How Germany conquered France?

[FW-190 Pilot]

My english is not that great so i am not sure how Germany actually wins the war of France? Please correct me if i am wrong, thanks
To my understanding is
First wave: tank bypassing France and british troops and went straight to the coast of France to prevent France and british troops to escape (despite some of the german tank group are force to have some combat with the British tank groups, but Germany has won anyways because Britain doesnt have radio on each tank, that makes communications hard, soldiers would go for the directions and therefore cannot create protection for the tank)


Second wave: infantry unit protected by air unit attack france and british troops

[WildBoar]

I think Quickly summs it up :)

It was a highly organised modern force using modern tactics which weren't expected and completely overhwelmed the unprepared forces.
By using tanks troops and aircraft together they dominated the battlefield.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The attack on France was a variation of the WW1 von Sclefin Plan (Have no idea how you spell that guys name so spelt like it sounds :D) His idea was to storm thru the Low Countries and quickly proceed to Paris. In WW2, the allies were expecting the same the same plan and rushed into Belguim and Holland to prevent the advance. Little did they know that the main attack would come thru the Ardennes forest. The Germans advanced quickly on the Allies left flank and proceeded to the coast. This pretty much trapped all the Allies in a pocket with no reserves between the Germans and Paris. After this all the fun at Dunkirk started. Which is about the only good that came out of the invasion of France for the Allies.

[South African Military]

The French had an incredible buildup along the French-German border. However, the Germans snuck through the least defended area. Thats all I know.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Actually the Allies out numbered the Germans but just a bit in manpower. I would say that it was pretty even on both sides. The Germans did have an advantage in air power by about 1200 planes or so. Most will say the Germans also had the element of surprise. Which is probably true but they shouldnt have since the allies had been at war with Germany since september 39 and the invasion of France wasnt untill may 40. Somebody was asleep at the wheel.

[South African Military]

The French had a heavily fortified line called the "Maginot line" wich was along the French-German border. It had pillboxes, underground supply depots, and heavy guns with forty one divisions manning it. However the Germans then conquered Belgium, and the Germans went through the Ardennes forest which the French thought was impassable to tanks. The Germans had 1,500,000 men and over 1,500 tanks attacking the weakest part of the front, which was only defended by 12 infantry and 4 calvary divisions. The attack was brilliantly organized.

[FW-190 Pilot]

The French had a heavily fortified line called the "Maginot line" wich was along the French-German border. It had pillboxes, underground supply depots, and heavy guns with forty one divisions manning it. However the Germans then conquered Belgium, and the Germans went through the Ardennes forest which the French thought was impassable to tanks. The Germans had 1,500,000 men and over 1,500 tanks attacking the weakest part of the front, which was only defended by 12 infantry and 4 calvary divisions. The attack was brilliantly organized.
but i believe some of the german tank group would encounter some french and british tank group? (tanks are pretty even for both axis and allied, how can german wins against them so decisively? thanks for telling)

[Gen. Sandworm]

Tactics my son Tactics. The Allies were thinking in terms of World War 1 in which the tank is more of a defensive weapon. Much like a movable pillbox. The German were using a tactic called blitzkrieg..(lighting war) The planes come in a destroy what they can and soften the enemy targets. Then followed up by tanks with infantry support as well as close air support. The advance is very rapid. The main reason they were so easily defeated was because the majority of the Allies were encircled. They were trapped in the Dunkirk pocket and could only recieve major supplies from the sea. More or less they Allied forces were not properly prepared for war.

History has shown that size dosnt always matter. At the battle of Thermoplyae (spl?) 300 Spartens held off over a half million Perians for 3-4 days.

[South African Military]

Tactics my son Tactics. The Allies were thinking in terms of World War 1 in which the tank is more of a defensive weapon. Much like a movable pillbox. The German were using a tactic called blitzkrieg..(lighting war) The planes come in a destroy what they can and soften the enemy targets. Then followed up by tanks with infantry support as well as close air support. The advance is very rapid. The main reason they were so easily defeated was because the majority of the Allies were encircled. They were trapped in the Dunkirk pocket and could only recieve major supplies from the sea. More or less they Allied forces were not properly prepared for war.

History has shown that size dosnt always matter. At the battle of Thermoplyae (spl?) 300 Spartens held off over a half million Perians for 3-4 days.

Yes I love that story. Of course the Spartens where much much (much much) more trained and stronger than any of the Persians, but again if (i think it was quarter million) soldeirs came charging, the Spartens where sure of defeat. It was tactics, and they knew what to do. They choose a good position to wait and slay off the Persians. Of course this is WW2 history! War is more with the head than with power and force.

