Worked out I ww1, I think the real problem is their tendency to fight the Russians, the French and the British all at the same time and then and the Americans on later.Germany invading Russia?
Worked out I ww1, I think the real problem is their tendency to fight the Russians, the French and the British all at the same time and then and the Americans on later.Germany invading Russia?
Can you not read? Or were you too horry to make a joke?Germany invading Russia?
It would have ended that badly?Doesn't quite make the criteria, as there is no evidence the Soviets considered carried it out, but Zhukov's pre-emptive strike plan filed on May 15th, 1941 could charitably be called a death ride for 150 divisions had it ever been attempted in '41.
Wouldn't that still be less Soviet divisions lost than IOTL?
It would have ended that badly?
Its actually pretty hard to do this for Germany because they pretty much made some of the worst decisions and lost as a result. Maybe invading Turkey in 1943?
War plan orange?
Crap, sorry up at 2.00 a.m. needed sleep.Can you not read? Or were you too horry to make a joke?
Border forces couldn't really defend properly, what do you think they would have done advancing against the most maneuver flexible force in the world sitting on their pre-war air bases and logistics?It would have ended that badly?
What's the most self-defeating strategy (in terms of military posturing and administration rather than morality/ideology) that each of the countries participating in World War Two could have attempted, but didn't? However, it should still be something that they could have plausibly tried, even if it was doomed to failure, it must be something they would actually consider doing.
For example, Operation Pike would have been a terrible idea for Britain, luckily that idea was scrapped.
France leaving the Ardennes forrest ill-defended on behalf that tanks... oh merde, it happened OTL. Forget it.
France seeing bombers as offensive weapons while fighters are defensive weapons, so per lack of money and to not irritate Germany they made fighters a priority... oh merde, it happened OTL. Forget it.
Seriously, France time in WWII is so short, bar operation pike, I don't know...
I know. Vichy France bombs the shit of Gibraltar from North Africa. They had the ships and aircrafts to do it.
And you stop the panzers with what ? fairy dust ? that was the point of my post. The lack of attack planes was such, fighters were send against panzers to shot them with their 20 mm hispano guns.
Traditionally, you stop tanks with anti-tank guns. I'm given to understand the French were lacking in good numbers of those.
The French had more artillery than the Germans, those double as sufficient AT guns. Especially the 75.Traditionally, you stop tanks with anti-tank guns. I'm given to understand the French were lacking in good numbers of those.
Not exactly, their tanks were better than the Germans in terms of armor and armament so could stop them on the defense and with frontal attacks. But remember to the French innovated the hedge-hog defense during the 1940 campaign to stop the Germans. Operationally they had issues with mobile warfare not adhering to a strict plan due to the lack of radios and having lost air superiority. Just about anyone was going to lose in that situation and it was their bad luck to have walked into a trap and then lacked the strategic depth like the Soviets to recover and replace their losses and wear down the attacker with poor infrastructure and distance.Yes and no. Really what works is a mobile defense of mechanized forces backstopped by a fortified anti-tank network. The AT defenses slow down and bleed the attacker while the mobile forces maeneuver around and roll up their flanks. The French didn't conceive of war in those terms in 1940. Conseqientlt their defensive networks were too linear and their planned counterattacks were too slow in coming together.