Jump to content


May 1940. Setting the record straight and what if's.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
302 replies to this topic

Zxyphos #41 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:42 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:


Your probably right. I just hate giving the US any credit.

 

I know, man.



Oojamaflip #42 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:42 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 40840 battles
  • 115
  • [OLSOD]
  • Member since:
    09-15-2013

View PostX L1V3 0R D13 X, on 22 May 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

...I'm waving a white flag right now.


whats that the French battle flag....white cross with a white back ground...??  :hiding:



DoubleDown13 #43 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:53 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostGORGE ROMERO, on 22 May 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

yes it is. america is going to fall apart any day now :sad: dont wanna be here when that happens

 

Doubtful. We will persevere, we always do. They said the same thing during the great depression. We just need to wake up. That or let Texas succeed. Lol



MtOMajorCat0311 #44 Posted 22 May 2014 - 05:59 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18383 battles
  • 838
  • [MTO]
  • Member since:
    03-13-2014

View PostOojamaflip, on 22 May 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:


whats that the French battle flag....white cross with a white back ground...??  :hiding:

Actually it is the Oriflamme - and it generally meant that no quarter would be given and no prisoners taken on the battlefield....


Edited by MtOMajorCat0311, 22 May 2014 - 08:22 PM.


It is in vain that you think that victory can be achieved by using "people's meat." Victory is achieved through the art of combat. War is waged with skill, not with people's lives.

—Order of G. K. Zhukov to I. G. Zakharkin on 7 March 1942
 
 
 
 

Starshoy #45 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:04 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

The Soviets performance in the Winter war against Finland shows that they were not ready for conflict against Germany, and given the huge spaces occupied by the Germans in Barbarossa (1941), the Russians given a space the size of France would be defeated probably in the same time frame.

 


That's cool line of arguing. On the other hand, if USSR was an island, or located in Western hemisphere...

 

I kind of think that if France was size of USSR it would end the same way, because differences were not territorial but psychological and political. In total war it actually helps to be totalitarian. In easy early days of Barbarossa, German losses of everything were already shocking.

 

With all respect to French overall military history, it just wasn't their time.



Dennis420b #46 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:04 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostDoubleDown13, on 22 May 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

Doubtful. We will persevere, we always do. They said the same thing during the great depression. We just need to wake up. That or let Texas succeed. Lol


Like most overzealous empires, we will fall from within. Our biggest export is money. Our government and people are divided, and our republic has turned into an oligarchy. On the Military side, F-22s are in no way a replacement for the F-15 in cost and capability, the F-35 is the biggest waste of money ever in a military program, considering the F-35 is completely outclassed by fighters a generation earlier. The Abrams is a fine tank, but is getting a little long in the tooth. The Patriot SAM system is also getting on in its years and most nations have fielded better more efficient systems. The only example of American maintained superiority in the next 30 years is our Navy and how long can we keep building super Carriers? What happens if one gets sunk? Can we afford to build a replacement? We still hand out M16s (or its derivatives) despite the design being both mediocre and now old. We have no money to rebuild our forces, and instead have opted to limp into the future with a few neat expensive fragile toys and updated versions of what we had in the 80s and 90s. Meanwhile the rest of the world has streamlines their defenses to reflect the changed world we live in. Our best bet is to try and mirror the UKs example and bow down gracefully and try to remain at the #2 spot.



DoubleDown13 #47 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:17 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 01:04 PM,field :


Like most overzealous empires, we will fall from within. Our biggest export is money. Our government and people are divided, and our republic has turned into an oligarchy. On the Military side, F-22s are in no way a replacement for the F-15 in cost and capability, the F-35 is the biggest waste of money ever in a military program, considering the F-35 is completely outclassed by fighters a generation earlier. The Abrams is a fine tank, but is getting a little long in the tooth. The Patriot SAM system is also getting on in its years and most nations have fielded better more efficient systems. The only example of American maintained superiority in the next 30 years is our Navy and how long can we keep building super Carriers? What happens if one gets sunk? Can we afford to build a replacement? We still hand out M16s (or its derivatives) despite the design being both mediocre and now old. We have no money to rebuild our forces, and instead have opted to limp into the future with a few neat expensive fragile toys and updated versions of what we had in the 80s and 90s. Meanwhile the rest of the world has streamlines their defenses to reflect the changed world we live in. Our best bet is to try and mirror the UKs example and bow down gracefully and try to remain at the #2 spot.

 

Well yes, I agree we need to stop policing the world. The  cost for last two years our people were in field would have paid everyones tuition in college this year in the US. 

 

We also need to start using our resources instead of buy foreign. The whole, "We will be rich when the oil fields over there run out" is a fallacy. We have enough here to even export to pay the National debt off. 

 

On the note of the National debt, we need to stop borrowing and tighten our belts. Do what other countries are doing and cutting costs. Stop the unlimited spending of our future monies. 



Dennis420b #48 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:21 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostStarshoy, on 22 May 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:


That's cool line of arguing. On the other hand, if USSR was an island, or located in Western hemisphere...

 

I kind of think that if France was size of USSR it would end the same way, because differences were not territorial but psychological and political. In total war it actually helps to be totalitarian. In easy early days of Barbarossa, German losses of everything were already shocking.

 

With all respect to French overall military history, it just wasn't their time.


Well the example I was giving was if the USSR had to operate in France, could it have stopped the Germans, or done any better than the French? No. Soviet leadership was too centralized and this was demonstrated over and over again. Both in Finland 39/40, and on the Eastern Front. Soviet forces are fierce fighters during WW2 but not quick to respond to changes on the battlefield. A soviet force will fight to the death as ordered, but often will not do anything other than what was ordered. There were a few exceptions in the Soviet officer corps, but not many. Actually the players of this game remind me of Soviet forces. They go to their spot and either get overwhelmed or the beat the attack, but dont follow through with a counter attack, or show initiative and recognize advantages presented to them. The Soviet soldier was a beast, not a brain. Look at Manstein's counter attacks in the confused battles in the Ukraine. Despite having shattered and fragmented units, he was able to cobble together a fighting force and react to an overwhelming Soviet Assault. This is actually repeated on every front Germany fought on. They were remarkable adaptable, and that served them well.



Dennis420b #49 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:23 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostDoubleDown13, on 22 May 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

 

Well yes, I agree we need to stop policing the world. The  cost for last two years our people were in field would have paid everyones tuition in college this year in the US. 

 

We also need to start using our resources instead of buy foreign. The whole, "We will be rich when the oil fields over there run out" is a fallacy. We have enough here to even export to pay the National debt off. 

 

On the note of the National debt, we need to stop borrowing and tighten our belts. Do what other countries are doing and cutting costs. Stop the unlimited spending of our future monies. 


Start with that flying money pit the F-35.

 



OneSpike #50 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:24 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6738 battles
  • 997
  • Member since:
    08-08-2013

It's interesting to me that the French and British land forces were defeated by the German armor because they were fighting the last war, and the American navy at Pearl Harbor and the American army in the Philippines were defeated for the same reason.  In Europe is was the mass coordinated mechanized assault.  In the Pacific it was the heavy reliance on air power.  The US navy had few advanced aircraft and were heavily reliant on the battleship to extend their power.  Japan had a couple of battleships, but a large number of bomber and dive-bomber aircraft that hit land bases and ships.  2 of the 3 axis powers used high-speed long-distance offensive tactics that the allied powers were unable to counter until 1943-4.

 

The massive industrial output of the USA (which Yamato saw before he attacked Pearl Harbor) and the engineering creativity was what enabled the USA and other allies to respond.  When the war began, fighters only had guns and bombers only carried bombs.  By the end, thunderbolts, mustangs, and corsairs carried guns, rockets, and bombs - enabling them to extend power to every battlefield imaginable.  By the end on the ground (as WOT tries to show), the MBT has assumed the roles of light tanks, TDs, mediums, and heavies.  I know we still use Bradleys and Strikers in a hybrid light role, but the specialization has actually decreased to enable the commanders to respond quickly to whatever opportunities present themselves on the battlefield without coordinating with multiple units.

 

No one but the Germans and the Japanese were thinking about the future when the war began - and they were thinking "outside the box" because the other nations were not letting them build the armies and the navies from the last war.  It freed them up to think about the next war.

 

So, to the OP - you're right.  No nation placed in the situation of the French would have held the Germans off.



Party Poison91 #51 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

Awhile back someone started a thread that eventually got locked poking fun at the french tanks going backwards and a bunch of other anti-french stereotypes. But I debate that NO nation in 1940 given the same strategic position would be able to keep the Blitzkrieg at bay. The US army in 1940 is a joke. The only thing stopping the UK from being overrun was the English Channel and Germany's small and still recovering navy from the Norwegian assault. The USSR's performance in the Winter War of 39/40 shows that they would probably not be able to stop the same events from happening.

I am not saying that Germany could invade any of those countries, but rather that any country in the same space and time would fair no better.

Despite France having arguable the most competent tanks of the day, and a comparable sized force to the Germans, they had not anticipated what WW2 would be any different than WW1. But the Brits had no better inclination of what the future of warfare was to be either. The Spanish civil war was observed by all nations but it seems that only the Germans learned anything from it.

IMHO if you replace the French army of 1940 with any other nations army the results would be the same, making all of the negative french stereotyping really just nonsense.

Any thoughts?

I don't dislike the French for surrendering and giving our enemy numerous tanks, battleships and other resources. I don't dislike the French because some of their people fought for the Germans. I don't dislike them for showing nothing but contempt and hatred towards us even though we sheltered their government, suffered heavy bombings daily and lost god knows how many young men freeing France from their captors. I dislike them for the fact that only 40 years later they sold missiles and jets to a country that the UK were at war with, resulting in the deaths of British servicemen. Oh, and they only invited Obama to. That d day memorial. If these. Reasons aren't enough for you and you still dislike me mocking the French then you can kindly shove it.


"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

IIIHAL 9OOOIII #52 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 06:30 PM, said:

But then what if the US government elections of 36 or 40 were different. What if the US had a real isolationist government and we leave the Brits out to dry? Can England hold out? I mean it was bad, but could they have endured? Linengrad was seiged for a long time and they still managed to hold out. Could the Brits have managed the same? See Lion would have still been a large and possibly costly invasion. After the heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk, and and the battle-cruiser Schrnhorst still in dry dock with damage, plus the huge losses of destroyers during the Norwegian campaign, Sea Lion would still have to wait until possibly mid 41. By then the RAF was already showing that they could fight the Luftwaffe. I dont think its a slam dunk that had lend lease not been available that the Brits are out of the fight. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....sion_of_Britain

 

"For any likelihood of success, however, the operation required both air and naval supremacy over the English Channel, neither of which the Germans ever achieved during or after theBattle of Britain. Many historians and senior German military figures have concluded that Adolf Hitler never actually intended to invade the UK."



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #53 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:30 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:


I just hate giving the US any credit.

 

 

Why?



Starshoy #54 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:32 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 13663 battles
  • 3,954
  • [KAMA]
  • Member since:
    08-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Soviet leadership was too centralized and this was demonstrated over and over again. Both in Finland 39/40, and on the Eastern Front. Soviet forces are fierce fighters during WW2 but not quick to respond to changes on the battlefield. A soviet force will fight to the death as ordered, but often will not do anything other than what was ordered. There were a few exceptions in the Soviet officer corps, but not many. Actually the players of this game remind me of Soviet forces. They go to their spot and either get overwhelmed or the beat the attack, but dont follow through with a counter attack, or show initiative and recognize advantages presented to them. The Soviet soldier was a beast, not a brain.


So, in short, you say that Soviet WWII forces were superior to French WWII forces in every possible way?



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #55 Posted 22 May 2014 - 06:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 22 May 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

The Soviet soldier was a beast, not a brain.

 

So you're saying the germans were smarter? Why did they lose then? I'd say the Russians were every bit as ingenious as the rest of the allies, and that's why they managed to crush Hitler's advance into their territory.



Oojamaflip #56 Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:20 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 40840 battles
  • 115
  • [OLSOD]
  • Member since:
    09-15-2013

View PostChonMan, on 22 May 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

 

So you're saying the germans were smarter? Why did they lose then? I'd say the Russians were every bit as ingenious as the rest of the allies, and that's why they managed to crush Hitler's advance into their territory.



no...overwhelming forces...just shear volume of tanks artillery and men and aircraft...oh..as in Stalingrad any man retreated was shot ..on stalins order..so the average soviet soldier had little choice but to attack and go forward.


Edited by Oojamaflip, 22 May 2014 - 07:20 PM.


DoubleDown13 #57 Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:22 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 22 May 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

I don't dislike the French for surrendering and giving our enemy numerous tanks, battleships and other resources. I don't dislike the French because some of their people fought for the Germans. I don't dislike them for showing nothing but contempt and hatred towards us even though we sheltered their government, suffered heavy bombings daily and lost god knows how many young men freeing France from their captors. I dislike them for the fact that only 40 years later they sold missiles and jets to a country that the UK were at war with, resulting in the deaths of British servicemen. Oh, and they only invited Obama to. That d day memorial. If these. Reasons aren't enough for you and you still dislike me mocking the French then you can kindly shove it.

 

I understand your feelings, I believe you are talking about the falkland war? If so there is evidence that France, Brazil and Isreal gave support. Even Peru helped by transferring arms to the Argentinian army. Do you disparage those countries as well? Not defending them, mind you. Just want to see what your thoughts are on those countries as well. 

 

As far as actually not participating in the memory of all those lost, I feel that is a political move. Politicians in general are selfish and crooked. 



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #58 Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:26 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostParty Poison91, on 22 May 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

I don't dislike the French for surrendering and giving our enemy numerous tanks, battleships and other resources. I don't dislike the French because some of their people fought for the Germans. I don't dislike them for showing nothing but contempt and hatred towards us even though we sheltered their government, suffered heavy bombings daily and lost god knows how many young men freeing France from their captors. I dislike them for the fact that only 40 years later they sold missiles and jets to a country that the UK were at war with, resulting in the deaths of British servicemen. Oh, and they only invited Obama to. That d day memorial. If these. Reasons aren't enough for you and you still dislike me mocking the French then you can kindly shove it.

 

I've always wondered why the French are so ungrateful as well.



DoubleDown13 #59 Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:27 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 7176 battles
  • 1,979
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostOojamaflip, on 22 May 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:



no...overwhelming forces...just shear volume of tanks artillery and men and aircraft...oh..as in Stalingrad any man retreated was shot ..on stalins order..so the average soviet soldier had little choice but to attack and go forward.

 

Hate to say it, but I agree here. It was not tactics or brains, but sheer numbers. Worked with the Soviets and the Americans. I remember seeing it somewhere that it was 5 Sherman to 1 Tiger. Can't remember where I saw that. Correct me if I  am wrong. 



IIIHAL 9OOOIII #60 Posted 22 May 2014 - 07:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1813 battles
  • 134
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostChonMan, on 22 May 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

 

I've always wondered why the French are so ungrateful as well.

 

Not that I hate them, or anything... But they owe so much to the United States and Britain.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users