This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
Carl Schwamberger wrote:To change the subject... Had the German 'sickle cut' manuver somehow failed & been halted east of the Mons/Rheims area I'd supose the Allies in Belgium would have withdrawn lest they still be cut off. In this case would the Belgian army & government have retreated south as well, into France? Or would the government (IT WAS THE KING NOT THE GOVERNMENT) still be inclined to ask for a armistice?
all our speculation we should realise that Belgium viewed its position as having to 'go it' alone
They declared 'armed independence', eschewed any form of aggressive equipment, hence no real bombers or tanks(virtually) and their development of a significant number of self propelled anti-tank guns. This was the second of several reasons why the German invasion was destained to be successful. The abandonment of the strategic initiative was, in 1939, a guaranteed route to defeat.
Incorrect, see http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Belg ... um-A1.htmldesigned to operate in a 1918 battlefield
The conclusion was that armour could not FIGHT effectively in that region. The commander said that he preferred double or triple the amount of T13's over the ACG-1's because they were more manoeuvrable. German panzers did not attack through the Ardennes. The Aufklärungsabteilungen and the Schutzenregimenten did the fighting. The panzers FOLLOWED in their trail.armour could not operate effectively in that area
Belgium did not abandone the Ardennes. Defending the Ardennes serves only to protect France. Belgium told the French that they wouldn't/couldn't defend them and that the larger French army had to take care of it themselves. Belgium prepared large obstacle zones and would fight delaying actions, that was it. The responsability for the Ardennes lied with the French (and indirectly the British). IMHO this decision was the right one to make. Belgian divisions were already holding two or three times the normal divisional frontline of 6 km. + They needed troops in the back to respond to possible airborne actions (similar to Den Haag/The Hague).This resulted in the virtual abandonment of the Ardennes.
No not at all. I apologise if my reply seemed offensive. I like a good academic discussion and exchange of views.I hope I have not given you the wrong impression.
That requires powerful reserve armoured forces and extensive use of minefields and artillery. If Germany had seriously attacked Belgium with her panzers they would not have attacked the anti-tank strongpoints but flowed round them and left them to be reduced by the follow up troops, artillery and the Luftwaffe.
Major-General J F C Fuller specifies - regarding anti-tank zones 'This zone may be as much as 200 miles deep.
Belgian arms industry was probably incapable of constructing a viable medium tank
I don't know that much about ships actually. I'm more of a land forces guy I was just thinking if you can built a warship than you have to be able to build something small like a tank.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests