Was France an too easy walkover during WW2 despite its combined..?

Question

huge standing army with the British Expeditionary Force and modern and better tanks arsenal compared to the Germans?

Answer 1

France 1940 Military Collapse

On paper, France and its allies should have won – or at least forced a stalemate - versus the German Plan Yellow attack in May 1940. Counting Dutch and Belgian forces as French allies, as well as the BEF, here is how it looked on paper on May 10, 1940: -

Army Divisions:
France+Allies: 152, of which 93 “first-line”.
Germany: 135, of which 76 “first-line”.

Tanks:
France+Allies: 4,204, of which ... 584 Heavy; 1,730 Medium; 765 Light.
Germany: 2,439, of which ... 0 Heavy; 961 Medium; 1,478 Light.

Bombers and Fighters:
France+Allies: 4,981, of which (however!) only 1,450 deployed on Western Front.
Germany: 3,369, of which 2,780 deployed on Western Front.

Heavy Artillery (tubes):
France+Allies: 13,974.
Germany: 7,378.

So, France+Allies had significant numerical advantages in every respect except for Combat Aircraft actually deployed on the Western Front; and also qualitative advantages in Armor.

- - - - -

But the raw numbers disguise serious flaws in the “France+Allies” situation. The most important (but not in any order of importance) of these hidden flaws were: -

[a] Superior German doctrine for the use of Armor as a breakthrough force in mobile warfare, rather than as infantry-support equipment. Resulting concentration of German Armor into Pz Divisions of great mobility and quite strong punch, led by mainly young, unconventional generals. France+Allies Armor was, by contrast, mostly deployed in penny packets. On the few occasions when France+Allies Armor fought on equal or superior numerical terms, they performed quite well; for example, at Hannut, where Prioux’s “Light” mechanized divisions fought and defeated Hoepner’s panzers.

[b] Superior German combined arms integration of ground attack aircraft, used as flying artillery, with the Pz Divisions. By contrast, France+Allies tactical air support was usually non-existent ... or disastrously ill-timed when sorties were organized.

[c] German Combat Aircraft qualitative superiority versus most Aircraft types deployed by France+Allies. Combining the Luftwaffe’s qualitative superiority with its almost 2:1 numerical superiority actually deployed on the Western Front, Germany effectively owned the skies over the battlefields. And France+Allies ground forces were woefully deficient in both anti-aircraft weaponry and in training to cope with air attack; particularly with the terrors of dive bombing.

- - - - -

But, probably even more decisive than those tangible tactical/operational differences were some of the non-measurable differences: -

[d] Germany had better field commanders than France+Allies. Here the Versailles Treaty restraints had worked to Germany’s advantage, by almost forcing the early retirement of many stupid or old fashioned generals, making space at the top for better talents. A number of France+Allies generals were probably the equal of most German generals (for examples, Giraud, Prioux, de Gaulle, Dill, Brooke): but none were in the same league as Guderian or Rommel.

[e] German communications were better organized and much more timely than France+Allies, particularly those of the French army. It did not much matter that German radio and field-telephone communications were sometimes intercepted and deciphered, because that usually happened too late to make any difference. By contrast, the French were overly security conscious, limiting their radio use and relying mainly on couriers, and therefore always hours (if not days) too late in reacting to German moves.

[f] Germany fought alone, as a single, fully-integrated force. France fought in an alliance, in which the whole was definitely far less than the sum of the parts. There was little or no cooperation between the French and British air forces. And, although Belgians fought bravely, their was no effective coordination between them and the French/British. Allies can be more of a hindrance than a help. As Churchill allegedly remarked when Italy declared war against France and Britain on June 10th: “It’s only fair. They were on our side in the last war.”

[g] Surprise! France+Allies totally misread the focus of the German offensive plan. They assumed that the Germans would repeat their Schlieffen Plan maneuver of 1914. So the best French and British divisions headed for the Flanders plain, leaving their right flank in the Ardennes covered by 9th and 2nd Armies, units that contained the dross of French soldiery and were carelessly commanded from Army-level on down. Where it mattered most, around Sedan, the Germans achieved a temporary 3:2 numerical superiority in ground forces, plus huge qualitative superiority, plus total command of the air.

[h] Once France+Allies finally recognized what the Germans were doing in the Ardennes sector, they tried to react, but were far too slow in doing so. In two of the other great surprises of WW2, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor, the Soviets and the US recognized immediately that they had been fooled. But it took the French and British leaders FOUR DAYS to realize that they had been fooled in the Ardennes in May 1940.

Answer 2

France and Great Britain were still in shock from WWI the French Army was large but most of it was in the Maginot Line which was good but it didn't cover the place that the Germans attacked; from the Ardennes. AS for their tanks the French had only one tank that was the equal or better then the German tanks and that was the Char SOMUA S-35 Tank that was entering use in 1940 the rest of the tanks in the French Arsenal were just behind the Germans and the doctrine of tank warfare practiced by both the French and the British was archaic.

There were officers who wanted to implement new doctrines but they were few and far between the French Leader was a Col. De Gaulle who was held back by the French Military. Just as the British had sent their best, Percy Hobart to The Siberia of the Western Desert where he planned and trained what would be know as the 8th Armored Division or the Desert Rats.

France in 1940 was unprepared for war and was praying for a repeat of WWI so that they could attrit the Germans down. What they got was much different.

Answer 3

The reason France fell has more to do with perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in modern military history: The Maginot Line.

France, despite having an impressive army, was still in the WWI mindset of trench warfare. It expected Germany to simply smash straight into the line.

What the French didn't count on, however, were the Germans going through Belgium and through the Ardennes Forest. The German army passed unmolested into France, around the entire body of the French military, and there was nothing between the Germans and Paris. Rommel blitzkreiged his army so fast the French called him "The Ghost".

The line had been completely outflanked, the French were cut off from their government, and Operation Tiger was making a mess of the line. That is the reason France fell as fast as it did.

Answer 4

In my opinion, Jason, it wasn't that France was too easy a walkover - they had their Maginot Line and thought, mistakenly of course, that that would protect them.
The more important aspect was that Germany was too powerful. Nothing could have stopped them at that point in the War.
The French, for the most part, did their best, but simply didn't have the manpower or equipment to fight the Germans on an equal footing.
This is, of course, ignoring the huge numbers of French who took up with the Germans right off the bat in their own best interests. These folks were downright traitors. Without the cooperation of MANY French, the Germans could have been kicked out of France a lot sooner than they were. Only these people profited from the German Occupation - and, as they soon found out - NO ONE was safe - but to betray your own Country is indefensible.

Answer 5

You are right. All the information I get is that the French and British had more tanks than Germany. The French in 1939 also had better tanks than 1939 Germany. Remember, Germany was hindered in this area since surrendering in WW 1. Most of German tank development was from Russia. And some tanks invading France were even poorly designed Czech tanks inherited when Germany annexed them.

The thing going for the Germans was forward thinking, and superior strategy and tactics verses a world war one thinking enemy. Those superior French tanks were spread out along the whole line in a defensive mode and in support of troop actions. Germany troops were used in support of tank actions that were concentrated in packs and attacked together. Blitzkrieg was the difference. Spearhead armor, tanks and air power in one place to punch a whole in the defensive then run the tanks in as far as possible. These tanks are now free to suround your front lines, or go unoppose straight on to the capital.

German Strategy was so good that it helped them loose the war. The Allies started to copy strategy. AND good strategy meant Germany failed to look at the flaws in their tank designs. They didn't improve them until they faced the Soviet tanks. Then it was a mad scramble to develop their own. When the western invasion came, German tanks were improved, and better than American tanks.

As for the British tanks. I have heard experts say that the best thing that happened to British Design is that all the British tanks had to be left in France when retreating. They then had to redezign and rebuild.

Did the French and British fall too easy in France? NO. They were up against superior tactics.

Answer 6

There are many tactical and technical reasons afforded the German Army's "walk over" of the French and British forces in the conquering of France. But, in reality, there is only one reason that France fell so quickly to the German Army: The French Army had a decimated officer corps, while the German Army had an elite officer corps. Poor leadership of the French and British forces led to the devastating defeat of France.

Answer 7

Well the technical reason is because the Germans outflanked them and thus by the time the French put up a defense, they were already outmaneuvered.

But the more complex reason is connected to the conflict in World War I. The Germans were the most advanced country on earth at the time (contrary to popular opinion, moreso than the US until 1945). France was still run by a 19th century mentality; even after WWI they didn't advance much. Germany had progressed into advanced 20th century technology and thus it was inevitable they would over-run France. They had put all their money into national defense, whereas France did not.

Answer 8

Several reasons they were a walk-over....
1. Their generals were fighting with tactics from the previous war....a sedentary front with trenches...look at their trust in the Maginot Line.

2. Their armor was used in penny packets supporting the infantry, rather than the massed formation of the German panzers at the point of attack.

3. By the time they did regroup and try to counter-attack the Germans after the breakthrough at Sedan, the French were uncoordinated.

4. The French started playing the blame-game by pointing at the BEF for abandoning them via Dunkirk, rather than striking south to defend Paris.

Answer 9

france easy walkover ww2 combined

Answer 10

Obviously but the german armor was far superior to the British and french
And they had better officers to lead a better trained army.
The French were relying too much on the Maginot line and once this was bypassed the blitzkrieg tactics caught them off balance.
The English Channel was the only thing that saved the English from the same fate.

Answer 11

France an easy walk over ????? No such thing.hahaha just kidding. Germany had some momentum and the French didn't know what to expect. They had a poor defense plan to begin with.