Frenchies and their moving bread boxes

>>33604553
>why did they lose
bad tactics and outdated thinking

Through the highly inefficient use of those tanks. 1 on 1 the French tanks were superior to their German counterparts in most regards but the germans didn't fight 1 on 1.

>>33604553
One must consider that armored warfare requires more than just well designed and built tanks.

Manufacturing capability is a huge part of the equation. The Germans had a good understanding of this, and while late-war efforts showed a tendency to over-engineer equipment, it didn't change the fact that they had a well-established industrial capability with skilled workers. On the other hand, the French had the workers and designers, but their industrial capability itself was one, maybe two steps up from bike shops.

In short, the French were building and operating high-tech equipment with low-tech tools and tactics.

File: MBZ3.jpg (48KB, 600x365px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x365px

>>33604599
>bad tactics and outdated thinking

this

lack of manpower and fucked up economy too

Strategy/tactics. Everyone knew the main reason why we won was the plan itself. There is a short segment in a Wochenschau episode where the topic is mentioned as well.

>>33604553
The French tank weren't bad but they were designed to accommodate a failed doctrine.

The German used crappier Panzer II and early models Panzer III with a crappy doorknocker 3.7 cm gun but had figure out how to use them like nobody else at the time.

The main strength of tanks was mobility. 99.99% of the time, your tank isn't facing another tank and how good it is doesn't really matter until you do. And even then you could always drive around and avoid better tanks.

File: 1491570277168.jpg (7KB, 248x203px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 248x203px

>>33604553
Belgium being a little bitch and surrendering so the Germans could go around the Maginot line

>>33604553
Belgium.

File: 1488096700694.jpg (65KB, 642x481px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 642x481px

>>33604553
>Single man casted turrents
>turrents
back to WoT you 12 year old fuck

>>33604553

French tanks were better, but they were much fewer in number and were dispersed out all over the place instead of being concentrated on the German push.

France went into this thinking it would be WW1 all over again. They were wrong.

I'm going to try and explain using an analogy.
Let's say we have the US-Mexican border.
There are 1000 highly equipped American border guards, and 200 Mexicans who want to cross the border.
However, because politicians are dumb, the 1000 guards are placed in a line, each one standing still, each guard 1 mile away from the next, so the Mexicans decide to cross the border through one single point.
That's more or less what happened.

>>33604553
>So why did they lose?
old french joke :
"the germans and french had around the same numbers of tanks, 3000."
"Except the germans used them in 3 groups of 1000 tanks, and the french in 1000 groups of 3 tanks."

Another explanation, the germans put radios everywhere, any tank or plane had one. In France, only the commanding tanks had one. It was therefore impossible to give precise orders or informations to everyone during a battle. Tanks commanders used flags to do so.

Add to this the many many different models because the command never chose the best equipment to be manufactured en masse since the goal was to please every single manufacturer.

The very same happened with fighters and bombers.

And that's one of the main reasons why the french army was hopelessly beaten in 1940.

>>33610039
Your radio point is a massive one, it was one of the biggest flaws with soviet tanks
Difference being the Soviets got billions in equipment from the US and UK and had massive numbers, along with the terrain all going for them
France was hit fast and was unable to muster a counter

>>33610171
The funniest part is hitler himself admitted that if France and the UK had attacked the Ruhr industrial area in 1938 Germany would have been unable to keep up with the big rearmament plan and therefore condemned to surrender.
The blitzkrieg happened after several months of the "drôle de guerre" (litterally "the funny-feeling war") where armies stood face to face and nothing happened. It was a craddle for lazyness and overall unpreparedness for the movement war.

>>33608605

that means the maginot line worked as intended ;^)

>>33610664
Yeah UK and France were just wholly unprepared despite everything
I usually think people think with hindsight too much, but it seemed fairly obvious what was going to happen

Love me some Renault FT. Something about light tanks in generals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPkMn158Fwo

File: 1381354012643.gif (913KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 500x375px

>>33604553
>casted turrents
>self healing fuel tank

>>33604553
i think its a cute ank

>>33605627

>pilot accelerates a little too fast
>swings up into the balloon
>propeller slices up gas bag
>plane balloon hybrid abortion goes down
>pilot can't bail out because of the deflated gas bag covering the cockpit

File: comeatmebro.gif (382KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 450x253px

>>33608605
>Belgium
>its someone elses responsibility to provide for Frances security