Do you think if French was able to improve their battle strategies and was able to hold off Germany, that D-Day could have been prevented, and more lives would have been saved?

__________________
And when he get\'s to Heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell,
"Reporting for duty sir,
I've served my time in Hell,"
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assult

No way... The French and the British were fighting a different war to the Germans. Blitzktreig was vaunted by a famous British military planner, and no one listened. Only the Germans
sapper

Do you mean if the French had implemented a better strategy when Germany invaded in 1940?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Ya, I mean, France had it. Their army was very strong, except their battle plan stank. What they did wrong was take all their tanks and just fill in the gaps of their infantry. If they had made resistance groups to fend off Germany and had an equal amount of infantry men to each tank they could have saved it. They just had a long, thin, line of an army that was spread out.

__________________
And when he get\'s to Heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell,
"Reporting for duty sir,
I've served my time in Hell,"
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assult

The situation was more complex than just having a strong Army.

The French leadership - both political and military - was morally weaker and less focussed than that of Germany.

And the Armee de l'Air was pathetic. There were a huge number of different types of aircraft with little standardization of engines or parts. Some of the aircraft were very good indeed - many were laughably outdated and some were quite bizarre. This situation had arisen because between the wars every French aircraft manufacturer who, shall we say, 'looked after' the relevant Government official secured an order for a few of his aircraft - good or bad. The resulting mish-mash was not a match for the Luftwaffe.

These comments are in no way meant as a slur on the courage of the average poilu or pilot. They were not well served by their leaders.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Martin has indeed very, very good points.

Political and military leadership in France was awful and général Gamelin's hesitation contributed a lot to French defeat.

But with a better strategy and better leadership —which was there, because France's officer corps was good— and a stronger government which could have improved France's mobilisation and rearming programmes.

In November 1939 France was manufacturing 3 miserable planes a month. With such inferior tactics and weaponry, there wasn't much brave French pilots could do against the Luftwaffe. And in 1940, the war in the air was one of the critical and most decisive factors of the campaign.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Had the French used their tanks more wisely, I do think that they would have given the Germans a good bloody nose. Enough to warrant them withdrawing behind their borders since they really were not prepared for a lengthy war. Along with the British, they outnumbered the Germans in tanks. So D-Day may have been avoided.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Panzer,
Agreed. When the British counter-attacked at Arras, they caught the Germans completely on the hop.
As it was, they nearly turned the battle. How much more could they have achieved with more French tanks as well as their own?

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

Agreed. Now was it not Rommel's 7th panzer that took the brunt of that attack or was it Guderian?

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Think it was Rommel, but don't quote me!

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

Ya, you're right. It was rommel's Panzer division. They encircled the Ally Army at Dunkirk.

__________________
And when he get\'s to Heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell,
"Reporting for duty sir,
I've served my time in Hell,"
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assult

Now, D-Day was a horrific battle. Which of the 4 beaches, (I believe might be 5, but I'm pretty sure it's 4) do you think saw the heaviest resistance from the Germans?

__________________
And when he get\'s to Heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell,
"Reporting for duty sir,
I've served my time in Hell,"
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assult

The attack as Arras was where panic was caused by the French armour attack and shows how vulnerable the blitzkrieg was against a well organized and fluid defense.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

The effects of the British armoured counterattack at Arras were amazingly weird, because they had a deep strategic impact even if were a complete tactical blunder.

The counterattack was everything an armoured counterattack must not be: lack of adequate planning, communication, poorly leaded attacks, etc. And it hit a very well-prepared, well-leaded and far superior unit: major general Rommel's 7th armoured division.

But this counterattack —along with DeGaulle's against Guderian's XIX armoured corps— made the German High Command to fear for the exposed left flank. Conservative generals like colonel general Von Rundstedt overrated the capacity of the Allies to perform and succeed in such counterattacks; thus affecting Von Rundstedt and Hitler's view at the time of deciding whether to release the tanks at Dunkirk or not.

I don't think any of those counterattacks could have changed anything. Even if well-performed and launched at the same time.

More tanks were not needed, they just needed to be concentrated in armoured units and to be used with radically different tactics. This could have allowed the French to launch effective counterattacks against the Meuse bridgeheads and the German flanks.

Beaches, from West to East:

</font>

• Utah (USA)</font>
• Omaha (USA)</font>
• Gold (Great Britain)</font>
• Juno (Canada)</font>
• Sword (Great Britain)</font>

And it was Omaha the one which had best defences, best defensive terrain and a veteran and experienced German division defending the ground —352nd infantry division. That's why it took so many casualties —2.500 KIAs?

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

There is a saying 'most generals are prepared to win?the last war.' France win last war Germany lost. So, why change the winning strategy, let's built the Great French Wall and we will be safe. Compare amount of spending for building and maintaining the Maginot Line with German?s military budget.
On the contrary in German, the generals lost the war, so they were replaced by younger officers. But who would dare to sent the Great War Hero ? Petain to a retirement?
I would never perceived the French officers as stupid. They definitely weren?t but they win last war. They were sure the next one would look just same.
However they should have known about Schleiffen's plan, and about the fact Germans would do it again. I wonder why they didn't built the Maginot Line from the sea to the sea?

Seeing as how there’s a current theme of hitting nails on the head, despite the defences at Omaha was as you say Freddy, I’ve yet to meet a Veteran who was at D-Day that hasn’t voiced the opinion the reason why the casualties were so heavy is because they wouldn’t get off the beach!

Does this mean that beach landings are about running into fire?………yes.

No.9

Freddie,
Agreed. Maybe their shambolic nature was the very reason for the Arras attacks initial success.

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

I always thought the reason France did'nt go sea to sea with the Marginot line was 1;money 2;the Ardennes forest considered a natural barrier[no tanks can get through that].The Germans were able to crack open some of those "impregnable" bunkers,too.It was only a matter of time anyway.Then the "seige artillery" would be brought up.As the Russians would find out later at Sevastpol.How about this "what if"and it's only a thought.Since we[allies] were already half way up Italy at the time and we knew about the Atlantic wall,why did'nt we just invade there?No real fixed fortifications there.Mountains?No air fields?Italy after all was Germany's "soft spot".Just a thought!

__________________

Do you mean through south-eastern France?

Regards,
Gordon

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

Two very important reasons are behind this:

First, France's defence budget was not enough to extend the fortifications to the Channel. It could have cost maybe twice as more as the actual 'Maginot Line'. Not to mention terrain difficulties.

Second, fortifying the Franco-Belgian border would have been an extremely hostile act against Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg, because by doing that France "would have neglected her Allies".

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Thirdly, the Belgians had their own formidable defence line, which the Germans first tackled with a first class glider assault!

Interesting site at:
http://www.wwiitechpubs.info/bunker/...tions-ftr.html

No.9

framert, the plan to clear Italy and continue to Vienna and into Germany that route was Churchill’s proposal. This was also to have the effect of limiting the Soviet incursion into Europe and leave Germany nervous to the extent of paranoia about a further cross Channel invasion or through Norway. i.e. They would be fighting the Soviets in the east, a second front in the south, while having to maintain defence on the west and north west which might be attacked at any time.

However, US wanted to invade from the west.

No.9

*bump*

__________________
And when he get\'s to Heaven
To Saint Peter he will tell,
"Reporting for duty sir,
I've served my time in Hell,"
- Medal of Honor: Allied Assult

Hi,
I think that one of the questions was, Do you think that it would of saved lives? My own personnel thought on this is 'No' I think that it would of cost a lot more British lives as it would of eneded up as trench warfare again and everyone knows that the cost in lives of the Great War was way too many and for nothing. The war might not of taken so long to be over as none of the countries involved could afford the loss of so many men again. I don't know the actual figures for casualities on 'D Day' but i think that it is a lot