France '40. Shouldnt Allies be able to invade Germany?

[spinecruncher]

Historically in '40, there was the phony war, but had Weygan decided to be very aggressive -- well let's postulate for a hypothetical that French high-command had a very aggressive doctrine (rather than their historical phony war doctrine) they did have the largest army in the world with fairly good equipment, they just did not develop the blitz doctrine. What if they had? For example in Sep 39 they could have invaded Germany in a go for broke campaign. What would have happened to Germany,. Okay turn the clock to May 10, 1940. What if on May 10 1940 a Churchillian leader (maybe De Gaulle) took over as C&C for the French, would they have had s diff outcome? Could the French have attacked Germany on May 10, 1940, or was it too late, once the Germans attacked the French lost the initiative? For the purposes of TOAW4 do the available scenarios model the situation accurately so that a Churchillian, or eve De Gaullean Allied C&C could have attacked Germany whilst Germany attacked France, thus changing history somewhat?

[warspite1]

The thing about ‘what-if’ scenarios is that there is no right or wrong. They are, by definition, ‘what-if’ and so one is allowed to make whatever rules and install whatever criteria they are happy with.

For me, I would be interested in understanding what could have happened had the French actually made a serious attempt to help Poland (a proper Saar offensive – but let’s be clear, no ‘blitzkrieg') while the bulk of the German Army was in the east. We know that the Germans stocks of shells and other vital weapons were dangerously low after the Polish campaign – imagine if more ammunition stocks were required to keep the French at bay. So the Germans would soon find themselves in a two-front war with little choice but to bring units back from the east to hold the French.

But the idea of a French ‘blitzkrieg’ courtesy of a De Gaulle type character taking over in May 1940 – or even shortly before – is not something I personally would be interested in, for the simple reason that decades of French military thinking couldn’t just be re-modelled ‘overnight’. The French army was not capable of launching such an attack, and one different leader at the top wasn’t going to change years of WWI thinking. They didn’t have the required number of generals and leaders to perform such a tactical volte-face, not to mention the logistics necessary and the training.

Even more interesting as a scenario to me would be to allow the French to scrap the Breda Variant and to put Billotte and his 7th Army in reserve (as originally intended). Now, when the Germans bounce the Meuse, they will find probably the best – and most mobile – of the French armies in front of them. It is unlikely I would have thought that in such a circumstance, the panzers would make the breakthrough to the coast, the Allied armies in Belgium would not be surrounded, the Belgian resolve stiffened, and the German task suddenly made a whole lot more difficult……

[Teemu1986]

It would not make sense. Britain and France started rearmament later than Germany and control the seas. From the perspective of Allied planners, it would be better to wait since they would most likely be stronger in 1941 than 1940.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Teemu1986

It would not make sense. Britain and France started rearmament later than Germany and control the seas. From the perspective of Allied planners, it would be better to wait since they would most likely be stronger in 1941 than 1940.

That's why it's called what if. [;)]

For instance, what if the Allies had acted aggressively to the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936?

[Nicholas Bell]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But the idea of a French ‘blitzkrieg’ courtesy of a De Gaulle type character taking over in May 1940 – or even shortly before – is not something I personally would be interested in, for the simple reason that decades of French military thinking couldn’t just be re-modelled ‘overnight’. The French army was not capable of launching such an attack, and one different leader at the top wasn’t going to change years of WWI thinking. They didn’t have the required number of generals and leaders to perform such a tactical volte-face, not to mention the logistics necessary and the training.

IIRC the AH boardgame France '40 had options to address this along the lines deleting the Maginot Line (ignoring it for play purposes on the map) in exchange for additional mobile divisions.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

ORIGINAL: warspite1
But the idea of a French ‘blitzkrieg’ courtesy of a De Gaulle type character taking over in May 1940 – or even shortly before – is not something I personally would be interested in, for the simple reason that decades of French military thinking couldn’t just be re-modelled ‘overnight’. The French army was not capable of launching such an attack, and one different leader at the top wasn’t going to change years of WWI thinking. They didn’t have the required number of generals and leaders to perform such a tactical volte-face, not to mention the logistics necessary and the training.

IIRC the AH boardgame France '40 had options to address this along the lines deleting the Maginot Line (ignoring it for play purposes on the map) in exchange for additional mobile divisions.

warspite1

Sure, and to some it may be a fun, but also interesting, premise; what if the French mindset was completely different post WWI? Maginot mentality did not rule the day, but instead the French saw the opportunity to build a modern, mobile army with a tactical air force acting as mobile artillery?

Something similar could be explored with the Royal Navy. The RN had the lead in carriers at the end of 1918. What if they saw the potential of these weapons - and the aircraft that flew from them - and decided that this would be their focus?

For me personally it is too much of a move away from history to make for an interesting scenario - but each to their own [:)]

[Oberst_Klink]

The 'What-if' is... well... Yes, the French could have conducted an 'offensive' against the Saar (which they more or less did!) , but... the mindset (of the senior military) was still kinda WW1 like. So, even if we presume they'd have been able to occupy some parts of Germany... then what? The planners of the FR/UK thought that Germany would try a 2nd Schlieffen plan... therefore concentrating their forces to 'meet' the German in Belgium.

Klink, Oberst

[spinecruncher]

What about for the purposes of TOAW4 ? Cant we change hx in the sense that we can be aggressive and invade Germany? Or are there historical penalties embedded in the defense etc?

[mccartyg]

You can design your own scenario of course. The French would have needed to pull their colonial army replacing the units in southern France. The British could have contributed more men. Technically the Americans could have declared for the allies by 1940 the Belgians definitely had incentive. France was rather deserted of manpower compared to other western nations at the time. A problem going back to the revolution and succeeding generations. If they had prepared for a general offensive with all of their forces and more allied assistance than I think the French could have done some real damage. Historically, noone wanted to reenact WW1 so everyone pussy footed around the war declaration over Poland's independence which didn't carry much merit socialy/culturaly anyhow.
A French assault into Germany would have to be rather divergent but, would be possible and a real challenging scenario in my opinion.

[spinecruncher]

yeah but can it be dome with the France '40 scenario? etc or s the PO limited to a Axis invasion?

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

yeah but can it be dome with the France '40 scenario? etc or s the PO limited to a Axis invasion?

The Allied PO won't try anything aggressive in the France 40 scenario.

FWIW, this was one of the original scenarios with the first release back in 1998. Almost all of these first scenarios were pretty much crap, including this one. I don't know what has been done with it since then but I checked it out briefly in TOAW IV & it doesn't appear to have been improved noticeably.

I think Matrix should drop these old scenarios or quarantine them somewhere in a separate folder.

[spinecruncher]

what about the Nach Frankriech scenario ?

[demyansk]

Plus, the Soviets coming in didn't help matters.

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

Historically in '40, there was the phony war, but had Weygan decided to be very aggressive -- well let's postulate for a hypothetical that French high-command had a very aggressive doctrine (rather than their historical phony war doctrine) they did have the largest army in the world with fairly good equipment, they just did not develop the blitz doctrine. What if they had? For example in Sep 39 they could have invaded Germany in a go for broke campaign. What would have happened to Germany,. Okay turn the clock to May 10, 1940. What if on May 10 1940 a Churchillian leader (maybe De Gaulle) took over as C&C for the French, would they have had s diff outcome? Could the French have attacked Germany on May 10, 1940, or was it too late, once the Germans attacked the French lost the initiative? For the purposes of TOAW4 do the available scenarios model the situation accurately so that a Churchillian, or eve De Gaullean Allied C&C could have attacked Germany whilst Germany attacked France, thus changing history somewhat?

Weygand did not took command until 18 may 1940... Gamelin was before.
As for the possibilities of a bigger Saar "offensive", you have to take in account the time needed for the French mobilization, which was not finished until September 20th. The tiny BEF completed their deployment on October 2nd in the Lille sector (near the coast)
The soviets attacked Poland on September 17th...
So you have the French Army that have to attack alone along the German border (can't break the Belgium neutrality) that could enjoy a small numerical superiority only for a while (the Germans would move forces from the east since Poland was pretty much finished), against a fortified line and that was an army that wasn't prepared for attacking because of their mentality and methodical doctrine.
In 1940 the situation would be even worse.

[spinecruncher]

okay but once the French were attacked May 10, couldnt they have attacked Germany too?

[Meyer1]

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

okay but once the French were attacked May 10, couldnt they have attacked Germany too?

I think they were pretty busy trying to stop the German attack [:)]

[spinecruncher]

okay let's be real here: The reason why the Allies lost France was bc they did not extend the Maginot line and they failed to adequately defend the Ardennes (sp) Now let's turn back the clock to May 10, and put you in charge, IE, you have replaced Gamelin, and you look at the map on May 10 and you realize that the Ardennes need to be better protected -- would you therefore be able to save France? If you put one or two, or hell an AG, in the ARdennes wouldn't that have saved France? You could put more troops in the forest and attack Germany from some other point. I would think a well modeled TOAW4 scenario should answer the question.

