Allied strategy if Germany sits tight after Poland?

Eh, French doctrine wasn't too good, but without the fall, they'll probably learn eventualy.


It would take years for them to learn. I seriously doubt they would have the time to improve much, because every one would have to be retrained for such a doctrine to work.
 
esl, except the plan involved eight full armored divisions, not one or two. And as only one had entered service less than a year before Hitler attacked France the learning curve was just getting started.

Surely you agree that months of practical experience and several divisions of officers with that experience is liable to correct many flaws in the usage of such divisions from the days when French armored divisions were just a hypothetical concept?



BlairWitch, it was especially the doctrine which left the tanks scattered when many armored divisions could have been formed, to the point that new production was assigned to form the new armored divisions as maintaining the existing scattering of armor was the higher priority. Which pretty much shows why France fell, given the clear example in Poland.
 
esl, except the plan involved eight full armored divisions, not one or two. And as only one had entered service less than a year before Hitler attacked France the learning curve was just getting started.

Surely you agree that months of practical experience and several divisions of officers with that experience is liable to correct many flaws in the usage of such divisions from the days when French armored divisions were just a hypothetical concept?



BlairWitch, it was especially the doctrine which left the tanks scattered when many armored divisions could have been formed, to the point that new production was assigned to form the new armored divisions as maintaining the existing scattering of armor was the higher priority. Which pretty much shows why France fell, given the clear example in Poland.

the portion that was mostly scattered amongst the line infantry divisions were the ft-17's which were not needed for independant armored ops. france had several thousand of these left over from ww1. with a 37mm gun and light armor they were just as good as a panzer 1 or panzer 2 if not better and were used for infantry support. even the russians who probably had the most advanced tactical doctrines of their day still followed this to a degree with their older tanks.

the larger more modern tanks of france's tank park were parcelled out in divisions and brigades and independant battalions. during the battle of the gembloux gap the french aquitted themselves well in actual armored fighting. the problem came not from being outnumbered because they werent it was the lack of mobile refueling trucks and radio equipment.

it doesnt matter whether its a battalion or a division of tanks if they have no fuel. an imobilized tank is a sitting duck the winter war proved that
 
It would take years for them to learn. I seriously doubt they would have the time to improve much, because every one would have to be retrained for such a doctrine to work.

In the short time period of WWII and the build up, doctrines changed many many times. No reason for this to be an exception. 39-41 is certainly a long enough time.
 
It would take years for them to learn. I seriously doubt they would have the time to improve much, because every one would have to be retrained for such a doctrine to work.

Something most of you forget is that the French Army in late June was hurting the German Army for they had started to learn how to fight the German doctrine .
 
Its not the time as much as the experience gained and a system to reviewed performance. When the Germans first used armor in Poland, the plan insisted on having a panzer korps spearheading each infantry army route of advance. Based on the performance Poland, it was judged that this was a waste of resources, so panzer groups were formed for the invasion of France to act independant of infantry armies.

Other countries saw this and learned something , but not what the Germans learned. Its unrealistic to expect the French, without any of this experience , to have drawn the same conclusions as the Germans ,in even less time than the Germans did. Perhaps after the German invasion of France, they could have integrated these lessons ,given enough time and effort. But that would require a different pod.
 
one also has to consider german air superiority in 1940... because the germans were willing to fly multiple sorties per day (8-10 in the stukas) it made mass assembly of french armor extremely vulnerable to strikes. if 300 french tanks showed up the air force would fix them and bomb them repeatedly until they quit the field just like 1944
 
Its not the time as much as the experience gained and a system to reviewed performance. When the Germans first used armor in Poland, the plan insisted on having a panzer korps spearheading each infantry army route of advance. Based on the performance Poland, it was judged that this was a waste of resources, so panzer groups were formed for the invasion of France to act independant of infantry armies.

Other countries saw this and learned something , but not what the Germans learned. Its unrealistic to expect the French, without any of this experience , to have drawn the same conclusions as the Germans ,in even less time than the Germans did. Perhaps after the German invasion of France, they could have integrated these lessons ,given enough time and effort. But that would require a different pod.

We arn't insisting that, we're saying that after skirmishes in 1940, the French would have simi-workable tank formations by 1941.
 
We arn't insisting that, we're saying that after skirmishes in 1940, the French would have simi-workable tank formations by 1941.


But if the Germans end up in skirmishes in 1940 with france they would have most likely mounted an offensive to destroy the French Army, as this was their standing doctrine. There would be no time for the French to rebuild a doctrine in such a context.

Only the best trained armies in history can adapt doctrine through skirmishes with a very well trained army and inovative doctrine, like the Israelis adapting to the Arab attacks in the first week of 1973 war. They adapted by just tweeking it to deal with RPG and Sagger teams, not a complete top to bottom change in doctrine.

Don't get me wrong, nothings impossible in real war, so yes there is a chance. I for my part just don't think its very good chance, but every one is intitled to express their POV on these WI scenarios. Certainly the French would have done much better that OTL, but I have difficulty seeing this as altering the out come too much. ALot more German casulties are most definately likely, but that might help not hinder the Germans when the consider Russia. Even Hitler could be expected to not ignor such signs and thus would not so dangerously underestimate Stalin.
 
But if the Germans end up in skirmishes in 1940 with france they would have most likely mounted an offensive to destroy the French Army, as this was their standing doctrine. There would be no time for the French to rebuild a doctrine in such a context.

Only the best trained armies in history can adapt doctrine through skirmishes with a very well trained army and inovative doctrine, like the Israelis adapting to the Arab attacks in the first week of 1973 war. They adapted by just tweeking it to deal with RPG and Sagger teams, not a complete top to bottom change in doctrine.

Don't get me wrong, nothings impossible in real war, so yes there is a chance. I for my part just don't think its very good chance, but every one is intitled to express their POV on these WI scenarios. Certainly the French would have done much better that OTL, but I have difficulty seeing this as altering the out come too much. ALot more German casulties are most definately likely, but that might help not hinder the Germans when the consider Russia. Even Hitler could be expected to not ignor such signs and thus would not so dangerously underestimate Stalin.

It is best to always go with the moderate viewpoint. Plus the simple logic (gasp) that France is not going to be worse off or the same then it was OTL, no matter what happens, due to extra time to prepare. Therefore it will be better.

Also you better believe I'm going to express my viewpoint, as it is MY thread. :p
 

Tellus

Banned
Theres also the slim possibility that both sides might compromise. Churchill isnt in power yet, nobody in the West really wants a war - if Germany restores most of Poland and agrees to a Munich II, in theory peace is possible. The problem is pretty much Hitler, which is now deeply distrusted both in the west and by his own general staff.

There were several plans for his assassination, especially if he ordered as he wanted a winter 39 offensive against France. They ultimately failed, but I feel that Hitler's assassination any time between fall 39 and June 22nd 41, would result in a negotiated peace to the benefit of Germany, at least to some extent. During the last-gap efforts to prevent the war in August 39, the British went as far as to hint as that any non-Nazi leadership would be allowed to take what they wanted from Poland (probably just meant Danzig and the Corridor), but they no longer trusted Hitler to just stop there.
 
Theres also the slim possibility that both sides might compromise. Churchill isnt in power yet, nobody in the West really wants a war - if Germany restores most of Poland and agrees to a Munich II, in theory peace is possible. The problem is pretty much Hitler, which is now deeply distrusted both in the west and by his own general staff.

There were several plans for his assassination, especially if he ordered as he wanted a winter 39 offensive against France. They ultimately failed, but I feel that Hitler's assassination any time between fall 39 and June 22nd 41, would result in a negotiated peace to the benefit of Germany, at least to some extent. During the last-gap efforts to prevent the war in August 39, the British went as far as to hint as that any non-Nazi leadership would be allowed to take what they wanted from Poland (probably just meant Danzig and the Corridor), but they no longer trusted Hitler to just stop there.

Intresting. I had been thinking along the lines of trench warfare repeat long enough to make one side or the other get fed up, but this is a much more satisfactory possibility. I can see a rump Poland acting as sort of a barrier against the Soviet Union as well. While a Germany without Hitler might not invade the East, without Germany at war with the allies, Stalin might not want to chance it either.
 
Theres also the slim possibility that both sides might compromise. Churchill isnt in power yet, nobody in the West really wants a war - if Germany restores most of Poland and agrees to a Munich II, in theory peace is possible. The problem is pretty much Hitler, which is now deeply distrusted both in the west and by his own general staff.

There were several plans for his assassination, especially if he ordered as he wanted a winter 39 offensive against France. They ultimately failed, but I feel that Hitler's assassination any time between fall 39 and June 22nd 41, would result in a negotiated peace to the benefit of Germany, at least to some extent. During the last-gap efforts to prevent the war in August 39, the British went as far as to hint as that any non-Nazi leadership would be allowed to take what they wanted from Poland (probably just meant Danzig and the Corridor), but they no longer trusted Hitler to just stop there.

This isnt going to happen. After finally getting annoyed enough to declare war, the allies are not going to just sit back and say Oh well, never mind all the British seamen killed, ships sunk, and so on, lets all be friends again. They'll need a LOT of giveback by Hitler. All of Poland, for a start. CZ too. Then they might have peace. And then Germany gets to face a UK-Fr-CZ-Poland permanent alliance, which rather overpowers Germany. So what exactly does Hitler get out of it, except a new headache?

Hitlers only chace to slip out of a war in the west was to sit tight after CZ, until things had cooled off, and probably until Russia declared war (or something was manufactured). The west isnt going to stab him in the back (at least unless he looks like winning big), and even then maybe not. Its a better risk. But he didnt trust the British and French not to do what he would have done.
 

Tellus

Banned
Mind you Astrodragon, I was only suggesting it in the case Hitler was dead or no longer in power. The Allies' propaganda insisted they were not fighting for territorial concessions but strictly against the Nazi leadership. I think "regime change" would be enough for the strong desire for peace to prevail at that point.

I do agree that with Hitler remaining theres little chance for negociated peace on terms he could accept. This being said, on Sept 5, British diplomats told their Italian counterparts that despite the DoWs, Britain could still accept status quo ante bellum if Germany pulled out of all Poland, including Danzig, guaranteed its security and Hitler presented formal apologies. Thats still alot better than talking about Czechoslovakia. The desire for peace was strong still.
 
Top