French Victory WWII?

Hardware and it use
the french used light RT-17 against German battle tanks
302px-George_S._Patton_-_France_-_1918.jpg
this against that:

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-696-0427-04A%2C_Mittlere_Ostfront_%28Polen%29%2C_Panzer_IV.jpg


French bigger tanks like Char B1 were designs as infantry support not as combat tank.

I suggest you review the French and German OoB in may 1940 with respect to Tanks before posting again. It may prevent embarassing yourself so thoroughly again in the future.

In particular, check what the Somua S35 is, how many PzIV the Germans had, what guns it was armed with in May 1940 (just a hint, your picture is NOT from 1940) and what was the role of the FT17 in the French army in April 1940.
 
Why the french was Defeated by germans in 1940 had several reason:

Old fashion vs Modern tactics
most of French generals were old ww1 veterans.

Most the German Generals were WWI veterans. what is your point?

but germans develop mechanized infantry in combination Air support
irony that concept was from young french lieutenant Charles De Gaulle ignored by old geezers generals in French HQ...

DeGaulle was neither young nor a Lieutenant when he wrote his proposals for mobile forces.

Hardware and it use
the french used light RT-17 against German battle tanks



302px-George_S._Patton_-_France_-_1918.jpg
this against that:

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-696-0427-04A%2C_Mittlere_Ostfront_%28Polen%29%2C_Panzer_IV.jpg

This is either extremely ignorant or a troll

the germans use modern communication and mobile commando station to coordinate there tank attack, the french not.quote]

General Piroux would be very surprised to know his corps HQ did not have modern mobile communications. Ditto for Flavigy & several others.

French communication system was stuck in ww1 level and rely on telephone lines and radio service between commando station, from here messengers went to battle front...

This is nonsense

the French Air force had 2400 fighter, 1160 Bomber and 1464 recon aircraft.
only 25% were mobilizes against Luftwaffe while 75% remain on ground, why ?!

Why? Because those numbers do not reflect the actual events.

again the old geezers generals in French HQ and there beliefe that would be rerun of WW1
and wanted to use there air force like in WW1

I'd suggest reading Doughtys 'Seeds of Disaaster' for a understanding of French doctrine & why it developed. It will also show how French Army doctrine was not a rerun of WWI doctrine.

next to that was NO coordinated communication between french Air-force and Army with HQ.

French Air defense stuck on level of WW1

More nonsense

Another problem were defense Bunker crew mostly civilians volunteer.

Completely wrong. Civilian construction contratctors did some maintinance on the defense works, and a few local officials had custody when the military was absent but the idea that civilian voluteers were the primary "Bunker crew" is completely wrong.

Where the hell did all these ideas come from????
 
...

Quite apart from the terrible decision making as to where to send the reserves, I do wonder whether the grand strategy (Dyle-Breda plan) didn't rather dictate that they had the wrong sort of reserves for a mobile war. Breda is a hell of a long way away, and getting there and being able to fight at the end of it means committing your most mobile troops - exactly the men who form the most valuable reserve in a mechanised war. Sticking to the Escaut plan as they almost did means your troops don't have to travel nearly as far, and so you end up with a much more mobile (and looking at the divisions involved, probably higher-quality) reserve. I had to give the French quite a lot of luck in A Blunted Sickle even then - essentially the sclerotic decision-making cycle worked for them in that troops who were supposed to form a blocking position ended up cutting into a vulnerable flank instead. Still, if your reserve is a lot more mobile then your chances of reacting in time are that much better.

My take is the French reserve was mobile enough. By this I mean the formations in Georges 'Reserve' Stratigic' & not the 7th Army. It was as you say poorly used.

As for the Escaut plan; not only does it imeadiatly write off the main strength of the Belgian army, but it could easily lead to a earlier Belgian capitulation. Worse it lengthens the battle front to the limits of what the French & BEF could cover. That is the strategic reserve that existed OTL has to be reduced to bring the defense zone to the necessary density. If the Dyle Plan succeeds it keeps the Belgian Army in the fight longer & shortens the total front significantly.
 
I wondered about that, but he refers to "Commando" which seems to mean HQ. Plus radios were much more common in French tanks than the still popular myth would have us believe.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
OK so what Michael Van said was an exaggeration (just a little bit:D) but some of his points were true. French communications were very poor, and placed too high a reliance on field telephones and regular phone lines. Orders often did take a long time to get through to units, as dispatch riders were caught up in the flood of refugees.

On the point of armour, although comparing a late model Panzer IV to a Renault FT isn't very accurate, German use of armour, even in small numbers, was much more effective. Even if the Panzers were individually inferior, they could often draw the French into a trap of anti-guns. It also didn't help that French tanks were mostly fairly slow, as was the majority of French decision making on how to deploy them. Finally, in a French tank squadron, generally only the commander's tank was equipped with a radio, and even this was not always reliable.
 
On comments of Shadow Hawk, Carl Schwamberger, jc558, CrimsonKing, fhaessig

on FT-17 vs Panzerwagen IV, you can consider as Troll.
but i got my info from 1960s German literature on Westfeldzug and German Wikipedia is even Worst on Data.
next, my grandfather told me about Westfeldzug, seem that There are not reliable sources...:eek:

Perhaps he was referring to the German tanks each having radios?

Ja das meinte ich, yes that is what i mean.
the German Tanks had Radio equipment with mobil commando units (also in Tanks) to coordinate the attacks on French forces
While The Luftwaffe bomb the french forces from air, also coordinate by Radio equipment from mobil commando units.

Some thing the French military not use or not correctly.

what i meant that conservative French Generals believed that this war would end like WW1 stop of german advances then Trench war fare.
they not believed in armoured units as main offensive weapons,
but they were overrun by Germans mechanized infantry, lead by Generals wo believed in armoured units as main offensive weapons.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
On comments of Shadow Hawk, Carl Schwamberger, jc558, CrimsonKing, fhaessig

on FT-17 vs Panzerwagen IV, you can consider as Troll.
but i got my info from 1960s German literature on Westfeldzug and German Wikipedia is even Worst on Data.
next, my grandfather told me about Westfeldzug, seem that There are not reliable sources...:eek:



Ja das meinte ich, yes that is what i mean.
the German Tanks had Radio equipment with mobil commando units (also in Tanks) to coordinate the attacks on French forces
While The Luftwaffe bomb the french forces from air, also coordinate by Radio equipment from mobil commando units.

Some thing the French military not use or not correctly.

what i meant that conservative French Generals believed that this war would end like WW1 stop of german advances then Trench war fare.
they not believed in armoured units as main offensive weapons,
but they were overrun by Germans mechanized infantry, lead by Generals wo believed in armoured units as main offensive weapons.

Don't worry, your English is pretty good, and I agree with a lot of what you say.

On the other hand, the German advance was not totally mechanized. The crossing at Sedan was made by infantry, for example. Overall the French had more tanks than Germany, and they were of reasonable quality, but their tactics were poor.

A good comparison of armour would be
-Panzer IV to the Char B1 (75 mm gun, decent armour, infantry support)
-Panzer III to SOMUA (37 mm vs 47 mm gun, average armour, tank vs tank combat)

However German tanks were more reliable and their radios were better.
 
Top