David Aitken Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Give the Frenchies a break. They had a huge and invincible force of supertanks which could have wiped Germany off the face of the planet, except the tanks were planted into the ground along the border, and it occurred to the Germans that if they simply didn't attack these tanks they had nothing to worry about. The French are only guilty of a flawed defensive strategy. They did plenty to upset the Germans under occupation, but all I hear on this forum is that they used American equipment after Overlord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Well I'd just like to say that my own personal lack of affection for the French has nothing at all to do with their WW2 performance..... "Agincourt, Agincourt, Crecy too, Crecy too Nile and Trafalger, Nile and Trafalger, Waterloo, Waterloo..." (To the tune of "Freres Jacque") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 Yeah, jokes about France/the French are damn fun, I have to admit. All in good fun, of course. I'm American, and I love to make fun of Americans. The French do deserve a break. It was said by some historian that (I paraphrase) "in the past, preperation for the next war was always based on experiences from the previous war." That seems pretty obvious (and I'm sure the quote isn't accurate), but I think the idea is that leadership often looked backward rather than forward. The French prepared for DEFENSE, and their weapons/grand tactics were geared to that. The Germans prepared for OFFENSE, and did what they needed to avoid the failure of WWI---at least initially (i.e., avoiding immobile trench-style warfare). The French simply failed to see the need for mobility, as their sole concern was to "wall themselves in" and prevent invasion. The Germans made the same mistake in defending France (though Rommel etal knew better!)---once on the "defensive", they reverted to static defenses. My point is that the French soldiers didn't fail their leaders, their leaders failed them. They were put in a position that allowed them only to lose. Anyway, just some blabbering... Oh yeah, so the units I hate to use---the damn Canadians! What a waste of good equipment! They should stick to hockey! Were they even in WWII? I don't remember! Bunch of American-coat-tail-ridin'-somebody-else's-equipment-usin'-maple-syrup-eatin'-not-knowing-what-language-they're-speakin'-ice fishermen! I'm joking! I'm Joking! I love the McKenzie brothers! One of my best friends is Canadian! And thank God for hockey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Arilliac: It was said by some historian that (I paraphrase) "in the past, preperation for the next war was always based on experiences from the previous war." That seems pretty obvious (and I'm sure the quote isn't accurate), but I think the idea is that leadership often looked backward rather than forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One often hears this, and it is certainly true. But the people who smugly repeat this (not necessarily meaning you, Jack) seem to me to be oblivious of one question, what else but the past is the leadership supposed to base its planning and expectations on? Granted there are better and worse ways of doing this. The Germans planned their army based on the lessons they drew from their experiences in WW I as well. They just happened to draw a better set of conclusions. But I can't blame the French too much. In WW I they tried an offensive strategy (especially during the first month or two of the war) and got their heads handed to them. They learned the power of the defense the hard way, by being bled white attacking the trenches of the Germans. What the Germans did, but the French failed to do was to fully recognize the extent that the tank and tactical airpower had done in the last year of that war to change the equations and restore the offensive. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans made the same mistake in defending France (though Rommel etal knew better!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure how you would justify that statement. In France, it was Rommel who was the advocate of static defenses and von Rundtstedt who advocated the armored counter-attack. Rommel wanted to dig in the tanks on the beaches. His experiences in North Africa convinced him that under Allied-controlled skies, the armor would pinned down and nearly immobile anyway. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted April 30, 2001 Author Share Posted April 30, 2001 Good points. However, let me say that because I don't like playing the French doesn't mean I don't respect or like the French. I just don't get the point since it means just a restricted set of American gear with different wav files for the voices. Now if they had something special to bring to the plate in the way of weapons or vehicles, it would be different. At least the Canadians have some native gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 I guess if the Grand Duchy of Fenwick had made it into the game, I'd be annoyed if I got them. But they were left out. BTS, fix or do somefink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted April 30, 2001 Share Posted April 30, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: I know that if I do a QB and get the French, the urge to do-over is very strong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting. Just because so many players seem to poh-poh the French, I'm currently involved in two PBEM QBs where I'm playing French attackers. And I do fine! Those M4A2 Shermans must be a super-version too good to be used by the US troops... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted May 2, 2001 Share Posted May 2, 2001 Michael: You are correct! The main problem with my post was that it was in no way intellectualy developed. I am continually humbled when reading the forum, especially since I used to consider myself an (amateur) expert on WWII. Unfortunately, I was waxing sociological when I made the post (which is pretty inappropriate here--I should narrow to thoughts military), and was only throwing out stuff that makes you go hmmm..... For accuracy, I should have said von Runstedt regarding Normandy, though I stand behind my statement, as the German leaders (thus "Rommel etal") were teeth-gnashingly opposed to static anything. I didn't mean to imply anything more than that generality. Anyway, my guess is that you've read The Guns of August. Just curious-- -what would you (or anyone reading) compare it to of available WWII studies (pre and early war)? Is there one that compares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts