French military advisors in Poland

WI French military advisors noticed the new German tatics and how well they worked. The French army takes it seriously and starts forming armor units in Oct of 1939 and starts training them in the new tatics starting in Mar 1940. Can the French now slow down the Nazis enough to avoid losing in just 6 weeks?
 
I think the French can slow it down a bit now. Although they have not nearly enough training at least their armor is concentrated instead spread all over. French tanks had some advantages over the German ones having bigger guns and thicker armor. Their problem was in speed. However that might not mean too much if you have a half a dozen or so of them guarding important road and rail junctions. The Nazis would either have to fight it out there where they are at a disadvantage or make a longer trip by bypassing it. Either way takes time.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Len Deighton writing in Blitzkreig points out several times that the French tanks were superior to the Germans and outnumbered them as well. The book points out that in its purest form blitzkreig was only used and succeeded once, that being in France in 1940 (the Polish experience had some components of BK but was more a conventional war of the time against a very outclassed and outnumbered enemy). That success was due to a great number of factors fortuitously coming together. BK was, by Deighton's impression, a somewhat easily stoppable thing if properly countered.

OTOH one of the factors that made the German army so formidable was its very well trained leadership. The Versailles Treaty had limited the German Army to 100,000 men and this was enforced until after Hitler came to power. Far from making the Army weak, however, it gave it the esprit de corps only achievable in a small cadre that sees themselves as a persecuted minority. The German officer corps was probably the best trained and most highly disciplined in the world by 1940 and the French would need years to catch up in this aspect.
 
Last edited:
NapoleonXIV said:
Len Deighton writing in Blitzkreig points out several times that the French tanks were superior to the Germans and outnumbered them as well. The book points out that in its purest form blitzkreig was only used and succeeded once, that being in France in 1940 (the Polish experience had some components of BK but was more a conventional war of the time against a very outclassed and outnumbered enemy). That success was due to a great number of factors fortuitously coming together. BK was, by Deighton's impression, a somewhat easily stoppable thing if properly countered.

OTOH one of the factors that made the German army so formidable was its very well trained leadership. The Versailles Treaty had limited the German Army to 100,000 men and this was enforced until after Hitler came to power. Far from making the Army weak, however, it gave it the esprit de corps only achievable in a small cadre that sees themselves as a persecuted minority. The German officer corps was probably the best trained and most highly disciplined in the world by 1940 and the French would need years to catch up in this aspect.

True, but I was talking about slowing it down not stopping it. Have it take the Nazis 9 weeks instead 6 and increase their casualties by at least 2/3.
 
It would slow the Germans for a day and then they would envelop the concentration of armour and crush the french army. The Germans doctrine of manuvere warfare was far more advanced then the atrition doctrine that the French were governend. The French armour would be concentrated in northern france but once the German command realises this they would simply move around the concentrated french forces. And remember the French were notoriouse for their poor communication and manuverability. It takes three weeks to take Paris with much higher French casualities.
 
LDoc said:
It would slow the Germans for a day and then they would envelop the concentration of armour and crush the french army. The Germans doctrine of manuvere warfare was far more advanced then the atrition doctrine that the French were governend. The French armour would be concentrated in northern france but once the German command realises this they would simply move around the concentrated french forces. And remember the French were notoriouse for their poor communication and manuverability. It takes three weeks to take Paris with much higher French casualities.


But would it? What if the French put their new armored brigades into areas that the Germans MUST take if they want to go through France quickly. They don't have concentrate ALL their armor in one spot. They can have the armored brigades and divisions spread out a bit. If the Germans have to fight an armored brigade every time it wants to take a bridge or a road junction they will be slowed down.
 
Given the usual rate that a military bureacracy adapts to change (really slow) I don't see the French army being able to make an changes in its military thinking. Too much is already tied up in the Maginot Line. The advisors that had witnessed Germany's attack on Poland would have filed their reports and it would take months for the Officer Corps to disgest the implications. I agree they will slow down the German advance into France, but I doubt they will lengthen the Battle of France more than by a few hours.
 
