There was never any serious threat of an amphibious invasion. The capabilities of the Kriegsmarine for that were woefull (even the army &the Lufftwafe balked at the idea). No such invasion could even be considered unless the RAF was knocked out the Royal Navy kept from the invasion beachead (an imposibility). The German Navy had no hope of ever defeating the Royal Navy in a shootout. It was also not possible to build up its fleet quickly. The German Navy believed that by 1946 they would have had several more BISMARK class Battleships and several aircraft carriers.
The British are selfish for leaving the French at Dunkirk
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Glider
Major
Nonskimmer said:
A couple of years ago we were on Holiday in Newfoundland. At the eastern point there are some Gun emplacements built in 1941 and equiped with American Guns.
There were a bunch of Canadians looking at this gun with some Americans and they were moaning that the British had deserted the Canadians in 1941 leaving the Americans to supply the Guns for the emplacement. Complaining that the British wouldn't let them have any modern weapons keeping them all to themselves and thanking the Americans for their generosity.
I couldn't take any more of this and
1) asked them how far were the germans from the Canadian coastline as the French coast is about 25 mile from my house - silence
2) Asked them how the Germans were supposed to invade Canada in 1941 - silence
3) Finally I pointed out that the Guns in the emplacement was a dissapearing gun dating from around 1880 and might, just might, get two shots off before it was destroyed being totally open to the sky - more silence
4) I asked if 1880 was modern what would their definition of old be - more silence. This was a cheap shot I know but I couldn't resist it.
- Thread starter
- #43
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Glider, well done!
Nonskimmer
Captain
Indeed. I have to agree I'm afraid, well done. That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. You'll find that kind of attitude regarding various topics almost anywhere you go in this world though, not just parts of eastern Canada, and the people can be every bit as thick. I've had experiences of my own from time to time.syscom3 said:
Those Newfs didn't even seem to know their own history in the least. One thing you should have asked them was "When did Newfoundland actually become a part of Canada?". More blank stares I suppose.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Assuming they weren't actually from another part of Canada, like say Nova Scotia.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
but whats the deal with adding Labradour onto the province of Newfoundland for? its on the mailand we should have 11 provinces
Nonskimmer
Captain
Not enough people. Labrador lacks the population to warrant provincial status. If anything, it would be a fourth territory. As it was, the whole thing was part of the deal for Newfoundland joining Confederation.102first_hussars said:
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Never been there, is it whats the weather like
And here is me thinking that the French military have been quite martial down the years. A small blip in ww2 and they seemed to be damned for all eternity. If germany had a border with the US in ww2 I will warrant that the US performance against them wouldnt have been much diffrent from the French or Brits. Thats slightly off topic I know. However the French have been fighting terrorists fromN Africa to the Far East since ww2, quite a bit longer than some other nations.
Actually the French have not been fighting terrorism in N. Africa. If you look at what they were fighting and who they were fighting, it was people fighting to regain there independence from France. That is a lot different than terrorism. In the Far East they were fighting the Vietmanese among others (yes the French were in Vietnam before the US was). That was gorilla fighting for there country against the French, not terrorism)
Besides today France is one of the biggest importers behind Russia of weapons to the countries that support terrorism.
Besides today France is one of the biggest importers behind Russia of weapons to the countries that support terrorism.
I live in France, have done for far too many years, and I think I know a bit or two about them. I agree with most of what has been said above, but there is one more thing you need to know about - the French national character.
On a personal level, imagine you accidentally bump into someone's foot with your trolley in the supermarket. Being a well-brought up Brit, Aussie, Yank, etc, you apologize, expecting them to shrug it off, and say no more; instead, the French person begins to have a verbal go at you, as if you had done it deliberately.
Second scenario. You drive normally through a green light, and are rammed by a French driver, who is probably drunk to boot. He starts shouting and waving his arms, not always politely, and tries to blame you.
Your French colleague fails to attain his objective at work. Instead of, "OK, I'll give it another crack", you get a list of (usually feeble) reasons and things beyond-his-control to try and shove the blame onto other people.
See where this leads? Exactly. They are a nation of whingers who would blame anything on anybody, regardless of the rights and wrongs, just as long as they don't have to admit they fluffed it. Of course, some individuals are nice, straight types, but on the whole, forget it. And as for admitting that they simply folded owing to poor training and worse leadership, both military and political, drop that!
Incidentally, just to give some authority to the above, I'm also involved in developing the Combat Flight Simulator 3 Battle Of France add-on - which started simply from wargaming the French Campaign, and coming to the conclusion that with more aggressive leadership and more effective soldiering, the combined forces could have given the Germans a really nasty ride - even if we have never actually had the Allies win.
On a personal level, imagine you accidentally bump into someone's foot with your trolley in the supermarket. Being a well-brought up Brit, Aussie, Yank, etc, you apologize, expecting them to shrug it off, and say no more; instead, the French person begins to have a verbal go at you, as if you had done it deliberately.
Second scenario. You drive normally through a green light, and are rammed by a French driver, who is probably drunk to boot. He starts shouting and waving his arms, not always politely, and tries to blame you.
Your French colleague fails to attain his objective at work. Instead of, "OK, I'll give it another crack", you get a list of (usually feeble) reasons and things beyond-his-control to try and shove the blame onto other people.
See where this leads? Exactly. They are a nation of whingers who would blame anything on anybody, regardless of the rights and wrongs, just as long as they don't have to admit they fluffed it. Of course, some individuals are nice, straight types, but on the whole, forget it. And as for admitting that they simply folded owing to poor training and worse leadership, both military and political, drop that!
Incidentally, just to give some authority to the above, I'm also involved in developing the Combat Flight Simulator 3 Battle Of France add-on - which started simply from wargaming the French Campaign, and coming to the conclusion that with more aggressive leadership and more effective soldiering, the combined forces could have given the Germans a really nasty ride - even if we have never actually had the Allies win.
I agree with you on the French. I have been to France many many times. I was just in Paris about 6 weeks ago.
I love the French countryside and I love Paris but I find for the most part the French people are very rude. Atleast the ones that I run into.
It could because they dont like the Germans or the Americans and I am German/American so they doubly hate me.
I love the French countryside and I love Paris but I find for the most part the French people are very rude. Atleast the ones that I run into.
It could because they dont like the Germans or the Americans and I am German/American so they doubly hate me.
Thanks Adler. Meteor, I'm not saying anything about the soldiers. Or why they fight. Although sometime their reasons can be Iffy if you catch my meaning. However, Recently their commander/government don't want to fight, unless somebody Invaded.
Their soldiers are fine and they now have one of the most state of the Art tank on the planet. However, their military i believe is run by a, but of Gaytard that would rather fight with what looks good on paper. They are a force to be reckoned with, but a military is useless if it's not used properly. Look at WW1. They ruled in aircraft production developing hundreds even thousands more planes than any other country in the war. Infact when America joined the war they had nothing as far as aircraft and was forced to use French aircraft such as the Neuport 28 and the Spad XIII. Which were excellent aircraft.
However, now they got cocky and paid the price as history has proven. Yes Napoleon was a great General and Empire. However, even then they did win battles, but in the process they ultimate lost their wars do to Mal-nourishment/hunger, Russian winter, and the death tole they received from their battle. The main reason America won the Revolutionary War. They won with Guerrilla fighting which is what devastated the European powers at the time. They were trained for a European marching line battle which it in of itself means the loss of many a good men.
WW2 also proved a thorn in the side as they started the Maginot line, but they never finished it. Not sure about their reasons I believe because they didn't want to provoke Switzerland or Italy but not sure about that. Tactically a Great idea. However they didn't finish it. Which is what allowed Hitler to invade and ultimately ended with the Occupation of France.
I'm not talking down France about their Military strategies. In fact, they're geniuses when it comes strategy. The problem is they are bad when it come to following through with their strategy and being able to adapt when their strategy fails.
This is why I don't like the French militarily. They could easily become a major Superpower if they would just learn how to use their military and when to use them. That's what I'm saying.
Their soldiers are fine and they now have one of the most state of the Art tank on the planet. However, their military i believe is run by a, but of Gaytard that would rather fight with what looks good on paper. They are a force to be reckoned with, but a military is useless if it's not used properly. Look at WW1. They ruled in aircraft production developing hundreds even thousands more planes than any other country in the war. Infact when America joined the war they had nothing as far as aircraft and was forced to use French aircraft such as the Neuport 28 and the Spad XIII. Which were excellent aircraft.
However, now they got cocky and paid the price as history has proven. Yes Napoleon was a great General and Empire. However, even then they did win battles, but in the process they ultimate lost their wars do to Mal-nourishment/hunger, Russian winter, and the death tole they received from their battle. The main reason America won the Revolutionary War. They won with Guerrilla fighting which is what devastated the European powers at the time. They were trained for a European marching line battle which it in of itself means the loss of many a good men.
WW2 also proved a thorn in the side as they started the Maginot line, but they never finished it. Not sure about their reasons I believe because they didn't want to provoke Switzerland or Italy but not sure about that. Tactically a Great idea. However they didn't finish it. Which is what allowed Hitler to invade and ultimately ended with the Occupation of France.
I'm not talking down France about their Military strategies. In fact, they're geniuses when it comes strategy. The problem is they are bad when it come to following through with their strategy and being able to adapt when their strategy fails.
This is why I don't like the French militarily. They could easily become a major Superpower if they would just learn how to use their military and when to use them. That's what I'm saying.
Very well put, however, the same can be said of the UK. I both admire and loathe the French. I admire them for actually standing up for their culture and their interests and not being swayed by other powers. And I loathe them for their inward looking selfishness and having lived there for a while agree with NDICKI.
However, the terrorist statements above are subjective. Just as the US thinks they are fighting terrorists today, the French thought they were then. A wee bit of subjectivity is needed here. No doubt in todays speak the VC were terrorists too, but they see themselves as freedom fighters, just as the Algerians in the 60's saw themselves.
What is terrorism afterall? If this was 200 years ago the modern day prosepective on the US revolution could be seen as an Insurgency like Iraq.
However, the terrorist statements above are subjective. Just as the US thinks they are fighting terrorists today, the French thought they were then. A wee bit of subjectivity is needed here. No doubt in todays speak the VC were terrorists too, but they see themselves as freedom fighters, just as the Algerians in the 60's saw themselves.
What is terrorism afterall? If this was 200 years ago the modern day prosepective on the US revolution could be seen as an Insurgency like Iraq.
"WW2 also proved a thorn in the side as they started the Maginot line, but they never finished it. Not sure about their reasons I believe because they didn't want to provoke Switzerland or Italy but not sure about that. Tactically a Great idea. However they didn't finish it. Which is what allowed Hitler to invade and ultimately ended with the Occupation of France."
No it wasn't a great idea. It was a crap idea and was a crap defence line.
No it wasn't a great idea. It was a crap idea and was a crap defence line.
I thought the Germans took the idea and used it on french coastline as a defensive against a sea invasion. It fell, but at a heavy price. Plus the Germans went around it attacked it on all sides. However, if it had been completed, I think it would of held it's on against the german invasion. Although, I get the fealing you're talking about why not just bomb it. Which in that case your correct. Still it would of been tough to crack.
No it wouldn't. The Maginot Line was not shell or bomb proof. Lacked depth and had many blind-sides. The Germans didn't use a single tank while attacking the Maginot Line. And for the tactically good idea part!? Napoleon stated "The loser stays in his forts." Defence is best mobile, even the German definsive "lines" were mobile.
Chief the Maginot Line was a complete waste of time and was completey outdated in its tactical idea. It was designed with the idea of fighting a WW1 type war like the trench war of WW1. It was useless against a mobile force like the Germans had as pD said.
The Germans simply went around it with there main thrust though the lowlands of Belgium and Netherlands.
The Germans simply went around it with there main thrust though the lowlands of Belgium and Netherlands.
True it was outdated being design for a Second WW1 and the fact that it wasn't completed didn't help much. Not to mention they didn't have a single AA gun system at all. However, if they based the line as so, cannon, AA Gun, cannon, AA gun. It probably would've held out at least a little bit longer.
Also, did the french have close air support over the Maginot line?
Also, did the french have close air support over the Maginot line?
