The Battle of France

unfortunately they probably didn't expect the attack to come from the Ardennes where they thought that the natural barriers would be enough to keep the Germans at bay. Thats why i think Guderians strategy against France was so brilliant. Make the Allies think that the main attack is coming where it came during the First World War and have all of their major forces swing upwards and attack at the weakest point which was the Ardennes.

 

1)The Ardennes did not stop/delay the Germans

2)The French knew it already before the war:they planned to stop the Germans at the Meuse river

3)About the Maginot line : for political,military and financial reasons it was out of the question to extend the ML to the Northsea

 

About the strength relation between the Allies and the Germans :the Germans had 135 divisions,the French 104,the British 13,Belgium 22 and Holland 10.But the allied superiority was only illusory :the Belgian and Dutch divisions were indespensable,but on their own,they could not stop the Germans,that's the reason of the Dyle plan : in case of a German attack the French mobile divisions and the BEF(9 + 12) would go north to save Belgium and Holland .But, what happened ? These 53 divisions (22+ 10 +12 + 9) were unable to stop AGB of von Bock (29 divisions) .What would have happend if Giraud and the BEF were going south (the Ardennes) instead of north ? In the OTL ,the Belgians (supported by the French and the BEF) were fighting 18 days.What would have happened in the ATL(Belgians on their own )?The result would have been a collaps of the northern front and the Germans on 28 may not in Dunkirk,but in the vicinity of Paris .

France (Britain did not count) had the choice between Sylla (going north) and Charibdis (going south),The choice was going north and the catastrophe happened in the south and in the north .If the choice was to go south,the result would be the same:catastrophe in the north and in the south .
If 53 allied divisions had to retreat before a weak AGB,why would less than 53 allied divisions do better in the Ardennes against a strong AGA (45 divisions ).

The French tried to stop the Germans in the north and lost in the north and the south.If they tried to stop the Germans in the south,the result would be the same.

The reason for the 1940 defeat was that the French were weaker in 1940 than in 1914.In 1914,the Germans attacked with numerically inferior forces and lost . In 1940,the Germans attacked with numerically superior forces and won .It's as simple as that .

 

Guderian had no role at all in the concept and the execution of the German war plan : he was only a corps commander,subordinated to the PzGruppe von Kleist which was only a part of AGA (Rundstedt)

 

Still have to see where the Germans were "numerically superior", in reality they had less of practically everything but AA and AT artillery and bombers (fighter numbers were roughly equal and would show a marked allied advantage if you count in the RAF squadrons retained in Britain).
On the other hand the Germans had inferiority in tanks, total number of guns and overall troops and motor vehicles, BTW the title of "most formidable tank in France in 1940", should probably go the Matilda II rather than the Somua or B1bis with their one man turrets. A good contender would have been the 5cm armed Pz IIIG but IIRC none made it to the front line units before the ceasefire as the first 5cm armed units were produced in July1940.

A big allied handicap, that goes a long way to nullify superiority in raw numbers, was having to coordinate 4 different armies, speaking 3 different languages, it never even come close to working as the Germans didn't give the allies time to develop a unified command.

The Maginot, like all fortifications, was designed as a force multiplier allowing limited numbers of troops to defend against superior forces so freeing the rest of the Army for manouver elsewhere, unfortunately for the French the Germans replied in kind and in the end Army Group C, that manned the Siegfried line, was actually weaker than the troops tied up in the Maginot.

While Guderian had no role in defining the plan, the main contributors where Manstein, Hitler and Halder, he did play a major role in both defining the Panzer division combined arms formation that made it possible and in it's execution by commanding the Korps that led the Ardennes breakthrough.

 

For the aircraft: on 10 may the Germans had on the Western front 3578 combat aircraft (2589 operational),the French 1410 (879 operational) :3:1.

