Matrix Games Forums

and why are they? I would haphazard my vote to be for the mighty French Army of 1939-1940. I am a very minor league WW2 scholar compared to some of the posters here, but I would have to say France is the country that mislearned the most lessons from WW1. I am curious as to how they failed so totally when a lot of the factors weighed in their favor during the Sitzkrieg period. Was their Strategic coordination to blame, or was the will to fight sapped away due to the French expenditures concerning the First World War? I have my opinions and am dying to hear yours.

regards,
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

Well here's my 2 cents. They never learn how to utilize what they had were still thinking the old school. The Germans prove that in Poland and in France they had good trainning plus they utilize everything they had to is maximum potential, the days of trench warfare were over. Even the rest of the allies took some real losses before they realize how to use what they had to maximum potential. But hey what do I know.

Tankhead

------------------
Rick Cloutier rcclout@telusplanet.net
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

[This message has been edited by Tankhead (edited 07-05-2000).]

Oh boy, the French. Never has so little been done by so many, with so much. I'm a francophile, and I love the country, but boy did 1940-44 serve them right. They had such potential. Wonderful tanks, some really great new aircraft designs, a huge navy, and they totally failed to even put up a respectable showing. I feel bad agreeing with you, but I do. I think you're right in your reasons for their failure. To add to their incompetent staff and inexplicable timidity, one must also consider sabotage, disorganisation, and an industrial capacity rivalled in patheticness only by Italy.

Earlier in the war everybody was saying the Germans have better this better that, but in reality the allies had good stuff too but they did not know how to use it too it's advantage. Like I said in my 1st post it took a few good beatting before they realize what to do with all those new war tools.

Tankhead

------------------
Rick Cloutier rcclout@telusplanet.net
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

As if the French armed forces were alone in being caught with their collective pants down! Seems to me all the Allies were woefully unprepared for Blitzkrieg tactics. Witness the early Allied failures against the German army, not to mention the brave but foolish tactic of Polish cavalrymen vs panzers.

I think the second most overrated army was the Soviet. I know I will take a lot of heat for that but hear me out. There are logical reasons for this viewpoint enumerated in several sources.

1) Uncle Joe taking his senior leadership out behind the woodshed in the thirties was not a good move for the implementation of professionalism, or new theory in the Red Army.

2) I am not meaning to imply that Ivan did not get results, only that Ivan got results at a prodigious cost that better training may have curtailed.

3) Soviet domestic production sucked in several strategic areas. (truck production, waterproof wire construction, supercharger production, advanced oil refining techniques.) If the UK and US had not loaned Uncle Joe those things there would have been an even greater strain placed on the Soviet people.

4) Uncle Joe's policy on being a P.O.W. was extremely reactionary and paranoid. He was almost Japanese-like in his abject hatred of anyone who got caught.(including his own son)

5) Any military that cannot handle an opponent it outnumbers twenty to one sucks. I will always have a special place in my heart for the Finns because they beat the hell out of Ivan twice. God bless that little country.

regards,
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

Originally posted by Sgt Stein:
not to mention the brave but foolish tactic of Polish cavalrymen vs panzers.

This one should be put in the top 100 blunder book

Tankhead



------------------
Rick Cloutier rcclout@telusplanet.net
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

Re: top 100 blunders

Nay, those brave men and beasts fought valiantly with the best that they had at the time. And they so impressed the Germans that some pz I and II crews were in tears as they mowed down horse and man alike.

Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people. It requires your enemy to remain stupid forever in order for it to remain a sound method of advance. Just ask the Nazis after Kursk, or Crusader.

A lot of the success of Blitzkrieg was because of the Strategic ineptness of it's victims. If an enemy could absorb the initial thrusts and learn to counterattack it effectively it fell apart as a doctrine. After the middle of the war the Germans were using Classic combined arms warfare and not the fabled shock armor advances.

my two-pence,
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

Originally posted by Sgt Stein:
Re: top 100 blunders

Nay, those brave men and beasts fought valiantly with the best that they had at the time. And they so impressed the Germans that some pz I and II crews were in tears as they mowed down horse and man alike.

Really brave mens, could you imagine the horror

Tankhead



------------------
Rick Cloutier rcclout@telusplanet.net
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

Originally posted by Tankhead:
Really brave mens, could you imagine the horror

Tankhead

I cannot, having never ridden a horse onto any battlefield, but my grandfather was in one of those pz I's(and he still gets tears in his eyes over that battle).

Originally posted by sven:
Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people. It requires your enemy to remain stupid forever in order for it to remain a sound method of advance. Just ask the Nazis after Kursk, or Crusader.

A lot of the success of Blitzkrieg was because of the Strategic ineptness of it's victims. If an enemy could absorb the initial thrusts and learn to counterattack it effectively it fell apart as a doctrine. After the middle of the war the Germans were using Classic combined arms warfare and not the fabled shock armor advances.

my two-pence,
sven

Got to desagree with this. Blitzkrieg was the first true use of combined arms warfare and many of its princibles are still in use today. The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.

exactly

who is the most overrated army in WW2?

Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France.

Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

Originally posted by Drake666:
Got to desagree with this. Blitzkrieg was the first true use of combined arms warfare and many of its princibles are still in use today. The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.

That is why I said "as understood by most people" if you ask Joe six-pack what Blitzkrieg was he'll tell you, "Great big assaults with lots of tanks!" That analysis was incorrect by the way. Early Blitzing was combined arms assaults with stress put on the shock value of armor. Well trained armies were not as shocked by the armor after '43 and unsupported armor advances became more and more deadly for the aggressor against opponents who had decided to defend in depth. I do not care how much freedom the German Commanders would have had the tactics they used against Poland, and especially France early in the war would have had disasterous results later- especially in the east where Ivan figured out how to neuter the Shock Armor advances.(albeit at great cost)

regards,
sven



------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

Originally posted by Drake666:
The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.

True Has many commanders were restricted of what they could do. Finnaly they even try to kill Hitler. Poor Rommel was force to commit suicide, because of is implication in the plot against Hitler.

Tankhead



------------------
Rick Cloutier rcclout@telusplanet.net
Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources
http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

Originally posted by Drake666:
who is the most overrated army in WW2?

Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France.

Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. Furthermore Hats off to the awesome US ARMY AIR CORPS contribution during the Battle of the Bulge. I'll bet the grunts fighting during the fog were thinking, "God I suck! I sure am glad those fancy planes are doing all the work during this inclement weather!" Funny how a guy that was just singing the accolades of combined arms is discounting two thirds of the US version.

Air power is a wonderful thing.... providing you have....

a) air superiority
b)good weather and
c)ground assets to exploit the gains air strikes make

I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly.

regards,
sven former 11h and airbase town rat.


------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

Well the British can be thankful the channel separated them from the rest of Europe. I fear they would have suffered the same fate as France. That would have put an interesting twist on the war. But, according to some accounts, Adolph admired the British (at first)and hoped they would see the "light" and prehaps even join the cause against the Soviets. I don't think his heart (and stomach) was in Sealion. I think it would have been possible to create a large enough beachhead with airbourne troops (abit with subtantial losses)then provide support with available landing craft and transports. They could have used those Stuka's to attack British shipping instead of wasting their crews over the island. U-boats, surface ships and even shore batteries in some cases (with air support) could have protected the supply corridor.

If the French didn't learn from the WWI experiance, then the same can be said of the Germans too. Don't fight a two (or more) front war.

The polish army was pretty overrated. Remember, the allies thought Poland could hold out for months due to the 'courage and tenacity' of the polish troops. Not that they weren't. The poles had high quality troops, but what can you do when you've lost the battle before you've left the blocks? They're doctrine and equipment sucked. France doesn't have the equiptment excuse though. They didn't have just good tanks, they were GREAT for the time. Anyone who's played SPWAW long campaign in 1940 knows how good the tanks were. What a waste of 37mm ammunition. Grumble.

Tomo

Hehehe well said sven! I doubt those poor grunts stuck on the frozen ground in Dec '44 had much regard for the mighty air force.