|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 8, 2017 10:25:33 GMT -6
I dont think it was such a large assumption, they had a treaty with the Belgians when the Maginot Line was being built. If you are referring to the Franco-Belgian Accord of 1920 which was a collective defense pact between these two nations. It was cancelled in 1936 by the Belgians who pursued a policy of neutrality. The French were fully aware that the Belgian were not going to participate in any collective military plan to stop Germany. It was a French failure.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 8, 2017 11:50:16 GMT -6
The notion that the French were defensive is perplexing, considering that their main failure in WWII was to attack with their armored forces too recklessly, allowing those armored forces to be threatened with encirclement.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 8, 2017 12:55:55 GMT -6
The notion that the French were defensive is perplexing, considering that their main failure in WWII was to attack with their armored forces too recklessly, allowing those armored forces to be threatened with encirclement. Well, when you examine their L 'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace attitude of the First World War and its results, I can understand their nations defensive attitude. This was the nation of Napoleon, and here they are building extensive fortifications and adopting a defensive strategy. They had Army officers that could develop a good defensive-offensive strategy with improved tactics and armored vehicle but they made their choice. Their tanks were actually tough on the German's but their command and control with single or two man turrets made them easy prey for the better trained and better command and control of the German forces. I agree with you, it is perplexing but I can understand the French peoples mentality after the horrific losses of WW1. Maybe it's just me, but for the American people, its hard for us to understand that attitude, probably its our geographical position remote from the European continent where all the action has been.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Dec 8, 2017 13:44:08 GMT -6
I think that Maginot line do the job that German attack cannot be succesfull through the line. And even after Germany break through Nothern France and came to Maginot from around the line were still quite effective. I can see the problem with doctrine, organisation and . The second issue is just economic resourses of France compared to Germany.
Belgian issue is quite logical. If you look what France foreign policy was during 30s, you can see that they built up aliances with Little Entente, USSR to help defend status quo. Because of the WW1 France looked for British as ally and was willing to abandon all ohters allies and follow British principle do nothing. These allies (mainly Czechoslovakia with strong economy, military production and strong and modern army relative her population) were willing to stand with France have the consequences. After seeing what happened it was difficult to trust France and UK.
Belgian have very diffucilty options in 30s seeing France unable and mainly unwilling to act at time she was stronger. She did with UK nothing when Hitler take Rhineland, just diplomatic note. They do nothing when Hitler took Austria. In this position it is quite logical not choose France guarantee. You can see what choose Czechoslovakia to defend itselfs against Germany (they were no other options for Czechoslovakia, only they can choose to accept or not to accept Munich agreement and be responsible for the war according to Western powers). Western powers completely fail to defend status quo as they did for several previous centuries. Mainly UK from half of 19th century abondon they policiy of forcing status quo on Europe. UK needed to agree with Germany for sphere of influence in Asia and did not see Germany with Hitler as threat, they did not believe Germany could overtake continental Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 9, 2017 13:52:24 GMT -6
I agree with you, it is perplexing Okay, cool so you agree with me that the idea that the French passively sat on the defensive is a myth, as shown by the fact that all their most powerful forces went straight on the offensive. Glad to hear it. I do wonder where this silly myth came from though, considering even the most cursory examination of where the key battles took place debunks it.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 9, 2017 13:53:53 GMT -6
Belgian have very diffucilty options in 30s seeing France unable and mainly unwilling to act at time she was stronger. She did with UK nothing when Hitler take Rhineland, just diplomatic note. Both of those came after the Belgians ended the alliance.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2017 14:59:31 GMT -6
I agree with you, it is perplexing Okay, cool so you agree with me that the idea that the French passively sat on the defensive is a myth, as shown by the fact that all their most powerful forces went straight on the offensive. Glad to hear it. I do wonder where this silly myth came from though, considering even the most cursory examination of where the key battles took place debunks it. They did not sit passively on the defensive they executed the Dyle Plan which seems on the surface to be offensive. It was an ambitious strategy to say the least. France's military strategy by September 1939 was influenced by geography and resources. They would hold defensively on the right (i.e. the Maginot Line) but push forward into Belgium when it was determined that the Belgians were going to resist the German invasion. This prompted Gamelin to move forward with the Dyle Plan. There were many French generals and British that expressed doubts that the Franco-British forces could move fast enough to get to the Dyle River and set up a defensive line. They were correct, the Allied forces did not arrive in time. The Maginot line was not the cause of the French defensive strategy, it was a result of it. This defensive doctrine was based on firepower, the methodical battle and the strength of defense. In other words, a WW1 strategy. Keep in mind that the valuable resources for the French nation were on the borders and it was felt that they had to be protected. So, the answer in my opinion is that "no" the French did not sit passively on their borders, waiting for the German attack, they moved forward to meet them in a better location for the battle. However, the whole strategic plan was defensive, to move to the Dyle River, and wait for the German's and fight defensively. This of course, failed due to the German use of mobile war including tanks, armored vehicles and artillery plus air support. The French forces moved forward, but left the Ardennes empty( not really, it did have forces and pillboxes), which is exactly where the German's attacked through. The region where two French high command officials stated that this region was impassible. The French people, their government and military were tired of war, but were certain the German's would come after them again. This time they would fight on the borders in a defense posture. It's interesting that the whole Maginot line was not backed up by mobile forces, as it should have been. They were all in the north. Another interesting fact is that the most effective weapon against the embrasures, Forts, pillboxes and observation towers was the German 88 mm anti-aircraft weapon. It punched wholes through the concrete after just a few shots. Bombs nor heavy artillery actually did better than that simple AA gun. All in all, the French did not sit by waiting, they did move forward to occupy a more defensive position, then they would parry the German thrusts, and exhaust the offensive, taking the offensive themselves. History tells us that that did not work due to the introduction of mobile warfare.
|
|
|
Post by theexecuter on Dec 9, 2017 15:51:09 GMT -6
IMO, the 1940 France campaign hinged far more on intelligence and command competence than combat capability.
French first line units and equipment was more than a match for German first line units and equipment, including doctrinal art.
However, this was a moot point as the German plan was to cut the French first class units off from supply by slicing through northeastern France to the sea.
Germany, unhappy with repeating the Schlieffen idea and faced with a leader demanding a winning rather than attritional strategy, extensively wargamed and planned an alternative, high risk armored assault...based on the correct assumption (assessment) that Allied commanders would react to slowly to the deception of the attack (that the Benelux thrust was the diversion).
By contrast, the Allies were forced by internal politics to guaranteeing Poland (who they never intended to help). They then squandered the six weeks of initiative opportunity because of this unwillingness to actually help Poland. They took the risk of the Dyle plan because of the politics, and did not consider the capabilities of the Germans during it's planning.
Once in place, the plan was never wargamed or modified in any way over the months of the Phoney War...and intelligence suggesting that the main German thrust would be in the Ardennes (quite well known throughout history as a viable invasion route) was ignored because there was 'no need to change a politically accepted plan'.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 9, 2017 22:40:05 GMT -6
I just wanted express some thoughts about Battle of France 1940 and the Maginot Line.
The French army was probably the best prepared and trained army in Europe. Better than the Belgians, Dutch and certainly the British. Unfortunately they were prepared for the wrong type of war, not mobile warfare, but controlled and methodical warfare. It was this type of warfare the German's were intending to avoid. The interrelationship between doctrine and technology, and doctrine and strategy is vital to understand in this instance, why such a well prepared army fall apart so quickly? Military forces must be organized, equipped and trained properly. An effective force requires more than just advanced weapons or manpower. Without effective doctrine to glue all these factors together, a nation and its military are not ready for war. I think we can say, that the French army was overwhelmed by a better-prepared opponent. The French Army was mobilized and concentrated but it was not ready for combat. As one author puts it; " the French army had formulated a doctrine, organized and equipped its units and trained its soldiers for the wrong type of war. They emphasized firepower,the strength of defense and the ascendancy of the methodical battle, and unifying power of the commander".
The Maginot line was only a defensive structure, that required a mobile reserve to back it up. That backup did not exist. The Maginot Line was an expression of the French failed doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 10, 2017 18:52:16 GMT -6
Well, I had a nice game as Italy. I had two wars; one against Great Britain and near the end, Austria-Hungary. Both were victories. I had two battle-cruisers and one battleship at the end with the remaining ships upgraded twice. I did not use training during peace time as most of you suggested, seems to work well and after gaining 1100 ton destroyers, I mothballed and scrapped many of my 500 tonners. The one's I kept were to be used for Coastal Patrols. That seems to work well. I had plenty of medium range and a few mine laying submarines. I scrapped the coastal submarines with 10 year age.