In the rear areas,the French had 1687 combat aircraft (mostly in depot)

 

About the number of divisions : the number of 104 (source :Frieser:The Blitzkrieglegend) is to high :it is the number of divisions on the whole of France,while following French sources,the 3 AG's on the north-easteren front had only some 80 divisions.This made the role of the 22 Belgian divisions even more important ,and condemned the French to go north,because without the help of the French and the British,Belgium had no chance to stop the Germans .

 

there is a picture that i really want to post here that i want to share that is relevant to this topic but i am having a lot of trouble doing so! How can i post a picture here?

 

I've always read that he commanded the panzer group that made the drive that surrounded the british and french at Dunkirk. I probably read it wrong. He did advance the tactic of Blitzkrieg which was put to good use during the campaign.

 

If the photo is on your hard drive...
In the "Reply to this topic" area, click on the "More Reply Options" box - this will open up the full editor. From there, you should be able to see the "Attach Files" area. Use the "Browse" box to find the file on your hard drive, then click the "Attach This File" box to the attachment(NOTE - the file size limit is 500kb).

Preview the post to make sure is OK, then click on the "Add Reply" to post your message with photo.

 

Numbers of fighters:
Germany 1000
France 700
Britain 130 (in France)
Belgium 69
Holland 60

Dive Bombers and ground attack
Germany 342
France 54

Bombers
Germany 1400
France 175
Britain (in France) 220
(don't have figures for Belgium and Holland)

Recon
Germany 500
France 350 to 400
Britain 50
(don't have figures fir Belgium and Holland)

Transport
Don't have figures but suspect there was nothing on the allied side to compare to the masses of Ju 52s

This doesn't include Bomber command, that performed some attacks, and the UK based RAF squadrons that were committed piecemeal later.

 

Please forgive me I could not restrain myself. I really wanted to share this regarding this topic's subject. As a big history person this made me laugh real hard

 

LOL. 12th SS on the move to the beaches.

 

The Germans were successful at Sedan, because the French could not conceive of the Germans crossing with out infantry support. There were reserves scheduled for Sedan, but they arrived broken up and were thrown into combat that way. Rommel's crowing of the weir is the perfect example of German command and control verses the French. No lower level French commander would have crossed the Meuse with out a plan and ok from Higher ups. The biggest flaw of French planning was they thought in terms of weeks and months while the German thought in terms of days and hours.

 

Rommel was not engaged at Sedan:he belonged to the Panzerkorps of Hoth which was fighting much more to the north and was going to Dinant .

 

There you go with argument by proclamation again. From what I read it was discussed and indeed it was political / international relations issues that were at least the primary rational for not doing it suggest that it likely was financially and millitarily acceptable. Furthermore any concerted diplomatic effort would likely have smoothed any ruffled feathers on the part of Belgium. There may be some validity to your position but you have done nothing to substantiate it certainly appears questionable to me.

 

Or not. Note that the defence normally doesn't require as many troops as the offence. Indeed the rule of thumb is 3:1 is desired for the attacking force. It wasn't the numberst that caused the problem it was the doctrine and organization but even then there were a few places where it was close and if the Germans are slowed significantly more than they were historically at any point the decision is no longer certain.

Speculation/opinion on your part.

The facts do not support your conjecture/opinon/beliefs in this case.

 

lwd I think you are correct. In most areas the Germans had relatively fewer men than the AEF. Even some of the AEF's technologies was superior. For example the Germans were deploying PzKpfw I's and II's into battle which were quite obsolete. It wasn't just the French that were defending against the Germans, there were Dutch, Belgian and British. Combined that together they would have had more men than the Germans. Now the Germans were superior in some things such as aircraft, but one of the reasons why the Germans managed to defeat the French was because of the exceptional use of Blitzkrieg and attacking at the place where the Allies least expected an attack which was the Ardennes forrest.

 

It would also be interesting to get a count of the artillery pieces, especially by catagory. My impression is that the German bombers were making up for a short coming in that field.

 

That would make sense.