Yes and no. There was alot of competition and it wasnt obvious who had the final authority on matters.
-
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.
They dug in with lines of trenches expecting a German invasion of Belgium and France similar to how WW1 was fought? How is that nonsense it's fact. They even went to France with gas masks!
Last edited:
If you have lots of soldiers with lots of free time this is what you do. This is what the Russians did at Kursk, this is what the Germans did at Narva. Trench lines are fine. Should they have fought exposed?
(Note the Brits were infexible and Gort have made preparations for Dynamo from about September 39...but trench lines were no failure)
Everyone dug trenches in WW2 too. The bulk of the fighting was over trenches. In some areas (like the whole of Northern Russia/Baltics/Finland/Rzhev) it was line after line after line of trnehces far exceeding anything in WW1.
I bet those suckers fighting the wrong war even had gas masks
Of course they were fighting the wrong war. Defending Hawaii after 1942 was the correct kind of war. Digind trenches in the frozen mosquito infested taiga is as wrong as it could possibly be.
I dont know why anyone hasn't pointed out that the British needed to deploy all their troops to defend Hawaii before now.
Yeah, that one made zero sense to me either. But someone agreed with the point, so he must be right.
Sometimes this site reminds me of a junior high school discussion based on one liners and using 'likes' and 'dislikes' depending on who you eat lunch with.
All nations went to war expecting a war similar in nature to ww1; characterised by large scale in-depth fortifications, British blockade, and the use of combined arms to force a breakthrough. Even the German strategy was about occupying as much territory and channel coast in order to put itself in the strongest position in the expected war of attrition against the UK (backed by USA), similar to ww1. The concentration of armoured/motorized infantry was about enabling that strategy - the terms 'sickle cut' and 'blitzkreig' were post war explaination for the failure of the allied strategy.
As for the OP, you need to ask when this was likely to happen? After the fall of France presumably? Don't forget that Britain wasnt in as bad a shape as all the pro-German history likes to think. After Dunkirk, the UK deployed another 3 divisions to France as the 2nd BEF. So, even if Dunkirk results in the loss of the majority of the 1st BEF, and the Germans manage to air land an entire division in Cornwall and keep it supplied ... there isn't much to be done. Cornwall is strategically irrelevant, and there is limited options for breaking out. It is a relatively narrow strip of land and the areas of Exmoor and Dartmoor are very difficult terrain. Germany would have limited mobility to advance out if the narrow area which is not hilly marsh. It would be as foolish as the British attempting a landing in Denmark.
To be fair Germany tried hard to avoid fighting the same war again for obvious reasons. I mean they even feinted the Allies with a WW1 approach into Belgium.
Strangely enough, I always thought that was the case, however on the recommendation of @Zebedee I picked up The Blitzkrieg Legend by Frieser and it puts the campaign into a different context. I would absolutely recommend it. The first part of the book is dedicated to proving the points that the German high command absolutely did not want to fight the western allies, either in 1939 nor 1940. However after Poland, they had no choice.
What you see is Hitler believing his gift for short term gains - thus their aim for 1940 was to capture territory and force a favourable situation for an attritional war. They had only 14 mobile divisions (less than 10% of their strength). They were actively planning to fight a static war with huge numbers of marginally trained infantry divisions. All of their mobile forces were concentrated to force the British to 'pull back' and maintain the left flank (and the line of supply/communications) with the UK
The allies gifted the strategic victory by pushing the bulk of their best forces into Belgium to counter the expected 'strong right flank' coming through Belgium.
You can see from Tooze that this was supported economically. Firstly you had the massive build up of munitions in the 6 months leading up to the invasion of France, principally using the coal/steel taken from civillian sector. This had huge problems, with an acknowledged detriment of the long-term economic build up of the reich, putting the nation into material and food deficit during that period. Furthermore, there were the horses - the German army of 1940, relied on more horses than the German army of 1914.
It is a fascinating read, and I am sure that you will be able to appreciate the original German version. Just reminds me that as much as I think i know, I still have much to learn.
One of my favorite strategies.
I mean, at least Denmark has Bacon and blond ladies ?
Now it gets a bit complicated. You are basically right there but
On the whole Germanys pre plan was indeed a rematch. There been however strong advocates of different approaches like Manstein, Guderian and Göring, yes Göring and many more. Those also came up with different tools and approaches.
When the German battle plan fell into Allied hands Hitler rightfully realized that a remake of WW1 was not a good idea and they had other options.
Actually the British and French advanced into Belgium to meet the Germans, the fortifications along the French border were thus abandoned. They did indeed expect to entrench, this is not unnatural, indeed, the Germans did the exact same thing. Not being shot is generally regarded as a desirable outcome, and trenches help that.
And this is relevant, how?
Moreover, the Germans also carried gas masks, here's a picture.
Note that as it became evident that gas wasn't being used, a lot of soldiers ditched the gas mask and instead used the container for something more useful; bread, ammo, writing material, etc...
Hardly exceeding WW1, though places like Kursk came close.
Another tack: What if Germany refused to launch the BoB/Blitz, didn't engage in unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, and Hitler didn't declare war on the United States; trying to mollify them so that the US doesn't give lend lease to Britain or especially the USSR which Germany focuses on? Could Germany prevent or delay US entry into the war for long enough to defeat the Soviet Union?
If only I knew that before my military service. I could have just explained that trenches are outdated and it is modern to stand in the open and get shot...
Last edited: