[Boondock Saint]

This was brought up in another forum by someone ...

Actually, historically, when France was invaded, France had the better army, including superior tanks.

But their leaders weren't very good, so their army spent most of the time being routed and chased by angry Panzer tanks.

Does anyone agree with this?

Is this historically accurate?

I know early panzers were nothing like that later panzers but ... did the French really have good tanks?

*I am google searching now*

[Freedom]

I'm not sure about the tanks...but didnt France after WW1 build some stupid wall that only went like half ways so the Germans just wen around it and most of their troops were positioned in these underground Gun turrents and tunnels? I always thought thats why they lost out to the Germans.

Meh

[Nox]

This was brought up in another forum by someone ...

Actually, historically, when France was invaded, France had the better army, including superior tanks.

But their leaders weren't very good, so their army spent most of the time being routed and chased by angry Panzer tanks.

Does anyone agree with this?

No. While it is true that their leaders (military and political) weren't very good (the Rhineland being a prime example), it is difficult to make the claim that an Army is good when the leadership isn't. The organization is merely a reflection of the leadership.

I know early panzers were nothing like that later panzers but ... did the French really have good tanks?

It is my understanding that the Russians had the best tanks at that time.

Nox

[MB.]

Yeah! Someone finnaly posted this topic!

Yes, historically, the French had a superoir army to the Germans. Their tanks were 'better' in the sense that they had excellent armour and weaponry, but NOT in the sense of tactics. French tanks were slow and undermanned (some with one men acting as both Gunner, Loader and Commander all in one), were as the Germans had tanks (Panzer III and IVs, the panzer II and exception to that- though it was rearley used in the battle of France) that were manned with 5 soldiers, despite thier poor armour and weaponry. The German airforce was a differnt matter. French planes, again claimed to the be the best in the world, were slow, had poor turning rates, and were no match for their German equivilants. Where things REALLY stood apart though were in German tactics. Thanks to Hanz Gurdarain (dam I can never spell his name), the inventor of the imfamous Blitzkrieg, the slow, poorly trained and poorly led French army didn't stand a chance against the fast mobile and elite German forces.

As to the Magionot line, the REAL joke is that the Germans used said line to defend against the Americans when they invaded four years later. And, the Yanks not being the best of tactitions, faced the wall head on rather then flanking it as the Germans had done before.

[MB.]

Ohyah, of COURSE the Russains had the best tanks (T-34 Kv-1 baby!) I mean, that's a duh, but we weren't talking about them

[Khenlein]

France had the better army

This isn't really accurate, althought it depends on what you mean 'better', better equipment doesnt mean an overall more impressive fighitng effectiveness.


In terms of land based equipment though,

Their were french tanks of a far superior design as compared to their Panzer contempararies, yes.

The S-35 and the Char b1 bis were totally of a differnt class in terms of battleifled power. Both were had far superior armour and were upgunned compared to the germans. Even the lowly little 'rennie' R-35 was far more resistant to the main ATG the German army sported, than the Germans were to French guns.

The French had tanks the Germans couldn't even destroy coventionally using their own Panzers, but had to resort to the 8.8cm ATG variations of the famous Flak cannon.

If your knowlege of the BoF tanks isnt much (not the most interesting theatre), it was like putting up Shermans against Tigers 5 years later.

The French were intially routed entirely due to their doctrine, misuse of equipment, fighting morale, ineffective airforce, etc etc. Not to land based equipment.

heres a good site http://www.vaughnsgarage.com/

its from a MMOG I play in occasionaly, but the in game models are based entirely on all the historical facts avaliable that any historian can take up. As accurate as can be,

Ohyah, of COURSE the Russains had the best tanks (T-34 Kv-1 baby!) I mean, that's a duh, but we weren't talking about them

um. No

[Skullers]

um. No

you convinced everyone

[Comrade Ogilvy]

As to the Magionot line, the REAL joke is that the Germans used said line to defend against the Americans when they invaded four years later. And, the Yanks not being the best of tactitions, faced the wall head on rather then flanking it as the Germans had done before.

The maginot line did serve its purpose very well actually, it just didnt extend throught the Ardennes forest, as the french believed it wasnt very vulnerable. But didnt the Americans attack throught the Ardennes as well? Im pretty sure some battles were fought there. But at any rate, the Germans would of had to of known to protect the flanks of the wall. I will concede that it would seem very plausible that American battle tactics were not nearly as honed as those of the European armies. But I think were getting better.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Quote:
Ohyah, of COURSE the Russains had the best tanks (T-34 Kv-1 baby!) I mean, that's a duh, but we weren't talking about them


um. No

You gotta admit that the T-43 was incredible. Imagine the Nazi's suprise when their shells ricocheted off of those beasts.

[MB.]

I wonder about a man who thinks the T-34 was not an excellent tank...

Lets see: excelent armour sloping, thick armour, high speed, inevative (a modified American design) suspension, large high velocity gun, wide tracks for excellent all weather performace.... So why was it not the best Tank design of the war?

[Boondock Saint]

Well, glad to see some people with knowledge on the subject ...

But correct me if I am wrong, the T-34 was not around during the BoF ... I thought that was a much later design ... when I say much later I mean later in the war.

