Gamelin treats the threat of a Ardennes attack with more seriousness

As we know it was not some French ignorance of geography and engineering that made them ignore the danger of an attack through the Ardennes. The fault lies on Gamelin and his propensities in commanding with political consideration dominating his thinking - in terms of Belgium in French strategypl

If Gamelin or an alternate French commander treated the threat with the seriousness it deserved in reality, how might the French gone about stopping the blitzkrieg? Was it even possible for them to properly coordinate their forces to victory without the surprise of OTL. Or were they just so ill prepared or at such a military disadvalntage that it didnt matter anyways. And so would it still degenerate into a disaster with or without the surprise factor
 

Archibald

Banned
You are brave proposing such a POD. A case could be make that Gamelin was such an arse (sorry for the crude word, but he really was that) you may need ASB to change his mind. He was really appaling.
This said,
It wouldn't take much to screw the Sedan fiasco into a stalemate.

There was the Battle of Stonne and Mont-Dieu nearby (15 miles !), where the German forces were repealed for three weeks, at a very high cost, to the point the Germans called Stonne "A 1940 Verdun".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne
Stonne proves beyind any doubt that Sedan could have turned very differently. It is really Sedan polar opposite. Start a counterattack from there, and crush the bridgehead.

At Sedan itself, there is my favorite POD I already mentionned many times on this forum: Feldwebel Rubarth
The 10th Panzer Division's assaults failed all along the Meuse front. The only success came from a small 11-man team (five engineers and six infantrymen) of the 2nd Company, Panzerpionier-Batailion 49 (49th Panzer Engineer Battalion) placed under the 1st Battalion, 86th Infantry Regiment. Unsupported and acting on their own initiative, this small force led by Feldwebel Walter Rubarth opened a decisive breach by knocking out seven bunker positions. Follow-up units from the 1st Battalion 86th Rifle Regiment had crossed over by 21:00 and stormed the remaining bunkers on Hill 246, where the main French defence positions were located. By the end of the day, the bridgehead had been consolidated and the objective taken.[58]

As the German crossings were failing miserably, that Rubarth and a handful of men went into full JOHN RAMBO (I really mean, John Rambo, as Sylvester Stallone) mode and, by themselves, destroyed 7 bunkers and created a small breakthrough and bridgehead that was soon expended. Have a French shell crush Rubarth and his platoon during the Meuse crossing, and butterflies may flap enough to stall the crossings.
 

Archibald

Banned
I know a couple of TLs that do just that - one of them has Gamelin falling in the stairs of his PC in Paris, early March 1940 (some unknown but useful idiot put wax on the stairs ! Gamelin is hurt but survives, what matters is to keep him hundred of miles away from the north-east front)

Another imagined what a 13 may, 1940 counterattack might have been.

Unfortunately both are incomplete, in French, and a decade old on another forum.
 
My preferred line of inquiry is if the Belgians had resisted on the border for 24+ hours, vs retreating after 6-8 hours. That has knock on effects for the French mech cav screen, the delaying position on the Semois, & all along the main zone on the Meuse river from Sedan to Dinant.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

You are brave proposing such a POD. A case could be make that Gamelin was such an arse (sorry for the crude word, but he really was that) you may need ASB to change his mind. He was really appaling.
This said,
It wouldn't take much to screw the Sedan fiasco into a stalemate.

There was the Battle of Stonne and Mont-Dieu nearby (15 miles !), where the German forces were repealed for three weeks, at a very high cost, to the point the Germans called Stonne "A 1940 Verdun".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne
Stonne proves beyind any doubt that Sedan could have turned very differently. It is really Sedan polar opposite. Start a counterattack from there, and crush the bridgehead.

At Sedan itself, there is my favorite POD I already mentionned many times on this forum: Feldwebel Rubarth


As the German crossings were failing miserably, that Rubarth and a handful of men went into full JOHN RAMBO (I really mean, John Rambo, as Sylvester Stallone) mode and, by themselves, destroyed 7 bunkers and created a small breakthrough and bridgehead that was soon expended. Have a French shell crush Rubarth and his platoon during the Meuse crossing, and butterflies may flap enough to stall the crossings.
Did you read the link? It was a 3 day battle with less than 700 total casualties for the Germans out of 60,000 in the units attacking.
 

Deleted member 1487

I wonder if you even read it, too.
Yes. The French got their teeth kicked in at Stonne, their counterattack failed. It went on for 3 days, not three weeks. The battle resulted in less than 600 casualties for the Germans. It proves nothing of what you claimed.

Carl's POD has greater promise.
 
I am skeptical hammerdin- but if you have a
ATL in mind don't let me stop you!- that your
proposed change from our time line would
make much of a difference. The crux of the
issue in 1940 IOTL was that France, due to
it's horrific WWI experience, simply didn't
want to fight. The Germans had no such
misgivings. Now this French feeling is quite
understandable- you want to find a textbook
example of "phyrric victory" just look up
"France 1914-1918"- & I'm quite aware how
easy it is for an American- whose nation,
after all IOTL hasn't had a war fought on its
own soil since 1865- to sneer @ France. So
I've never judged them harshly for their
failure- on the whole- to put up much of a
fight in 1940. Nonetheless, this feeling was
there, it was widespread, & I just don't think
it can be butterflied away.

But hammerdin- to paraphrase a certain well
known movie star, make your day & prove me wrong!
 
Yes. The French got their teeth kicked in at Stonne, their counterattack failed. It went on for 3 days, not three weeks. The battle resulted in less than 600 casualties for the Germans. It proves nothing of what you claimed.

Carl's POD has greater promise.
It doesn't say that there were less than 600 casualties for the Germans.
Instead it says that the German Großdeutschland regiment took less than 600 casualties (and furthermore doesn't make a distinction in between whether those were dead or all casualties.)
Total casualties for the battle are left unstated.

French wikipedia has a much more in depth article on it. I presume you do not read French, but having put it through google translate and compared the results it seems reasonably accurate for the important parts. It claims much higher casualties on both sides, and that although the village no longer changed sides after the 17th, continued pockets of French resistance continued to hold out until the 25th.

It also does note that the comparison to Verdun was one which was present.

"Stonne vit de durs combats, selon l'historien allemand Karl-Heinz Frieser : « Les soldats de la Wehrmacht ont toujours comparé l'enfer de Stonne en 1940 à l'enfer de Verdun en 1916 »20 ; dans Blitzkrieg-Legende: der Westfeldzug 1940, citant un officier allemand qui compare Stonne à Stalingrad et à Monte Cassino21;"

"Stonne saw hard combat, and according to the German historian Karl-Heinze Frieser in Blitzkrieg-Legende: der Westfeldzug 1940: "Wehrmacht soldiers always compared the hell at Stonne during 1940 to the hell of Verdun in 1916," citing a German officer who compared Stonne to Stalingrad and Monte Cassino."
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

It doesn't say that there were less than 600 casualties for the Germans.
Instead it says that the German Großdeutschland regiment took less than 600 casualties (and furthermore doesn't make a distinction in between whether those were dead or all casualties.)
Total casualties for the battle are left unstated.

French wikipedia has a much more in depth article on it. I presume you do not read French, but having put it through google translate and compared the results it seems reasonably accurate for the important parts. It claims much higher casualties on both sides, and that although the village no longer changed sides after the 17th, continued pockets of French resistance continued to hold out until the 25th.

"Stonne vit de durs combats, selon l'historien allemand Karl-Heinz Frieser : « Les soldats de la Wehrmacht ont toujours comparé l'enfer de Stonne en 1940 à l'enfer de Verdun en 1916 »20 ; dans Blitzkrieg-Legende: der Westfeldzug 1940, citant un officier allemand qui compare Stonne à Stalingrad et à Monte Cassino21;"

"Stonne saw hard combat, and according to the German historian Karl-Heinze Frieser in Blitzkrieg-Legende: der Westfeldzug 1940: "Wehrmacht soldiers always compared the hell at Stonne during 1940 to the hell of Verdun in 1916," citing a German officer who compared Stonne to Stalingrad and Monte Cassino."
The French article that is the casualty source is broken. It claims 26 thousand German casualties, about 1/6th of the German total for the entire French campaign. That is more than the entire strength of the 1 Panzer and one infantry regiment (10th Panzer, Grossdeutschland IR) on the Stonne Plateau that fought there, but neither suffered anywhere close to that many losses. I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I did another version of the cited article, which many no claim of casualties like that:
http://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/en/battle-stonne-trail-battle-may-june-1940


This link is FAR more detailed and credible. Here is an overview on casualties, but there is a very long breakdown of the battle itself.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=45336
From May 15 to May 25, fierce battles will take place in the Mont Dieu area (including Stonne), only 15 km south of Sedan. The Aisne River (and especially the area of Rethel), also south of Sedan in the Ardennes, will resist from until June 11. The French Ardennes will therefore see several of the bloodiest battles of May-June 1940. About 10,000 French soldiers died in the Ardennes (10% of the total number of 100,000 KIAs). On the German side there are about 9,500 KIAs in the Ardennes in May-June 1940 for a total of 45,218 KIAs during the campaign. Therefore about 21% of the German KIAs felt in the French Ardennes. Most of them were killed in the area of Stonne / Tannay (about 2,000 KIAs) and during June 9-10 when attacking the French lines on the Aisne River (especially in the area of Rethel) with about 3,500 KIAs.
 
The French article that is the casualty source is broken. It claims 26 thousand German casualties, about 1/6th of the German total for the entire French campaign. That is more than the entire strength of the 1 Panzer and one infantry regiment (10th Panzer, Grossdeutschland IR) on the Stonne Plateau that fought there, but neither suffered anywhere close to that many losses. I'm going to call bullshit on that.
I did another version of the cited article, which many no claim of casualties like that:
http://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/en/battle-stonne-trail-battle-may-june-1940

This link is FAR more detailed and credible. Here is an overview on casualties, but there is a very long breakdown of the battle itself.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=45336
And if you read your Axis history forums article you will note where the discrepancy occurs:

The area of the Mont Dieu woods was held by the French troops facing German assault from May 15 to May 25. During this time there were important battles in Stonne, Les Grandes Armoises, Tannay and Le Chesne. During these battles the French lost about 3,000 men including about 1,000 KIAs. The German losses were even higher, serious studies estimate them 3 times higher.

From May 15 to May 25, fierce battles will take place in the Mont Dieu area (including Stonne), only 15 km south of Sedan. The Aisne River (and especially the area of Rethel), also south of Sedan in the Ardennes, will resist from until June 11. The French Ardennes will therefore see several of the bloodiest battles of May-June 1940. About 10,000 French soldiers died in the Ardennes (10% of the total number of 100,000 KIAs). On the German side there are about 9,500 KIAs in the Ardennes in May-June 1940 for a total of 45,218 KIAs during the campaign. Therefore about 21% of the German KIAs felt in the French Ardennes. Most of them were killed in the area of Stonne / Tannay (about 2,000 KIAs) and during June 9-10 when attacking the French lines on the Aisne River (especially in the area of Rethel) with about 3,500 KIAs.


The French article is probably roughly correct, just for a larger geographic region than just the village itself. In any case, it indicates that while it might not have been 3 weeks, resistance in the area continued far longer than 3 days, and German casualties were far higher than 600 (possibly far higher than 600 at the village itself),.
 
It doesn't say that there were less than 600 casualties for the Germans.
Instead it says that the German Großdeutschland regiment took less than 600 casualties (and furthermore doesn't make a distinction in between whether those were dead or all casualties.)
Total casualties for the battle are left unstated.

Don't have a exact count for the Grossdeutchland regiment at hand. There were some components fighting with it that may have been attachments. If the strength was 3000 men then 600 casualties are 20%, if it were 3500 then 17%, if 4000 then 15%.

French wikipedia has a much more in depth article on it.

There are any number of good English language accounts of these battles. There is no need to argue second rate sources like Wiki. I'd recommend Doughtys 'The Breaking Point' as a primer. This covers the battle of the German 19th Corps vs the French 10th Corps, & 21st Corps in the Sedan region. The latter composed of the French 3rd Motorized Inf Div & the 3rd Armored Div & assorted remnants was the opposition at Stonne & across the German 19th Corps flank. The Grossdeutchland regiment was reinforced by components of the 10th Armored Div which had general responsibility for the 19th Corps flank To put it another way the fighting around the Stonne chateau, or the high ground comprising the Stonne heights was a slice of a battle covering 10+ kilometers front.
 

Deleted member 1487

And if you read your Axis history forums article you will note where the discrepancy occurs:

The area of the Mont Dieu woods was held by the French troops facing German assault from May 15 to May 25. During this time there were important battles in Stonne, Les Grandes Armoises, Tannay and Le Chesne. During these battles the French lost about 3,000 men including about 1,000 KIAs. The German losses were even higher, serious studies estimate them 3 times higher.

From May 15 to May 25, fierce battles will take place in the Mont Dieu area (including Stonne), only 15 km south of Sedan. The Aisne River (and especially the area of Rethel), also south of Sedan in the Ardennes, will resist from until June 11. The French Ardennes will therefore see several of the bloodiest battles of May-June 1940. About 10,000 French soldiers died in the Ardennes (10% of the total number of 100,000 KIAs). On the German side there are about 9,500 KIAs in the Ardennes in May-June 1940 for a total of 45,218 KIAs during the campaign. Therefore about 21% of the German KIAs felt in the French Ardennes. Most of them were killed in the area of Stonne / Tannay (about 2,000 KIAs) and during June 9-10 when attacking the French lines on the Aisne River (especially in the area of Rethel) with about 3,500 KIAs.


The French article is probably roughly correct, just for a larger geographic region than just the village itself. In any case, it indicates that while it might not have been 3 weeks, resistance in the area continued far longer than 3 days, and German casualties were far higher than 600 (possibly far higher than 600 at the village itself),.
3 times higher is not 26,000. I'd also like to know what those serious studies are for edification.
The Stonne/Tannay area was much bigger than just the fight for Stonne itself. French and German losses were nearly the same. Also 1 week is not 3 weeks either. The entire point that it proves the French could have counterattacked and beaten the Germans at that point is incorrect, as by that point the French reinforcements were being smashed by the Luftwaffe or disrupted by panicked French troops fleeing and what French counterattacks could be launched were defeated.
 

Archibald

Banned
Of course, the tiny Belgian army can resist better than the (always inept) French. What really matters to @wiking in the end, is that the almighty German forces can't be defeated, or if they ever are on the brink of defeat, wonderwaffe will save the day. Then again, there is this https://forum.axishistory.com
It explains a lot of things. Seems we have a fanboy here...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Of course, the tiny Belgian army can resist better than the (always inept) French. What really matters to @wiking in the end, is that the almighty German forces can't be defeated, or if they ever are on the brink of defeat, wonderwaffe will save the day. Then again, there is this https://forum.axishistory.com
It explains a lot of things. Seems we have a fanboy here...
Hardly. I'm just looking at the actual history of campaign, rather than some made up fantasy of 3 weeks of resistance equally another Verdun at Sedan. It is hilarious that you're accusing me of being a fanboy when you can't even get the basic history right. It certainly doesn't help that French wikipedia cites bizarre, completely inflated casualty stats too. Real talk for a moment: the Germans were no superhuman or unbeatable in 1940, the French were however really unprepared to deal with them.
A great book on the topic of French problems:
https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Disaster-Development-Doctrine-Stackpole/dp/0811714608

The Belgians would be hard pressed to deal with the Ardennes thrust, but could conceivably have held out for a bit longer, which would have helped the French get more prepared. Might have made a difference, might not.
 
There are any number of good English language accounts of these battles. There is no need to argue second rate sources like Wiki. I'd recommend Doughtys 'The Breaking Point' as a primer. This covers the battle of the German 19th Corps vs the French 10th Corps, & 21st Corps in the Sedan region. The latter composed of the French 3rd Motorized Inf Div & the 3rd Armored Div & assorted remnants was the opposition at Stonne & across the German 19th Corps flank. The Grossdeutchland regiment was reinforced by components of the 10th Armored Div which had general responsibility for the 19th Corps flank To put it another way the fighting around the Stonne chateau, or the high ground comprising the Stonne heights was a slice of a battle covering 10+ kilometers front.

Unfortunately Doughtys' book costs money and even if I do order it it would take time to arrive, so while I would much prefer to quote it, I'm stuck with what I have on hand.

3 times higher is not 26,000. I'd also like to know what those serious studies are for edification.
The Stonne/Tannay area was much bigger than just the fight for Stonne itself. French and German losses were nearly the same. Also 1 week is not 3 weeks either. The entire point that it proves the French could have counterattacked and beaten the Germans at that point is incorrect, as by that point the French reinforcements were being smashed by the Luftwaffe or disrupted by panicked French troops fleeing and what French counterattacks could be launched were defeated.

No, but if you add in the other quoted sources it gets to that level of casualties. You were the one to quote the article as well, which claims such German casualties... which also indicates a very hard fought battle, and naturally if it is a hard fought equal battle then it isn't terribly difficult to change it with some reduced German performance, increased French performance, fewer German troops, increased French troops, etc. which change the outcome. Place another division in the region, troops overwhelm the Germans at Stonne, fortify the region, place a GPF or Schneider 155 L 1917 regiment overlooking the crossing points, and the French are well prepared to either isolate the German forces crossing/continue their counter-attack and defeat the bridgehead.

Hardly. I'm just looking at the actual history of campaign, rather than some made up fantasy of 3 weeks of resistance equally another Verdun at Sedan. It is hilarious that you're accusing me of being a fanboy when you can't even get the basic history right. It certainly doesn't help that French wikipedia cites bizarre, completely inflated casualty stats too. Real talk for a moment: the Germans were no superhuman or unbeatable in 1940, the French were however really unprepared to deal with them.
A great book on the topic of French problems:
https://www.amazon.com/Seeds-Disaster-Development-Doctrine-Stackpole/dp/0811714608

The Belgians would be hard pressed to deal with the Ardennes thrust, but could conceivably have held out for a bit longer, which would have helped the French get more prepared. Might have made a difference, might not.

I've read Seeds of Disaster, although it costs too much for me to purchase it so all I have is the library edition. Of course there were quite a lot of problems, but Doughty never claimed in that book that a French victory was impossible, he presented shortcomings and problems in French doctrine and capacity.

A) German historians themselves quote German soldiers saying Stonne was the equivalent to Verdun in fighting intensity. Calling it "Verdun", is no exaggeration when the Germans were the ones to use the term.
B) Casualty statistics on French wikipedia just use a larger area of combat. Using different criterion for combat is hardly "bizarre", after all if we had to use the same criterion then the German army would be deeply unhappy about how much more equivalent loss rates would become for it for a lot of fights.
 
One of the problems in assesing the German losses here is the primary document, the day book of the 19th Corps for the campaign, was lost in a allied bombing attack in 1943. This collection of the daily records of the corps can be guessed from tangental sources but the primary record is not available. This is one reason why events like the repulse of the 2d Pz Div crossing at Sedan, the heavy losses of the 10th Pz Div crossing the river & its slow progress, the role of the 1st Pz Div, north of Sedan are so difficult to assess. We are dependant on a set of very incomplete eyewitness accounts, and tangental records from other organizations. The records of the looser are much more complete.
 

Deleted member 1487

No, but if you add in the other quoted sources it gets to that level of casualties. You were the one to quote the article as well, which claims such German casualties... which also indicates a very hard fought battle, and naturally if it is a hard fought equal battle then it isn't terribly difficult to change it with some reduced German performance, increased French performance, fewer German troops, increased French troops, etc. which change the outcome. Place another division in the region, troops overwhelm the Germans at Stonne, fortify the region, place a GPF or Schneider 155 L 1917 regiment overlooking the crossing points, and the French are well prepared to either isolate the German forces crossing/continue their counter-attack and defeat the bridgehead.
Yeah when you double and triple count casualties you can add up to crazy numbers. Perhaps 26k casualties for the entire Ardennes was possible, but there is no way it was all at Sedan/Stonne.

So yeah the French could win if you entirely change the historical situation. Where are the extra French casualties coming from and why are the French performing better and the Germans worse? Stonne proper was fought over by a single regiment; the Stonne plateau was a huge battle where the Germans had air superiority and used interdiction to keep French forces away while having constant flying artillery support. You'd have to radically change the force structures and plans for both sides to get what you're saying. In that case then the French aren't advancing headlong into Belgium to the Dyle, which requires more than Gamelin not being a bonehead.

For that just read 'A Blunted Sickel'.

I've read Seeds of Disaster, although it costs too much for me to purchase it so all I have is the library edition. Of course there were quite a lot of problems, but Doughty never claimed in that book that a French victory was impossible, he presented shortcomings and problems in French doctrine and capacity.

A) German historians themselves quote German soldiers saying Stonne was the equivalent to Verdun in fighting intensity. Calling it "Verdun", is no exaggeration when the Germans were the ones to use the term.
B) Casualty statistics on French wikipedia just use a larger area of combat. Using different criterion for combat is hardly "bizarre", after all if we had to use the same criterion then the German army would be deeply unhappy about how much more equivalent loss rates would become for it for a lot of fights.
Again a French defeat wasn't guaranteed, but would require massive alterations to the French plan. Again see "A Blunted Sickel".
The 'quotes' about Stonne never list names of people and frankly having read a bunch about Verdun there is no way a 3 day or so battle involving a few regiments was anything close to Verdun. Just like people who never experienced Stalingrad like to say their fighting was just as tough as that campaign.

The French numbers seem to have been the entire Ardennes region rather than Stonne or even Sedan. And that was only the German side, the AHF link says French losses in the Ardennes were even higher than German ones.

One of the problems in assesing the German losses here is the primary document, the day book of the 19th Corps for the campaign, was lost in a allied bombing attack in 1943. This collection of the daily records of the corps can be guessed from tangental sources but the primary record is not available. This is one reason why events like the repulse of the 2d Pz Div crossing at Sedan, the heavy losses of the 10th Pz Div crossing the river & its slow progress, the role of the 1st Pz Div, north of Sedan are so difficult to assess. We are dependant on a set of very incomplete eyewitness accounts, and tangental records from other organizations. The records of the looser are much more complete.
Sure, but the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Panzer divisions were not rendered combat ineffective by the fighting near Sedan as casualties claimed would have rendered them.
 
Top