The "quick" fall of France.

[vimhawk]

USSR v Japan

Regarding the posts speaking of a Japanese invasion of the USSR (was in connection with getting to the Soviet industry behind the Urals I believe).

The USSR and Japan did fight in WW2. The war lasted 22 days and resulted in utter and total defeat for the Japanese. The "old excuses" of vast Soviet numbers against a war weary enemy was not the reason for this. The Japanese Manchurian Army I would suspect was in August 1945 the least degraded Japanese fighting force left, endowed of course with a high degree of the renowned Japanese fighting spirit, even at that time. It's utter destruction was the employment of the Soviet version of the Blitzkrieg... in other words, Soviet development of an outstanding operational doctrine that enabled them to properly utilise their manpower resources. After all, mass is only an advantage if you can actually use it, which clearly they could not do in 1941.

So doctrine combined with excellent tanks (I don't fancy the chances of those light Japanese tanks against the excellet Soviet armour do you!) means that Japan would have had no chance whatsoever in any attack on the Soviets... and have you any idea how far it is from Manchuria to the Urals?????!!!!! (clue: the Soviet Union was the largest country in the world, and today Russia alone is nearly twice as large as Canada!)

Oh and one final thing... the country that fought in WW2 was the Soviet Union / USSR (NOT Russia), as it was until December 1991. Russia was one of 15 republics within it.

Just my 1 Euro worth...

 

[TeutonicKnight]

That is a half truth. France formed its own versions of Panzer divisions, which performed preaty damn well in the Low Countries. Germany just happened to attack France at a point where to Horse Cavalry Divisions were guarding a large front against a huge phalanx of tanks. But even then the Germans got lucky, if the French sent a couple dozen bombers over Ardenes the German columuns would have been stalled. And they got even more lucky when Guderien survived a bomber strike.

Those two cav divisions you speak of, did have armor within them. They had H-35's to support infantry just as the rest of the French army. France never did incorperate a true armored division.

You know there is a reason other then general rudness why Japan didnt invade Russia.

Besides what Zheswiho said, Japan could not compete with Russian armor. They lacked effective armor, and even moreso they lacked capable anti-tank weapons. Any armored thrust would have more than likely resulted in a Japanese route.

 

[Juu]

Re: USSR v Japan

Oh and one final thing... the country that fought in WW2 was the Soviet Union / USSR (NOT Russia), as it was until December 1991. Russia was one of 15 republics within it.

Offtopic, but USSR was essentially a renamed extension of the Russian Empire... Formally and theoretically, you're right - but in reality and practically it is the same thing.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

my numbers might be off but didnt germany have 144(or 124? something ending in four at least!) divisions for the final phase of the battle vs france? only if belgium and the netherlands are kept in can the allies balnce the situation. if they ally with the allies (fun eh? ) the allies can stop germany much easier. if not then..... 1939 scenario as france will be like playing 1 prov byzentum that isnt allowed loans and has no forts on its 1 prov. in other words you cant win it if done right by the devolpers. now they can prolong the war or seriusly hurt the germans but shear weight of numbers leadership and planes will prevail for germany.
germans scenario will be 1939 americas 1941 russias 1939 or 1942 maybe? japans 1936 uk/france 1936 italy 1936

 

[unmerged(4953)]

Those two cav divisions you speak of, did have armor within them. They had H-35's to support infantry just as the rest of the French army.

The majority of those troops were cavalirists.

France never did incorperate a true armored division.

Yes, they did. If you have time look up A Strange Victory by Earnest May.

 

[unmerged(10761)]

and thus, will you agree ?;

for the makers of the game and all us re-enacters:
in 1940 a French INFANTRY army of "6" should NOT be run over by a German INFANTRY army of 6.

A French army consisting of infantry and tanks should NOT be run over by a German tank/infantry army.

Only in the folowing cases there is a repetition of the Blitz:
French have Infantry; the germans infantry AND TANKS.

French have 4 infantry units, the Germans (e.g.) 12 infantry units.

French have infantry and tanks, Germans attack with infantry and/or tanks AND STUKAS (I am still curious how this is done in HOI)....

In general; the Airforce should have a STRONG influence on a battle, without it..all left for the German player is to have a local 'huge' majority in order to win.

Of course the 'sliders'(indicators) in the game could show for german ARMIES (!) better 'training' and'equipment' and 'tactical skill'..'preparedness' ..morale.....etc..and it should yield some improvement ...but I find that these effects are minor to the ones indicated before..

Agreed ?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Not entirely - the scale of HoI at the province level does not account for superior tactical control of Germans over the French. I would hope that the army "dp sliders" or whatever the HoI equivalent are would make quitte a substantial difference.

e.g. French 1:1 attack is unlikely to succeed (20/80). German 1:1 attack may be 50/50 or even better with a decent leader.

 

[unmerged(1057)]

Originally posted by Surcouf



i also remind you that if the german did so well in 1940 in france it is because rommel did not follow the order of the german hight command to stop (unfortunately for us) the german HQ was affraid of the deepness of rommels attack and fearead they would be cut from there bases (wich hadd almost happend due to a french ounterattack who failed but not from far).

