the french problem wasn't so much equipment- they had several new planes and tanks in the works but command and control. they leaders, civil and military didn't want war, didn't know how to fight a modern war, ect... there was just no spirit . there plan was to whole the germans off- thats it? not how to win the war.
French WW2 Tanks
- Thread starter Cunobelin
- Start date
Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
I guess it was the whole Maginot Line mentality that prevented them going on the offensive against the Germans.
On that note did any french troops cross the border into Germany during the Sitskrieg or the battle of france?
On that note did any french troops cross the border into Germany during the Sitskrieg or the battle of france?
The point about the driver and gunner being the same guy also holds an important implacation, it meant of course that he couldnt really do both at the same time. This seriously limited the versatility of what what otherwise a great tank.
Their amin failures were wheeling ALL their mobile and elite forces into Belgium, complete failure to maintain a reserve behing the pivit pint of the wheel (Even thought this was correctly covered in the original Dyle line plan as a sine qua non ), around Sedan, overmaning the maginot and thus depriving other areas of reserves.
Secondary to these abyssmal failures of command were weaknesses in their forces: a disoganized air force, obselete doctrine for armor and inadequate integration of forces, poor morale in many units. The maginot, if properly used, would have been a great force munltiplier.
No tanks during the war, except the Sherman, were capable of effective on the move fire with the main gun.
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
Given the limitations of the Sherman's gun, that isn't really saying much.
Germans did have a lot of projects for improving rangefinding/on the move aiming but none were better than simply halting the tank and using the stereoscopes.
As for French offensive operations circa 1940, another limitation was ammunition - especially large calibers but even going down to platoon mortar rounds.
Hard to be offensive when you've nothing to shoot but insults.
Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
I also heard that the french tanks used a form of aviation fuel which was in short supply while the germans could just roll on up to a petrol station to fill up their tanks, or is that just a myth?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I'm looking through here, and I'd thought I'd posted this:
"The chief problem the French had was the French."
Did it get wiped by a moderator or something? I did. The above bald statement with no fact content is simple insult and bashing and verbotten here, below while still largely fact lite and mostly conclusionary opinion about national charactor, is closer to the correct way to post critisim, but yet needs improvment. Get on the ball and post more supporting for such subjects. Lefty I meant it; lagre parts of France practically wanted to be beaten; the entire political culture of Occupied and Vichy France through 1940-1943 was built on the ideal that France needed to have been defeated to cleanse itself. a notion that fascists and archconservatives had been preaching with some success in the pre-war period. While some units of the French army fought savagely, as an institution, the Army wasn't really INTO the whole idea of fighting Germans; just look how quickly Britain became "the real enemy" in late 1940.
R.III
I didn't do anything; not my style. Also didn't notice you penned such a line.
- XIII
"The chief problem the French had was the French."
Did it get wiped by a moderator or something? I did. The above bald statement with no fact content is simple insult and bashing and verbotten here, below while still largely fact lite and mostly conclusionary opinion about national charactor, is closer to the correct way to post critisim, but yet needs improvment. Get on the ball and post more supporting for such subjects. Lefty I meant it; lagre parts of France practically wanted to be beaten; the entire political culture of Occupied and Vichy France through 1940-1943 was built on the ideal that France needed to have been defeated to cleanse itself. a notion that fascists and archconservatives had been preaching with some success in the pre-war period. While some units of the French army fought savagely, as an institution, the Army wasn't really INTO the whole idea of fighting Germans; just look how quickly Britain became "the real enemy" in late 1940.
R.III
I didn't do anything; not my style. Also didn't notice you penned such a line.
- XIII Higher Game
National Socialist
France lost because France was France. 
In the end, it comes down to superior training and the individual soldier's expertice. In comparing them, the French had no chance against the Germans. Not enough testosterone, too much good wine. Trench warfare was history at that point, and they didn't have the mobility, offence, or organization to defend themselves.
Pls, no nationality-bashing. Try to keep it polite. Thanks - XIII
In the end, it comes down to superior training and the individual soldier's expertice. In comparing them, the French had no chance against the Germans. Not enough testosterone, too much good wine. Trench warfare was history at that point, and they didn't have the mobility, offence, or organization to defend themselves.Pls, no nationality-bashing. Try to keep it polite. Thanks - XIII
Theres a big difference between effective fire on the move, and any fire at all. Also the fact that the driver had to basically stop driving then start to commence the firing procedure throws away vital seconds that could (and did) mean the difference between killing your opponent or being killed yourself. It was a bad design fault.
John-LP
Libertarian
All I have to say is if French and British tanks were superior in quality to German tanks, then why did the Allies use Sherman M4s as the primary battletank of WWII?
Panda
Metal head
They were manufactered in the US, as Britain wasn't able to produce all the tanks she needed. Hence they had to use 'Tommy Cookers'.
We have been talking 1940 tanks, NONE of which could stand up to the later Sherman, or later German tanks, or later Brit tanks.
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
I thought the German nickname for M4s was "Ronsons"...
Pretty sure UK's production was geared 60% aviation, 20%+ naval and the rest on land forces... so yeah, we couldn't make enough tanks.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
British tanks were NOT superior to German tanks, in fact, the British had quite possibly the worst tanks of any major nation in the war.
Char B's were quite good tanks, with more firepower and protection than PzKpfW III's (the German panzers at the time), but, they had 3 essential faults.
(1) They were employed improperly, attached to infantry regiments in small numbers rather than formed into independant armoured units.
(2) They were not as mobile as the panzers. In tank battles of the time, mobility was a lot more important than protection or firepower, since mobility allowed better flanking which resulted in side or rear hits, or the ability to engage at very close range, at which point advantages in protection and firepower are largely negated and tanks become more or less equal.
(3) A major problem with the Char B design was that it had only a 3 man crew rather than 4. This led to a lot of problems under heavy engagement and reduced the tank's initiative in certain situations, particularly when facing combined attacks from armour and infantry.
Char B's were quite good tanks, with more firepower and protection than PzKpfW III's (the German panzers at the time), but, they had 3 essential faults.
(1) They were employed improperly, attached to infantry regiments in small numbers rather than formed into independant armoured units.
(2) They were not as mobile as the panzers. In tank battles of the time, mobility was a lot more important than protection or firepower, since mobility allowed better flanking which resulted in side or rear hits, or the ability to engage at very close range, at which point advantages in protection and firepower are largely negated and tanks become more or less equal.
(3) A major problem with the Char B design was that it had only a 3 man crew rather than 4. This led to a lot of problems under heavy engagement and reduced the tank's initiative in certain situations, particularly when facing combined attacks from armour and infantry.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
German use of radios for command and control far exceeded the same in Allied armored units, too, which made a huge difference in performance, unsurprisingly.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Definately - at least in the early years up until late 43 or so this is true.
Similar threads
