strategy was mostly defensive (mostly because of the construction of the Maginot Line) which prevented them from using any imaginative strategy. As it was said earlier, they were waiting to face the Germans in Belgium, and instead got caught in Northern France.

2. They had outdated tanks (half of them were built during WW1) and the French used them as support for the infantry rather than offensive weapons.

3. The French were pessimistic about the outcome of the war. The country was weak, and didn't really want to fight Germany. During the campaign, in late May, a French battalion was prevented from entering a village by the local population, which didn't want to see the city damaged or destroyed.

4. The Luftwaffe was superior to France's air force.

1. As I said in an earlier post the defensive strategy could have worked well if it had been positioned correctly. If the Germans would have been assaulting a fully-manned Maginot line that hadn't been demoralised yet by the defeats in Belgium and the Ardennes the Germans would have had a VERY tough time going through.

2. Yes half of their tanks were from WW1 about 1200 FT-17s IIRC however, they weren't used on the front line. Look at the Char series, the Germans didn't have anything to match them.

3. Everybody expected France to completely trash the Germans. Remember that in WW1 the French army fought well. A lot of this trust was placed in the huge Maginot line and therefore the supposed invicibility of the French army. Yes the civilians didn't wan't their city harmed but did they want the battalion to surrender to the Germans?

4. True

 

[unmerged(9145)]

Originally posted by Andravius
Just kidding on two, but to some extant the French have always danced to their own tune which some US Americans resent.

It's not the dancing to their own tune; it's the part where they decide to insult Americans for no reason whatsoever other than they're American and it seems to be a national sporting event.

The southern French are rather nice, polite folks. Vacation in southern France, if you have to go to France.

The northern French, especially those in Paris - well, I *do not* recommend a visit to that area by my fellow Americans, unless you like being screwed at every turn, especially on prices. And if you actually understand French you'd better develop a pretty thick skin fairly quickly, as Parisians especially seem to enjoy making nasty comments about Americans, thinking that the tourists don't understand what they're saying....

Heck, just avoid it altogether and go to Holland. Now *there* is a friendly nation, and a fun one as well.

Max

 

[InnocentIII]

The French actually fought well in WWII: against the US and free French. They fought miserably vs the Germans and even the Japanese in Indochina. They fought the Italians to a standstill, but that just means they showed up.

[Churchill on being told the Italians were fighting with the Germans: "That's only fair, we had them last time."]

Edit - I enjoyed France quite a bit when I was there, of course that was 1976, though there were still some sealed off bunkers on the beach in Bretagne] I also enjoy the SNL commercial on France and the phrase "cheese eating surrender monkeys"

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by maxpublic


It's not the dancing to their own tune; it's the part where they decide to insult Americans for no reason whatsoever other than they're American and it seems to be a national sporting event.

The southern French are rather nice, polite folks. Vacation in southern France, if you have to go to France.

The northern French, especially those in Paris - well, I *do not* recommend a visit to that area by my fellow Americans, unless you like being screwed at every turn, especially on prices. And if you actually understand French you'd better develop a pretty thick skin fairly quickly, as Parisians especially seem to enjoy making nasty comments about Americans, thinking that the tourists don't understand what they're saying....

Heck, just avoid it altogether and go to Holland. Now *there* is a friendly nation, and a fun one as well.

Max

You know its weird I have French friends in Paris and I have spent several months of my life in Paris and I have never been treated poorly...indeed most of the time the French people would help me out far and away further then I ever would expect in my own country. France is a different culture and it is weird for an American and I experienced my share of culture shock but I dont think its fair to stereotype Parisians as being out to screw Americans or being anti-American because in my several hundred encounters with the people in that city I met a grand total of one rude person and that was a bored bureaucrat. So maybe I am just lucky?

Also as in every country I found a variety of opinions on America and our policies and ways of thinking. French people who really took the time to learn about America were generally positive in their outlook while others who were more Euro-centric were a little more nit-picky. Still I read the papers and such over there and I always found it funny that only the most imflamitory statements by French politicians and most radical articles are seen over here. Of course the reason is its more exciting to print those articles then ones that are in favor of the US. The fact of the matter is whenever we really needed the French they have come through for us. They fought with us in the Gulf War and over 60% of the French population answered they would be in favor of sending French troops to support the United States after Sept. 11 if it was necessary. I dont think the French are any more anti-American than any other European country but they have a stereo-type that might at one point be deserved...but I dont think it is today.

Case in point: I remember when that awful Disney version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame came out and the American papers contained articles describing how the snobby French were outraged so we could all laugh at them. What did the average French person feel about the film? About the same as the Americans did, the movie did very well in France and all the kids there had their little hunchback dolls like over here. Dont believe the propoganda....