Battle of France (1940)

[oakranger]

I have been reading some books regarding to the post, and there is one thing that i have concluded on why Germany defeated France in six week.  France, and British as well, where fighting 1914 while Germany was fighting 1940.  What i learn is that France learn a lot from WWI.  So much that they have books on war fare base off WWI that they where still using by 1940. 
For the Germans, they dropped most concepts of war fare from WWI to developed new methods modern war fare (1940).  They developed tactics using armored vehicle, mechanized, para troops/storm troops and air support.  Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, who wrote a book called, “Auchtung Panzer”, advance Ernst Volckheim's armored and mechanized warfare concept and developed the Blitzkrieg.  Note: it is highly argue that Volckheim is the “father of Blitzkrieg”.  Germany became so advance in the battlefield by 1940 that the allies could not do.

I am sure i could be wrong with a lot but would love to get input from the rest of you guys who may understand it better than me.  And sorry for bad grammar and spelling.  Working on it.   

[-tronski-]

Combined arms warfare was a lesson learned and successfully conducted in 1918 by the Allies.
Blitzkrieg was successful because of the confusion sown by the relatively small German mechanised spearheads, and the slow and ponderous reactions to them by the Allies. The German panzers certainly reacted faster and had better tactics operationally but the majority of the German forces in 1940 was still horse drawn and no more advanced than the French or British.

 Tronsky

[oakranger]

Combined arms warfare was a lesson learned and successfully conducted in 1918 by the Allies.
Blitzkrieg was successful because of the confusion sown by the relatively small German mechanised spearheads, and the slow and ponderous reactions to them by the Allies. The German panzers certainly reacted faster and had better tactics operationally but the majority of the German forces in 1940 was still horse drawn and no more advanced than the French or British.

 Tronsky

Yes, that what i read a lot.  French and British just did not get off their bellybutton fast enough to stop them.  And as i put it, Germany was doing thing that the allies could not do.  There is one point that i read about the Germans, all their tanks and other armors vehicle have radio communications.  Where the allies have not yet practice communication like that. 
I try to carefully read the whole battle plane on both sides since day one, the Germans preformed flawlessly.  Germany did what the allies anticipated that they would do, but they move faster then what the allies did not except them to do. 
Thax for your input.  give me more. 

[Warspawn]

Another important concept that the Wehrmact developed was the importance of utilizing armor in a new role, that of a 'penetration' force, a spearhead...rather than just infantry support.  Generally, the allies had equal or superior tank designs at the start of the war, but failed to utilize them en masse, while mobile German divisions were able to penetrate allied defenses and then move to exploit the undefended areas behind the nominal battle lines.

[FTJR]

Dont forget the Germans also fought in Spain, then attacked and conquered Poland, which showed them what to do and more particularly what not to do. So they had field experience before they attacked France.

[ChickenHawk]

In WWI Germany was the only country to utilize large strategic bombers.  In WWII, it was the Allies that had the strategic bombers while Germany failed to produce them.

The Allies in WWI used close air support for offensive operations near the end of the war.  It was Germany that perfected these tactics in WWII.

There seems to be a tendency for military planners to make up for previous failures but to forget about previous successes.

[FiLtH]

   I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head.  When they arrived at the front, they got pined down, straffed by Stukas (he still remembers the rear gunner's outfit) ... as a group of tanks was moving around them in a wide circle to trap them. He and a friend stood up under MG fire, ran to a parked car a couple of yards away. The keys were in the inition, craked it up and drove right in front of a German tank and escaped while the whole squad got taken prisoner ... or worse. He didn't look back.

That might explain why France got her butt kicked. 

[68Wooley]

   I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.

Had that been the case it would have applied equally to Germany and Britain.

[oakranger]

   I always thought the children/oprhans of WW1 in France didnt have enough generations to restock their supply of fighting men. The memory of the first war probably had alot to do with it as well.

That is true.  But after WWI, France wanted all males (married or not) to fornicated with any female that lost a love one in the war or any female that has not married.  So they can bare a child and help France population.  Russia did the same. 

However, France had the numbers, 50 division of ground troops. 

My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head.  When they arrived at the front, they got pined down, straffed by Stukas (he still remembers the rear gunner's outfit) ... as a group of tanks was moving around them in a wide circle to trap them. He and a friend stood up under MG fire, ran to a parked car a couple of yards away. The keys were in the inition, craked it up and drove right in front of a German tank and escaped while the whole squad got taken prisoner ... or worse. He didn't look back.

That might explain why France got her butt kicked. 

Yea, he is a lucky that they did not get him.    Now how was he able to get away in a car with out the Germans blowing them up? 
It is like i said, France was still doing 1914 war fare while Germany advance to 1940.  Germany was doing things that no allies could not do at the time. 