[Meyer1]

Well, the Ardennes are mostly in Belgium territory, and the French could not enter there before the Germans, so they would only screen (as they did) it to protect their deployment along the Meuse river line, that would always be their line of defense.
As for extend the Maginot line, yeah they could have done it... but only at the expense of their mechanized forces. No free lunch here. And remember that fortifications, once breached are worthless.
Now hindsight is great, but obviously that sector covered by the 2nd and 9th French armies, that was the hinge between the Maginot line, and the forces advancing of Belgium, was a weak point that should have been reinforced, IMO, at the expense of the forces behind the Maginot, which were too many, specially since they didn't expect the German main attack there.
The French were concerned about the possibility of a German maneuver through Switzerland to outflank the Maginot but that was not much rational. And you can't be strong everywhere.

So yes, a better defended Meuse line and stronger reserves available behind would definitely help the Allied cause, but now you have to rethink your commitments in Belgium and Holland, which could be defeated by the Germans in detail.
Would that save France? I don't think so, tough it would be a costlier German victory.

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: spinecruncher

okay let's be real here: The reason why the Allies lost France was bc they did not extend the Maginot line and they failed to adequately defend the Ardennes (sp) Now let's turn back the clock to May 10, and put you in charge, IE, you have replaced Gamelin, and you look at the map on May 10 and you realize that the Ardennes need to be better protected -- would you therefore be able to save France? If you put one or two, or hell an AG, in the ARdennes wouldn't that have saved France? You could put more troops in the forest and attack Germany from some other point. I would think a well modeled TOAW4 scenario should answer the question.

I've always thought this battle was one of the hardest to get right for a wargame system. By the balance of forces it shouldn't have been anything like a German walkover, even with the poor initial Allied deployment and plans.

You probably have to load in heaps of more-or-less arbitrary-seeming Allied restrictions and penalties to get something like an historical outcome - just because it's such an outlier versus expected outcomes given a moderately competent Allied mix of training, doctrine, command organisation etc.

But whatever you do also has to be able to reflect the much more competent French showing in situations like the Cavalary Corps' early on, repeated counter-attacks around Stonne, briefly during Case Red etc - even if these were irrelevant for the larger picture, doomed, brief etc.

You really want a system which can allow a plausible "story" in which maybe this competence can happen more decisively, slow down the advance and turn things into an attrition battle which "should" have happened & which Germany quite possibly would have lost.

I have a long-term thing I've fiddled with over the years where you use the main lever available TOAW - shock levels - with recovery geared to successfully limiting the German advance over time. It's sort of OK-ish but not fully satisfying.

It really was the most important campaign of WW2. Germany "shouldn't" have won in the way it did, and probably nothing would have been remotely the same in WW2 if they hadn't. Eg: just look at the change in attitude of somebody like Halder, who I take as kind of a proxy for the professional militarists. With the lessons of WW1, starts out totally skeptical re the prospects for the traditional German "decisive battle"; gets converted into a believer that technology has once again made it possible; goes way over-confident over the prospects vs Russia and along with the rest of them enthusiastically supports a disastrous Barbarossa plan; rudely disillusioned again by the end of 1941.

Carrying on, I really want a campaign that combines France 1940 with the possibility of a Sealion - one without the other was a huge operational/strategic failure. It's the most interesting period of the war - after Barbarossa or at least after its failure, everything becomes pretty predictable and boring from a strategic point of view. I've tinkered over the years with a "Gott strafe England" scenario covering this & I guess I'll revisit under TOAW IV. The new naval rules offer some interesting possibilities.

[spinecruncher]

"I really want a campaign that combines France 1940 with the possibility of a Sealion - one without the other was a huge operational/strategic failure. It's the most interesting period of the war"

-- Decisive Campaigns?

tt.asp?forumid=853


Anyways, the two above posts are very insightful, though contrast. Meyer seems to imply that by the composition of forces and political restrictions of the low countries the Allies were hemmed into a defensive war that they could not win. SZilard appears to imply that the outcome of France was in no way set in stone on May 10, and could very well have gone another way. I am certainly of this latter school. The campaign was like a grand soccer game, where two roughly equal opponents had a fairly equivalent chance, but the threshold for victory was 100%; ie no runners up in history.

So again the question, how well do the current iterations, TOAW4 Nach Frankriech or DC play to the historical realism? I think I will need to invest some time to find out.

Edit, Hitler is thought to have been a gambler. He invaded France I believe according to Manstein's conception of the Ardennes. The conversions occurred afterward w Halder and the whole gang, the dozen marshal batons that were handed out. Hitler saw it as providence. Every gamble up to that point had paid off. It wasn't until the winter of '42/43 where the notion of providence was shown as false and I think the Fuhrer wanted those batons back. The French could have won, or that is they could have plugged the gap and maybe invaded Germany too. I think it was on May 10 that Eben Emal was taken. The French could have then mobilized into the ARdennes and plugged the gap. They failed to. They lost. that is, once the Germans attacked the low countries on May 10, The Allies were free to mobilize into Belgium.