View Single Post
  #74  
Old 01-29-2008, 08:06 AM
Spectrum Spectrum is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15
Default

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.

Last edited by Spectrum; 01-29-2008 at 08:15 AM.
Reply With Quote