Mmm, sad isn't it? Still, that's war; what's it good for?

Now now everyone, just because Hal says somthing disagreeable (censord for diplomatic purposes) we don't all have to go pointing fingers. None of us (to my knowledge) fought in any of the wars in question and the participants are all to be respected, regardless of motive or side. Yes mistakes were made, that's why we have wars in the first place. It's a shame that it had to be foreign commanders making some (yes, SOME. I garentee more died under thier own commanders) of them but that's the way it goes.

I feel partialy responsible for the divertation from topic anyway.

Actually I don't hold much respect for British commanders in WWI, paticularly Haig. They were a bunch of outmoded egotistical dandies who thought that if there was one german and two allies left standing then the allied forces had won the war. Some of thier offensives were nothing more than pre-meditated murder on a grand scale.

Little do most people know, Churchil was in favour of fascism. So when people think "we faught fascism (nazis) in WWII, we're on the good side" whatever, they are wrong.

Edited by - Griffon_26 on 2/12/2004 9:17:33 PM

Ah yes, let's send this thread even further away from it's original purpose...
My all time most hated commanders were the French in WW2. "I know. Let's attack that cluster of tanks and machine nests over there with some cavalry..."

I'm making record time!
If only I had someplace to be...

@Corsair, actually that was the Poles. The French had a lot more tanks at the start of the war than the Germans, and they were generally rather more powerful than the German Pzkfw I, II, and IIIs and the lightweight Skodas. Many were pressed into service by the Germans after the French surrender and indeed were still crewed by Germans as static coastal defence emplacements during Overlord.

@Mustie, I agree entirely, it has always been stuck in my craw that Haig, personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men due to his inability to adapt his ideas and face reality, should have our memorial fund set up in his name. To be fair, though, Haig did eventually learn from his mistakes, went to see for himself what conditions were like for the men, and his 1918 offensive against the Hindenberg Line was highly competent - but he's still one step removed from murderer to me. I consider the French to have been even more cavalier with the lives of their men.

@Griff, not so. Churchill was a racist, conservative, reactionary aristocrat who was opposed to social reform, but he wasn't a fascist and remained committed to parliamentary democracy.

Actually, Taw, although they did have more tanks than the Germans (I still don't think they were better though), their commanders still thought of tanks as if they were the useless lumps of overheated turd used in WW1, and so they didn't really incorporate them into their plans. Also, their tanks were spread all over France, unlike the Germans that used a lot of them in one place. So the only non-infantry unit that could be used in any large numbers was their cavalry. Also, a lot of their tanks were never used (by the French...) because the speed of the German advance overwhelmed them so quickly.
Anyway, can we please get back to what this thread is all about?

I'm making record time!
If only I had someplace to be...

Edited by - Corsair#01 on 2/13/2004 2:11:47 AM

Can we tone down on the politics, WB and Heltak and everyone else? weapons, tactics and strategy are valid. No justifications of war or the sort however.

No, he wasn't a fascist, but he liked the fascist way of thinking.

Well said FF.

I'm making record time!
If only I had someplace to be...

French WW2 tanks.....

I've not seen much about them. Don't know what they were called but I remember reading somewhere that they had many more tanks overall than the Germans at the start but they were all positioned poorly for one thing (many housed inside Maginot Line bunkers) and deployed without fast armored battle units in mind (to the chagrin of ol' beak-nose DeGaulle).

I also remember mention that the largest number of them were very light tanks that were sadly underpowered (under 40 hp), slow (something like 15 kph tops) and undergunned.

they had some big heavy battle tanks but they were frighteningly slow and the designs hadnt changed much since WW1, the French inter-war establishment being deeply conxervative in military matters and having a "Maginot mentality" as its been called. In truth the French believed that the Line would obviate the need for mobile forces and victories in the field, so the bulk of resources was thrown into the Maginot defences, in the futle belief that no hostile force could penetrate it, ideas which of course were woefully misbegotten.

Morale in the French Army was very low and the standard of training in modern battle techniques very poor, in contrast to the Germans who, despite being numerically inferior to the French and less well equipped with heavier units, had developed new tactics and training to gain the initiative (plus the German rear echelons were still heavily dependent upon horses unlike the French who were almost fully mechanised)

French deployment of their armoured units was shabby and disinterested, many were in storage right up until the French surrender, some had no ammunition or fuel and their tactical situations were poorly thought. As a result they were rapidly cut off and eliminated by Panzers and stukas, or often simply abandoned, their crews lacking effective orders. The French tank force was little more than a force on paer, yet properly directed it could well have prevented the German advance and victory; certainly a longer and more two-sided battle would have ensued.

Well,

It's that fool me once, fool me twice thing isn't it? What if the Maginot went straight to the English Channel instead of stopping at the Ardennes?

To speculate on my own question, I imagine that the German war machine then would have emphasized aerial bombardments and field gunnery to a far greater degree. But I wonder.....

Edited by - Indy11 on 2/13/2004 7:12:07 PM

I think what WWII proved is that you can't rely on fixed defences like the Maginot line or Atlantic Wall. All an invades has to do is punch a hole at any given place and the entire thing is rendered useless. Plus, with paratroopers...

Still, I agree that it would have been a bit worse for Germany if the line had been complete. Whie I find them impractical fortresses are very attractive to me. I always try to create them in one way or another in my strategy games