INTRODUCTION

'It is a fortnight since the German advance started and the success they have achieved is nothing short of phenomenal. There is no doubt that they are most wonderful soldiers'

LTGEN ALANBROOKE, then commander BEF II Corps, diary entry 23 May 1940

 

Welcome! These web pages try to capture my life-long interest in the Campaign in France and Benelux in May and June 1940. While it is particularly aimed at wargamers I have collected here a great deal of information that I trust will be of use to anyone interested in this most enthralling campaign. I have built up a rather large collection over many years: all the models and terrain are from my own collection. Browse and enjoy.

I have always been fascinated with the Campaign in the West in 1940. I suspect my original interest came from an early captivation with tanks but as I matured and began studying the campaign in some detail I released there are layers and depth within the campaign that grow more interesting the more one looks at it.

To me as a military professional, the campaign is the first campaign in which many of the factors that are still relevant are evident. It was the first campaign to use armour for operational affect. In the campaign in Poland the German armour had been used more as the cutting edge of a traditional advance and not as an independent force. In France for the first time armour was grouped in Corps and in Groups with Panzer Group Kleist at the start of the campaign massing five of the ten panzer divisions and three of the four Army motorised divisions. Here was an armoured force operating independently seeking an operational and even strategic decision. Guderian's drive to the coast turned the tactical victory at Sedan into an operational victory. It was as close as a perfect demonstration of the Armoured Idea as was to be achieved in the war. Additionally close air support, daring glider assaults and the first attempt to use paratroops for operational effect make this an engrossing campaign.


It is also worthy of study because it represents the clash of two divergent doctrines. Just as France was an almost perfect demonstration of the German doctrine developed during the inter war period so was it a complete repudiation of the French theory of methodical battle. The French were not outclassed in equipment, in numbers nor morale. Their soldiers fought bravely in many instances and their equipment was generally superior to the German's. There were almost equal number of divisions on both sides and the Allies had the defensive advantage. Yet the Allies were outmanoeuvred by day four of the campaign and surrendered after six weeks fighting. The Allies had to adapt quickly. How had the Germans got it so right and the Allies so wrong? What could one learn from their approach to the study of war and the development of their respective doctrine in the inter war years. For modern armies preparing for future wars doctrine, ideas, concepts and plans are important. The Campaign in the West provides important clues to how armies prepare for war. As I grew older and had the privilege of serving alongside a few Western armies my thoughts started turning from how to emulate the innovation of the Germans to how to stop the atrophy of the French. Victory can be a very dangerous thing; all armies need to constantly keep thinking about future war and to make sure, as Guderian once said, that they are not pouring new wine into old bottles. Stagnation and comfort in past glories can leave any army as open to defeat as the French were in 1940.



The campaign is also about planning. While there were many reasons why the Germans won a critical reason was also one of the simplest: their plan was better. The strike through the Ardennes and the thrust to the coast fulfilled most of the requirements for a manoeuvre based plan. The initial moves into Belgium worked as a brilliant tactical deception focusing the Allies' eyes away from the main effort. The main effort attacked along the line of least expectation through the Ardennes and was aimed at a critical weakness at Sedan. Once the breakthrough had been achieved the advance maintained a momentum that was always superior to the Allies and aimed at the operational objective of the coast. Above all the German plan sought decision. The plan aimed to win. And yet at the final moment of victory the Germans took counsel of their fears and did not push home their advantage at Dunkirk. Their certainty that the French in particular were better than they were, and must counterattack, kept the German high command 'riding the brake' throughout the first part of the campaign and uncertain of their success.

For the Allies, their plan was to avoid defeat. The advance into Belgium by the cream of the Allied forces was more an attempt to gain advantageous defensive ground and protect France's northern industries than a true offensive action. The Allies had a vague idea that they might take the offensive in 1941 after they had broken the German attack but beyond that there was little real plan for victory. What is important to remember is that the Allied plan was endorsed and accepted by some of the best trained and experienced brains in Europe. While there was some disquiet about aspects of the plan, such as whether to pause on the Escaut or push on to the Dyle, the broad essence of the plan was not questioned. To me as a military professional it is a classic case study of the value of the initiative and the importance of seeking decision.



There are also political aspects that are instructive. There was the poor political preparation for war that so bedeviled the French and the challenges that Belgian and Dutch neutrality brought. The very late acceptance by the British that they could not avoid a continental commitment and the heroic efforts made to catch up meant the BEF could only be a small professional force. On the German side the victory could not be turned into political capital; the British fought on and the US prepared for war.

Finally, as a wargamer, the campaign has many aspects to recommend itself. With five armies involved there is plenty of varied kit to use, and the early war stuff is now reasonably easy to obtain in most scales. Weapon ranges are relatively short and lend themselves to increased manoeuvre on a smaller board. The campaign is over relatively quickly so that organisations remain fairly static and there is little adaptation. Terrain is reasonably benign and weather plays little part in the campaign, the latter invariably difficult to model satisfactorily. And while the Germans were on the operational offensive for the campaign both sides fought sharp tactical actions in which either could be the attacker.

The campaign has much to offer. I sincerely hope that this web site helps you a little in understanding this most fascinating campaign and encourages you to learn more.

Some notes on this website.

First, I'm not sure I will ever finish it, and I shall hide behind the old adage that nothing worth doing is ever finished. I'm finding new materiel all the time to add to it, and it is fairly ambitious in scope. You will find more empty pages than completed ones at this stage. Check back from time to time as I add things to it. I'm on no fixed schedule and work at it when I can.

Second, I do make recommendations from time to time about various products. These are my opinions for my circumstances, which may be very different to yours. Similarly, where I include links they were working when I created them. If they are not now, I'm sorry but the fault is at the other end. Finally, I don't get commission from any recommendations I make, nor any payment from model makers. I just make comments as a service to you; take it for what it is worth.

Third, some of this materiel is original and some is adapted from other sites. I've tried to group research materiel in a way that makes sense to me. This can never be exhaustive and nor is meant to be definitive. It's accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you are not happy, I'll refund your entry charge......

I am not a web designer and am a 'IT emigrant' rather than a native. I'm learning while building this site. I'm sure someone else could make this much more user friendly and easier to navigate.

Finally, this is a history and gaming site not a political site. I spent most of my career fighting against extremists and other idiots; any reference to performance by troops that may or may not have been fighting for good or bad causes is focused purely on their military performance not the political ideology that may have put them in combat.