History Rewritten - France Kicks Germany

[DevilDog]

But it requires a serious reorganization of the French Army's TO&E and a little bit of luck. On the first Allied turn sell all the French corps, the air fleet (the air unit never seemed to do much good anyway) and the northern and southernmost armies. As England sell everything you can except the BEF, HQ and the Canadian army (and Canadian corps - for some reason you can't sell it). Embark all British land forces left for the continent. Do the usual to wipe out the U-boats. Reinforce everyone left on the continent.

Turn two. Buy three french tanks and one British tank. Embark the Brit HQ to the continent. Reinforce all units left on the continent.

Turn three +. Cross your fingers and attack through the vacated southern magenot line. Since the French possess upgraded tanks they tend to slaughter the German tanks and earn good experience too. Don't know if it's a factor of upgraded units or not, but the french tanks don't seem to lose experience too much when reinforcing.

[ May 28, 2002, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[DeGaule]

Quite an interesting strategy there , I wonder how it would fare against a living opponent considering the temporary nakedness of the French line that is inherent in the army "reorganization".

Seems to me that it leave france in a terribly risky position for a turn. And vulnerable to what some old "Third reich " players will remember as the "crapshoot" Axis attack.

Still its an entertaining scenario

[Compassion]

Looks like you leave England open to attack (a small chance admittedly if the north sea is garrisoned properly). Also, I doubt very much that a non-computer opponent will leave the southern tip of the border open as the computer does.

...but something to think about trying...

[ May 28, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[DevilDog]

Oh the computer came through the gap in the southern line, but was only able to get one army and tank group through before I closed the gap with three level 2 tanks. In spite of the complaints on other threads I think the AI is really good compared to other strategic and operational level wargames I've played.

But yes, I probably wouldn't try this tactic against a strong human oponent.

It's interesting that in another thread some trolls are complaining that France should start with a buch of tank groups. I think Hubert balanced this PERFECTLY with regard to the french docrtine and organization of tanks, but took into account that french tanks had heavier armor and guns than the germans. Of course the french tanks also had some negatives too, but the one tech level higher than germany is probably justified.

Once again, GREAT JOB Hubert.

[ May 29, 2002, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

It's interesting that in another thread some trolls are complaining that frace should start with a buch of tank groups. I think Hubert balanced this PERFECTLY with regard to the french docrtine and organization of tanks, but took into account that french tanks had heavier armor and guns than the germans. Of course the french tanks also had some negatives too, but the one tech level higher than germany is probably justified.

Once again, GREAT JOB Hubert.

Ugggh! One tech level LOWER than Germany would be accurate.

French tanks were crap. There is more (much, MUCH more) important things to a tank than the gun and armor.

Jeff Heidman

[Hubert Cater]

I think since the category is 'Heavy Tanks' that an advanced level over the Germans sounds about right since they were heavier tanks.

Now does this make them better overall than the German tank philosophy of use, I would agree and say no for a couple of reasons and I think that this is fairly covered in the game. For starters, you will have to purchase a Tank Group which is a step forward for the French tank doctrine (as Straha and others have alluded to) and it is an additional cost and something that will be expensive and risky for them to do, especially at the stage when Germany is planning a tour of the Eiffel Tower, and the overall organization would most likely not have been as effective as the Germans which I think is reflected by the fact the French start with no HQ's and even if purchased, the command ratings are limited relative to the German counterparts.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I think since the category is 'Heavy Tanks' that an advanced level over the Germans sounds about right since they were heavier tanks.

Except that the effect is "better" tanks, not "heavier" tanks! I mean, we could call it "pink tanks", but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what the effect might be.

Of course, I agree that in general it is modelled fairly "as is". The French don't have any tanks to start, and can't afford to buy more than one before Paris falls (presuming a decent opponent and the "sell everything" issue is fixed), so the point is relatively moot.

But my point is that in general, French tanks were inferior to the mainline German tanks. Of course, if you throwe in the few thousand PzIIs that the Germans used at the time, then the balance swings again, so it all depends on what you choose to count, as usual

Jeff

[rleete]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Ugggh! One tech level LOWER than Germany would be accurate.

French tanks were crap. There is more (much, MUCH more) important things to a tank than the gun and armor.

French tanks in 1940 were technically superior to their German counterparts. Standing toe to toe, a PzI was no match for the French heavies.

It was the doctrine they were employed under that was their downfall. Heck, even the Germans conceeded that point, using many captured French chassis and tanks after the fall of France.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by R_Leete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Ugggh! One tech level LOWER than Germany would be accurate.

French tanks were crap. There is more (much, MUCH more) important things to a tank than the gun and armor.

French tanks in 1940 were technically superior to their German counterparts. Standing toe to toe, a PzI was no match for the French heavies.

It was the doctrine they were employed under that was their downfall. Heck, even the Germans conceeded that point, using many captured French chassis and tanks after the fall of France.</font>

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by R_Leete:

French tanks in 1940 were technically superior to their German counterparts. Standing toe to toe, a PzI was no match for the French heavies.

.[/QB]

BTW, this amy coem as a surprise to some, but the point of tanks is NOT to go "stand toe to toe" with enemy tanks. In fact (and this is especially true in the early war) if you find yourself standing toe to toe with enemy tanks when you are attacking, that means you screwed up.

Berkut

[rleete]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

BTW, this amy coem as a surprise to some, but the point of tanks is NOT to go "stand toe to toe" with enemy tanks. In fact (and this is especially true in the early war) if you find yourself standing toe to toe with enemy tanks when you are attacking, that means you screwed up.

That is my point exactly. It was French doctrine to do exactly that. They were still thinking trench warfare. Which is one reason they got beaten. Incidently, most French tanks were surrendered, not destroyed, which is why there were so many for the Germans to use later on.

Edit: yes, I meant PzII. I didn't know that the IV was used, though. I'm not that much of a grog.

Jeff, I see you are here in Rochester. Where abouts? I'm over on the south east, near the 'can of worms'. Care to stop over and help with the tank construction?

[ May 29, 2002, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: R_Leete ]

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by R_Leete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

BTW, this amy coem as a surprise to some, but the point of tanks is NOT to go "stand toe to toe" with enemy tanks. In fact (and this is especially true in the early war) if you find yourself standing toe to toe with enemy tanks when you are attacking, that means you screwed up.

That is my point exactly. It was French doctrine to do exactly that. They were still thinking trench warfare. Which is one reason they got beaten. Incidently, most French tanks were surrendered, not destroyed, which is why there were so many for the Germans to use later on.

Edit: yes, I meant PzII. I didn't know that the IV was used, though. I'm not that much of a grog.

Jeff, I see you are here in Rochester. Where abouts? I'm over on the south east, near the 'can of worms'. Care to stop over and help with the tank construction?</font>

[rleete]

Okay, after further reflection, I guess I did know that, just didn't quite register. I was under the impression that most of the tanks were II's and III's, with a sprinkling of IV's. Never paid much attention to TOE.

The tank prokect is an attempt to create a 40% scale Tiger 1 (late). Mostly plywood, with some aluminum reinforcing.

[Aloid]

Hmmm... not a major grog either, but most German accounts of the invasion I've read, have described serious problems the German's had with French tanks.

IIRC, German infantry had to be deployed to deal with the tanks, not German vehicles...

Also, as noted, most of the French tanks were surrendered, not destroyed.

Would lead one to believe that, if handled under a more modern doctrine, the French could have been a more serious offensive threat.

Of course this could all be blather...

Aloid

So, when do we get the source code?

[rleete]

Originally posted by Aloid:

Would lead one to believe that, if handled under a more modern doctrine, the French could have been a more serious offensive threat.

More serious, but as a reactionary force, not a purely offensive one. As Jeff Heidman pointed out, they didn't have radios, and some other shortcomings. One of the things that made the blitz so effective, was the excellent coordination of units. Except for within the Maginot line, the French didn't have that.

[grimlord]

true to that...as well the germans made much more efficient use of their air power in tactical support...the breakthroughs that happened were a direct result of what we now call "combined arms" and not do to a single piece of equipment...

the french did not use this doctrine nor did the russians in 41....and there the difference in the armor was even more pronounced....

[Aloid]

...More serious, but as a reactionary force, not a purely offensive one. As Jeff Heidman pointed out, they didn't have radios, and some other shortcomings. One of the things that made the blitz so effective, was the excellent coordination of units. Except for within the Maginot line, the French didn't have that.[/QB]

Was thinking about that over lunch (anything but work), and remembered the description of a Russian tank assault, where over 100 T34's were destroyed, primarily because they were uncoordinated, and could not adjust to what has happening to them effectively.

I would assume, as you guys have pointed out, that the French tanks would suffer a similar fate.

The question then is, how do you model this in the game in such a way the Hubert could use it?

Is the HQ unit the sole represention of command & control in SC, or can you create another "tech" for armour/blitz doctrine, which would effect armor units?

The Allies, in general, had to learn the hard way, so maybe this would be a way to represent the change in game terms.

Aloid