In WW2 Why DID the French surrender so easily?
Discussion
bp1 said:
JagLover said:
At the time when the Russians were nearly defeated the 'second front' consisted of a side show in North Africa and strategic bombing campaign.
Without the invasion of Italy and later France it is possible that the fighting in Russia could have ended in a draw.
Although come the end in Tunisia in February 43, more troops were lost/taken prisoner in Tunisia than were lost with the 6th Army in Stalingrad, something most people dont realise.Without the invasion of Italy and later France it is possible that the fighting in Russia could have ended in a draw.
.
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our a
ses handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
TEKNOPUG said:
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
I was supporting Youngsyr's view. Glad you find it humorous though.Edited by Jimbeaux on Tuesday 14th December 12:17
TEKNOPUG said:
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
Jimbeaux said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
The relatively few soldiers commited to the NA campaign had little bearing on the events on the eastern front in December 1941. Though it is true to say that a more concentrated push in the direction of Moscow before the autumn rains might have produced a decisive result.
TEKNOPUG said:
Jimbeaux said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Jimbeaux said:
youngsyr said:
Asterix said:
youngsyr said:
thatone1967 said:
they were Cheese eating surrender monkeys?
Probably worth noting that we Brits were also involved in the defence of France and also had our ases handed to us by the Germans at the same time.The only difference was that we had a country to retreat to that was separated from the current sphere of battle by 20 miles of water.
If it weren't for that stretch of water and a very narrow victory by a very select group of people in the Battle of Britain, I believe it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that we would be speaking German now.
I was under the opinion that the Russians were very nearly defeated by Germany too, despite the Germans fighting on two fronts at the time?
Of course it can only be speculation, but perhaps if the Germans were only fighting on one front against the Russians, the outcome on the Eastern Front might have been different?
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow.
I'm not sure they were doing an awful lot of fighting on any western front at that stage. The occupation army at that time was relatively small compared to later in the war. It was clear that allied trops had little chance of invading so it was case of 'All Quiet . . .'Derek Smith said:
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that the North sea fleet would have made its way down the Channel with any degree of impunity. Further, there have been enough histories to suggest that the so-called Battle of Britain was by no means the forgone conclusion that some say. Certainly the breaking off of the attack on the [now] radar towers was not a good move.
What on Earth makes you think that anything other than Alien Space Bats could have stopped the Home Fleet? Or even slowed it down. Not to mention that there was probably sufficient seapower to destroy a Sealion invasion already stationed on the South coast.I was definite in one aspect and that was because both sides now seem to agree on that point. But I accept that they could both be wrong.
I assume you are not suggesting that the whole of the Home Fleet would have driven down from the north sea into the English Channel. There was a fear of mines that did not go away, and for good reason, throughout the war. If the Fleet, especially the big ships, had been destroyed or seriously damaged then this would have allowed the German fleet out into the North Sea and that would not have been a good idea.
I think I can be affirmative in that.
One Hipper-class would have been able to sink every ship in a convoy in a single pass according to the Germans. British propaganda said no. It would need two passes. Either way, that’s a lot of boats.
How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
Let me quote the numbers again;
RN Kriegsmarine
5 capital ships 1 capital ship
11 cruisers 1 cruiser
53 destroyers 10 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty 20-30 submarines
In addition, the RN had countless smaller craft, including sloops, minesweepers, converted trawlers etc. These would have been of marginal value against warships. However, against the Rhine barges forming the main invasion transport force, they would have been effective.
Note that at Dunkirk, in ideal conditions for the Germans, they managed to sink 4 destroyers, out of 39. What makes you think they will do anything like as good against the Fleet under these conditions? I suggest you read up on the Norway campaign to see how well the Germans can execute sea battle.
AS for dive bombers;
Historical example. HMS Egret (sloop) was attacked in the Thames
estuary in september 1940 by 23 Stukas. Result: 5 Stukas splashed,
Egret had rivets sprung by near-misses. The sloops had between
4 and 8 4" semi-automatic DP guns, capable of firing 20 rounds
per minute per barrel, all under central AA director control. They
were, beyond doubt, the most effective AA ships available in 1940.
For close-in defence there was a quad 0.5" and assorted small stuff.
In summer of 1940 all the sloops were working east coast convoys,
and were on 24 hours notice to steam for the channel.
The modern L and M class destroyers were at Rosyth and Scapa flow,
again on 6 to 24 hours notice to steam for the channel. They had
6 4.7" DP guns, plus pom-poms.
The cruisers based on Portsmouth and Plymouth (and so actually
in the channel) included several of the C and D class AA cruisers,
with 8 or 10 4" semi-automatics. The other cruisers all at least 4
4" DP as well as their main batteries. Most had 8 to 12. The older
destroyers had low-angle guns only, but they did have pom-poms
for close in defence. Less than you'd like, but they still did
reasonably well in the mediterranian and the pacific, against
much better anti-shipping pilots than the Germans had in 1940.
The ships intended to go into the channel first were all pretty
good AA platforms - and were chosen beacuse of that.
--
Edited by s2art on Tuesday 14th December 14:59
Edited by s2art on Tuesday 14th December 16:17
s2art said:
This is barking mad.
But it was polite. s2art said:
Of course the Home Fleet would be deployed in the case of invasion. Thats what it is for!
How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It sank the Hood. I seem to remember it had some function in the Home Fleet.How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It also damaged the Rodney severely. That was the flagship of Force H and a Nelson Class battleship. I would call that faring pretty well all in all. Had not its steering been damaged it probably would have made it to Brest.
Mind you, Rodney did well as it was forced to go all the way to the USA for a refit which was a bit of a political move by the USA.
I thought that the purpose of the Home Fleet, and the Hood in particular, was to protect Atlantic convoys. But then, perhaps I'm wrong on that. But one thing I feel certain of is that Nelson Class battleships were not on their best ground in the English Channel.
Derek Smith said:
s2art said:
This is barking mad.
But it was polite. s2art said:
Of course the Home Fleet would be deployed in the case of invasion. Thats what it is for!
How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It sank the Hood. I seem to remember it had some function in the Home Fleet.How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It also damaged the Rodney severely. That was the flagship of Force H and a Nelson Class battleship. I would call that faring pretty well all in all. Had not its steering been damaged it probably would have made it to Brest.
Mind you, Rodney did well as it was forced to go all the way to the USA for a refit which was a bit of a political move by the USA.
I thought that the purpose of the Home Fleet, and the Hood in particular, was to protect Atlantic convoys. But then, perhaps I'm wrong on that. But one thing I feel certain of is that Nelson Class battleships were not on their best ground in the English Channel.
The Home Fleet had several purposes, but the primary one would have been to stop an invasion if it occurred. Note that all the ships in Rosyth and Scapa Flow were on 6-24 hour notice to steam for the channel during this period. Not to mention all the sloops on the east coast
s2art said:
Derek Smith said:
s2art said:
This is barking mad.
But it was polite. s2art said:
Of course the Home Fleet would be deployed in the case of invasion. Thats what it is for!
How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It sank the Hood. I seem to remember it had some function in the Home Fleet.How is a Hipper Class ship going to take on the fleet? Bismark didnt fare well did it?
It also damaged the Rodney severely. That was the flagship of Force H and a Nelson Class battleship. I would call that faring pretty well all in all. Had not its steering been damaged it probably would have made it to Brest.
Mind you, Rodney did well as it was forced to go all the way to the USA for a refit which was a bit of a political move by the USA.
I thought that the purpose of the Home Fleet, and the Hood in particular, was to protect Atlantic convoys. But then, perhaps I'm wrong on that. But one thing I feel certain of is that Nelson Class battleships were not on their best ground in the English Channel.
The Home Fleet had several purposes, but the primary one would have been to stop an invasion if it occurred. Note that all the ships in Rosyth and Scapa Flow were on 6-24 hour notice to steam for the channel during this period. Not to mention all the sloops on the east coast
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow. The channces are that Stalin would not have been able to mobilze his huge resources of people, etc. due to the disruption of occupation. All IMO.
I think that unlikely Jim. Stalin had already moved all the industries east, out of the way of the invasion forces. What is more, the Germans were at their utter limits and the winter was closing in. They might have briefly taken Moscow, but what then? Would have made Stalingrad look like a tea party.s2art said:
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow. The channces are that Stalin would not have been able to mobilze his huge resources of people, etc. due to the disruption of occupation. All IMO.
I think that unlikely Jim. Stalin had already moved all the industries east, out of the way of the invasion forces. What is more, the Germans were at their utter limits and the winter was closing in. They might have briefly taken Moscow, but what then? Would have made Stalingrad look like a tea party.Hitler lost Barbarossa by getting obsessed by attacking a town over and over that he could have by passed.
Mikeyboy said:
s2art said:
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow. The channces are that Stalin would not have been able to mobilze his huge resources of people, etc. due to the disruption of occupation. All IMO.
I think that unlikely Jim. Stalin had already moved all the industries east, out of the way of the invasion forces. What is more, the Germans were at their utter limits and the winter was closing in. They might have briefly taken Moscow, but what then? Would have made Stalingrad look like a tea party.Hitler lost Barbarossa by getting obsessed by attacking a town over and over that he could have by passed.
s2art said:
Mikeyboy said:
s2art said:
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow. The channces are that Stalin would not have been able to mobilze his huge resources of people, etc. due to the disruption of occupation. All IMO.
I think that unlikely Jim. Stalin had already moved all the industries east, out of the way of the invasion forces. What is more, the Germans were at their utter limits and the winter was closing in. They might have briefly taken Moscow, but what then? Would have made Stalingrad look like a tea party.Hitler lost Barbarossa by getting obsessed by attacking a town over and over that he could have by passed.
That being said its hard to say how badly stretched German supplies would have finally been. The OKW were pretty good at working these things out so must have had a plan to get around that.
Mikeyboy said:
s2art said:
Mikeyboy said:
s2art said:
Jimbeaux said:
German forces were in site of Moscow when Hitler halted the march to divert forces. If he had continued, or not been fighting on the Western front, they would have taken Moscow. The channces are that Stalin would not have been able to mobilze his huge resources of people, etc. due to the disruption of occupation. All IMO.
I think that unlikely Jim. Stalin had already moved all the industries east, out of the way of the invasion forces. What is more, the Germans were at their utter limits and the winter was closing in. They might have briefly taken Moscow, but what then? Would have made Stalingrad look like a tea party.Hitler lost Barbarossa by getting obsessed by attacking a town over and over that he could have by passed.
That being said its hard to say how badly stretched German supplies would have finally been. The OKW were pretty good at working these things out so must have had a plan to get around that.
'A paper published by the U.S. Army's Combat Studies Institute in 1981 concluded that Hitler's plans miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather. He was so confident of quick victory that he did not prepare for even the chance of winter warfare in the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23% of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) in the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and material. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter."[95]
The German forces were unready to deal with harsh weather and the poor road network of the USSR. In autumn, terrain slowed the Wehrmacht's progress. Few roads were paved. The ground in the USSR was very loose sand in summer, sticky muck in autumn, and heavy snow in winter. German tanks had narrow treads with little traction and poor flotation in mud. In contrast, the new generation of Soviet tanks such as the T-34 and KV had wider tracks and were far more mobile in these conditions. The 600,000 large western European horses the Germans used for supply and artillery movement did not cope well with this weather. The smaller horses the Red Army used were much better adapted to the climate and could even scrape the icy ground with their hooves to dig up the weeds beneath.
German troops were mostly unprepared for the harsh weather changes in the autumn and winter of 1941. Equipment had been prepared for such winter conditions, but the severely overstrained transport network could not move it to the front. Consequently, the troops lacked adequate cold-weather gear, and some soldiers had to pack newspapers into their jackets to stay warm while temperatures dropped to below -30 °C (-22 °F). While at least some cold weather uniforms were available, they rarely reached the Eastern Front because Hitler ordered that supply lines give more priority to shipments of ammunition and fuel. To operate furnaces and heaters, the Germans also burned precious fuel that was in short supply. Soviet soldiers, in contrast, often had warm, quilted uniforms, felt-lined boots, and fur hats.
German weapons malfunctioned in the cold. Lubricating oils were unsuitable for these temperatures, leading to engine malfunction and misfiring weapons. To load shells into a tank’s main gun, frozen grease had to be chipped off with a knife. Soviet units faced less severe problems due to their experience with cold weather. Aircraft had insulating blankets to keep their engines warm while parked. Lighter-weight oil was used. German tanks and armored vehicles could not move due to a lack of antifreeze, causing fuel to solidify.
Due to the fact that few Russian roads were paved, when the rains and snow came in late October and early November, most of the main roads turned to mud and with a combination of longer supply lines, the German advanced stalled within sight of the spires of Moscow. The Soviet December 1941 counteroffensive led primarily by Siberian troops trained for harsh winter combat recently arriving from the east along with the numerous T-34 tanks held in reserve advanced up to 100 mi (160 km) in some sectors, showing that mobile warfare was still possible in the Russian winter.'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff