D.520s, coordination with the Armée de l'Air... and French defeat

[343KKT_Kintaro]

  

On 1/7/2023 at 1:51 AM, PB0_Roll said:

defeat was still inevitable with such a poor coordination of Army and Air force as demonstrated, I'm afraid.

 

 

In my humble opinion, the Battle of France was lost because of the outdated views of the French on how warfare had to be managed on the ground. A bad or good coordination with the Armée de l'Air had little to do with the defeat... I'm afraid.The Polish cavalry was poorly equipped if compared whith the German cavalry units of Panzers. The French definitely had the better tanks at the time, at least better than the German Panzers, but they didn't use them in the appropriate way (De Gaulle was right on this point). Both armies were defeated by the "Blitzkried", a tactic that was perfectly adapted to mainland Europe... provided that the weather conditions are good.

 

This is why Poland, the Low Countries and France were invaded. Out of the so mentioned good weather conditions (for example in the quagmire of Eastern Europe in Autumn/Winter) and out of an uninterrupted continental mass (for example in an island separated from the continent by... dunno... the Channel?), Germany had little chance to really invade other areas than those that were invaded. Other than that, the German ressources at the time bore no comparison to Soviet ressources nor, especially, to the USA ressources. What in 1944 came from the sea towards Normandy... was unstoppable.

 

At any rate, France, in my opinion, didn't lose because of a "poor coordination of Army and Air Force". Plus, the number of planes in term of copies of modern types (even one thousand D.520s) wouldn't have changed the speed of the advance on the ground. The problem was strictly in the French strategists minds who simply didn't expect what was about to happen on the ground... strictly on the ground.

 

My opinion only...

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by 343KKT_Kintaro
Edited for historical accuracy purposes

[BlitzPig_EL]

Indeed, the French general staff was ready and prepared to fight WW1 over again, not fight a modern war of maneuver.  They were stuck in the past.

The Armee De L'Air actually did a fairly good job considering their woeful state of preparedness, all thanks to a government that could not see further than the end of their noses, as far as threat analysis goes. The Luftwaffe took losses at a far higher rate than even their worst estimates showed, losses that would hurt them badly during the Battle of Britain.

[acer884]

On 7.01.2023 at 03:19, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

  

 

 

Moim skromnym zdaniem bitwa o Francję została przegrana z powodu przestarzałych poglądów Francuzów na temat prowadzenia działań wojennych w terenie. Zła lub dobra koordynacja z Armée de l'Airmiała niewiele wspólnego z klęską... Obawiam się, że polska kawaleria była słabo wyposażona w porównaniu z niemieckimi oddziałami kawalerii pancernej (Polacy wciąż szarżowali konno! prawdziwe konie! i niewiele prawdziwych polskich pojazdów pancernych... ). Francuzi zdecydowanie dysponowali wówczas lepszymi czołgami, przynajmniej lepszymi od niemieckich czołgów, ale nie używali ich we właściwy sposób (De Gaulle miał rację w tej kwestii). Obie kawalerie zostały zmiażdżone przez Niemców, prehistoryczna kawaleria polska i supernowoczesna kawaleria francuska. Obie armie zostały pokonane przez „Blitzkried”, taktykę doskonale przystosowaną do kontynentalnej Europy… pod warunkiem, że warunki pogodowe są dobre.

 

Dlatego Polska, Niderlandy i Francja zostały najechane. Ze wspomnianych dobrych warunków pogodowych (np. na bagnach Europy Wschodniej jesienią/zimą) iz nieprzerwanej masy kontynentalnej (np. na wyspie oddzielonej od kontynentu… nie wiem… Kanałem? ), Niemcy miały niewielkie szanse na prawdziwą inwazję na inne obszary niż te, które zostały najechane. Poza tym zasoby niemieckie w tamtym czasie nie miały porównania z zasobami sowieckimi, a zwłaszcza z zasobami amerykańskimi. To, co w 1944 roku nadciągnęło znad morza w kierunku Normandii... było nie do powstrzymania.

 

W każdym razie Francja, moim zdaniem, nie przegrała z powodu „słabej koordynacji wojsk lądowych i powietrznych”. Ponadto liczba samolotów w przeliczeniu na egzemplarze współczesnych typów (nawet tysiąc D.520) nie zmieniłaby szybkości natarcia na ziemię. Problem tkwił wyłącznie w umysłach francuskich strategów, którzy po prostu nie spodziewali się tego, co miało się wydarzyć na ziemi… wyłącznie na ziemi.

 

Tylko moja opinia...

 

The Polish army in 1939 never used cavalry to attack German tanks. Why would they do that?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

3 hours ago, acer884 said:

The Polish army in 1939 never used cavalry to attack German tanks. Why would they do that?

 

 

Thank you for your comment, I did some research and find this in Wikipedia: "The incident prompted false reports of Polish cavalry attacking German tanks" ("Charge at Krojanty" article in Wikipedia). I duly edited my post, thank you.

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

One thing that should not be underestimated is that one side knew precisely that there was going to be a war at some time. No matter what.

I know, it sounds trivial at first, but this knowledge really helps assigning the right people to crucial jobs and giving attention to new approaches to old problems.

 

Had France or Britain *known* a war was coming, they'd have assigned their priorities differently. Then again, both countries had an entire generation wasted in the battlefields of WW1 and hence weren't to keen on seeking another confrontational solution, which is entirely understandable.

[Trooper117]

Never mind the Germans... I'm surprised the French and the British weren't fighting each other... we've been at it for centuries!  

[DD_fruitbat]

2 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Never mind the Germans... I'm surprised the French and the British weren't fighting each other... we've been at it for centuries!  

 

To badly quote Al Murray, we even dragged the Hundred years war out to a hundred years, cause we were having so much fun against the French......

[Lusekofte]

Well in all fairness, how could French and English commanders know Germans would feed their soldiers with pervitin and brake through Ardennes in 3 days when it should take 1 week. 
In Great War it was the same. Tanks would have been produced and developed much faster if Senior had listened to Junior officers. 
There was French officers on line with German tank tactics, but Generals would not listen. 

[Robli]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:13 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Had France or Britain *known* a war was coming, they'd have assigned their priorities differently. Then again, both countries had an entire generation wasted in the battlefields of WW1 and hence weren't to keen on seeking another confrontational solution, which is entirely understandable.

 

Well, France and Britain were officially in war from 3rd of September 1939. Battle of France started on 10th of May 1940. They must have been somewhat aware that they were in war. I think the war could have been over by November 1939, had France and Britain do something else than just look how Germany and Soviet Union took care of their ally, Poland.

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Robli said:

I think the war could have been over by November 1939, had France and Britain do something else than just look how Germany and Soviet Union took care of their ally, Poland.

 

You're probably right, but that's knowing what we know today.

Back in September '39 a lot of things weren't obvious to those who were making the decisions. Of course one could argue there were lots of writings on the wall, but so are today and not every writing on the wall turns out to be true.

 

Some lessons turn out to be in need of re-learning anew every couple of generations.

 

[Jaws2002]

     All countries had periods of complacency, specially after a major victory. Then you have entrenched old fools keeping the reins of the military, long after their passion, interest and in many cases even their ability to think straight was gone.  That just happened in the worst possible moment for the French.

   Even before it started, the French knew there's a war coming.  The peace conditions after the previous war pretty much guarantied it.  The type of sanctions the allies were applying on Germany, right before ww2, also only gave Germany two options, to die or come out swinging. 

By the time the Germans plowed through them, in summer 1940 they were already at war for half a year. A war they declared, for crying out loud.

 

The French Generals  were just having too much fun, drinking Champaign in cool, posh castles, to give a damn about the war.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Jaws2002

[cardboard_killer]

35 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

The peace conditions after the previous war pretty much guarantied it.  The type of sanctions the allies were applying on Germany, right before ww2, also only gave Germany two options, to die or come out swinging. 

 

No, no, and no.

[LukeFF]

This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years

 

-Foch

[DD_fruitbat]

4 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years

 

-Foch

 

Indeed. 

[ZachariasX]

19 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

The peace conditions after the previous war pretty much guarantied it.

If the peace conditions were really the cause, then only because Germany got away too easy, regardless of how much of anything was their fault. I can think of many instances, where the victor was far less benign and in doing so actually guaranteed „peace“ after the act. Also, if Germany got away with even less hassle, it is still questionable if history didn‘t take the course it did, as it wouldn‘t have altered the economic and health calamities that were to follow the war. Toadies of any kind always find something to lie about.

 

It‘s just that people tend not to realize that there is actually a way to fill out your election form that *will get yourself killed*.

 

And by the way Mr. Foch, if you knew that then, why didn‘t you tell anyone?

[Vishnu]

IMHO The French lost because they equipped the D520 with a gunsight that doubled as an espresso maker. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

20 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

IMHO The French lost because they equipped the D520 with a gunsight that doubled as an espresso maker.

 

 

Many years ago, in a different forum (cannot remember which one), there was an even funnier comment from another English-speaking participant in the so mentioned forum... the guy said he was suprised that the French have designed a reflector sight in the shape of a Louis XVI clock.

 

 

[Trooper117]

9 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

French have designed a reflector sight in the shape of a Louis XVI clock.

 

 

True that... Louis XVI loved it!

[343KKT_Kintaro]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

True that... Louis XVI loved it!

 

 

Uh... well, the guy didn't live to see a D.520 in his lifetime...

 

 

[kestrel79]

In US History classes growing up here, the parts of the war before the US got involved are usually pretty glossed over. That's why I always find Battle of France and early war stuff so interesting, and why I fell in love with IL-2 20 some years ago and Eastern Front stuff. 

 

So were there giant air battles that took place over France, D.520s going up against 109-Es did that happen a lot? Any good books on this part of the war? I have some BoB books but nothing Battle of France.

 

Some of the newer WW2 In Color Netflix shows really go into this part of the war more than any schooling ever did  Great stuff can't get enough of it.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

16 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

So were there giant air battles that took place over France, D.520s going up against 109-Es did that happen a lot?

 

 

Back in 1940 the backbone of the "Armée de l'Air" was constituted by MS.406s and MB.152s, the D.520s, sadly, weren't numerous. The Germans really sent huge numbers of their aircraft and, counting both sides, there were thousands of aircraft up there in May/June 1940 over the borders of North-Eastern France.

 

 

16 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

Any good books on this part of the war? I have some BoB books but nothing Battle of France.

 

 

In English? I think there's some stuff available out there, I'll try to find back the information. I think I won't be long...

 

 

[Bonnot]

1 hour ago, kestrel79 said:

I have some BoB books but nothing Battle of France.

I can give you one title -in french ....:  ILS  OUVRIRENT  LE  BAL _ Jean Gisclon_ ed. France-Empire 1967; reedited in Pocket Books and often in second hand books list......

A serious book, although a bit dated, but many units history and living pilots testimony.

Anyway don't forget a large part of french planes , most bombers, were destroyed on the ground on the first hours of the real battle........

[Lusekofte]

What dissapoint me the most is the fact that the willingness of risking the life of your soldiers still is a factor in war between armies. We have not evolved one bit