• @Dylan:

    @maverick_76:

    In all honesty the French were bled white by the first world war, they took huge losses and the war was mainly fought on their territory. They just lost the will to fight after what happened in WWI.

    They’re still French.

    OK? Point being?


  • @UN:

    @Dylan:

    @maverick_76:

    In all honesty the French were bled white by the first world war, they took huge losses and the war was mainly fought on their territory. They just lost the will to fight after what happened in WWI.

    They’re still French.

    OK? Point being?

    There still French, to me thats enough said.


  • Oh boy, I really got the ball rolling.  Sorry to anyone who got offended it was just a little friendly jab.  Since everyone is throwing in their two cents I will add mine.

    During WWII it was really not a question of individual bravery or inability that lost the fight, it was poor leadership and some bad strategic chooses that were compounded by a bold German plan.  I would say the individual french soldiers performed admirably and too many paid the ultimate sacrifice, you can not take anything away from them for many died with their guns in their hands.

    The french simply fought poorly because they were poorly led, had they had Field Marshals whom could think outside the box and whom could fight more offensively then the common view of the French would have been different.  It is too bad that some of us (myself included) sometimes fault an entire nation for the actions of just a few of their leaders.


  • Honestly the main problem was that they were using pre-WWI equipment, they actually reverted back to calvary and stopped producing tanks. It was a horrid chain of events that led up to them getting run over like they did. They didn’t have an air force, ther generals were all old and still in the mindset of WWI tactics (anyone just has to look at the maginot line to see that they still believed in trench warfare).


  • @maverick_76:

    Honestly the main problem was that they were using pre-WWI equipment, they actually reverted back to calvary and stopped producing tanks. It was a horrid chain of events that led up to them getting run over like they did. They didn’t have an air force, ther generals were all old and still in the mindset of WWI tactics (anyone just has to look at the maginot line to see that they still believed in trench warfare).

    Uh, a lot of armies at that time still used cavalry, including the Soviet Union, Germany, and the United States.

    We had better tanks than the Germans, and although our air force (which we did have, we do have the world’s oldest airforce after all  :-D) was mostly made of outdated planes (though not bi-planes), the D.520 fighter was actually a very modern aircraft, comparable to the German Me-109 or the British Spitfire. There was also the LeO 45, a very effective bomber, but only saw limited use

    So it wasn’t that we lagged behind in military development; we just lagged behind in producing enough of that good, modern stuff.


  • Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.


  • @maverick_76:

    Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

    Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

    And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

    Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

    But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

    However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!


  • @UN:

    @maverick_76:

    Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

    Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

    And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

    Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

    But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

    However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

    I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @UN:

    @maverick_76:

    Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

    Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

    And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

    Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

    But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

    However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

    I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.

    Polish cavalry never charged German tanks or entrenched infantry or artillery, but usually acted as mobile infantry (like dragoons) and reconnaissance  units and executed cavalry charges only in rare situations against foot soldiers. Other armies (including German and Soviet) also fielded and extensively used elite horse cavalry units at that time. Polish cavalry consisted of eleven brigades, as emphasized by its military doctrine, equipped with anti tank rifles “UR” and light artillery such as the highly effective Bofors 37 mm antitank gun. The myth originated from war correspondents reports of the Battle of Krojanty, where a Polish cavalry brigade was fired upon in ambush by hidden armored vehicles, after it had mounted a sabre-charge against German infantry.


  • @UN:

    @maverick_76:

    Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

    Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

    And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

    Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

    But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

    However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

    I never said that the film I saw was an actual charge, I’m pretty sure it was just a propaganda piece. This link is what I was talking about, not sure where it is at though.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waDKwtvAOvI&feature=related


  • The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).

    They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.

    The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:

    Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
    Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
    UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
    German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
    US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
    Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).

    The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.


  • @reloader-1:

    The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).

    They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.

    The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:

    Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
    Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
    UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
    German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
    US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
    Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).

    The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.

    What about ANZAC and China?


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @reloader-1:

    The French equipment was top of the line. (tanks especially).

    They had serviceable fighters and other equipment. That is probably one of the reasons why they are disparaged so much, is that they cannot blame losing on inadequate equipment.

