# Fall Gelb



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

Here are some pictures of France in 1939-1940 and the invasion of France, _Fall Gelb_. 

This first set is the Maginot Line and the French Army.

{You lot with dump computers are going to hate this page}


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

Here's some from the Saar Offensive, the only 'offensive' the French made in the war. Not exactly an Offensive more than a prod at the German lines. 
This 'offensive' never intended to reach beyond the Rhine and they actually pulled back before Poland had even surrendered. A withdrawal the Germans didn't intend on hampering.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

At 5:30am, May 10th, 1940 Germany's Wehrmacht attacked France and the Lowlands, _Fall Gelb_ had been put into action. The first days were vital, the majority of German forces were amassed on the Ardennes forest but there was a loud, exciting and fercious distraction going on up north in Holland. France, Britain and Belgium only realised the truth when it was too late...

{these pictures are from Holland and Belgium}


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

On the same day, May 10th, the Luftwaffe unleashed a massive attack against French airfields. French, British and Belgian aircraft were almost wiped out on the ground, over 2000 aircraft were destroyed in the first few days. 

By the way, I'm not very good with French aircraft so a little identification would be nice.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

French High Command predicted that it would take the Wehrmacht 9 days to penertrate the Ardennes forest and reach the Meuse, on the third day they were on the River Meuse and attacking Sedan.

The French and British forces were still moving north in Belgium to counter the German threat up there. Playing straight into Germany's hands.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

By the 13th May, 1940, the French and British air forces had stopped covering their armies advance and turned attention to defending their airfields and destroying the advancing German army. This led to a massive air battle over France, the first air war that the Luftwaffe had against a modern foe.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

More from the Air War {Identify the French aircraft}


----------



## evangilder (May 9, 2005)

Cool stuff pd!


----------



## mosquitoman (May 9, 2005)

The sign means no photography because it's a military zone and the RAF aircraft is a Fairey Battle


----------



## mosquitoman (May 9, 2005)

The sign means no photography because it's a military zone and the RAF aircraft is a Fairey Battle


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

I guessed the sign would mean something like that. Got to love that gun camera footage...  For the other ones, I'll try and keep the amount of pictures down a bit...But wait...I haven't finished on France yet...

By 20th May, only 10 days after the initial invasion, it was obvious that all for those armies caught in Belgium, it was lost. The Battle for Sedan had quickly become the Battle for France, and it was quickly being lost by the Allies. Day by day coastal towns were being captured, the British plan to evacuate British and French troops caught in the coastal town of Dunkerque began on May 27th...this became the greatest evacuation in history lifting off over 300,000 troops of British, French and Belgian origin.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

> RAFs tragic start.jpg - 27 Time(s)



Thats a Fairey Battle.



> French Bombers.jpg - 16 Time(s)



Im not sure but I think theyre Bloch MB.200's



> French Aircraft(1).jpg - 13 Time(s)



Looks like a Farman F.222



> French Aircraft.jpg - 13 Time(s)



Bloch MB.174 Maybe?


At least I think thats what they all are.

GREAT pictures by the way! 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

By June 5th, 1940, the last of the British troops had left France for home. British High Command were pleased to have their boys home but were ed in the loss of life and machine they had suffered aiding France. 

It was time though for the Wehrmacht to regroup after snipping away the northern threat. The time had come for France to fall. The panzers regrouped, the infantry regrouped and Luftwaffe regrouped...


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

The Wehrmacht came against stiff resistance for the first few days. The French fought tougher than in any of the past weeks but it wasn't enough. The French were out-numbered now two to one and the Wehrmacht enacted a breakthrough once again. 
The Germans were on the heels every step of the way, they captured Paris on June 14th, 1940. It wasn't long before Marshal Petain requested an armistice. This was signed on June 22nd, 1940...France had fallen, Britain stood alone.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2005)

pD said:


> this became the greatest evacuation in history lifting off over 300,000 troops of British, French and Belgian origin



do you know how you can tell planD here is a patriotic britian from this?? he has called the miracle of dunkerque an evacuation, and has not said we've run away as some might see it, because we weren't running away, it was a tactical withdrawal of troops................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 9, 2005)

It wasnt retreating - It was advancing in a different way


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Great pics here again.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2005)

There is a difference between retreating and running away, CC. Retreating is withdrawing from the face of a superior enemy as an army, unit cohesion still in existance. Operation Dynamo wasn't a panic, it was a well laid plan that went much better than expected. 

Running away is everyone turning tail and running without any care in the world for their force or their unit. They just want to survive. That is called being routed. 

A retreat and a tactical withdrawal can also be seperated. For instance, if Guderian had ordered his 24th Panzer Corps (which he wanted to do) away from Moscow in December 1941, and placed them in positions around Smolensk then it would have been a tactical withdrawal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 10, 2005)

Tactical withdrawals also can be necessarry to keep the strength of your forces. Better to run and live to fight another day. Throughout history tactical withdrawals have been used to the advantage of the unit with drawing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2005)

yes there is no point in staying to fight a battle you cannot win when you can retreat, unless it's to but time or defend a specific objective......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

And that is still questionable, unless there is deffinative help in the future for your soldiers.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Yes, if you can't defend your objective effectively without losing a mass majority of your troops and there's no help around the next corner it is best to withdraw. 

Von Paulus' 6th Army was best to withdraw from Stalingrad in 1942. It wouldn't have been a retreat but a tactical withdrawal from an objective deemed, by Hitler, to be held.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Hitler would not have let him withdraw.


----------



## Medvedya (May 12, 2005)

Which is what you get when you have a Corporal directing the battle plan.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

A crazy deranged corporal as a matter of fact!


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

There were many mistakes made before the attempt into Stalingrad, all of which being Hitler's. The original plan was good, 6th Army would advance to the Volga, cutting off the Caucasus. Then 4th Panzer Army would advance into the Caucasus capturing the oil fields and encircling any Soviet Armies there. 

The first problem was that the Soviets realising they lacked the skill or numbers to face the Wehrmacht in pitched battles just fell back. The German observation of the Allies was that they fought for land instead of over it. The Wehrmacht always aimed to crush the opposition army, not capture land or towns. 
Hitler got excited because the 6th Army was advancing with little opposition. He assumed the Soviets lacked any armies that were capable of resistance. He diverted forces from the 6th Army and sent them to join the 4th Panzer Army which he sent to the Caucasus before the trap had been set. 
The 6th Army now deprived of vital armour and fuel had to carry on with the original plan, which it in fact achieved. It reached the Volga, cutting off the Caucasus. Then, the critical blow came, Hitler ordered the 6th Army to take Stalingrad! That was never a target for the Wehrmacht didn't care for the cities or towns, they wanted the enemy army! 
Then after the realisation that the 6th Army needed more troops, after throwing in it's reserves and not crushing the Soviet bridgehead on the east coast of the Volga, ordered German units on the 6ths' flank to join in, while Romanian, Slovakian and Italian units with *no* heavy anti-tank artillery took their place! 

Then when the Soviets had encircled the 6th Army, they only thought they'd captured 30,000! The 6th Army could have smashed straight through with little effort! 250,000 men would have slaughtered the Soviet troops and just smashed out of the encirclement. But no! Moron Hitler doesn't have a clue and says that 4th Panzer Army is on it's way. In actual fact, the Soviet Armies had pushed further, all the way to Rostov which encircled elements of the 4th Panzer Army and Romanian 3rd Army in Caucasus as well as 6th Army in Stalingrad. 

Had Hitler allowed the breakout, Stalingrad would have been the biggest disaster for the Soviets. Instead it was allowed to fester and Goering thought he could deliver 500 tons a day, when 6th Army already said it needed *at least* 800 tons. Even then, only 80 tons made it everyday. And, by then 7 Soviet Armies had encircled Stalingrad and then the Soviets made a mistake, by attacking Stalingrad instead of letting the German troops to rot!

Out of 100,000 troops captured in Stalingrad, only 6000 returned to Germany. 

Wow, that was all off memory...quite a large rant.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

The biggest mistake Hitler made was put himself in control of the military, if he had left it to his real Military Commanders things may have been different atleast for a little while longer then they did. Hitler was fixed on one big picture and would not see the the other things that had to be accomplished. He basically had tunnel vision, he could see the victorious end but did not see the things that had to be accomplished first.

Anyhow my grandfather was at Stalingrad, it is where he was wounded and captured. He fortunatly came home, or there would not have been me.


----------



## Medvedya (May 12, 2005)

One lucky, lucky, guy! My mates granddad was in the Army Group South with the Hungarian Army and had similar good fortune.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

That would have been a tragedy not to have you, Adler.  

 

Yes, Hitler was *not* a military tactician. I can safely say Russia would have been captured in 1942 had he left it to the German General Staff. 

I don't know about the rest but N.Africa wasn't taken because the Royal Navy was depriving Rommel of supplies. Contrary to belief that it was ALL Hitler's fault. Out of every 4 supply ships going to Rommel, only 1 got through. 
Plus Rommel made the fatal error of saying he could take Eygpt with Malta intact. The Luftwaffe had to support him, by the time they diverted to Malta it was too late.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> That would have been a tragedy not to have you, Adler.



I am sure there are atleast one person here at this forum that would have been a great thing because then I would not have around.....  

As for the Hitler not a tactician you are correct. He pretty much threw away all of Germany's victories and lost the war for them.

As for Rommel his big mistake was not taking Tobruk. Had Tobruk fallen, the British would not have recieved supplies and he could pushed them out of Egypt. As you said Rommel was not getting supplies but the British were through Tobruk. Had Rommel taken Tobruk and the Germans could have taken all the Islands in the Med, then they could have controled the supplies flowing into N. Afrika. Then things may have been different but only if the Luftwaffe and U-Boots could have protected the supply ships. The one thing that N. Afrika did accomplish for the Germans was bogging down the British and keeping them from putting up more of a defense for Greece.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

The Afrika Korps were never sent to Africa to capture it. They were only sent there to hold as many British troops up as possible. In that, they were successful. 
Rommel did try and take Tobruk in 1941 and he *did* take Tobruk in 1942. The reason he failed in 1941 was because it was a heavily defended fortress, the Australian garrison were very brave and stubborn men. By 1942 it had been neglected after the massive push by the British toward Tripoli. 

North Africa was a massive blunder for the British because it could have been ended in 1940. The British were only a few miles from Tripoli but Churchill diverted forces and fuel to Greece. Had Tripoli been taken, the Afrika Korps would have never entered North Africa and hundreds of thousands of Italians would have been captured. Then vital resources could have been sent to Greece with no worries in North Africa. 

It actually happened again 1942, the British came close to capturing Tripoli but forces were diverted to Malaya and Singapore. Twice Britain came close but couldn't sort out their priorities.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Rommel did very well in N. Afrika, he may have lost but he did very well for what he had.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

There is no denying that but Britain had a chance to end the North African campaign before Rommel was even there. Then they had another chance to end it while he was there in 1942. 

Due to Britain's mixed up priorities, it lasted until 1943.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

Yes I agree. I was just watching the World At War series on DVD and it amazes me how many times they tried to fix the problem by changing commanders but what they really just did was put the problem on the back burner.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Do you have The World At War on DVD too?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 12, 2005)

You are talking about the 6 DVD series, if yes, then yes I do. To me it is the best set I have seen.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

Mine is 11 DVDs. 35 + hours! 

It's awesome.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2005)

Where'd you steal it from?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2005)

If the courts prove anything, they'll tell you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

11 DVD's. I have the whole set on 6 DVD's. They are double sided though which would make it 12 technically.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

All but one of yours is probably double sided. Mine are only single sided.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I said mine were double sided


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

I know. Are all of them double-sided? I imagine one isn't to make it equal to 11.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

I will have to check. I know one side is just special features.


----------

