Skip to main content
History

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • 1
    Nice answer - you are getting very close here I think. Tactical doctrine at the unit level and between services was the great strength of the Germans. The Pz I and II should be regarded as scout cars rather than tanks, (armour barely sufficient to stop small arms bullets)which gives the French alone nearly three times as many tanks as the Germans; but without radios, and with one or even two fewer men in each tank, they were individually much less efficient on the battle field. Commented Oct 6, 2017 at 10:09
  • The average French, and especially British, unit was better trained, better equipped, and arguably even better led, than the average German unit. It had far more motorized capability than any except the elite divisions on the other side. But the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier (motorized) units were far superior in training, leadership, and doctrine to anything on the Allied side in 1940. Commented Oct 6, 2017 at 10:14
  • 1
    I don't think Lord Got was particularly outstanding. Many generals in his situation would have fled all the same (fleeing was justified). He didn't even warned French and Belgium's troops before fleeing. If I remember well, Belgium surrendered sooner because of that. But this move is typical of British strategy, they are really machiavellians. In some way that's impressive. But I have always despised the easiness and the scale where allies and natives were sacrificied for the glory of the British Empire. Plausible deniability is such a wonderful tool. Commented Oct 6, 2017 at 15:52
  • 1
    I am not disagreeing with the content of this particular answer, but it bothers me that so many answers on so many of the stack exchange sites just, or mostly, refer to wikipedia. 10 references in this answer. No, we don't all have access to the best source material, but wikipedia does have some serious flaws and seeing it used so uncritically, automatically and unquestioningly concerns me. Commented Jun 13, 2018 at 13:31
  • 1
    @mickeyf No problem at all. Show me where my references are wrong, and I'm more than happy to correct them. If you can't, why bring up the subject? Commented Jun 13, 2018 at 14:09