BOB a mistake ? --- The Battle of France

[GOZR]

This is what should of be done :)
More scenarios more things to do..

The Battle of France then & now

http://www.afterthebattle.com/boffranc.jpg

[Jutocsa]

Why dont you get in touch with the guys making Battle of France as a BoB addon ? They could use any help...even if there is no real modeling job done so far because of the lack of specifications.

[JG27_brook]

Well im just hoping its not going too take 10 more years too get too 44 again :cry:

[BG-09]

Proper stance! Agree!

"Chanel Dogfights!"

S!

BG-09

[Chivas]

Well im just hoping its not going too take 10 more years too get too 44 again :cry:

Hi Brook
I imagine it will take awhile, but most of the real hard work is done when the engine code is working. Then its more a matter of making maps, adding features and additional aircraft. Not saying thats easy though. :)

Hopefully the future will hold some real large maps for the Western Bombing Campaign. It will be interesting to see how they make the maps for the Med campaign. I don't know if it will be possible to have a map that included Southern Italy, Malta, and part of North Africa. I doubt they will be able to stretch the map from Gibralter to Alexandria.

Anyway it should be awesome whatever the technological limits.

~Salute~
Chivas

[JG27_brook]

Well im just hoping its not going too take 10 more years too get too 44 again :cry:

Hi Brook
I imagine it will take awhile, but most of the real hard work is done when the engine code is working. Then its more a matter of making maps, adding features and additional aircraft. Not saying thats easy though. :)

Hopefully the future will hold some real large maps for the Western Bombing Campaign. It will be interesting to see how they make the maps for the Med campaign. I don't know if it will be possible to have a map that included Southern Italy, Malta, and part of North Africa. I doubt they will be able to stretch the map from Gibralter to Alexandria.

Anyway it should be awesome whatever the technological limits.

~Salute~
Chivas Hi Chivas, i will be enjoying BOB ,just saying good bye too to my Anton will be a sad day , But as LW flyer i say bring on D Day lol :twisted: Yes the Med campaign will be very cool

[Dowly]

AFAIK, the BoB:SoW will be similar series of addons that IL2 is, so I'm sure there will be an addon coming that includes the Battle of France. :wink:

[stalkervision]

I'm waiting for SOW/ The Phony War. I'm not an overly ambitious person by nature.. :)

[GOZR]

"The Phony War" some great battles there that are completely forgotten even more than the east front.. or even the France vs Italy (Jun-40) ..

[stalkervision]

"The Phony War" some great battles there that are completely forgotten even more than the east front.. or even the France vs Italy (Jun-40) ..

actually you are right Gozr. How did you know this..? :)

[csThor]

IMO there are two key reasons why the BoB was chosen over the BoF.

1.) Popularity

The BoB was covered in more books than I manage to count and there was an epic movie made about it. The BoF has been "forgotten" - most probably because France and the UK got their @sses handed to them in it (for reasons which go far beyond the scopes of a military simulation). The BoB, however, was stylized into the ultimate standoff between the forces of good and evil, as desperate battle for the survival of the "western civilization". As such the BoB is known to many, even many people who do not care about aviation or military history. IMO the BoF has more potential as an AddOn ...

2.) Scope

For the BoF the map would have to be much larger and incorporate parts of the Ruhr area which might tax computers more than perferable. However this is secondary to the other main advantage of the BoB - the limited number of objects (trucks, tanks, guns, ships and aircraft) necessary to simulate it. And it adds the bonus of having a static frontline so creating the campaign engine might be a little easier at first.
The less work Maddox Games has to put into the objects and their systems the more time the programmers have for working on the core engine. And that can never be wrong.

My 0,02 € ...

[mwolf]

I hope for balkans war
there you can see clashes of BF-109 E 3 vs BF-109 E4 and similar in april war 1941
that would be very fun :D

[GOZR]

In the air the battle of France or the The Phony War was not a defeat aucontrary the ground was an other story ..
The things about SOW is that we have already BOB2 and Oleg stepping over there crowd humm.. ..

[csThor]

As I said the BoF was a defeat for the Allies - regardless of the local successes. This is probably why it was put on the back shelf compared to the BoB - few people like to be taught about past defeats.
For example Guderian remembers his time as teacher for Tactics and Military History at the Officer's Academy at Stettin where he found the other teachers omitting Napoleon's victory over Prussia in 1806 while he went through it in great detail as he regarded it highly informative. I guess the same motivation applies to the relative lack of interest in the BoF.

[Qwerty]

As I said the BoF was a defeat for the Allies - regardless of the local successes. This is probably why it was put on the back shelf compared to the BoB - few people like to be taught about past defeats.

Well I find the BoF very interesting, precisely because I don't understand it. Even today, historians cannot agree on the motives or reasons for every thrust and counterthrust of the campaign. It seems to me it played out much like a six week chess game - not so much a defeat of arms as a collapse of resolve (by some poorly equipped French and Belgian units) and a recognition of impending defeat (by the BEF) leading to withdrawal from the theatre. A victory for speed of manoeuvre and aerial support of infantry.

But I don't think it's ignored because it was a defeat (though I believe French society still prefers not to discuss the BoF) - it's more probably because the campaign was so short (10 May - 25 June 1940). There are only so many times one can bomb the three bridges over the Meuse without it getting a little 'samey'.

[GOZR]

This is where The Phony War have a huge importance the year before the declaration of war as we know now...

[C6_Krasno]

Yes, but if I'm right, Battle of England is nearly as short, from end of July to September 15, so maybe a month and half or two monthes ?

[GOZR]

the Phoney War is from September 1939 to April 1940.. It's quite a long time...

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/docs/francetxt.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/docs/francetxt2.jpg

It is so much more interesting than BOB.. ;)

[MaXMhZ]

Let's just wait untill we have SoW:BoB, From what I understand we'll get a huge map from England to Germany. Now granted I'm very bad at geo but I thought France was between those two. ;) I guess nothing will hold us back to make our own BoF :)

[Asheshouse]

Let's just wait untill we have SoW:BoB, From what I understand we'll get a huge map from England to Germany. Now granted I'm very bad at geo but I thought France was between those two. ;) I guess nothing will hold us back to make our own BoF :)

Word is that the map will only go far enough to include the Regia Aeronatica airfields in Belguim. -- so good for a Dunkirk re-enactment, and bits of the Battle of France but not the whole campaign.

Also good for post BoB cross channel raids.
Channel dash - with Guisenau, Scharnhorst and Prinz Eugen?

PS Is anyone modelling the Amiot 143. It looks awesome!

[Insuber]

BoF = 1400+ Axis planes downed in 45 days, of which 1000+ by French Air Force.

BoB = 1070 Axis planes downed in 82 days.

Pardon me if figures are not 100% accurate, I'm going by heart ... But the air battles were really fiercer in BoF than in BoB.

PS: Do not mismatch the Phoney War and the battle of France...


Regards,
Insuber

[Asheshouse]

I've been looking for figures of aircraft losses and claims made during the Battle of France. I guess for the obvious reason that the contemporary records were largely lost the figures seem to be hard to come by.

The following is a quote from another site.

While the Luftwaffe was hard pressed to maintain air superiority, one wonders where the French Air Force was. Looking at the post campaign losses, the Luftwaffe lost 1,284 aircraft. The British RAF losing 931 aircraft, of which 477 were priceless fighters. The Armée de l'Air lost approximately 560 aircraft (235 destroyed on the ground). These figures alone speak the absence of French air power over the front.(3) They also show that Britain went out her way to protect the airspace over France. While the Luftwaffe was terrorizing French troops and actually protecting the flanks of the Panzer armies, the French AASF was nowhere to be seen. Even German fighter pilots noted that most of their air victories were over RAF aircraft.

The implication made rightly or wrongly is the the French Armee de l'Air put up a pretty poor resistance relative to its size and that particularly in the critical northern area a disproportionate effort fell on the RAF.

Does anyone have "definitive" figures for losses/claims during the battle.
The Luftwaffe losses of 1250-1400 must include losses from ground fire, not just from air combat.

[HarryKlein]

There are no definitive figures because, as you stated above records were lost,
or were not recorded at all.

The estimations give +/- 1000 aircrafts lost for all reasons, for each
the Armée de l'Air and the RAF.

But the Human losses figures are more precise and give a better insight.

1496 KIA, MIA and injured for the Armée de l'Air
1526 KIA, MIA and injured for the RAF

As for the claims, it's seem that we will never know :/

The German lost 1290 + 500 damaged aircraft for all reasons between the 10 May
and the 25 June.

They lost approximatly 250 aircraft in accidents, 220 were shot down by the Militaire Luchtvaart in Nederland
and +/- 10 were shot down by the Aéronautique Militaire Belge.

This let 810 to share between the Armée de l'Air, the RAF and AAA.
And 500 damaged aircraft to share between the 4 airforces the AAA and the accidents.

I'll look if I can find some figures for Italy and Switzerland.


PS: Close the "other" site and never open it again :wink:

[moggycattermole]

Of course the Battle of France would have been more interesting. For one thing, nobody has ever done a sim for it. For another, the mix of aircraft would have been fascinating, and, really, better suited for the IL-2 system which was better adapted to doing large numbers of planes. The French are already gearing up to do things for the Battle of France after BOBSOW is released. I am really looking forward to their efforts. My personal favorite is the beautiful LeO 451 followed by the Farman which bombed Berlin.

[X]

French aircraft---excellent idea.

[Ploughman]

That Leo is a real looker.

France 1940 would be a proper hoot. Count me in.

[Insuber]

(...)
I'll look if I can find some figures for Italy and Switzerland.


PS: Close the "other" site and never open it again :wink:

The Swiss aerial space was violated 708 times in 1940. The Swiss fighters downed 7 German planes and lost 3 airmen.

As far as the "other site", it looks like propaganda and not history.

Figures that I found on BoF (French source):

French losses: 575 planes
French claims: 919 German planes - as usual to be divided by 2 to 5 times
Total Allied claims: 1469 in 45 days
(Battle of Britain: 1408 claims in 82 days, with radar and radio control & command)

Remarkable fact: the German ace Werner Moelders was downed in his Bf109 by the French s/Lt Pomier Layrargues on D.520, and taken prisoner by the French army. He rejoined the Luftwaffe in July 1940 after the Armistice. Churchill had in vain asked the French governement to send to England POW pilots.

Pomier Layrargues was killed by Moelders' wingmen, not before downing another Bf109 in the same fight.


Best regards,
Insuber

[X]

What is well-known, and well-documented is that the strength of the Luftwaffe at the official start of the Battle of Britain on Adler Tag, 15 August 1940, was below that of its strength at the start of the Battle of France on 10 May 1940, i.e., the Battle of France definitely took a bite out of the Luftwaffe. There were other factors, as well, such as the massive re-equipment of the Kampfgeschwadern with the Ju 88 which caused some units to be taken out of line for training in the new ship.

[GOZR]

Asheshouse You are dreaming right ?.. English beaten fled away to their island leaving France alone versus German advanced ground power .. man .. :roll:

Anyway lets go foward..

[X]

Hey GOZR, are you going to Cal?

[Asheshouse]

Asheshouse You are dreaming right ?.. English beaten fled away to their island leaving France alone versus German advanced ground power .. man .. :roll:

Anyway lets go foward..

Come on GOZR -- lets have some facts, and we can all learn a bit, including me.

From the figures posted it seems that the RAF losses were proportionately larger than those of the Armee de l'Air. Why was that?
Why was such a large proportion of the French Air Force still intact at the end of the battle? In fact the French had more aircraft available at the end than at the beginning!

It appears to me -- from limited reading -- that the French military leaders were psychologically beaten before the forces on the ground were. Large parts of the air force were withdrawn to North Africa and Syria, where subsequently they came into conflict with the British forces!! There also seems to have been poor cooperation between allied airforces generally and the ground troops, compared with what the german forces were able to achieve.

Regarding the miraculous fighting retreat from Dunkirk, this was only possible in part due to the successful rear guard actions a large part of which was carried out by the French forces in the area. On the other hand the air cover over Dunkirk was almost entirely left to the RAF as far as I know.

The biggest failure of the BoF seems to have been that of the French Government who were too ready to accept defeat rather than to fight on.
Churchill's refusal to sue for peace after the withdrawal from France was a major turning point, resulting in BoB, and it was only after BoB that the USA realised that they had a potential winner to back.

[C6_Krasno]

Why was such a large proportion of the French Air Force still intact at the end of the battle? In fact the French had more aircraft available at the end than at the beginning! I think this can be explained, because the French HQ prepared this war to be a long war, then it wasn't necessary to use the whole air forces in the very begginning. In fact, England didn't send any of his Spitfires in France, and withdrew it's expeditionary corp before the end. Besides, this corp wasn't as important as the one during the WWI.
The biggest failure of the BoF seems to have been that of the French Government who were too ready to accept defeat rather than to fight on. The French Government was maybe too sure of the victory at the begginning, so I don't know...

[HarryKlein]

rom the figures posted it seems that the RAF losses were proportionately
larger than those of the Armee de l'Air. Why was that?
The loss of material, ie 892 from 10 May to 11 June (loss from 12 to 25 June are no known),
represent 70% of 1286 planes available May 10,
And 30% of the crews from May 10 to June 25.
In fact the French had more aircraft available at the end than at the beginning!
Yes this shows the great effort made by the industry.
However, a large Quantities were not operational because production of
Accessories have not followed the production of cells,
So most of them had not received their weapons,
their instruments etc...

[X]

The best, recent scholarship on the Battle of France in English is the very interesting STRANGE VICTORY: HITLER'S CONQUEST OF FRANCE by Ernest R. May, an analysis written for the the U.S. CIA which, for the first time in English, raises some fascinating questions about the the British Army and Gort's conduct of operations. In essence, May takes the French position that if the British Army had stood and fought, instead of fleeing and evacuating, the Germans would not have been able to digest the enormous bite they took out of the Allied line. Alastair Horn's TO LOSE A BATTLE is the recognized best traditional analysis in English. There is nothing at all on French air operations available in English. For the British there is the painful VALIANT WINGS by Franks about the destruction of the Battle and Blenheim squadrons in the Battle of France. The superb TWELVE DAYS IN MAY by Cull, Lander, and Weiss covers the Hurricane squadrons in the Battle of France, and documents the not inconsiderable bite they took out of the Luftwaffe. BLITZED! by Bingham is a useful general work on the RAF in the Battle of France by a member of the RAF who experienced the battle. FLEDGLING EAGLES by Shores covers the "Drole de Guerre" and puts to rest any illusions French fighter squadrons were intimidated by the Germans. Essential reading is St. Exupery's FLIGHT TO ARRAS.

As far as the old canard about the French being beaten psychologically before the first shot was fired, that can be put to rest by reading May or Horne. The French aircraft industry was in chaos due to nationalization. The French and the British were preparing for war in 1942, not 1940. Then they would have been completely ready. In 1940 both were still in the early stages of mobilization. Hitler knew this and wanted to hit them as soon as possible---he wanted to invade right after he had finished with Poland in fall 1939.

Many have forgotten that when a French armored unit fought a German armored division in Belgium before the breakout at Sedan threw their communications into confusion it beat it soundly in a stand-up fight.

[GOZR]

This is great to see some great input here guys..
Such history forgotten by many.

The begining of the war the drole de guerre to the Battle of France is completely over looked by Oleg and others and i think making a sim about it would be one of the best scenarios to find.. and also putting back honor where it should be and untold truth .

[Insuber]

This is great to see some great input here guys..
Such history forgotten by many.

The begining of the war the drole de guerre to the Battle of France is completely over looked by Oleg and others and i think making a sim about it would be one of the best scenarios to find.. and also putting back honor where it should be and untold truth .

Sad truth, propaganda wins over facts.

Same destiny applies for instance to Italian pilots. Enormous courage against overwhelming odds.

Best regards,
Insuber

[Insuber]

By the way, the Battle of France would be 100x more interesting than the BoB, used and abused in gazillions of simulators, books, movies, comics ... YAWN!

Oleg is risking a lot this time, since the technical realisation and game playability should really be at top in order to compensate the lack of originality.

Best regards,
Insuber

[Asheshouse]

The best, recent scholarship on the Battle of France in English is the very interesting STRANGE VICTORY: HITLER'S CONQUEST OF FRANCE by Ernest R. May, an analysis written for the the U.S. CIA which, for the first time in English, raises some fascinating questions about the the British Army and Gort's conduct of operations. In essence, May takes the French position that if the British Army had stood and fought, instead of fleeing and evacuating, the Germans would not have been able to digest the enormous bite they took out of the Allied line.

Not having read May I dont know what he bases this analysis on however the facts were that the German breakthrough was on the French held section of the front. The British forces were outflanked by the breakthrough and therefore had to counterattack or fall back. In fact they attempted to counterattack first but were tactically beaten by the Germans. Having lost a major part of their armour in this attack they had no choice but to pull back their right flank to prevent the panzer forces breaking into the rear areas.

We shouldnt forget that the British forces were the junior partner to the French who possessed armour superior in quality and quantity to the Germans. It was just badly used. The French and British should have counter attacked at the same time, to stretch the German reserves but the responses were poorly coordinated and the magnitude of the French response was disproportionately small relative to their resourses.

I have to agree with the other comments here that the campaign makes a facinating subject to study or simulate. So many "what ifs" to consider, and the complexity of the air battle combining air superiority tasks with ground support probably provides greater interest and depth than BoB. But I guess this very complexity makes it more difficult to get all of the AI issues correct and the logistics of modelling the much greater number of aircraft and ground models is more challenging. I hope BoB will just be the start and that at some stage BoF will get proper coverage.

[X]

The actual British operations were not that straightforward, as even the most partisan British accounts will attest. The matter of the the conduct of the British land operations is a hot topic. When military colleges games out the Battle of France without a British withdrawal, the Allies often win because the German cordon to the sea was very thin to have held against a combined attack from north and south of the cordon.

[Asheshouse]

Tank numbers
taken from Blitzkrieg - Len Deighton

French Heavy 311, Medium 681, Light 950, Total 1942 (89% allied total)
British Heavy 75, Medium 156, - Total 231 (11% allied total)
German Heavy 278, Medium 798, Light 1095, Total 2171

Heavy = PzKw 1V, Char B1, Matilda (under gunned)
Med = PzKwIII, PzKw 38, Somua S35, Hotchkiss H35 & H39, A10, A13
Light = PzKw II, Renault R35

Armoured vehicles armed only with machine guns are excluded.

[X]

May thought the biggest disadvantage the French faced was their appallingly bad communications net. They were not able to get actionable intelligence in time to react to the fast moving German motorized units. This communication trouble went all the way down to the tactical level---the French aircraft often lacked radios, and French tanks often lacked radios---thus, they were unable to be as flexible as the Germans.

If my memory is correct, I believe Gamelin's headquarters did not have a single radio.

THE BLITZKRIEG MYTH by John Mosier has the most on the critique of Gort.

[Insuber]

May thought the biggest disadvantage the French faced was their appallingly bad communications net. They were not able to get actionable intelligence in time to react to the fast moving German motorized units.


True, and when on May 12th the headquarters received the report of a Potez 637 of II/33 about an heavy motorized force crossing the Ardennes forest, they didn't believe it. When a second plane later confirmed it (observer Lt. Chery, a tank officer) , they still didn't believe it, since Ardennes were inviolable to tanks in the French military doctrine.

Anyway, many modern planes were thrown into the fire of the battle, often without adequate cover or preparation: Bloch 175, Breguet 693, Bloch 174 flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Douglas DB7, CR 714, D.520, LéO 451, Amiot 354, Arsenal Vg-33, ... A little unexplored universe.

Regards,
Insuber

[X]

May's fascinating argument is that, had the Germans not been incredibly lucky and thrown a punch right where the French were least able to react effectively, the ponderous French system probably would have worked. His argument is simple, the German victory was not inevitable, but was a culmination of a "perfect storm" of factors conspiring to exaggerate the French systemic weaknesses, and exaggerate the effectiveness of the German thrust, which was scaring the wits out of the German higher headquarters as much as the Allied. In so many words, the Germans "got lucky" and hit the French right in the solar plexus putting them on the mat so fast even they were astonished. Mosier adds to this: the French confusion was turned to defeat by the defection of the British Army at Dunkirk. Had the British turned around and violently struck the thin Panzer corridor to the sea, the encirclement would have been broken. This has been the stuff of military college staff problems for decades. What all this means for us is that it is a lively, fascinating subject which has been ignored shamefully.

[Asheshouse]

Had the British turned around and violently struck the thin Panzer corridor to the sea, the encirclement would have been broken.

I don't buy this argument, at least not yet.

The following is based on reading History of WWII, Liddell Hart; Blitzkrieg, Len Deighton and Atlas of WWII, Peter Young.

The main breakthrough was made on the junction of the French 9th and 2nd Armies. The German panzer units crossed the R. Meuse between 12th and 15th May. At this time the only armoured units in position to offer an immediate response were French. They had three armoured divisions in the area.

The 3rd Div was ordered to attack on 15th but in fact never hindered the German advance in any effective way.

The 1st Div faced Rommel's advance at Morville but on the 15th were tactically defeated in a combined air and armour assault which opened the way for Rommel's advance.

On the morning of the 15th Churchill was being advised by the French Prime Minister Reynaud that "We are beaten, we have lost the battle".

On the evening of the 15th the 2nd Div was over run and destroyed by the German advance as it was forming up to advance.

On 17th a hastily assembled armoured force under De Gaulle attacked at Montcornet, but was tactically defeated by air attack before it could come to grips with the German columns.

Meanwhile the British units, which included only one armoured division, and represented only 11% of the armoured forces of the allies, was still being drawn back from Belguim and was not in position to intervene.

On 17th Gamelin was replaced as Commander in Chief by Weygand, who was then in Syria. This was to result in total inertia in the allied command until Weygand had started to pick up the reins three days later. On 20th Weygand was still visiting and consulting and had yet to take any positive action.

The British supply route was through Cherbourg and le Havre so time was lost reconfiguring supply lines which were cut when the Germans captured Boulogne on the 20th. While this was going on the British fell back to Arras, establishing this as a new supply hub and prepared for a counterattack towards the south. This attack took place on 21st/22nd but there was no coordinated action by other allied forces coming north. The French 1st Army was supposed to have added 2 infantry divisions to the attack but this contribution was not in place in time to be effective. Coordinated action had been agreed with Gamelin but his removal had hindered this agreement.

The British attack failed due to lack of resources and inadequate intelligence information. From this point on the British no longer had an effective armoured force with which to attack and were forced into defence.

On 24th Weygand complained that "the British had fallen back 25 miles without agreement! whilst the French troops were moving up from the south and gaining ground". The picture painted by Weygand appears to be a myth. There is no evidence that French forces had made any effective advances from the south, and in the meantime the British forces were still holding defensive positions around Douai and Vallencienes.

The decision by Gort to fall back on Dunkirk was taken on 25th May and approved by the British war cabinet on 26th. The decision was taken on the basis that there was no prospect whatsoever of any French advance from the south within the foreseeable future. No preparations for an attack were in hand.

The British actually landed additional troops in an attempt to hold Calais, Boulougne having already fallen, but Calais was over run on 27th May. Royal Navy destroyers who brought the troops into Calais became embroiled in direct line of sight action with German ground forces who were moving in on the harbour at the time. The fresh troops were landed under fire.

The myth began to be developed by Weygand that the collapse was somehow due to Gorts decision to withdraw. There seems to be no facts to support this. No serious attempts were made after 17th May to attack from the south over the R Somme and even though the Germans had established a number of bridgeheads over the Somme even the bridgeheads were not seriously threatened, despite their vunerability.

What is likely is that if Gort had not fallen back on Dunkirk then the BEF would have been cut off and forced to surrender, as was large parts of the French 1st Army at Lille. The failure to evacuate the BEF and significant numbers of French troops would have probably resulted in the British goverment sueing for peace, and the history of the world as we know it would have been rewritten.

[Ploughman]

Interesting thread, without the benefit of reading May it seems he is placing the blame on Gort because he made the decision to retreat to the Channel ports rather than the non-decisions that the French were making. Given that later in the war, units that were cut off and without orders continuing to fight proved to be the bane of armoured break throughs he might have a point.

[X]

Well, to be honest, all three of those sources are less-than-rigorously-researched popular histories, rather stale, and, frankly, British. Interestingly, one of the best views of the HQ-level of the Battle of France is British---Major-General Sir Edward Spears who was the Cabinet liaison to the French high command. His picture of the dithering of Gort in the crucial days of May is less-than-flattering---see his fascinating ASSIGNMENT TO CATASTROPHE.

Gort's one rather pathetic stab at smashing the German cordon, sending two seriously understrength battalions of infantry tanks with a smattering of infantry nearly did the job---it did frighten the Germans badly before they defeated the push with artillery. If he had mounted a serious counterattack to regain contact with the French south of the cordon, who knows what might have happened.

[Asheshouse]

Well, to be honest, all three of those sources are less-than-rigorously-researched popular histories, rather stale, and, frankly, British

I'm not going to disagree with you. None of these books cover the BoF in comprehensive detail, but what I've tried to do is to only provide factual quotations from the books and not to quote things that are clearly only opinions.

Can you say which of the facts are wrong?

Spears view of Gort "dithering" is an opinion not a fact.
Does Spears say on what facts his opinion is based?

To describe the attack by the BEF at Arras as "a pathetic stab" is perhaps a little unreasonable. Bear in mind that the tanks had already travelled 120miles on tracks to reach Arras and that to successfully assemble there at all under the constant watch of the Luftwaffe is no mean feat. The British had 16 MkII Matildas with 2pdr guns and a further 58 MkI's armed only with machine guns. There were also about 60 French Somua light tanks. What they lacked was proper infantry support. This was supposed to have been provided by the French 1st Army but the 2 inf divisions expected had not arrived by 2:30pm when the decision was made to attack without them.

This attack should have been part of a simultaneous assault from the south. Gamelin had issued orders to this effect on the 19th (Instruction No 12) but when Weygand took over he cancelled the orders to the French units while he assessed the situation. Although subsequently he still claimed to be planning such a joint attack there appears to be no evidence that the forces in the south were ever in position to attack.



After making initial gains against the German armour the BEF units were stopped by anti-tank guns, including 88's. Had the infantry been present these would probably have been overcome.

It seems unreasonable to seek to blame the BEF for the collapse of the allied defence, when they only provided a small percentage of the forces present.

The breakthrough was on the front covered by the French 1st, 9th and 2nd armies, and it was separation between these three French units which resulted in the collapse. The 1st Army, 9th Army and 2nd Army should have been able to close the gap without calling on the BEF whose initial position was on the left flank of the 1st Army, well north of the breakthrough point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/10May-16May1940-Fall_Gelb.jpg/788px-10May-16May1940-Fall_Gelb.jpg

Was there a strategic reserve? If so where and why was it not brought into action? The French 10th and 6th Armies start arriving fresh on the Somme. How were they equipped? Why were these fresh units not used offensively?

The BEF seems to have shown considerable mobility by pulling back and moving onto the right flank of the 1st Army to launch the attack. But where was the infantry from the 1st Army which should have been in the attack at Arras? --- and what was the 9th Army doing. It should have been closing the gap with the 1st Army which it had allowed to open up. What was the 2nd Army doing to close the gap with the 9th?

Whilst all this was going on what was Weygand doing? What steps was he taking to close the gap which had opened up between the 1st, 9th and 2nd?

The BEF meanwhile was maintaining contact with both the Belgian Army on its left flank and the 1st Army on its right flank, despite great pressure the front held together here. The only failure seems to have been the inability of the 1st, 9th and 2nd armies to maintain the line.

What efforts did the 1st, 9th and 2nd Armies make to close up after 17th May? These three units should have been able to close the gap and trap the German panzer units.

If three French Armies are unable to stand against the German onslaught why is it considered reasonable that a single British army should be able to do that. It is likely that it never had any chance of success without French support but that support was not in place at the right time.

PS Bearing in mind where we are writing -- Any comments on the air war?

PPS The 16th May situation map seen above would make a good blueprint for a BoF Add On map. Roughly 1/3rd of the map will already be done for BoB. All the key areas are covered. Rotterdam down to just north of Paris and west to the mouth of the R Somme. Quite a compact battlefield, relatively speaking. Includes all the key bridges which were subject of air attack and goes deep enough to facilitate semi-strategic bombing missions.

[X]

I'd advise taking a gander at May and Mosier. The advantage Spears had, of course, was that he was there!

[Asheshouse]

I'd advise taking a gander at May and Mosier. The advantage Spears had, of course, was that he was there!

I've got "To Lose a Battle - Alistair Horne" and "Assignment to Catastrophe - Spears" -- both on order from the local library. As you have said "To Lose a Battle" seems to be regarded as the most comprehensive account of the battle in English -- and I gather he is fairly critical of the BEF.

I'm not sure if I would give Spears opinion more weight than others. If he was mainly at the French HQ then he may have suffered from lack of information and misinformation in the same way that the French High Command seems to have done. Sometimes being too close to the action prevents you seeing the bigger picture with the correct perspective.

He may also have been influenced by personal relationships which he had built up with some of the French senior officers which would influence the way in which he reported events. He had been there too long to be considered dispassionate.

Anyway -- I will try and remain open minded.

:)

[X]

Horne takes the line Dunkirk was inevitable.

[HarryKlein]

There is a really good book that might interest some people, called
"The Sacrifice The complete story of the Breguet 693's during the Battle of France"

It's a bilingual edition Franco-English

[X]

I'll get it, thanks Harry.

[Asheshouse]

These are taken from Assignment to Catastrophe Vol 1, Sir E Spears, 1954. Edward Spears was appointed by Churchill in 1940 to act to provide liaison between himself and the French High Command and speaks with first hand knowledge or quotes direct from source.

Initial RAF strength 6 fighter squadrons, 10 light bomber squadrons and 9 army cooperation squadrons. These totalled 96 fighters, 160 light bombers and 160 aircraft of other types.

These were reinforced after the German attack by 4 further fighter squadrons raising the total fighters based in France to 160.

A further 192 UK based fighters operated over France, using French airfields to refuel and rearm. Further numbers of UK based Bomber Command aircraft were involved. (392 - E.R. Hooton) In addition there were replacements for aircraft losses sent to the squadrons based in France.

RAF lost a total of 959 aircraft of which 477 were fighters. 1192 personnel were lost. These figures appear to cover both Phase I (the breakthrough in the north) and Phase II (advance from the Somme).

Approx numbers of each aircraft type based in France are:
( source: http://france1940.free.fr/uk/raf_may.html )

Hawker Hurricane MkI 144
Gloster Gladiator MkII 16
Bristol Blenheim MkI 32
Bristol Blenheim MkIV 96
Fairey Battle 144
Westland Lysanders 80
de Havilland Dragon Rapide 16

Speaking at a meeting of the Supreme War Council in Paris on 31st May 1940 the French Premier, Paul Reynaud, stated that "he, his government, and his country were profoundly grateful for the magnificent support afforded to the French Armies by the RAF".

[FlatSpinMan]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/dunkirkhurri.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/dunkirkdawn1.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y184/FlatSpinMan/dunkirkstukas.jpg

[Asheshouse]

Very atmospheric screenshots Flatspin.

Is your campaign ready yet?
I guess those are shots of Dunkirk?

Are you just covering RAF missions or is there also some French involvement?

[FlatSpinMan]

Cheers Asheshouse, just adding some visual support to the thread.
Campaign should be out before Xmas and Im afraid is only from the RAF perspective. I have lots of French flights in the air in different missions so that if anyone wants to fly from that point of view it'll be quite easy to change the missions (it would require some rerouting of flight paths of course).
Yes, the shots below are from the Dunkirk missions. The campaign will take the player from the Phoney War through to the end of the British involvement. It's based loosely on Paul Richey's book, among other things, but is not an historical account. This allows me more leeway in making missions.

[Asheshouse]

I dont know a great deal about the Armee de l'Air involvement but the daylight raid by the Amiot 143's on the Sedan bridgehead comes to mind. You could probably make a passable recreation of that mission using the TB-3, suitably skinned. Lots of fighter support options. -- Maybe too many engines but it would "feel" right I think.

Operationally, units equipped with the Amiot 143 performed with distinction. The eight squadrons flew 551 night bombing sorties between 10 May and 16 June and lost only twelve aircraft. In addition, six of the squadrons furnished thirteen aircraft for one desperate daylight mission on 14 June against German bridges and vehicular traffic approaching Sedan. A strong fighter escort kept the loss to three Amiots.

I presume this was a high level attack, hence the low losses relative to the huge RAF losses on the Albert Canal bridges attack which were carried out at low level. I haven't read of any disruption caused by this attack from the German perspective.

quote from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html
taken from, Colonel Pierre Paquier, L'aviation de bombardment française (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1948), pp. 208-49

[FlatSpinMan]

Actually I've been looking for just such a skin but so far to no avail. Thanks fort the mission info though - didn't know that so I'll try and work that in.

[Spectrum]

Rumour has it that there is a Battle of France map being worked on.;)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Screenshot-6.jpg

[Vigilant]

Where'd you get that map from Spectrum?

[Spectrum]

I don't think its permitted to post links but I found it browsing on the Sound Mod site which is talked about in one of the other threads. There's some interesting work going on there, even if its not officially sanctioned.

[Rama]

Where'd you get that map from Spectrum?

What I see isn't a game map, but a google extract displayed in the briefing room (type of map used for briefing and minimap display).
Building a full map with all 3D objects of this size is a minimum of 2 years work for a team.
... and probably much more since they don't know the graphical engine limitation, nor some stuff like altitude coding (so have to rediscover everything by trial) and don't have the tools for 3D objects positionning.
We will be playing SoW:BoB long before this map will be event only partially done.

[Spectrum]

Its obviously progressed further than just a briefing map mock up. this is from the same source. You dont get pictures like these from Google.
To quote the post - "This is a view looking looking east towards Dordrecht along Haringvliet -- you have to use a little imagination. I might do the first ever IL-2 cross channel flight now." -- and according to a later post the flight was done. Doesn't seem to be much height data included yet, but its hard to tell when you are looking at the Netherlands, however looking at other mapwork which has been done issue of height data is not likely to be a problem. The ambition seems to be to produce a relatively unpopulated map, but with all the key geographic features included, so that it can be used for mission building. Looking at the earlier posts this seems to represent about one weeks intensive work. There are obvious flaws in the texturing but this doesn't claim to be ready for release. Its only a WIP screenshot.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Screenshot-7.jpg

[Rama]

height data WILL be a problem if they don't know (and they probably don't) the altitude coding in IL2.
I know what I'm talking about. I did the altitude map for Norway, Birmany and Bessarabie and the desert map that will be in 4.09.

They want to produce an "unpopulated map", so saving 95% of the map work... fine... but then it will take forever for mission creators to recreate a little bit of 3D environment to make mission interesting. I don't see how map can be used with a minimum of immersion without the towns and villages.

[Spectrum]

Rama

Your credentials are impeccable.
I particularly enjoy the Norway map and it looks like Bessarabie will be a good one too.
---- but you could try cutting those less expert than yourself a bit of slack.

[Asheshouse]

I've just finished reading two volumes of General Edward Spears book, "Assignment to Catastrophe" published in 1954. This is an excellent and very readable first hand account of the Battle of France from the perspective of the High Command. Spears, a former army officer, but then a member of parliament, was appointed by Churchill to provide liaison between himself and the French premier Reynaud. As such he was present at many key meetings which decided allied actions in the battle and was in personal contact with most of the key figures including Reynaud, Weygand, who was the commander in chief, and Petain.

Spears is very scathing of the efforts made by the French military to stem the disaster. His view is that the French forces were poorly lead and in particular the logistic support required to supply replacement and new equipment to the front line was almost non existent. The French seem to have been overcome by a collapse of moral and an air of defeatism in the commanders long before the troops on the ground were actually defeated.

The campaign seems to have ended with a complete collapse of order and discipline in the French army.

The last part of the book deals with de Gaulle arranging with Spears to be flown to England in order to continue resistance. Had he stayed in France it is likely that he would have been arrested by the Vichy Government, Weygand had already accused him of disobeying orders in seeking to transfer forces to Africa. Other members of the Reynaud government who contnued to advocate resistance were arrested and subsequently murdered by the Vichy government.

Weygand seems to have been a very unfortunate individual to have gained control of the armed forces at such a critical time. He was expressing defeatist views almost from the moment he took command and seems to have been more interested in maintaining his own reputation than in addressing the crisis. His total lack of attention to logistical support and apparent lack of effort in gathering together fragmented troops to form an effective reserve must remain as one of the principal reasons for the allies defeat.

Prior to reading these books I had thought that RAF involvement in France largely ended with Dunkirk. This is not the case though, since RAF squadrons continued to be based in France and additional squadrons carried out "day trips", refuelling and rearming in France, but returning to England at the end of the day. This whole campaign provides a wealth of scope for mission scenarios covering both air superiority tasks and ground attack, with the two opposing sides being reasonably well balanced in numbers if not in quality of aircraft.

My next read is Alistair Hornes "To Lose a Battle", which deals with much more of the tactical detail of the campaign.

[Rama]

There are many other books than just Spears one you should read to have a somewhat unbiased view of the French Campaign.
Some of his thoughts are correct (you find the same in other testimonies), other contradictory to other historian views.

The main responsability of the defeat are not to be searched On Weygand side. When he overtook the command, the disaster was allready there.
I agree French were poorly leaded, but the main responsibles were Gamelin and the HHQ, and on a lower level, army generals like Huntziger that were more concerned about their own cariers than being efficient in the field.

It's also false to say that "logistic support required to supply replacement and new equipment to front line was almost non existent"... it was ok until the retreat when everything get disorganized... and it was much better than other sectors, like transmission for example (based mostly on.... civilian phone and letters transmitted by motorbikers "estafettes"... it took around 3 days for an information to go from the front to the HQ...).
The biggest problem was.... there was no available replacement...
All the army strategical reserve had been used for the stupid northern move with objective too keep Netherland into the war (move that of course failed badly).
... you can't replace a company with emptyness, even if you have the railways, the trucks and the drivers...

[Asheshouse]

Has anyone got any information on the airfields which the luftwaffe operated from during the Battle of France?
A simple list of airfield locations would be useful to me.

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

Has anyone got any information on the airfields which the luftwaffe operated from during the Battle of France?
A simple list of airfield locations would be useful to me.

that's going to be interesting. I gathered some stuff from the first volume of the jg26 war diary and even those staffels moved, a lot.

[Spectrum]

Interesting WIP this. -- Dunkirk Harbour 1940

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Screenshot-30.jpg

[MB_Avro_UK]

Hi all,

There seems to be some blame attached to the British Expeditionary Force withdrawing at Dunkirk.

The BEF only comprised 10% of the Allied forces available. Their 10% alone would not have stopped the German adavance.

The BEF were involved in fierce rear guard actions. Indeed, over 200 British prisoners were executed by the SS Liebstandarte because of their rear guard actions. These were not 'heat of the moment' executions but took place the day after capture if my memory serves me right.

The leader of these executions is alive and well in Bavaria and has a German Army pension.

WW2 German Army pensions are far higher than British Army pensions.

Also, thousands of French Army soldiers were evacuated to Britain at Dunkirk.

And France was declared a winner in WW2. She was given a sector in Germany to control after WW2 along with Russia,USA and Britain.

Ok..Churchill refused to send Spitfires to France. Good decision as he could see that the battle was lost in France. The Spitfires helped win the BoB along with French pilots in the RAF. If the BoB had been lost or a draw, France would perhaps still be occupied by the Nazis today?

From what I have read, the allies expected a repetition of WW1 with fixed lines. This of course did not happen.

It's not historically correct to blame the Dunkirk evacuation on the defeat of France.

Sorry for the long post gentlemen!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[RM_Phoenix]

~S~ Gentlemen,this is my first post at this fabulous site ,have been a big fan of this IL2 for quite some time now and due to work am not able to fly as much any more ,but any way heres a thought and iI know it would be a ticket to print money cause I would pay thousands for it .... so heres the idea make a combat flight sim from the very first combat flight to the present ,having the base as IL2 46 and then BOB and any other add on that has been made ,I can here all , code and so on ,,there has to be a way to do something like this ,,someone somewhere has the brains to put this together ,, but it 's NOT ME LOL ~S~

[Bobb4]

The reason why France was lost is simple.
1) The French army failed to used its tanks units correctly.
2) No attempt was made to slow the German's down, especially in Paris. Look how the Russians took it, fighting in every street of every city till the last.
3) The French allowed most of it's airforce to be destroyed on the ground.

So did the British withdrawing cause the collapse, the answer is no, the collapse begand in the Ardenne Forrest. French troops spent their time falling back to form a line of defence.
As they fell back the troops on the ground developed the retreat mentality which is devastating to an army unless properly explained and can easily turn into a rout.

A similair example can be seen with the staged withdrawal of ARVN forces in Vietnam in 1975.
The ARVN generals wanted to group their forces to stage a massive counter attack.
But all the troops on the ground knew was they were withdrawing, retreating...
This led to the total collapse of a superior army in both numbers and firepower.
The fault being poor communication.
The same goes for why France was lost.

[Spectrum]

I'm not sure that its entirely correct to say that the French didn't use their tanks correctly. The main Allied tank forces were in the north where large tank v tank (French v German) tank battles occurred. The French held their own here, but due to the Panzer breakthrough in the south the allied forces in the north were obliged to fall back. Why? because of the perception in the high command that they had to maintain a continuous front. Sure, the French would have done better to concentrate their tanks more, but they don't seem to have performed badly when they did come to action.

The main failing of the French command was, 1. To change Commanders in mid-battle, and 2. To fail to concentrate all available reserves to counterattack from the south. The germans were severely pressed by French attacks at Stonne, south of Sedan, but this action was not given the resources which it needed, and resources were wasted holding ground where no attack was seriously threatened

By falling back all of their damaged tanks were lost, whereas the Germans in moving forward recovered many damaged armoured vehicles and effected field repairs to bring them back into action.

The other factor in mobile warfare is the steady attrition of vehicles and tanks due to wear and tear, not battle damage. The retreating army will lose all of these vehicles while the advancing force will recover and repair them. The same goes for artillery and other heavy support systems. Same goes for slightly damaged aircraft destroyed by their own side because of the perceived need to retreat.

The BoF was lost in the minds of the Generals long before it was lost on the ground.

Where the allied forces stood their ground they generally performed well but were poorly supported by their commanders who were too out of touch with what was happening.

[tools4fools]

As for BoB/BoF dispute:

- in my opinion the BOB is a much better choice for a first for several reasons: it is more popular and well known, therefore sales will be better...good for Oleg and team, good for us as it ensures tehre will be many more add-ons for SoW
- BoB needs less planes to be modeled to have a quite good set or aircraft.
- Hurricanes, Spitfires, Me's, He's, Do's, Stukas, etc, etc, almost all planes were widely use in other theaters and can be used again in future add-ones.
Like Africa - you add new maps, few more Italian planes, first US planes (P-40), few more German and British flyable which were Ai only in BoB. With comparatively little use of resources a new add-on. Plus 'backwards' it will make BoB more complete.

- For this modular approach I think BoB is much better choice of than BoF.

In BoF there is such a large number of different FRENCH aircraft needed that it takes a lot of resources. And none of them can be used much outside of BoF much. MS 406 in Finland indeed plus the Fokker, D520 already very little other use. Many many other important planes with almost no further use: Fairey battle, the lot of French bombers, Bloch fighter, etc.
In that sense BoB is better suited - and that's from me who loves the crap planes, the underdogs and the oddities (love those Farman bombers and the other odd bombers of the French).
If there ever is a BoF I would fly for France 95% of time me thinks...

Great sequence after SoW I would love to see would be:
Africa - add more italian, more flyable brit and german; first US planes.
Russia - (early war) add russian, add more US.
Pacifc - (early war) we got the brit planes by now and some US. So add more US and japanese.

The start all over again for mid and very late war...
++++

++++

[heywooood]

is this where people come to bash the BoB and wish Oleg had done something else....?

I wish people would get a grip already - thanks Oleg and don't let BoB quit - theres no one else can do that job

I think starting such a complainers thread is worse than starting a new flight sim based on BoB...that guy's amazing.

[Spectrum]

is this where people come to bash the BoB and wish Oleg had done something else....?

No its not. --- This thread is about the Battle of France and to try and raise interest in a BoB add-on, because no sim has seriously addressed it before. There has been serious and heated debate about the reasons for the allied defeat.

Try reading more of the thread before jumping to conclusions please.

The Battle of France would make a great add-on. The air forces on each side were reasonably balanced, at least in numbers and there is great scope for historic ground support action -- more so than in BoB.

I cant wait for BoB and have, like everybody else been drooling over the meagre scraps of information released, but that doesnt stop me hoping that after BoB we might get something to cover BoF.

[Rama]

As for BoB/BoF dispute:
In BoF there is such a large number of different FRENCH aircraft needed that it takes a lot of resources. And none of them can be used much outside of BoF much. MS 406 in Finland indeed plus the Fokker, D520 already very little other use. Many many other important planes with almost no further use: Fairey battle, the lot of French bombers, Bloch fighter, etc.

I quite disagree with this.

For main French fighters, we got:
- Morane MS406, used by Luftwaffe (Training), Finland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Switzerland (ok.. the last didn't saw much fights)
- Dewoitine D520, used by Luftwaffe (training), Italy, Bulgaria and Romania (and a bit by Free French in North Africa)
- Hawk H75, used by Finland, Norway, RAF (Mohawks IV), Siam (fighting against French MS406), and USA (a few P36 did fight in Pearl Harbor)
The only remaining main fighter is the Bloch MB152, who could be AI only

For main French Bombers, we got:
- Loire et Olivier LeO451, used as light transport by Luftwaffe, and by Italy (the less used plane outside BoF, but important for BoF)
- Glenn Martin 167F, used by RAF as Maryland MkI in Egypt and Malta fights, and who was followed by Martin 187 (RAF Baltimore), widely used in North Africa theater, and who is not very different from 167F.
- Douglas DB7, used by RAF as Boston, and who was further developped under designation A-20... widelly used by Allies.
Most of other bombers weren't largelly used by French and can be ignored, or only AI (for the Breguet 690/693 for example)

Other than these, it stay only the observation planes (Potez 63x and Bloch MB.174) who could be AI.
That's 6 flyable planes (5 of them usable by other nationalities on other theater) and 4 AI... certainly not a small deal.... but also not THAT large.

Of course you could add a lot of crapy/largelly unused (even during BoF) planes... but there's no good reason to.

[JVM]

Hello!

Didn't the Br 693 see a lot of combat as ground support and light bombers? Granted they were slaughtered but they wrote a glorious if bloody page of the FAF...

JV

[Rama]

Br690/693 should be at least AI.
It saw less missions than Leo451 or GM 167F... and it would be quite frustrating to fly with only role of low level bombing (no bombsight)... so for flyable I think it should have a lower priority than the 2 other... but's that's only my oppinion (and not very usefull oppinion... since BoF will not be developped if not by third party).
I'm sure that some would want the Amiot 354 also... even if it appeared very late and in a very few number during BoF, and saw very little fighting...

[HarryKlein]

IMO a more realistic project would be from Mers el-Kébir to Torch (1940 to 42 ),
at least for a 3rd party add-on :

P 36 Fly
D.520 Fly

Leo 451 Fly/AI
GM 167F AI

(optional :
MS 406 Fly
Potez 650 AI
Potez 63/11 Bloch 174 AI )

2 or 3 flyable and 1 or 2 IA are not impossible to do
But the main problem still the lack of datas for both CG model and FM :/

[MB_Avro_UK]

There is more chance of financial success with a BoB sim than a BoF.

The BoB is well known internationally. We here are military 'junkies'. Nothing wrong with that of course:cool:

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[Chivas]

Frankly Oleg would be crazy to start the SOW with the Battle of France. It has no recognition factor.

[Theshark888]

I think BoF would have been a better starting point to progress forward from. What I don't like is the MIG game being created on a divergent path with a dead-end map-and we all know what happened with PF.
All of us here will probably buy any air sim made by Maddox and those with less knowledge don't know the difference between the BOB and BOF anyway. People will buy a game with aircraft besides P-51's, Spitfires etc. just look at Il2! This used to be the attitude in the plastic model industry-to make only well known models, but look at that industry now.
If Oleg REALLY wanted to make a splash he should have made "the Med" product, now that would have been really something.:-P

[Chivas]

If Oleg REALLY wanted to make a splash he should have made "the Med" product, now that would have been really something.:-P


"the Med" will most likely be the next installment of the Storm of War series.
The SOW series will be much more user friendly so BoF will be done by third parties for the .0000015 of the population who actually know what it was. If they asked 1000 people off the street if they recognise the period of the BOB or BoF. Maybe 100 could tell you what BOB was and ZERO would no what the BoF was unless they lived in Northwest France or Belgium. Even alot of us had very little knowledge of the air war on the Eastern Front.

People who know Olegs work will buy whatever theater he decides to do. Its all the others that need a recongnition factor.

[Theshark888]

Its all the others that need a recongnition factor.

A good recognized campaign would be the Strategic Bombing of Germany 1943-45 during daylight /nighttime.

I just hope you are correct about the "ease" of creating further campaigns with the new SOW engine thats already taken far to long to produce.

[Chivas]

You will probably see a Western Front Bombing campaign as a paid add-on to the SOW series, if the series sells well, and computers can handle a large highly detailed map which should be possible in a couple of years.

It has taken this long because of all the paid and free add-ons developed for the IL-2 series when they could have been working on the SOW series. Its just as well because I don't think the average computer of year or two ago could have handled the amount of detail Oleg wants to put into the SOW series.

[Rama]

The SOW series will be much more user friendly so BoF will be done by third parties


I highly doubt this will happen.
1) very few third-party 3D-experts are interested by BoF planes (as shawn by IL2 third party dev)
2) developping planes for SoW will be a lot more complicated than for IL2 (as per Oleg's own words)
3) all pre-projetcs of BoF achieved..... almost nothing....

Maybe we will see (made by third-party) 1 or 2 French planes and a minimap of somewhere in NW France some years after the release of SoW..... but that's probably the most we can expect...

[Chivas]

Like I said...BoF will probably be done by a third party at some point. The existing BOB map will be usefull for some parts of the BoF. You will have some of the British and German aircraft already made. It definitely will take time for the French aircraft to be made and it could take years, depending on the expertise and time of the people making them. By that time....who knows a full western europe map may be in the works for future SOW expansions.

[Rama]

It will take more than years.... it will take forever... since as I said, no 3D-dev (third party) is interested in build a French Aircraft.

[Blood_Splat]

How long did the battle last about a month?

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Rama
Quote...MAYBE we will see (made by third-party) 1 or 2 French planes and a minimap of somewhere in NW France some years after the release of SoW..... but that's probably the most we can expect...end Quote

Exactly what I was thinking.
MAYBE ...is good
but
FOREVER...is a long time...and very pessimistic.
If the BoF is popular enough it will be done. You never know, the right person/persons may show an interest. I know there was a group very interested in making BoF for SOW, but interest for whatever reason disappeared. Personally I have no interest in the BoF.

[Theshark888]

What scares me are the people who had an "interest" in the Pacific theater and how that went. Third party for SOW will be even more limited and that also scares me.

Chivas you are very optimistic about all of this-good for you. But the lack of work cannot be blamed on IL2. 1C and it's "associates" have used deception/excuses in the past-copyrights,car accidents, lack of sources, IL2 etc.

[Chivas]

The Pacific Theater add-on started small and expanded to a paid add-on. It was being done by a third party that eventually needed Olegs help to finish. It was never intended to cover all the Pacific Theater. Its a decent sim that had copyright issues and never deserved the bad rap trumpeted by a few people on the forums. At the time Olegs people were working on BOB and they had to be diverted to help the third party finish the Pacific add-on as soon as possible.

There is no conspirancy going on. Its normal business decisions complicated by many unforseen roadblocks, as anyone who has ever been envolved in a development understands.

I'm not sure why they consentrated so much effort on the Pe2 , 1946, etc addons, other than to milk alittle more revenue on the old IL-2 engine. My gut feeling is that the average computer couldn't handle all the features that Oleg intended for BOB, and/or they've run into some very difficult technical issues.

Whenever the SOW series see the light of day, I have no doubt it will be the new benchmark in combat flight sims. The only thing that scares me is the cancelling of further addons to the SOW series due to sales revenues killed by piracy.

[Rama]

How long did the battle last about a month?

6 weeks, if you don't take in account the phoney war (who saw some "aerial fights only" also) before.

If the BoF is popular enough it will be done. You never know, the right person/persons may show an interest.

It isn't popular enough.... it's not a guess, the 6 years of IL2 third-party dev tells it.
So except if we will have "new blood" among 3D-artists in SAW, not much is to be expected concerning BoF.

[Chivas]

It isn't popular enough.... it's not a guess, the 6 years of IL2 third-party dev tells it.
So except if we will have "new blood" among 3D-artists in SAW, not much is to be expected concerning BoF.

Personally I have no doubt its not popular enough. There are a few enthusiasts who could make it happen but hardly enough interest to base the start of a new series on.

[tools4fools]

I quite disagree with this.

For main French fighters, we got:
- Morane MS406, used by Luftwaffe (Training), Finland, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy and Switzerland (ok.. the last didn't saw much fights)
- Dewoitine D520, used by Luftwaffe (training), Italy, Bulgaria and Romania (and a bit by Free French in North Africa)
- Hawk H75, used by Finland, Norway, RAF (Mohawks IV), Siam (fighting against French MS406), and USA (a few P36 did fight in Pearl Harbor)
The only remaining main fighter is the Bloch MB152, who could be AI only

For main French Bombers, we got:
- Loire et Olivier LeO451, used as light transport by Luftwaffe, and by Italy (the less used plane outside BoF, but important for BoF)
- Glenn Martin 167F, used by RAF as Maryland MkI in Egypt and Malta fights, and who was followed by Martin 187 (RAF Baltimore), widely used in North Africa theater, and who is not very different from 167F.
- Douglas DB7, used by RAF as Boston, and who was further developped under designation A-20... widelly used by Allies.
Most of other bombers weren't largelly used by French and can be ignored, or only AI (for the Breguet 690/693 for example)

Other than these, it stay only the observation planes (Potez 63x and Bloch MB.174) who could be AI.
That's 6 flyable planes (5 of them usable by other nationalities on other theater) and 4 AI... certainly not a small deal.... but also not THAT large.

Of course you could add a lot of crapy/largelly unused (even during BoF) planes... but there's no good reason to.

Spitfire, Hurricane, Me 109, Me 110 still are much more important than French fighters and much MORE USEFUL in future add-ons after SoW.

Same goes for the bombers. He 111, Do 17, Ju 88, Ju 87, Blenheim, Wellington, all more important than any of the French bombers and more USEFUL fo rfuture add-ons.

French planes did see some service afterwards but minor compared to above. None of the 5 planes mentioned by you would be a major player in any other add-on (apart from MS 406 in Finland).

Planes for BoB are much smarter to start with because next add-on will have many major players ready already.
If you start with French planes and go to second add-on it is almost as starting from scratch...because you will need LOT of new planes as French will afterwards play only MINOR role.

I mentioned that some planes can be used in some other theaters albeit mostly only in MINOR roles (except for MS 406).
So resources for first scenario of SoW series are much better used in planes that will be MAJOR players in many, many possible add-ons.

I love the French planes, in particular the bombers, the less 'ueber' the better for me, but spending a lot of time and resources to build planes which have only minor use in the future would be plain stupid seen from a business view point IMHO.

Just think going from BoB to the med, how many new planes needed for Allieds?
Going from France to med, how many new planes needed for Allieds?

To me calling BoB a mistake is...well...a mistake...;)
****

[Rama]

@tools4fools:
I never called a BoB a mistake... I even said BoF will most probably never see the day

I just reacted to one of your statement, giving more info on re-usable BoF planes.
And MS406 isn't the most re-usable plane. DB7, GM167F, and to a lesser extend H75 are (at least for Med Front, and much more for DB7)

[tools4fools]

Indeed you didn't but the title of the topic does...it was rather aimed at that.

Maryland saw some use about 200 planes and afterwards used in med, but this is not really a MAJOR player in any scenario in my opinion.
But a lovely plane, would love to have a twin engine light bomber with 4 MG's for strafing....

Hawk 75 saw some good use, that would be more useful. Finland, France, Burma, Indonesia.

The DB-7/A-20 Havoc saw a lot of use indeed - but not much in BoF. Less than 100 used in action me thinks.

With a bit of luck it actually could go the other way around: maybe a good number of planes (Boston, MS 406, Hawk, Hurricane) important for BoF will be made over the years for other scenarios and at the end of the day it would just need few more additions (D520, Bloch fighter, Potez twin engine) for a BoF scenario...



*****

[FAW_SAUMON]

The battle of France should be impossible to circumvent in Storm Of War !! :)

I think that we hope for all that :rolleyes: