Jump to content


french tanks are they coming?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
173 replies to this topic

Waroch #21 Posted 21 March 2011 - 08:17 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
Yes they were!
DCR ("Division Cuirassée de Réserve") -> tank divisions for the infantry
DC ("Division de Cavalerie" or "Division Cuirassée", i'm not sure) -> tank divisions for the cavalry
DLM ("Division Légère Mécaniques") -> mobile cavalry divisions

there might be more... ?

The organisation of these divisions wasn't so different from the panzer divisions, but they were improperly used by the French generals. Plus, French tanks weren't the most mobile, and the divisions couldn't move fast to where they were most needed.
For example, the B1-bis tank which consisted the spearhead of DCRs had an insane consumtion and its Naeder transmission wasn't very reliable. Those tanks like the B1bis or the SOMUA 35 had complex maintenance, so the divisions were slow. And as the French chose to gather the best tanks together to have the biggest impact at a precise location of the front (traditionnal role of the cavalry...), the result was that those tanks were most of the time not where they were necessary.

TimeShift #22 Posted 02 April 2011 - 04:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4076 battles
  • 74
  • [NX] NX
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostGaulois, on 17 March 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

French tanks were more numerous than the German
French Tanks had a much better steel quality for their armor, making their tank tougher, and lighter than the German.
The overall quality of the tanks were higher than the germans.

are you sure ?
i mean, i don't disagree with you but i find it hard to believe that french steel is better than Krupp steel, or that french engineering was better than german engineering. i don't want to offend anyone, but wherever i read about the german tanks, they were so prayed for it's superior steel quality, design, functionality , engineering overall !

Hammerbolt #23 Posted 02 April 2011 - 04:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35359 battles
  • 1,375
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostTimeShift, on 02 April 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

are you sure ?
i mean, i don't disagree with you but i find it hard to believe that french steel is better than Krupp steel, or that french engineering was better than german engineering. i don't want to offend anyone, but wherever i read about the german tanks, they were so prayed for it's superior steel quality, design, functionality , engineering overall !

I don't know if the steel was better, but the Somua and B1 had 1-piece cast steel turrets, and the Somua's hull was made of 2 pieces of cast steel. You can't do that without high-quality metalurgy...

MarmotWarrior #24 Posted 02 April 2011 - 07:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 11604 battles
  • 516
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
So, what's about this article ?

Are we going to get it this week end ?

Lhoter #25 Posted 02 April 2011 - 07:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 14152 battles
  • 151
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011
Hello all. Speaking in a more general way, I think us French people lost the war not technologically, but ideologically and politicaly. Many influent people embodied the German ideology in France, because they were deeply wounded by the 1936 experience(Front populaire), and thus organized the defeat.

I think there are a lot of people more capable than me to describe exactly why french tanks > german tanks, at least in the beginning of the war, and you will see in game why is this. Their main weak point remained their limited mobility. Though if Bilotte's story is accurate, it means that more people like De Gaulle in command and the battle of France could have lasted longer. We would have lost it because of luftwaffe, but hell, the people saying French tank is crap did not watch what a modern tank can do. Leclerc, if you see what I mean.

GhostDivison #26 Posted 03 April 2011 - 01:30 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 2493 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
French good sides:
-Better tanks;
-More tanks;
-The Maginot line;
-Some British support;

French bad sides:
-Usseles radio;
-Usseles tactics;
-Bad leaders;
-Almost no training;
-Almost no morale;
-Bad organization;
-Not enough De Gaulle;

German good sides:
-Blitzkrieg;
-Luftwaffe;
-Erwin Rommel;
-7th panzer division;
-Good radio;
-Good tactics(Lets just go around that big fence);
-High morale;
-Hight training;
-Pissed up after Versailes;
-Real leaders and soliders that had many years of training from 1933 to 1940;

German bad sides:
-Weaker tanks;
-Fewer tanks;

Waroch #27 Posted 03 April 2011 - 02:15 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
Good summary of stereoptypes about the battle of France  :Smile-playing:

Squadman45 #28 Posted 03 April 2011 - 03:01 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 47860 battles
  • 2,810
  • Member since:
    01-20-2011
Well, stereotypes... yes, but all true and i add other point, 2 only war hits of Hitler on war appear on this campaign, first Eben Emael air landing attack (Hitler´s idea) and launch the attack on Ardenes with the distraction on Belgium (french and english think they are fighting again VS Schlieffen Plan but with a much better equipment) Hitler´s say yes to this plan that was idea of the "new guard".

French armor... much better armored but with the same lack of punch like german tanks but french shoot over worst armored vehicles (lots of PzI and PzII and even PzIII and PzIV are not impressive) and only usefull on static battles, with no air support (or at least air protection) and nule AAA defense they were cannon fodder VS AT guns (flanks, allways flanks) and arty and of course, have the medium/light tanks divided out of french armored divisions is not a good idea because this formations only have heavies to do the dirty job of secondary tanks, another point is the lack of infantry on this divisions, lots of armor on a division is not important if you dont have enough infantry support.

Hammerbolt #29 Posted 03 April 2011 - 05:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35359 battles
  • 1,375
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostSquadman45, on 03 April 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:


lack of punch like german tanks

Not really. If you check, every one else was using 37mm (most armies), 40mm (UK) or 45mm (Russia) for AT work, so the french 47mm was actually bigger than the rest. 75mm and above were using for fire support and bunker busting (the intended roles of the PzIV).

Waroch #30 Posted 03 April 2011 - 07:35 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostSquadman45, on 03 April 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

Well, stereotypes... yes, but all true and i add other point, 2 only war hits of Hitler on war appear on this campaign, first Eben Emael air landing attack (Hitler´s idea) and launch the attack on Ardenes with the distraction on Belgium (french and english think they are fighting again VS Schlieffen Plan but with a much better equipment) Hitler´s say yes to this plan that was idea of the "new guard".

French armor... much better armored but with the same lack of punch like german tanks but french shoot over worst armored vehicles (lots of PzI and PzII and even PzIII and PzIV are not impressive) and only usefull on static battles, with no air support (or at least air protection) and nule AAA defense they were cannon fodder VS AT guns (flanks, allways flanks) and arty and of course, have the medium/light tanks divided out of french armored divisions is not a good idea because this formations only have heavies to do the dirty job of secondary tanks, another point is the lack of infantry on this divisions, lots of armor on a division is not important if you dont have enough infantry support.



far from it.



First, about the "superior training".  Many people seem to consider that a few minor military campaigns prepared the whole German army for the battle of France. While it was true to some extent for the Luftwaffe, it clearly wasn't for the rest of the army (no, not every soldier of the wermacht had dozens of spaniard or polish scalps...). On the other hand, the French army didn't sit there doing nothing for years. Check out the French military campaigns in the 1920s and 1930s! Plus, and contrary to Germany, France (or UK, btw) still had its century-old traditonnal military schools. Globally, no the Germans didn't have a particularly superior training.



"almost no morale". That's the biggest bullsh** of all the post-war fairy tales! Maybe you have to be french to feel this, but let's try anyway : imagine you were born in France in the 1910s, that you've been told many times in your childhood that uncle Robert, grand-father Louis, great-grand-father Marcel etc... are not there anymore because they've been killed by the boches. You're being told how much your country suffered from the 1870 war and WWI, you learn popular songs like "la Strasbourgeoise" (check that one on the internet, great song but the lyrics aren't too german-friendly  :Smile_harp: ), and so on... Do you really believe you would let the Germans pass without a fight? clearly no. And there are countless testimonies about the French state of mind of that time...



de Gaulle and Rommel were good commanders but their role in the BoF shouldn't be exagerated (de Gaulle was only a colonel at that time)...



organisation/blitzkrieg : Contrary to what is comonly said, the organisation wasn't so different in the German and French armies. The main difference was really the role of the air force, where the Luftwaffe clearly had an advantage. The Blitzkrieg was only a derivative of traditional conceptions of war, and in particular inspired from general Estienne's theories.



About the leaders, it is true there was much political rivalry in the high brass. Lower rank officer can't be blamed for their behaviour.



I give you the radios; the Germans were the first to realise how important it would be. But this is only a detail and its importance shouldn't be exagerated : it made communications easier but it's not what gave the victory to the panzers.



Despite all the respect i have for the British action later on in the war, "the British support" can hardly be seen as an advantage in 1940! Except for the RAF, which could have commited a larger amount of forces but did nonetheless a great job, and a few handfulls of Welsh and Scott Guards at Calais and Dunkirk, the Brits didn't do much for the French, only adding inertia to strategic decisions (to the point that in the end both the French and the Brits acted independantly without notifying to the other, the French fighting backwards, the Brits running to Dunkirk).



