Development of French Armoured Doctrine, 1918-1939

The tour of the various powers continues, now looking into the rather unfortunate state of affairs which controlled how the French would decide to fight the next war against Germany. Again, in support of the WW2 Channel...
Various sources:
The Challenge of Change, Eugenia Kiesling
Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, Williamson Murray
Histoire des Blindés Francais, Stéphane Ferrard
L'Arme Blindée Fraincaise, Tome 1, Gérard Saint-Martin
Trackstory, Editions du Barbotin (B1, D1, FCM 36, R35)
The Seeds of Disaster, Robert A Doughty

[@podemosurss8316]

11:27 There is a French joke about an MP who slept on his seat during a parlamentary meeting. Before he had time to wake up, he had already been PM and removed from office twice.

[@thecanadiankiwibirb4512]

Guy Lawrance ?

[@whazzat8015]

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

[@joeblow9657]

@@guylawrance2216 fuck you racist

[@smogdanoff7053]

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

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

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.

[@Novous]

So from what I gather from your video so far, the French were far from the common conception of "we're stupid, let's just build a wall." and "we don't care about tanks". And, in fact, they were actively expecting and preparing for, the eventual rise of the sequel, "Germany 2 - The Blitkriegening". But thanks to the roll of the dice, Germany rolled and massively lucked out, and France rolled snake-eyes on the whole Ardenne thing. The more I learn about World War 2, the less I feel like I actually understand anything about it. Also, thank you for these videos. We really do love the work you're doing.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

That's a pretty accurate summation.

[@slapper360]

@@TheChieftainsHatchthat’s actually depressing

[@GoblinKnightLeo]

I have literally never heard that detail about French steel industries before. The Maginot Line makes a hell of a lot more sense in light of that.

[@gastonjaillet9512]

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

[@PalleRasmussen]

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.

[@Marci124]

@@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.

[@looinrims]

@@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

[@aaronbasham6554]

@@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.

[@mausklick1635]

For all the French fear of a coup, you should have mentioned that that was exactly what happened in Spain.

[@whazzat8015]

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

[@fien111]

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

[@mausklick1635]

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.

[@fien111]

@@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"

[@peletsoivre9110]

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

[@charlesinglin]

Excellent point on the Maginot Line being dictated by the need to defend vital resources near the border. The loss of those areas in WWI had had a negative effect o nthe French war effort. And the Maginot Line was nothing to sneeze at. Patton ran up against the fortifications around Metz in Sept. '44 and found that reducing them was a slow, expensive process.

[@quentintin1]

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

[@jochentram9301]

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

[@warrenokuma7264]

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.

[@charlesinglin]

@@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.

[@warrenokuma7264]

@@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.

[@mountainhobo]

No background music, instant like.

[@mountainhobo]

"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.

[@AR-jx6wr]

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.

[@pnutz_2]

@@AR-jx6wr not in the m103 video

[@mrrolandlawrence]

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

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

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 :(

[@Fatyoshie234]

An 1 hour long video on the French military that's not bias. I'm must be in heaven

[@benoitbvg2888]

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...

[@sjoormen1]

What did you expect, it's Chieftain.

[@shanesizemore3654]

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

[@beurteilung713]

@@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.

[@DiggingForFacts]

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.

[@Pulsatyr]

This was one of your better videos. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and understanding the political, economic, cultural and geographic reasons for decisions is vital to dispelling the myths of "common knowledge." You have a great ability to eliminate the dross and get to the heart of the matter with just enough detail to keep the subject accessible. Yes, you even made paint drying entertaining. I find myself watching these videos several times in conjunction with the "Inside" videos, and I am neither a gamer or real tank fanatic.

[@georgeeverette3912]

What was the French problem? They had a combined arms doctrine, but they did not train with combined arms. Once you said, "the infantry were content to let the cavalry do what they wanted. I saw this in the 1980s US Army when we explored the light motorized Infantry Division. Something that was hoped would be quickly shipped to Europe and be able to fight Soviet Armor on something like equal terms. We quickly found out that like infantry, we could fight armor if we had a chance to dig in and put up obstacles and lay mine fields, but in a mobile battle, we always lost. So, somebody decided to attach one armored Battalion to the Division. It worked terrible, the armored battalion always wanted to be the tip of the spear and so was always destroyed before the main battle had even started. Once we detected the approach of Red force and quickly deployed into a defensive line to receive them, but not the armor. They kept going. I can hear the brigade commander pleading with the armor, "come back, come back" who must have switch their radios to sub channels to better fight the Soviet armor, by themselves. We did much better when we moved the armor to the middle of the formation but command had already decided to scrap the motorized Division. Adding armor took up to much space on ships and the C5 aircraft to give the division the strategic mobility that was wanted. As a leg infantryman I was left wondering if our Mech. and Armored division had the same weakness that I observed in the short lived motorized division. We did not do that much training above the battalion level which was where our arms were divided.

[@Ruhrpottpatriot]

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.

[@georgeeverette3912]

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

[@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.

[@VT-mw2zb]

@@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.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@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* .

[@LD-oq9lx]

To be fair to french politicians, the 3rd republic had already been treatened 3 times by monarchist or millitary coup d'etat ( boulanger crisis, veterans marching on paris in the early 20's and the croix de feux coup attempt.)

[@Nonsense010688]

that and Spain 1936...

[@jrobbins707]

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

[@Altrantis]

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

[@LeavingGoose046]

@@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.

[@slitor]

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.

[@Paul-ie1xp]

"Map dated 1972 but I'm sure the ore hasn't moved since 1930"...first time I've ever typed LOL.

[@becauseimbatman5702]

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

[@xXxTripleHxXx]

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

[@podemosurss8316]

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

[@petermilsom1109]

very good video. I got taught "Belgian" French while at school (UK), and didn't realise some of the numbers were different until I took a taxi in Western France, and I couldn't understand how much money the driver was asking for. Basically, French French has 4-20-10 for ninety , while Belgian French just has 9-with the ending for multiples of ten (which is "-ty" in English) for ninety. Canadian French seems to be yet another dialect! To paraphrase Wilde: "They have really everything in common with France nowadays, except, of course, language".

[@pipboy2k7]

Just noticed the chibi Darjeeling on the top shelf. ... Nice.

[@matthewkrause8197]

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

[@AshleyBlackwater]

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

[@gso619]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, fuck. The weebs are infecting another one.

[@johnathanblackwell9960]

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

[@Edax_Royeaux]

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

[@SnowmanTF2]

~ 30:00 "Belgium looked like a lovely place they could settle their differences with the Germans" one hell of an all expense paid trip

[@davidbell5528]

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

[@Edax_Royeaux]

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

[@quentintin1]

@@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

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@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.

[@quentintin1]

@@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

[@michaelmichael5643]

finally an intelligent reflection and study of the campaign of France...

[@willgirvan2491]

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

[@druisteen]

@@DiggingForFacts Francophobia

[@whazzat8015]

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

[@Vovchanchin]

@@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.

[@Vovchanchin]

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

[@lonerangerv1224]

One of the major problems France had was their leadership. Gamelin made several key mistakes such has supressing a map exercise which showed the Ardennes was navigable for a motorised force and removing the 7th army from strategic reserve. Gamelin can also be criticised for effectively doing nothing as a commander until just before he sacked. Georges also did not have the energy to deal with pressures of the upcoming campaign. Corap and Huntziger also were highly unsuited to command and made several mistakes, one key mistake was not push the training of their reservist troops but thought that defences would be enough to compensate. However there were several reports that the defences along the french areas of Meuse were inadequate but were also quashed as defeatist works. Flavigny also failed due to utter mishandling of the 3rd Armoured and 3rd motorised and utter failure to launch an attack. Although all the French armoured divisions and their other tank formations would be misused during Case Yellow. The French high command was simply incapable of envisioning someone working on a faster timetable than themselves. When the French high command decided to send reinforcements to the Meuse river line urgently on the 11th, the first unit was due to arrive on the 14th whilst the last units was expected to arrive on the 21st. Their tempo was just too slow allowing the Germans to get away with lots of risks. Also French officers constantly were refused permission to use the radios because high command was more concerned about the message getting intercepted than the speed of reaction. The battle of Gembloux gap was one of the only places where the French got to display their doctrine without constant self sabotage from incompetence officers and the French doctrine did beat of the German Panzers but this victory was rendered meaningless by events at Sedan and Dinant.

[@lonerangerv1224]

​@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.

[@lonerangerv1224]

@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.

[@Raph1805]

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.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

@@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.

[@goodsous]

Dear Nicholas, would you mind turning up the recording volume a bit?

[@petethebastard]

Yep I agree... Please waffle louder?

[@kaneo1]

And ZOOM IN please. Thank you!

[@neilwilson5785]

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

[@Ocker3]

I've got the volume on KZbin, 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.

