It's also the context of the mobilisation - in the 1936-39 period, Germany expanded its ability to produce war material at a huge rate, spending around 25% of its GDP on military projects (North Korea levels of crazy). All of this came at the expense of the civilian sector which the western Allies were not willing to compete with.
When you divert steel from locomotive and truck manufacture to making guns and ammunition, don't be surprised if your transportation assets aren't up to the task of driving deep into Russia a few years later. Also, don't be surprised when the huge but backwards country you're trading tools and machinery to, for the raw materials to build up your war machine, decides to use those tools and machinery to build up its own even bigger war machine. Germany was gambling on knocking the western allies out of the war and turning on Russia before Russia became too strong to defeat, and lost that gamble.
There was also the expectation of being able to better industrialise conquered territories. For example, aircraft factories in France produced only aaround a hundred aircraft per month in 1941. Compared to the thousands that the UK was purchasing even before lend-lease.
Unlikely. Self-styled warriors have usually only disdain for mundane and pedestrian tasks like logistics.
Well, even if you are the one who is outmatching the enemy, using operational means to your benefit is still called for to avoid undue casualties. You just don't need to take ever more desperate gambles.
Yeah, there is a line between accepting calculated risks, like unsatisfactory ammunition stockpiles, and flat out ignoring logistics, to the point where you are screwed even if you win. In the Soviet Union, the Wehrmacht crossed the line in a rocket jet.
The Maginot line was designed to "not allow a hostile army to pass through the areas it defended." Ouvrage Schoenenbourg for example was struck with " The inventory of German ordnance fired against Schoenenbourg was assessed after the armistice, and found to comprise 160 aerial bombs, 50 42 cm shells, 33 28 cm shells, and approximately 3000 smaller projectiles,[22] the most ammunition used against any fortification in France. Schoenenbourg fired during this period in support of nearby casemates, not seriously affected by the bombardments." The Germans fired 50 420mm shells at this french maginot fort, thats battleship caliber guns, and they did no damage. The Germans would not have a means of penetrating an extended maginot line until 1941 at the earliest when their super guns were finished. But by that point the French and British would have built up superior forces to what the Germans could muster. By 1940 for example the British alone were already outproducing Germany in aircraft. The French had more tanks (thus more tank production capacity than Germany).
To be fair, the Fortresses that the Sedan area was missing, called gros ouvrages, were the strongest part of the Maginot line. They had considerable artillery batteries and were virtually impervious to artillery and aerial bombs. Such fortresses, which were able to cover each other with Artillery fire, would likely have halted the German attack near Sedan until reinforcements could arrive. Another thing to note is equipment wise, the Nazis were not superior to the allies. The Allies had better tanks, the Matilda II and Char B1 each were superior to any Nazi tank in armor or firepower. The French and British had more trucks. Artillery, and tanks. The allies also had a massive advantage in the sea, the British navy was the strongest in the world, and the French navy was also superior to the German or Italian navies. Luck, more than anything else, helped the Nazis beat the Allies.
I would place luck second, behind allied incompetence. Some of the stories told of the Fall of France are outright frightening.
Materially they were more or less equivalent in 1940, but the Germans had by far the better trained and better led force. It was not surprising and certainly not down to luck that they outmaneuvered the allied forces in France and Belgium.
Why does every WW2 thread degenerate into generalities and incoherent rambling by page 2.
Oh I dont know, it couldn't be the fact that the British Blockade in the sea is arguably what caused Germany to lose during WW1. Having control of the sea again in WW2 is very important, and it is relevant to the topic of "what would happen if France extended the maginot line" since its still a debate on what would happen to the course of the war, which the British blockade also affects.Materially they were more or less equivalent in 1940, but the Germans had by far the better trained and better led force. It was not surprising and certainly not down to luck that they outmaneuvered the allied forces in France and Belgium.
Also what on earth does the naval situation have to do with the topic of the maginot line.
Considering the German original plan was a variant of the Schlieffen Plan, something the French were entirely prepared for, and the Nazis only changed this plan due to a plane crash in Belgium with a German officer who had documents about this plan on him which fell into allied hands, forcing Hitler to change the plan to the Manstein plan, something the french were not ready for. Yes my friend that is luck, if that plane crash didnt happen, Hitler would use the Schlieffen Plan, and the French would be very ready for it.
Hindsight is always 20/20. But I do not consider Maurice Gamelin or his staff to have been incompetent. "Gamelin was viewed as a man with significant intellectual ability. He was respected, even in Germany, for his intelligence and "subtle mind". He also had a good track record as a officer during WWI. Even a intelligent, experienced man can make critical mistakes when he doesnt know what the hell is happening.
Well, Gamelin was incompetent, but dismissing him in the middle of the crisis, when each hour was crucial, was just a sabotage. And Weygand was even worse.
Given the actual historical performance, I'm not sure we can just conclude the French were prepared for the Schlieffen plan. They had anticipated it, yes, but it wouldn't surprise me if they'd botch that too; whatever they were gonna set up on the Dyle might well have been penetrated and then destroyed just as readily as the defences at Sedan or Eben-Emael.
