Fall Gelb fails: What does the French army/war effort look like in 1941/2?

Lets say the French army is able to hold Sedan for 24 hours, or after crossing the Meuse the German panzers temporarily halt to allow their infantry to catch up, or that Gamelin's proposed counter-attack isn't postponed by Weygand for two days - I'm not really asking about precisely how Fall Gelb does go wrong but lets just say althouth the Germans are not defeated on the battlefield it fails in its main aim to cut off and surround the Anglo-French forces in Belgium, and the BEF, French First Army Group and remnants of the Belgian Army are able to retreat south and that by late June the allied forces have regrouped to hold a line north of Paris approximately along the Somme river (more or less where the OTL 'Weygand Line' was intended to be. Lets say the Wehrmacht are short of fuel, vehicle spares and above all ammunition and are unable to launch a further offensive to capture Paris. The Germans have occupied the Netherlands, Belgium and part of northern France, and in July 1940 the situation is looking very similar to September 1914.

Thats the set up, here are the questions:

1. The Escaut/Dyle Plan will have failed, Gamelin and Georges will inevitably be sacked. Firstly who is likely to take over as C in C of the French Army? Weygand was Reynaud's only realistic choice in the panicked atmosphere of OTL late May 1940, but at a time when the German offensive has stumbled would he really turn to a 73 yearold?

2. Looking through biographies of French commanders in 1939-40 what's remarkable is just how old they are, all 5-10 years older than most of their British counterparts (in 1940 Gort was 53, Alanbrooke 56, Ironside the oldest senior British General had just turned 60 whilst Gamelin was 67, Georges, Billotte and Pretelat 65). Presumably had France remained in the war longer some more junior Generals/Brigadiers would have risen through the ranks, who?

3. What happens to French military doctrine? It seems a bit far fetched that de Gaulle's quasi-blitzkrieg theories could be adopted, especially considering the 'sickle cut' in this scenario would have been far less successful than in OTL.

4. How much better equipped are the French armed forces by the summer of 1941 compared to May 1940?

5. How does this scenario effect French politics? Reynaud's government had a very tenuous majority in parliament, approved by a single vote margin. Would Reynaud be able to remain PM? If he were ousted who would be his plausible successor? If he's not ousted does he bring the socialists into the government forming a grand coalition similar to that formed in Britain on 10th May?
 
This depends on two things:
1. what happen to Wehrmacht in France and Belgium and Netherlands ?
2. How will Hitler react ?

Let assume this scenario,
French hold Sedan, Rommel is capture as he dash to far into France producing a Gap in Wehrmach frontline (battle of Marne Electric Boogaloo)
BEF And French divide the Wehrmacht in Nord West and Nord East.
On both sides they want to prevent WW1 trench warfare at any cost, even Hitler !
Means all forces will be moving to get better positions, for Wehrmach is retreat, regroup and attack again.
Now if BEF bd French keep moment they could push Wehrmach back out France into Belgium maybe to German borders.
(while Army Italy take there leg in there hands and run so fast as they can from french border...)

Hitler will dismiss several Generals, While Göring bawled that Luftwaffe will bring France on their knees.
Starting the Blitz on France with same result on shorter time, since they fight RAF and French Airforce.
While Wehrmacht start new operation in style „Battle of the Bulge“ to reach Antwerpen and regain momentum in winter 1940.
Hitler will demand from Mussolini a second frontline in South France to divide Allies efforts, but what Italy army is unable to do.
I think that with Britain and France fighting on Europan mainland, Hitler will NOT invade USSR
but he will declare War on USA like OTL, because he though that USA were not capability to fight Japan and Third Reich on same time.
Oh boy, he was so wrong...

...As fleets of B-17 and Fighter arrive in South France to bomb Nazi Germany, facing exhausted bleed dry Luftwaffe...
 
When does Stalin grab prussia? :cool: Maybe he does it instead of the Winter War?

Winter War happened already before French invasion. I doubt that Stalin is going to do anything yet while. At least not before 1942. It depends how German war efforts are going.
 
Winter War happened already before French invasion. I doubt that Stalin is going to do anything yet while. At least not before 1942. It depends how German war efforts are going.
Doh! Totally spaced out about the time of the Winter War. Well, that's embarassing.

That said, I still think that Stalin being at least less supportive towards the Nazis is a very real possibility.
 
This depends on two things:
1. what happen to Wehrmacht in France and Belgium and Netherlands ?
2. How will Hitler react ?

Let assume this scenario,
French hold Sedan, Rommel is capture as he dash to far into France producing a Gap in Wehrmach frontline (battle of Marne Electric Boogaloo)
BEF And French divide the Wehrmacht in Nord West and Nord East.
On both sides they want to prevent WW1 trench warfare at any cost, even Hitler !
Means all forces will be moving to get better positions, for Wehrmach is retreat, regroup and attack again.
Now if BEF bd French keep moment they could push Wehrmach back out France into Belgium maybe to German borders.
(while Army Italy take there leg in there hands and run so fast as they can from french border...)

Hitler will dismiss several Generals, While Göring bawled that Luftwaffe will bring France on their knees.
Starting the Blitz on France with same result on shorter time, since they fight RAF and French Airforce.
While Wehrmacht start new operation in style „Battle of the Bulge“ to reach Antwerpen and regain momentum in winter 1940.
Hitler will demand from Mussolini a second frontline in South France to divide Allies efforts, but what Italy army is unable to do.
I think that with Britain and France fighting on Europan mainland, Hitler will NOT invade USSR
but he will declare War on USA like OTL, because he though that USA were not capability to fight Japan and Third Reich on same time.
Oh boy, he was so wrong...

...As fleets of B-17 and Fighter arrive in South France to bomb Nazi Germany, facing exhausted bleed dry Luftwaffe...
I mostly agree, but OTL Mussolini didn't attack France until it was clear they were going to lose. ITTL I think he's more likely to tell Hitler to go jump in a lake, although more likely phrased as how he said he'd be ready for war in 1942, 'do please call me then', or 'I'd love to but Albania, North Africa, Abyssinia.... so sorry."
Let's face it, given a choice of a few years of rebuilding the Roman empire in the Balkans while Britain and France are busy, or getting your head kicked in while helping an obnoxious bully who has just picked the wrong fight, there's only one answer. Mussolini was no genius, but he wasn't completely stupid.
 
French hold Sedan, Rommel is capture as he dash to far into France producing a Gap in Wehrmach frontline (battle of Marne Electric Boogaloo)
Eh, pretty unlikely, given the quality of the troops and commanders present. I don't see a panzer division getting cut off, not with such a sluggish command culture. Push them back? Sure, but no dramatic encirclement. Whatever people may say, the French army was neither prepared nor designed for that kind of thing.

Plus, that's not in keeping with the OP. If the BEF and French retreat from the Low Countries and are forced to withdraw to a defensive position more or less along the OTL Weygand Line, the Germans would have had to had major advances into their rear, and not be encircled in the process. So that would entail the Germans pushing almost to the Channel, to give the Allies a fright enough to dash out of the cauldron, but short of a total encirclement. That retreat would involve the Allies getting roughed up pretty harshly like in World War I, and I'd imagine a lot of heavy equipment would have to be left behind, but they're able to extricate the troops and enough equipment to stop the Germans afterwards. That imo is a more plausible line of events leading up to the OP's scenario.
 
Eh, pretty unlikely, given the quality of the troops and commanders present. I don't see a panzer division getting cut off, not with such a sluggish command culture. Push them back? Sure, but no dramatic encirclement. Whatever people may say, the French army was neither prepared nor designed for that kind of thing.

Plus, that's not in keeping with the OP. If the BEF and French retreat from the Low Countries and are forced to withdraw to a defensive position more or less along the OTL Weygand Line, the Germans would have had to had major advances into their rear, and not be encircled in the process. So that would entail the Germans pushing almost to the Channel, to give the Allies a fright enough to dash out of the cauldron, but short of a total encirclement. That retreat would involve the Allies getting roughed up pretty harshly like in World War I, and I'd imagine a lot of heavy equipment would have to be left behind, but they're able to extricate the troops and enough equipment to stop the Germans afterwards. That imo is a more plausible line of events leading up to the OP's scenario.
I think that "what" was cut off is the problem. If the panzers lost their logistical tail, it doesn't matter what the quality of your troops/commander is. Without out fuel/ammunition/food, any military formation is up Shit Creek without a paddle....
 
Is it conceivable at all that failure in France leads to the possibility of Hitler being deposed?
He'd lose his aura of infallibility, but OTL he held on in worse circumstances for much longer so I'd suspect he'd go on about no retreat, hold in place etc (much easier when dug in while both sides are rebuilding over the winter) and add in a good dose of Willpower, Destiny, Wunderwaffen etc.
In simple terms, once held, Germany is going to get outproduced and overwhelmed - not very quickly, but without Dunkirk, Fall of France, and with no North African campaign, just the scheduled UK and French output of tanks, aircraft, AA, AT and artillery guns will be enough to outmatch the German army, but add in the improvements - 6pounder, not delayed by Dunkirk, alongside big numbers of French 47AT, better tanks (S40 and Vals), Brandt technology (HEAT grenades and shells, discarding sabots, mortars), and the US fighters and medium bombers and they win on both quality and quantity.
It took a lot of bad work to lose France OTL, but it would take extreme circumstances to lose once German forces are stopped. The allies might not win in Spring 1941, and maybe not in 1942 or even 43, and it will be hard fought and bloody, but win they will.
My guess is that Hitler holds on to the end getting more deranged and turning against his own as time goes by.
 
I think that "what" was cut off is the problem. If the panzers lost their logistical tail, it doesn't matter what the quality of your troops/commander is. Without out fuel/ammunition/food, any military formation is up Shit Creek without a paddle....
The problem is cutting things off in the first place, which the French army was not doctrinally inclined towards in the first place. The French bungled their counterattack at Sedan because their command culture was not as permissive for lower-level commanders taking the initiative; the French leader in charge of the attack spent precious hours trying to find out if he had permission to commence the operation. It's because of such problems that the German commanders could dictate engagements in that campaign more or less how they pleased, and it's because of that, that I consider the encirclement and destruction of a panzer division to be highly unlikely. Nor do I think it makes any sense as a POD to precipitate an Allied skedaddle out of the low countries and northern France.
 
Last edited:
2. Looking through biographies of French commanders in 1939-40 what's remarkable is just how old they are, all 5-10 years older than most of their British counterparts (in 1940 Gort was 53, Alanbrooke 56, Ironside the oldest senior British General had just turned 60 whilst Gamelin was 67, Georges, Billotte and Pretelat 65). Presumably had France remained in the war longer some more junior Generals/Brigadiers would have risen through the ranks, who?
De Lattre and Juin come to mind, or Béthouart.

5. How does this scenario effect French politics? Reynaud's government had a very tenuous majority in parliament, approved by a single vote margin. Would Reynaud be able to remain PM? If he were ousted who would be his plausible successor? If he's not ousted does he bring the socialists into the government forming a grand coalition similar to that formed in Britain on 10th May?
Depends on the alternative.
The last thing the Socialists want is letting the door open to accomodation with Nazi Germany; unlike the Great War, there has been for some time in the air the sense this is an existential threat, and if they opposed Reynaud in the first place, I see they did so at a time (march 1940) when the situation did not look anywhere near a sudden collapse it went to be in May.

The alternative was Pétain's camp, tainted with anglophobia and more than willing to make a separate peace if opportunity arises; even if the catastrophe of May 1940 had not happened, Pétain's clique would have filled in for the spot pacifists occupied in the last war. Even if the withdrawal from Belgium is successfull, the Allies, and the French especially, are in for a huge psychological shock, and it's easy to imagine some accomodationists of Pétain's clique calling on the ghost of the Great War's trenches.

Reynaud may have had been a weak character in comparison to others, but at least he was in favor of a strong line. Blum would probably go over to support Reynaud to avoid Pétain gaining the ascendency. The stabilization of the front at the Somme would probably precede the entry of Socialists, frightened by the German advances, into the government to displace Pétain's influence. Mandel and de Gaulle would be the strong voices of the hardline faction, for all matters on conduct of the war. If Reynaud steps down, Mandel would probably succeed him. He was once Clemenceau's lieutnant, and his hardline credentials were impeccable (though he himself feared his being Jewish would impede any prospect at leading a Free France when de Gaulle pressed him to).
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
The allies might not win in Spring 1941, and maybe not in 1942 or even 43, and it will be hard fought and bloody, but win they will.
Thank you for acknowledging that the war may go on as late as 1944, and is not guaranteed to win with a smashing Allied victory in spring 1941, or an anti-Hitler coup in winter 1940-1941.

Such are the usual results posited in 'Sedan fails' PoDs, which seem to operate on the assumption that while the Wehrmacht was simultaneously 'sharp as a razor blade', it was only 'durable as cotton candy'.
 
Eh, pretty unlikely, given the quality of the troops and commanders present. I don't see a panzer division getting cut off, not with such a sluggish command culture. Push them back? Sure, but no dramatic encirclement. Whatever people may say, the French army was neither prepared nor designed for that kind of thing.
So far i know the story
Rommel push his division so far forward that regular lost communication with Frontline and also Logistic.
It went so far that Luftwaffe support him by bring barrel fuel on location with Ju 52.
Göring was furious as he was informed about this "miss use"
Let us in this scenario sake inform Göring earlier about it and forbid resupply for Rommel...
 
So far i know the story
Rommel push his division so far forward that regular lost communication with Frontline and also Logistic.
It went so far that Luftwaffe support him by bring barrel fuel on location with Ju 52.
Göring was furious as he was informed about this "miss use"
Let us in this scenario sake inform Göring earlier about it and forbid resupply for Rommel...
Then ad someone setting fire to fuel stores as they retreat ahead of the Panzer divisions.
 
Then ad someone setting fire to fuel stores as they retreat ahead of the Panzer divisions.
Or they advance so quick, that they miss some french units sheltering/hiding in place. Those units, takeout some fuel depots being set up near them. Not all, but enough to stop the advance and force the germans to make the time/effort to make sure that there rear area is safe and secure.
 
Then ad someone setting fire to fuel stores as they retreat ahead of the Panzer divisions.
Easier said than done, given the speed of the German advance. Nor is a disorderly retreat conducive to systematic scorched-earth tactics. If the French were prepared to do this kind of thing, they would have done it IOTL.
So far i know the story
Rommel push his division so far forward that regular lost communication with Frontline and also Logistic.
It went so far that Luftwaffe support him by bring barrel fuel on location with Ju 52.
Göring was furious as he was informed about this "miss use"
Let us in this scenario sake inform Göring earlier about it and forbid resupply for Rommel...
Hitler would have overridden Göring. Rommel was a favorite of the Führer. That's how he got command of a panzer division.
 
Top