Did France beat Germany in World War I?

That is true. During World War II, France and Germany were not on the same level of strength at all. In fact, before the First World War, there were already many problems in French society, and there were obvious defects in the demographic, economic, and social structure, but the victory in the First World War covered up these shortcomings.

It wasn't until the outbreak of the Second World War that these problems in France arose all at once.

No, Germany was much stronger in heavy firepower than France, and France was suppressed by Germany head-on until Britain was strongly supported.

During World War II, France had no chance of defeating Germany at all, because it was far behind Germany in terms of equipment, technical literacy of the war, and the quality of personnel.

As a major European power, France's own national defense strength is average, especially during World War II, its economic development was not outstanding, and it does not have the strength to compete with Germany at all.

It is possible, it is also possible to fight for a period of time ** can not hold on, the French army is still very strong on paper, the number of tanks is 50 more than Germany, the main reason for the loss is **, but strategy and tactics.

Although they do not understand military affairs, everyone understands the basic truth that information is more important than tactics in war. I don't understand why the Germans came out of the forest, why didn't the French hurry back to the defense.

I think it's possible, unless France and Germany go to war face to face.

Why not? Swap the senior officers, especially the three, and win.

No, no, because the French tactical thinking is too bad.

Both French thought and ** were relatively backward relative to Germany.

If you attack Germany when attacking the waves, it is possible.

As long as the Maginot Line was extended, and the strength of the British Expeditionary Force was definitely won.

Because long before Germany was founded, when it was still the Kingdom of Prussia, there were already deep contradictions between them.

Germany insisted on fighting France in both World War I and World War II, on the one hand, because Germany was separated from France due to problems left over from history, and on the other hand, because the two countries were relatively close.

The tactical thinking was still left in the First World War, and it was strategic mistakes that led to the collapse of the French so quickly.

First of all, the overall number of the French army was larger than that of the German army, but there was no obvious advantage over the German army in terms of equipment. In addition to their thicker tank skins, most of the other infantry and artillery equipment was left over from the First World War (after all, a lot of money went into the Maginot Line). The people of Fa Pei, who won the First World War, firmly believe that defense is the way to fight modern warfare, so the understanding of the independent operation of mechanized troops is very scummy, and tanks are only used as an auxiliary to infantry coordination.

Although the number of artillery pieces was much larger than that of the Germans, it was also inferior in power and range. In addition, the Air Force is even weaker, less than half of the German in number, and its performance is backward.

The overall idea of the French was purely defensive in nature, but it encountered a mechanized German baguette, the depth of the territory was not large, and coupled with the superiority of the German baguette in the air key, it is not surprising that it was sucked to death by a mountain in a stick draft.

Moreover, during World War II, the French were worried about the Maginot Line to the south, and happened to intercept the documents of the German attack from Belgium. Therefore, they felt that the Germans were nothing more than imitating the routine of the First World War, entering France through Belgium, and then the Anglo-French army placed heavy troops on the Belgian border.

But the Germans inserted directly from the Ardennes, a hill that the French thought was unsuitable for tank travel.

Then in Sedan, the Germans used the air force to give the French a vivid lesson in the doctrine of air superiority, telling them that it was useless to have a thick tank skin, and that bombing B in the air was the father (later the Americans also taught the Germans this lesson).

The German Panzer Division from the Ardennes cooperated with the German infantry in Belgium to make dumplings for the Anglo-French troops in the north. The Anglo-French coalition army, which had been cut off from the back, had become the eighth king in the jar at this time, and if there was no Dunkirk, it is estimated that all the explanations would be here.

Returning to the main question, the overall strength of the French Army was not weaker than that of the Germans. But the overall morale, training level, tactical thinking was far inferior to the German army. The generation difference in equipment is not much, but it is biased towards defensive nature, and in front of the doctrine of air superiority and armor in blitzkrieg, it is a life to be beaten.

Because they were unstable at that time, they returned. felt that Germany had destroyed Poland and expanded it to 4 weeks, which showed that they had a hidden killer feature, so the French soldiers were timid and did not dare to move forward bravely, and they were finally defeated by Germany.

France bet on Germany's offensive Lukes line. The Maginot Line can be said to have poured almost all of the French army's combat strength, but it is a pity that the Germans chose to ask Sun Yin to break through by another road, which caught the French who had no time to return by surprise.