Could France have survived?

With respect I have reread the OP's original post, and it would seem that this thread incorporates both a Game question and a what if. Check post 14 from OP, he specificly asks for a 'real life' discussion on France's chances for survival.

 

I have played the GDW Europa series The Fall of France game and managed to get France to survive. Couldn't tell you how to do it in HOI 2 but, I bet it can be done unless the game is totally hosed.

 

¿¿?? In 1936 the Me 109, stuka and He 111 were just prototipes. There weren't any Mark III or IV. The production of the AA 88 just started...
The fighter of the LW was the Heinkel 51, an old fashioned biplane, the bombers were the Ju 52 the ju 86 with diesel engines .




In March 1936 Hitler gave an excellent excuse to start a war, or rather a punitive operation: The re-militarization of the Rhineland, the few troops who occupied the area arrived by bicycle. Later, the intervention in the Spanish Civil War with the infamous Condor Legion.

From Wiki:

The government in Paris had just fallen and caretaker government was in charge. In GB the Neville goverment didn't oppose the re-militarization of the Rhineland. They wanted a treaty with Hitler (naive)... And that was the way the Nazi threat became a reality and few years later millions of people lost their lives and properties. Well, I plagiarized this from Sir Winston Churchill.

 

I'm getting really confused here. If we want to discuss HOI tactics or historicity exclusively let's move the thread to the gaming section. But it would be a pity as the historical discussion is pretty interesting. I's not truly a "what if" either, more a "why/how did it happen" qurstion.
IIRC one reason the French didn't react in 1936 was that the military asked for a mobilization as they believed the standing army didn't have the strength required to intervene and the politicians balked at the idea.

 

Ah, thousands of little cardboard bits. brings back memories.

Agreed, as belasar pointed out, the OP asked about a real life POV, not just HOI. (and this is the "What If" section, not the gaming section.)

 

Maybe I didn't express so well ... I've never played the Game ... but if it has a minimun of accuracy with the actual history or its made to show something like that ... it must to have a so weak nazi Germany in 1936.

Obviously it's entertaiment vs accuracy with the actual history. If you could invade Germany in March 1936 the game would end in April 1936.

I guess in actual history both the French and the British lacked of a correct inteligence of their opponent.

Matter for a what if or pre-war thread?

 

Sometimes Game designers and amatuer history buffs , like myself, fall into the trap that something is impossible simply because it did not happen historicly. It did not happen, ergo it could not happen.

When you compare the German and Allied order of battle, they come out fairly equal. Yes Germany had better tactics, organization, and motovation. The Allies had excellent ground to defend and the much easier task of being on the defence. Germany had more aircraft, but the Allies had more tanks and artillery. The German tanks had better ergonomics, Allied tanks had better armor and guns. Men under arms were nearly identical.

If the Allies could survive the initial German attack, they possesed 3 distinct advantages over Germany. 1) Complete supremacy over the sea. 2) A combined economic and industrial superiority over Germany. 3) When the colonial empires are included, an overwhelming manpower reserve.

Yet Germany won a decisive victory in 1940 because they had an excellent plan, which the Allies did their level best to make a success. And because Germany exploited every advantage they possessed, while the Allies seemed determined to squander their own.

I have wargamed this out using War in Europe (the paper version) and it is doable there. Not easy to be sure, and only if you use different deployments of the available units. But doable

For France to survive the following are needed. None of them are unrealistic.

One) A rational command structure that could make decisions in real time. No "submarine without a periscope" as the World at War documentory put it.

Two) An adequate force to cover the Ardenne/Luxembourg area. Not the colonial and light reccon formations with inadequate anti-tank guns.

Three) A corps or larger sized armored reserve, deployed in the Sedan area, so that it can move forward, northeast, or southeast as the situation demands.

Four) A larger commitment from the RAF Fighter command. More Hurricanes and commit some Spitfires to redress the air imbalance. If Germany is stopped in France, no "Battle of Britain".

The "Dyle Plan" is feasable, IF you have a strong pivit point. The Germans saw the weakness in the Allied plans, there is no reason why the Allies could not see it as well except for willfull blindness. Indeed if you you could convice the German High Command that you Intended to make a fight of it in the Ardenne/Luxembourg area what are their options? Go ahead against a obviously prepared enemy in the center? Attack thru Holland and Belguim as in 1914? Or try to push a hole thru the Maginot Line?

None of these are enticing, and to succeed, would entail much higher casualties. And to the point, the harder it is for Germany to win, the more likely it is for France to survive in 1940.

 

One thing I have always wondered about is how would the Maginot forts fare against Stukas dropping 500Kg bombs vertically and 88mm guns firing direct, The German Rhine crossings of June 1940, where the French fortifications were literally smashed to bits by 88s firing over open sights across the river makes me doubt the (no doubt better protected but but how much better protected?) Maginot forts would have been decisive.

View attachment 12717

Belasar the biggest weakness was your point (one)
IMO the French did have two and three, 3 x DCR is a powerful reserve if used correctly and don't shortchange the colonials, they were tough troops, the weak units of 9th army were the "B" French reserve divisions.

The real weakness of the Dyle plan was it's timetable, the 9th army moved slowly as nobody in the French command expected the Germans to attempt a crossing before the 15th or 16th. Conventional wisdom said that was the minimum to bring up enough ammo and heavy arty to support an opposed crossing, but the Germams relied on the Luftwaffe instead. So it was cought still digging in by the crossing and once the Germans were across was not equipped or trained for a battle of manouver against large armoured formations. Possibly even just less aggressive German commanders than Rommel and Guderian would have made all the needed difference.

 

One of the main reasons France lost, is that the British and French commaders were preparing for a repeat of the static fighting of WW1. They even discovered the german plans; believing them to be right they set the troops out so the ardennes (heavy forested area) which was thought impassable was left virtually unguarded.

However, hitler had other plans he decided to take the risk and he sent the majority of his men and panzers through the ardennes and flanked the British and French troops.

If they had more modern commanders then they could of won or at least not been overrun.

 

As I understood it the Maginot Forts were not intended to completely stop any German attack, but to so weaken it that any breakthru units could dealt with by reserves counter attacking. I suspect that if Germany was willing to accept the losses, they could punch a hole thru the line. I have done this in World at War, but even when successfull ( about 1/3 the time) the losses in Infantry is so high as to leave Germany too weak to contemplate much in 1941. The hitch is can they retain enough force to exploit it. And it would be playing into French plans.

I agree the hardest part is point one, which is why I listed it first. It was shear stupidity not to employ modern communications in Gamelin's HQ. Army's could promote thru the ranks when properly motivated ie; Marshall & Eisenhower. So sticking with Gamelin was a choice not an absolute.

I do not dispute the toughness of the French colonial soldier, but they as well as the other French and Belgian units deployed in the Ardenne/Luxembourg area were equipped as 2nd or 3rd class divisions. It really does not matter how brave you are if you lack the weapons to stop tanks.

 

The role of fortifications is to reduce the defender's losses and channel the attack so that counterattacks can be effective, but to do that they must be able to withstand against the "normal" weapons the enemy is likely to have, it the forts guns get knocked out too easily they contribute very little and may actually become traps for the garrison like Eben Emael. In open ground it proved relatively easy to move an 88 undetected to a position where it could engage the fortifications, the fort has better protection but the mobile gun will most likely get the first shot and if first shot is likely to penetrate that's it. To stop an 88 round at 400 meters you need a lot of steel or concrete.

IMO the French had at least one weapon in abundance capable of easily stopping any 1940 German tank, the 75mm M1897 gun. What they lacked was the training and experience to use them effectively.

 

I disagree with you , the 75mm M1897 had a slow muzzle velocity. But it was the main ani tank gun. The 47 SA 37 (47 mm) was relatively rare at the time of the Battle of France. (something like the Moranes and Dewoitines)

Old weapons, old tactics, bad morale...and a little BEF, made IMHO almost impossible to stop the panzer divisions in 1940. Even thouse panzer divisions were plemty of Czech tanks

See: The True Strategy of Blitzkrieg

 

I thought the Germans did attack some of the Maginot line and met with little success in doing so.

 

Or if they had about 2 - 3 divisions of mobile forces as reserve, that could have been used to stop & contain the breakthrough. A British Armoured division and a pair of French Mechanized divisions would have done the trick.

 

There were quite heavy fights , both in May as a diversion, and in June because the Germans thought they could break through, but the Germans had little success only and some bunkers were taken , partly because they ran out of amno, but others were never taken by force and resisted until the Armistice ordered the men to cease fire.

If you ever have a chance to visit the line relics, you will notice some heavy shell impacts at several place, showing that the Germans attempted to take these bullworks.

After June 15th the Italians added an additional stab in the back by attacking the Alp front, but the French alpine troops drove them back easily, and without the Armistice Mussolini would have faced another humiliation. The Germans feared that the Italian claims would make the Armistice conditions fail, so Hitler took a first role at Montoire

 

The French 75 proved more than capable of demolishing any German tank of the 1940 period. Even common (heavy wall HE) shell would smash one. In fact, the Germans rounded up a bunch as a stop gap for use in Russia when their own 3.7cm PAK proved ineffective and the 5cm wasn't available in quantity. This gun was the 7.5cm Pak 97/38.

 

The Germans used captured 75 M1897 in the east against T-34s to supplement their own anti tank gun production and the French used them successfully against the up armoured panzers at Bir Hakeim. And let's not forget the Grant's M2 and Sherman's M3 have a lot of the M1897 in them, AFAIK they shared it's 75x350R ammo.
M1897 36 calibers 500 m/s for a 7.25Kg shell (HE) I immagine AP to be in the 600 m/s range but can't find a source right now.
M2 31 calibers 588 m/s for a 6.32Kg shell (AP)
M3 38.5 calibers 619 m/s for a 6.32Kg shell (AP)

There were 3 DCR Division Cuirassè de Reserve with around 150 tanks each, including the formidable (for 1940) B2bis, as part of the reserves available, they were committed piecemeal due to bad C3i and failed to stop the Panzers. The British armoured brigade, with the even more formidable Matilda, and De Gaule's 4th DCR, didn't do much better, despite the propaganda, as their attack was unsupported and badly coordinated (C3i again). The British 1st armoured division arrived too late for the critical battles.

AFAIK no main forts of the Maginot were lost but the smaller fortifications proved a lot more vulnerable to direct fire than the French expected, they were designed with 150mm indirect fire in mind and high velocity 88mm was a nasty surprise. The picures I posted are from operation Kleiner Bar against the fortifications covering the Rhine in front of Colmar.

 

Hi Tired, I heard about the captured guns at Bir Hakeim. From what I read in the First Armored Division Historical book published in 1948 , they started the Battle with one Gun only , then captured more and used them against the Axis forces.

 

7.5cm Pak 97/38 was a combination of the barrel from the French Canon de 75 modèle 1897 and the carriage of the German PaK 38 That gun was a desperate improvisation against the formidable T34...... Muzzle velocity:570 m/s .

"The gun was primarily intended to use HEAT shells as the armor penetration of this type of ammunition doesn't depend on velocity."

I assumed the high level of this forum (It´s impressive) ...I knew about the 75 mm 97/38 flak you posted. The idea is: low muzzle velocity implies low accuracy (precision?) low possibilites to hit a tank in movement.

And poor tactics, we are posting about the 75 M1897, : frontage rather than lateral deployment of the guns,not in depth defense ... poor or non-existent air support ... More, could the 75 mm guns survive the close fire of the german 88?

The politicians failed to stop (and hang him high) Adolph Hitler in 1936-1937 that´s all.

And a question: Do you know any case of a Panzer destroyed by an english or french tank between may - june 1940? I heard this case doesn't exist. (Well, the guy that said it to me was a "capitán de corbeta" (young naval officer) so I don´t relay so much on him).

 

Your friend should read a little more good sources !

The Germans lost plenty of tanks in tank combat in 1940. To quote a few episodes the Somua equipped 3 DLM covering the advance in Belgium gave as good as they got at Gembloux against two Panzer divisions. At Stonne, possibly the most balanced fight of the campaign pitting regiment Grossdeutchland (actually brigade size) and 10th panzer division against 3DIM (Mot. Inf division) and 3DCR (Armoured division) , a single B2bis l'Eure destroyed a column of Pz IV, Pz II and 4.7 Panzerjaegers cought on in road column without the chance to manouver round the heavily armoured French vehicle. The village changed hands a number of times as both sides counterattacked in turn.

View attachment 12730

Panzer wrecks at Stonne.


In 1940 the 75mm were not officially AT/weapons but artillery, they were used as A/T in the second phase of the campaign. Had they been used as such initially they could have made good the shortages of 47 and 25mm A/T guns and the German tanks would have had a lot more problems. Many were destroyed by the Luftwaffe while attempting to get into position or abandoned when outflanked and unable to retreat, towed guns need good tactics to survive a mobile battle.

A direct confrontation between an 88 and an M1897 makes little sense, both were defensive weapons. For what it's worth my money is on the French, the 75 was a lot easier to camouflage and as neither weapon had any protection for the crew against the other's fire, gunshields will not stop mediun caliber shells, who got the first shot will win.

Tanks are not aircraft, muzzle velocity is important tank combat mostly because it provides kinetic energy/penetration power, or at long engagement ranges, a shorter flight time, a tank is not going to travel very far in a few seconds but it may be able to fire! The marginally better precision of long barreled guns is secondary, precision is mostly a matter of fire control not barrel.