    The French soldier was capable of bravery. However, they were so ineptly led and trained that they were near useless in combat. It is sad that the war ended so fast for mainland France, for they were unable to develop a national “character” of their soldiers. For example:

    Russia = Soldiers developed a reputation for tenacity - no matter what, they would keep fighting, no matter the costs
    Japan = Developed a reputation for sheer lack of the fear of death - until a Japanese soldier was dead, he wouldn’t stop fighting
    UK = Brave, resolute, steadfast and dependable. They may not be the quickest to achieve an objective, but they would take it.
    German = “Thinking” soldiers. They would outthink you on the battlefield, using flanking movement etc. Also very brave.
    US = Not giving up. It may take thousands and thousands of rounds, but they would not give up. NUTS!
    Italy = Not really in the war, they would surrender due to apathy and inferior equipment (and rightly so).

    The only possible image we have of France is of a near immediate surrender. (Hence the jokes) I really feel that the blame lies on commander from the Sergeant level up - the French soldier was not motivated enough, and that is inexcusable, especially when your country is invaded.

    What about ANZAC and China?

    What about them? They’re almost never actually portrayed in anything, period.

    …that they were near useless in combat.

    The British evacuating from Dunkirk would disagree with that; even when poorly led they put up bitter resistance against the Germans as they closed in on Dunkirk.


  • Also, I really think Italy’s image has been tarnished by British wartime propaganda. Like the French, the Italians were poorly led (though they had far worse equipment then the French), but they were capable of acts of bravery. Italian artillery would literally continue to fire until they were literally overrun. Plus, their motor vehicles were actually better than average, with commanders like Monty using them in his African campaigns!

    And oh boy did they put up a fight in Sicily, though by the time the Allies gained a foothold in Italy proper there was much friction between the Italians and krauts.


  • @calvinhobbesliker:

    @UN:

    @maverick_76:

    Most historians contest that France had ancient tactics and equipment when fighting the invading Germans. Every time I think of it I see the video of a calvary charge with their swords unsheathed. I think I saw on the World at War series.

    Not sure what historians you saw.  :? We definitely had modern equipment; our heaviest tank, the Char b1, had better armor and firepower than the Panzer II or III, the mainstream German tanks at that time. It was, however, a gas guzzler, and was pretty slow.

    And like I said, the D.520 fighter was modern for its time, as was the LeO fighter, but they saw little action as it was too late to mass produce them. Same with the other modern equipment we had, including the Char b1 tank.

    Not sure where you got the French charging the Germans with cavalry. Not a single reported incident of that happened. Same with Poland, where there’s a myth of them using horses against panzers.  :roll:

    But ancient tactics? Well, 1918 tactics. Only a few like Charles de Gaulle advocated modern warfare. Actually, Heinz Guderian, one of the big developers of blitzkrieg, read de Gaulle’s book, compared it to his own, and found many similarities. So yes, the French High Command was still thinking 1918; the Germans were thinking 1940.

    However, in comparison to the Army, the Navy was very well trained and had modern ships. Small wonder the British were desperate enough to bomb the fleet at Mers El Kébir!

    I think in Poland, the calvary was attacking German inf, and then tanks showed up.

    :-D Polish sucked!


  • @Dylan:

    :-D Polish sucked!

    That’s like saying Canada sucked.


  • @UN:

    @Dylan:

    :-D Polish sucked!

    That’s like saying Canada sucked.

    At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.


  • @Dylan:

    @UN:

    @Dylan:

    :-D Polish sucked!

    That’s like saying Canada sucked.

    At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.

    The United States, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan all had cavalry.

    Fourth? Care to share where that statistic comes from?  :?


  • At least we didn’t have horses! Besides by the end of the war, we had the forth strongest military.

    Fourth behind who? USA, USSR, and UK? Technically wasn’t the Canadian military part of the UK (commonwealth) military?


  • @reloader-1:

    Time for a good joke:
    Q: Why do the French plant so many trees on their roads?
    A: So the Germans can march in the shade!

    This sounds like a variation of what Leonidas of Sparta replied at the battle of Thermopylae when the Persian king boasted that the arrows of his troops would blot out the sun: “Good.  We shall fight better in the shade.”

Suggested Topics

  • 9
  • 23
  • 8
  • 24
  • 16
  • 5
  • 5
  • 14
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

23

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts