Development of French Armoured Doctrine, 1918-1939 

That's a pretty accurate summation.

@@TheChieftainsHatchthat’s actually depressing

Guy Lawrance ?

@@user-ef4gf7rr9r Good joke. Guy is still upset about Roosevelt and is not sure how many of them there were.

@@guylawrance2216 fuck you racist

Joe Blow Why is he racist? Someone else told him the joke so they are not his words

I think the proper term in this context would be deputy. Member of Parliament is commonwealth. Edit: also good joke, shockingly close to the truth.

Yep, same. Everyone is joking about that, including me, so it suddenly makes sense now.

And the Maginot Line worked, the Germans went elsewhere. The Versailles Treaty worked as well, at the start of Barbarossa, Germany had 873000 reserves, with very few experienced officers; the Red Army had 13 or 14 million reserves. Even though inflicting four times as many casualties on the USSR than they took, they were screwd and already in deficit in December with one million dead- especially high losses amongst officers.

@@PalleRasmussen True, but then again the excesses of the Versailles treaty definitely helped spur the revanchism that got the NSDAP into power in the first place. There was the civil war, of course, but it was central to the rape-and-revenge narrative that they promoted.

@@Marci124 not necessarily the treaty was generally annoying but accepted until the occupation of the Ruhr, this told Germany in big fat bold text “we cannot defend our borders with this bullshit” “to the point even moderate politicians supported secret rearmament” This was in 1923, before mr mustache tried his first coup

@@lostalone9320 Germany didn't go through Belgium to invade France in just ww1. They also did it during the Franco Prussian war, so that was two wars in a row before ww2 they could have noticed.

and threatened them in the 1880's. Boulangier I believe.

If I'm not mistaken the De Gaul in fact DID launch a coup in the 50s so......point 1930s French politicians

Just looked that up and was surprised to see you're right. It apparently wasn't his coup, but he became president because of it.

@@mausklick1635 I don't know, when you start sending paratroopers to take entire islands I feel like it becomes your coup. He had a great response to people saying he was trying to take over, though. "Who honestly believes that, at age 67, I would start a career as a dictator?" Not too often someone response to claims of authoritarianism with "Man, I'm too old for this shit"

@@fien111 Well, "Opération Résurrection" was more of a counter coup mounted by the government if I remember my high school classes correctly.

Yea... We've stumbled upon a very rare occurrence. 281 comments and I can't even find a reverse gear or white flag stale meme anywhere...

What did you expect, it's Chieftain.

@@benoitbvg2888 I'm sorry to disappoint. Blah blah blah what's a Frenchman's favorite color? Blah blah blah something about a white flag

@@benoitbvg2888 The French retreated at Belleau Wood as soon as the Marines arrived, and tried to tell them to retreat. That's where the saying "Retreat? Hell we just got here!" comes from. So there is some truth to the jokes, in quite a few instances.

Be careful not to misconstrue bravado as determination as sound operational decision-making. The fallacy that a retreat is by definition cowardly has cost more than one general their army.

"you mean you miss the robot voice" -- What are you talking about? Are you talking to voices in your head? Read my post. It's in plain English. If you don't know what I am talking about, listen to other videos by The Chieftain, and you will know what I am referring to.

Roland Lawrence you definitely have no clue what the poster was talking about. The videos produced by the wargaming company has music that is so loud and repetitive that it is hard to hear the Chieftain at times.

@@AR-jx6wr not in the m103 video

@@AR-jx6wr i think a missing reply...

IDK why people hate the music so much. The only thing I don't like is the repetitiveness of them. Its the same one used over and over again. But that's really it. Wargaming made some pretty cool promotional short films but they can't provide more than one track to poor Chieftain :(

and that was not even attacking it at it's full strenght since the individual forts were placed to support its neighbours and able to call artillery

Well, yeah, there was a reason *no* German war plan envisioned taking on the Maginot Line. That would have been expensive and, worse, useless.

And clearly the French did not know how to lay a concrete foundation and build above ground bunkers on the Belgium border. And the French's military priority was not to offend Belgium rather than defend France.

@@warrenokuma7264 The French, I think, were depending on the Belgians own fortifications to slow down a German thrust long enough for the French to move in to counter them. The fortress of Eben Emael was considered impregnable, until the Germans hit on the idea of landing glider troops on top of it. At any rate, the cost of extending the Maginot Line along the Belgian border would have been unaffordable. As it was, they skimped in the Ardennes, where they assumed the terrain was impassable for armor, where better fortifications might have stopped or slowed the German penetrations enough for the French high command to counter it.

@@charlesinglin Yup. Relying on others to defend your country without a formal treaty is makes for poor strategy and even poorer politics. Actually building above ground structures is cheaper than building underground. And the Ardennes had oddly enough a quarry, that had a decent road, plus the Germans did do an offense in 1914 and in 1918, and the Americans did an offense though there in 1918 and trucks did have a problem going though there, but it could be done. In fact Churchill did warn the French that tanks could go though there.

In the German army at least: No, they didn't. I think (and I can only speculate about this, it's as much of a mindset thing as it is doctrine), because Germany in the cold war tended to train defense-in-depth as the(!) prime directive it got squashed a bit. However, we also did emphasise the commanders in the field to take the initiative and take the risk of a counter thrust, even when the pre-planned counter attack was already under-way. We also had a 3:1 organisation in our brigades (three tank battalions for one Panzergrenadier battalion and vice versa). I think the fact that "Panzergrenadiere" are not the same as mechanized infantry (Panzergrenadiere are supposed to fight mounted and dismounted) and the tank battalion is the nucleus of the Bundeswehr also helps. This actually goes back to the 30's where it was stated that if the infantry cannot keep up with the tanks the infantry should be made faster, not the other way around.

There was only one leg infantry unit in Germany task to guard American medium nuclear missiles until the salt talks ended that program. After that the unit was used as filler for understrength units deploying to the Persian Gulf. What was left was used as a training force. I found myself as a tank commander in a M60 simulating a Russian tank. In all the time we were used as Red force I never saw American Infantry operating closely with tanks. I think because the leadership was afraid they might be run down by the tanks. The armors pet name for infantry was "crunchies". At that time there was a zero accidental death policy and such an event would have ended somebodies career. Another reason I believe American armor/infantry combined arms is weak. Sorry, we never trained with you Germans. But everything I heard and saw told me your army would fight and fight well. @@Ruhrpottpatriot

@@georgeeverette3912 Go and watch some videos from the official Bundeswehr channel on Trident Juncture and other exercises. Some of them are in English even.

@@georgeeverette3912 The works of Col. David Glantz showed us the ways the Red Army dealt with this problem in 1943-1945. - In the defence, ala Kursk 1943, the defending infantry divisions were dug in into all-round, mutually supporting anti-tank strong points (platoon, company) and regions (battalions) all the way up to division in the 2 forward, 1 back fashion. Attached to each infantry division might be something like an independent tank battalion or brigade. The instruction and doctrine explicitly forbade breaking up of these formations and they were to be commanded by the division deputy commander. The defending infantry would be inevitably rolled over; inch-by-inch by the attacking Germans and they were to execute a retreat from the front line to the 2nd line. The independent tank formations were to constantly attempt to flank the penetrating panzer spearhead; to cause disruption, attrition, and to buy time for the infantry to fall back to the second line. Eventually the division would have to retreat and they would be supported by the higher level of mobile unit: the parent Corps would have their own tank divisions, whose time to be committed into similar flanking attempt decided by the Corps. This went all the way up to the Front level with their Tank Armies. - In the offence, the job of penetration fell into the hands of the Shock armies: infantry division reinforced with heavy tanks and SPGs. After the penetration was made and very early on: when the outcome was certain but the penetration was still quite narrow, the forward detachment of the infantry division; typically a mobile brigade made of tanks, motorised infantry and mortars commanded by the division deputy commander, immediately exploit the penetration: flanking the defending forces, destroy ammo dumps, occupy choke points, etc ... Then you send follow-on attack forces to widen the breach, and pass through that breach a Tank Division (they called it Corps), Tank Army, or cavalry mechanised group, depending on the terrain to exploit deeper. The modern land force doctrines and organisation are still very much WWII in configuration; except having more armored vehicles instead of simple trucks. Those techniques for command and control would seems very applicable to the problem you described. However, I see that in many ways, the "light brigades" in the US Army are not having many types of equipment that by all the might of US industry, they should rightfully have. Why should they roll round in wheeled, road-bound, vulnerable humvees when they can have light tracked armoured vehicles? Why don't have have light tanks? Self-propelled, lightly armoured artillery? Even in the numerous footage coming out of shithole like Syria, you can see that the first thing everyone wants is mobile firepower. Thus they bolt on everything from machinegun, rockets, mortars, and AA guns on the back of Toyota pickups and howitzers on the back of heavy duty container trucks. The current light brigade seems to really like to slog away at the enemy on foot. Leg infantry only makes sense in terrain absolutely nothing else can traverse like mountain, marshes, and forests. Even in those 3, with light tanks and ample engineering support, light tank can cut through the latter 2. Even in a defence from dug-in position, if the enemy is really determined to punch through, they will concentrate absolutely everything they can and you will be rolled over. In that case, having no armoured vehicles mean the infantry can't even withdraw in reasonable order in the face of automatic small arms fire.

@@VT-mw2zb My guess - and that is all it is - is that these formations are designed to be air transportable. So - with the actual parachute units - they would be the ones most quickly brought in - along with whatever sea bourne assets (Marines) the Navy might be able to contribute as an initial force - to be followed by heavier forces. So - if you are trying to keep country X from being over run - you commit whatever of these forces you can to secure air fields, ports or the routes leading to such things - to enable the arrival of later units. That's about what they did in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. They committed lighter units that could be deployed quickly - and Sadam gave them the time to do it. *shrug* .

that and Spain 1936...

@@Nonsense010688 I disagree. All 3 were in France. Absolutely.

Also, they were correct. Them moment the armistice was signed they did exactly what the politician feared.

@@jrobbins707 Si Wi was talking about the military coup d'etat in Spain that happened in 1936, something separate from the previous three mentioned incidents but still theoretically reaffirming to French politicians.

Not to mention Portugal 1926 coup and the Bolsheviks Red Army fucking over both Socialists and Liberals. And considering the numerous instances of from 1875-to1925 where the army fired on rallies and striking workers from USA to Imperial Germany, there was a trend of deep misstrust almost everywhere in the western world.

Yep I agree... Please waffle louder?

And ZOOM IN please. Thank you!

My old, crap PC with terrible peripherals, and me being 55 years old can hear it just fine.

I've got the volume on RU-vid, and Windows, and my small speakers turned up to max. A mic closer to his face would help. A constant challenge for aesthetics and professional youtubers.

I concur, trying to watch this on my phone while sitting on the loo. Too quiet to hear and too zoomed out to lipread

Hadn’t noticed that before, now I like the Chieftain even more

Noticed it straight away, came to the comments to confirm I wasn't just seeing stuff ;w;

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, fuck. The weebs are infecting another one.

@@gso619 Girls und Panzer goes beyond weebdom, nothing is more glorious than school girls engaging in tank combat as a sport.

@@gso619 The Chieftain is literally an advisor for the anime.

"France lost because they like to surrender" god I hate that

@@DiggingForFacts Francophobia

@@druisteen The US is Franco phobic because we are soooo like them and it is easier to project. Sacre.

@@willgirvan2491 Only ignorant fools think that. I have yet to see a credible historian say that. Actually tons of good books on the subject. Sadly the ignorant types will never read them.

@@whazzat8015 it's true. Both are incredibly proud and stubborn.

Why not, after all Britain regarded Belguim as a place they could hold their away matches, being handy for France Germany or Holland to visit

I can't help but think that fighting in France have been wiser.

@@Edax_Royeaux as mr Moran said, it wasn't strategically feasible for the french, the terrain on the french side being not the best for forming a defence and it was too close to the heavy industries strategic to the war (with most of the iron ore being as close as a 100km of the border, so letting Hans into the country wasn't considered a viable option

@@quentintin1 But at the same time, France LOST that territory in WWI and still won the war. Paris ends up being far more important than Belgium in the long run. Even if the high water table meant the defences couldn't be as solid as the Maginot Line, they could have achieved a defence in depth and stopped a Blitzkrieg from happening.

@@Edax_Royeaux in WWI, most of the territory east of the Moselle and and a little bit in the north part of the Meuse was part of Germany (annexed in 1871) so these territories weren't part of french industry during WWI. the french general strategy was sound, as long as you don't ignore possible enemy routes (it was known that the Ardennes could be crossed by a motorized army), don't commit all your troops in a sector (there was no operational reserves available to counter the german attack) and don't slow your communications by ordering your field commanders to not use their radios

You are welcome. And an interesting story you have.

​@CommandoDude The guy predicted the German advance to within a few hours. The French just assumed the Germans would move slowly and wait to bring up an excessive amount of artillery and ammunition as they assumed everyone fought in the same mathematical way they did. Each panzer division about 2 battalions of 105mm and some also had one battalion 150mm towed howitzers with them in 1940 and Guderian concentrated most of the artillery of three panzer divisions and Grossdeutschland regiment on the crossing of the 1st Panzer division. The Stuka bombardment was also concentrated mainly on the 1st panzer's front which did every little physical damage but did cause a lot of the French interval troops retreat allowing for the first waves of motorised infantry and assault engineers to infiltrate the French defences and create corridors for the rest of the infantry to cross. The other crossings were managed without airsupport although the 1st panzer's crossing was by far the most successful. The motorised infantry and artillery would also break through several fortified positions during the campaign without airsupport. Like Rommel would also break through the extended maginot line near Clairfayts with only his division and no airsupport. Really the only place the German panzer divisions could not break through was at Gembloux.

@CommandoDude It was the motorised infantry in the Panzer divisions that did most of the heavy fighting not the tanks. The tanks would often be saved for exploiting and more mobile engagements. And the only the 10th Panzer had problems with its artillery on the 13th of may as that arrived as the battle was starting, all the other divisions had their artillery present for the crossing.

Corap is often, unfairly, accused of mismanaging things but recent additions to French historiography have demonstrated the opposite, while showing Huntziger's overall large responsibility in the Meuse sector catastrophy.

@@Raph1805 The point here is not Bout assigning blame. Its that the french had a glacial ooda loop, and the germans getting inside it was what primarily ensured their victory.

I missed that 1st time around. 😂😂😂 Classic Chieftain

So .. the more things change the more they stay the same amirite

Well, to be fair, more deposits could have been found in the period...

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Treasonable Fecklessness could be a charge there.

Yet they didn't have the political will to invade to enforce the treaty. When Germany started to break it, France was still powerful enough in comparison to easily roll in and take over, yet they chose not to. And to be fair, why should they have? Without the benefit of hindsight, it seemed unreasonable to invade a country to enforce a treaty that was unreasonable in the first place.

​@lobsterbark But Versailles wasnt unreasonable in the first place it was a pretty bog standard treaty for the era.

Nicholas suggested the primary cause for France's 1940 defeat in the beginning - the (mainly Catholic) French military had little love and no trust in Leon Blum's (mainly secular, partially communist) Popular Front government. Why sacrifice for a leadership class which holds you in contempt and suspicion?

Socialist* Not partially communist although he had received some support from the communist against the traditionnal right wing movements and a select few fascist parties (france was very divided politcally at the time and even today) but the communist elements began disaproving the government too partly in its later days, that was the collapse of the front populaire.

The French Communist Party (PCF) absolutely was part of Leon Blum's Popular Front governing coalition. It was the same strategy the Left used in Spain and, given the result there, it's easy to see why the French Right were so suspicious of it.

tie fighter nothing to do with the army. You re perfectly irrelevant

Definitely it wasn't France's fault! It was Germany's, how dared they to attack where France didn't want them to attack! How could they!

LOL. Are you French?

Nope. Just interested in the 1939-40 years, especially the french (yes how exotic) and the interwar doctrines and preparations for the next war. By the way congrats for your tanks vids, I also really like them.

It was kind of an engineering marvel, really.

Absolutely. More interestingly, at least.

LMAO!

Just put on proper armor on the hippos to get them to melee distances, then they'll chomp enemy soldiers in half with a single bite!

It comes from the Greek. Hippo means horse. Hippopotamus basically means river horse I believe

Fien Dude. We know. That’s the joke.

Italy had a plan?

Can Openers is my only book thus far. No immediate plans for more.

@@TheChieftainsHatch Hello. I follow you on You Tube for 4 years already and I have to say a I never thought I could learn so much about military history with so much pleasure. About the book, can it be ordered in Romania ?

Try this. www.panzerwrecks.com/product/can-openers/

“Unknowingly” is a stretch, it’s not like there were secrets by what everyone could see

I somewhat agree with you. There was incompetence, but it was at the higher levels, plus the Germans got a number of lucky breaks. Then again, they did make the most of those breaks,

@@TheChieftainsHatch i highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet. He makes some really interesting points and arguments and pushes the revisionist boat out even further. He's absolutely scathing of Belgium's foreign policy and how it was utterly suicidal for both Belgium and France. He's highly critical of the Belgium army itself. He launches some serious criticism of Alan Brooke and the second BEF (Brooke literally disobeyed direct orders and decided unilaterally to leave the continent again) and he's absolutely scathing of Weygand and even calls him a weasel at one point. He goes into the second stage of the battle(post Dunkirk) hence the name of the book and argues that this wasn't a foregone conclusion. Had the French been better led they could have held on. Or at least put up a proper fight. Throughout the book he points out several occasions where the French did right very well including their use of armor. It's a really interesting book overall I found

Seems it's often the case in wars that both sides make mistakes, but it's the side that makes fewer mistakes and is best at exploiting them that win.

@@lovablesnowman It is long due another look at this battle.

That is an excellent book, Robert Forczyk at times doesn't try to keep the anger from his prose, but he's a master of detail. He's not just being contrarian when he defends the French military, he's trying to make the case for Brave Men that did their best.

This is a very common tanker problem: they assume that slow-go terrain means no-go terrain. Not much has changed since then.

Bob Smith : succint. You are neutral, until the one of the combatants determine you are not.

@@dewiz9596 Well, the Belgians had ample evidence that the Germans were about to determine the status of their neutrality and they stuck their heads in the sand. .

Just like the Dutch, they ignored the fact that there might an actual megalomaniac at the other end of the table and assumed that even if things went wrong, they would unfold to their best-case scenario

@@DiggingForFacts There's are a couple of things about the Dutch that mitigate things a little. 1) Holland was in defensible. Like Denmark - it was to off and away for the British and French to help defend even if they'd tried. 2) The other thing and probably more important, was that Holland had been neutral during WWI. They probably thought they could sit the next one out too but they were wrong about that. Still - the Dutch Government went into exile and they fought on from their colonies - until Japan took them. Even then they fought on from Britain. Belgium had been a pathway for the Germans in WWI and there was no reason to assume that the Germans would not be going through Belgium again. Then they capitulated rather than going into exile like the Dutch. Unlike the Dutch their colonies in Africa weren't threatened ... though they may not have amounted to much in terms of military assets. But - I really don't know much about the Belgian colonies - such as the Congo. The Congo was a large colony and did have some natural resources. I do not know what happened with it in WWII. .

@@BobSmith-dk8nw Congo wasn't really a Colonie of the Belgium state it was private property of the king of Belgium.

The Chieftain, Drach, and Mark Felton are better than listening to the History Channel!

Trousers*

indeed he meant trousers!

Le pantalon rouge, c'est la France!

The exact phrase I've heard is "pantalons rouges", which, however you decide to translate it, is a really dumb thing to wear while charging at machine guns.

@@JustSomeCanuck but élan vital :(

beware of the "x field experts", they will look at everything trough the narrow lenses of their own specific field

Much obliged, I shall look for it.

Thank you to all.

Yeah it's a nice book.

or lack there of :'( though seeing they were on the side of germany to kick off ww2, maybe a good thing!

Italy didn’t have a proper steel industry. Forget heavy tanks.

oh no linguini

And perhaps a crumpet or a nice piece of cake. 😊👍

Donald J. Trump quite so Donald, enjoy your Covfefe!

Russel John I’m a Victoria sponge man, myself. Or chocolate hob nobs! 🍰

Chocolate hob nobs 👍👍. But more of a fruit cake man myself.

Russel John nothing wrong with a good fruit cake!

dclark142002 well same tactics are still using today,we all have to use the german way,untill a new guderian appears.

@@bogdaann, which German way? The German army's use of tanks in 1940 is much different than her use of tanks in 1943...or 1945. The allies used them differently than the Germans in 1940 during the great 1944-1945 offensives. Blitzkrieg isnt a form of tank use. It is a propaganda offensive...

dclark142002 i agree.the germans had a basic ideea of using tanks,which they applied in poland,adapting then what they learned to france,then to ussr,and lastly to war on 2 fronts. They changed the infantry division and panzer division tactics after ‘42 to binary level cause they needed much more mobility and to cover more space,while the manpower was the same. Also they had to use the Tiger into just battalion level,not to a divisional level cause they had to counter the mass production of t-34 and later shermans.so they thought that a better improved tank will stop the hordes of russian tanks. They always had to adapt to the enemy and the situation on the front,leading to using panzer divisions for breaking enemy lines(scwepunkt) and the tiger battalions as a counter measures to defend agaisnt t-34 armies,cause overall the germans realised they cant outproduce ussr,eng and USA combined in tanks,planes etc. Also the Blitzkrieg didnt worked So well in last years of war,cause of lack of air superiority,due to Bombing of synthetic raffieneries and România swiching sides,leaving germany without oil. So what was the point on building planes,if u can t get them in the air ?

Making people think and review preconceived notions or “accepted” history….A rather good thing!

Gone but never forgotten, côneboi

F

shhhh wrong game !!!

At least i can still use it because i unlocked it before the block, even if it´s useless.

It's not just the 12 year old players...talk to the game designers and its the same story...

Because most people don't know know much about the French Army 's history outside of what pop culture tells them. Anyone that says the French have no military history is a complete dolt.

Merci :)

The problem was public opinion, the Front popular with Deladye was really thinking about a war with Germany, or entertaining in the Spanish Civil war on the Republican side, but in that case the conservative and the Catholic would start a civil war. France was in big trouble.

Nobody ever claimed Socialists were overburdened with intelligence...

@CommandoDude For a group that fetishizes "the struggle", these socialists sound like cowardly bitches.

@@CowMaster9001 the alternative is to go and find the counter counterrevolutionaries and get rid of them. Stalin did that, people were rather unimpressed.

Battle of Stone , 13 panzer destroyed by one B1

Interesting.

Donald J. Trump Tank^2?

Doctrine: Gasen i botten!

Well, our cold war conscript system was pretty much modeled after the interwar french system with updated equipment.

@Donald J. Trump Swedish tanks since 1960 has been mostly improved Brittish or German tanks...

I'm sure he'll get to it whenever Sweden joins the war.... Oh. Well... maybe after the war then.

In fact, french created armored doctrine, largely thanks to Estienne general. But french military leaders didn't really apply it...

Actually it does. A defensive line would have to hold for several years if to make any of the effort and resources invested worth the effort. A 10 day or 20 week speed bump is not worth the effort no matter how useful it might be. Siegfried line, stalin line, seelow, Hurtgen and the Atlantic wall were just speed bumps and were ultimately not worth it. Finland for example didn't need a defence line to defend their land north of lake ladoga. It was not a defence line that stopped German charge to moscow or stalingrad or stop the soviets at Tali ihantala at 1944. VKT line wasn't a defence line but a perimiter of hard points and unfortified defensive positions.

@@mikaelantonkurki there is a huge difference between how the Maginot line was circumvented and how other lines later in the war held well. A few weeks or months is a huge difference, especially if the line was flexible and did not require such vast amount of materials and man-hours to build. The simplistic answer that all defensive lines were useless is just plain dead wrong.

@@andraslibal note i don't wish to discredit the idea of defensive lines. What about Eben-Emael?

@@mikaelantonkurki that was an interesting chapter, the Germans used gliders and highly trained highly motivated troops with explosives and hollow charge weapons (I think it was employed there first) ... the defenders had chances but they lacked the initiative. The problem with the Belgian and French forts in 1940 is that the defenders hunkered down never went out ... a small mobile force in conjunction with the fort guns would have worked better. Later defensive lines did not put so much emphasis on huge static bunkers but smaller cheaper strongpoints in combination with a mobile force. If aided by terrain these lines were still very useful, the Arpad line in Hungary held up the Soviets for more than a month and it diverted them southward. The large mountains there helped a lot.

@@andraslibal Actually contrary to popular myths the Maginot Line when fully manned had interval troops of regular infantry and artillery from the field army in place between the fortifications. Long range artillery was behind the line while regular infantry were dug in front of it. The Maginot Line was never intended to fight in isolation. Problem is by the time the Germans turned and focused on it the interval troops had been removed and redeployed to take part in the second phase of the campaign Case Red.

The French basically got screwed by “early adopter syndrome” with their arms. With just about every major warfare development, the French were the first to field it, and then everyone else goes and copies the French but better. The classic example is smokeless powder. The French invented the stuff, scrambled to find a way to field it, and ended up taking their 11mm black powder cartridge and necking it down to 8mm. Thus the crazy case of the 8mm Lebel was born. Paul Mauser said “You know what’s even cooler than heavily tapered rimmed cartridges? Nearly straight rimless cartridges.“ and went and made 8mm Mauser.

The Allies later in the war fought in a manner that closely resembled the French doctrine. Only with air superiority, more firepower and MUCH better command and control.

And the poor French air force were slaughtered despite heroic efforts (along with the RAF's own heroism and horrid losses). Perhaps if the UK had released more of their fighters instead of being hypnotised by 'the bomber must get through' mantra it may well have been different.

jhjkhgjhfgjg jgjyfhdhbfjhg Germans outnumbered to Poles about 2 to 3 times in everything while their tanks were not very good but their infantry weapons and guns were some of the best at that time while Poland used outdated equipments.