A rainy May in France 1940

[Knight Of Armenia]

They can get closer if they want: they have nothing like Stukas (in fact, no effective ground-attack plane at all), and they still won't use tanks effectively. France had a lot more tanks than Germany did, and in the few times that they did something close to massing them, they were able to hold off repeated German attacks. The problem is, however, that the French and the British adhered to the wide-front doctrine, which had them parcel out tanks with infantry, rather than grouping them together.

So, unless France is able to increase its output by several hundred fold in that one week and make enough tanks that every single part of their line has more tanks than the Germans have, there is no point. If Germany has 500 tanks and throws them at a single point, and France has 15,000 tanks spread along a front hundreds of miles long, the point that the Germans will strike will invariably have far less tanks than the Germans are committing. French tanks are also too slow to do anything about this once it all hits the fan; all the Germans have to do is go through.

This is really like comparing infantry and cavalry; in this case, the infantry has far better equipment and armor than the cavalry, but the problem is that it is unable to catch the cavalry. All the cavalry has to do is punch a hole into one place and go through, then the infantry has to react

 

[Richard1978]

Aircraft production in France was hampered by both nationalisation & communist sabotage in the late 1930s. Had neither of these happened or lend leased planes from America arrived quicker it might have helped things out.

 

[Redbeard]

They can get closer if they want: they have nothing like Stukas (in fact, no effective ground-attack plane at all), and they still won't use tanks effectively. France had a lot more tanks than Germany did, and in the few times that they did something close to massing them, they were able to hold off repeated German attacks. The problem is, however, that the French and the British adhered to the wide-front doctrine, which had them parcel out tanks with infantry, rather than grouping them together.

So, unless France is able to increase its output by several hundred fold in that one week and make enough tanks that every single part of their line has more tanks than the Germans have, there is no point. If Germany has 500 tanks and throws them at a single point, and France has 15,000 tanks spread along a front hundreds of miles long, the point that the Germans will strike will invariably have far less tanks than the Germans are committing. French tanks are also too slow to do anything about this once it all hits the fan; all the Germans have to do is go through.

This is really like comparing infantry and cavalry; in this case, the infantry has far better equipment and armor than the cavalry, but the problem is that it is unable to catch the cavalry. All the cavalry has to do is punch a hole into one place and go through, then the infantry has to react

The French doctrine didn't prescribe just sitting passively and being rolled up, but counted on time being available to build up massive firesupport and establish coherrent new defensive lines. The French doctrine wasn't purely defensive either, but counted again on massive firesupport and co-ordinated movement (tending to be overly complex and rigid), but all in all the perfect doctrine for winning WWI. What weapons the parts had is close to insignificant, but the interesting part is, that if the German Blitzkrieg doctrine is slowed, say by bad weather, then the French doctrine has the upper hand and the German doctrine will start looking as hopeless as Polish lancers charging Panzers.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

Good thread!

I tend to agree with KoA on this one.

In my view the biggest problem the French, and to a certain degree the British too, had was 3C(and I). Their command, communications and control, well, sucked. No amount of equipment or bad weather could or would change that.
I can't remember the exact timeline for the campaign in France so please bear with me, but if the Germans were out of the Ardennes by the time of the rainfall, they would, I'd say, win the battle for France. The Germans were flexible, well-trained, well-led and just plain aggressive, the French were quite simply not!

Best regards and all!

- Bluenote.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Good thread!

I tend to agree with KoA on this one.

In my view the biggest problem the French, and to a certain degree the British too, had was 3C(and I). Their command, communications and control, well, sucked. No amount of equipment or bad weather could or would change that.
I can't remember the exact timeline for the campaign in France so please bear with me, but if the Germans were out of the Ardennes by the time of the rainfall, they would, I'd say, win the battle for France. The Germans were flexible, well-trained, well-led and just plain aggressive, the French were quite simply not!

Best regards and all!

- Bluenote.

Mud can really slow things down. When you get 20 cm of rain in three weeks it is not going to dry overnight. Germany can't afford to sit on its hands for weeks on end and will have to try to advance in the rain which means they run into the same problems they did in the USSR in Oct 1941. Give the Allies 3 weeks of fighter production and the Germans start having problems using stukas.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Why can't they wait 3 weeks? Remember the Phony War? This would just become an extension of it, quite simply. Worst comes to worst, they withdraw from the territories they took in the West momentarily, and then strike again once the conditions are clear. Even an unusually rainy May would give way to a sunny June, so the mud should clear up in a few days, tops.

Again, this would become worse for France and Britain than OTL (mainly Britain) because their troops would be FARTHER in, pursuing the retreating German main line (most German troops were in the north facing the Allied armies, though the schwerpunkt was the Ardennes). They would be drawn deep into Belgium (hell, maybe even into Germany) when the panzers break through into the Ardennes and are running amok in France. The British armies aren't anywhere near a close channel port like Dunkirk, now, and would likely have to surrender along with the French troops, leaving Britain with no troops to defend itself (might lead to an acceptance of peace, if not surrender, by Britain).

 

[Brilliantlight]

Why can't they wait 3 weeks? Remember the Phony War? This would just become an extension of it, quite simply. Worst comes to worst, they withdraw from the territories they took in the West momentarily, and then strike again once the conditions are clear. Even an unusually rainy May would give way to a sunny June, so the mud should clear up in a few days, tops.

Again, this would become worse for France and Britain than OTL (mainly Britain) because their troops would be FARTHER in, pursuing the retreating German main line (most German troops were in the north facing the Allied armies, though the schwerpunkt was the Ardennes). They would be drawn deep into Belgium (hell, maybe even into Germany) when the panzers break through into the Ardennes and are running amok in France. The British armies aren't anywhere near a close channel port like Dunkirk, now, and would likely have to surrender along with the French troops, leaving Britain with no troops to defend itself (might lead to an acceptance of peace, if not surrender, by Britain).

There is a big difference between not starting an offensive and retreating. It is not exactly good for morale when you retreat. More importantly the French have been given a month of military production. Give the French and Brits another month's production of planes and the Luftwafe has a harder time of it which eases the situation on the ground.

 

[Ward]

The Luftwaffe is also grounded and was better then the Anglo/Franco air forces. The Anglo/Franco armies are not going to be pounded by Axis air either.We are talking about a lot of rain here, my guess is that the rivers would be swollen. Also most German infantry walked in 1940 and there are probably areas you have to take off-road and that will be very muddy.

The German Luffwaffe was larger then the French Air Army and the RAF units in France but check the Kill recordes of the French Sqs, It was usely 2 to 1 or more. Rember most of the French Poilts had more time in the air then the German Poilts. France had not started it Poilt training as early as every one else did, for the war she was still trianing as peacetime up ontill sept of 39.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The German Luffwaffe was larger then the French Air Army and the RAF units in France but check the Kill recordes of the French Sqs, It was usely 2 to 1 or more. Rember most of the French Poilts had more time in the air then the German Poilts. France had not started it Poilt training as early as every one else did, for the war she was still trianing as peacetime up ontill sept of 39.

Which makes it even worse for the Germans.

 

[Knight Of Armenia]

Again, you keep saying that they would have more planes. Lets look at all the facts here.

It would start raining one week into May, and then for the duration of the month

Well, considering that the attack in the west began with a great airborne assault on May 10, I'm guessing this wouldn't happen with heavy rain. And, considering it was the Germans who made the first move, the French and the British would continue the sitting and waiting, particularly with the rain going on. So German morale is not hurt in any way.

The Allies would produce many more planes during this period.

Good for them. Unfortunately, they would have to know exactly what to churn out, in exacting numbers, to be overwhelming against the Luftwaffe (considering that they had spent the entire Phony War not doing this, as evidenced by the fact that the orders already given by the French government called for 200 Dewoitine 520s to be built a month from May 1940 onward, and the French had only 68 of these on May 10, I just don't see it likely that they suddenly decide to increase production many fold). Furthermore, France had nothing resembling an effective tactical bomber, such as the Stuka; the bombers the French did have were medium bombers to be used as "hedge hoppers" against enemy infantry, but were pathetically vulnerable to ground fire. Why would they suddenly decide to change all this, due to some rain?

This thread assumes the invasion goes on schedule.

This one is ridiculous. Hitler and the OKW were extremely nervous as it was about the war, and had drawn up brilliant plans; though OKW didn't fully believe in the panzer flank attack, it still relied on airborne assaults to remove Holland as an obstacle, capture important bridges, and also take out Belgian fortresses. If there is rain they just wouldn't attack. To think they would would require a lot of other PODs; it would be like saying Germany remilitarizing the Ruhr and then attacking France.

The French would build more AT guns.

Why? The Allies had double the total guns of the Germans (14,000 to 7,000, roughly), but they were mostly field artillery pieces designed to assist infantry. To say they would suddenly start focusing on AT and AA guns is ridiculous, since they did not understand modern war. There is far too much evidence to back this particular statement for it to even be under question.

In closing, for the Allies to have been given a vision from God in that one month and start doing everything "right" with complete fervor is just too improbably; it's like the threads where Hitler does everything absolutely right (down to no Holocaust and treating the Slavic people like brothers). Germany beat France because it fought WWII and France fought WWI. That simple.