Total losses in two wars were 1 tin can, twelve auxiliary's. The opponents lost one heavy cruiser, three destroyers.
One other item that I modified was the research. If research item reached about 8, I moved it down to medium or low and overall I lowered research from 10 initially to 6 near the end. Seems to work effectively.
Good times were had by all.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 10, 2017 19:46:25 GMT -6
Whoa-whoa! You won a war against England, losing only 2 DDs and a dozen sundries? How did you conduct that campaign? I am very curious to know. And how did they come to yield?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 10, 2017 19:57:54 GMT -6
Whoa-whoa! You won a war against England, losing only 2 DDs and a dozen sundries? How did you conduct that campaign? I am very curious to know. And how did they come to yield? Well, it was early in the game so we were closer together in ships. I generally keep an eye on the unknown ship and if mine is out matched, I turn on "turn together" and tell all ships that the mission is over and..... run like the dicken's. He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day. As to why they came to yield... I just made them an offer they couldn't refuse. My advantage is that I don't put much stock In prestige. So, I can accept all missions, then end it quickly and run. I only engage when I believe that I have the advantage. My loss in points is very minimal. Anyway, that's all I do, it ain't brilliant, but it works.
|
|
|
Post by oaktree on Dec 10, 2017 21:30:21 GMT -6
The notion that the French were defensive is perplexing, considering that their main failure in WWII was to attack with their armored forces too recklessly, allowing those armored forces to be threatened with encirclement. Well, when you examine their L 'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace attitude of the First World War and its results, I can understand their nations defensive attitude. This was the nation of Napoleon, and here they are building extensive fortifications and adopting a defensive strategy. They had Army officers that could develop a good defensive-offensive strategy with improved tactics and armored vehicle but they made their choice. Their tanks were actually tough on the German's but their command and control with single or two man turrets made them easy prey for the better trained and better command and control of the German forces. I agree with you, it is perplexing but I can understand the French peoples mentality after the horrific losses of WW1. Maybe it's just me, but for the American people, its hard for us to understand that attitude, probably its our geographical position remote from the European continent where all the action has been. If you visit France and especially some of the portions directly touched by the first World War it is a lot easier to understand. Pretty much every French village has a monument to those they lost in that war. There are multiple places like Vauquois where entire villages were completely demolished by the war - and the ridge at Vauquois is literally cut in two by the overlapping craters caused by mines. Areas around Verdun are still posted as off limits due to unexploded ordnance that is still there. Extant remains of trench lines and shell craters can be found 100 years later, or buildings with bullet and shell fragment damage. And also cemeteries, lots of cemeteries.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 10, 2017 22:01:37 GMT -6
Well, when you examine their L 'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace attitude of the First World War and its results, I can understand their nations defensive attitude. This was the nation of Napoleon, and here they are building extensive fortifications and adopting a defensive strategy. They had Army officers that could develop a good defensive-offensive strategy with improved tactics and armored vehicle but they made their choice. Their tanks were actually tough on the German's but their command and control with single or two man turrets made them easy prey for the better trained and better command and control of the German forces. I agree with you, it is perplexing but I can understand the French peoples mentality after the horrific losses of WW1. Maybe it's just me, but for the American people, its hard for us to understand that attitude, probably its our geographical position remote from the European continent where all the action has been. If you visit France and especially some of the portions directly touched by the first World War it is a lot easier to understand. Pretty much every French village has a monument to those they lost in that war. There are multiple places like Vauquois where entire villages were completely demolished by the war - and the ridge at Vauquois is literally cut in two by the overlapping craters caused by mines. Areas around Verdun are still posted as off limits due to unexploded ordnance that is still there. Extant remains of trench lines and shell craters can be found 100 years later, or buildings with bullet and shell fragment damage. And also cemeteries, lots of cemeteries. Thank you for contributing that information because it gives us a personal perspective of the French people and their national attitude. It shows why they were defensive in their strategic planning. I believe I've read that there are still areas of France that are off limits due to old shells and gas, I can't confirm this but I believe I read this. I also know that the Belgian people suffered atrocities at the hands of the German soldiers but they were never brought to justice. This would make their attitude more understandable. Please keep conveying this kind of information, it gives me or us, the personal viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Dec 11, 2017 8:39:43 GMT -6
I wish I could "Like" a post (the one lack I find with this architecture), but this will have to serve. A big +1 to that Pops.
|
|