Butthurt over dunkirk

originally posted by: TheMadTitan
Didn't they run away though, I mean, even in the game Battlefield 1, their tanks are the only ones that are faster in reverse.

Oh my I laughed out loud at that.

a reply to: TheMadTitan

that,ll be oddballs

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bluntone22

Butthurt over movie criticisms? You better not go to Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB then. You better not be reading Ebert's reviews.

I don't give a damn about movie reviews.
Good, bad, whatever.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, it's all about pushing diversity.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bluntone22

Butthurt over movie criticisms? You better not go to Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB then. You better not be reading Ebert's reviews.

I don't give a damn about movie reviews.
Good, bad, whatever.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, it's all about pushing diversity.

In the film, we see at least one French soldier who might be African. In fact, soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere were key to delaying the German attack. Other African soldiers made it to England and helped form the nucleus of the Free French forces that soon took the fight to the Axis.

www.slate.com...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: crazyewok
If the British and French had concentrated there tanks and anti tanks where Germans where likely to have appeared the German invasion wpuld have been stopped.

My friend and I were discussing this last night.

If the French had massed their armor instead of spacing them along the line at intervals and met the Germans head on they may have prevailed due the superiority of their tanks and that the Germans were still using horses to supply an attack line hundreds of miles from the German border.

If? If my aunt had a 'pair'... Massed tanks would have resulted in an easy target for the Stukas, one would think. They also leave rather large gaps. Rommel's forte. Hey. They're FRENCH. They'd have found another way to lose.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If? If my aunt had a 'pair'... Massed tanks would have resulted in an easy target for the Stukas, one would think.

And why do you think the German armor was able to penetrate so far? Because it was used en masse and not as mobile artillery as the French deployed their tanks, which, incidentally, were superior to the German armor.

As for the Stukas, with British air support they would have seen their field usefulness curtailed as British fighter aircraft were highly effective versus German aircraft.

The French lost because of poor tactics, defending the Maginot Line while the Germans raced through the Low Countries once again and pincering the French forces. German aircraft and armor were both inferior to their French and British counterparts.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bluntone22

Butthurt over movie criticisms? You better not go to Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB then. You better not be reading Ebert's reviews.

I don't give a damn about movie reviews.
Good, bad, whatever.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, it's all about pushing diversity.

In the film, we see at least one French soldier who might be African. In fact, soldiers from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere were key to delaying the German attack. Other African soldiers made it to England and helped form the nucleus of the Free French forces that soon took the fight to the Axis.

www.slate.com...

The film was not about the delaying action.

The film scope scope does not cover the delaying attack. Not even the white English whete seen in that respect.

Its scope was the beach, the civilian ships and the sky over the beach and even then from the point of view of individual soliders


Was it meant to shoe horn a tunnsian, a Moroccan and a Algerian into the script for the sack of pleasing SJW?

How about making a film covering the blacks in the french army? Not as if the french dont have a film industry of there own.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If? If my aunt had a 'pair'... Massed tanks would have resulted in an easy target for the Stukas, one would think.

And why do you think the German armor was able to penetrate so far? Because it was used en masse and not as mobile artillery as the French deployed their tanks, which, incidentally, were superior to the German armor.

As for the Stukas, with British air support they would have seen their field usefulness curtailed as British fighter aircraft were highly effective versus German aircraft.

The French lost because of poor tactics, defending the Maginot Line while the Germans raced through the Low Countries once again and pincering the French forces. German aircraft and armor were both inferior to their French and British counterparts.

Seriously french tanks were better?? They were nothing more than a very slow moving artillery unit. They were made to fight world War one with trench warfare. The French hadn't figured out there is no more trench warfare. Though the front armor was great and it had a big gun french tanks were slow and turned evendors slower. Panzer's easily could our maneuver them. And the side was an easy target considering its length.

When deciding if a tank is superior you have to look at the whole tank not just front armor and gun. If not you have to look at mobile artillery as a tank. Because effectively that's what the French had.

a reply to: dragonridr

And the German Panzer I and Panzer II tyat made up the bulk of the panzer force where even crapper. They where little more than tin cans with machines guns on top. Even the french tanks side armour was immune.
Panzer III and IV that where superior only made up a small fraction of the panzer force as production had only just got going on them.

This is not opinion, this is taken directly from the opinions of the German Generals and even Heinz Guderian who actually wrote the book on German armour warfare and directedthe panzer forces in the battle of France points this fact out.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Seriously french tanks were better??

Yep.

They were nothing more than a very slow moving artillery unit.

The heavy, Infantry support tanks were. This isn't true for the majority of the French armoured corps.

They were made to fight world War one with trench warfare. The French hadn't figured out there is no more trench warfare.

De Gaule had. Just nobody listened to him. The Germans hadn't figured this out either except for Guderian and others like him. Lucky for Guderian Hitler listened to his schemes (The Heer didn't) and didn't reprimand him when he attacked despite specifically being ordered not to by his military superiors.

Though the front armor was great and it had a big gun french tanks were slow and turned evendors slower. Panzer's easily could our maneuver them.

Again not true for the majority.

And the side was an easy target considering its length.

and the Panzer I and Panzer II that took part in the 1940 offensive were easy targets for every tank opposing them thanks to their non-existant armour and pathetic firepower. The Spanish Civil War proved that the Panzer I and Panzer II were awful pieces of machinery compared to their contemporaries of the time. Except for the disastrous British Matilda Mark I of course. The Germans were quite welcome to that piece of crap when they captured them.

One of those "slow giant easy targets" you talk so much about destroyed 14 German panzers while totally alone and wasn't so much as scratched by the German tanks.

Most French tanks weren't even destroyed because of the nature of France's defeat and went on to serve in the Wehrmacht. They were still encountered in 1944 during the Normandy landings.

When deciding if a tank is superior you have to look at the whole tank not just front armor and gun.

This is indeed true. However what's more important is their deployment and command. Had people listened to the De Gaules in the French Army things probably would've turned out differently.

But then again why would they? Incompetence is a key requirement for a position in French High Command.

a reply to: pikestaff


And why Dunkirk anyway? Its like making a flick about the war of 1812 but only about the Brits invasion and burning of the White House. Thats only good as shown in context in my HO.

Or making a flick about how the French saved our Rev War by showing up at Yorktown and saved our ass. Never mind all the years of fighting that forced the thing to that point or that the French were really just trying to project themselves back into territory they had been run out of by the Brits.

a reply to: Ohanka

People dont realise how backward German tank design was at the start of the war.

But a bad tank used well is going to beat a good tank used badly.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: pikestaff


And why Dunkirk anyway? Its like making a flick about the war of 1812 but only about the Brits invasion and burning or the White House. Thats only good as shown in context in my HO.

Why make saving private Ryan and its focus on only the American landing sector?

Why make enemy at the gates and focus only on the snipers in the battle of Stalingrad ?

Why make das boot and focus on a german U-boat?

Why does fury focus on one tank at the end of the war?


Why? Because a film has around 2 hours to tell its tale and cant fit everything in.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: pikestaff


And why Dunkirk anyway? Its like making a flick about the war of 1812 but only about the Brits invasion and burning of the White House. Thats only good as shown in context in my HO.

Or making a flick about how the French saved our Rev War by showing up at Yorktown and saved our ass. Never mind all the years of fighting that forced the thing to that point or that the French were really just trying to project themselves back into territory they had been run out of by the Brits.

Probably because a film typically runs around 2 hours .

If you want the full story and not just an individual element of the story then go watch a multi-part documentary or read all the books about it.

a reply to: crazyewok

The French had fewer FM 2cs then the Germans had panzer 3s. Most of the French tanks were Renault FTs. Think of a volts wagon with a gun mount. The Germans were not stupid there panzer 3s lead the charge with the panzer 2s doing mop up. Panzer 1s were just for training.

Even the Germans overestimated the French they thought for sure they would be getting hit with 105mm howitzers. The Germans didn't even realize that model didn't go into production. And instead they had 75 mm the same as the panzer.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Seriously french tanks were better??

...

When deciding if a tank is superior you have to look at the whole tank...

Let's do just that.

The French Char B1 bis medium tank had 60MM armor, a 75MM howitzer and a top speed of 25kph.

The German Panzer III and IV medium tanks had, at the start of the war, 30MM/30-35MM armor, 37MM/75MM short barrel, low velocity gun, and top speeds of 40kph/38kph respectively.

In most instance where German armor met up with French armor the results were not good for the German units:

However, Panzer IVs armed with the KwK 37 L/24 75-millimetre (2.95 in) tank gun found it difficult to engage French tanks such as Somua S35 and Char B1. Doyle & Jentz (2001), pp. 4–5

In direct meetings with German tanks the Char B1 usually had the better of it, sometimes spectacularly so as when on 16 May a single tank, Eure (commanded by Captain Pierre Billotte), frontally attacked and destroyed thirteen German tanks lying in ambush in Stonne, all of them Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs, in the course of a few minutes. Giuliano, 1990, p. 107

Most French tanks were destroyed by German artillery and not by tank to tank combat. Once again, the reason the French tank forces were not effective was not due to poor engineering but tactics. French tanks were assigned to the infantry and were to provide cover for those units, hence the reason they were deployed individually and not massed like German armor. Had they used the same tactics as the Germans the French units would have been much more effective in stopping the German advance.

originally posted by: dragonridr
And instead they had 75 mm the same as the panzer.

That gun was not the same. The German gun was a lower velocity round that was not able to penetrate French armor.

The Fall of France in 1940 is actually a fantastically complicated subject. Put very, very simply the German Army got inside the French Army's decision loop, making the latter's attempts to catch up with the actual situation increasingly desperate. There's a really good summation of the whole thing in this video of a lecture.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your writer there is clueless. Germany used planes and tanks to advance. Artillery was always miles behind. The main tank killer was airpower before the tanks even got there. Germans coordinated their assault. And we'll the French were still trying to run phone lines and wonder why they lost.

One more thing the B1 would win a head on slug fest. However if the panzer an maneuver it easily takes them out. The incidents were they won were at things like bridges. For example the one you mentioned they were trying to cross a river.

But keep in mind German tactics was to coordinate attacks and hit you from everywhere. The French tactic was to set up a line. There tanks were good at that bit not good at shooting and moving.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Your writer there is clueless.

I suppose Rommel was an idiot too...

Even German General Rommel was surprised at how the French tanks withstood the German tank shells and had to resort to using the German 88 artillery as antitank guns against the French tanks to knock them out.

Germany used planes and tanks to advance. Artillery was always miles behind. The main tank killer was airpower before the tanks even got there. Germans coordinated their assault. And we'll the French were still trying to run phone lines and wonder why they lost.

Regardless, French armor was superior to the German armor as indicated and proven by direct tank to tank combat encounters.