Page 3 of 35 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 513

Thread: Fall of France

  1. #31
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Mihais View Post
    And that is antiquated knowledge.

    So what if they lost 6 times more tanks at Budapest?The German ones are ireversible,since they lost the ground.3/4 of the Soviet ones can be recovered,repaired and put back into action.
    yeh exactly. They took the ground eventually after losing another few hundred thousand soldiers. Any moron can sacrifice somebody elses life. To pretend that there is some sophisticated strategy at play is deluded

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yes I know I too own the book. Please read this, give me your thoughts...
    My main thought is that I hope you cut & pasted it rather than wasting a lot of time typing it. Nothing there I don't already know. To repeat, Liddell Hart exaggerated his influence after WW2, but there can be no doubt that he, Fuller & Martel had an important impact on Guderian's thinking. That is also well documented.

    I think I might surprise you
    I certainly hope so. Your 'Russians were crude, drunken brutes' post isn't encouraging, however. Very 1970s I'm afraid. The scholarship has moved on a bit since 'The World at War' was made.

    Some good info there , thank you. I'm fully aware that due to the treaty of Versailles certain German capabilities were denied its Military. Which caused it to conduct clandestine operation in the Soviet Union...these lasted until 1933??? So clearly "Deep Operations" strategy would have been learned by the Reichswehr. Strong emphasis on learned not necessarily used. To draw an analogy..Its a bit like showing somebody a car for the first time and its a Larda. They then go away and build a Mercedes. Hardly comparable are they...Mind you I guess the first Larda would not have built if not for the horse and cart....
    Yes, close co-operation continued until 1933. You still seem to have this odd idea in your head that Russian ideas were somehow crude and underdeveloped. I'm afraid its ill informed bollocks. By the early 30s Russia had multiple large motorized and tank units of up to 10,000 men. It also had a combined arms doctrine that co-ordinated air, armour, artillery and even paratroops. Sound familiar? A bit Blitzkriegy perhaps? Oh, and all done with more powerful armour than the Germans would possess for some time. Sounds pretty comparable to me. In fact, it sounds a LOT more advanced,

    Russia was staging exercises with these formations before Germany had a single Panzer division. Until the purges started in 1937 Russia was ahead of Germany in more than just numbers.


    Yes I know that's common knowledge O level history
    ....which is unfortunately where some of your ideas seem to be pitched.

    Almost obliterated army from my reading
    If it was 'almost obliterated' there would have been no huge counter-offensives in 1941 and 1942 involving millions of men. Germany would have been able to finish the job in 1942. The Red Army was badly damaged, but still capable. A group of A grade commanders were taking over and implementing many of the ideas they had learned as young officers with appropriate adjustments for experience.

    The British parachute formations were a direct result of witnessing German Fallschirmjäger operations in the low countries and Crete.
    That's it? So the lesson the Brits learned from the Germans was an idea they they nicked from the USSR? OK. Seems a bit peripheral to British land warfare doctrine to me, but if you think its important then so be it.

    neither do I

    I know exactly what I was referring to. The Soviet Unions Air and land based formations were effectively smashed on their western Front between and June/ November 1941. Factories had to be moved East of the Urals, Military equipment via the British Merchant fleet at this moment was vital to bridge the gap while those factories came back online, this coupled with Stalin's decision to move his Siberian troops west effectively saved the Soviet Union from Annihilation. Various RAF squadrons were also sent to bolster up the Soviet defences.
    I'm bored picking holes in your assertions, so I'll just point out yet again that in the context of a discussion of the 'lessons' of the fall of France this is completely irrelevant.

    That's definitely a Soviet mindset, not mine!
    Based on what I've read of your posts (which is a fair proportion of them) you are very much a 'quantity' man.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  3. #33
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    My main thought is that I hope you cut & pasted it rather than wasting a lot of time typing it. Nothing there I don't already know. To repeat, Liddell Hart exaggerated his influence after WW2, but there can be no doubt that he, Fuller & Martel had an important impact on Guderian's thinking. That is also well documented.
    LOL...I did, I'm semi literate in XHTML too and not by choice



    I certainly hope so. Your 'Russians were crude, drunken brutes' post isn't encouraging, however. Very 1970s I'm afraid. The scholarship has moved on a bit since 'The World at War' was made.
    I never said that and I'm not aware of any War films about the Russian front apart from Cross of Iron by Peckinpah



    Yes, close co-operation continued until 1933. You still seem to have this odd idea in your head that Russian ideas were somehow crude and underdeveloped
    Where as you seem to think they were basically superior beings!

    I'm afraid its ill informed bollocks. By the early 30s Russia had multiple large motorized and tank units of up to 10,000 men. It also had a combined arms doctrine that co-ordinated air, armour, artillery and even paratroops. Sound familiar? A bit Blitzkriegy perhaps? Oh, and all done with more powerful armour than the Germans would possess for some time. Sounds pretty comparable to me. In fact, it sounds a LOT more advanced,
    and Leonardo de Vinci drew all kinds of mechanical devices, including a helicopter, a tank and a submarine.....Never came to anything though..Just something for the egg heads to ponder about.

    Russia was staging exercises with these formations before Germany had a single Panzer division. Until the purges started in 1937 Russia was ahead of Germany in more than just numbers.
    Of course not they weren't allowed to




    ....which is unfortunately where some of your ideas seem to be pitched.
    Extensive reading I think you'll find...Exams are for box tickers, pen shufflers etc



    If it was 'almost obliterated' there would have been no huge counter-offensives in 1941 and 1942 involving millions of men. Germany would have been able to finish the job in 1942. The Red Army was badly damaged, but still capable. A group of A grade commanders were taking over and implementing many of the ideas they had learned as young officers with appropriate adjustments for experience.
    Yes I know and had to regroup and wait for the supplies to start coming through again....It may surprise you to know nothing is going anywhere without one simple component, something which was badly disrupted during the second half of 41...any ideas??



    That's it? So the lesson the Brits learned from the Germans was an idea they they nicked from the USSR?
    Men falling off wings hardly constitutes a fully operational Parachute div...Any info on where the Soviets may have deployed these troops if at all?? I'd love to have a read about Russian Paratroopers capturing strategic targets and a whole Island....because if they had I think the British would have taken notice alot sooner


    OK. Seems a bit peripheral to British land warfare doctrine to me, but if you think its important then so be it.
    They do tend to land on the ground and operate on the ground after parachuting from planes.



    I'm bored picking holes in your assertions, so I'll just point out yet again that in the context of a discussion of the 'lessons' of the fall of France this is completely irrelevant.
    Me too and yes agreed!



    Based on what I've read of your posts (which is a fair proportion of them) you are very much a 'quantity' man.
    Where as you are 'limited' and yes I've read a lot of your posts also, even the ones under this name

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,671
    Quote Originally Posted by The_One View Post
    Tukhachebsky was a crap commander. Stalin was even worse though. And it was STALIN who was leading the assault on Warsaw back then and lost it all miserably. I still believe that the Great Patriotic War waswon not BECAUSE of his "leadership", as some idiots in Russia like to say; but more DESPITE him, if anything... And... Well... Hitler was even MORE incompetent than him lol
    Stalin was in Moscow, Tukachevsky was the head of the Northern Army fighting around Warsawa but was some way back - in Smolensk I seem to recall. I do not know if it is true but one slightly amusing anecdote relating to this war was that Polish intel broke the Soviet codes and blocked Soviet coms by reading the Bible 24/7.

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,646
    So regarding the Maginot Line….

    I am part of a discussion group on Facebook with other military professional which discuss Mission Command on how it was used, or misused, in history and how it can and should be applied today. So the point of the Maginot Line came up and we had a robust discussion. My biggest take away so far is the following comment made by a fellow poster…
    “There are chapters in Doughty's "Seeds of Disaster" that explain the Maginot Line's place in French strategy. Those conclusions lead me to disagree about its failed strategic effectiveness. The Maginot Line did exactly what it was supposed to do....it served as the greatest turning obstacle in history. It was designed not to stop the Germans, but rather to force them into invading farther north. The French wanted the fight to be in Belguim, and it largely was...they just goofed up the execution. I would have people read that exceprt, as well as the chapter from "The Blitzkrieg Legend" that describes how the fight in Belgium went, and talk about how these two elements (the fixed fortifications in the south and the mobile forces in the north) were supposed to work together, along with how the French prepared to execute that strategy (or more accurately, failed to execute it).”

    And…
    “Strategically the line served its purpose, France's military leadership is what failed. There is a new small and useful book by Phillip Nord that has insights. It was designed to buy time and protect the economic mobilization, NOT a techno-solution. The French picked the correct adversary, anticipated most of his plans and capabilities, and incorporated diplomacy, technology and economics into what should have been a sufficient competitive defense. I think the doctrine, exercises and leadership had flaws, but have to defer to other experts here.”

    So that got me thinking vis a vis this post.
    Where did the French go wrong? Was it the misapplication of their armor doctrine and therefore its employment? Prior to that was it the Sitzkrieg which allowed time for Germany to get stronger?
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,117
    Paradoxically,no.The French armor,when it managed to decide,deploy and fight gave the Germans a bloody nose.

    The problem was in the infantry department.When the Germans crossed at Sedan,it was 1(one) squad that managed to get across Meuse.That squad cleared the way for a btn,then there was a breach and all hell went loose.
    The big German attack was at the time of the breach mostly stuck in traffic jams and was turning into a major FUBAR.
    The French formations on the Meuse however collapsed without trying to hold their ground.What really made the difference was complete lack of leadership at low and mid level on the French side in those particular units,and the agressive and inspired German leadership from regimental level down.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  7. #37
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,646
    Mihais,

    Good points regarding the infantry. I suspose the leadership vacuum and the poor showing by the Infantry was in large part due to the blood letting of WW 1. I imagine it engendered a just survive mentality.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,117
    Sir,I am not completely sure of it.It may have been an issue of local, second rate divisions.
    I am not saying the rest of the Army was anywhere the German obsession with leadership.But at least managed,or tried to do some basic stuff.Like having a reserve and trying to counter-attack.

    Even in positional warfare,there is modicum of maneuver.

    As further observation,I think it can be used as case study of what happens when you hit both a weakness AND a vulnerability.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #39
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,646
    Good observation. I must admit my reading has not included much about that part of the war. That is a hole I much fill soon!
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  10. #40
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    I certainly hope so. Your 'Russians were crude, drunken brutes' post isn't encouraging, however. Very 1970s I'm afraid. The scholarship has moved on a bit since 'The World at War' was made.



    Yes, close co-operation continued until 1933. You still seem to have this odd idea in your head that Russian ideas were somehow crude and underdeveloped. I'm afraid its ill informed bollocks. By the early 30s Russia had multiple large motorized and tank units of up to 10,000 men. It also had a combined arms doctrine that co-ordinated air, armour, artillery and even paratroops. Sound familiar? A bit Blitzkriegy perhaps? Oh, and all done with more powerful armour than the Germans would possess for some time. Sounds pretty comparable to me. In fact, it sounds a LOT more advanced,

    Russia was staging exercises with these formations before Germany had a single Panzer division. Until the purges started in 1937 Russia was ahead of Germany in more than just numbers.


    If it was 'almost obliterated' there would have been no huge counter-offensives in 1941 and 1942 involving millions of men. Germany would have been able to finish the job in 1942. The Red Army was badly damaged, but still capable. A group of A grade commanders were taking over and implementing many of the ideas they had learned as young officers with appropriate adjustments for experience.
    So the soviets were a capable force because they had some 'good ideas" and were"a bit blitzkriegy"? So the losses the Soviets took in the war were just a misunderstanding?



    Next you'll be telling us that the Gulags never existed and Communism actually works when done right.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Boat View Post
    So the soviets were a capable force because they had some 'good ideas" and were"a bit blitzkriegy"? So the losses the Soviets took in the war were just a misunderstanding?


    Next you'll be telling us that the Gulags never existed and Communism actually works when done right.
    Here's a crazy idea. Re-read my posts on this subject. All of them. Slowly. If that is too much work I'm sure you can find someone to read them to you. Make sure they repeat the bits where I point out the impact of years of purges and re-structuring at the hands of Stalin on the people who created & implemented the Red Army's armoured doctrine and the formations they created.

    I would ask you to do some research, but that involves actual effort, so.....

    I have put a bit of effort into reading up on the creation of Soviet armoured doctrine & its implementation and I put a fair bit of effort into my responses to Toby until I realized just what a waste of time it was. At least he put in a bit of effort. You throw off a couple of ill informed lines. 'Bout says it all. Feel free to start making informed contributions at any time. I won't hold my breath.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  12. #42
    Patron
    Join Date
    30 Jul 08
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    Here's a crazy idea. Re-read my posts on this subject. All of them. Slowly. If that is too much work I'm sure you can find someone to read them to you. Make sure they repeat the bits where I point out the impact of years of purges and re-structuring at the hands of Stalin on the people who created & implemented the Red Army's armoured doctrine and the formations they created.

    I would ask you to do some research, but that involves actual effort, so.....

    I have put a bit of effort into reading up on the creation of Soviet armoured doctrine & its implementation and I put a fair bit of effort into my responses to Toby until I realized just what a waste of time it was. At least he put in a bit of effort. You throw off a couple of ill informed lines. 'Bout says it all. Feel free to start making informed contributions at any time. I won't hold my breath.
    You're trying to pretend that the Soviet armed forces were just as good as the Germans. They were not. The benefit of hindsight makes that a fact.

  13. #43
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,521
    gun boat,

    You're trying to pretend that the Soviet armed forces were just as good as the Germans.
    on the tactical level, the Germans always decisively outclassed the Soviets, even when they were down to Hitler Youth and old men carrying panzerfausts in Berlin.

    on the operational level, the Germans started out ahead and then completely fell behind.

    on the strategic level, the Germans were never smart to begin with.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  14. #44
    Banned Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Nov 16
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Boat View Post
    You're trying to pretend that the Soviet armed forces were just as good as the Germans. They were not. The benefit of hindsight makes that a fact.
    Good luck, I'm still waiting for my questions to be answered. You'll get insult after insult and a I know everything attitude, with very little substance. I've trawled through all my books and still can't find anything about any Soviet Parachute drop behind enemy lines. All you'll get are events that most people know about if they're half interested and gross exaggerations of how influential Soviet military strategy was on German thinking. .....and how he thinks hes going to teach anybody anything with a crap attitude is beyond me! He reminds me of teachers I use to get in the 1980's. Basically there attitude was shut up and listen or a throw the board rubber at you or worse. KIds don't know they're born these days....Just be thankful all my teachers are either dead, retired or in jail!

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    5,117
    Airborne ops ,just a quick one.

    Bessarabia 1940.Moscow offensive 1941.Dnepr crossing at Kanev in 1943.Manchuria &Korea1945.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Fall of Pelosi?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 22:15
  2. The Fall Of Rome?
    By Ironside in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 26 May 06,, 02:47
  3. The Fall of Communism
    By Leader in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26 Jul 05,, 10:40
  4. The fall of France
    By tarek in forum International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27 Sep 04,, 23:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •