What if Germany liberated Poland after keeping Danzig and it's earlier boundaries?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

What about a third option?
Take a veteran unit that is rotated out of the frontline and hand them the new toys. I do not see the need to outright send them back to tank school, they are being retrained from one tank to another tank, they aren't ordered to begin flying. Also, I would argue that you do need to (and should not) replace all the tanks at once, start with some exemplary vehicles and replace as time goes by.

This is the ideal method of doing this, pull them off the line for R&R, reinforcement, training, rearmament, and back into the line. You have technical upgrades to the staff, but maintain the key interpersonal relationships that give an elite unit its cohesiveness.

 

[bz249]

This is the ideal method of doing this, pull them off the line for R&R, reinforcement, training, rearmament, and back into the line. You have technical upgrades to the staff, but maintain the key interpersonal relationships that give an elite unit its cohesiveness.

That problem is that the Germans were stretched to the limits... they had as many men at the frontline as their logistics could sustain (just look at how many new formations are activated to replace the losses of Cobra and Bagration... why not before? well no support infrastructure for them). Thus anything pulled out will be simply missing and make them weaker.

 

[Kovax]

That problem is that the Germans were stretched to the limits... they had as many men at the frontline as their logistics could sustain (just look at how many new formations are activated to replace the losses of Cobra and Bagration... why not before? well no support infrastructure for them). Thus anything pulled out will be simply missing and make them weaker.

Most of those new formations were at the expense of replacing losses in the existing units. Hitler would rather have a new division of green troops with minimal equipment and two depleted veteran divisions at the front down to 30% of their manpower than pull back one of the veteran units to reinforce it. After all, that's 3 units instead of 2, no matter that two of them are practically combat-ineffective and the other is barely even trained. Three is just "better" than two, at least on paper. The German leadership was living an illusion at that stage of the war.

 

[hkrommel]

What about a third option?
Take a veteran unit that is rotated out of the frontline and hand them the new toys. I do not see the need to outright send them back to tank school, they are being retrained from one tank to another tank, they aren't ordered to begin flying. Also, I would argue that you do need to (and should not) replace all the tanks at once, start with some exemplary vehicles and replace as time goes by.

1. You can only pull formations off the line so often and it’s a huge logistical burden to transport entire formations
2. You still need to learn the new tank which is likely quite different mechanically, tactically, in terms of interior layout, etc. that means drills and tank school.
3. Then you have a mix of different spare parts that need to be shipped, crews that aren’t interchangeable in a pinch, mechanics need to learn multiple tanks, etc. A quartermaster’s nightmare

 

[Acheron]

1. You can only pull formations off the line so often and it’s a huge logistical burden to transport entire formations
2. You still need to learn the new tank which is likely quite different mechanically, tactically, in terms of interior layout, etc. that means drills and tank school.
3. Then you have a mix of different spare parts that need to be shipped, crews that aren’t interchangeable in a pinch, mechanics need to learn multiple tanks, etc. A quartermaster’s nightmare

1. Aren't at least smaller formations rotated out of the frontline regularly for R&R or outright rebuilding after suffering heavily? Like what got the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions to Arnhem.
2. How terribly different would a Panther or Tiger be to Panzer IV? What parts would be outright unfamiliar to a mechanic? What differences would require tankers experienced with other vehicles to outright get back to school?
3. Wasn't that something the Wehrmacht suffered from at any case?

The Wehrmacht utilized a lot of captured allied tanks. Weren't T-34s at least even used in the frontline? If so, does anyone have data on how the troops were introduced to these new tanks?

 

[hkrommel]

1. Aren't at least smaller formations rotated out of the frontline regularly for R&R or outright rebuilding after suffering heavily? Like what got the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions to Arnhem.

Not super regularly, it was a pretty significant change. More often pieces of old formations were used to create these new ones, so they weren't completely green.

2. How terribly different would a Panther or Tiger be to Panzer IV? What parts would be outright unfamiliar to a mechanic? What differences would require tankers experienced with other vehicles to outright get back to school?

Very. Very very different. Extremely different. I can't even begin to list all the ways but just go look up the driver's seat and where they have to put their legs between a Pz 3 and a Panther. If you put your legs in the Pz 3 where you put them in the Panther, your leg is going to get caught and ripped apart in the transmission. When you're an experienced tank crew, things are muscle memory, so hopefully you begin to see the problem and why retraining was necessary.

For mechanics, it's not about whether the "parts" are unfamiliar but whether the tank is, and they were completely different usually. The Panther in particular was notorious in this regard.

"School" is just training and drills, not sure what you're imagining here. It doesn't start with "this is a tank."

3. Wasn't that something the Wehrmacht suffered from at any case?

Yeah but why would that be a reason to make the problem worse? If half your house is on fire that's not a reason to douse the other half in gasoline.

 

[Sunforged General]

As others have mentioned with Submarines there is going to be losses, on a clear day there is a fair chance they could be spotted from the air, and they wont have support facilities they are not going to have much fuel for such an expedition, so best expectation is they enter and sink a handful of ship and run hog wild for a week maybe two. Then as they look to exit the Baltic so they can go home and refuel, they get bombed in the shallows. And nobody needs to net or mine the whole lot, the parts navigable are quite narrow, particularly if you intend on staying submerged for the whole journey.
Consider the German problems with getting their submarines past Gibraltar and into the Med, it's a real tough problem to solve.

Then 1945 is not 39, you don't have the majority of the Reich's scant remaining airforce mostly trying to intercept bombers, and its fleet is fully intact.
And they have hydrophone setups used in their Submarines already for several years by this point. Its a fairly simple issue to transfer that technology to their destroyers and whilst it will not be nearly as advanced as the British ASDIC system, it's going to lead to heavy losses for subs operating in the Baltic, and if the submarine peril persists research and improvements will be done until it doesn't.

But put that aside. Are French submarines going to torpedo whoever they see, France declare unrestricted submarine warfare in the Baltic? Sink 'Neutral' traffic? Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Russian ships leaving German ports?

It's all very problematic from a diplomatic point of view. In any given alt-hist type scenario of this kind this I like to think of one big change. You've proposed Britain stays out and Germany respects the neutrality of her smaller neighbours. That's a starting condition I'm trying to play within.
However, to assume that the neutral countries, whatever their sympathies with France might be at the opening of the scenario, would happily give up trade when it would mean huge unemployment and even a real threat of invasion is a stretch to far, they will work around any proposed blockade.

And if Subs do get in the Baltic and stop trade to one degree or another, and the neutrals don't reroute their trade, as with say Denmark or the USSR or Estonia or Latvia suddenly discovering a huge need for Iron ore for their German speaking minority... Germany will invade Denmark and invade Sweden and possibly Norway for good measure in order to secure these resources, and historically in 39/40 none of these countries would have been able to put up much of a fight, and to go further they had significant business interests in common with the Germans and plenty of National Socialist sympathizers to act as 'Quislings'.

Again consider why the allies did not do this historically, despite planning on fighting a defensive war until 41-42 when they planned to be fully re-armed and ready to go on the offensive. (Gamelin's plan) It would have made total sense to do it if it was doable. (Instead Gamelin and Deladier sat around planning an intervention to help Finland and to push the Germans and Russians into an open alliance. The world was only saved from the unbelievable stupidity of this idea by the Finns surrendering.)

I don't see Submarine in the Baltic as a viable war winning strategy, a nuisance and problem yes, but nothing that will lead to a collapse of the Third Reich, and probably won't prevent Gustav and Dora being built.

And there is our second problem, if we say an invasion of the southern Maignot stalemates, and the German government does not fall, then Heavy Gustav and Dora are brought up and crack open the fortresses of the Northern sector like a child taking the top off an egg before dipping his soldiers in. Because once France loses the air war, she is unlikely to recover and regain the initiative in the air ever again and without the power to bomb these monster rail guns and disrupt their firing the line will be broken and again it's going to take a new Verdun to keep the German army out.
France in '39 does not have the reserves of gold Britain had to keep buying fighters from the USA or Britain, and Britain ran out of money pretty fast regardless of her wealth once war started in earnest and she'd lost her heavy weapons at Dunkirk.

If you are looking at a 1939 scenario with a Democratic France, fighting Nazi Germany alone, I think you have to look realistically at all her strengths and manifold weaknesses. What pressures will cause the armaments factories to move to a 6 day week quicker than Reynaud managed in 1940? Can you get all the tank factories producing the best variants?
With planes, can production line techniques be put into practice? Can the military command structure be reformed to allow the use of more modern C3i techniques? Can Reynaud fire Gamelin as he historically wanted to do, without Deladier bringing down the government.

Gamelin didn't just make mistakes Sunforged, he was unbelievably inept, uniformed and backwards, willfully so. Yet all the time creating an aura of a man who know exactly what he was doing and was just about to act.
I'd argue the sooner Gamelin is gone and Weygand returns the better France's chances are even if the wall is penetrated.
The tactics he put in place historically weren't successful, but they actually weren't bad, just hopeless, as France had no mobile reserve at this point to relieve his hedgehogs.

Despite being a staff officer he really was a smart fellow, tactically astute and knew how to lead the French soldiers and fill them full of fight, he didn't deserve to be given command when the situation was already broken beyond repair. You have Weygand in '39 (and to be fair did have occasional mad ideas of his own), then despite all her numerous problems I give France a ~60% chance of turning the war into a bloodbath for Germany that may end in a stalemate, and to do that you need Deladier gone sooner and Reynaud in power without the risk of Deladier pulling the rug from under him to defend Gamelin, again that's more than one big change from our starting point (and a fairly massive political problem to see solved by late 30's France). Then and only then do you have a good chance of stopping poor old Petain from having to become the sacrificial lamb for all the Third Republic's failings.

I disagree that Gamelin was completely incompetent, however, I do agree that Weygand might have produced better results. Side note, the problem with Dora and Gustav is that the bunkers along the Rhine are too small to hit reliably, meanwhile id argue that the large Ouvrages/Fortresses in the northern sector could possibly have withstood hits from the Super guns.

"On 19 June 1940, German Stukas attacked Schoenenbourg and other ouvrages, returning on the 20th and 21st. The attacks on the 21st were joined by a bombardment with 420 mm siege mortars, lasting three days. Schoenenbourg fired during this period in support of nearby casemates, not seriously affected by the bombardments."

420mm siege mortars cracked away at the fortress for 3 days straight, and produced no results (Note that mortar shells have more explosive filling than equivalent artillery shells), not to mention the Stukas tried too, and they can carry 1100lb bombs.

Now as for your economic arguments, ill admit I'm no expert on the French economy in the 1930s or 40s...however, the problems you mention seem to have resolved them selves when France did in fact outproduce Germany in certain armaments. France had more artillery pieces, 10,700 vs Germany's 7,378 guns. The French Army was also more motorised than its opponent, which still relied on horses. France had more tanks, and yes while some of them were older models, Germany's tank force was technically not any more modern, still fielding a significant amount (523) of Panzer Is in 1940, armed only with a machine gun, it would lose vs France's WWI era Renault FTs, armed with a 37mm canon, 441 Renault FTs were still fielded in 1940 in France.

Now taking these production numbers into account, we have to remember, Germany began rearmament in 1935, before France did.

 

[Sunforged General]

It's definitely there and one of the reasons I left WoT after playing quite a bit, joining a high-ranking clan, etc. (the main reason was it's just not as fun with made-up tanks at high tiers). The lack of maps where Soviet tanks do poorly is generally where it comes in, but Soviets are usually better at their tier than others more consistently, with unrealistic bounce angles as well.

I left WoWS much earlier, unfortunately. The torpedofest it became made it rather unfun for someone who like driving BBs around, what with invisible DDs and insane reload times, and CV fighters able to pull off turns that would shred the plane and pilot to pieces with the Gs in real life.



Fine. The biggest difference in tank battles, as determined by Allied studies during and after the war, was who shot first. Not the penetration, not the barrel length, not the armor width, who shot first.



You don't have to ship it all the way to the front with the risk of partisan attacks, breakdown, air raids, etc. while shipping back the old equipment, risking leaving formations at or near the front without necessary equipment because of delays or other issues. It makes more sense.

Plus, a lot of "new" formations were just old ones being reformed or using cadres of experienced troops as a base. It's more complex.

Russian bias isnt a thing in WoT...particularly because the company isnt even Russian. But more importantly, because Soviet tanks weren't as terrible as common perceptions have you believe. I could point you to instances of KV-1s knocking out dozens of German tanks on their own...or of the IS-2 objectively being a better tank than the Tiger.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

 

[bz249]

Russian bias isnt a thing in WoT...particularly because the company isnt even Russian. But more importantly, because Soviet tanks weren't as terrible as common perceptions have you believe. I could point you to instances of KV-1s knocking out dozens of German tanks on their own...or of the IS-2 objectively being a better tank than the Tiger.

Yes the IS-2 is a better self propelled artillery than the Tiger. Divided munition is a no-go for any halfway tanklike thing. There is a reason it was a dead alley in the development.

 

[Sunforged General]

Yes the IS-2 is a better self propelled artillery than the Tiger. Divided munition is a no-go for any halfway tanklike thing. There is a reason it was a dead alley in the development.

How exactly was it a dead alley in development..it directly led to the IS-3..which in 1945 was considered by western observers to be the most powerful tank in the world. 2 piece ammunition can be a hassle, however, its compensated for it by the 122mm strong armor piercing punch. The IS-2s 122mm could punch through more armor than the Tiger Is 88mm. Not to mention 122mm shell is going to hurt more when it enters your tank than a 88mm shell would.

 

[Acheron]

From what I gathered here about WoT, the issue wasn't that Soviet tanks weren't good historically, they were, but not as good as portrayed and that the game does not address the shortcomings they had.

 

[valisk]

I disagree that Gamelin was completely incompetent, however, I do agree that Weygand might have produced better results. Side note, the problem with Dora and Gustav is that the bunkers along the Rhine are too small to hit reliably, meanwhile id argue that the large Ouvrages/Fortresses in the northern sector could possibly have withstood hits from the Super guns.

"On 19 June 1940, German Stukas attacked Schoenenbourg and other ouvrages, returning on the 20th and 21st. The attacks on the 21st were joined by a bombardment with 420 mm siege mortars, lasting three days. Schoenenbourg fired during this period in support of nearby casemates, not seriously affected by the bombardments."

420mm siege mortars cracked away at the fortress for 3 days straight, and produced no results (Note that mortar shells have more explosive filling than equivalent artillery shells), not to mention the Stukas tried too, and they can carry 1100lb bombs.

Now as for your economic arguments, ill admit I'm no expert on the French economy in the 1930s or 40s...however, the problems you mention seem to have resolved them selves when France did in fact outproduce Germany in certain armaments. France had more artillery pieces, 10,700 vs Germany's 7,378 guns. The French Army was also more motorised than its opponent, which still relied on horses. France had more tanks, and yes while some of them were older models, Germany's tank force was technically not any more modern, still fielding a significant amount (523) of Panzer Is in 1940, armed only with a machine gun, it would lose vs France's WWI era Renault FTs, armed with a 37mm canon, 441 Renault FTs were still fielded in 1940 in France.

Now taking these production numbers into account, we have to remember, Germany began rearmament in 1935, before France did.

Lets agree to disagree on Gamelin just for a moment, maybe fighting from behind the line will by itself force a correction on some of his more pointless adventurism by restricting the front he can play with. He is still an adherent of the Continuous Front doctrine though, he is not going to be thinking of defense in depth with all that implies for an eventual penetration and at it's very widest points the line is 12 miles deep. And we can probably say that the single biggest mistake of all pre-war (aside from building the line in the first place), Allowing Belgium to leave the Alliance and then not constructing a full scale extension to the northern line, was not entirely his doing though he like the rest of the French high command felt that a war of maneuver in Belgium was exactly what the French army wanted.

The question with Gustav and Dora, is could they have withstood multiple hits sustained over a week, a month or more? Concrete is apt to fracture under such circumstances and we enter a 1453 scenario with cannons popping big holes in the walls.
In any scenario where France retreats behind the line and cannot strike at German Industry you give the Germans the luxury of time to figure it out, and having the Czech fortifications to study, which were built with French advisers overlooking them, they can work out roughly what is needed and theorize about how it is all interlinked. They are still going to have Paratroopers and no doubt the idea of dropping in unexpectedly to support an assault.
And as per our timeline you will lose parts of the line and see crossings of the Rhine and unless the interval troops are super vigilant and fight on despite lacking air cover, or you'll see major penetrations and captures of cities (see Strasbourg and Colmar in June 1940) when weakpoints are found even without the big guns being used, and yes they will be found.

Now onto artillery, and production in general. The problems were beginning to solve themselves, between '39-40 the old vices of ordering experimental aircraft and tanks then cancelling production as soon as the next government swept into power and passing production of new units to a favoured industrial concern could no longer be continued with.
And eventually industry understood it was at war and factories stayed open longer and produced more arms. You still have the potential for communist sabotage and strikes, but personally I think these problems were likely overcooked historically.
If you keep France on her feet to '41-42 things will definitely see an improvement in numbers and quality of armaments produced.
Artillery we are fine for, not only new and well designed pieces but a giant quantity of the famous 75's are still available. Anti-Tank guns, and Anti-Air a lot less so.

French tanks vs German tanks, well it wasn't a matter of quality, more a matter of doctrine, tanks were separated out into small penny packets and used as 'plugs' or mobile pill boxes. This frittering away of the armoured forces nullified the advantages they did have in protection and weaponry and left them isolated and unsupported, easy enough prey for the Germans, particularly once they worked out what a terrific anti-tank gun the 88mm was.

On trucks vs horses (and panje wagons for that matter) this actually matters less that it should do in a semi-static war, trucks without air superiority can become a major liability as they can be strafed as they trundle along roads to switch from one zone of attack to another. Here is where the underground railways between the northern fortresses would show their worth allowing the French soldiers to swarm like bees from a hive to any zone under concerted attack. But once any part of the line is penetrated then it is a race against time to counterattack and force the Germans back, because once their Armour is across they will use it better, and will use it with full air support and they will penetrate deeply.
One would think that the longer we wait for the Germans to get through the better prepared the French army should be, with well prepared defenses, yet historically what we see under Gamelin's aegis does not really bear this out.

And our friend Gamelin (I am sorry clearly I have not managed to put him to one side )in '36 wrote to Sir Cyril Deveril (British C.I.G.S.) stating that the German tanks used in Spain were 'inadequately protected, fit only for the scrap heap' and 'all our information shows it is our doctrine which is correct' ie spreading the tanks amongst the infantry, he had not changed his mind in 1939 or 1940, nor had most of his generals. It's unlikely he'd resist the temptation to penny packet the tanks and use them as mobile petits ouverages, instead of holding them back to use as a mass de mobilisation.

All of this though forgets really why the line exists in the way it does. It exists to deliberately funnel the German army into Belgium in order to force them to violate Belgian neutrality and bring both Belgium and the British Empire into the war, which is a fairly smart strategy if Britain hadn't transformed its army back into a colonial police force and the Belgians are willing to play ball, but it also absorbed the sort of money that would have fully mechanized the French army.

I prefer a different what-if, one where Petain and Gamelin are somehow sidelined early, and Weyand and de Gaulle produce something like de Gaulle imagined in his Vers l' Armee de Metier.
Imagine Hitler not facing France hiding behind a wall but a fully professional mobile force with the best tanks for the job (lots of training for the new force would expose weaknesses and allow rectifications in design to be made that didn't really happen in our timeline)immediately ready to be deployed in '36, '38 or '39/40, and France is transformed from requiring hope and luck to survive into being a dangerous foe that can sweep into the German rear and force them to fight on two fronts before they are ready or finished re-arming. You have an Army that lets France have a much better chance of imposing her will on the Czech issue, and I'd say with that sort of change France is bringing a gun to a gun fight, not a wooden spoon like Gamelin did.

 

[hkrommel]

Russian bias isnt a thing in WoT...particularly because the company isnt even Russian. But more importantly, because Soviet tanks weren't as terrible as common perceptions have you believe. I could point you to instances of KV-1s knocking out dozens of German tanks on their own...or of the IS-2 objectively being a better tank than the Tiger.

I'm sorry but this is a very bad take. WoT has never been about historical performance of tanks. The problem is that you can talk all you want about the KV-1 knocking out Panzer 38t or Panzer IIs, but that's simply irrelevant. What matters is in-game terms, Soviet tanks are OP-per-tier (Soviet tanks tend to be a tier "earlier" than their historical counterparts, giving them an advantage) and almost always have better performance-per-tier than comparable tanks. There are exceptions (the T-150 comes to mind) but the IS-3 is notably overpowered, the KV-1S used to be notoriously the most overpowered tank in the game, Soviet late-tier mediums are nigh unkillable except from absurd angles, etc.

The stats don't lie. Now, Soviet guns tend to be a bit more inaccurate, but they rarely bounce and generally do much higher alpha than their counterparts. The biggest weakness of Soviet tanks, by far, is their lack of gun depression. The problem is that on most maps, this isn't a real issue. Sand River is probably an exception, but most others have multiple "lanes" where the Soviets do just fine. Even hilly maps like Cliff aren't that hilly and present plenty of options for the Soviets. Then you have maps that completely favor the Soviet advantages (low profile, unrealistic bounce angles, Glorious Soviet Track Armor), like El Halluf, Ensk, Fishermans Bay, Live Oaks, Malinovka, etc.

 

[Sunforged General]

Lets agree to disagree on Gamelin just for a moment, maybe fighting from behind the line will by itself force a correction on some of his more pointless adventurism by restricting the front he can play with. He is still an adherent of the Continuous Front doctrine though, he is not going to be thinking of defense in depth with all that implies for an eventual penetration and at it's very widest points the line is 12 miles deep. And we can probably say that the single biggest mistake of all pre-war (aside from building the line in the first place), Allowing Belgium to leave the Alliance and then not constructing a full scale extension to the northern line, was not entirely his doing though he like the rest of the French high command felt that a war of maneuver in Belgium was exactly what the French army wanted.

The question with Gustav and Dora, is could they have withstood multiple hits sustained over a week, a month or more? Concrete is apt to fracture under such circumstances and we enter a 1453 scenario with cannons popping big holes in the walls.
In any scenario where France retreats behind the line and cannot strike at German Industry you give the Germans the luxury of time to figure it out, and having the Czech fortifications to study, which were built with French advisers overlooking them, they can work out roughly what is needed and theorize about how it is all interlinked. They are still going to have Paratroopers and no doubt the idea of dropping in unexpectedly to support an assault.
And as per our timeline you will lose parts of the line and see crossings of the Rhine and unless the interval troops are super vigilant and fight on despite lacking air cover, or you'll see major penetrations and captures of cities (see Strasbourg and Colmar in June 1940) when weakpoints are found even without the big guns being used, and yes they will be found.

Now onto artillery, and production in general. The problems were beginning to solve themselves, between '39-40 the old vices of ordering experimental aircraft and tanks then cancelling production as soon as the next government swept into power and passing production of new units to a favoured industrial concern could no longer be continued with.
And eventually industry understood it was at war and factories stayed open longer and produced more arms. You still have the potential for communist sabotage and strikes, but personally I think these problems were likely overcooked historically.
If you keep France on her feet to '41-42 things will definitely see an improvement in numbers and quality of armaments produced.
Artillery we are fine for, not only new and well designed pieces but a giant quantity of the famous 75's are still available. Anti-Tank guns, and Anti-Air a lot less so.

French tanks vs German tanks, well it wasn't a matter of quality, more a matter of doctrine, tanks were separated out into small penny packets and used as 'plugs' or mobile pill boxes. This frittering away of the armoured forces nullified the advantages they did have in protection and weaponry and left them isolated and unsupported, easy enough prey for the Germans, particularly once they worked out what a terrific anti-tank gun the 88mm was.

On trucks vs horses (and panje wagons for that matter) this actually matters less that it should do in a semi-static war, trucks without air superiority can become a major liability as they can be strafed as they trundle along roads to switch from one zone of attack to another. Here is where the underground railways between the northern fortresses would show their worth allowing the French soldiers to swarm like bees from a hive to any zone under concerted attack. But once any part of the line is penetrated then it is a race against time to counterattack and force the Germans back, because once their Armour is across they will use it better, and will use it with full air support and they will penetrate deeply.
One would think that the longer we wait for the Germans to get through the better prepared the French army should be, with well prepared defenses, yet historically what we see under Gamelin's aegis does not really bear this out.

And our friend Gamelin (I am sorry clearly I have not managed to put him to one side )in '36 wrote to Sir Cyril Deveril (British C.I.G.S.) stating that the German tanks used in Spain were 'inadequately protected, fit only for the scrap heap' and 'all our information shows it is our doctrine which is correct' ie spreading the tanks amongst the infantry, he had not changed his mind in 1939 or 1940, nor had most of his generals. It's unlikely he'd resist the temptation to penny packet the tanks and use them as mobile petits ouverages, instead of holding them back to use as a mass de mobilisation.

All of this though forgets really why the line exists in the way it does. It exists to deliberately funnel the German army into Belgium in order to force them to violate Belgian neutrality and bring both Belgium and the British Empire into the war, which is a fairly smart strategy if Britain hadn't transformed its army back into a colonial police force and the Belgians are willing to play ball, but it also absorbed the sort of money that would have fully mechanized the French army.

I prefer a different what-if, one where Petain and Gamelin are somehow sidelined early, and Weyand and de Gaulle produce something like de Gaulle imagined in his Vers l' Armee de Metier.
Imagine Hitler not facing France hiding behind a wall but a fully professional mobile force with the best tanks for the job (lots of training for the new force would expose weaknesses and allow rectifications in design to be made that didn't really happen in our timeline)immediately ready to be deployed in '36, '38 or '39/40, and France is transformed from requiring hope and luck to survive into being a dangerous foe that can sweep into the German rear and force them to fight on two fronts before they are ready or finished re-arming. You have an Army that lets France have a much better chance of imposing her will on the Czech issue, and I'd say with that sort of change France is bringing a gun to a gun fight, not a wooden spoon like Gamelin did.

I see you are a proponent of the French going with more tanks and aircraft, its a respectable position. But I dont think the Germans are going to pierce the Maginot line, what few penetrations they achieved in OTL was due to most of the French army being in Belgium, and even then, they never achieved serious penetration, they never took a single Gros Ouvrage/Large fort. If most of the French army is backing up the Line, there is just no way to pierce it. Even the weaker parts of the line along the Rhine were only pierced because the French infantry formations that were supposed to stand in-between each casemate, and prevent the Germans from just running past the casemates and later flanking them from behind, were no longer there.

But in a long war, Germany has more problems than just resources, they have financial problems too. If I recall right, Germany was on the verge of Bankruptcy in 1940, and only the plundering of the French treasury and economy saved them from that. (For example, two-thirds of all French trains in 1941 were used to carry goods to Germany, Norway lost 20% of its national income in 1940 and 40% in 1943. We can assume France had a similar amount of its income stolen and sent to Germany). However, you cant plunder France, if France hasn't fallen. Not to mention the large industrial resources and huge iron deposits occupied France gave Germany. All things considered, in this scenario we have a significantly weaker Germany than the one in OTL that fought the USSR.

 

[Sunforged General]

I'm sorry but this is a very bad take. WoT has never been about historical performance of tanks. The problem is that you can talk all you want about the KV-1 knocking out Panzer 38t or Panzer IIs, but that's simply irrelevant. What matters is in-game terms, Soviet tanks are OP-per-tier (Soviet tanks tend to be a tier "earlier" than their historical counterparts, giving them an advantage) and almost always have better performance-per-tier than comparable tanks. There are exceptions (the T-150 comes to mind) but the IS-3 is notably overpowered, the KV-1S used to be notoriously the most overpowered tank in the game, Soviet late-tier mediums are nigh unkillable except from absurd angles, etc.

The stats don't lie. Now, Soviet guns tend to be a bit more inaccurate, but they rarely bounce and generally do much higher alpha than their counterparts. The biggest weakness of Soviet tanks, by far, is their lack of gun depression. The problem is that on most maps, this isn't a real issue. Sand River is probably an exception, but most others have multiple "lanes" where the Soviets do just fine. Even hilly maps like Cliff aren't that hilly and present plenty of options for the Soviets. Then you have maps that completely favor the Soviet advantages (low profile, unrealistic bounce angles, Glorious Soviet Track Armor), like El Halluf, Ensk, Fishermans Bay, Live Oaks, Malinovka, etc.

Well I could talk about it knocking out Panzer IIIs and IVs...as the KV-1 did as well with ease . However, I find it odd you think Soviet tanks have advantages just off the top of my head, the Tiger I in that game has access to the long barrel 88mm with 203mm penetration, that it never had historically, while the IS-2 in game is stuck with its historical 122mm gun with historical penetration. Not to mention the Tiger II gets a larger 10.5cm gun that it never had, while the IS-3 is relegated to the same caliber 122mm that it historically had.

 

[hkrommel]

Well I could talk about it knocking out Panzer IIIs and IVs...as the KV-1 did as well with ease . However, I find it odd you think Soviet tanks have advantages just off the top of my head, the Tiger I in that game has access to the long barrel 88mm with 203mm penetration, that it never had historically, while the IS-2 in game is stuck with its historical 122mm gun with historical penetration. Not to mention the Tiger II gets a larger 10.5cm gun that it never had, while the IS-3 is relegated to the same caliber 122mm that it historically had.

The name doesn't matter, the stats do. WoT isn't historical at all and it doesn't pretend to be. Historical tanks didn't have hit points. Historical situations are irrelevant to whether there is bias.

 

[Sunforged General]

The name doesn't matter, the stats do. WoT isn't historical at all and it doesn't pretend to be. Historical tanks didn't have hit points. Historical situations are irrelevant to whether there is bias.

Ok, but I just showed evidence, that if anything, there Is a German bias. Why does the Tiger I get a longer barrel more powerful gun it never had, while the IS is stuck with no improvement? Hell, I've played the VK45.02B too, its 200mm frontal plate sloped is equivalent to 300mm armor. That tank isnt even real, yet its given to Germany. So dont tell me Soviet bias is a thing when Germany gets things like that.

 

[hkrommel]

Ok, but I just showed evidence, that if anything, there Is a German bias. Why does the Tiger I get a longer barrel more powerful gun it never had, while the IS is stuck with no improvement? Hell, I've played the VK45.02B too, its 200mm frontal plate sloped is equivalent to 300mm armor. That tank isnt even real, yet its given to Germany. So dont tell me Soviet bias is a thing when Germany gets things like that.

You didn’t show evidence of anything but your own lack of understanding. The name of the gun is irrelevant, what matters are the stats. Soviet alpha is usually best in tier. Soviet tanks almost uniformly outperform per-tier competitors of the same class, the stats don’t lie.

 

[Sunforged General]

You didn’t show evidence of anything but your own lack of understanding. The name of the gun is irrelevant, what matters are the stats. Soviet alpha is usually best in tier. Soviet tanks almost uniformly outperform per-tier competitors of the same class, the stats don’t lie.

What, you need me to explain that 200 pen is best in tier for a tier 7 heavy? Trying to gas light me and say I dont understand whats happening doesnt change the fact that the Germans are given the best guns in tier. Alpha aside. But if we must go there, Jagdpanzer E 100, another fictional construct, with the second best alpha in game.

Also, did you ever stop to think that maybe soviet tanks bounce a lot, because they have the steepest slope angles on armor of any nation, and its not about some pre programmed bias algorithm?