French armed Forces

The French Army's problem was structural..related to doctrine, leadership and partly due to a defeatist attitude ( the reasons for that attitude are beyond the scope of this post but it certainly was a factor, though not the prime one) but not equipment or logistics.

 

I agree that the british navy was in bether shape than the french army in 1940.
But the main problem with France's army was not as much it's "muscle", but rather it's "brain".

[/quote]

This is probably true to some extent, but it should not be overestimated.
After all, the Maginot line enabled the french army to use the majority of it's forces to counter a german invasion coming trough Belgium, rather than having to care for the french/german border too.

 

Was there a deeper thought behind France´s guarantee for Poland? Who wanted it and who not. How did the military react? Have there been voices telling that in no way can the treaty be honored?

 

The French were the people that turned down a tank because it was better than the specification asked for - Renault G1R. Roughly a Sherman equivalent in the early war!
1936 requirement for a D2 replacement called for a 20 tonne 40 kph tank, with the armour of B1 bis, a 47mm turret gun, 75mm hull gun. Rejected on 14 May 1940 because it exceeded the official requirement.
It weighed 35 tonnes and had a 570 metres/sec 75 mm gun.
Is there any wonder with an attitude like that the got stomped?
Oli
(and most of my "serious" wargaming is playing French armies in 1940!)

 

The deep tought behind it was that Germany is more easily fought from 2 sides than from one....
This alliance dates from 1921 and the support France gave the poles against the soviets then.(Weygand)
In some way the french/polish alliance replaced the old french/russian alliance of 1914.

From what I know no one in the military was against it.
But some politicians (Reynaud for example) in the 1930's were aware that the french army would not be able to effectively help Poland(or the czechs) in case of war.
This is why Reynaud supported De Gaulle's new tactical concepts.

The political left in France favoured a french-soviet allaince, but the traditionally anti-communist military did not agree.

Generally there was very much a consensus between most of french politicians and most of the army in order to go for defensive warfare.
Gamelin was very much under the influence of politics, which made him choose to install his headquarters in Vincennes, very near to Paris in order to stay in permanent contact with politicians.
In 1914, Joffre had done just the contrary, he had choosen quite/distant Chantilly for his headquarter in ordrer not to be interfered by politicians.

 

I think that kind of exceeding official requirements was not desired...

 

See the french were retarded turning down a better tank than what they wanted?

 

Yeah, Notmi. I hadn't thought of it like that. All I saw was
better gun, more armour, but at nearly twice the specified weight, and cost approximating (roughly) to weight - nearly twice the cost, and the logistics burden. Probably right to turn it down.
But, dammit, as a wargamer it would be nice to play France 1940 and kick Guderian's backside as he comes out of the woods at Sedan!
Oli

 

This tank is the best example, how politics influences armaments.

One can get horny over looking at ""Royal Tiger" in action :bang:
Or imagine Severloh lonely work. It´s snapshots of history.

For those, who like nice pictures of tanks - fine . This tank, properly used, could have made all German tanks to mincemeat. Add to it a few millions in French state budget for special services, and someone very high, having access to German milit. planning might be bought.

 

It's not a question of politics. If you go to buy a car, and and you've specified a Mini Cooper, would you accept a Lincoln continental?
Costs more than you're prepared to pay, won't fit in the garage, uses one month's petrol budget in a week, etc etc. (Estimated variation for illustration purposes).
I know I wouldn't, but it doesn't stop you looking out the front window at the Mini and wondering....
Oli
OTOH, politics ALWAYS influences any military procurement, from specification downwards.

 

Quote:
The French Army's problem was structural..related to doctrine, leadership and partly due to a defeatist attitude ( the reasons for that attitude are beyond the scope of this post but it certainly was a factor, though not the prime one) but not equipment or logistics.
Unquote:
Also related to organisation - most of the tanks were farmed out in penny packets for infantry support.
The majority of French tanks were better armed and armoured than those of the Germans. The main fault with them was a one-man turret -vehicle commander, gunner, loader, spotter, radio operator (if fitted), and in some cases platoon commander. Is there any wonder they didn't do so well overall? In a one on one fight the Char B1bis and Somua especially could take any German tank of the period - rate of fire excepted1
BTW BT-7 speeds - 70-80+ kph, based on Christie's designs (he came up with one that would do 80 miles (not km) per hour - cross country!!!), and 120 mph on roads running on its wheels. Marvelous suspension, lousy armour, and he mostly designed for a limited traverse gun in the hull front.
Oli

 

You are a defence minister, woh, after long negotiations issued specifications for a tank, incl. number and price total.

The stupid Renault engineers come up with a tank-wonder, able to K.O. anything that moves and will move in years to come. Yet, you are unable to accept it: the specifications were negotiated and accepted.

That´s why I am saying: politics.

As to BTs - there are various numbers in various places as to max. speed. Whatever we say - it was an extremely fast tank, a tank to be used after a breakthrough has been achieved with different means, to penetrate deep into enemy territory, on good roads. In Russia it was close to useless, and therefore abandoned quickly after Barbarossa started.

Welcome, Oli.

 

No, you're missing the point. Is it "politics" if you didn't buy the Lincoln in my previous example? It is practicality, pure and simple - it's not what was asked for, it's more expensive to buy and it's more expensive to run and maintain. Logic.
If the BT was close to useless how come Russia built them for so long and in so many variants, from BT-1 up to BT-7. It was light (but so were most tanks of that period), it was fast, it was, AFAIK, reliable, and with a 45mm gun it was well-armed. It was "abandoned" after Barbarossa because
A) losses were tremendous in the first few weeks and
B) T-34 was already in prduction
Quote:
At Kursk the Soviets had more tanks than did the Germans. However, a major weakness of their tank fleet was that almost one-third were light tanks, the BT, the T60 and T70.
Unquote
From http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/kursk.htm.
They weren't abandoned, they just weren't replaced as they were destroyed
Oli

 

OK, let´s call it practical reasons and politics (I am sticking to politics because anything with money on the level of state IS politics).

But, in this case, it was also kind of blindness: they had a ready built tank, which was lightyears better than anything German and they didn´t decide to put it into production.

Oli, BT series was not built for Russia. It was a tank built for aggression, to be used on roads and autobahns of Germany. There, it would show all its good sides.
In Russia it was, more or less useless because tracks were for narrow, primarily.

 

Built for use in Germany? You mean Stalin intended invading Germany from about 1930/31. Wow.
In my opinion the BT series were built because
A) they were relatively cheap - build in large numbers
B) impressive to look at
C) built up a tank force that was large and VISIBLE
D) they were a quick way to get a modern tank design for next to nothing,
AFAIK only the UK and the Poles were interested in Christie's designs
this is another aspect of politics - May Day parades, bread and circuses.
Your enemy and your own citizens must see that you have something, otherwise they might think of invading/ wonder what you're doing with all the tax money.
Oli

 

No, no, you got it all wrong, afaik.
Please, write some earliest entries of I.S. to see. You can also look into www.patriot.dk/suvorov.html. It´s not a perfect text but informative.

Stalin was preparing the war since the late 1920s.

 

That link doesn't work, but I note that it has Suvorov in it. This wouldn't be referring to the defector Viktor Suvorov, supposedly ex-GRU would it? I've read couple of his books, and found him innacurate on both technical and political issues.
Have got the home page, but can't find a link to Suvorov, what's the article title??
Oli

 

Wird it doesn´t work. The same Suvorov. He does exaggerate in many places. But, basically, I think he is right. Why do you doubt his ex-GRU status?

 

The intersted can try this:

http://www.patriot.dk/icebreaker.html

 

Don't particularly doubt GRU, but he "knows" a lot more about the different aspects of Soviet military than he should.
1) Soviet-era military was very compartmented, to a ridiculous extent, common soldiers were never shown a map, they weren't even told that the UK/ USA etc fought against the Germans in WWII (I have this from an ex-soviet bloc friend).
2) If he was GRU, why does he know about Soviet equipment at all? Glavnoye Razvedivatelnoye Upravleniye were all about foreign military intelligence. Strange no?
3) Technical error; simple one. He claims that Soviet weapons of different types were deliberately given different calibres (if not using an existing ammuntion) to save confusion in a battle/ war. If somebody asks for XXmm calibre ammunition then they get the right type, not one of the same calibre but for a different weapon. This was supposedly a set-fixed-deliberate policy. So how come the Soviets had 3 different types of 7.62mm ammunition, none of which was compatible with another. And he was completely and utterly wrong about aerials for ELF communication, but stated his "facts" as facts, rather than speculation or hearsay.
4) Political error - he justifies the troika of KGB/ Party/ Army by likening it to a tripod, which is stable. Yup, in the real world, but 3 people, or groups of people, is unstable. He also compares it to the Nazi pre-war troika of, his description, Nazi party, SS and SA. But the SA were wiped out/ disbanded weren't they, subsumed by the SS. They didn't AFAIK exist in power all at the same time.
It's just little things like that, they don't add up, so I distrust the motives behind his work.
Oli