What i found interesting is how Germany used the Arden Forest to cover the bulk of the invasion.  Their Blitzkrieg is only effective in flat open terrain so they could not used the blitz in the Arden forest.  All they needed was to find the weakest point of the French line and used it to their advantage.  And they found one, Sedan.  As soon as they took it, all of France went into panic and Germany went into full throttle with their blitzkrieg. 

[FiLtH]

   You'd think so Wooley but seeing how Germany started it, they must have thought they had something going for them.

[RufusLeaking]

France, and British as well, where fighting 1914 while Germany was fighting 1940.  What i learn is that France learn a lot from WWI.  So much that they have books on war fare base off WWI that they where still using by 1940.

The Fall of France in 1940 had a lot to do with psychology. 

You are correct in referring to 1914.  The Allies were expecting to have time.  Why wouldn’t the Allies use WWI as a model?  They won that one.

The memory of the scale of WWI also played a part.  The French (along with all major combatants) took millions of losses.  For what?  For being the neighbor of Imperial Germany?

The French built the Maginot Line to avoid WWI scale losses and allow time to mobilize behind it.  They were being diplomatic when they decided not to extend the line to the sea and leave Benelux on the other side. One of the reasons that the French and the British got encircled was that they rushed into the Low Countries to stop the expected German advance there.

It is definitely an interesting time in history.

My Grand Father's unit was given a flower, a rifle and 5 bullets per head.

Why the flower?

What i found interesting is how Germany used the Arden Forest to cover the bulk of the invasion.  Their Blitzkrieg is only effective in flat open terrain so they could not used the blitz in the Arden forest.  All they needed was to find the weakest point of the French line and used it to their advantage. 

The Germans used the same route in the Battle of the Bulge with much less success.  This is a testament to the relative lack of preparation in 1940 when compared to the fully mobilized Allies of 1944.  By 1944, Blitzkrieg had lost some of its aura.

[soda72]

Why the flower?

to be placed on their grave...

[oakranger]

Rufusleaking,

You are right about the Maginot Line on why they never went up to the channel.  But, there also the cost too.  After Belgium declare neutrality in 1938 (i believe) France decided to continued with the line up to the channel.  By 1940, they where no where near in complete it. 

The used of the Arden forest and Blitzkrieg in 1940 and 1944 was a factor that German did not have air superiority, Germany will to fight was not as great, and they where facing a smarter, strong army. 

[Obie303]

May I offer a few more books for your reading list regarding this subject.  The first book is about the Invasion of Poland in 1939.  It's an Osprey Publication.  It's not bad, but there are better books on the subject.  (the books I'm suggesting are the ones I've read.).  This book goes into some detail regarding the tactics and lessons learned during the beginning of the war.  I suggest this book because it shows the "redefinition" of the tactic called "Blitzkrieg". 

I think that if you look at the tactics, the Germans could very well be called the inventors of Modern Warefare.  But I think there is room for a discussion there.  There were also Americans who were also highly skilled tacticians.  For example, General Patton.   

So is the discussion truly about tactics and the use of this new type of warefare called "Blitzkrieg" or could we be talking about the morale and the lack of qualified leaders at the beginning of 1940 for the allies.  You can also add to that list the political atmosphere in 1939-1940.  Between the German-Soviet pact and their combined invasion of Poland, I would tend to believe that France or any other nation, would feel the cause was lost with two formidable enemies preparing for war against them. 

Book link:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Poland-1939_9781841764085/

Two other books I would also suggest regarding the "Battle of France", but from a different perspective. (isn't that what history is all about....perspectives.)  The first book is called "The Lost Hopes-Polish Fighters over France 1940". 

http://www.akpro.elk.com.pl/losthopes/index.php

This book discusses the problems that France and it's allies faced in 1940.  It details the problems with the lack of leaders and several allied units not wanting to be under French control.  It also gives a brief glimpse into the morale of the French and insurmountable odds the allies faced in 1940.  This book can be difficult to find.  The link is from the publisher.  Don't worry, it's in English (and Polish).

The second book is from the MMP Series called "GC 1/145 in France 1940".  Again, this book looks more into the history of one squadron that took part in the Battle of France.  I offer it only as some additional insight into what truly happened to France in 1940.  Just another warning though, finding this book might be difficult.  It's sold out.

http://mmpbooks.biz/mmp/books.php?book_id=80

I would also like to add that my interest in the Battle of France became the focus of my family history.  In the two books I listed about the Polish Air Force in France, my Grandfather's cousin is mentioned.  (The second book has his photo).  He was killed flying a C-714 Caudron on June 10, 1940 during the Battle of France.

I hope that you were able to bear with my rambling and that you find these book suggestions to your enjoyment.