KungKras said:
France were pretty well-prepared. They had more and better tanks than the germans, and they had their impenetrable maginot line of bunkers and fortresses. So they did have some strengths. However, they still suffered from manpower loss from WWI and why they didn't count on Hitler attacking through belgium is beyond me.
Also, the germans were really, REALLY far ahead in terms of military tactics. The french spread out their tanks evenly across the front line while the germans massed them in thousands and rushed one spot. And they used combined arms really efficiently dur to their blitzkrieg doctrine. Also, marching through the ardrennes was totally clever, and really caught the allies off guard.
I don't believe the french thought barbed wire would stop tanks. I mean, the main role of tanks in WWI was to run over barbed wire.
|
Well, the German tanks were designed to fight other tanks, not to mention the Germans were radio equipped allowing them to coordinate battles more easily. The main battle tank at the outset of the war for Germany was the Panzer III which utilized a 50MM compared to a 47MM of the French Char B1 or the 37MM gun of the R35. French tanks were largely defensive weapons, or technically outdated.
I don't understand how on one hand you say they're prepared, when everything they prepared for was to fight WWI. Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but the fact remains that German aspirations, just like those of Japanese were pretty evident. It's one thing to say the British should have known, they aren't land locked to Germany, but the French were right there. They witnessed Germany's capability with the Spanish Civil War, yet the weapons they developed to fight "the next war" were only incremental to what was available in WWI.
I agree that tactically, the Germans were light years ahead of anyone else. They listened to experts in the US and Britain about the importance of air power, were as neither the US nor Great Britain heeded that same advice. Not to mention they saw before any other European power did of the time, the importance of the tank in battle rather than simply in a support role.
As for the Maginot Line, there's nothing like building a wall with a way to walk around it. It took the Germans 6 weeks to overrun France. Militarily the French were ineffective. The French haven't had a capable general since Napoleon. Why France was even restored to a nation state after WWII is beyond me. At least the British fought in WWII, not to mention WWI. The French idea of fighting is "Oh look, a bullet, let me stop it with my body!" There isn't a military technical innovation that the French have been able to do anything with decisively since the trébuchet.
Sorry, I don't think highly of the French militarily. Yes, the US would not exist if it were not for the French, but it's important to note that was all before the Napoleon era and largely due to our tactic of fighting during the American Revolutionary War. I think the 100 Years War, then the French Revolution, and finally Napoleonic Wars just took the fight out of the French. They're great for fighting weaker powers, but put a gun into one man's hands and he could conquer France, in my opinion.