Were German tanks technologically superior compared to France, Britain in 1939?

Question

If not, why did they beat France?

Answer 1

In 1939, NO. At the end of the War, the German tanks, like the Panther or the Tiger I, were without a doubt the best tanks of the battle field.
But, in 1939, it is not the German technology, or the number of German tanks who defeated France, it is the totally new way of using the Panzer divisions, helped and backed by the "Luftwaffe", who was used like a flying artillery.
In 1939, the German Panzer I, II and a few Panzer III were the only tanks the "Wehrmacht" had to fight against Poland. For the type I and II, it was more an armoured vehicle than a tank (some of the German tank soldier said that a bullet of rifle, at short distance, could go trought the armour).
In 1940, the German army had 2,550 tanks and 4,020 short-range fighters and tactical bombers. The Allied (France, Great-Britain, Belgium) had 4,111 tanks, but only 2,285 airplanes (mainly fighters). Concerning the tanks, the German Panzer III wasn't as strongs as the French Somua S-35 (37mm gun against a 47mm; a 30mm armour against a 47). The French Renault B1 bis was so armoured (about 60mm) that only the German AA 88mm could destroy it.
The truth is, that the French HQ used the tanks as an infantery fire-support (as they did it at the end of WW1), and not as a totally different weapon, as the German did it, by grouping their Panzers in Panzerdivisionen. The skills of some German officers (like Guderian, Rommel, Mannstein, and later Balck, Model ...) explains a part of the German victory.

Later in the war, the superiority of the German tanks was real. During the battle of Nomandy, the US HQ forecast to lose 3 Shermans to destroy 1 Panther. At this time, the US and the British armies weren't focusing on the quality, but on the quantity, as the Russian did it on the Easter front.

Answer 2

Yes. Even today the Germans are noted for the excellence of their engineeering. German tanks throughout the war were almost always technologically superior to their adversaries', but there was a very serious downside to that advantage.

Because they spent so much time, effort and money in perfecting each weapon (not only their tanks) they were often late in getting them to the battlefield in numbers that would make a difference. In the long run, it was the sheer volume of mass-produced (even if sometimes technically inferior) weaponry and other supporting materials produced by the Allied nations that eventually wore down whatever edge the Germans' engineering excellence gave them.

The other answer to your question has to do with the state of military strategic thinking in France in 1939. At that time the French were confident that their Maginot Line would protect them from any German attack. They were still thinking in WW1 strategic terms and had not expected that the Germans would do an end-run around their defenses. But the Germans used their "Blitzkrieg" ("Lightning War") tactics to very quickly send motorized units around hardened defenses and through poorly-defended territory. So it may even be possible that the Germans could have taken France without the very best tanks. It may be that the tactics were more instrumental to the outcome than the machines used.

Answer 3

Everyone gave good answers. One missing element was the why in how France fell. Simply put, the French failed to step up and defend their country. The Germans surprised then by attacking on a new way from an unexpected direction. The French high command failed to anticipate this and once attacked, failed to even react to the new challenge. This is military failure at its purest form.

Another missing element was the one great advance the Germans put in their tanks, the two-way radio. The Germans alone were the only force in the early part of the war that could actively control their units during a battle. This is an emmense force multiplier.

Final vote: France had superior tanks and pathetic leadership.

Answer 4

During the Battle of France in 1940, the Mark I mounted only machine guns, the Mark II a 20mm gun, the Mark III a 37mm gun, and the Mark IV with its short 75 was basically an infantry support weapon in the same class as fit in well with British theory, though the British tanks tended to be better armored. The French had much superior tanks, both in quality and quantity. The German tanks also suffered throughout the war with reliability problems. They'd even lost two thirds of their armor to mechanical breakdown in invading Czechoslovakia.
The tanks got the press, but the invasion was primarily an infantry operation and the transport was largely horses, not mechanical vehicles.
What the Germans had was a combined-arms theory and a good staff structure. "It ain't what you got, it's what you do with it." French doctrine relied on strong central command and this meant that they had to have better communications and nimbler reactions than were possible with the technology available to them at the time, especially once the panzergruppen sliced through and disrupted their C3-I.

Answer 5

The Panzer tanks were able to out perform the US Sherman tanks. France's problem was that they fortified the stalemate lines of WWI expecting the Germans to hit them head on there as they did in the 1st world war. The Germans, simply blew around them and ran for the capitol, Paris in a "panzer" maneuver similar to the second Persian gulf war with the US and Iraq. They go around the enemies strongholds and choke them off at the head. That's why they were so effective, their techniques.

Answer 6

No, the early German tanks were not particulary good. The French and the British generally both had better tanks. However, the Germans had far superior tactics.

Tactics will trump technology every time. (unless you're talking about silly extremes)

Answer 7

The German military was the most powerful military in the last 50 years. If Germany had fought any nation alone, including America, during WW2 it would have DECIMATED it. IT took the US, Britain and Russia,etc. to defeat Germany. The German military was FAR superiour to ANY nation on earth during that period. America was far behind Germany in technology. In the end the US took in many German scientists to advance the relatively primitive US military. THe US couldn't even get a rocket to decently fly. Goddard of the US was an arrogant mental midget compared to Braun brought in from Germany.

Answer 8

No. It turned right into a treaty between Germany and Poland by utilising which they both declared that they'd remedy their adjustments by utilising bi-lateral negotiations and by no ability take any antagonistic action adversarial to one yet another for ten years. Germany withdrew from the %. in 1939 as element of the aggressive international relations it used contained in the run as a lot because the outbreak of the warfare. As neither Britain nor France were events to the %. and both were signatories to treaty making certain Poland, and the League of international places duties of the Treaty of Versailles they were appearing interior of global regulation in putting ahead warfare. Germany fabricated a causus belli by utilising killing a number of his own border guards utilising troops wearing Polish uniforms contained in the Gleiwitz incident, launching his invasion the following day. This said an entire sequence of provocations.