"First with the head, and then with the heart."

[Andrew]

FW 190 Pilot Wrote

but i believe some of the german tank group would encounter some french and british tank group? (tanks are pretty even for both axis and allied, how can german wins against them so decisively? thanks for telling)

The British Forces had limited numbers of the Matilda Mk1 Infantry Tank, this had much better Armour than the German Tanks which were involved in the Invasion of France, but it's main problem was the Gun, it had a 2 Pounder which compared to both German & French tanks was a Peashooter, I think the German Tanks had a 50mm Gun and I think they had a few tanks with the early short barrelled 75mm gun & the French tanks had anything from 50mm to 75mm Guns.


The French had more Tanks than the Germans but they were not able to use them effectively, as they wasted their Armoured Divisions on piecemeal attacks. The French did also counter attack in numbers but it was too little too late.

:) :) :) :)

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ya....Spartens kick ass :D

Under any circumstances the invasion of France should have never happened. The Allies should have attacked Germany as soon as they attacked Poland. Why make an alliance if you arent going to adhere to it. Also.....they had forever to prepare for a German attack in France. Hell the Germans almost gave them the plan when i pilot had to make an emergency landing in Belguim. Of couse the plan did change a bit. I could have organized a defense better than what they did. And let me tell ya its a sad day for any army if im running the show. :D

[South African Military]

Ya....Spartens kick ass :D

Under any circumstances the invasion of France should have never happened. The Allies should have attacked Germany as soon as they attacked Poland. Why make an alliance if you arent going to adhere to it. Also.....they had forever to prepare for a German attack in France. Hell the Germans almost gave them the plan when i pilot had to make an emergency landing in Belguim. Of couse the plan did change a bit. I could have organized a defense better than what they did. And let me tell ya its a sad day for any army if im running the show. :D

The Germans where breaking alot of rules formed in the WW1 peace treaty. They where going over of what they where allowed, yet no one really paid any attention and did not care so much. And even after the Spanish civil war, when they saw some of Germans power, they didnt do too much.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Maybe they were to busy drinking tea and wine to notice. :D

[Major Destruction]

The British Forces had limited numbers of the Matilda Mk1 Infantry Tank, this had much better Armour than the German Tanks which were involved in the Invasion of France, but it's main problem was the Gun, it had a 2 Pounder which compared to both German & French tanks was a Peashooter,

The 2 pounder gun was in fact one of the better anti tank guns of its time and quite capable of destroying any German tank of 1940.
Unfortunately it was never intended for tanks to destroy tanks. The tank destroyers were anti tank guns, either towed or (later) self-propelled. In the France campaign the Royal Artillery did not have enough 2 pounder anti-tank towed guns to do the job.



I think the German Tanks had a 50mm Gun and I think they had a few tanks with the early short barrelled 75mm gun & the French tanks had anything from 50mm to 75mm Guns.

There were no German tanks in France in 1940 with a 50mm gun. The main anti-tank gun mounted on tanks was the 37mm, so-called "door-knocker" - because it was so useless.
German doctrine, like that of the British, was to use anti-tank guns to knock out tanks and in the AT role the dreaded 88mm Flak-18 was supreme.


The French had more Tanks than the Germans but they were not able to use them effectively, as they wasted their Armoured Divisions on piecemeal attacks. The French did also counter attack in numbers but it was too little too late.

The problem was that the German armoured attack was made by five Panzer divisions in line. There was nothing any army could do to stop this force. The lead Panzer division could maneuver any direction at will compelling the defending force to react accordingly. Given the painfully slow reaction of the French senior officers, any reaction was bound to be too late. On top of this, the defenders could not easily attack the 'flanks' of the German spearhead because an equally powerful force was coming up behind.

To add to this, the (arguably) best tank of the time, the D1 was largely deployed in the French colonies and not available to defend France. French tanks suffered from having too few crew members and no radio contact. Once battle was joined, it was every tank acting alone. In contrast, the German tanks were better designed from a crew stand-point and were not only in contact with each other by radio but also well integrated with the infantry and artillery arms. It was the superior combined arms training of the German army that gave them the edge.

But the French Army made a good account of themselves and the German casualty list was very long. France was no picnic for the Wehrmacht.

[Major Destruction]

The main reason they were so easily defeated was because the majority of the Allies were encircled. They were trapped in the Dunkirk pocket and could only recieve major supplies from the sea.

The majority of the BEF was encircled at Dunkirk but the majority of the French army (and some of the BEF) was outside that pocket.

By the time of Dunkirk and perhaps even before that, the BEF was not particularly concerned with resupply as much as with evacuation.

On the point of supply, up to the outbreak of war, from which country did France import most of her high explosives (you know, the stuff that goes into artillery shells to make them go bang)?

Answer: Germany

And after the outbreak of war, where did the explosives come from?

Answer: well nowhere, actually.

So France was not well positioned to fight a long war against Germany. This may well be the one over-riding reason why the French government chose to come to terms.[/b]

[South African Military]

Maybe they were to busy drinking tea and wine to notice. :D

lol :lol:

[Gen. Sandworm]

The main reason they were so easily defeated was because the majority of the Allies were encircled. They were trapped in the Dunkirk pocket and could only recieve major supplies from the sea.

The majority of the BEF was encircled at Dunkirk but the majority of the French army (and some of the BEF) was outside that pocket.

By the time of Dunkirk and perhaps even before that, the BEF was not particularly concerned with resupply as much as with evacuation.

On the point of supply, up to the outbreak of war, from which country did France import most of her high explosives (you know, the stuff that goes into artillery shells to make them go bang)?

Answer: Germany

And after the outbreak of war, where did the explosives come from?

Answer: well nowhere, actually.

So France was not well positioned to fight a long war against Germany. This may well be the one over-riding reason why the French government chose to come to terms.[/b]

The majority of the allies were trapped in the dunkirk pocket. Not much stood between the Germans and the rest of the country and considering that they were getting beat by the Germans like they owed them money ........ i think the main reason they conpitulated was to hang on to what they could. I dont think the French thought Vichy France would turn out as bad as it did. You also have to remember that the French troops were trapped in the pocket as well. Churchhill called the president of France ((I forget his name) and asked how many troops do you have in reserver.........his reply....none. France had thrown everything into stopping the Germans.

[Major Destruction]

The BEF had about 600 tanks in service in France - total.
Of these 23 were of the Matilda II type. The rest were light tanks and cruiser tanks (also some 70+/- Matilda I)

The French had about 2400 front line tanks.

Against this there was about 2800 German tanks.

During the first phase of the campaign until the end of May, the German army suffered on average 2500 casualties per day. After the evacuation from Dunkirk by the BEF, the German campaign entered a far more bloody phase where German forces suffered an average 4800 casualties per day.

The German armour lost about 30% of their total number, most of these losses were in the latter phase.

Several Maginot forts did not surrender to force of arms, they had to be ordered to surrender after the armistice was signed.

The French army lost about 100,000 killed in action.

The campaign in France was no walkover for the Nazis.

[South African Military]

The BEF had about 600 tanks in service in France - total.
Of these 23 were of the Matilda II type. The rest were light tanks and cruiser tanks (also some 70+/- Matilda I)

The French had about 2400 front line tanks.

Against this there was about 2800 German tanks.

During the first phase of the campaign until the end of May, the German army suffered on average 2500 casualties per day. After the evacuation from Dunkirk by the BEF, the German campaign entered a far more bloody phase where German forces suffered an average 4800 casualties per day.

The German armour lost about 30% of their total number, most of these losses were in the latter phase.

Several Maginot forts did not surrender to force of arms, they had to be ordered to surrender after the armistice was signed.

The French army lost about 100,000 killed in action.

The campaign in France was no walkover for the Nazis.

Well actually you could say that the invasion of France was Hitlers biggest mistake. The prime minister of Britain resigned and Winston Churchhill took over.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well actually you could say that the invasion of France was Hitlers biggest mistake. The prime minister of Britain resigned and Winston Churchhill took over.

Churchill took over on the day Germany invaded France right? Was this a factor in the former PM resignation. Thats kinda cowardly on his part if so to resign just as your military is going into battle. Not to say im not glad Churchill took over (coz im a big fan of him) but that just seems rather shady of the former PM.

[2nd of foot]

I think at that time politician accepted responsibility for their actions. Chamberlain had returned with “peace in our time” and he had been duped. So he was responsible for British troops being in danger and accepted it. I would not call it cowardly he accepted responsibility. Unlike some of the slimy ones we have today. But do not think that was the end of it, Churchill had a lot of resistance from within the government and was being pushed to find a peaceful solution, especially after Dunkirk. You also had the US ambassador briefing against him in the US.

[Gen. Sandworm]

I think at that time politician accepted responsibility for their actions. Chamberlain had returned with “peace in our time” and he had been duped. So he was responsible for British troops being in danger and accepted it. I would not call it cowardly he accepted responsibility. Unlike some of the slimy ones we have today. But do not think that was the end of it, Churchill had a lot of resistance from within the government and was being pushed to find a peaceful solution, especially after Dunkirk. You also had the US ambassador briefing against him in the US.

Mabye cowardly was the wrong term. But in military terms "conduct unbecoming an officer/leader of the armed forces" I do see what you are saying and it is repectable to accept responsiblity for your mistakes. And as you said he was duped. I can understand the resistance to Churchill because from what I have learned he did seem to make him self out to be a war monger. Which wasnt really the case. I think he was just looking out for the best interest and protection of the UK. Good thing you didnt just back out of the war because this would have done nothing but strengten Germany's intentions.

[2nd of foot]

GS wrote
But in military terms "conduct unbecoming an officer/leader of the armed forces"

This may be a slip or a misunderstanding, but the prime minister is not the leader of the armed forces, the King was.

It is also worth pointing out that a lot of the higher classes looked on Hitler as a good thing and were quit impressed with what he had done in Germany. They had also gone through one terrible war and did not want to repeat it. Chamberlain’s appeasement was not, at the time, looked on by the public as the wrong direction to take. Churchill had returned to government as the first lord of the admiralty but was known for changing sides as it suited his plan. He had changed parties at least once.

I think he was just looking out for the best interest and protection of the UK.

And I would agree that he was not a war monger, just could see the inevitable coming and wanted the country to be in he best position when it happened.


Andrew Wrote
The British Forces had limited numbers of the Matilda Mk1 Infantry Tank, this had much better Armour than the German Tanks which were involved in the Invasion of France, but it's main problem was the Gun, it had a 2 Pounder which compared to both German & French tanks was a Peashooter,

You are confusing the Mk1 with the Mk2. The Mk1 which was in greater supply had a crew of 2 and was armed with an MG. It had very good armour but was designed to support infantry in he attack not take on tanks.

The Mk2 (about 50 in France) was a far better tank and served on until the 88 came on the ground in the desert. It served in the Far East and was well regarded. At the time of France it was virtually invulnerable with 75mm of armour. It’s 2 pdr (40mm) gun as MD said was a match at this time for any German tank. The Matilda’s failing was that it had a small turret ring and when upguned to the 6 pdr the gunner had to load as there was no room for the loader.

The Matilda 2 was designed to take on tanks and was very good at it, the trouble was that it could not take on other targets as the 2 pdr fired only AT ammo not HE, a problem solved with the 6pdr and the introduction of the Grant/Lee tanks.

The link below takes you to an orbat of the BEF. From this it would appear that each Bde had an AT company and each Div had an AT RA Tegt.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/British-Expeditionary-Force#Order_of_Battle_.28WWII.29

Some of the links to units do not work.

I think the reason was the use of surprise and concentration of effort. The German only had to be at one place, the Allies had to be every wear. The French did not react quickly and nether the BEF or the French co-ordinated their action well. Arras is a good example of this.

Thermopylae
Just a quick point, Hollywood has rewritten history again in this one, they fail to mention that there was also 7000 Greeks present. But what’s fact to a good film. :D

[Walther]

First:
IMO Chamberlain gave Britain the much needed time to get ready for war. After WW1 military was a dirty word in both Britain and France (due to huge, often unnecessary sacrifices due to mostly bad leadership, the French almost lost a whole generation in the trenches). Only during the Spanish civil war did the western nations realise the danger coming from Germany. This caused a crash rearmament programme in Britain and France.

Secondly:
In 1939 did the French mobilise for a German attack, which didn´t come. This mobilisation caused many needed workers to leave the arms factories to become soldiers. After a few months the government realised iot´s mistake and sent a lot of workers home. This caused bad morale among the troops, who did not get demobbed.

Then, due to Belgium´s insistence on neutrality there was no coherent planning along the northern flank (actuallly British troops who entered Belgium in May 1940 to take positions against the Germans were in some cases stopped by Belgian troops).
The French didn´t want to offend the Belgians, so the Maginot line fortifications along the Belgian border were much weaker.

Another thing was the Allied planning for a repeatof WW1. During WW1, successfull attacks were always preceded by a heavy artillery bombardment. The French general staff thought that intelligence about Germans moving heavy artillery to ther front should give them plenty of warning about where a German attack would take place to move troops to this sector. The French generals never thought about Stukas acting as flying artillery.

The Ardennes were considered impassable for heavy artillery and tanks. Therefor the sector around Sedan was watched by socalled B divisions, units made up mostly of middleaged conscripts with little training, lack of artillery and armour, as well as motorised transport. The idea was that they should just watch and if they notice enemy movement, crack A divisions would be moved there, the A divisions were mostly deployed further south in sectors the French generals thought to be more dangerous.
Two battalions of one of these substandard divisions (51st infantry division, if I´m correct) , panicked and opened a gap, through which Guderian´s troops could break in and attack the other French positions from the back and the flanks.

Then, the French Army was a logistical and communicatiobs nightmare, with lots of interservice infighting. Due to this intelligence from French reconnaisance pilots was not acted upon. Also fighters were deployed piecemeal and not concentrated. Equipment wasn´t handed out. After the invasion the Germans found lots of modern French fighters, which due to some stupid orders had been flown to Northern Africa instead of using them against the Stukas.

Jan

[Man of Stoat]

Another major problem is that we went to France expecting to fight a repeat of WW1, not a lightning war of manoevre, for which we were ill-prepared. In small-arms for instance, the British army had hurriedly bought Thompson M1928s from the Americans since no concern had been given to SMGs, which were considered to be "gangster wpns" and of little military value.

[67th Tigers]

FWIW German Panzer strengths during the Battle of France

Panzer I: 523
Panzer II: 955
Panzer III: 349
Panzer IV: 278
Panzer 35t: 106
Panzer 38t: 228
Panzer-Befehlswagen I: 96
Panzer-Befehlswagen II: 39

[Cuts]

......

History has shown that size dosnt always matter. At the battle of Thermoplyae (spl?) 300 Spartens held off over a half million Perians for 3-4 days.

Yes I love that story. Of course the Spartens where much much (much much) more trained and stronger than any of the Persians, but again if (i think it was quarter million) soldeirs came charging, the Spartens where sure of defeat. It was tactics, and they knew what to do. They choose a good position to wait and slay off the Persians. Of course this is WW2 history! War is more with the head than with power and force.

"First with the head, and then with the heart."

See if you can get a copy of "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield, (I don't have the ISBN as my copy was lent to a 'friend'...) An excellent novel of the lead up to, and battle of Thermopylæ.
"Go tell the Spartans..."

"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu is the quintessential textbook on tactics, everything in it can be translated to modern warfare.
Required reading at RMAS.

[Gen. Sandworm]

......

History has shown that size dosnt always matter. At the battle of Thermoplyae (spl?) 300 Spartens held off over a half million Perians for 3-4 days.

Yes I love that story. Of course the Spartens where much much (much much) more trained and stronger than any of the Persians, but again if (i think it was quarter million) soldeirs came charging, the Spartens where sure of defeat. It was tactics, and they knew what to do. They choose a good position to wait and slay off the Persians. Of course this is WW2 history! War is more with the head than with power and force.

"First with the head, and then with the heart."

See if you can get a copy of "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield, (I don't have the ISBN as my copy was lent to a 'friend'...) An excellent novel of the lead up to, and battle of Thermopylæ.
"Go tell the Spartans..."

"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu is the quintessential textbook on tactics, everything in it can be translated to modern warfare.
Required reading at RMAS.

Edited: Poor taste as I reflect. :? Sorry guys.

[Canaris]

I'll be brief:

1. The right wing of French society was fairly pro Hitler. The Left wing of French Society was also fairly pro Hitler as he was a friend of Soviet Union having just signed the Molotov-Ribonthrop Pact. basicaly no one was up for fighting the Germans.

2. The French were expecting the Germans to come through Belgium as the had in WWI. So that is where they sent all their better divisions including a large part of their tanks and the BEF. When Germany attacked further South at Sedan and Dinnant (against poor quality troops) the better French troops were too far North to be redirected and were pinned in Belgium.

3. The French High Command failed to respond to the new tempo of war and organise counter attacks that would have cut off the German panzer breakthrough.

4. The Germans had far supeior airplanes and pilots and established air supremacy early on with predictable results.

[Sturmtruppen]

1. The right wing of French society was fairly pro Hitler. The Left wing of French Society was also fairly pro Hitler as he was a friend of Soviet Union having just signed the Molotov-Ribonthrop Pact. basicaly no one was up for fighting the Germans.

yes,but,the germans were pro frenchs?.

their low morale killed france.

[Walther]

As you have seen by the attacks the French socialist president Leon Blum faced in 1936, when he supported the Spanish Republic against the fascists, the French upper clasand much of the French brass prefered a German Nazi occupation or a puppet government supported by the Nazis over a leftwing French government. Face it, French Jews were largely rounded up by French police and fascist Milice and then handed over to the Germans.

Many leftwings though had a big ideological problem, when Stalin wanted them to do a 180 degree turn after he had the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact signed.
Once the Germans occupied France though, the communists had the most disciplined and efficient partisan organisation.

Jan

[Canaris]

Maybe but hither too many French armament works had sabotaged the equipment they had been worrking on in sympathy with their socialist Nazi brothers. Thats how they saw it at the time anyway.