David S Poepoe said:
Given the usual rate that a military bureacracy adapts to change (really slow) I don't see the French army being able to make an changes in its military thinking. Too much is already tied up in the Maginot Line. The advisors that had witnessed Germany's attack on Poland would have filed their reports and it would take months for the Officer Corps to disgest the implications. I agree they will slow down the German advance into France, but I doubt they will lengthen the Battle of France more than by a few hours.


I am pretty sure France did have military advisors or at least observers in Poland 1939. The point of departure is that they take it seriously and act on it quickly. Somehow the general staff is spooked enough to move much quicker then OTL. When there is a war on even the beurocracy can move fairly quickly at times such as the US did about aircraft carriers after Pearl Harbor.
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Brilliantlight said:
True, but I was talking about slowing it down not stopping it. Have it take the Nazis 9 weeks instead 6 and increase their casualties by at least 2/3.
Deighton and others seem to suggest that if Blitzkreig didn't work fast it might not work at all.

If you just slow it down and have it take more German casualties how does this change things much? If you stop it then we may enter the type of postional war the French were prepared to fight.
 
Ultimately it shouldn't make much difference. These divisions will only survive as long as the French let them. The only option that would make sense would be to hold these divisions in reserve for some kind of counter-offensive; and by the stage were such a counter offensive would be needed, the Luftwaffe would have such complete dominance of the air that the divisions would simply be stuck. If anything, this POD could increase the speed of French capitualtion, as it will necessitate striping infantry divisions of the armour they needed for local counter-attacks against German bridgeheads. This in turn could lead to a quicker German advance and a more disastrous Dunkirk.
 
Brilliantlight said:
I am pretty sure France did have military advisors or at least observers in Poland 1939. The point of departure is that they take it seriously and act on it quickly. Somehow the general staff is spooked enough to move much quicker then OTL. When there is a war on even the beurocracy can move fairly quickly at times such as the US did about aircraft carriers after Pearl Harbor.

The US did what they did with the aircraft carriers since that was all that they had left AFTER the attack. They also had the submarine fleet. Besides, the French had the Maginot Line which, they are pretty much tied to. Revamping doctrine takes months to figure out before it can be implimented service wide.
 
David S Poepoe said:
The US did what they did with the aircraft carriers since that was all that they had left AFTER the attack. They also had the submarine fleet. Besides, the French had the Maginot Line which, they are pretty much tied to. Revamping doctrine takes months to figure out before it can be implimented service wide.

The battleships at Pearl yes but that wasn't the entire navy. There was the entire Atlantic fleet and whatever was in San Diego or PSNS as well.
 
Giving the French better armored doctrine in 1940 would be easy; just have GQG listen to DeGaulle (according to DeGaulle anyway)! But doctrine alone wouldn't have been enough. French tank design was deeply flawed. True, the Somua 35 and Char B1 bis were better than anything the Germans had, but they (and all French tanks) shared fatal flaws. For one thing, a one-man turret. The French tank commander had to be his own gunner and loader! Also only the command tank in each company had radio; communication within the company was by hand signals and semaphore. French tank commanders had too much to do to take anvantage of better tactics and doctrine.
Slightely higher casualties for the Panzer Korps, but France still goes down just as quickly as in OTL.
 
MK5 said:
Giving the French better armored doctrine in 1940 would be easy; just have GQG listen to DeGaulle (according to DeGaulle anyway)! But doctrine alone wouldn't have been enough. French tank design was deeply flawed. True, the Somua 35 and Char B1 bis were better than anything the Germans had, but they (and all French tanks) shared fatal flaws. For one thing, a one-man turret. The French tank commander had to be his own gunner and loader! Also only the command tank in each company had radio; communication within the company was by hand signals and semaphore. French tank commanders had too much to do to take anvantage of better tactics and doctrine.
Slightely higher casualties for the Panzer Korps, but France still goes down just as quickly as in OTL.

I think they still will go down but not as quickly. The Nazis will no longer have the advantage of have 4 or 5 of their tanks going against one French one.
 
Brilliantlight said:
I think they still will go down but not as quickly. The Nazis will no longer have the advantage of have 4 or 5 of their tanks going against one French one.


You may be right. It depends on how skillfully the new French DCR's and DLM's were handled. With proper leadership they could at least have mauled the Germans and slowed them down. Maybe the campaign would've lasted into midsummer?
I like the French (in 1940 anyway), and I'd love an ATL where they shut down the Blitzkreig. But their problems were too great to be solved by one quick fix. Better tank doctrine would really help, but they'de also need tank radios, no one-man tank turrets, better interservice cooperation, etc. Then reshuffle the Armee de L'Air the same way you did the tank forces; phase out the obsolete types, step up production of the D520, MB151 and LeO451. Improve moral on the home front, make the govermnment more stable during the inter-war years..
Wheres the ASB's when you need 'em?
 
If, having seen how effective the panzers were in Poland, the French react accordingly, they could cause genuine harm to the Nazis.

For instance, having seen the performence, the French decide to change their agenda. While unable to dramatically expand the production of tanks, they do have a substantial number already available. Every corps in the French army is ordered to concentrate their tanks into a single brigade unit, which will have about 6-7 months of training together prior to the German invasion.

Note, I am uncertain as the breakdown of tanks and their number in 1939 France, so this may be too few or too many.

In the actual invasion Germany saw half of it's tanks either destroyed or knocked out due to damage, wear and tear from use, or gasoline shortages, so the panzers were not completely invincible. In fact, the German officers nightmare was a successful breakthrough, followed by an allied counterstrike which isolated the panzers from the following infantry. This is why the small and short-lived counter attack by De Gaulle in the south and the British 1st tank brigade in the north caused such concern.

In this case, two or three French armored brigades are in the path of the German assault, enjoying their intrinsic advantages(armor and such) as well as the defender's advantage. The Germans are held back another week, losing about 10% of their panzers in the process. The campaign otherwise proceeds as in reality, except that the French have more time to plan and bring forward reservists and possibly units in the Maginot line. More importantly, other armored brigades exist and are used to provide a crude armored corps to De Gaulle, and the nearly 100 fighters purchased in the US and on the carrier Bearn also make it to France. The counter attack, now stronger and with some air support, links up with the BEF and other units up north!

The Germans smash forward with their infantry(the bulk) and manage to restore contact, but this effort, the costs thereof, and the need to regroup and resupply is costly. In effect, Germany losses in manpower are already 2-3 times what was lost in reality(120 to 150 thousand), and a shocking report mentions that half of German tanks are destroyed, and that almost all the remainder were broken down, knocked out, or low on fuel at some point.
Ultimately France does fall, with the British taking heavier losses in the campaign and ultimate evacuation of Dunkirk, but the renewed German dependency on infantry means the BEF's escape is never in such great doubt. In addition, the fall of France is further delayed by the fact that French confidence never dropped as low, not to mention the remaining tanks still standing together.

Perhaps some heroic counter attack or final stand by a French tank unit?

All told, France falls about September of 1940.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSSIBLE RESULTS:

England: Much more confident, as they have all construction through September 1940 for the military, and for defenses. No Sea Lion possible until spring. British can act with greater confidence elsewhere.

Do they send sufficient forces to O'Conner to take Italian North Africa or does an Africa Korps arrive early to salvage something?

Capture of French colonies, such as Dakar, which would provide Free France with an excellant base and several cruisers, plus an unfinished battleship. In reality the attack here came so close to success that any new strength would guarantee a victory.

Germany: Higher losses, less arrogance, and a wonderful excuse to hasten production of new and better tanks. Hmm, they might actually be more dangerous soon. Does Hitler act in the Med, or does he still focus on the East?

France: Still conquered, but put up a better show. Does this mean a larger Free France, perhaps entering 1941 with 4-6 infantry brigades, several colonies, and a navy up to several cruisers? Does the government withdraw to North Africa, helping crush Italian North Africa and battling for Corsica?
 
MK5 said:
You may be right. It depends on how skillfully the new French DCR's and DLM's were handled. With proper leadership they could at least have mauled the Germans and slowed them down. Maybe the campaign would've lasted into midsummer?
I like the French (in 1940 anyway), and I'd love an ATL where they shut down the Blitzkreig. But their problems were too great to be solved by one quick fix. Better tank doctrine would really help, but they'de also need tank radios, no one-man tank turrets, better interservice cooperation, etc. Then reshuffle the Armee de L'Air the same way you did the tank forces; phase out the obsolete types, step up production of the D520, MB151 and LeO451. Improve moral on the home front, make the govermnment more stable during the inter-war years..
Wheres the ASB's when you need 'em?

I don't think any realistic scenario can stop them but it may slow it down quite a bit. Have the French hold out for double the amount of time. It is even possible that would boost morale enough that it would force the Germans to fight for all of France instead of having France give up half the country without a fight.
 
Grimm Reaper said:
If, having seen how effective the panzers were in Poland, the French react accordingly, they could cause genuine harm to the Nazis.

For instance, having seen the performence, the French decide to change their agenda. While unable to dramatically expand the production of tanks, they do have a substantial number already available. Every corps in the French army is ordered to concentrate their tanks into a single brigade unit, which will have about 6-7 months of training together prior to the German invasion.

Note, I am uncertain as the breakdown of tanks and their number in 1939 France, so this may be too few or too many.

In the actual invasion Germany saw half of it's tanks either destroyed or knocked out due to damage, wear and tear from use, or gasoline shortages, so the panzers were not completely invincible. In fact, the German officers nightmare was a successful breakthrough, followed by an allied counterstrike which isolated the panzers from the following infantry. This is why the small and short-lived counter attack by De Gaulle in the south and the British 1st tank brigade in the north caused such concern.

In this case, two or three French armored brigades are in the path of the German assault, enjoying their intrinsic advantages(armor and such) as well as the defender's advantage. The Germans are held back another week, losing about 10% of their panzers in the process. The campaign otherwise proceeds as in reality, except that the French have more time to plan and bring forward reservists and possibly units in the Maginot line. More importantly, other armored brigades exist and are used to provide a crude armored corps to De Gaulle, and the nearly 100 fighters purchased in the US and on the carrier Bearn also make it to France. The counter attack, now stronger and with some air support, links up with the BEF and other units up north!

The Germans smash forward with their infantry(the bulk) and manage to restore contact, but this effort, the costs thereof, and the need to regroup and resupply is costly. In effect, Germany losses in manpower are already 2-3 times what was lost in reality(120 to 150 thousand), and a shocking report mentions that half of German tanks are destroyed, and that almost all the remainder were broken down, knocked out, or low on fuel at some point.
Ultimately France does fall, with the British taking heavier losses in the campaign and ultimate evacuation of Dunkirk, but the renewed German dependency on infantry means the BEF's escape is never in such great doubt. In addition, the fall of France is further delayed by the fact that French confidence never dropped as low, not to mention the remaining tanks still standing together.

Perhaps some heroic counter attack or final stand by a French tank unit?

All told, France falls about September of 1940.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSSIBLE RESULTS:

England: Much more confident, as they have all construction through September 1940 for the military, and for defenses. No Sea Lion possible until spring. British can act with greater confidence elsewhere.

Do they send sufficient forces to O'Conner to take Italian North Africa or does an Africa Korps arrive early to salvage something?

Capture of French colonies, such as Dakar, which would provide Free France with an excellant base and several cruisers, plus an unfinished battleship. In reality the attack here came so close to success that any new strength would guarantee a victory.

Germany: Higher losses, less arrogance, and a wonderful excuse to hasten production of new and better tanks. Hmm, they might actually be more dangerous soon. Does Hitler act in the Med, or does he still focus on the East?

France: Still conquered, but put up a better show. Does this mean a larger Free France, perhaps entering 1941 with 4-6 infantry brigades, several colonies, and a navy up to several cruisers? Does the government withdraw to North Africa, helping crush Italian North Africa and battling for Corsica?

Sounds realistic to me. Just concentrating the tanks should have SOME effect. Having it slow the Germans by mere hours does not make sense to me.
 
Brilliantlight said:
Sounds realistic to me. Just concentrating the tanks should have SOME effect. Having it slow the Germans by mere hours does not make sense to me.

It shouldn't have any effect. By observing German doctrine the French should have realised that massed tanks should be used as an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. Which means these tanks will be sitting much closer to the Belgian border, ready for a mass counter-offensive as soon as the Germans look like slowing. This means French armour is going to be fighting German infantry in Flanders as the panzers race for the sea. And as I said earlier, there will be no tanks attatched to infantry units, meaning local counterattacks against German bridgeheads will not happen.
 
Top