[@warci]

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

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

As one of those that have had the positoon of "what ever they were thinking? it certainly escapes me!", you took the right track with this. I understand so much more now. I look forward to you maybe covering the Italians or Japanese at some time as they will also take some explaining.

[@thibautmallet1194]

First and foremost congratulation and thank you!! You created a very interresting channel based on deep research and not on show off videos!!! Now French bashing is the norm on the internet , and the best at it are the french themselves, especially post war french general were the first at blaming prewar generals. I am not saying we don't deserve a bit of bashing, but it has to be on the real topics :-), and you are helping a lot thanks!! French governement collapsed, because they lost trust in their Generals, who had very bad knowledge on what was happening on the ground. and who did not understand the pace of the german advance. The French army fought well, and got overrun ( not everywhere!!!), and as you rightly said it was a defeat of a doctrine, more than military incompetence, ( there were incompetent generals too!! don't get me wrong) My uncle was a colonel in the French colonial troops (some of the most experienced troop in the french army, having fought in several continents over the past 20 years, but mainly in counter insurgency). His memoirs are clear on one point, German had better command and control, ability to focus effort quickly when and where it was needed, and commander had local delegation and authority to request support ( logistic/ air and artillery support) against a very monolitics french system ( bad communication, inflexible reserved zone of responsabilities) My uncle put this down to young leaders who tested/ and challenged mecanised warfare tactics and were ready to take risks. The french relied on Generals who had demi god status because they fought and won WWI, most of them were above 60-70 sometime 80 years old. There was very little delegation in what local commander could do. Example, He was at the Maginot line, setting up defensive point and ambush tactics based on his already 20 years of experience of jungle warfare. His commanding officer a "Desk general" came over and told him, that he did not comply to official doctrine!!. my uncle told him that beeing in a defensive position, he needed to surprise the enemy, if he was to obey doctrine, the defensives position would be easy targets. Anyway he was threaten by court martial if he did not comply!! Supported by his troops he ignored the order and fought off the German sucessfully, the Maginot line did not fell there. My Uncle took many lessons from this defeat, but one of them was that an Army , must be lead by young leaders ready to be challenged, and always aware of new tactics/ technology. We were fighting a well trained army, who had to be rebuilt from the ground up after 1920. While France demography/ industry/ had not recovered yet from WWI You can google translate a very good account of french fighting units during this one month war, extract from a book called " like lyons" www.courtois.cc/blogeclectique/index.php?post/2007/11/17/440-comme-des-lions-le-sacrifice-heroique-de-l-armee-francaise-mai-juin-1940-de-dominique-lormier-1 Please continue very interresting!! If you could do an article about the French Division Aeromobile during the cold war ( how the french were supposed to close the fulda gap with helicopters and anti tank troops) would love to hear more about it.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

You are welcome. And an interesting story you have.

[@Balrog2005]

An 1 hour of serious and interesting views , in english, on the French doctrine interwars with a lot of more infos and on KZbin with serious comments ? I can die now...I don't think I will see something as amazing as this in a long time.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

LOL. Are you French?

[@Balrog2005]

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.

[@ExUSSailor]

What happened with France in WW2 is just a case of Murphy's Law of Combat #16, "No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy", just on a HUGE scale

[@jameshenderson4876]

AKA Moltke's rule.

[@hagamapama]

Indeed, and the big problem for France is that in limiting the speed of their armor, they had no actual ability to get mobile units into the gap before the Germans exploited it. That, and by emphasizing the directed battle, they robbed talented junior officers of their initiative If I recall right there were several points in the Fall of France that a unit with initiative and mobility on their side could have either gotten ahead of lead panzer elements or cut off the German supply lines and either result would have brought the German offensive to a screeching halt, but in each case they were hampered by the relatively bad mobility of their units, or by the top down command structure that suppressed initiative (had to wait critical hours for orders or permission and then lacked the speed to close the deal).

[@fulcrum2951]

They've sent their entire strategic reserve north in an attempt to "save" the Netherlands and utterly ignoring the gap in the ardennes

[@Vovchanchin]

@@fulcrum2951 Yep . Giraud' s 7th Army. The French did have their three armored divisions in reserve. One of them along with a motorized infantry division was sent to Sedan but ended up getting spent in a pitch battle with the Germans at Stonne.

[@vksasdgaming9472]

@@fulcrum2951 They quite reasonably believed it was unpassable to tanks and Germans were attacking Netherlands and Belgium with tanks. Thus the diversion worked well enough for Germans.

[@VanPelt01]

Yes! Finally! I have always said that the Maginot Line was not a failure as it stopped the Germans from going through that part of France.

[@fuckmemonica]

It was kind of an engineering marvel, really.

[@nathanbrown8680]

I don't think it can be said that French doctrine worked because it did not meet the geopolitical needs of the French nation. It might have been a great doctrine for Belgium or Poland or Finland, but the key diplomatic component of France's defense was the Peace of Versailles and thus any military doctrine that did not allow them to project force into Germany to enforce the treaty on short notice is by definition a failure. Another major diplomatic defense was their alliance with Belgium. Up until the Belgians lost confidence in France's ability and willingness to uphold the alliance because their let Germany get away with treaty violations. They told their diplomats in 1918 to write checks they weren't willing to allow their army to bank up the funds to cash. Fecklessness, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from treason.

[@richardschaffer5588]

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[@zulubeatz1]

Treasonable Fecklessness could be a charge there.

[@lobsterbark]

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.

[@raptor4916]

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

[@mikereger1186]

Well structured, makes sense. Not many people have talked much on the topic. If you aren’t published yet, have you considered writing? So - Russia, Italy, Japan or USA next?

[@Dagreatdudeman]

Italy had a plan?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

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

[@rbcrist]

@@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 ?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

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

[@tommyblackwell3760]

I'm currently reading a book titled "La Bataille de Stonne" by Jean-Paul Autant, which does an excellent job of describing the DIMs and DCRs, as well as the actions of the 3rd DIM & 3rd DCR in the Val du Bar south of Sedan and the Meuse in May 1940 which saw them disrupt Guderian's advance for about 10 days. It also points out the flaws in doctrine and equipment and failures of leadership that created missed opportunities which could have meant a very different outcome. As far as I know there's no English translation available, but it's clearly written without too much in the way of technical terminology so you should be able to read it without too much struggle. It's a good companion to the relevant chapters of Guderian's "Panzer Leader" when walking the ground, and has more and better maps. Scouts Out!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Much obliged, I shall look for it.

[@davidmurphy8190]

Thank you to all.

[@joearnold6881]

If the French had had cuirassiers mounted on hippopotamuses, the war would’ve gone very differently.

[@MosoKaiser]

Absolutely. More interestingly, at least.

[@cgross82]

LMAO!

[@MosoKaiser]

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!

[@fien111]

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

[@joearnold6881]

Fien Dude. We know. That’s the joke.

[@raynscloud8072]

I'm really happy to see the WW2 Channel was able to get you to contribute your expertise. Very informative, as always. Allons!

[@AR-jx6wr]

The French weren’t stupid or cowardly. They were just screwed by their government, location and having Germans for neighbors.

[@paulfrantizek102]

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?

[@warpbeast69]

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.

[@paulfrantizek102]

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.

[@Farsightful]

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

[@ArghastOfTheAlliance]

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!

[@christiannicholson8481]

I've always been of the view that the German sichelschnit plan was the key to explaining the rapid defeat of France. The original, less imaginative, plan of hooking through Belgium would not have caught the Allied armies so off guard. It's entirely conceivable that a more position based combat would have resulted, in which French doctrine may have been adequate (evidence from Gembloux suggests so) to this task, or at least to avoiding catastrophic defeat in 1940 and affording time to developing more suitable doctrine with a fully mobilised force. Some of the above obviously strays into the counter-factual. An excellent video and much appreciated.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Ah ... I just posted something on the Fall of France but can't find it ... One thing seldom mentioned is that there is one main reason the Allies lost to the Germans and that reason is - Belgium. If the Belgians had let the British and French come in and set up in the Fall of 1939 - things might have been very, very different. A line of French Infantry Corp in the Ardennes, tying into the Maginot Line - could have stopped the Germans (though what they really needed was that - and - a full commitment of RAF Fighter Command ....). Even when a German communications aircraft got lost and came down in Belgium with some German Staff Officers and - THE PLANS TO ATTACK THROUGH BELGIUM - the Belgian response when they showed the plans to the British and French - who then wanted to come in - was "WHAT?!?! And violate our neutrality????" This whole idea that Britain and France were going to have to race the Germans to their defensive lines was preposterous. Going through the Ardennes -was stupid. The only thing more stupid - was NOT HAVING ANYONE THERE!!!! The Germans barely noticed the Belgians' two cavalry divisions ... Had the Belgians not gone into denial - the British and the French could have fought a war that was much more along the lines of what they'd been thinking. And - it's not like this was some new idea. After what the Germans did in WWI - France, Britain and Belgium had had extensive discussions about joint defensive operations in the event of another war and Belgium had agreed to setting up defensive works for the British and the French (which they didn't do) as well as raising ten divisions (or so) which was about as large an army as Belgium could support (which they did do). So - it looks like it's going to happen ... and Belgium just goes into denial. THAT is the reason the Allies lost. They may have had other problems and the Germans may have done some things well - but the basic situation was created by Belgium. When it comes to "Stupid things that people have really done" - this rates really high on the list. .

[@dewiz9596]

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

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@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. .

[@DiggingForFacts]

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

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

@@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. .

[@betaich]

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

[@admiraltiberius1989]

Always look forward to your videos. I have a long drive home from work and so these chats are absolutely perfect. They are delivered perfectly and easily understood.

[@davidmurphy8190]

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

[@francoismallard9756]

Even after such long time, going back on this video, I am amazed by its in-depth research, and what I appreciate as its objectivity. Many thanks for this food for thought.

[@spitezor]

This is so informative! Thanks. I loved the bits of history about France and how that lead to their doctrine.

[@whazzat8015]

The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine by Doughty was a great read

[@AFT_05G]

Yeah it's a nice book.

[@alainjl]

The best video on the subject. Well documented, objective, thoughtful. Thank you, sir, for such a brilliant work, that gives justice to the French army. The work behind the video is exceptional, the amount of research you had to conduct to produce it is astonishing. Bravo!

[@sasquatchishere7453]

Thanks for a fascinating lecture. Very informative. Good job as always. Thanks Chieftain.

[@hansheden]

War is like playing "Rock, Paper, Scissors". Just that you have hundreds of signs to pick from and you have to pick years Before you get to "play" and you have to practice for some time with your buddies and if you did anything wrong you'll get your butt whipped.

[@froge4895]

So it’s nothing like Rock Paper Scissors

[@georgekosko5124]

@@froge4895 wow you got the joke

[@haywoodyoudome]

For sale: Renault Char B1 - never fired - never hit - reverse gear worn out.

[@druisteen]

Battle of Stone , 13 panzer destroyed by one B1

[@davidmurphy8190]

Interesting.

[@nomar5spaulding]

Great video Sir Nicholas.

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

I love these videos, absolutely top notch. hope there's more to come!

[@lovablesnowman]

After reading "Case red" a book about the battle of France that only came out in 2016 I think I honestly think the French were just desperately unlucky in 1940 rather than incompetent. The French army actually fought quite well at times

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

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,

[@lovablesnowman]

@@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

[@lavrentivs9891]

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.

[@mihaiserafim]

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

[@Paul-ie1xp]

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.

[@mattiagecchele5753]

Yesss great video as always. Greetings from Italy 👋

[@FirstLast-di5sr]

These are absolutely great, thank you!

[@bgdavenport]

Really enjoy your delivery and historical analyses.

[@matthayward7889]

Greetings chieftain! Saturday afternoon and a mug of tea: perfect timing!

[@russeljohn3471]

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

[@matthayward7889]

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

[@matthayward7889]

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

[@russeljohn3471]

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

[@matthayward7889]

Russel John nothing wrong with a good fruit cake!

[@falloutghoul1]

I'm looking forward to your video on Italian tank development, if you're planning on it. :)

[@mrrolandlawrence]

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

[@sexysilversurfer]

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

[@joeblow9657]

oh no linguini

[@davidodonovan1699]

Great work Nick. Legend man.

[@guyhall8080]

Excellent and well thought out presentation .

[@jeffreytam7684]

It’s kind of scary listening to this for an hour: the Germans, unknowingly placed themselves into a perfect situation to beat the French.

[@looinrims]

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

[@jamesnigelkunjuro12]

Thanks for another well-crafted video Chieftain. This video was not unexciting at all - far from it! The discourse on how political decisions affect military thinking and doctrine is one that is often overlooked by folks who just take a cursory view on history. I'm aware of the turbulent century leading up to the 1900s that France experienced (the revolutions in 1848, the war against Prussia they lost, etc.) but I was ignorant of the shaky political situation post WW1. The changes in PMs you mentioned is quite a startling revelation.

[@charlesinglin]

Very good presentation. Thanks.

[@karl0ssus1]

Im liking this format a lot, keep it up Chieftan

[@mihaiserafim]

I am very grateful for your effort and professionalism. Great job Tank Jesus! There are three things that , regretfully, you didn't put in your presentation : 1.the char G1 project 2.The assault guns ARL V39 and SOMUA SaU 40 3.the 50 light tank battalions for 50 infantry divisions plan I am not an ungrateful SoB, just had some more points I wanted clarified.

[@blackstone777]

France: "eh the northern part of the Maginot Line is impossible to create. So we'll keep the border open between us and Belgium and fight the next war in Belgium." Belgium: "DA FUCK DUDE!?! WTH!?!"

[@frankgulla2335]

Excellent job and enlightening point of view of the French situation in the 1930s. Similar to your discussion of why the main US battle tank was the M4 and not some Tiger Killer. I really appreciated the pictures you provided of the various vehicles during the discussion. A few general maps might have been useful. I have come to appreciate the on-going effort on your part (posting since 2012 I believe) which is a large effort on your part and an excellent supplement to other channels of information. Thank you and keep up the fantastic work.

[@tonyromano6220]

Very, very good talk, I learned quite a bit! Thanks.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

If anyone ever wants to read or listen to a truly mammoth book about the fall of France and the preceding 20 years I can not recommend enough William Shirer’s “The Collapse of the Third Republic”. It is written by a veteran journalist and historian who witnessed many of the events in Paris and Berlin, and who knew some of the politicians and officers personally. It is quite possibly the most detailed non academic book I have ever read, and the depth it goes into especially surrounding the factional and political turmoil is astounding and more relevant than ever.

[@funkymarilenecat5364]

R.I.P FCM 36.

[@Guy_GuyGuy]

Gone but never forgotten, côneboi

[@benoitbvg2888]

F

[@floflo8018]

shhhh wrong game !!!

[@adanzavala4801]

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

[@vincentgaulin6663]

Amazing. Thank you!

[@realityismerelyanill]

Man, thanks for the excellent analysis.

[@stewartellinson8846]

An excellently thoughtful video. I like the way you've integrated the discussion of French military doctrine with a conception of France as a society. I think it's essential to do this as we in the Englsih speaking world don't get the French experience of WW1. At the start you ask where you start with that experience - i'd suggest at the Douaumont Ossuary, where you can see what the French understood of their national suffering. It's moving beyond comprehension. I also like your very well thought through conclusions. I agree that the french in 1940 have received an undereserved critcal pasting and, in reply to your final question, I'd maybe suggest that the French ideas were largely correct but their execution was flawed. 1940 showed that the French army would and could fight effectively if the enemy did what it was supposed to. When the enemy didn't, the technology and tactics don't seem to have been versatile enough to recapture the initiative. Once again, many thanks for an excellent piece.

[@jefferyindorf699]

Damn, you Chieftain! Now I am going to have to rethink all my preconceived notions of the fall of France!

[@davidmurphy8190]

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

[@subestimado2128]

I’m not enjoying WW2 as much as I did The Great War. However, I can appreciate that they ask you to make videos like this. Good work as always.

[@thinklyrical]

thank you so much for your videos about this topic\subjects about the beginning of mechanized armour!(from all the countries that had a helping hand in the beginning of tanks\armoured warfare ) I`m learning so much more from what i believed, from watching other old ew (youtube) documentaries! Very pleased ! :)

[@JustSomeCanuck]

You mentioned "the cult of the offensive", but you forgot "the cult of wearing bright red pants".

[@Yukatoshi]

Trousers*

[@mrrolandlawrence]

indeed he meant trousers!

[@bartdecoucke7708]

Le pantalon rouge, c'est la France!

[@JustSomeCanuck]

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.

[@bartdecoucke7708]

@@JustSomeCanuck but élan vital :(

[@KTo288]

How about the battles of Khalkhyn Gol between the USSR and The Empire of Japan as a future episode. Or since you mentioned it in passing the Spanish Civil War.

[@magik8566]

Excellent analysis and commentary.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

I have learnt so much about the French Army in 1940 from this, thank you, for your superb video!

[@joshuadevonshire4561]

Maybe do the Japanese or Chinese armour next given that there’s been a lot of detail given on the Sino-Japanese war?

[@AVKnecht]

"when you get out of conscription service you forget everything" I wish, I wish. Chugging a couple of beers in to the gas mask and then projectile vomiting the whole thing will never be forgotten.

[@grumpyboomer61]

Excellent job covering the political and geographic context behind French military planning and doctrine during the interwar period. Most coverage of this subject usually doesn't cover this area. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@filthyweaboo2694]

Do Japanese armoured doctrine, this sure is going to be fun!

[@malusignatius]

Anyone else notice the Vorpal Rabbit in the background?

[@DiggingForFacts]

The answer to that final point is signals. The French army's focus on the protracted war meant they still leaned heavily on telephone lines and orderlies. The lack of reliable radio comms, certainly in light of an opponent who had no such issue caused no end of chaos among the French.

[@cgross82]

If you have not already seen and read it, I recommend the book Strange Victory by Ernest R. May. The French armored units were quite successful at stopping the Wermacht in Belgium in 1940. The problem seems to have been both an inefficient intelligence structure and an inflexible, top-down command and control structure. The French high command received accurate intelligence reports of the German build-up to the east of the Ardennes, but refused to believe that large armored forces could or would attack through a densely wooded area. As a result, only second-rate units with a high concentration of reservists and weak leadership were positioned to the west of the Ardennes to counter the main attack. Also, the Germans had originally intended to attack through Belgium just as they had in 1914, but that plan was compromised when a plane carrying a copy of the plan crashed on the French side of the border, forcing the Germans to change their battle plan. It’s a very good book!

[@rybolov]

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

[@Redchrome1]

I had no idea about interwar French APC design (or any interwar APC design). Could you do a video about that? Some of those APCs you show bear a certain resemblance to an M113 (armored box with engine in front, troops and hatch in back) and the only other APC I could think of from that era (and after) was the Sherman (?) Kangaroo, which looked like an awful design.

[@BeoZard]

Much of the problem the French had in the Battle of France was poorly executed command and control. The French GQC was located and organized in such a way as to make it difficult to assess battlefield information and develop a timely response. The staffs of various departments were at times unable to communicate with each other directly, leading to delays and misunderstandings. This was not the only factor in the fall of France, but it was a factor.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

another moran classic :) thanks chiefy for another insight into the strategy of tanking!

[@eskimojoe37]

Very informative video, thank you!

[@Wtdtd]

Can you do Italy next?

[@uncletimo6059]

This is a fantastic video. It always amuses me when a 12 year old HOI4 player laughs at France and "French military, LOL", because of course he knows better and is more intelligent and a more effective politician and commander than actual politicians and commanders.

[@dclark142002]

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

[@Vovchanchin]

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.

[@TexugoFTW]

thanks for making this one

[@suryia6706]

I learned a lot from this. My view on the French army has certainly changed. Excellent video. thanks

[@johnshepherd8687]

The French fall into the category of being vaguely right. The war was won through the use of mass firepower. The part they got wrong was that mechanization made mass firepower mobile. Well, De Gaulle got it right. And Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted in 1894, not the 1870s. Perhaps one of the great Ironies of French Military history is that Marshal Petain was a Dreyfusard.

[@johnshepherd8687]

All true, but what happened to the soldier who stood against anti-Semitism when they came for French Jews?

[@gringologie9302]

@@johnshepherd8687 you are talking about Petain.

[@johnshepherd8687]

@Daniel McGrath Who was not really French?

[@fulcrum2951]

@@johnshepherd8687 apparently "jews"

[@goupilmauperthuis8413]

Between 2 wars, the french government was really socialist only between 1936 and 1938. During that time, Léon Blum, the socialist head of government, actually proposed to increase funding for the army. Conservative politicians then called him a "warmongering jew wanting to get revenge on Hitler". Although it is true that many french officiers had a right-wing or even fascist leaning, the french socialist government nevertheless trusted them enough to actually try to prepare the french army for the next conflict. So it seems inaccurate to invoke an alleged distrust between a short-lived socialist government and an army unable to work properly as one of the reasons of french defeat. That analysis may be valid for USSR at the beginning of the german invasion, but not in the french case.

[@ibthumper2]

Enjoyed. Keep up the good work.

[@Bird_Dog00]

Interesting video. Indeed gives some food for thought. I especialy liked that you did empathise the political and - to a lesser extent - the cultural aspect of military doctrine. The military never acts in a vacuum. That's something that is easily forgotten. I also like how you manage to blend a serious topic wich you treat with the respect and seriousnes it deserves, with a certain lightnes of tone that never feels out of place. Well done.

[@UkrainianPaulie]

French tanks. Gearbox 1 forward, 3 reverse. Seriously, great video. And for not being the typical Officer....death by powerpoint!

[@swedishstyle9778]

Could you do this with Sweden aswell ? :)

[@axelandersson6314]

Donald J. Trump Tank^2?

[@ishouldgetalif3]

Doctrine: Gasen i botten!

[@SonsOfLorgar]

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

[@SonsOfLorgar]

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

[@philipbossy4834]

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

[@pascalmartin1891]

The most intelligent, reasoned and rationale description of the French military of that time that I have listened to. Worth every minute of it. A lot better than the French public school curriculum. Maybe missing is the lack, or obsolescence, of communication equipment (little or no radios), leading to delayed decision making. A French comedy film made good fun of a platoon carrying their (landline) phone equipment, to follow the rules.. Funny fact about De Gaule: he actually was (or became) a staunch republican, even if not a 3rd republic fan. He learned his lesson, as demonstrated by his return to power in 1958: supported by the colonial army branch, quickly got out of Algeria, survived a military coup thanks to the domestic army branch and the conscripts. Most brilliant political move ever..

[@HSMiyamoto]

An excellent review of an esoteric topic.

[@Shrike58]

Another problem is rushing into Belgium in the first place as the Germans are always going to win the race to the Dyle River. Next problem, France's attempts to throw its weight around in the early Twenties, such as the occupation of the Ruhr Valley alienated Brussels, as it demonstrated that they should fear being committed to a war to defend France's eastern allies. This led to planning to defend the Ardennes ending up being a wash, as the Belgian inclination was to pull their troops back into the fortified zone whereas the French assumed, until too late, that there would be a robust defense of the forest by the Belgians. Finally, there is the basic issue that the upper crust of French generals are never going to be mistaken for Foch or Joffre. Weygand might have made a difference but he got the job too late and was mostly concerned with salvaging something from the wreckage; if nothing else he deserves credit for there being forces concentrated in North Africa so that there was a significant French army that could take part in the liberation of their country. Then again, Weygand was the epitome of the conservative, Catholic officer the average French politician feared; not helped by the fact that it appears that Weygand was an illegitimate scion of the Habsburgs!

[@Wambi45]

The worst enemy of the French military has always been the French government. Keeping the military up to the best standards of equipment has been a decisional struggle all along the 20th century. Only recently, for exemple, did they decide to increase the budget for individual equipment. Only recently did we receive composite helmets and bulletproof jackets for every soldier (almost, at least...). Very interesting video, I learned a lots of stuff! Thanks a lot 👍🏻

[@pimjansen1772]

Hey Nicholas great video as always but what I liked the most is your "Razor Vespula" mousepad .... and not because I am using it myself but because it is just fantastic and the best I ever had so far. All thumbs up and hail to the Chieftain !!!

[@purplespeckledappleeater8738]

Why are people on KZbin more knowledgeable than my professors?! I greatly enjoyed this video

[@losboccacc2634]

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

[@alhesiad]

The lesson is that Gamelin, my poor boy, fucked everything up.

[@andraslibal]

Fortification lines worked well in the second world war, I don't get the myth of fortified lines being useless. The Mannerheim line worked well in Finland in 1939. The Maginot line had a gap because of the pre-war politics of Belgium, and the gap was exploited but otherwise the line was tough to break. The Stalin line worked well it tied up the Germans for some crucial weeks in 1941. The defensive lines of Sevastopol caused great German losses. The defensive lines around Kursk worked very well in 1943, The Panther-Wotan line where it could be built and manned adequately (Estonia) held for more than a year and caused massive Russian casualties, the same can be said for the Kuban bridgehead fortified line. The Hungarian Árpád line showed how very efficient a mobile defensive line can be, and the Russians could only cross the Carpathian mountains after the Romanian betrayal. The Atlantic wall where properly manned (Omaha beach) was a formidable obstacle and the Siegfried line also caused problems like the battle of Hürtgen forest. Even as late in the war as 1945, the Seelow heights could only be taken with large Russian casualties and a 10-day delay against under-equipped and ill trained Volkssturm regiments of old people and children outnumbered 10:1. This myth that defensive lines had no value in WW2 does not hold up to scrutiny.

[@mikaelantonkurki]

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.

[@andraslibal]

@@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.

[@mikaelantonkurki]

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

[@andraslibal]

@@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.

[@Vovchanchin]

@@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.

[@charlesabdouch3052]

Really enjoyed this, Seemed to just present information with minimal opinion except where needed based on knowing after the fact. Great job. I do agree the volume was low and I had to turn up all the way to hear every word :) DeadMeat_BC_ (the guy you run into all the time)

[@trackedattacker575]

Excellent! Please publish a reading list!

[@thomaswilloughby9901]

Allons, from a Blackhorse trooper. Atrp 1/11th Fulda.