If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Snuffy Smith" wrote in message et...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message om... "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote in message ... Stuart Wilkes wrote: Hm. One wonders how this purged Soviet Army managed to inflict over 3 times as many German KIA in the first seven weeks of Barbarossa as the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies managed in the six-week campaign in the West. What were the numbers of soldiers involved in the two campaigns that you are comparing. i.e: Suprisingly equal, Rostyk. I'm suprised you didn't know that. Maybe he has better things to do than spend his whole life worrying about ancient history like you? He had a question, and he knew who to ask for an accurate answer: Me. He knows better than to ask you, because he knows that all he would get from you is some ill-tempered spleen-venting mixed up with spiteful lies. Stuart Wilkes |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Seraphim wrote:
There are pros and cons on either side, the big difference was doctrine. If the Germans had the French tanks and vice versa the Germans would still have won. Probably true, but it would have been much harder for the Germans. French tanks were *slow*. Of the 3,473 French tanks, ~1,400 were only capable of 12mph on roads, and another 1,000 or so could only do 18mph. Compare that to the 3,200+ German tanks that were all capable of 25+mph. The size of your gun, and the thickness of your armor doesn't matter if you never get to engage another tank. Yes. Also, the fighting compartment of the German tanks was much better, so they could fight on the move. They had radios for fast coordination, which the French tanks mostly lacked. Most importantly, there was logistic support, air support from the Stukas, and rapid coordination for them to move very rapidly - all of which the French lacked, and which could not have been at all quickly corrected. Dennis |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Christophe Chazot wrote:
"Keith Willshaw" a écrit dans le message news: ... "Christophe Chazot" wrote in message ... John My apologies, I thought it was about 1914-18. What happened to our army in 1939-40 had little to do with what was achieved in 1917-18... Actually I suspect it did. The horror of WW1 was so strong in the generation of 1940 that they were determined to avoid it happening again. This is I think what lay behind the reluctance to take the offensive against Germany in 1939 when their troops were busy in Poland. Keith I was talking about what happened to our army in a strictly military field. The morale questions were important too, and the massacre of WW1 certainly had a reverse effect on the will to fight again 20 years later, as you quote. By the way, the reluctance to take offensive in 1939 was also due to the lack of drive of general Gamelin, a peacetime chief of staff who had been promoted for peacetime reasons but who seriously lacked the required skills for such a job at such a time. It was also due to some technical and logistical shortfalls, that resulted from the budget cuts all along the 1930s and that were not corrected until it was too late, but that's a bit off-topic on naval newsgroup. Regards, Christophe I seem to recall that The French began WWI with an offensive into Germany and received heavy losses, which probably made them reluctant to do so in WWII. Joe -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe Osman" wrote in message ... Christophe Chazot wrote: I seem to recall that The French began WWI with an offensive into Germany and received heavy losses, which probably made them reluctant to do so in WWII. Hardly WW1 began with the Germans attacking through Belgium following the Schlieffen plan. In subsequent offensives the French did indeed suffer horrendous casualties. Keith |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Nik Simpson" a écrit dans le message news: ... If anybody wants a really good read on the subject I highly recommend Ernest R. May's "Strange Victory." Or Marc Bloch's "Strange defeat" (L'étrange défaite), written by a medievist who had fought the first war and who did not believed what he saw when he volunteered for the second one, at age 53. Yours, Christophe |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Christophe Chazot wrote:
"Nik Simpson" a écrit dans le message news: ... If anybody wants a really good read on the subject I highly recommend Ernest R. May's "Strange Victory." Or Marc Bloch's "Strange defeat" (L'étrange défaite), written by a medievist who had fought the first war and who did not believed what he saw when he volunteered for the second one, at age 53. Strange Victory is almost written as a companion piece to Strange Defeat and makes frequent references to it. -- Nik Simpson |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Keith Willshaw wrote: "Joe Osman" wrote in message ... Christophe Chazot wrote: I seem to recall that The French began WWI with an offensive into Germany and received heavy losses, which probably made them reluctant to do so in WWII. Hardly WW1 began with the Germans attacking through Belgium following the Schlieffen plan. In subsequent offensives the French did indeed suffer horrendous casualties. It's a mix of both On 3 August Germany attacked belgium. They did not pass Charleroi until Until Aug 22. (althought they were fighting the french in Belgium On august 8 Joffre ordered the French offensive into Alsace Teh Germswn wer suppsoed to withdraw and trap the French from behind but they made the studid decison to contest the french advance. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/lorraine.htm |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message ... Keith Willshaw wrote: "Joe Osman" wrote in message ... Christophe Chazot wrote: I seem to recall that The French began WWI with an offensive into Germany and received heavy losses, which probably made them reluctant to do so in WWII. Hardly WW1 began with the Germans attacking through Belgium following the Schlieffen plan. In subsequent offensives the French did indeed suffer horrendous casualties. It's a mix of both On 3 August Germany attacked belgium. They did not pass Charleroi until Until Aug 22. (althought they were fighting the french in Belgium and the BEF On august 8 Joffre ordered the French offensive into Alsace Teh Germswn wer suppsoed to withdraw and trap the French from behind but they made the studid decison to contest the french advance. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/lorraine.htm The 3rd coming before the 8th it would seem that the opening gambit was indeed a German attack and the fact of the French offensive having occurred on the 8th would appear to make it subsequent. In any event French losses around Mulhouse were light, the town itself having been taken without serious opposition the French were subsequently on the defensive. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|