History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedTheBattle of France, 1940 - Easy Victory?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Tancrède View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tancrède Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: TheBattle of France, 1940 - Easy Victory?
    Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 11:09
Just some numbers
In 45 days Germans have lost

46000 killed(63 000 killed for others sources)
111 000 wounded
Italian have lost 6 000 casualties(dead and wounded)

Germans have also lost 839 tanks destroyed(32% of their tanks) and several hundreds strongly damaged
Luftwaffe has lost approximately 1400 planes destroyed and also 500 strongly damaged
Total Luffwaffe has lost 1900 planes destroyed and damaged.

these casualties in only 45 days are important.

Then easy victory or not ?


Edited by Tancrède - 01-Mar-2007 at 11:19
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 11:47
By comparison to WWI (which was what it was compared to in 1940) it is very easy. Every major offensive during WWI meant 5000 casulties the first hour, 50,000 the first day and 500,000 at the end...

It is also ok compared to the major defeats of the Germans during WWII, Stalingrad, Tunisia, Normandy, Kursk, Belarussia meant from 100,000 to 400,000 casulties.

It is quite smilar to what the Americans (alone!) lost during the Liberation of France.

If your figures are corrects and if my math are also you get:
less than 2,5% of the Wermacht engaged killed
about 5% wounded
it is less than 10% of the army, which is what is usually assumed to be the cost of a successful attack.

It is true that the Luftwaffe lost a lot of plane.

But ultimately the benefices are much higher than the costs: almost no oil spent, one enemy down, light casulties... The German saved of the three things they were short on: petrol, time and workforce.

So: easy victory, but not completely costless.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 16:36
And remember, France possessed among the best land armies with plenty of supplies in WWII. Defeat of France was a great success to Germans. Even Hitler did not expect such a quick victory. He imagined the same scenario as in WWI, where France and Germany will face stalemate.
 
With exception to Operation Sea Lion, German success in WWII was fantastic, until Hitler became arrogant and blinded by his hatred and pride... and made foolish decisions in German's invasion against Soviet Union.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Tancrède View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2006
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tancrède Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 16:51
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

It is also ok compared to the major defeats of the Germans during WWII, Stalingrad, Tunisia, Normandy, Kursk, Belarussia meant from 100,000 to 400,000 casulties.


Without the prisoners
in Tunisia germans lost much less casualties than in May june 1940 in France
and during the battle of Normandy they lost approximately 200 000 killed and wounded
hardly more than during the battle of france.

During Barbarossa between june and August 1941( 3 months)
Germans have lost 67 000 killed, 143 000 wounded and also 660 planes and 1200 tanks destroyed.
In 3 months their casualties in planes were much less heavy than in 45 days during the battle of France.




Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

It is true that the Luftwaffe lost a lot of plane.


And these planes destroyed have missed at lufwaffe during battle of England.


Edited by Tancrède - 01-Mar-2007 at 17:02
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 16:56
I still wonder why Hitler let Himmler to become the head of Luffaffe. I honestly don't think he was a capable for such responsbility.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Joinville View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joinville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 17:55
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

I still wonder why Hitler let Himmler to become the head of Luffaffe. I honestly don't think he was a capable for such responsbility.

You mean Göring.
One must not insult the future.
Back to Top
Joinville View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 353
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joinville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 18:04
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

By comparison to WWI (which was what it was compared to in 1940) it is very easy. Every major offensive during WWI meant 5000 casulties the first hour, 50,000 the first day and 500,000 at the end...

The difference was the time-frame. It ended up easy in absolute numbers, but if you break the rate of killing down in relation to the time-frame it was bloody murder.

It was worse for France of course, with twice the casualty rate of the Germans, but it certainly was a very real and brutal war conducted at a very high pace.

The French were loosing lives at a rate higher than the worst parts of WWI in 1940. It was easier on the Germans, but had the campaign dragged on into somethning like the grinding offensives of WWI they would have been used up very quickly.

Of course the whole point of the way Fall Gelb was fought was to avoid static WWI battles. And besides the war had to be short and sharp fo the Germans, as they lacked the supplies to keep it going for much longer than it lasted.
One must not insult the future.
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 19:01
Originally posted by Tancrède Tancrède wrote:

Just some numbers
In 45 days Germans have lost

46000 killed(63 000 killed for others sources)
111 000 wounded
Italian have lost 6 000 casualties(dead and wounded)

Germans have also lost 839 tanks destroyed(32% of their tanks) and several hundreds strongly damaged
Luftwaffe has lost approximately 1400 planes destroyed and also 500 strongly damaged
Total Luffwaffe has lost 1900 planes destroyed and damaged.

these casualties in only 45 days are important.

Then easy victory or not ?
 
Despite the casualties, I believe it was a real easy victory. They were running over France, inspite of her weaknesses, still was a huge power and was globally a great power...
 
Comparing with the results, the casualties were not much bothering.
 
Though the Italian war effort was a mess...French Alpine Army easily defended its positions, despite the loss in the northern sector of the battle.
 
Had the French been more prepared, they could have probably resisted much more. Especially in terms of armored brigades, which they lacked. It is necessary to mention French manpower reserves, which had taken a great blow after WW I, was still low.
 
The generals make a great difference as well...German generals were tactically excelled and capable, while French generals mostly couldn't match their superiorities.
 
Still, we have the Dunkirk myth out there..


Edited by Kapikulu - 01-Mar-2007 at 19:04
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 19:10
Originally posted by Tancrède Tancrède wrote:


In 3 months their casualties in planes were much less heavy than in 45 days during the battle of France.


 
Which is not really surprising for several reasons:
 
The Eastern Front was a wide front and didn't involve that much of an aerial fighting.
 
Apart from that, the Soviet planes, despite their huge numbers, lacked quality against their German counterparts.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 23:46
Interesting... what was Soviet Airforce like. I heard that some of them were assigned to bomb Berlin, but they lost so many planes that they just gave up the idea...
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 13:24
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

I still wonder why Hitler let Himmler to become the head of Luffaffe. I honestly don't think he was a capable for such responsbility.


also, it is called Luftwaffe, what you wrote means "air-monkey". please use the english names (airforce) instead if you don't know the spelling... ;)
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 14:17
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

 
Apart from that, the Soviet planes, despite their huge numbers, lacked quality against their German counterparts.
 
 
Many German pilots rated the MiG-3 superior to their own ME109's.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2007 at 16:34
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

I still wonder why Hitler let Himmler to become the head of Luffaffe. I honestly don't think he was a capable for such responsbility.


also, it is called Luftwaffe, what you wrote means "air-monkey". please use the english names (airforce) instead if you don't know the spelling... ;)
 
Cool. Luffaffe sounds much better~LOL
 
Sorry, I will watch my spelling. My posts have a lot of typos...
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: Cyprus
Status: Offline
Points: 923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 13:56

It was easy I think becouse France wasnt prapered for Blitzkrieg. It was totaly supraising for them.

DÜŞÜNÜYORUM O HALDE VURUN !
Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 4496
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Spartakus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 14:06
During 1939-1940,Germany was not technologically superior to France.In fact,Germans lacked in great artillery numbers.What brought the victory was ,as erkut mentioned,the new form of warfare:combined air and land attacks,massive use of tanks to break the opposite lines.The French had plenty of tanks,some of them even much heavier than the Pz IVA like the 2C,B-1 etc,but they were rested in WWI tactis,in which tanks were meant to be used as servants of the infantry,not as a break liners.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1044
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 03:17
Well, the "Conquest of France", i doubt was an easy task for the Germans, even though the powerful French Army lacked preparedness. And the "Invasion of Normandy" was obviously not an easy campaign. Hitler in fact knew that the Allies would have to invade France.
Back to Top
Crusader3943 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 11-Mar-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Crusader3943 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 12:45
Though it was somewhat of Phyrric victory, , the Germans had conquered one of the greatest armies in the world at that time, not to mention that the Germans had hated the French ever since the Versailles Treaty.

Overall, the victory, IMHO, was an easy one, though the losses probably didn't help the Fuhrer during his Russian campaign.   
Crusader3943
Back to Top
VenetianKnight View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VenetianKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 05:57
It was a peice of a cake 4 the Krauts. British and French were useless in the early WW2 they had old war tactics from WW1, they had outdated weapons etc. And the stubborn Brits refused to adopt machine guns which didnt help either
FOZZY@ALTERBRIDGEROCK!
Back to Top
babyblue View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1176
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote babyblue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 06:59
Originally posted by VenetianKnight VenetianKnight wrote:

It was a peice of a cake 4 the Krauts. British and French were useless in the early WW2 they had old war tactics from WW1, they had outdated weapons etc. And the stubborn Brits refused to adopt machine guns which didnt help either
 
    I'd agree the Brits at the start of the war was incompetent in terms of their army, though they had an excellent navy and a gallant air force.
    But to say they didn't adopt the machine gun? What you said is like...Confused I actually don't know what to make of it.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2007 at 08:30

It was a hard battle. Lets remember that in the Anglo dominated world we tend to concentrate only on British contribution, which ended after Dunkirk, OTH the Battle of France which continued till 10th June was a bloody affair.

The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.