Another wonderful obit

In article <20d7e132-0255-49fb-a8fe-538de273c871.DeleteThis@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:21 am, totallydeadmail....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> Gentleman) wrote:
>> John Anderton <john1_ander....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > And suffered as a result. btw, about a year after WWI began the
>> > British fielded 29 divisions. That many in the BEF in 1940 could have
>> > tipped the balance.
>>
>> I really, really doubt that, given that Blitzkrieg was such a new and
>> fearsomely effective development.
>
> It was new and fearsomely effective against weak opponents (like
> second-rate French divisions) but consider that the only German

And first-rate Polish ones. Read the history - Poland *had* a large and
fairly effective army. But they were (largely) fighting with WW1-era
tactics.

> the Panzer divisions and there were only 9 of those. The rest of the

Rubbish. I don't know where you get your facts but I'd change if I were
you..

Army Group C (diversionary - faced the Maginot line) - 19 Divisions
(not Blitzkrieg).
Army Group B (attacked Holland & Belgium - most definately
blitzkrieg) - 30 Divisions (including 3 armoured divisions)
Army Group A (attacked via Ardennes and most definately Blitzkrieg) -
45 divisions (including 7 armoured divisions)
3200+ combat aircraft.

So thats 75 divisions using Blitzkrieg (which doesn't only involve
Panzer Divisions BTW - it a combined arms operation that uses
*Mechanised* divisions of both infantry *and* Panzers.) A total of
about 3 million soldiers.

And the BEF? 10 Divisions plus a tank brigade. Total allied soldiers
were about 3.3 million but most of these were ill-trained and prepared
conscripts. The only mostly-professional army was the BEF. And of that
3.3 million about 50% were fortress-divisions (ie tied down in immobile
fortifications). And total combat aircraft 2100 (ish) - most of which
were a generation behind the Luftwaffe (apart from the British
Hurricanes and Spitfires - but the British only had 680 combat aircraft
in France). Likewise the tanks used (with
the notable exception of the Matilda II - which was a good tank but
much slower than the German ones) were an iteration of technology
behind the German ones.

> army moved at walking pace so a prompt response by a well coordinated

Rubbish. Have you ever heard the term *Motorised* Division?

> and mobile force (like the BEF) could have de-railed the Germans.

BEF wasn't particularly mobile. Especially not when compared with the
German Motorised Divisions. Which is why some of the force (mixed with
retreating French forces) made several very hard-fought stands to allow
the rest to get to the coast. And don't forget - they were being
attacked on two fronts (Army Group B and C).

> The weak attack at Arras caused some concern to the Germans. A
> stronger attack could have delayed the German advance enough for the

The troops were not there for a stronger attack.

> The French campaign wasn't the walkover many people believe, there
> were several points where a relatively small increase in the strength
> of the Allied forces could have tipped the balance.

Rubbish. Most historians believe that defeat was inevitable - arising
mostly from the French tactics, morale and strategy. And don't forget
that both Britain and France were heavily affected by the Great
Depression (Germany less so).

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'

In article <65fa7927-80aa-4e61-86b2-42c33342dd8d.DeleteThis@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:36 am, Phil Launchbury <ph....DeleteThis@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <7eb1c81c-2167-493d-9cc7-57fb0e97b....DeleteThis@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, John Anderton wrote:
>
> I think you're missing the point that "no Channel" would alter
> British, and European, history so dramatically that you can't make any
> predictions based on what happened historically.

No really?

>> > Well, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all re-arming at this
>> > time so what was your point ?
>>
>> That they were doing it in violation of the treaty?
>
> Which treaty ? In the case of Germany and the Treaty of Versailles,
> yes, most definitely.

Does the Hoover Plan mean anything to you?

>> was in specific sectors (especially air with the RAF being kept in
>> parity with the Luftwaffe).
>
> The mere existence of the Luftwaffe violated the Treaty of Versailles

And by that time nobody could do anything about it. But pre-war
doctrine didn't conceive of an air-force being used like the Luftwaffe
was during the France Blitzkrieg.

> of Army build up seen in WWI had been repeated in WWII the BEF would
> have been much larger.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the overall command was in the
hands of the French. And specifically in the hands of someone who had
decided on an almost entirely static defensive posture. The BEF (and
the northern French forces) were there to plug the gap in the Maginot
line.

>
>> The Germans got round that by conflict-training (Spain etc) a cadre of
>> very skilled soldiers who then (on outbreak of war) were responsible
>> for training the green troops.
>
> If you mean they got around the Treaty of Versailles, then, no, they
> didn't. They ignored the Treaty (which stipulated an Army of 100,000)

Only in the late 1930's. Their army during the Spanish Civil war peaked
at about 12000 men.

> Britain also had a cadre of skilled soldiers and could have got a
> larger army quickly (though it wouldn't have been as large as the

Only by doing what Germany did (conscription) which didn't happen until
the war was declared. And didn't happen in any large quantities until
the end of the Phoney War.

Phil

--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'