So the French tanks were better gunned and thicker armored but the tactics and perhaps the crew situation were lacking ... interesting.

I understand teh Germans used a good deal of the French tanks they had captured against the Soviets in the eastern front ...

As for the maginot line, I have heard many reasons why it only existed on the eastern border with Germany and not the northern border with Belgium ... regardless of why it was built completly around the border I think its safe to say that the general concept was ingenious and the effort put into it was amazing ...

Just think, had the Germans decided to hit it head on perhaps they never would have reached Paris ...

[MB.]

But that's the point... they DIDN'T decide to hit it- who would (aside from the Americans)? Besides, the 'line' concept itself was a foolish idea (as, of course, was the infamous Siegfried line later made by the Germans- featuring those ever vaunted Dragon's Teeth), the advent of Paratroops make such large scale imobile fortifications useless. As, of course, does mobile armour. The French were living in a post Cambrai area- the had not realised the potential of the tank in terms of taactics. Tank theorists of the era (British and French) thought that the 'next' war would be fought in much a similiar way to the first world war, armoured combat being used to over come obstacales, but not- still- as a standalone mobile force (ie, supporting infantry rather then leading them). As such, French tactics mirrored these ill founded belief.

Simply foolish, in hindsight (espaicaily since other, ie, German and Russian tank strategists had already discovered the tank's potentail).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

But that's the point... they DIDN'T decide to hit it- who would (aside from the Americans)?

You didnt answer my question, didnt the Americans attack through the Ardennes as well, the same spot the Germans breached? Wouldnt the germans have known to cover that flank, since it was the first to exploit it? Unless of course you know another way around the line, that the Americans could have taken?

Besides, the 'line' concept itself was a foolish idea

It wasnt a foolish idea, it did exactly what it was supposed to do, the french just left a hole in it.

So the French tanks were better gunned and thicker armored but the tactics and perhaps the crew situation were lacking ... interesting.

I believe in the years proceding the run-up to the war, the service time for the French army had been reduced to only a year, so trained and prepared personal was a major issue for them.

[Siberian Fox]

You didnt answer my question, didnt the Americans attack through the Ardennes as well, the same spot the Germans breached?

That's a battle of the Bulge, and was much later in the war so isn't really relevant to this thread, but no, it was the Germans the attacked the Americans there. Hitler transfered his last serious armoured divisions from the East and launched an attack at the same place as in 1940 and took the Americans by surprise (it was Christmas). However, the advance was eventually halted because the German tanks simply ran out of petrol, and they came up against some quite firce resistance (I forget the city and American force defending it?) because the Americans had heard about the S.S. shooting prisoners.

Anyhow, those talking about the T-34 have mis-understood Khenlein's comment, he wasn't saying no it was not a good tank, he was saying no we're not talking about it. Khenlein is spot on about the Char b1 bis, but the number 1 problem with France's use of them was that they were deployed in ones and twos as support units for the infantry and not en-mass as dedicated aroumoured forces to take on the German Panzer divisions. As such the ones that were encountered by the Germans were able to be taken out in a piecemeal fashion.

Back to Russia...

Most impressive looking tank in the world in 1940: T-35!

It's enourmous size may have made it totally unpractical, and fire contol over five turrets may have been a nightmare for the commander, but talk about making one's opponent shit their pants by looking scary alone

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I dont understand why your trying to make it sound like American battle tactics were not only bad, but stupid as well. As if the Americans blindly ran head first into the wall when there was a plainly obvious way around it? What was the obvious way around it Bill?

[Siberian Fox]

Sorry, were you talking to me there?

I wasn't talking about American "battle tactics".

If that's what you're interested in, it was Montgomery that wanted to launch a focused attack across the North of Europe to try and get to Berlin before the Russians. But, Eisenhower overruled him as supreme commander and opted for a broard attack-across-the-whole-front stratgy. I don't know why he did that, you tell me?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I was asking Bill what he meant by this:

And, the Yanks not being the best of tactitions, faced the wall head on rather then flanking it as the Germans had done before.

But that's the point... they DIDN'T decide to hit it- who would (aside from the Americans)?

What were the alternatives?

[Siberian Fox]

Hehe, since you're a right winger I thought you might have been using "Bill" as an insult (as in Clinton)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Hehe, since you're a right winger I thought you might have been using "Bill" as an insult (as in Clinton)

I have more respect for you than to throw such a harsh insult

[Demosthenes]

Hehe, since you're a right winger I thought you might have been using "Bill" as an insult (as in Clinton)

I have more respect for you than to throw such a harsh insult

But, Eisenhower overruled him as supreme commander and opted for a broard attack-across-the-whole-front stratgy. I don't know why he did that, you tell me?

I believe the strategy was the same as in Japan. A total defeat was viewed as the only possible solution that wouldn't lead to yet another war, however I'm no historian and this is partly supposition.

I don't think that it was Eisenhower, but FDR that delayed the US from storming Berlin. He hoped that in placating Stalin and letting the Soviets gain some measure of retribution that it might tame him a bit. At least according to one of the books I read The End of War by David L. Robbins. Of course it has been awhile since I read it so I may be mis-remembering something.