Last point, the "lack of punch" of French tanks? well as hammerbolt said, they had more punch than any other tank on the western front  :unsure:

Sheepmaster #31 Posted 03 April 2011 - 08:44 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 10172 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View Posturkerjantje, on 17 March 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

french tanks are they coming? <_<  :Smile-hiding:


back to the topic:

They are coming. When? That you can draw roughly from devs and CMs statements and some thoughts about the timelines.

1. French tanks will come after E-Series which comes after American TDs.
2. As we go live in April without Americans TDs and assuming only a month of testing, they will appear around early June ... or later.
3. German additions will be a few tanks. If you look at the rate they added tanks so far, it will take two additional months for bringing them live. Which puts them in late Summer.
4. French tree won't be released if it doesn't contain at least 15-20 tanks. When you look at the time for adding American tanks, they'll need around three months, assuming they expand their vehicle implementation team.

So you'll see them in late 2011, maybe October/November earliest. Also keep two things in mind: If there is a strategically planning WG can't speed up the release of additional tanks because they would run out of WWII tanks already in 2012. And for a MMOG, a steady flow of new content is essential. Second the above assumes, that additional play modes and Clan Wars won't influence the resources for creation of new tanks.

Brudja #32 Posted 03 April 2011 - 11:44 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 13416 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    11-15-2010
Watch the battle of Hannut and Stonne ... In the wiki

Ok? thx

Squadman45 #33 Posted 04 April 2011 - 01:18 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 47860 battles
  • 2,810
  • Member since:
    01-20-2011
German have a much better training and a much better doctrine on armored warfare (if they dont have it why all copy it with local adaptations???) another question is experience, only armored units and air force have a good previous experience and some infantry units... but french experience is 0 and here morale... man, France on 1940 was weak, not prepared for a war and sabotage on factories is not a fantasy, they were a democracy and break under presure and the british running to save his island dont help to morale here Germany fights more like one man they want defeat France motives... well, revenge, end the war (defeat France = return home), Nazi conqueror fury... different motives but same end, France fights not to win, they fihgt to prevent another WW1.

Not only Rommel and Degaulle fights, but germans have more panzer divisions with panzergenerals on an army where infantry fight to support panzers, french have tanks to support infantry with very few armored units and with a worst structure, better machines but nothing more.

German army is totally different to France army, they have similar things but hey, 3 regiments with 3 battalions with some arty regiments forms a division here and on soviet russia and performance of a soviet division and a german one is different because dont have same doctrine, training etc etc, not all german units were panzer, pzgrenadier or even motorized but have enough to defeat france obsolete doctrine or at least obsolete VS modern armored war... here you can see who defeat this tactic and how, change space for time to soft enemy attack and then counterattack and force him to a static war and then launch your attacks... yes, on France campaign are battles where french fight very well (i dont say that they dont know how to fight) but only were local victories when front is break and cant change course of a campaign (change course of a campaing on a single battle is more a napoleonic time thing).


And returning to tanks... yes, low punch because dont have an impressive guns (Char B1 need 2 guns, the 47mm and the 75 on body) and few ones with "better" guns are less than the rest... and general performance is low with turrets with 2 members, better armored??? yes, better armed in general no as german tanks are better prepared against infantry.

Kazomir #34 Posted 04 April 2011 - 07:28 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 16752 battles
  • 4,718
  • Member since:
    08-15-2010
Overlord said that info wont come soon... its delayed in favor of E-series and tier 8 arty.

Waroch #35 Posted 04 April 2011 - 10:53 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostSquadman45, on 04 April 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

German have a much better training and a much better doctrine on armored warfare (if they dont have it why all copy it with local adaptations???) another question is experience, only armored units and air force have a good previous experience and some infantry units... but french experience is 0 and here morale... man, France on 1940 was weak, not prepared for a war and sabotage on factories is not a fantasy, they were a democracy and break under presure and the british running to save his island dont help to morale here Germany fights more like one man they want defeat France motives... well, revenge, end the war (defeat France = return home), Nazi conqueror fury... different motives but same end, France fights not to win, they fihgt to prevent another WW1.


Now doctrine and training are two different things. About the training, it is true training was low in the Armée de l'Air; but it wasn't the case for the rest of the army and in particular tank crew. About morale, the "French had no morale" chatter is only a remnant of war-time propaganda, where the glorious soldier of the Reich single-handedly defeated the corrupted and weak democracies.... Reality is other. Better check your sources twice on that era, lots of so-called historian are talking BS. I repeat myself : morale wasn't low.

I know there was sabotage which greatly contributed to the lack of modern equipment (in particular for the Air Force). I even know it first hand, because my grand-father worked for a while in a factory running for the army, and he told me what he saw. Yes, communists are not those heroes many historians fantasy on. They were bloody terrorists and collaborators until the beginning of Barbarossa.




Quote

Not only Rommel and Degaulle fights, but germans have more panzer divisions with panzergenerals on an army where infantry fight to support panzers, french have tanks to support infantry with very few armored units and with a worst structure, better machines but nothing more.

Not true. There were different sorts of armored divisions in the French army. Basically, cavalry divisions had the same role than the panzerdivisions : advance and hold the ground waiting for infantry. Infantry tank divisions (DCR : divisions cuirassées de réserve), as their name suggest, were a reserve force : behind the infantry, ready to go where they were needed. At least in theory, because in reality they lacked the mobility and reliability necessary for a reserve force.
The role and organisation of tank divisions were vastly similar in both armies.


Quote

German army is totally different to France army, they have similar things but hey, 3 regiments with 3 battalions with some arty regiments forms a division here and on soviet russia and performance of a soviet division and a german one is different because dont have same doctrine, training etc etc, not all german units were panzer, pzgrenadier or even motorized but have enough to defeat france obsolete doctrine or at least obsolete VS modern armored war... here you can see who defeat this tactic and how, change space for time to soft enemy attack and then counterattack and force him to a static war and then launch your attacks... yes, on France campaign are battles where french fight very well (i dont say that they dont know how to fight) but only were local victories when front is break and cant change course of a campaign (change course of a campaing on a single battle is more a napoleonic time thing).

I agree they had better doctrine and tactics. In particular, the role they gave to the air force was really what made a difference.



Quote

And returning to tanks... yes, low punch because dont have an impressive guns (Char B1 need 2 guns, the 47mm and the 75 on body) and few ones with "better" guns are less than the rest... and general performance is low with turrets with 2 members, better armored??? yes, better armed in general no as german tanks are better prepared against infantry.

the B1 had two guns because it wasn't possible yet (and that, for any country at that time) to mount large caliber high velocity guns. So you basically had small caliber high velocity guns for anti-tank purpose, and large caliber low velocity guns for close artillery fire. So you had two solutions : mount both guns in a single tank (that's the B1) or have two tanks with specific roles (pzIII and pzIV).
Or you could adopt the British theory and design an infantry support tank with no HE capacity at all :D

More seriously, none of these solutions were very satisfying, so in the end of 1940 long 75mm were mounted on tanks which gave them efficient AT and HE power with only one gun. Globally though, there were two countries a little bit ahead of the others in this domain : France and USSR.
For examle, French engineers had just developped a 75mm AT gun : the 75mm TAZ Mle1939 which had performances similar to the British 17pdr... three years before the 17pdr was issued !  :o

Squadman45 #36 Posted 05 April 2011 - 10:40 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 47860 battles
  • 2,810
  • Member since:
    01-20-2011
Well, the number of armored units on french army is lower compared with the number of panzer divisions

1e Armee: 1 DLM
1ere Armee: 1 Corps de Cavaliere with 2 DLM
9e Armee: 2DLC+ 1 GBC as army reserve (3 BCC with near 160 R-35 and Renault FT17)
2e Armee: 2 DLC and 1 GBC as reserver with near 140 R-35 and FCm36
6e Armee: 1 DCR and 1 DLC
GQG reserve: 2 DCR with 2 demibrigades formed for 2 BCC

Total: 3 DLM, 5 DLC, and 2 DCR + the independent units.

Then Germans have 3 divisions on group B and 7 on group A, only DLM and DCR are equivalent to PZdivisions, even with more tanks and infantry, DLC are brigades, closer to infantry units with armored support than armored units.

And morale... well, if a part of french army fights well dont means that morale is good, main body breaks easy and they lose war on the first offensive, defensive posture fails and when they try to counterattack fails again because local victories are like try to stop ocean with sand castles.

France lose the war many years ago because when Germany attacks they have hostile nations on his back (Spain) on his right flank (Italy) and her only good allied is Britain... like on WW1 but France was weaker on 1940 than in 1914 and is a morale problem.

Problem is not material, is a doctrine and design problem that made tanks better to german ones 1 by 1 but worst on formations.

Koyoth59 #37 Posted 12 April 2011 - 08:29 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 15754 battles
  • 1
  • [FNFL] FNFL
  • Member since:
    11-06-2010
Did you know that French airforce during invasion had a better kill ratio versus German airplanes than British during the Battle of Britain ? Despite their obsolete planes (except a very small bunch of Dewoitine-520, about 20 or 30, who were matching the Spitfire's capacities).

The problem is that they were so few planes (and so disorganised headquarters, and, like tanks, they were attached to other units, like infantry, and there was no official "airforce") that they were mostly all shot down. But with honor ^^

aku709 #38 Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:55 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 30 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    04-06-2011

View PostLuk4as, on 17 March 2011 - 05:17 PM, said:

they will come in cuple months after release

wargaming is busy now)
Thank ya about this knowledge! i almost made a new forum to get this. why are they so busy, and how did u know it? B):o

ollivier #39 Posted 13 April 2011 - 08:53 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3226 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010
The biggest problem France faced during WW2 falls to the country itself. It was a largely agricultural country, and thus was very very spread out and not industrialised to the extent that Germany was.
It took Germany like 2 weeks to mobilise for war - France needed something like 2 months.

Armor wise, the French tanks were superior to their German counterparts - the Panzer II. The PzII simply wasn't armed well enough, and with the PzIII armed for Anti-Infantry operations, no real toe-to-toe contender was found until the PzIV. And even that was barely enough. Realistically, it took until the III was uparmed for the Germans to have a decent counter - an issue they also encountered in Russia and only really countered with the Panther.
Unfortunately, French forces were concentrated in the Maginot Line and only moved North to the Netherlands and Belgium during Fall Gelb. This, combined with a terrible strategy of coordinating tanks to support Infantry instead of using them as a spearhead led to the eventual collapse of the French Army.

Air wise, the airforces they had were largely inferior to the Bf109s the Germans used in 1940, although the French did have some astoundingly good aircraft.
Again, these were spread out to a horrid extent and were used much like the tanks - mainly in support of the ground infantry.

Overall, the French forces were arguably on par with the Germans, only they were unprepared for the war they were faced with.

Hammerbolt #40 Posted 13 April 2011 - 09:26 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 35359 battles
  • 1,375
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010
A few corrections, if I may:

View Postollivier, on 13 April 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

The biggest problem France faced during WW2 falls to the country itself. It was a largely agricultural country, and thus was very very spread out and not industrialised to the extent that Germany was.

The massive, modern, home-built french fleet, not to mention the severall thousand armoured vechicles, beg to differ. If anything, german's industry was the one in trouble: the germans had to mobilize the chekz industry to produce hundreds of Pz35/38 to fill the ranks. And, when France fell, thousands of french trucks and support vehicles were drafted into the german army, because german industry couldn't produce them fast enough. And the german navy was terribly short on subs; there simply wasn't enough steel to go around.

View Postollivier, on 13 April 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

It took Germany like 2 weeks to mobilise for war - France needed something like 2 months.

Germany was pretty much on the warpath since taking Chekoslovakia. They'd be planning and preparing for months. The final mobilization for Poland was just a matter of details

View Postollivier, on 13 April 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

The PzII simply wasn't armed well enough, and with the PzIII armed for Anti-Infantry operations, no real toe-to-toe contender was found until the PzIV. And even that was barely enough. Realistically, it took until the III was uparmed for the Germans to have a decent counter - an issue they also encountered in Russia and only really countered with the Panther.

This is incorrect. Yes, the PzII was useless, but the PzIII was not armed for anti-infantry. It was, in fact, the german's main AT tank, their idea of a fast, cavalry tank (everyone used simlar calibers for AT work; bigger guns were used for bunker/trench busting). It was the PzIV that was designed for infantry support, hence it's short 75mm gun. Fortunatelly for Germany, the PzIV had plenty of room for improvement, or things would have gone really bad... well, worse. B)

View Postollivier, on 13 April 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

Overall, the French forces were arguably on par with the Germans, only they were unprepared for the war they were faced with.

On par in numbers, yes, even superior in some areas. It was overall quality, training and strategy (or lack of it) that did France in.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users