[OT] French was: [SG]Artillery

This could become another of those much-beloved OT discussions, still...

[quoted original message omitted]

> At 10:13 PM +0200 5/27/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
that
> happened within that timespan ?

The introduction of the US in WWI was what allowed the armistice to be arrived
at. The French didn't even come close to winning WWI. Remember, Germany no
longer had to worry abut Russia after a point. WWI was not a resounding
victory for France despite what ever she and Britain said.

However, they learned lots of things before WWI. Use lots of men to bull
through defences and you will win by use of 'elan' and valor. That didn't work
in the trench warfare of WWI. Next they learned that you invest lots of time
and money in strong static defenses and build really big tanks (Char2 Bis).
Those tanks are to be used piecemeal and in penny packets. Of course we know
how long the defense of France in '39 lasted. What was it a week or two?

> Plus, AFAIK, after 1940, the Free French forces fought quite decently.

After being equipped by US and British sources as well as having been
retrained by US and British Advisors.

> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:

> and in penny packets. Of course we know how long the

2 weeks less than did the defenses of Poland, a country surrounded on every
side but the north, with an army less than a quarter the size of the French
one, with no medium or heavy tanks, a tiny and outdated airforce, and the
Russians invading from the East.

Of course, the Poles had fighting spirit and that counts for much more than
heavy tanks and static fortresses.

> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:

No. I actually mentioned that. See the reference re: "within 2 Brit Corps of
getting beat a third time". In 1914, the Germans came within a handful of
miles of knocking the French out of the war, and had it not been for the BEF
stopping one of the main German attacks cold, the "miracle" involving taxicabs
wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore, the majority of the French Army had been defeated by 1916 and was
no longer good for anything but static defenses. In fact, there was a mutiny
in 1916 which resulted in this conclusion being more or less formally reached
by the French High Command.

In 1918, without the addition into the line of fresh US forces and the promise
of more, the entire line would have collapsed (as it nearly did anyway) and
there would have been no assets available for the counteroffensive that
finally knocked the Germans out of the war.

> IIRC, the French won that one. Admittedly, they had

Yeah.

With US/UK Equipment, organization, advisors, and
training.

> On Mon, 27 May 2002, John Atkinson wrote:

> Furthermore, the majority of the French Army had been

Yes and no. The French army had been abused to such an extent in useless and
incredibly badly managed offensives that the french did indeed refuse to be
used in such capacity anymore. This says everything about their high command
and very little negatively about the troops. As you said, the troops DID still
hold their lines, and the knowledge of this mutiny never reached the german
high command till years later.

Furthermore, once the french general staff had been overhauled and proven
themselves to the french soldiers to be much more adequate, the french did
resume limited (and in the context of this war, much more realistic and
useful) offenses.

> > In 1918, without the addition into the line of fresh

The american entry certainly tilted the balance for good. However, the german
final offensive ran out of steam quite on it's own already. As for armies
making big messes in WW1, the same can be said for the british high command as
has been said about the frenchhigh command. The americans came into the war
with something of an 'unfair' advantage; they had the advantage of having seen
their allies make all the mistakes already, and didn't have to make all those
mistakes again, themselves.

Cheers,

> At 07:08 28/05/02 +0200, Derk wrote:

The outcome of the war was already decided. Germany had shot it's bolt so to
speak, it's navy had been unsuccessful in challenging the British Fleet and
it's army and the country itself was exhausted. If you think of the situation
in Europe as a Siege then Germany was in the castle running out of supplies.
The arrival of American troops in France shortened the war,

but for what ever reason the US hadn't committed troops to France then the
armistice would have been still been signed, but probably in 1919 not 1918.

Of course the other thing that the US troops in France can take credit for is
assisting in the spread of the flu pandemic.

Disease, something that dogs armies even today, take the British troops in
Afghanistan being quarantined after contracting a unknown virus for example.
the more things change the more they stay the same;)

Cheers

> At 6:41 PM -0700 5/27/02, John Atkinson wrote:

Poland also didn't have an ally with expeditionary forces in country to help
stem the tide of enemy advances.

> Of course, the Poles had fighting spirit and that

Well, had the poles had the heavy tanks and static fortresses on one of the
fronts, they'd probably have really made the russians and germans hurt far
more than they did.

> At 7:08 AM +0200 5/28/02, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

But the British were defending France. Had France gone it alone, it'd have had
far more problems. France's response to the war shouldn't have been "Yaaay, we
won!", rather it should have been, "We're really damn glad you guys were
here!"

> into the war with something of an 'unfair' advantage; they had the

So the US leadership actually paid attention and didn't let their men get used
as replacements like the other two allies wanted them to be used. As more
cannon fodder for their high commanders.

> P.S. Off-topic? Uh, yes....

Its military mistakes and how not to run a war that looks like it will be
static defenses.

> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 02:42:31AM -0400, Ryan Gill wrote:

> But the British were defending France. Had France gone it alone, it'd

That would mean the French admitting that they were less than perfect, though.
In terms of teaching their kids what happened during the war, even now they
bias things even more than Japan...

> Its military mistakes and how not to run a war that looks like it

It's very easy for us to say that they were mistakes, but nobody had
significant experience with reliable machine guns; the question is, how long
should it reasonably have taken to adjust to this new and terrifying weapon?

(No, I'm not going to restart the fighter thread. :-)

> On Tue, 28 May 2002, Ryan Gill wrote:

> But the British were defending France. Had France gone it alone, it'd

Valid point. On the other hand, with all the losses involved on their side (as
well as on their allies' side), I can hardly blame them for feeling that way.
(Sort of hard to swallow otherwise...)

> >into the war with something of an 'unfair' advantage; they had the

True. On the other hand, I think making the required changes is a LOT easier
when you're not already in there up to the neck.

Cheers,

> So the US leadership actually paid attention and didn't let their men

Derk:
> True. On the other hand, I think making the required changes is a LOT

"Each year, roll 1 die.  On a 1-4, your doctrine remains the same, no
matter how bad the results are or how obviously wrong it is to you, the
wargamer who has 50+ years worth of hindsight.  On a 5-6, you are
permitted to change the doctrine to better suit reality.  DRM -1 if your
generals are appointed on the basis of political connections or
inherited office.  DRM -1 if you have already changed doctrine within
the last 10 years."

It is very easy to have the attitude "This worked last time..." It would be
interesting to see how often the winner of War #1 turns out to be the loser,
at least for the first couple of years, of War#2. (not necessarily WWI and
II).

> At 6:41 PM -0700 5/27/02, John Atkinson wrote:

From: ~ On Behalf Of Ryan Gill
Sent: 28 May 2002 07:36
Subject: Re: [OT] French was: [SG]Artillery

> Poland also didn't have an ally with expeditionary

If visiting the triple city [1], I recommend a visit to the memorial park on
the Westerplatz where one will see a bunker with Large Holes in it. It seems
that a certain naughty Austrian parked an obsolete BC alongside it just prior
to the outbreak of war. The Poles held the spit for three (?) further days
regardless, and had their revenge after the war when the BC's armour was
salvaged and cut up to make signs for the park.

In the west, the first two British divisions of the expeditionary force
weren't deployed until October.
Kick-off was May 10th, the Meuse crossings settled
the match on May 14th, and final score for the UK was on May 26th at Dunkirk,
though the French played for extra time until June 21st.

Battle For France dates from Shirer's "Rise & Fall"

[1] Gdansk / Sipot / Gdynia. Also catch the DD
Blyskawica; she's the only museum ship I know
    of with walk-through boilers.