Yes because barring a miracle it will still happen. The French were psychologically defeated very quickly, not their military but their Government and higher ups in the military were. The French doctrine had evolved into a slow, steady and highly controlled battle and were completely unprepared for Blitzkrieg.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Yes because barring a miracle it will still happen. The French were psychologically defeated very quickly, not their military but their Government and higher ups in the military were. The French doctrine had evolved into a slow, steady and highly controlled battle and were completely unprepared for Blitzkrieg.
I think more people are taking the idea that the fall of France can be prevented for granted than the other way around. The French were forced to design their doctrine around the inferiority of their air forces and the likelihood of their inability to protect the deployment of operational and strategic reserves to the front. Although the Luftwaffe did not have the technical and numerical superiority that the French feared, they did have far better sortie generation and a doctrine that emphasized the massing of airpower at decisive points, kind of like how the French viewed artillery. The reason Gamelin went for the Dyle plan and the Breda variant with the mobile forces was because he didn't think they would even be able to get into combat if they weren't on the move at the start of the German offensive.
Given that the British will get to have at least two tanks with sloped armor and no bow MG, of which one (the A10) will see combat in France alongside a bow MG equipped tank, they will have a more direct comparison between having a bow MG and none but sloped armor, which might lead to them abandonning vertical armor and hull MGs sooner.
Whether the Americans finally listen to the British and delete the hull MG on the Sherman (which was terrible because it had no sight) is yet to be seen. They were rather stubborn.
Whether the Americans finally listen to the British and delete the hull MG on the Sherman (which was terrible because it had no sight) is yet to be seen. They were rather stubborn.
@steamboy has the thrust of it. A few more and/or better tanks in the BEF isn't going to do much to change the minds of those in Paris. It's just too early in the timeline for butterflies to flap an entire warfront into a different outcome, although I'm cautiously optimistic like others that there's some fun to be had in North Africa against the Italians and Germans.
(Speaking of North Africa,) a selfish request, but please, oh please if @allanpcameron could avoid the tragedy of Mers-el-Kebir? It really was just one ass of a man's pride that doomed the French fleet.
Technically off-topic but people might enjoy this helpful video, which reflects my own opinions on the subject:
The French were working on APDS in 1939. But a 3500fps Steel penetrator like the Soviet 57mm/L70 should be overlooked, doing 84mm at 500M capped AP and 120mm with APCR
What I think will happen is something along these lines
1 - The Arras counter attack will be a more painful reverse for the Germans but because the tanks still go in with little way of infantry support and it wasn't coordinated with the French, its basically a local counter attack than a counter offensive. But 7th Panzer does get more chewed up than OTL and perhaps a young and up and coming German Officer is either injured, killed or captured during this battle.
2 - This more painful battle forces a longer halt, but it does not change the overall strategic picture, France will still fall but perhaps the Anglo-French can get more troops out via Calais and Dunkirk.
3 - The armoured units sent to france OTL are NOT sent, but held back when it becomes obvious the disaster that's befalling the Allies and that sending the tanks over will be a futile gesture that now, with the threat of Germany on the coast, cannot be contemplated.
4 - Italy is NOT going to have a fun time when they try shenanigans in North Africa. Against the Matilda I/II and Valiant they're almost cruelly outclassed.
1 - The Arras counter attack will be a more painful reverse for the Germans but because the tanks still go in with little way of infantry support and it wasn't coordinated with the French, its basically a local counter attack than a counter offensive. But 7th Panzer does get more chewed up than OTL and perhaps a young and up and coming German Officer is either injured, killed or captured during this battle.
2 - This more painful battle forces a longer halt, but it does not change the overall strategic picture, France will still fall but perhaps the Anglo-French can get more troops out via Calais and Dunkirk.
3 - The armoured units sent to france OTL are NOT sent, but held back when it becomes obvious the disaster that's befalling the Allies and that sending the tanks over will be a futile gesture that now, with the threat of Germany on the coast, cannot be contemplated.
4 - Italy is NOT going to have a fun time when they try shenanigans in North Africa. Against the Matilda I/II and Valiant they're almost cruelly outclassed.
But if not chased out at Dunkirk but hold a lodgement at Calais?
The British evacuated near a half million British and French troops. If they hold that major port, maybe they decide to hold, rather than sending the French troops back to Brest and Cherbourg to surrender in a couple weeks
That makes 1940 look very different
I think Arras, with Valiants (even if they only have 2pdrs) and a Matilda I with a 2 pdr will be a major defeat for 7th Panzer. This wont affect the fall of France much, but it could cause a lot of delay in the final envelopment of the BEF and 1st French Army. A bad defeat wont just cause the spearhead to pause while they sort it all out, the German command was already seriously worried about advancing too fast with open flanks.
One could argue that such a delay would in fact slow things enough that the French carry on fighting, but even if not, I can see a strong defensive perimeter around some ports, Calais at least.
Whether they try holding it would likely depend on how fast the French collapse in the south; once that has happened, there is no point in holding a lodgement, but even so evacuation will be a lot easier and they can get at least some of the equipment out. So less chance of an invasion panic, with probably a lot more confidence of how the Army can stop any German armoured attack.
One could argue that such a delay would in fact slow things enough that the French carry on fighting, but even if not, I can see a strong defensive perimeter around some ports, Calais at least.
Whether they try holding it would likely depend on how fast the French collapse in the south; once that has happened, there is no point in holding a lodgement, but even so evacuation will be a lot easier and they can get at least some of the equipment out. So less chance of an invasion panic, with probably a lot more confidence of how the Army can stop any German armoured attack.
Indeed, but its far easier to evacuate from a port - even if damaged - than over a beach.
That's likely a big ask. The more likely scenario is to try and get everyone and everything out as soon as possible so they can be reorganised and sent back to help the fight in the south. A lodgement up north is good for tieing down some troops but most of it will likely be in artillery range so the chances of a build up to break out are slim
Why?
Holding a defensive lodgement around Calias is a problem - for the Germans!
You can't ignore it, you have to investment and it could be very strongly held. You can assign some infantry divisions, but they know the British have armour, so need to keep some panzers back as well while they gear up to pound the *** out of the port. Oh, hang on, all those artillery shells and such are currently well behind the spearhead.
And all the reorganisation needed ties up forces that should be attacking the French in the south.
There's a reason why the military have held such lodgements for millennia...
Sevastopol held out for months. I like to think that the Allies were also able to do similar
500,000 troops, 2400 guns and 60,000 vehicle 445 tanks, and over 400,000 tons of supplies
It's usually because people choose to believe a meme, funny as it may be, instead of informing themselves of the actual events.
It's not to say there were some systemic flaws in the French military, but incompetence or cowardliness were not among those.
During those 6 weeks things could have easily gone the other way.
Last edited: