I've always wondered

What would have happened in WWII had France kept its best troops in France guarding the Belgium-France border instead of sending them into Belgium only to get cut off from France by German units? Would this have given France sufficent time to force Germany into another trench warfare system severely limits its ability to act as a mobile cohesive force?

As I understand the history, France made one massive mistake and one smaller mistake that lost them the war, namely getting its best troops flanked and cut off in Belgium and not having reserves. Thus, German troops were able to bypass the Maginot line and pour into France from the North. Remove the big mistake from history and what would have happened?

The Maginot line effectively annihilated the few attacks the Nazis dared to launch on it. By limiting the actual battlefield to the French-Belgium border, could France have held out, possibly even gone on the offensive in the long run?

I remember reading in the Rise and Fall of the Third Riech that the French Military was not so much defeated but basically collapsed.

The Maginot line showed the mind set of the powers of that day. The set piece static battle field. They basically fell victim to the Blitz Krieg as did Britain because they were completly unprepared or trained for that type of warfare.

In the book it is said that French soldiers 10 miles away from the front threw down their weapons and ran because the front line collapsed and all those troops were fleeing through their rear positions. Command and control evaporated and panic set in. Apparently the Frech air force never left the ground.

Hindsight shows That Hitlers supply lines were stretched and weak. He was actually short on trucks to move supplies to the front troops and the front was moving forward so fast. He was still using horse drawn wagons to fill the need from a lack of trucks Supply lines are the foundation of any major military operation. They and Britian could have stopped him had they known this.

Hitlers move was a gamble and he won.

Moe

obvious Child said:

What would have happened in WWII had France kept its best troops in France guarding the Belgium-France border instead of sending them into Belgium only to get cut off from France by German units? Would this have given France sufficent time to force Germany into another trench warfare system severely limits its ability to act as a mobile cohesive force?

As I understand the history, France made one massive mistake and one smaller mistake that lost them the war, namely getting its best troops flanked and cut off in Belgium and not having reserves. Thus, German troops were able to bypass the Maginot line and pour into France from the North. Remove the big mistake from history and what would have happened?

The Maginot line effectively annihilated the few attacks the Nazis dared to launch on it. By limiting the actual battlefield to the French-Belgium border, could France have held out, possibly even gone on the offensive in the long run?

Click to expand...

The Maginot line covered only the southern half of the battlefield, from Switzerland to Belgium.

From Belgium to the North Sea, the French border was not fortified at all, and even if the French troops had stayed there, they would have been defeated.

On the contrary, there were numerous fortifications in Belgium: the forteress of Eben-Emael, the forts around Liège, the forts around Antwerp, the forts around Namur, and the KW-line, which was a line of bunkers and anti-tank barriers protecting Brussels.



3 small "machine-gun" bunkers. There was a "line" of small bunkers like that between the 9 main forts around Namur

what remains of one of the main forts around Namur. There were turrets for 56, 75 and 120mm guns


The problem is that the French did not enter Belgium before the 10th May 1940, when the Germans started their invasion. We did not want to "provoke" the Germans by letting the French troops in, as Belgium was neutal. So, they barely had time to rush to the fortifications a few hours before the Germans arrived.

If they had had more time to get ready, they could have been more efficient.
They could also have helped to defend the forts around Antwerp and Namur.
They could have placed anti-tank mines, and more AAA guns.

But I'm not sure it would have changed a lot: the Germans would have suffered heavier losses, but the attack on the Netherlands and Flanders was a diversion to "trap" French and British armies in Belgium, while the real attack was in southern Belgium, in the Ardennes. There were no fortifications over there, it's just a huge forrest.

Maybe if the French had sent their tanks over there, with anti-tank guns, that would have helped. But even the US Army, with it's material superiority, got defeated in this forrest 4 years later, so I'm not sure the French army and its outdated equipment could have stopped the Germans.

moe said:

I remember reading in the Rise and Fall of the Third Riech that the French Military was not so much defeated but basically collapsed.

The Maginot line showed the mind set of the powers of that day. The set piece static battle field. They basically fell victim to the Blitz Krieg as did Britain because they were completly unprepared or trained for that type of warfare.

In the book it is said that French soldiers 10 miles away from the front threw down their weapons and ran because the front line collapsed and all those troops were fleeing through their rear positions. Command and control evaporated and panic set in. Apparently the Frech air force never left the ground.

Hindsight shows That Hitlers supply lines were stretched and weak. He was actually short on trucks to move supplies to the front troops and the front was moving forward so fast. He was still using horse drawn wagons to fill the need from a lack of trucks Supply lines are the foundation of any major military operation. They and Britian could have stopped him had they known this.

Hitlers move was a gamble and he lost.

Moe

Click to expand...

Quote fixed.

The French and British armed forces were doomed to loose from the start. This was due to political and military issues.

Sure the German tactic was a solid one, especially when the allies did not think it was possible.

But if we look at the 2 armies, the French and some what the British, were still a very immobile and badly equipped fighting force. Their weapons had not improved that much since WW1 and their tactics had not at all, nor their attitude to how a war should and would be fought. And the French and Brits were highly immobile.. this can not be stressed enough. The premier form of transportation in the French army.. the horse. Horse still pulled cannons, and materials. And compared to the fast moving German army, there is no way the French could react fast enough with the material they had.

The Germans on the other hand invented a whole new type of warfare and with better equipment.

To compare look at the first Gulf war. A far superior equipped and tactical force (the coalition) defeated a far numerical larger force (the Iraqies) on their home turf. Same thing happened with the French and WW2.

PeteEU said:

And the French and Brits were highly immobile.. this can not be stressed enough. The premier form of transportation in the French army.. the horse. Horse still pulled cannons, and materials. And compared to the fast moving German army, there is no way the French could react fast enough with the material they had.

Click to expand...

The Germans relied heavily on horses too!!!

And their panzers were not extraordinarily better than some French tanks (the Somua I think).

it was more a problem of military doctrine (blitzkrieg vs slow moving battalions), a surprise attack where it was not expected, and also air superiority

bub said:

The Germans relied heavily on horses too!!!

And their panzers were not extraordinarily better than some French tanks (the Somua I think).

it was more a problem of military doctrine (blitzkrieg vs slow moving battalions), a surprise attack where it was not expected, and also air superiority

Click to expand...

Germans did not rely on moving most of their artillery with horses.... the french did....big difference. The Germans also had far far more trucks to transport troops faster than the French, and in mobile warfare that is kinda important

And yes the German airforce played a huge difference too.

bub said:

The Maginot line covered only the southern half of the battlefield, from Switzerland to Belgium.

...


so I'm not sure the French army and its outdated equipment could have stopped the Germans.

Click to expand...

So essentially French forces if they stood the line at the border would have been rolled over anyways?

obvious Child said:

So essentially French forces if they stood the line at the border would have been rolled over anyways?

Click to expand...

Yep. Remember the French and British airforces were outdated pretty much compared to the Luftwaffe, and the Luftwaffe had dive bombers that created havoc among troops. On top of that the quality of German tanks was superior and in greater number. The odds were really against the French, hence it is rather unfair to mock them for giving up.. they were battling a superior fighting force with out dated weapons and tactics.

obvious Child said:

So essentially French forces if they stood the line at the border would have been rolled over anyways?

Click to expand...

1) Using the WWI-like method, the best way would have been to enter Belgium much earlier (not when the Germans are crossing the border) and take position on the KW-line and in the fortifications of Liège, Antwerp and Namur.

KW-line - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They could have "welcomed" the Germans from our bunkers. If they had stayed there during months, they could have prepared deep trenches with barbed wires, antitank mines and dragoon teeths...

Maybe that would not have stopped them (and they would still have been outflanked by the attack from the Ardennes), but it would have been better than waiting for the Belgian & Dutch armies to be defeated, wait that the panzers cross the Belgo-French border and then be destroyed in the fields of Northern France.

2) Using WWII-like methods could have been possible.
They had the tanks: the Somua 35t was as good as the German panzers
They had the officiers: De Gaulle was a good tactician and I think he was as good as the German officiers.
They had the aviation: the British Spits and Hurricanes were comparable to the best German planes, but they stayed in Great Britain.

They just didn't use them together. And they didn't have a plane like the Stuka, which played a major role in destroying bunkers and tanks.

If they had used them together, like the Germans, maybe they could have reacted more efficiently to the German attack from the Ardennes

bub said:

...But I'm not sure it would have changed a lot: the Germans would have suffered heavier losses, but the attack on the Netherlands and Flanders was a diversion to "trap" French and British armies in Belgium, while the real attack was in southern Belgium, in the Ardennes. There were no fortifications over there, it's just a huge forrest.
...

Click to expand...

This was what broke the allies' back.

The French did put the cream of their army to fight the Germans in Belguim and the British BEF was there also.

The Ardennes forest was located in the southern part of Belguim. The allied command didn't think that German tanks would be able to make it thru the forest in any speed and thus did not have strong defenses there. But the German panzer divisions cut across Luxemborg and thru the Ardennes forest in a matter of days, and then, meeting little resistence, the panzer divisions sped to the coast, cutting off the French and British units in Belgium.

File:10May-16May1940-Fall Gelb.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:1940FranceBlitz.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British hightailed it to the coast and did the Dunkirk thing. French units were trapped.

The French and had reserves and also had tanks and aircraft equal to the Germans. But the allies had not adopted the concept of concentrated armored divisions, and interspersed tanks in infantry support roles. Consequently when the panzers broke thru, there were no French armored divisions to repel them.

Once the main French armies were cut off, there wasn't much left to defend France with.

Iriemon said:

This was what broke the allies' back.

The French did put the cream of their army to fight the Germans in Belguim and the British BEF was there also.

The Ardennes forest was located in the southern part of Belguim. The allied command didn't think that German tanks would be able to make it thru the forest in any speed and thus did not have strong defenses there. But the German panzer divisions cut across Luxemborg and thru the Ardennes forest in a matter of days, and then, meeting little resistence, the panzer divisions sped to the coast, cutting off the French and British units in Belgium.

File:10May-16May1940-Fall Gelb.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:1940FranceBlitz.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The British hightailed it to the coast and did the Dunkirk thing. French units were trapped.

The French and had reserves and also had tanks and aircraft equal to the Germans. But the allies had not adopted the concept of concentrated armored divisions, and interspersed tanks in infantry support roles. Consequently when the panzers broke thru, there were no French armored divisions to repel them.

Once the main French armies were cut off, there wasn't much left to defend France with.

Click to expand...

So they should have
- taken position along the Maginot line
- taken position along the Belgian KW-line
- placed most of their troops between the KW and Maginot lines and get ready to use all of their tanks there and not in the north

that would have looked very risky not to place most of their troops in central Belgium as they did, as the Germans have avanced continuously there too, the fortifications + the French troops +the BEF slowed them down and delayed them for a few days, but they were not stopped

bub said:

So they should have
- taken position along the Maginot line
- taken position along the Belgian KW-line
- placed most of their troops between the KW and Maginot lines and get ready to use all of their tanks there and not in the north

that would have looked very risky not to place most of their troops in central Belgium as they did, as the Germans have avanced continuously there too, the fortifications + the French troops +the BEF slowed them down and delayed them for a few days, but they were not stopped

Click to expand...

I don't know if they needed to place most of their troops at the Ardennes, but if they had anticipated that the panzers could come through their certainly they would have beefed up defenses in that area with anti-tank capability and defenses.

Later tactics in the war proved that an armored reserve is crucial. The French would have been better served by creating armored divisions that were mobile enough to serve that purpose. When the panzers broke thru the Ardennes, some ignored orders and went far further into France than they were supposed to, stretching their own supply lines. A decent mobile armored reserve capability could have been used to cut off the panzers themselves.

Ive always wondered. How effective would an armored counter blitz have been? How thinly stretched were germany's armored forces, and could an early counter offensive of simmilar strategy have had good effect?


Did they have the enough relevant unit types (armor)
If so, how hard would they have been to organise in this manner
If not, how hard would they have been to get and organise in such a manner.


And to what effect?

Real Talk said:

Ive always wondered. How effective would an armored counter blitz have been? How thinly stretched were germany's armored forces, and could an early counter offensive of simmilar strategy have had good effect?

Click to expand...

It's speculation, but the German panzer units that broke out thru the Ardennes disobeyed orders (Guderian and Ronmmel) and went far farther than their orders, leaving their units well beyon supply and infantry support. An strong mobile armored reserve might have cut these units off from their own supply.

Did they have the enough relevant unit types (armor)
If so, how hard would they have been to organise in this manner
If not, how hard would they have been to get and organise in such a manner.

And to what effect?

Click to expand...

The French had equivalent numbers of tanks. But their doctrine had them mostly inbedded with infantry in supporting roles. Since the infantry wasn't mechanized, the mobility of the tanks was curtailed.

Had the French had some of their armor organized in armored divisions that could utililze their mobility, they might have been effective in cutting off the German spearhead.

But that's all speculation.

and well acknowleged (as speculation) and interesting speculation at that.
Thanks.

This is my hunch also.
That when someone is conducting a blitz krieg armored advance, that it will be, by definition over extended. Theoretically, if one is able to bring sufficient force to bare upon the supply routes of this advance, and apply strategic anhilation behind there front line, one could be able to wreak havoc upon there advance.

I guess one would want to be wary of getting baited into this however. As they could theoreticalyhold resserves, turn there tanks backwards, and essentially anihalate your armored force with it in turn having no supply lines.

But reall who knows. They say its easy to judge from hindsight, and although this is partly true, one also has no idea how facts on the ground would have panned out or exactly what data people had to work with.