Originally Posted by George

What neutral port? Spain would hardly be acceptable to G.B. In WWI a German Battleship & Cruiser sailed to neutral Turkey, just before they joined the Germans. S. America? Viewed as very pro German, @ 1 point the US Military was planning an invasion of Brazil.

Which is odd given that Brazil was the only South American country to send troops to aid the Allies and declared war on Germany and Italy only 8 months after the United States and in fact stopped all diplomatic contact with the Axis in Jan 1942.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

The shelling of the French fleet in 1940........Could Britain allow these ships to fall under German control. The French may have had to give these ships up if their arms were twisted enough by the Germans in France and if they had done this then the whole of Naval balance of power would have changed over night. Lets face it the French had signed away most things to Germans and were in a right defeatist mood. Now if the French had sailed these ships to a neutral port as requested this would not have happened.

First of all, the UK demand was that they sail directly into a ALLIED port, not a neutral one. And if they had done so in either case do you think the Luftwaffe would have just let them go? The Germans controlled the airspace, and they had no aircover of their own, nor was the RAF in position to help them either. So they where much safer staying were they were.

Secondly the British were flat-wrong in their belief that the French would hand their ships to the Germans. The French-German Armistice SPECIFICALLY forbade the French Navy being used by the Germans. And when the Germans attempted to seize the fleet in Toulon by force the French Navy scuttled them before letting them fall in Nazi hands. Proving the French never at any time had any notion of giving them to Germany.

And third of all, if the situation was reversed do you really think the RN would have simply handed their fleet to the French simply because they demanded it...I don't think so.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

First of all, the UK demand was that they sail directly into a ALLIED port, not a neutral one. And if they had done so in either case do you think the Luftwaffe would have just let them go? The Germans controlled the airspace, and they had no aircover of their own, nor was the RAF in position to help them either. So they where much safer staying were they were.

Secondly the British were flat-wrong in their belief that the French would hand their ships to the Germans. The French-German Armistice SPECIFICALLY forbade the French Navy being used by the Germans. And when the Germans attempted to seize the fleet in Toulon by force the French Navy scuttled them before letting them fall in Nazi hands. Proving the French never at any time had any notion of giving them to Germany.

And third of all, if the situation was reversed do you really think the RN would have simply handed their fleet to the French simply because they demanded it...I don't think so.

Third of all:In the autumn of 194O Roosevelt asked Churchill that in case of a successfull German landing,the Royal Navy should leave the UK for the US;Churchill refusedsaying that in that case there would be an othet government that would use the R N to obtain better conditions for the Germans . Double standards ? And Churchill saying in public:"We will fighting on the beaches.......and if the worst should happen we will liberate the UK from Canada .." All bla bla bla.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Which is odd given that Brazil was the only South American country to send troops to aid the Allies and declared war on Germany and Italy only 8 months after the United States and in fact stopped all diplomatic contact with the Axis in Jan 1942.

Appearances & perceptions caused by Brazil(& most of latin america) buying rifles, ect., from Germany. Planning was secret & FDR overuled the military. Instead he decided to sell weapons to Brazil & Brazil behaved the way FDR hoped. The Army's reason for wanting to invade was to secure the US-Brazil-West Africa to England & the CBI Theater "Air Bridge".

personaly i beleve the french were a little shall we say weak fist of all at the begining of ww2 we were asked if we could send some thompsons over to asist there stoops the day the guns arive they surrender in ww1 there machine guns sucked they jamed the troops through them at the germans at least that would do more damage than the rounds

personaly i beleve the french were a little shall we say weak first of all at the begining of ww2 we were asked if we could send some thompsons over to assist there stoops the day the guns arive they surrender. In ww1 there machine guns sucked they jamed the troops through them at the germans at least that would do more damage than the rounds

The main reason of French fail in campaign of 1940 was because they were excellently prepared for another WW1 - they had almost unbreakable fortified line, capable of covering troops from artillery barrage, lines of supply and enough tanks, machine guns un howitzers.

French army discovered itself not ready for such war which was driven on them by Germans, in the means of transport. Actually, the units of modern WW2 armies were highly mobile, especially mechanized ones. All divisions had trucks and tractors in their structure. This is often forgot, when self-proclaimed history experts count number of tanks but forgot to do the same with trucks.

Actually, Red Army suffered the same problem in 1941. It is well known that Soviets had ~24 000 tanks, while Germans had only ~3500. However, if we count trucks, we seen totally different picture: at the beginning of that war German army had half million of trucks, while Soviets - 350 thousands (and that is total number of trucks in country; to use them for military needs request to take them from economy ar first and then transfer to army). As result of this, the large number of tanks couldn't be used with maximum effect - if tanks ran out of ammo or fuel, there were no enough trucks to supply it properly, and if tank broke, there were no enough mobile technical assistance.

Originally Posted by Supostat

The main reason of French fail in campaign of 1940 was because they were excellently prepared for another WW1 - they had almost unbreakable fortified line, capable of covering troops from artillery barrage, lines of supply and enough tanks, machine guns un howitzers.

French were capable of putting together more then 20 fast divisions, they were fully prepared for a mobile war.

Originally Posted by Supostat

French army discovered itself not ready for such war which was driven on them by Germans, in the means of transport. Actually, the units of modern WW2 armies were highly mobile, especially mechanized ones. All divisions had trucks and tractors in their structure. This is often forgot, when self-proclaimed history experts count number of tanks but forgot to do the same with trucks.

The French had over 130k trucks as opposed to 100k German trucks, also you tell me how an immobile Polish army of foot sloggers managed to draw Germans into a massive bloody battle of 650k troops on both sides yet the French who had on average 10x more of everything failed to engage and tie Germans on such a scale?

Equipment was not an issue in French defeat.

Originally Posted by Supostat

Actually, Red Army suffered the same problem in 1941. It is well known that Soviets had ~24 000 tanks, while Germans had only ~3500. However, if we count trucks, we seen totally different picture: at the beginning of that war German army had half million of trucks,while Soviets - 350 thousands (and that is total number of trucks in country

German army had around 140k trucks in 1941, Russian army around 120k.

Originally Posted by Supostat

As result of this, the large number of tanks couldn't be used with maximum effect - if tanks ran out of ammo or fuel, there were no enough trucks to supply it properly, and if tank broke, there were no enough mobile technical assistance.

The problem was there was no technical maintainance at all, not mobile or no, there were just no mechanics and workshops, no spare parts were produced etc, trucks were never an issue for Russia, rail transport was king.

As for the French, their failure came from lack of the will to fight, their soldiers were unwilling to die for their county, unwilling to make sacrifices in consequence resourcefulness, brave and other attributes required werent there.

Paradoxally Poland fell because it had the balls but no hardware, France fell because it had the hardware but no balls.

French were capable of putting together more then 20 fast divisions, they were fully prepared for a mobile war.

What do you mean by `fast division`?

The French had over 130k trucks as opposed to 100k German trucks [...] German army had around 140k trucks in 1941, Russian army around 120k.

Halder disagrees with these statements, as he wrote in his diary in March 20, 1940 the German Army has 420 000 trucks...

Equipment was not an issue in French defeat.

Not equipment as such, bet the organization on how it was deemed to be used.

However, I do not argue on `spirit argument` - French willingless to defend their country also mattered.

Originally Posted by Supostat

What do you mean by `fast division`?

Armored, motorised, armored-motorised, motorised cavalry, partially motorised cavalry.

Originally Posted by Supostat

Halder disagrees with these statements, as he wrote in his diary in March 20, 1940 the German Army has 420 000 trucks...

I'd have to take a peek since i'm writing from memory so i'll take it on faith however are you sure you didnt confuse it with all motorised vehicles in German army? Cars, bikes, trucks and halftrucks would be possible but building 300.000 trucks in a year is a bit much.

Originally Posted by Supostat

Not equipment as such, bet the organization on how it was deemed to be used.

Again overrated, Poles had the same organisation and regularly stopped german armored units with light AT assets alone heck Western Allies had the same kind of organisation all throught WW2.

Ultimately French had everything to put up a succesfull defence and then grind Wehrmacht to dust, i know i'm going to be accused of stereotyping but when discussing the 1940 campaign the primary reason for the French losing is their lack of guts, also putting up Russia is not really a good analogy.

Wehrmacht won against Poland because of the gigantic disparity in amount of equipment.

Against France because of huge disparity in morale and determination.

Against Russia because of huge difference in organisation quality.

Today we put strategies and tactics first but the fact is each of the three countries had at the time a different major weakness that could be exploited Blitzkrieg or not.