PDA

View Full Version : French armed forces



troung
07 Dec 03,, 07:33
Now who does not like the French?

And who could not go with out pictures of the French military?

troung
07 Dec 03,, 07:35
...........

troung
07 Dec 03,, 07:38
Mistral............

troung
07 Dec 03,, 07:39
..........

troung
07 Dec 03,, 07:41
........

Praxus
07 Dec 03,, 16:31
They are practicing how to surrendur by crossing a river.

Lunatock
08 Dec 03,, 15:42
If you look closely. All the weapons are being held in a ready to drop position.

PiggyWiggy
10 Dec 03,, 01:16
when are you americans gonna understand?

the only reason the french surrendered in WW2 is because Hitler wouldve destroyed Paris.

Dont make fun of em...Its not like you were the main force who stopped Germany.

USSR! VICTOR OF WW2

Praxus
10 Dec 03,, 01:18
The USSR was also NOTHING with out the support of the US.

Officer of Engineers
10 Dec 03,, 02:06
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
the only reason the french surrendered in WW2 is because Hitler wouldve destroyed Paris.

Wrong, the French surrendered because their forces were exhausted and had no ammo nor fuel left.


Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
Dont make fun of em...Its not like you were the main force who stopped Germany.

USSR! VICTOR OF WW2

Yes, we were. The Battle of the Atlantic more than anything else won the ETO.

Lunatock
10 Dec 03,, 18:03
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
when are you americans gonna understand?

the only reason the french surrendered in WW2 is because Hitler wouldve destroyed Paris.

Dont make fun of em...Its not like you were the main force who stopped Germany.

USSR! VICTOR OF WW2

:LOL :LOL :LOL :LOL :LOL

'Nuff said.

Well maybe not. Sketch Mearig would just love that comment PiggyWiggy.

Funny how England was bombed to hell. Yet they never quit.

And you say that about Russia, as if they would of beat the Axis by themselves.

*Sketch Mearig. A WW2 vet that lives in this town, one of the survivors from the Malmedy Massacre.

eMGee
11 Dec 03,, 00:32
Originally posted by troung
.......... http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=14553

Are those Algerian legionaires?

Praxus
11 Dec 03,, 00:40
Welcome to the forums.

eMGee
11 Dec 03,, 00:44
Originally posted by Lunatock

Funny how England was bombed to hell. Yet they never quit.


That was because the Germans bombed the hell out of England and there was no "turning back" for them.[/quote]


The French got, more or less, the choice... I guess that was considered extremely cowardly, especially by Americans (due to the many American losses; which is understandable). I guess they didn't want to sacrifice Paris (like you've mentioned) and human lives. But then, to think of it, I find that most of these discussions about the second world war, are speculations... Like in conspiracy stories, the truth might never get (fully) known. Who started it? Who caused it? Who won? Who did this? Who did that? ...[/quote]





And you say that about Russia, as if they would of beat the Axis by themselves.


He didn't say that.

eMGee
11 Dec 03,, 00:44
Originally posted by Praxus
Welcome to the forums.

Thanks :D

ChrisF202
11 Dec 03,, 02:38
I have to agree with Piggy, although we played a major part in WW2 in Europe, we never would have won without the Russians, look at how many guys they tied down in Russia that otherwise would have been at Normandy or the Gustav Line.

Praxus
11 Dec 03,, 02:44
They still would have eventually been beaten. But if Russia was a lone chances are they would have lost.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 03,, 04:47
Praxus,

Get off your high horse. There was no way the Werhmact could have beaten the Red Army. There was another 43 div in Siberia that the Red Army could have committed and that was more than enough to kill Hitler.

Was the Battle of the Atlantic strategic and reduced the length of WWII. Yes, no question but that is a far cry from that the Svoiets couldn't have done it alone. It might have taken longer (estimated 10 years) but the outcome was not in question.

Praxus
11 Dec 03,, 14:02
But they would have had no support from the United States and the rest of the Western World. Germany would have been able to use the other half of their Army on the Eastern Front.

All thoose bombs, V1, and V2 rockets would have been hiting Moscow not London.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 03,, 14:35
Hit what? And with what?

The latest and the greatest of the Wehrmacht were east, not West. The Atlantic Wall was manned by field divisions with horses, not trucks. 40 year old gunners were manning batteries that were half built.

You actually think that these forces would have made a difference in the East? And what of those 43 Siberian divisions that Zukhov personnally moded? Do you think that those Western forces stood a chance against these divisions?

And what could V1s and V2s do that the Luftwaffle haven't already pulverized? And with alot more precision. The Ural factories were still out of range.

The balance of forces was never in Germany's favour. What they had was blitzkreig that allowed them to swallow whole armies. Once the Soviets countered with deep battle, the Wehrmact lost the war.

Praxus
11 Dec 03,, 14:51
Good Point, I withdraw my statement.

Lunatock
11 Dec 03,, 18:40
Originally posted by eMGee
That was because the Germans bombed the hell out of England and there was no "turning back" for them.



The French got, more or less, the choice... I guess that was considered extremely cowardly, especially by Americans (due to the many American losses; which is understandable). I guess they didn't want to sacrifice Paris (like you've mentioned) and human lives. But then, to think of it, I find that most of these discussions about the second world war, are speculations... Like in conspiracy stories, the truth might never get (fully) known. Who started it? Who caused it? Who won? Who did this? Who did that? ... [/QUOTE]

Or because England has a set? How likely would it have been, that British Troops would of fled London, and tried to flag down American ships. Than stay and fight to the bitter end?

Who started it. My guess would be, when France removed the American flag from the D-Day Memorial. Slap in the face after everything America did for France during WW2.

Save thier scared surrender monkeys along the coast, and liberate their country.


And yes. PW did say that. What else did he mean by "RUSSIA IS WW2"S TRUE HEROES!"???

That Russia spanked Nazi Germany all by themselves? America & Britian only...helped?

s_qwert63
21 Dec 03,, 15:50
Originally posted by Lunatock
If you look closely. All the weapons are being held in a ready to drop position.

I am sure you have never heard of the French Foreign Legion, who fight their enemies in Africa one on one, without any support. Unlike teh marines who call in airstrikes every time an Iraqi kid fires an AK at them.

s_qwert63
21 Dec 03,, 15:53
Originally posted by Lunatock
That Russia spanked Nazi Germany all by themselves? America & Britian only...helped?

More or less correct.
The only correct statement I have ever seen you make.
The bare fact that 85% of all Wehrmacht forces were on the Soviet Front just speaks for itself.
The 21st Panzer and the 1st Fallschirmjaeger were in Normandy by pure luck, they were refitting from the ass kicking they received around Dniepr.

Praxus
21 Dec 03,, 16:36
The Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britian were two of the most important Battles. After the later they relised they could not invade Great Britia, so instead concentrated on Russia.

s_qwert63
21 Dec 03,, 17:38
The Battle of Britain was insignificant, the Germans could have never amassed an invasion fleet that could land in Britain anyway. Hitler always had his eye on the Soviet Union, the invasion was inevitable. The battle of Atlantic lasted the whole war and was indecisive, since even at the end of the war there were German U-boats patrolling along Allied shipping lanes.
Neither of those battles can compare to Stalingrad, not by a long shot, and I am not even talking about Kursk.

EDIT: How were they the most inmportant battles?
The Luftwaffe was not destroyed during the Battle of Britain. The Kriegsmarine was not completely destroyed during the Battle of Atlantic.
However, a whole German army was destroyed at Stalingrad and the offensive capabilities of the Wehrmacht were shattered. The Battle of Kursk dealt a severe blow to the Wehrmacht and put them on the run, also destroyed their morale, and that was almost a year before D-Day.
I remember hearing a radio program on BBC on the anniversary of the battle of Britain. When a British correspondent went around Munich and asked Germans what great battles they knew of and if they heard of the Battle of Britain. One German said "I don't know what the Battle of Britain was, however I do know about Stalingrad and Kursk and the Battle of Berlin!"

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 03,, 18:44
EXCUSE ME!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll give the Soviets their due but that does not diminish the Battles of Britain and Atlantic by ANY event. Without them, history could NOT have evolved the way it did. Without the trucks from North America, the Red Army could NOT achieve the mobility that they had. And though the Soviets produced 80% of their own war materiales, the other 20% were not slacking by any means and were definetely needed and used. Canadian Valantine tanks were used at Stalingrad and Kursk.

And the likes of Kesselring and Rommel as well as the Afrika Korps was pitted against the Western allies. Not that Zukhov could have eventually won but it would have been that much bloodier, that much longer, that much tougher. More than likely, forced Stalin to negotiate a peace with Hitler. Stalin was at least toying with the idea before Normandy. And without the Battle of Britain, there wouldn't have been a Normandy.

When the U-boats suffered 80% casualties and the breaking of the codes were Westerna actions, you really don't know squat.

Though the Wehrmacht's latest and greatest were facing the Soviets, if the West didn't took on the rest, life wouldn't have been any easier and would actually be that much tougher.

You seriously think Kesselring couldn't have stopped Zukhov at the Battle of Berlin? Fortunately for Stalin, Kesselring was in Italy.

Blademaster
21 Dec 03,, 19:00
Which german general of WWII do you rate highest?

One question, why are German generals of WWII held in high esteem for their military knowledge and capability even though they lost the war?

Someone once said, Germans are excellent at tactics, but sucked at strategic thinking.

Officer of Engineers
21 Dec 03,, 19:04
Don't know. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. Kesselring was a master at roadblocks. Von Manstein at organization and deployment. Rommel's instinctiveness at manouver.

Strongly doubt that Rommel could have done Kesselring's job and vice versa.

Blademaster
21 Dec 03,, 19:14
Under what circumstances could Germany win the war? Such as not declaring war on USA after Pearl Harbor? or avoiding the siege of Stalingrad or not making the mistake of creating new divisions when just replenishing the exhausted divisions in the east will do?

ZFBoxcar
21 Dec 03,, 20:00
well, hitler went against his generals wishes when he created army group north, south and central, i dont know if a singular drive towards Moscow would have done it, but it probly would have worked better. Or just not declaring war on the USSR period. The Soviets were giving them oil and natural resources for practically nothing. If theyd kept up the non-agression pact there wouldnt be an eastern front. Everything could have gone to Africa (or Britain, depending on the strategy). Its doubtful the Western Allies would have tried a landing if the Soviets werent fighting in the east. Who knows, maybe they could have mustered the forces to invade Britain? I'm not sure about that, but its possible.

Lunatock
22 Dec 03,, 00:59
Originally posted by s_qwert63
More or less correct.
The only correct statement I have ever seen you make.
The bare fact that 85% of all Wehrmacht forces were on the Soviet Front just speaks for itself.
The 21st Panzer and the 1st Fallschirmjaeger were in Normandy by pure luck, they were refitting from the ass kicking they received around Dniepr.

Doubtfull. Highly doubtfull. More like Axis mistakes lead to Russia not falling to them.

Seems the PTO was overlooked. There was a whole other army on the other side of Russia. That had it's hands full with America & British Troops.

If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor. And Hitler & Hirahito(sp?) being uncoordinated, if not foolish. They could of taken Russia if they had done a pincer move on it.

smilingassassin
22 Dec 03,, 06:22
What really gets me in a huff are these so called "history experts" who state that this country lost the war, this country kicked ass and this one went wee wee wee all the way home, its a slap in the face to all those who fought in the war! Each nation on its own could not stand up to germany. Russia could not have won the battle on their own, if it wasn't for the rest of the allies helping the Ruskies stock up on weapons and supply's (dieing in artic convoys I might add) while jerry froze in the cold, russia would have folded in the spring. The Americans learned valueable convoy tactics and gained from Britains war experience and for what the British stockpiled they did well considering the germans had superior numbers in aircraft they denied the germans the local air superiority they needed for "sealion", its erelavant if it the invasion would have succeeded or not.
If it wasn't for the other allies the russians would have had nearly double the enemy forces to deal with, all the allies neeeded each other to win and they gave each other the oppertunity to deal out crushing blows to the axis powers.

ChrisF202
22 Dec 03,, 19:58
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=14550
In the above picture, is the FFL sniper carring the Lebel rifle?

kaskad
23 Dec 03,, 06:19
nice.. have you got any more, and perhatps a better quality pictures of the FFL guys ?
BTW, that Mistral thing, is that an AA Louncher ? it looks kind like our "Strela"

Regards,
kaskad

Officer of Engineers
25 Dec 03,, 05:54
Originally posted by Lunatock
If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor. And Hitler & Hirahito(sp?) being uncoordinated, if not foolish. They could of taken Russia if they had done a pincer move on it.

The IJA tried and got its ass kicked by Zhukov before he headed West to deal with the Werhmacht. And he left 43 div that were eventually used to kill the IJA in China.

Japan would have lost the war alot sooner had they tried to move against the Soviets.

troung
18 Jan 04,, 01:32
.......

troung
18 Jan 04,, 01:33
.........

Ironduke
18 Jan 04,, 03:10
Last pic, why isn't that guy wearing face camo?

Praxus
19 Jan 04,, 04:42
He doesn't need to hide, he wouldn't want to be mistaken for someone not surrenduring!

Ironduke
19 Jan 04,, 05:16
Heh :)

Praxus
21 Jan 04,, 00:51
If a time comes when we aren't allowed to make fun of the french, I don't want to be alive.:D

Anvilanthony
20 Feb 04,, 07:14
Ummm not only did we hand Germany's ass to itself but as I last recall we also fought another war on the otherside of the world against another foe called ummmm Japan I think it was called and I don't remember anyone other than us who were fighting them.

If I remember correctly also it was Japan who practically sunk the entire russian fleet in the early 1900's.

Officer of Engineers
20 Feb 04,, 07:42
Originally posted by Anvilanthony
Ummm not only did we hand Germany's ass to itself

No, you didn't. That credit belongs to the USSR. The US helped and helped big time but over 70% of German casualties was caused by the Soviets.


Originally posted by Anvilanthony
but as I last recall we also fought another war on the otherside of the world against another foe called ummmm Japan I think it was called and I don't remember anyone other than us who were fighting them.

China, Australia, the Philipines, the British and through them, India, and a small contingent from Canada, at the end of that war, the Red Army also destroyed all Japanese forces in Manchuria. Dead wrong that the US was in this one alone


Originally posted by Anvilanthony
If I remember correctly also it was Japan who practically sunk the entire russian fleet in the early 1900's.

The Russo-Japanese War was a Phyric victory for Japan. The Japanese spent their army in the ground war.

ChrisF202
20 Feb 04,, 15:23
the Philipines

I dont mean to be a know it all, but the Philiphines was an American colony till 1946, its small military was part of the US Army and consisted of mixed American and Filipino units.

Officer of Engineers
20 Feb 04,, 16:08
Originally posted by ChrisF202
I dont mean to be a know it all, but the Philiphines was an American colony till 1946, its small military was part of the US Army and consisted of mixed American and Filipino units.

All goes to show that the US was not in this alone. Filipinos were not American citizens.

Praxus
20 Feb 04,, 21:26
But American forces did bear the brunt of the casulties and took part in the most fighting.

Officer of Engineers
20 Feb 04,, 22:47
Originally posted by Praxus
But American forces did bear the brunt of the casulties and took part in the most fighting.

The Chinese bore most of the fighting and the casualties in the PTO though a vast majority of that fighting was company level and below. Half of the Japanese AF and three quarters of the Imperial Japanese Army was in China. The Nanking Massacres alone would account for butchered 60,000 military dead (most after the Chinese garrison surrendered) and over 200,000 civilian dead, also butchered.

China was Japan's Vietnam, having been in that country over 10 years and still could not manage a knock out blow.

What the Americans was responsible for was driving the Japanese back to their home islands and dealing them a crushing blow from which they could not recover. The Americans were responsible for the knock out blow against the Imperial Japanese Empire but the US didn't take as much as others did.

Praxus
20 Feb 04,, 23:04
Yah forgot about the Chinese, lol.

RUSKIE
23 Jun 04,, 19:07
Which german general of WWII do you rate highest?

One question, why are German generals of WWII held in high esteem for their military knowledge and capability even though they lost the war?

Someone once said, Germans are excellent at tactics, but sucked at strategic thinking.


Because hitler wasnt listening to them. If he had He may have Just Won the war, But he was blinded by trying to take Russia, fool he was, He was also going through a brain loss disease... They were Excelent Generals.

Kelu
11 Aug 04,, 04:23
Because hitler wasnt listening to them. If he had He may have Just Won the war, But he was blinded by trying to take Russia, fool he was, He was also going through a brain loss disease... They were Excelent Generals

yes, Few people do fully appreciate that Hittler made some crack=pot decisions .. not ever listening to Rommel on one when he told Hittler he couldnt win a war against both the Americans And British, Without ending his fighting with Russia .. And vice versa ...

Hittlers own fault of benifit plays a big part on the outcome ...

now how the friggen hell did a jest'tha french thread, turn into this disscussion1? :rolleyes:

griftadan
20 Aug 04,, 04:51
ok i think we can all agree we needed to stick together

"if we dont stnad together we shall fall alone"
winston churchill

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 04:58
"By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall." John Dickinson 1768

griftadan
20 Aug 04,, 05:07
[/B]Who started it. My guess would be, when France removed the American flag from the D-Day Memorial. Slap in the face after everything America did for France during WW2.QUOTE]

they did that? when? god damn now im pissed

Kelu
21 Aug 04,, 14:38
Yeah they did, It sucks :frown:

Grundy
29 Aug 04,, 10:50
The reason The Germans retreated from the russian front line was because of the weather, Hitler thought his blitzkreig would finish russia the coming autmn so he didnt issue the troops any winter kit.

Grundy
29 Aug 04,, 10:57
The way some of these threads come out is that it seems America is trying to take all the credit for World War 2

Recon_sgt
01 Oct 04,, 10:55
I may be new here but it doesnt take a genius to recognize brutal ignorance when I see it and some of you are full of it.
This is one statement that shows it and most certainly not the only one

If a time comes when we aren't allowed to make fun of the french, I don't want to be alive.:D. now this is by no means the worst (nothing against you good people but this kind of ignorance cannot go uncorrected). To correct any missconceptions here the French regular army are not up to the same standard as the British, Irish, Swiss or German but what is far better is the thousands of troops that make up the 8 or 9 regiments of the French foreign legion (40%French). The men of the foreign legion are better than any other troops on the planet and will go places no other army would set foot (when the U.S. left Mogadishu and Somalia it was they who went in and beat the place into line). At the top of the world special forces ranking is the legions 2nd R.E.P. (regiment en Parachute) followed closely by ARW and SAS. The unbelievable ability of the legion is reflected in such statments as "march or die" (taken from the old days of the legion) or the grim combat doctrine that once a mission is undertaken it is sacred and must be carried out to the end no matter the cost. The definate advantages of having troops from all across the world and having existed for more than 200 years show whenever they go into action. It is they who defend the E.S.A. launch site. A number of years ago trouble erupted in Congo and hundreds of european citizens became trapped. Immediatley the men of 2 rep were mobilized and rescued all of the people for the loss of just 2 men ( in the middle of a warzone I might add).
Now have I proved my point or should I post more info on the legion and so on.
Oh and why do you slate the French. Certain politicians do for the following reasons. 1: The French backed out of NATO because the U.S. gov was trying to control it, 2: French refused to help in Iraq. I hope that isnt why you's are.

Recon_sgt
01 Oct 04,, 11:03
Was the Battle of the Atlantic strategic and reduced the length of WWII. Yes, no question but that is a far cry from that the Svoiets couldn't have done it alone. It might have taken longer (estimated 10 years) but the outcome was not in question
No Russia alone would have lost. By the time Russia would have been able to defeat the Whermacht Hitler would have had nuclear weapons. They were being developed and were more than half way finished when the Brits accidentally blew up the Germans capability to build them thus slowing their nuke program to a finish point well into 1947 (after the war was over). The V2's could have been used to deliver nuclear armement to Moscow. NNow I'm not sure but I think if Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad went up in a puff of smoke that would have taken the wind out of the Russians.
Now of course this whole thing and what it is responding to is all what if's. :biggrin: :biggrin: . ooe see you on my ww2 thread.

Recon_sgt
01 Oct 04,, 11:13
If my previous staements offended anyone I am sorry, they are not intended to but take from them the message rather than the brief starting insult to those who overdo the slating of the French. ;)

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 04,, 13:17
No Russia alone would have lost. By the time Russia would have been able to defeat the Whermacht Hitler would have had nuclear weapons. They were being developed and were more than half way finished when the Brits accidentally blew up the Germans capability to build them thus slowing their nuke program to a finish point well into 1947 (after the war was over). The V2's could have been used to deliver nuclear armement to Moscow. NNow I'm not sure but I think if Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad went up in a puff of smoke that would have taken the wind out of the Russians.

Hitler's nuclear program has been shown to be way overstated.

Recon_sgt
01 Oct 04,, 16:22
Ok I cant deny some people way over state it sometimes but I do think it was further along than the allies knew (till the end of the war when they got a nasty shock) and that he might have had a Nuclear weapon by 1947.
Oh I have heard that when the war ended A variant of the V2 capable of reaching even new york was found by the allies and needless to say scared the S*** out of them. Now I dont know how true this is but it seems fairly plausable given how far along the germans were in misile tech. anyway perhaps the board can shed some light on this little gem.

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 04,, 19:13
Ok I cant deny some people way over state it sometimes but I do think it was further along than the allies knew (till the end of the war when they got a nasty shock) and that he might have had a Nuclear weapon by 1947.

No, he couln't. The research was not that far along. The Americans in fact were further ahead.

xxxxx
03 Oct 04,, 09:42
Which german general of WWII do you rate highest?

One question, why are German generals of WWII held in high esteem for their military knowledge and capability even though they lost the war?

Someone once said, Germans are excellent at tactics, but sucked at strategic thinking.

no matter how good german generals were, they were fighting against the rest of the world! sure, they had the 2. biggest economy of the world before the war and fairly modern, big and well-trained army, but they still had to fight the whole world!

Hellinas
07 Oct 04,, 10:31
The French were not ready for war when Germany attacked. The were overconfident about the mazino line (correct me if im wrong) and their defences were blown to pieces by surprise. I can´t make fun of the French though cos they had a big resistance after the takeover of their country.
When ww2 started the Germans had the best army in the world. Their navy was rather small and compared to the British Royal navy it was very easy to be beaten (by the English) then the u boats arrived!!! Their air superiority was long gone before they attacked USSR and RAF had to do with it. They were heroes as far as i know (RAF) flying against an opponent with superior aircrafts and superior numbers of course. They never gave up. The ussr had an enormous army that could not be moved fast. So they had 43 divisions as a backup..... but they could not move em in time. Even a small country as mine (Greece) helped by holding off the German for a few months which were enough for Russia to gather their troops and for Engalnd too.
What i want to say is that all the countries and nations helped to win the ww2 against the Axis.
Sometimes a small event has a huge impact... remeber this!!
If i am wrong please be free to correct me...

Recon_sgt
07 Oct 04,, 11:17
Hellinas To say the RAF planes were not as good as the German ones is incorrect as they were in fact better but there was to few of them. The RAF were nearly beaten by weight of numbers and when Hitler at last had them on their knees in a grand show of stupidity (like a loy of things he did) he switched from bombing RAF airfields to bombing cities allowing the RAF to get back up and finally defeat the Luftwaffe. As for the Maginot line I'll give a simple but effective idea of what happened.The German forces went around the Maginot line through Holand, French forces were sent from the line to try and stop them and when the line was left undermaned and under strength and so the German forces simply rolled on through. :biggrin: . Greece you say I take it you are familiar with what happened at Crete then when Student and his paras showed up. As for Russia Hitlers plan was delayed because of that fool Mussolini who roused problems in the Balkans and Germany had to clean up the mess he created before going anywhere thus delaying the invasion by 2 or 3 months which had major repercusions. :cool:

Hellinas
07 Oct 04,, 12:39
The switch of bombing RAF airports to cities was because a german pilot lost his way and bombed London and the next night England sent 70-80 planes to bombard Berlin. So Hitlers ego was hurt and he decided to switch targets. BIG mistake as you said.
But as for Balkans Greece stopped Italy (Yes mussolini was a fool). Hitler then took control and we where not able to stop them cos ... well you know why ... although we fought braverly. As for Crete.. MY GOD!!! that was Hell on earth.
Oh... i knew about the mazinot line... the way it happened and this is what i meant. France thought it was not able for an army to cross it.
Anyhow i don´t think French should be mocked about ww2 or their modern army.

Recon_sgt
07 Oct 04,, 12:47
Yes and so started the wonderfully pathetic bombing campaign which achieved an outstanding lack of results and was in fact directly part and parcel to the failure of operation market garden. That statement may seem a bit mad just ask and I will explain it. :cool:

Hellinas
07 Oct 04,, 13:06
Market Garden??? Market Garden was to secure to bridges across the rivers in Holland so that the Allied army could advance fast north and hen turn left into the lowlands of Germany... outpassing the Siegfried line... correct? But what that has to do with the London bombing?
Ok now explain ;)

Officer of Engineers
07 Oct 04,, 13:35
Gentlemen,

You two are mixing up events that is going to make both your arguements impossible to make.

The Maginot Line suceeded. A single company was able to hold off an entire corps until after Dunkirk. Where it failed was that it wasn't long enough. The Wehmarcht went through the Ardennes which was thought impossible to pass. However, trees didn't shoot back.

Greece didn't have an effect on Operation Barbarosa. Stalin was over-confident. He had years to get ready. Six months more wasn't about to make any difference. It was not until the Wehrmacht started Barbarosa that people started realizing just how much trouble they were in and started fixing things (like calling Zuhkov back from Siberia).

To say the Whermacht was the best army on earth was really overstating things. The victories they won were hard and bloody. They were not walk overs by any stretch of the imagination. Even the famous delay at Dunkirk, attributed to Hitler trying to show some honour, was actually the Whermacht trying to resupply itself. They had run out of gas and bullets. Had the British committed the two Canadian Divisions held in reserves in Great Britian instead of the evacuation, the Whermacht would have been chased back to Germany, having no fuel and no bullets.

xxxxx
07 Oct 04,, 14:07
To say the Whermacht was the best army on earth was really overstating things. The victories they won were hard and bloody. They were not walk overs by any stretch of the imagination. Even the famous delay at Dunkirk, attributed to Hitler trying to show some honour, was actually the Whermacht trying to resupply itself. They had run out of gas and bullets. Had the British committed the two Canadian Divisions held in reserves in Great Britian instead of the evacuation, the Whermacht would have been chased back to Germany, having no fuel and no bullets.

"Had the British committed the two Canadian Divisions held in reserves in Great Britian instead of the evacuation, the Whermacht would have been chased back to Germany, having no fuel and no bullets."

That is definetly overstated!

Officer of Engineers
07 Oct 04,, 14:42
That is definetly overstated!

When you have 35 battalions stretched across an entire front without any gas, meaning 35 big holes across an entire front. No, it's not overstating things.

Recon_sgt
07 Oct 04,, 15:56
I am sorry to say on this one you are far afr from right ooe.
First Hitler was not trying to show any honour at all it was goering who demanded he (the luftwaffe) be allowed do the mop up. To add to his troubles fog showed up obscuring the BEF from the planes. Oh and if the BEF had been capable of "chasing the whermacht (at the time the best trained and most well equiped army in the world) back to Germany" they would have done so long before Dunkirk. Greece made a difference in that it delayed Hitlers plans allowing the winter to save the Russians who were until winter 1942 in full retreat. Had the Whermacht (who were not short on supplies).

As the Panzers cut accross France, the BEF was within Hitler's grasp. The Panzers were only a few miles south of Dunkirk and facing no serious opposition. Hitler ordered the Panzers to halt. Some believe that he hoped this gesture would help convince the British to comes to terms, other believe that is was just as it was described at the time, aneeded pause to regroup and prepare for a more coordinated assault. [Davidson, p. 408 and Fest, p. 630.] What ever the reason, this 48-hour respite allowed the British to organize a defensive perimter around Dunkirk and begin an almost miraculous withdawl. Nearly 340,000 men were evacuated from Dunkirk, including French and Dutch sholdiers. This is even more important that it sounds as akmost all if the British sholdiers were regulars and would form the corps of the future British Army that would play such an important role in the War. All of the BEF's equipment, however, was lost. .
taken from http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/ww2-ware39.html. Next time I suggest you check your facts before you make a broad statement like that :biggrin: .

Recon_sgt
07 Oct 04,, 16:09
Market Garden??? Market Garden was to secure to bridges across the rivers in Holland so that the Allied army could advance fast north and hen turn left into the lowlands of Germany... outpassing the Siegfried line... correct? But what that has to do with the London bombing?
No no not the london bombing but the "strategic" bombing campaign which resulted from the Blitz.
Ok now to explain what may appear as a mad comment. As you may be aware Market Garden worked on a system of drops staggered over 4 days and this in itself is widely held to have contributed in a big way to market gardens failure. Now the reason the drops were staggered is because bomber command (scumb) refused to releasse the planes required to drop all on the first day (they were using them for important things like killing civilians). Major general Sosabowksi of the polish independant brigade was himself extremely sceptical of the idea of a staggered drop. In fact his troops and other paras were delayed getting to Arnhem sector for a number of days because the weather chnged. Had They all been dropped on the 1st day this would not have been a problem. Thats what I meant if you need further explanation or I havent highlighted my point clearly simply say so and I will post more. :cool:

Officer of Engineers
07 Oct 04,, 16:28
Greece made a difference in that it delayed Hitlers plans allowing the winter to save the Russians who were until winter 1942 in full retreat.

All serious historians have long since discounted the effects of winter on the Whermacht. It worked both ways, the Russians themsevles were freezing and they were no better at it than the Germans.

In either event, the deciding point of that war was Stalingrad. With or without Greece, that would not have changed.


taken from http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/camp/ww2-ware39.html. Next time I suggest you check your facts before you make a broad statement like that :biggrin: .

I do have my facts. The Whermacht were relying on capture stocks. Even Rommel ran out of gas. The Whermacht's brilliance on the battlefield is not in dispute. Their ability to carry out the assualt without the 3 day delay at Dunkirk was.

A co-ordinated assualt at the divisional level would have put the entire Whermacht in disarray, not knowing which units are capable of fighting.

Recon_sgt
07 Oct 04,, 16:34
Fair enough until I or you pull up spme hard evidence on the matter I will agree to disagree ok. I hope my last post didnt come across as rude, it wasnt meant to be and am sorry if you thought I was insulting you. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
08 Oct 04,, 04:01
In any case, there were severe limitations to the Wehrmacht's way of war that the Germans never seemed to solve until they went on the defensive. The LOG train never seemed to be able to keep up with the tactical punch. At Kursk, the Whermacht almost rolled up the Red Army's lines but could not get their tanks refueled fast enough to exploit the breach.

The Whermacht was a tactical manouver army. However, once denied the room to move, they were at a poor disadvantage (El Alamein) offensively. I don't blame the Whermacht for not taking Dunkirk earlier. They didn't know. Fog of war and all. And giving the Brits a chance to re-enforce.

There are two issues here.

Could the British take advantage of that 72 hour lull? They could have with the two Canadian divisions still in Great Britain. But alas, they didn't.

Could they have held out at Dunkirk? Looking at El Alamein, they might have for about six months but eventually, superior Wehrmacht numbers would have overwhelmed them.

There was also a lesson relearned by Montgomery against Rommel in almost the same way US Grant defeated Robert E Lee. No matter how brilliant the manouver, if you just keep hammering with superior forces, you will beat the manouver.

Recon_sgt
08 Oct 04,, 16:27
Right well it does seem as though I slightly miss interpreted what you were saying and you have made some fairly valid points (I hope you can say the same about moi). However shall we get back to the point of the thread and save all this for "could Germany have won WW II poll which I started a while back. :cool:

alton987
29 Nov 04,, 04:55
Found this Forum about a week ago and love it....

Be nice...

I could be wrong but here are some ideas.

1) No one has talked about the how effective the American/British strategic bombing campaign was. If Germany had been able to pump out more tanks/planes who knows how things would of went out East.

2) I love to hate on France like any good American but it’s lose in WWII was mainly due to strategy. While Germans grouped their Amour in large shock groups, France had them spread out among there armies. Their amour rolled through France like butter. By the time France was able to recover from the first attacks it was to late. I'm not sure if any country in the same situation wouldn’t of thrown in the towel. But France still sucks :) .

3) True Germany couldn't of stop Russia by the end of the war with or without the allies. But the Russians couldn't of stop Germany in the beginning without the allies. Through supplies and keeping Hitler's armies busy on other fronts (France, Afierca, Itlay). Take away the other fronts and put all the German troops in Russia and Moscow would of fallen. And who knows if Moscow would have fallen the Russian might have folded.

4) Give thanks to Hitler. Without some of his idiotic decisions (Bombing Civilian Targets in England, The Entire Eastern Front, Holding Armor back at Normandy) I doubt anybody would have held up in Europe/Russia.

5) Great Point. This describes the entire Eatern Front
"There was also a lesson relearned by Montgomery against Rommel in almost the same way US Grant defeated Robert E Lee. No matter how brilliant the manouver, if you just keep hammering with superior forces, you will beat the manouver."

Boltonian
12 May 06,, 20:06
when are you americans gonna understand?

the only reason the french surrendered in WW2 is because Hitler wouldve destroyed Paris.

Dont make fun of em...Its not like you were the main force who stopped Germany.

USSR! VICTOR OF WW2

I bet the British wouldn't have surrendered if Germany had invaded Britain and Hitler threatened to destroy London.

London was bombed every night for over a week during the Blitz, but we still fought on.

In my view, the French surrendered too easily.

Recon_sgt
02 Sep 06,, 17:24
The simple fact is that it took the three allies to finally put an end to the third reich and its savage campaign. No one ally on their own was fully responsible for the outcome.
however what WW2 has got to do with current French armed forces is beyond me, I'l admit i am guilty of having become involved in that rather off topic item but could we please get back to the point which I believe was a thread about the French armed forces. Oh and could those of the more childish nature please refrain from the pathetic and idiotic insults that seemed to be present in the earlier pages. :cool: