Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChalkLine
Actually, elastic defence is a WW1 German system, post Hindenburg/Ludendorf. It was used by other armies though in other places too about that time. Also, just to be nitpicky, the 'Maginot guns couldn't turn 360º' isn't true  The real problem with the Maginot guns was that they were too light a calibre, being mainly 75mm - much too light for a fortification gun. The French wanted speed of fire over weight of shell. The Maginot line worked brilliantly, the German's didn't dare attack it directly except in one set-piece assault after it was already outflanked. The real reason the French, in my view, lost the Battle of France is a certain general named 'Gough' cutting and running to Dunkirk and leaving the French to do it alone. |
About the elastic defense I knew it. However, I was thinking about later exemples inspired by it and working on a similar idea/principle (or so I think). I can't imagine the elastic defense as it was conceived to be working in T2K except may be around free Krakow. Anyway, it seemed from what I read later that I was off-topic. My appologies but that day I was out and shouldn't have entered that discussion at all.
I didn't get everything right I think and was not capable of thinking strait (puking all night doesn't help).
For the Maginot line, you are right about the turrets (never went to check that one before). However, the turrets represented only about 15% of the defensive position as most were made of casemates and "cloches". Again I was wrong the angle of fire was on the average 45° (much less than what I thought). I have never been very interested in modern forts and I'm far from knowing everything about them (I was living less than 50 miles from several such position and never visited them). Therefore, thanks, I would not have checked if you had not correct this. Another problem with the line, however, was that an entire army had been positioned there and the order to move came quite late I think.
However, I disagree with the responsibility you put on Dunkirk (Gort was the general's name I think). When that move was decided, the allied forces had already been cut by the German and all attempt to brake through had failed. On the other hand, the French move to Belgium (they were the one to insist upon it) was all but stupid as it was designed without any coordination with the Belgian army. Obviously, that was not possible as the Belgian and Dutch refused any pre-war plan in order to preserve their neutrality. As a result, planing to take defensive position anywhere in Belgium was silly or hazardous at best. Moreover, that move was an answer to the schliffen plan of WWI and the Nazis chose a plan that was a mix Schliffen/Guderian.
At the time the French (Paul Reynaud) blame their defeat on the Belgian which I think to be equally false. When the king of Belgium chose to capitulate he offered the french all the trucks and vehicles that were available to help them in their retreat and delayed its capitulation, buying them 48hrs. The british didn't have that problem as their army was the most mechanized of Europe. A true problem, however, was the inhability of the allied commands to combine their efforts: at times both French and British refused to share informations.
After Dunkirk, it was widely believed that the french soldiers were left behind and that was false again. Of course the British troops were given priority (a smart move in my opinion) but 120000 french soldiers were taken along with only 40000 left behind (Oops, they had to leave behind most of their equipment). Then, most of the french soldiers were shipped back to France in the following days and that continued after the french capitulation. At last only a few hundreds (I recently learnt that they were about 300+a few naval officers/sailors/airmen and was amazed by so small a number) will remain to continue the fight while several thousands chose to get back to France instead. Nevertheless, the British didn't really want them in june 1940 as they quite dislike/distrust de Gaulle and probably the French.
That defeat was a collective defeat due to superior fighting spirit, command structure and tactics on the German side. Even, the german technical superiority was untrue except when it comes to tactical bombers. However, their tactics were far superior on land and in the air.