The thread title sounds like a title for the Oscars.
Imagine a WAAC going, "And the nominees are..."
The thread title sounds like a title for the Oscars.
Actually, the differences were significant, the British and French tanks were virtually invulnerable by enemy tanks, but were slow and unreliable, while the German tanks had much lighter armour, but were both faster and more reliable. This was best exemplified at Arras, Rommel's panzers had made excellent progress (250 km or so from the Belgian border in 11 days, impressive for such a force), but were severely out-classes by the British Matilda IIs in a straight-out fight, to such a degree that the British counterattack at Arras was only eventually defeated when the Germans pressed their 88m anti-aircraft guns and 105mm light howitzers into service as anti-tank weapons.With all the best units and equipment in the east there'd have been little to stop them. In 1939 there was little difference between the Allies and German tanks...
The thread title sounds like a title for the Oscars.
Best performance in the west would be if France continued its offensive in 39 and advanced further than the range of the guns in the Maginot Line. The Germans had been convinced Britain and France would not fight and stripped their western defences. Its possible the Allies could have broken through the West Wall into Germany proper and ended things then. Unlikely I admit but possible.
I mentioned that earlier, I would imagine its going to panic all those generals who were afraid Hitler was being reckless, maybe this time they actually take some action.