WW1 what if ?

I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/286380?casa_token=HrDISj647xoAAAAA%3A4r0lrbG6dLMbOFV1mHpvWIxLmi5kgJmFmZ_TYY5Ct12HpfBVa87FyqGvcP00vs2G1JuM3ol2qcQ

Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.

Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!

I was reading this document (https://history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-20/CMH_Pub_104-20.pdf) which counted the Panzer 1 as a tankette. Do any of you think this is a better description for the vehicle than a light tank? It’s not much heavier than some Japanese tankettes and its armament and crew size is certainly similar.

This is the first time I’ve heard of classifying the vehicle as a tankette, which is why I find it noteworthy.

@Coldwarrior1984

Reading this, I feel strongly you’re confused about the nature of the German defenses in Normandy. In combination, I feel you are overestimating the Allies ability to place smoke as precisely and in the quantity that would have been required to have a chance to accomplish the goal you lay out. I also feel you’re overestimating the effectiveness of smoke even if I grant that none of the above was an issue.

I’ve been to Normandy three times with tour guides. I’ve read everything from Ambrose and Osprey on Overlord. I’m tempted to repeat my initial post about why you don’t hear or see this tactic being performed en masse in the many assaults in the Pacific or Mediterranean.

I’ll just sum this up and say that the German fighting positions were not composed primarily of Saving Private Ryan style bunkers but widerstandsnest with Tobruks across so much acreage that a simultaneous precision smoke affect against all of them for the required time to get everyone ashore is less realistic that just a mass smoke bombardment of the beach area.

@Lancasterlaw1175

I think your hypothesis is broadly correct.

But I think on a technical and logistical level (not sure about political), it seems to me that it was perfectly possible for the French to mobilize and brings the guns to the front much earlier, before September. This would’ve allowed them to begin attacking almost immediately and shatter the German lines. In retrospect, the French should be at fault for not mobilizing (and preventing the Poles from doing so).

The vast majority of Army Group C divisions were undersized (or even just command headquarters), while only about half of the French ones were deficient in some way (Nafziger’s book also lists the condition of French divisions in September-October 193o).

I got the book online here:

https://www.amazon.com/French-Order-Battle-World-1939-1945/dp/1585450189

If I was going into Tank on Tank combat I’m taking the M4 Sherman. Better sights, better visibility, an actual turret basket, better ergonomics, better mechanical reliability, and with the 76mm variant a very capable anti armor gun. As well as far more reliable armor due to high production quality standards. The M4 armor is reliable face hardened. The T34 could be correctly hardened, too hard so that it’s brittle or too soft.

If I was trying to drive a tank to get into a fight, the M4 is the obvious choice due to the much better reliability.

If I had to pick a tank to work on. M4 again due to its easy to repair design.

If I wanted to drive a comfortable tank well that’s no contest it’s the M4. Also it’s an easier to drive tank due to the vastly superior production quality.

So the M4 is a vastly superior weapons platform the only reason they seem comparable is on paper armor thickness and gun. Off of paper they aren’t close. Like pretty much all Russian military equipment they seem intimidating but ultimately are trash. Like how the T 72 got smashed by the M2 bradely and infantry fighting vehicle not even a tank.

@Narvik:

….and the slaughter of Indians during 1800 was not pointless and unjust ?

The slaughter of Indians in the 1800s does not justify American intervention during WWI. Allied victory in WWI did not make the world a better place. It did not result in self-determination, the end of militarism, or any of the other idealistic principles for which Woodrow Wilson said he’d fought. Its main short-term effect was to allow France to exact a petty, unjust, cruel revenge against Germany for its victory in the Franco-Prussian War. The longer term consequence was to rob Central and Eastern Europe of its ability to resist Soviet invasion. According to former Soviet intelligence operative Suvarov, the main reason for the Spviet Union’s invasion of Poland in 1919 was the desire to continue on into Germany. Germany was weak, disarmed, and (in 1919 - '20) largely communist anyway. The German people had been partially radicalized by the famine conditions the Allies had created.

Fortunately, that particular Soviet invasion failed, due to the courage of the Polish Army, and due to the fact the Soviet Union was still in a state of civil war. But a disarmed Germany could not forever escape Soviet occupation. Germany’s only long-term hope was to elect a right wing leader–a militarist–who would match the Soviet military buildup with a strong military of his own. Unfortunately, the political circumstances the Allies created in the afermath of their victory were such that only a radical leader would throw off the unjust Versailles Treaty and seek to return Germany to a position of strength. It’s deeply unfortunate that the particular militarist Germany chose was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Slav. Had WWI resulted in a tie or an Axis victory, Germany would presumably been able to maintain a strong military presence in the post WWI era without politically radicalizing itself. That combination (a strong German military and no radical anti-Semitism) would have yielded better long-term results than anything one could expect from the Allied victory.

@crusaderiv if they could take them so easily, then why couldn’t the spanish take it back? a mid atlantic post for the kreigmarine would’ve been invaluable. also, the uboats didn’t need to operate there if Sea Lion had happened, which would have if spain had joined, due to the increased pressure on England. why would they be there? there’s no basis for this argument.