Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
jwsleser
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 14:02
Location: Leavenworth, KS

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by jwsleser » 30 Mar 2019 23:38

Why are you arguing that the Netherlands do something that Finland refused to do: fight to the bitter end?

Finland surrender to the USSR. Why are you arguing that the Netherlands should not surrender to Germany?

Why didn't Finland continue to fight?
battaglione Alpini sciatori Monte Cervino (Reenacted)
5th Greek Regiment
9th reggimento bersaglieri

Juha
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 10:38
Location: Finland

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by Juha » 31 Mar 2019 00:28

We didn't surreder we made peace with harsh terms but stayed independent with democratically elected governemant in place in our capital. Our defence forces survived and we were able to strengthen them significantly during the Interim Peace 1940-41 so that we had clearly more poweful army and air force in 1941 than we have had in 1939. Compare that with the situation in Netherland. So we made peace when there was a possibilty to got terms which allowed us to stay independent with our democratically elected governement in power.

I don't argue that the Netherlands should have to fight to bitter end, only that with more preparations and some better mlitary decisions they might have been able to hold out longer. And even if they had been able to hold out longer at the time of Dunkirk evacuation it would have been clear that their cause was hopeless and they had to get out of war by any means necessary.

And IMHO the Dutch airfields were not so important, they were nice to have but not critical, Airfiels in Northern France, Belgium, NW Germany, Denmark and Norway were enough to Germany's need in West. But Germans had decided that they needed Limburg "handle" for their attack to West and that decided the lot of Netherlands. Maybe the importance of Rotterdam to Germany's economy had something to do with it, I don't know. And the attack on Dutch made the control of Dutch coast important. Maybe between 20 June 1940 - 1 June 1941 that was not critically important but surely Hitler would have made sure before the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa that British did not have an opportunity to use Netherlands a place to get a foothold on the continent when Germany was occupied by the war against the SU.

User avatar
jwsleser
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 13 Jun 2005 14:02
Location: Leavenworth, KS

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by jwsleser » 31 Mar 2019 04:53

Nothing worth responding to. Nothing you have written addresses any of the issues I and others have raised.
And IMHO the Dutch airfields were not so important, they were nice to have but not critical, Airfiels in Northern France, Belgium, NW Germany, Denmark and Norway were enough to Germany's need in West. But Germans had decided that they needed Limburg "handle" for their attack to West and that decided the lot of Netherlands.
This statement demonstrates you have no idea about the war in the Netherlands. Why are you arguing about a topic on which you so clearly lack any knowledge. You don't have a clue about the German strategic thinking or how the plan for operations against the Netherland evolved.
battaglione Alpini sciatori Monte Cervino (Reenacted)
5th Greek Regiment
9th reggimento bersaglieri

Juha
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 10:38
Location: Finland

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by Juha » 31 Mar 2019 17:29

Lol

rcocean
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2019 00:10

.The NVAF also survived against overwhelming odds during the Vietnam War. It got a fair amount of help from Washington but USAF and USN had AEW&Cs and sophisticated intelligence cathering systems.
The NVAF kept on fighting because it was getting replacement aircraft from China and/or USSR. The same is true of Finland. How long would the Finnish AF have lasted with just 58 fighters and no replacements? The same is true of Malta.

Juha
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 10:38
Location: Finland

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by Juha » 01 Apr 2019 11:40

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2019 00:10
.The NVAF also survived against overwhelming odds during the Vietnam War. It got a fair amount of help from Washington but USAF and USN had AEW&Cs and sophisticated intelligence cathering systems.
The NVAF kept on fighting because it was getting replacement aircraft from China and/or USSR. The same is true of Finland. How long would the Finnish AF have lasted with just 58 fighters and no replacements? The same is true of Malta.
Vietnam War was a very long war.

Finland 100 - 105 days? We had some 28 Fokkers left when the war ended, they got 127 confirmed kills during the Winter War. Notice that confirmed kills are not the same as real kills. Bulldogs got 5 confirmed kills.
Of the fighters that arrived during the war only Gladiators arrived so early, first victory on 17 Jan 40 (appr. 49th day of the war) that they had real impact, 44 confirmed kills of which the small Swedish volunteer air unit (F 19) operating over Northern Finland got 10. MS 406s got 14 and Fiat G.50s 13 confirmed victories. Others arrived too late to participate, Brewster B-239s flew a few sorties during the last days of the war but no contacts. Of course more planes meant larger area got fighter protection and some important communication centers in SE Finland got better protection and we had more fighters to strafe Soviet troops on ice of the Bay of Wyborg/Viipuri during the last desperate week of the war. Also the knowledge that new planes were coming also easied planning and improved morale. Also the number of kills comparision somewhat diminished the importance of the new fighters because Soviets improved their tactics and equipments during the war, they e.g. began to use drop tanks on their fighters which allowed them to operate deeper into Finnish airspace. So combats were more difficult and victories harder to achieve in the later part of the war.

But also Dutch got few extra planes during their fight, Fokker factory could deliver few G.1Bs from the batch first ordered by the Spanish Republic, then offered to Finland, to the Dutch Air Force during the fighting. That was of course only a drop in the ocean and had no practical effect.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 243
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2019 22:10

And how many Finnish fighters were lost in the Winter War?

Juha
Member
Posts: 259
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 10:38
Location: Finland

Re: Why did the Dutch perform so badly in 1940?

Post by Juha » 02 Apr 2019 21:26

This site has a very good Winter War and Continuation War section, IMHO it would be better to ask there if you have more questions on the Winter War.

Anyway, Finland lost 32 fighters during the Winter War, incl. 4 in accidents during transit flights to Finland (2 Fiat G.50s and 2 Hurricanes) and 2 other in accidents in Finland. 23 were lost in aerial combats, 12 Gladiators (Gladiators had excellent horizontal manoeuvrability but had no way to disengage from otherwise superior Soviet fighters, Fokker D.XXI could always disengage by long steep dive if altitude allowed that and contrary to Soviet fighters Gladiator as also other FiAF fighters were completely unprotected), 9 Fokkers, 1 Fiat and 1 Bulldog; 1 on ground (Fokker), 1 to Soviet AA (MS 406) and 1 to own AA (Fokker).

The Swedish Volunteer unit F 19 lost 3 incl. 2 in accidents

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”