TheBattle of France, 1940 - Easy Victory?

By comparison to WWI (which was what it was compared to in 1940) it is very easy. Every major offensive during WWI meant 5000 casulties the first hour, 50,000 the first day and 500,000 at the end...

It is also ok compared to the major defeats of the Germans during WWII, Stalingrad, Tunisia, Normandy, Kursk, Belarussia meant from 100,000 to 400,000 casulties.

It is quite smilar to what the Americans (alone!) lost during the Liberation of France.

If your figures are corrects and if my math are also you get:
less than 2,5% of the Wermacht engaged killed
about 5% wounded
it is less than 10% of the army, which is what is usually assumed to be the cost of a successful attack.

It is true that the Luftwaffe lost a lot of plane.

But ultimately the benefices are much higher than the costs: almost no oil spent, one enemy down, light casulties... The German saved of the three things they were short on: petrol, time and workforce.

So: easy victory, but not completely costless.

Originally posted by Maharbbal It is also ok compared to the major defeats of the Germans during WWII, Stalingrad, Tunisia, Normandy, Kursk, Belarussia meant from 100,000 to 400,000 casulties.

Without the prisoners
in Tunisia germans lost much less casualties than in May june 1940 in France
and during the battle of Normandy they lost approximately 200 000 killed and wounded
hardly more than during the battle of france.

During Barbarossa between june and August 1941( 3 months)
Germans have lost 67 000 killed, 143 000 wounded and also 660 planes and 1200 tanks destroyed.
In 3 months their casualties in planes were much less heavy than in 45 days during the battle of France.

Originally posted by Maharbbal It is true that the Luftwaffe lost a lot of plane.

And these planes destroyed have missed at lufwaffe during battle of England.


Edited by Tancr�de - 01-Mar-2007 at 17:02

Originally posted by pekau I still wonder why Hitler let Himmler to become the head of Luffaffe. I honestly don't think he was a capable for such responsbility.

You mean G�ring.

Originally posted by Tancr�de Just some numbers In 45 days Germans have lost 46000 killed(63 000 killed for others sources) 111 000 wounded Italian have lost 6 000 casualties(dead and wounded) Germans have also lost 839 tanks destroyed(32% of their tanks) and several hundreds strongly damaged Luftwaffe has lost approximately 1400 planes destroyed and also 500 strongly damaged Total Luffwaffe has lost 1900 planes destroyed and damaged. these casualties in only 45 days are important. Then easy victory or not ?

Edited by Kapikulu - 01-Mar-2007 at 19:04

Interesting... what was Soviet Airforce like. I heard that some of them were assigned to bomb Berlin, but they lost so many planes that they just gave up the idea...

Originally posted by Kapikulu   Apart from that, the Soviet planes, despite their huge numbers, lacked quality against their German counterparts.

It was easy I think becouse France wasnt prapered for Blitzkrieg. It was totaly supraising for them.

Well, the "Conquest of France", i doubt was an easy task for the Germans, even though the powerful French Army lacked preparedness. And the "Invasion of Normandy" was obviously not an easy campaign. Hitler in fact knew that the Allies would have to invade France.

It was a peice of a cake 4 the Krauts. British and French were useless in the early WW2 they had old war tactics from WW1, they had outdated weapons etc. And the stubborn Brits refused to adopt machine guns which didnt help either

It was a hard battle. Lets remember that in the Anglo dominated world we tend to concentrate only on British contribution, which ended after Dunkirk, OTH the Battle of France which continued till 10th June was a bloody affair.