Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 21st, 2012, 06:41 PM   #261

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Though, Guderian was not the only man to have the idea. The British general who commanded British tanks at Cambrai in WWI advocated the tactical use of armor in the UK and Charles De Gaulle advocated using armor in a professional and organized manner in France during the 30s (and there have been some sources that would indicate that Guderian borrowed ideas from BOTH of them). The key difference was that Hilter listened and gave Guderian the funds. The British didn't really have the money and the French refused to listen.
I believe Guderian based "blitzkrieg" on the ideas of JFC Fuller, who was indeed the man who planned the tank attack at Cambrai, and was a notable theorist on tank warfare, believeing that danger areas hould be bypassed, isolated and then surrounded.

His nine principles of war have also been highly influential since the 1930's onwards.
Mangekyou is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 21st, 2012, 06:56 PM   #262

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,157

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
I believe Guderian based "blitzkrieg" on the ideas of JFC Fuller, who was indeed the man who planned the tank attack at Cambrai, and was a notable theorist on tank warfare, believeing that danger areas hould be bypassed, isolated and then surrounded.

His nine principles of war have also been highly influential since the 1930's onwards.
Thanks. The name of the British theorist escaped me earlier.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old August 21st, 2012, 08:21 PM   #263
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
Overall the best German tank of 1940 was the Panzer III A-F...
You could argue that...you could also argue that the best tank was the British Matilda II

Quote:
...the best French "cavalry tank" was the SOMUA S 35....
Not a bad tank but poorly laid out...with just a crew of three, it made it inherently inferior to the 5 man crewed German tanks

SOMUA_S35 SOMUA_S35

Quote:
...Gamelin and Weygand were both inferior, but they still recognized the vulnerability of the flank the Germans had in Operation Fell Geb. The problem for France was that they spent the 20s and 30s listening to Petain, who "on paper" was believed to be a better general and ignored De Gaulle who would only become a 1 star General as the Battle of France began to wind down...
De Gaulle wrote a paper entitled "Towards a professional army" which made him enemies inside France.

France was still traumatized by WWI and intended to sit behind the Maginot Line...

Forward thinking was therefore retarded in the French army.

Quote:
...the stormtrooper tactics of WWI were all infantry. Blitzkrieg was developed in a combination of forces with the tank and air power taking presidence...
Indeed but the philosophy remained the same.

Blitzkrieg was based on the Storm Trooper infiltration tactics...albeit in 1940, the infantry rode in trucks and armored half tracks.

Quote:
...sources would indicate that Guderian borrowed ideas from BOTH of them). The key difference was that Hilter listened and gave Guderian the funds. The British didn't really have the money and the French refused to listen.
The British had the money, just decided to allocate it elsewhere...indeed the British created the world's first armored division only to disband it in the face of intransigent old school generals.

A British tank visionary Hobart was sent home from North Africa in 1939 for advocating his armored warfare theories...in 1942 is was a lance corporal in the Home Guard.

Churchill himself ordered him restored to duty and promoted him Major-General.

The British were the mother of the tank yet strangely failed to embrace it.
Poly is offline  
Old August 21st, 2012, 09:41 PM   #264

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 3,157

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
You could argue that...you could also argue that the best tank was the British Matilda II.
I think I was trying to mean that the Panzer III was GERMANY'S best tank, not necessarily the best tank of all available tanks in 1940. I apologize if anything was unclear there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Not a bad tank but poorly laid out...with just a crew of three, it made it inherently inferior to the 5 man crewed German tanks

SOMUA S35 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not when you look at the battlefield performance. The article you used even states that the SOMUA proved itself superior to the Germans in direct combat.

The problems that the SOMUA had, and the Char B1 probably had the same problem was that the turret itself was small, so the tank commander not only had to command the tank, coordinate with other tanks or infantry, communicate with HQ, but fire the main gun as well. This put a great deal of strain on men, and probably was partially why highly trained crews were needed. The other was that few French tanks were equipped with radios, which made communication difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
De Gaulle wrote a paper entitled "Towards a professional army" which made him enemies inside France.

France was still traumatized by WWI and intended to sit behind the Maginot Line...


Forward thinking was therefore retarded in the French army.







The British had the money, just decided to allocate it elsewhere...indeed the British created the world's first armored division only to disband it in the face of intransigent old school generals.

A British tank visionary Hobart was sent home from North Africa in 1939 for advocating his armored warfare theories...in 1942 is was a lance corporal in the Home Guard.

Churchill himself ordered him restored to duty and promoted him Major-General.

The British were the mother of the tank yet strangely failed to embrace it.
Towards a Professional Army was a book, much like Achtung Panzer! was for Guderian. I believe De Gaulle wrote about more then just armored tactics, in the sense that he sensed that France couldn't win by relying on massed conscript infantry as they had in WWI, but armored tactics was the major theme of the book. I believe he wrote it during his time as a professor at the French Military Academy.

Though this generally didn't mean that the French army was entirely inactive. Gamelin didn't expect a German attack on the Maginot Line. He expected the attack to be through Belgium, just as the Schlieffen Plan had gone through Belgium. The problem is that Gamelin expected only slight modifications to the Schlieffen Plan to be made. His plan was to wait for the German invasion and then move to blunt the German attack in Central Belgium. In theory, it was intended to keep the front away from France if stalemate was the result. And thus why the bulk of France's best units were in the northern part of France when the Battle of France began in 1940...

The problem is that the Mainstein plan went through the Ardennes (Luxembourg and southern Belgium) and then swung north. So while the French won tactical victories at Hannut and elsewhere in Central Belgium, the region around Sedan, intended to be the hinge of the Allied army between Northern France and the Maginot Line, was hit by Germany's strongest forces and beaten. The French units near Hannut were then cut off from Paris and couldn't withdraw without allowing the British to be slaughtered.

Do you know what the British spent the money on? I have a magazine article (either a World War II or a Military History Magazine) which talks about a Soviet armored warfare general (who was executed by Stalin for treason, supposedly) which includes the lines that would have indicated British and French jealousy at the money given to the funding and training of the Red Army in the late 20s and early 30s.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old November 18th, 2012, 10:23 PM   #265

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,779

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
You still believe those phony body counts?
In a press release to Agence France Presse on the twentieth anniversy of the end of Vietnam War, Vietnam claimed 1.1 million NVA and VC soldiers being KIA during the war.

I'm not sure whether those 1.1 million men who were KIA exceed or fall below the total body count claims of the US during the war, but it certainly wasn't insignificant, and greatly exceeded the KIA totals for South Vietnam, the United States, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand.

The war was similar for the North Vietnamese as the French experience during the First World War, or the Chinese or Soviets during the Second. They won the war but suffered appalling casualties in doing so.

Still, I agree that as far as the outcome of wars go the Vietnam War would probably be the most humiliating defeat in the history of the United States.

For battles or campaigns I'd go with the Fall of the Phillipines in 1942 as being the United States' most humiliating defeat on land.

Savo Island would be the most humilating defeat at sea.
Scaeva is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:08 AM   #266

harbinger's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 719

Third battle of panipat.Though sikhs later exacted just revenge,at that time opened floodgates for european expansion.
harbinger is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:26 AM   #267
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
...not when you look at the battlefield performance. The article you used even states that the SOMUA proved itself superior to the Germans in direct combat...

...the problems that the SOMUA had, and the Char B1 probably had the same problem was that the turret itself was small, so the tank commander not only had to command the tank, coordinate with other tanks or infantry, communicate with HQ, but fire the main gun as well. This put a great deal of strain on men, and probably was partially why highly trained crews were needed...
The Somua was well built and strong and in a shooting match might out perform a PzIII but there's no doubt which tank I'd prefer to use.

The one man turret gave the commander too much to do.

Quote:
...Towards a Professional Army was a book, much like Achtung Panzer! was for Guderian. I believe De Gaulle wrote about more then just armored tactics, in the sense that he sensed that France couldn't win by relying on massed conscript infantry as they had in WWI, but armored tactics was the major theme of the book. I believe he wrote it during his time as a professor at the French Military Academy...
You may be right on this, I haven't read it or indeed read much about it. I did read that he was arguing for a fully motorized field army (as the small British army was doing)

Quote:
...Gamelin didn't expect a German attack on the Maginot Line. He expected the attack to be through Belgium, just as the Schlieffen Plan had gone through Belgium. The problem is that Gamelin expected only slight modifications to the Schlieffen Plan to be made. His plan was to wait for the German invasion and then move to blunt the German attack in central Belgium. In theory, it was intended to keep the front away from France if stalemate was the result. And thus why the bulk of France's best units were in the northern part of France when the Battle of France began in 1940...
He was wrong to do so. De Gualle was right, France needed a mobile army - by the time hostilities commenced, the (three?) French armored divisions weren't even fully equipped.
Essentially the Germans did to the allies what the allies did to the Germans with D-Day.

The allies expected a thrust through Belgium so the Germans gave them one - a feint.
The Germans in 1944 expected landings at the Pas-de-Calais so the allies gave them every reason to expect one there.

It's so much easier to fool your enemy when you try to persuade him you're gong to do something he expects

Quote:
...do you know what the British spent the money on?
The British built battleships that were hardly used during the war.

The British also built a lot of poor tanks 1939-1944
Poly is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 09:46 AM   #268
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

lets see... I am chinese so..
maybe

Marco Polo Bridge Incident

Battle of Beiping-Tianjin

Battle of Shanghai
opium war
kind of hard to say...
Gorge123 is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 11:59 AM   #269
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,173

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorge123 View Post
lets see... I am chinese so..
maybe

Marco Polo Bridge Incident

Battle of Beiping-Tianjin

Battle of Shanghai
opium war
kind of hard to say...
Mongols invading and occupying your country?
Poly is offline  
Old November 19th, 2012, 12:43 PM   #270
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Mongols invading and occupying your country?
i guess so? through it took them 30 yrs for them to completly occupy us?
Gorge123 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
countries, defeat, humiliating, military


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teutoburg Forest - The Worst Defeat in Roman History MafiaMaster Ancient History 178 February 20th, 2014 04:42 AM
The Most Embarrassing Defeat in History? Lord Ragnar War and Military History 512 December 24th, 2013 08:46 PM
Most Powerful Countries throughout history jdghgh War and Military History 100 June 3rd, 2012 04:26 AM
Humiliating apologies and speeches? Hereword General History 7 June 14th, 2011 11:01 AM
Where's some countries history Syed F. Inam Asian History 14 November 19th, 2010 10:10 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.