Hmm...The success would have been even greater.. If Hitler hadn´t for once gotten nervous and held back the panzers before Boulogne..or was it Calais. If they had pursued, they would have been no miracle at the beaches of Dunkerque, the BEF would have been captured and possibly England would have made peace..

 

[Sabotage]

According to my books Germany had the following ready for 'Fall Gelb':

118 Infantry divisions,
10 Panzer divisions,
1 Cavalry division,
1 Airborne division,
4 Motorized divisions and
2 Motorized SS divisions.

Which is 136 divisions...

(Germany also had 2574 tanks and 3834 aircraft - where about 1000 thousand are listed as other, meaning not fighter or bombers probably Ju-52, Fieseler storcks, recon and such...)

The allies:

119 Infantry divisions,
11 Panzer divisions and
7 Motorized divisions (cavalry divs in this number perhaps).

All in all that would be 127 divisions... Not looking so bad for the Allies all of a sudden?

(The allies had 4700 tanks and 2372 aircraft - where 400 is listed as other).

Also, in that book i have, it says that Hitler postponed the attack in west no less than 29 times(!), and that resulted in the Dutch and Belgian forces letting down their guard a bit. A German colonel named Oster told the Dutch army attache Sass about the attacks, lol... i can almost imagine it... 'No really, they are going to attack THIS time, trust me!!! I know I was wrong the last 28 times I warned you, but this time... For sure!!'

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

just remember those numbers can be very fualty. if no allaince is set belgium and netherlands forces cannot count in favor of allies. and though the allies tanks all in all were better they had many old tanks and all germanies were new.

 

[Sabotage]

True, but nevertheless, France/UK had the majority of the forces i mentioned, and they where fighting a defensive battle = No need to have a 1:1 basis, 1:2 should be enough as a defender (especially with the maginot line).

Another thing... Germanys new tanks... Really, they where again outgunned & outarmored in respect to the French. I thought that had been cleared up in alot of other threads here?

Germanys force was the surprise and speedy attacks & close airsupport = blitzkrieg. (IMHO)

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

oh ya sorry. by new german i ment as in recently built. by old allied i ment well they are old hehe. a lot of simple advances happen over time. i too agree the allies had better tanks but too many were older and less powerful. again though germany also didnt have to guard much the maginot line. unfortinitly as i have said the allies didnt realize that german as right where they needed them if they had only put most of their forces into a reserve and hoped the germans would try to make a big gamble attack they might MIGHT have forestalled the war long enough for many more allied divisions to be formed and equality in the air to happen. also if they allies did beat the germans out odds are the ussr might have begun to rethink its strategy and neutrality.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Re: and thus, will you agree ?;

Originally posted by snailtrailer
for the makers of the game and all us re-enacters:
in 1940 a French INFANTRY army of "6" should NOT be run over by a German INFANTRY army of 6.

A French army consisting of infantry and tanks should NOT be run over by a German tank/infantry army.

Only in the folowing cases there is a repetition of the Blitz:
French have Infantry; the germans infantry AND TANKS.

French have 4 infantry units, the Germans (e.g.) 12 infantry units.

French have infantry and tanks, Germans attack with infantry and/or tanks AND STUKAS (I am still curious how this is done in HOI)....

In general; the Airforce should have a STRONG influence on a battle, without it..all left for the German player is to have a local 'huge' majority in order to win.

Of course the 'sliders'(indicators) in the game could show for german ARMIES (!) better 'training' and'equipment' and 'tactical skill'..'preparedness' ..morale.....etc..and it should yield some improvement ...but I find that these effects are minor to the ones indicated before..

Agreed ?

I'm not sure I agree with this. French divisions had a shocking tendency to break & flee from combat. I remember one case of a French division disintegrating when its soldiers panicked and fled when it was five miles behind the Meuse. It broke because everyone believed that German tanks were about to attack - at a time when not a single German tank had even crossed the Meuse yet! For me, the key factor was the atrocious French morale, willing to give up at the slightest sign of defeat. As soon as the Germans achieved any sort of victory, morale (in general) fell through the floor. At this point, a German infantry division could overcome a French infantry division, based mainly on morale.

Of course, there are other factors too, as you mentioned. I just place more emphasis on morale.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

well thats not even what the majority if divisions went through.
many units were actular defeated overun surrounded etc and had to surrender. same goes with once the situation was so bad the french knew they couldnt win. many units did break early. they are called reserve B units or worse. francs problem was their good units were good but their bad ones were real bad. and they were too many bad ones.

 

[unmerged(2920)]

Re: Re: and thus, will you agree ?;

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


I'm not sure I agree with this. French divisions had a shocking tendency to break & flee from combat. I remember one case of a French division disintegrating when its soldiers panicked and fled when it was five miles behind the Meuse. It broke because everyone believed that German tanks were about to attack - at a time when not a single German tank had even crossed the Meuse yet! For me, the key factor was the atrocious French morale, willing to give up at the slightest sign of defeat. As soon as the Germans achieved any sort of victory, morale (in general) fell through the floor. At this point, a German infantry division could overcome a French infantry division, based mainly on morale.

Of course, there are other factors too, as you mentioned. I just place more emphasis on morale.

those where 2nd line division no 1st line. one of the thing that was a problem was the habbits to make 1st and 2nd line division, 1st had good moral, equipment and training, 2nd where not so good and sometimes poorly equiped in artillery anti tank and tank. also at that time rommels' tanks had a réputation of striking from everywhere at every moment (the ghost division), so it is understandable that they believed that the germans where there and after being crushed for several day by those same germans i don't think the moral of any army would have been good.


as for the boulogne stand of by hitler it was not a military move but a political one, he did it to let the BEF escape and then proving the the british taht he didn't whanted to harm them and negotiate peace after the fall of france. it is not as stupid as it seems and some good strategist and politicians like sir liddle hart said it could have worked if whamberlain was still in power, the salt in the reasonning was churchill who sayed no to any surendering offer (fortunately i should say ). this one is not a stupid move and could have worked. if the BEF would have been captured the english could have been repulsive ot surrender.

and for japan attaking ussr well remember that there was a war in 1939 on the mandchourian border and that the japanese where totaly beaten and destroyed by the russian. this and also the lack of interest on the east of ussr are mainly the reason for the japanese not to declare war on the ussr in 1941.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

I'm not sure I agree with this. French divisions had a shocking tendency to break & flee from combat. I remember one case of a French division disintegrating when its soldiers panicked and fled when it was five miles behind the Meuse. It broke because everyone believed that German tanks were about to attack - at a time when not a single German tank had even crossed the Meuse yet! For me, the key factor was the atrocious French morale, willing to give up at the slightest sign of defeat. As soon as the Germans achieved any sort of victory, morale (in general) fell through the floor. At this point, a German infantry division could overcome a French infantry division, based mainly on morale.

This is another half truth. French divisions in general didnt just collapse, otherwise the German attack through Belgium wouldnt have been stoped dead cold in its tracks. The Ardenese front was relegetated 2 reserve Cavalry(horse) divisions. Of course the broke and ran when tanks showed up and even these had some heroic moments even though they were hopelessly outnumbered and out gunned.
French armored formations and front line infantry divisions performed quite well.

and though the allies tanks all in all were better they had many old tanks and all germanies were new.

That simply not true.
Germans through into the Westn more light and thus obsolete tanks then the French did.

francs problem was their good units were good but their bad ones were real bad. and they were too many bad ones.

This a misinterpritation. Fact of the matter is a couple of territorial divisions broke infront of Panzers, so what ? The vast majority of the French army was at the time in Belgium and holding its own.
Further more if we want to use anicdotal evidence then look at the way a regiment of British tanks 'routed' a Germna Panzer army.
Does this mean German Panzer Armies are mostly crap?

and for japan attaking ussr well remember that there was a war in 1939 on the mandchourian border and that the japanese where totaly beaten and destroyed by the russian. this and also the lack of interest on the east of ussr are mainly the reason for the japanese not to declare war on the ussr in 1941.

Plus the Dutch East Indies had oil ready to be taken, Siberia didnt.

 

[unmerged(4953)]

As I always keep saying the question isnt "How can France win" but "How can France lose"
a player with our 20/20 hindsight will crush Germany or at the very least lead to a tranch like war where superior economics of Allies will win again.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

ZheShiWO i dont know where you get your facts but they are rather fualty. first off old but good isnt as effective as new but weak. newer= better mehanicaly for the most part and more up-to-date equipment. many of frances division were class B and very inefective as a whole and the class A ones were very good. i am not trying to downplay france but their class B units were not a whole lot better the the average romanian unit in russia.
also the key thing is german strength is so much better after the low countries fall that the germans will win eventualy no matter what. their airpower would have dominated unless churchill felt like gambling their good planes in france and all their place in france. not something he would do in my opinion.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by TeutonicKnight
Those two cav divisions you speak of, did have armor within them. They had H-35's to support infantry just as the rest of the French army. France never did incorperate a true armored division.

In 1934 the 1ère Division Légère Mécanique (DLM) was created from a fully mechanized cavalry division. By May 1940 there were 3 DLMs and a 4th forming. Each of these contained:
* a reconnaissance regiment with 2 armored car and 2 motorcycle squadrons,
* a tank brigade of 2 regiments equipped with Somuas and H-35s,
* a motor rifle brigade of 3 battalions, each with:
* a light tank company of 20 AMRs,
* a motorcycle company,
* 2 truck born infantry companies, and
* a heavy weapons company,
* a motorized artillery regiment, and
* an engineer battalion.

Mmm Looks like and Armour division to me

 

[Petrarca]

Originally posted by ZheShiWO
As I always keep saying the question isnt "How can France win" but "How can France lose"
a player with our 20/20 hindsight will crush Germany or at the very least lead to a tranch like war where superior economics of Allies will win again.

I agree. With some reforms, and covering the Ardennes(!) I expect France to do well against Germany. I believe one could do well if the best part of the army wasn't concentrated opposite Northern Belgium and a certain forest left guarded by second-line troops and completely unpatrolled by aircraft.