Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 13 more replies »
val70 · 51-55
@beckyromero You're missing the point there. It wasn't about too few tanks or not good enough but the employment. Even the concept of so-called tank destroyers wasn't ready baked in the French army then yet. In short, one expected infantry to hold off the Germans instead of tanks. The French and Belgian army had a much greater arsenal of artillery than the Germans just because they thought of holding back the tanks with guns. The bridges or rather crossings along the Meuse weren't defended by small mobile companies of tanks but by static ant-tank guns. Less mobile and less concentrated than a counter-strike by a company of tanks and tankdestroyers would have been. The air cover wasn't even provided because that also had been stragetically mismanaged
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@val70
Not missing your point. You're revising French strategy. Certainly not a bad idea, considering how badly the war went.
The British and French also played into Germans hands by pushing into Belgium with their most mobile units. With the BEF and the French 1st, 7th and 9th Armies committed, the French largely lost their ability to maneuver to meet the thrust from the Ardennes.
After the war Von Rundstedt expressed his surprise that the French hadn't counter-attacked from around Verdun. He was also surprised that once his panzers reached the Channel that the French didn't put forth a strong counter attack against his tanks before German infantry could catch up.
Not missing your point. You're revising French strategy. Certainly not a bad idea, considering how badly the war went.
The British and French also played into Germans hands by pushing into Belgium with their most mobile units. With the BEF and the French 1st, 7th and 9th Armies committed, the French largely lost their ability to maneuver to meet the thrust from the Ardennes.
After the war Von Rundstedt expressed his surprise that the French hadn't counter-attacked from around Verdun. He was also surprised that once his panzers reached the Channel that the French didn't put forth a strong counter attack against his tanks before German infantry could catch up.
maskedbandit · 61-69, M
NerdyPotato · M
ThreeLittleBirds · F
True psychopaths in power @NerdyPotato
beckyromero · 36-40, F
They spent the bulk of their defense expenditures on the Maginot Line, a series of what turned out to be pretty effective fortifications.
But there were a few weak spots where they thought they could save money, the Ardennes Forest and the areas at the Belgium border (hoping that Belgium wouldn't declare neutrality by signally that France would come to the aid of Belgium if attacked by Germany; Belgium would later declare neutrality and be invaded anyway.)
And towards the channel, the soil just wasn'tgood for deep fortifications.
But allowing Germany to violate the Versailles Treaty was the main factor.
But there were a few weak spots where they thought they could save money, the Ardennes Forest and the areas at the Belgium border (hoping that Belgium wouldn't declare neutrality by signally that France would come to the aid of Belgium if attacked by Germany; Belgium would later declare neutrality and be invaded anyway.)
And towards the channel, the soil just wasn'tgood for deep fortifications.
But allowing Germany to violate the Versailles Treaty was the main factor.
BohemianBabe · M
The Nazis had the better military.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment