French Heavy tank (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

AEMIL -> French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 12:07:13 PM)

1. I have a question about in game messages. Is this default that you can send only short messages via chat. I can not send more than a short sentence?

2. I dont understand why french army doesnt get Heavy tanks at the beginning of the game. Didnt french army have had heavy tanks before the war started?



Hairog -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 1:28:57 PM)

2. You are right. The French did have two good heavy tanks in large numbers. The best and most versatil was the Somusa-35-S. It could take a beating and win from every german gun but the 88mm which was not mounted on a tank as yet.

It was the best tank of 1939-40 and they had them in impressive numbers. The generals who used them were bad. If you want to experience a simulation of just how good they were play the MMO game Battleground Europe. It takes a licking and keeps on ticking.


[image]local://upfiles/751/DCD368FF12014175A0A67E0FFCD3E8B5.jpg[/image]



vonik -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 1:33:56 PM)

1. afaik it's only this short line . Don't know why .
2. It does but they come in May 40 (check your production tab) . But yes France had heavy tanks in 1940 .
These were the Char B1bis operating Inside the DCRs (Division Cuirassée de Réserve) and there were 4 of them (the 4th was incomplete and came late in) . All 4 were totally wiped out by the German already in May .
With the scale at which SC is played, this Heavy tank unit you get in France in May 1940 is representing those 4 DCR .

Besides France had also 2 light mechanized units (a third in formation) DLM (Division Légère Mécanique) equipped by medium tanks S 35 and light tanks H 35 .
Both DLM saw action in Belgium (at Maastricht) and were destroyed for the most part by German PzDivisions already in practically the first engagements .

P.S
I forgot the 3rd DLM but it is because it was destroyed (loss of More than 100 tanks) at Gembloux (Belgium) already on May 13th . The German 4th PzDiv lost only about 40 Panzers in this engagements .
In fact the French tanks were not a match for the German PzDs because they were too slow and had no radio . So they were basically blind and deaf what lead to them being surrounded and killed or disabled 1 by 1 .



Hairog -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 1:45:33 PM)

The second one was the Char. Heavy tank and almost invulnerable to all guns in 1939-40. It was so slow that it was almost useless. Two guns on this one. One hull and one in the turret. Again you can pretend to fight in one online in MMO Battleground Europe.

http://www.battlegroundeurope.net/



[image]local://upfiles/751/2277F3E51267498BADD105AD310B544F.jpg[/image]



battlevonwar -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 2:03:48 PM)

In my WW2online 1st person shooter they would do battle of France specialty. Char1 had Somua had Radios/Proper number and then it just leaves leadership. We had German with 88s though and when you come on a Char1 or Somua you just boom-boom-boom and shells bounce like a Sherman vs a Panther or a Tiger. Of course there were the Radiators!
(we had to communicate very well not to get blown up every time) we had the speed, turret speed and generally numbers..

Germans did find weaknesses in French Tanks and the way they were deployed, radio... uncoordinated attacks




DeriKuk -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 4:15:38 PM)

A tank is not a unit at the game scale [strategic]. Tanks - used at an operational/tactical scale - are at the mercy of command and doctrine ... both at which the French Army displayed severe incompetence in 1940.

Let's go look at another heavy tank - in 1945: the Pzkw VIb (King Tiger). Was it a good tank? That depends on the scale - mostly time and place. Overall it was a BIG FAILURE. Why? It was very expensive. The logistical tail could not support it - fuel and parts shortages. The infrastructure could not support it - bridges and rail systems. In the end, King Tigers were - I repeat - VERY EXPENSIVE metal forts ... abandoned by their crews and used by Allied air forces for target practice.

In 1940, many "great" French tanks were abandoned - because the Stukas had taken out their logistical tails. German infantry walked up to them, knocked on the sides, and told the trapped crews - those still there - to come out with their hands raised.



Guderian1940 -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 5:14:35 PM)

People forget or are not aware that it was the Panzer Division and doctrine, for example including AA that decimated the French Tactical Air use, that gave it it's strength not the Tanks themselves.
The majority were PZKW I's and II's. Hardly tanks per say.

The French use of Tanks and their doctrine were poor at the beginning and were only starting to form proper Tank divisions, it takes time to change doctrine something they did not have. I think that is why it shows up later.



Dmondragon75 -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 6:19:03 PM)



+1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

People forget or are nor aware that it was the Panzer Division doctrine, for example including AA that decimated the French Tactical air use, that gave it it's strength not the Tanks themselves.
The majority were PZKw I's and II's hardly tanks per say.

The French use of Tanks and their doctrine were poor at the begining and were only starting to from propoer Tank divisions. I think that is why it shows up later.





Dmondragon75 -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 6:24:40 PM)

I think unit icon here also represents doctrine, same as headquarters represent sort of lvl of organisation and infrastructural improvement. So, tank unit doesn't necessary mean there are only 100 or 1000 tanks in that hex. Thatshy I think Hubert and Bill did a very realistic, and still very adaptable game for every possible situation which could have occurred during those times.
At least weed is telling me so now, good weeeeed :))))
According to this, since French tanks were dispersed amongst other units at the beginning of the end of Sitzkrieg, later French found out that their doctrine was wrong. And Gamelin was basic problem in this story.



vonik -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 9:40:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dmondragon75

IAccording to this, since French tanks were dispersed amongst other units at the beginning of the end of Sitzkrieg, later French found out that their doctrine was wrong.


This is a legend but a stubborn one .
Like I explained above, the French had 7 (seven !) équivalents of PzD - 4DCR and 3 DLM - where German had only 10 (ten !) PzD .
A DCR was a beast with 160 tanks , so more than a German PzD, out of which 70 Chars B1bis which could not be penetrated by any Panzer .

The tanks allocated to French infantery Divisions were the light R35 which would have no use in a purely armored formation anyway .

So there was not a very big difference in the doctrine between French and German as far as organisation of the armies and the use of tanks are concerned
There was however a HUGE difference in communication (French tanks had no radio), in the command quality, in speed and last but not least there was ... the Luftwaffe in tight coordination with the PzD .



elxaime -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 10:01:32 PM)

On doctrine, wasn't De Gaulle in charge of one of the French armored divisions and well-understood the potential of massed armor?

I agree the French performance in 1940 will always be the subject of debate. They had excellent weapons systems, both armor and air. But the internal causes are hotly argued. French right wing historians say low morale was advanced by communist/socialist led unrest (Stalin at this time was Hitler's sort-of ally). French leftists blame the French right, arguing they were anti-semites and closet Hitler lovers. Even when the allies marched into Paris in August 1944, De Gaulle had to ask the Americans to march divisions through Champs Elysees as a "show of strenght" because he was unsure of his position.



Guderian1940 -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 10:12:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonik


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dmondragon75

IAccording to this, since French tanks were dispersed amongst other units at the beginning of the end of Sitzkrieg, later French found out that their doctrine was wrong.


This is a legend but a stubborn one .
Like I explained above, the French had 7 (seven !) équivalents of PzD - 4DCR and 3 DLM - where German had only 10 (ten !) PzD .
A DCR was a beast with 160 tanks , so more than a German PzD, out of which 70 Chars B1bis which could not be penetrated by any Panzer .

The tanks allocated to French infantry Divisions were the light R35 which would have no use in a purely armored formation anyway .

So there was not a very big difference in the doctrine between French and German as far as organisation of the armies and the use of tanks are concerned
There was however a HUGE difference in communication (French tanks had no radio), in the command quality, in speed and last but not least there was ... the Luftwaffe in tight coordination with the PzD .




Well, the French divisions did not include AA to defeat the German Tactical air support( doctrine anyone!) Their Tact air was decimated and left ineffective. They valiantly lost a lot of their aircraft. You forgot to mention their tanks had different crew organization. The commander, alone in the turret, not only had to command the tank, but also to aim and load the gun. Close Tact support with the PZ and Infantry is doctrine.

I do not think they had the time to organize and properly train in their use before the German attack. So all in all it was the Panzer division that beat them not the tanks. I think more than half of the German tanks were PZ1's and II's with machine guns and 20mm gun. Hardly adequate to defeat the French Armor.

Why did they win?



battlevonwar -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/5/2017 10:22:38 PM)

Guderian, probably coordination of air, army, armored division along with BEF uncoordinated with The French. Nobody really knows all the reasons but an excerpt from a Wiki Battle can give you a very big glimpse possibly why: (seems in this case aircraft were massive and I heard cases of French armored formations being sent into battle without be notified that all other forces were called off for that battle, Germans were communicating)

Army Group A (Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt), defeated the French at the Battle of Sedan from 12–15 May and crossed the Meuse. A French counter-attack at the Battle of Montcornet on 17 May by the 4e Division Cuirassée de Réserve (4e DCR, Colonel Charles de Gaulle), from Montcornet to the south, was defeated by an improvised defence and the 10th Panzer Division, which was rushed forward on the French flank. The German counter-attacks were supported by Fliegerkorps VIII (Generaloberst Wolfram von Richthofen) and the French lost 32 tanks and armoured vehicles. On 19 May, after receiving reinforcements, the 4e DCR attacked again and was repulsed with the loss of 80 of 155 vehicles, much of the loss being caused by the aircraft of Fliegerkorps VIII, which attacked French units assembling to attack the flanks of German units.[1] By the end of the Battle of Montcornet, much of the French Ninth Army on the Meuse had disintegrated under the attacks of Fliegerkorps VIII.



KorutZelva -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/6/2017 12:50:46 AM)

French should have tank tech 1, but not the tech that allow 2 attacks.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/6/2017 2:26:25 AM)

quote:

Why did they win?

Since you are 'Guderian1940', I suppose you know. For others that are curious and don't mind reading a book, try To Lose A Battle by Alistair Horne.



Szilard -> RE: French Heavy tank (4/6/2017 6:05:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Why did they win?

Since you are 'Guderian1940', I suppose you know. For others that are curious and don't mind reading a book, try To Lose A Battle by Alistair Horne.


To Lose a Battle is a classic must-read but I think Julian Jackson's 2003 The Fall of France should be read also, as a bit of a corrective to Horne's old French-moral-collapse narrative. The general sense I get is that France fell because of military doctrinal, organizational & leadership failings, at the first blow, with not enough time to recover after it. Sluggishness in command, execution, organization, infrastructure. They would have gotten better, given time that they didn't have.

The French really didn't want to fight encounter battles - they weren't trained for them; you read of commanders slumping when ordered into a hasty counter-attack etc etc. Where the situation matched the doctrine & training, they did OK: eg the Cavalry Corps (2nd & 3rd DLM) at Gembloux vs 3rd & 4th Panzer, where the well-understood mission was to delay the enemy to allow a strong defensive line to form behind them.

But the DCR's were a tragic story: the 3rd heroically making repeated counter-attacks at Stonne to little purpose; the 2nd (or 1st?) overrun by the 5th & 7th Panzer at Flavion, completely unsupported by 9th Army while it waited for its refuelling trucks to arrive; the 1st (or 2nd?) reduced to irrelevance as the Germans flooded through its assembly area.

The old chestnut, that the French wasted their tanks by distributing them amongst infantry formations, is nonsense, I think. The French had enough tanks to be able to support its infantry divisions (if not very effectively), as well as concentrating in DCR's and DLM's; the Germans didn't. All armies realised pretty soon that infantry without AFV's is pretty useless in most intense situations.

Anyway, it's the most interesting battle of WW2, IMO. The German's "shouldn't" have won it, and things would have been vastly different if they hadn't.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.984375