Britain invades Spain !

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
wnied

wnied

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,206
0
76
......After initially pledging it's support to England, Italy sensing a turn in tide midway through the frakas, switched sides and re-pledged their support to Spain.....


~wnied~
 
aphex

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
91

<< and france surrenders! >>


<<hahahahahahahahahah >>

 
H

hwstock

Senior member
Oct 7, 2001
254
0
0


<< france always surrenders.... >>



You don't remember William the Conqueror or Napoleon, eh? Or we could get more obscure -- Bertrand du Guesclin, or how the Hundred Years' War ended? Or the 14-year-old French girl who beat the crap out of Brit soldiers, until she was betrayed?

The "Kings of England" spoke French, as their first language, from 1066 to about 1300.
 
S

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91


<<

<< france always surrenders.... >>



You don't remember William the Conqueror or Napoleon, eh? Or we could get more obscure -- Bertrand du Guesclin, or how the Hundred Years' War ended? Or the 14-year-old French girl who beat the crap out of Brit soldiers, until she was betrayed? >>



Wow.... that really shows how brave they have been the past centuries eh...
Face it: The French are all wussies, and so are French speaking Canadians.



<< The "Kings of England" spoke French, as their first language, from 1066 to about 1300. >>



Cause it was considered fancy to be gay at that time.
 
B

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81


<<

<<

<< france always surrenders.... >>


You don't remember William the Conqueror or Napoleon, eh? Or we could get more obscure -- Bertrand du Guesclin, or how the Hundred Years' War ended? Or the 14-year-old French girl who beat the crap out of Brit soldiers, until she was betrayed? >>


Wow.... that really shows how brave they have been the past centuries eh...
Face it: The French are all wussies, and so are French speaking Canadians.


<< The "Kings of England" spoke French, as their first language, from 1066 to about 1300. >>


Cause it was considered fancy to be gay at that time. >>


LOL!
 
E

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
So why did France fall so quickly to Germany in WWII?

Their equipment was comparable and France was expecting the attack. They had some help from Britain thought it was a small force.

Was it just the audacity of Guderian by attacking through the Ardennes?
 
R

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0


<< So why did France fall so quickly to Germany in WWII?

Their equipment was comparable and France was expecting the attack. They had some help from Britain thought it was a small force.

Was it just the audacity of Guderian by attacking through the Ardennes? >>



The Ardennes played a small role, you wanna really know why they lost so horribly? Because they were still fighting WWI and Germany had moved on to WWII. There were still French calvery on horses, very little of the army was mechanized and the generals were arrogant and stupid. The BEF (British Expiditionary Force) gave Rommel a bloody nose he didn't forget, they flanked him and pushed him 80miles with inferior numbers before he turned his AA (Anti-Air) guns horizontal and took out 2/3rd of the British tanks. Given the troop numbers the French should have held the Germans for at least a year and probably more even without a counter to the Blitzkreig. Their problem was the leadership or complete lack of it. Thank god the Belgium King delayed surrender 24hours at his own peril to allow the British to escape.
 
E

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
rahvin

I have to agree that the French leadership was terrible. I remember reading that one French general did not want radios near him because he was afraid the Germans would be able to track them and then attack him. It took something like two days to get orders to the front.

The anti tank ability of the 88's was noted in Spain. If armour piercing ammuntion had not already been produce then Rommel would not have been able to use an AA gun in an anti-tank role.
I think the main French anti-tank gun of the time was still a 25mm.
 
A

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
There were still French calvery on horses, very little of the army was mechanized and the generals were arrogant and stupid.

Leave the middle part out of that -- the French actually had more and better tanks than the Germans. Their employment of them was absymal, however.
 
microAmp

microAmp

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2000
5,988
110
106


<< and france surrenders!:Q >>



Dam, do we have to go and save their a$$ again? :)
 
E

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Andrew, this site agrees with you.

Somua S-35

"The Somua S-35, in May 1940, was simply regarded as the best medium tank in the world. The vehicle was designed and manufactured by Soci&eacute;t&eacute; d'Outillage M&eacute;canique et d'Usinage d'Artillerie (SOMUA) and stems from an initial requirement instigated during the French tank building programme of 1931 which was then ratified on the 26th June 1934. The requirement specified a vehicle of 13 tonnes with 40mm of armour, a 47mm cannon and machine gun. It was to have a range of some 200km and a top speed of 30 km/h. "

"French military doctrine at the time stipulated that tanks in general were thought of as infantry support vehicles pure and simple and were often committed to battle in a piece meal fashion. They were dispersed around the countryside in one's and two's to support local infantry actions and formations. Thus the German invader often had local superiority in numbers and generally outmaneuvered and outsmarted their French opponents through superior tactical leadership, command, control and communications. "

I find it amazing that the same country that designed the abomination of the Char de Bataille B1 bis could also come up with the best of the time in the S-35
 
B

BigNeko

Senior member
Jun 16, 2001
455
0
0
AndrewR is right,
Patton first studied mechanized armor in France during WW1. The first tanks the US ever had were the French Renaults.
 
Y

Yzzim

Lifer
Feb 13, 2000
11,990
1
76
I love history!

This is probably one of the most interesting threads I've seen in a while

*bows down to rahvin, etech and AndrewR*

;)
 
R

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0


<< There were still French calvery on horses, very little of the army was mechanized and the generals were arrogant and stupid.

Leave the middle part out of that -- the French actually had more and better tanks than the Germans. Their employment of them was absymal, however. >>



I used the word mechanized for a reason. None of the french infantry were mechanized (that I'm aware of). When the germans breeched Belgium the British and French ordered a retreat back to a river (forget the name), the British got out quickly, the French Marched. Yes marched their army, the germans actually circled around and secured river crossings before the french even got there. Shortly afterwards the Brits hit Rommel in the flank, the French were supposed to assist but they wouldn't have arrived for 3 days because of how slowly they were moving. Sure the French had tanks and artillery but they couldn't move armies quickly. The germans could move a whole division (armor and infantry) quicker than the supply lines could keep up. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom