I'm not convinced that after fighting their way through the advancing germans the remainder of 7 divisions (plus 3 divisions worth of labourers) would have been able to make a meaningful difference - losses in such a manouvre would likely have been very high given the relative inflexibility and lack of experience of the BEF. If the French 7th Army had been kept in its original strategic reserve role instead of being sent up to the north that would likely have been more significant. The two together might have been enough to tip the scales, but honestly I think the Allied approach of a forward defence was too flawed and the Allied armies too sluggish to hold the Germans. More forces in the south would probably have slowed the Germans and cost them more casualties, but I don't think it could have stopped them.

For an army of 3 million committed to an all-out offensive, losing under 500 men a day doesn't seem too bad, especially as most of them were wounded and might recuperate. The allies were certainly losing a lot more, so the arithmetic seems to favour the germans all the way.

Bonedome:I think you forgot a zero ,the German losses were 32000 ! a week ;sadly enough we have no loss figures for the allies after Fall Gelb and no material loss figures ,but Frieser in "the blitzkrieglegend" gives for divisions 120 for France and the UK and 120 for Germany in may 1940;a great superiority for France and the UK in artillery,tanks and aircraft .The allies could have be reinforcedby the 2nd BEF ,the RAF,the French were producing more aircraft and there were deliveries from the USA .I think the Germans would have a hell of a job with heavy fighting to defeat an united French and British army;thy could not do it in WWI ,Ludendorf tried to separate them with his spring offensives in 1918( Michael,....) and in fact ,the aim of the result of Sichelschnitt was the same. But if Sichelscnitt failed in that way ?

Yes. If anything, the Allies were too hasty racing so far up into Belgium. The safer thing to do would have been to assemble a large mobile reserve and hold it back.

This strategy risks losing most of Belgium but allows the French to fight close to their own soil, with easy movement, communication, and close to their airbases. Meanwhile the Germans are feeding troops through the Ardennes, struggling to reinforce their spearheads across rivers, and vulnerable to counterattack. The crappy reliability of their vehicles will also show over time, and they'll be flying from makeshift airfields.

And all the bridges should be blown.

The British would have stayed either way, in Belgium or northern France. They wanted to fight.

__________________
Sole founder of Encyc.org, now covering World War II.

Another point:the longer there was fighting in Fall Rot,the greater the risk for the Germans that France would continue the war in Nort Africa :evacuation of the government and as much as possibly men and material . Also the French Navy fighting with the RN and the French starting an offensive against the Italians ;giving the bad performance of the Italian Army, one can be certain of the issue.

France, I could not see as survivng intact. She could not survive with Britains aid in the first place. A country the size of german military v's france military,you can not compare the two,Hence the English had a bigger armie than france did and sufferd from the german forces.
Did the french really caused Hitler trouble? Going by the O/Poster,he's last sentence states that with out french forces,hitler would have been free to invade USSR without being harrassed by the french.

Hmmm!The French mobilises in september 1939 6.1million men;British army:870OOO

Equipment??? What did France have,compared to Britian & Germany?

Hum:Artillery:10700 for France;UK:128O ;Germany:7378 Tanks:France:4111 ;UK :640 ;Germany:2439 Aircraft :France:3100(in France) ;UK :500(in France) ;Germany:3578

I may not know too much, but this does not make any sence at all. You claim France had just as equal army as Britain & Germany,yet when France joined Britain,France was beaten in 6 months.
With the military you have gaven France and France being suported by Britain,should France had never fallen in the first place?

you cant win wars being just deffensive,and thats what the french were.i reckon the french were not only looking back to ww1,but also the franco-prussian war too.with this in mind,i think they could not survive,they imo were a bit scared..not the soldiers,the old generals.

__________________
"I must have been keen on her,I took her to see INDIA...AT THE OVAL.". thankyou all,4th wilts.

A good source is "the blitzkrieg legend" (for a military point of view) :there are other reasons:bad moral,defaitism,bad strategy,inept commander,no allies after Dunkirk....;look also on something about the third republic (2 governments a year )

France did have a large army with superior tanks overall. The deficiency was in leadership, organization and morale. The generals were hedging their bets on the Maginot line. Tanks were organized as they were in WWI serving primarily as infantry support. Furthermore, a key element credited to the Germans success was that of the FM radios in each tank whereas the French communicated via flags. Morale, it did not seem that the French wanted to fight at all.

So the size of the army does not matter.

__________________

It sounds like the french let down the Allies? This is news too me,I have always thought French had poor equipment like the Polish had. Should the thread question be,could the French beaten the german military in 1939?

As for you're statment 'it did not seem that the French wanted to fight at all' there has to be a reason for this. The french may not thought it was not worth fighting against Germany & Russia at the same time,just too powerful for france military to win the battle.

As for the o/p request: I don't think france could have survived,not with russia & germany at the same time,as for the french leadership which the poster above stated france had alot agianst her (prove-the german leadership,Hitler)

France did not let down the allies. All of the allied countries shared the blame. With proper strategy, The allies could have fended off the Germans. Of Germany's 2600+ tanks, only a small percentage were the pzkfw III/IVs.

Check these out:
Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1940 : The Battle of France || kuro5hin.org

__________________

I posted a section from a fellow named James Quinn, which seems to fit in here as well.

Goto:

After using search,...

and give his work a read.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

There were only 2 allies in 1939 and after Dunkirk,many French felt let down by the British(rightfully or wrongfully )

France could not have survived without some Napolean coming along. The socialists, communists, and republicans (like today) shared the government. The Maginot line was intended to keep the germans out but political necessity of not wanting to antagonize their "good" socialist friends in the Nederlands stopped the Maginot line short of their mutual borders. And yes, the germans successfully assaulted and breached 1-2 sections of the Maginot Line. Once you welded the 75mm and MG cupolas with shaped charges, who cared about the 400,000 troops living underground. They couldn't affect ground operations above.
When I played HOI2 the only strategy to keep the French in the game was to build industry and such in North Africa and rescue some of the better military units. Bide your time. France and Italy have about the same amount of resources and chance of winning this game. The only winnning strategy was to build 200 divisions and attack germany in 1939. Overrun the germans! I am still getting used to the new game....not sure if I like yet.

Very true, although when one compares the German casualty figures following Dunkirk, versus before, one soon sees that the French Army fought incredibly hard, with the fiercesome pride, expertise and old WWI elan in the final weeks of the campaign. They caused the attacking Germans some real concern and high casualties with their "hedge hog, strong point defenses" along the Somme River Line until Rommel finally broke out and pushed south into metropolitan France. Alas for the French, it was a matter of "too little, too late."

I am quite young and although I love history, I will in fact be starting a degree in history this fall, i have not studied this very much. The Blitzkrieg doctrine the Germans use is quite amazing. They completely overwhelmed their opposition. It was brilliant. It seems to me that most of the world still wanted to follow the WWI doctrines of digging in and sitting around. The Germans used this to their advantage and just mowed right over the enemy. Of course this is a quick observation with not much study. As I said, I have not studyied it too deeply. I think, however, that I could help in the game.
I have played the game Hearts of Iron 2 and I once managed to stop the Germans advance into France, of course this is only the game and i had a beforehand knowledge of the Blitzkrieg the Germans would use. This was only managed however by gathering nearly the entire British Army out of Great Britian to bulk up my front lines. I would not suggest extending the Maginot Line, in the game it takes too long and takes too much effort away from building up forces that could stop the invasion. In the game, if you match div. for div. on the maginot line and move most of your forces north into the low countries, of course to do that you must ally yourself with them, then you could stop the German assult and possibly begin your own offensive. Also, when the German forces are preoccupied with Poland, that may be the best time to break out. Of course, its the breaking out part thats hard isnt it lol?
I am no expert but I do love history and I do love the game. From what I know from high school, the French were highly outmatched and stood little chance because of their military doctrines, their reliance on the Maginot line, and superior German forces and advancements. I personally do not believe the French stood much of a chance in surviving.

__________________
"In a man to man fight, the winner is the one who puts an extra round in his magazine."
-Field Marshal Erwin Rommel-

The thing about Blitzkreig, is that it only works when your opponent is not ready for you. Consider the Battle of the Bulge. Initial success followed by defeat.

Could the French have overcome their initial stupidity, and like the Soviets, trade land for time as they got their act together?

__________________
"I love deadlines. I love the 'Whooshing' noise they make when they go by." - Doug Adams

Hm,the Sovjets did not trade land for time (what the Germans feared initially ),from the first day they tried to drive back the Germans and fought offensively

Of course they did, but even Stalin admitted they traded land for time, and then attacked with concentrated forces. They needed time to build up the armies, weapons, and bleed the Germans.

__________________
"I love deadlines. I love the 'Whooshing' noise they make when they go by." - Doug Adams

Do you know of their strategy of Defense in Depth?

__________________
-Dustin

"Zey send zer hounds! zey to vill find only death!"

I don't think the Battle of the Bulge serves as a good example. First of all, the Allies weren't exactly expecting or ready for an attack in that area. Second, the attack was seriously hindered by a lack of supplies and the proper equipment needed for a proper blitzkrieg offensive.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

Their mobilisation started on june 22 (the reason why Barbarossa failed,the Germans were thinking that they could only have mobilised after 10 weeks ,as in 1914, )and they send till september 250000 men average to the front,from the first week on .