WOW thats a lot of Mausers!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

Before the Beeb's coding took over the page there yesterday, I was trying to say that we should not be too quick to judge the French military of 1940. In fact many, probably most units fought hard and well - the German losses speak to that.

---

It was the French Prime Minister that lost France, not the French Army.
Reynaud phoned Churchill in the middle of May blabbering that France is lost.....so he'd given up by then, and had he allowed Gamelin's attack from the north to meet up with an attack from the south to cut of the German bulge, things "may" have been different.....instead he sacked Gamelin and replaced him with Weygand who's first priority was to get a good nights sleep and then have a jolly around Paris for a few days.........2 days the French and Allies couldn't afford to loose.
Even the Germans couldn't believe their luck in the Battle of France, many wrote afterwards that it could have been so different given the French and allied superiority in artillery and parity in all but aircraft numbers, and it was the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe/Army Blitzkrieg tactic that gave them that extra edge in a short time.

Mind you, my Uncle went to France with the BEF in 1939, and was one of the lucky ones to be evacuated at Dunkirk in 1940, and he never had much of a good word to say about the French army - he thought they were scruffy, smelly and ill disciplined...... :lol: but he was a pre-war regular, and ended up doing 22 years and finishing up as a WO2 by time he retired in 1959.

I guess they just were not ready for modern warfare. Mentally, from the point of view of their military doctrine, morally, and materially. They had some great pieces of equipment, but too little. They had good tanks, but used them piecemeal, they had slow reactions and were at that point a very divided nation. It was the whole picture that was blurred beyond repair.
I’m at the night from May 15 to 16 in the book, and the damage was already irreparable.

To be fair and to balance things up, (in fighting aside) the resistance fought bravely under the Nazi jackboot for 4 years, at a great cost in lives, assisting allied aircrew escape and providing intelligence/ attacking key targets etc and the growing number of Free French forces in Britain certainly made a good account of themselves when let lose on the Germans.

The issue in 1940 France, was one of poor leadership and slow reactions,Blitzkrieg took everyone by surprise...

To many in France, the thought of another war, only twenty years after 'the war to end all wars', with its massive French death toll, probably also coloured and slowed their response to a degree.

The Blitzkrieg had been developed starting in Spain and then unleashed in Poland.
After 8 months, the Allied should have known better what was coming their way. At least not claim they were surprised, because they had extremely accurate reports from own liaison officers and observers who saw what happened in Poland. They knew well, or could have if they had wanted to aknowledge the truth.
I think that this “misreading” of reality was the biggest sin of all after Munich.
It feels like both the French and the Brits didn’t want to face reality and thought that Germany would never beat the victors of WWI just because they were the victors.
But nothing more than that.
Plus the French were extremely divided due to political conflictuality and a very strong leftist push towards demilitarisation.
Also, Gamelin was leading from far behind, like most commanding generals, while Rommel and Guderian, just as examples, were among the first to cross the Meuse or with the spearheds of their units, thus being able to quickly react to any unexpected situations. And there were more than a few also for them.
In any case, very interesting battle, really. I love that book and, if it weren’t for the current situation at home that is leaving me thoroughly exhausted, I would have read it through already a week ago at least.

Well, heading back to Norwegian Mausers…… :)
As promised, as few photos of my 1940 Mauser-Borsigwalde produced K98k, originally issued to the Kriegsmarine and post WW2 to the Royal Norwegian Navy. A ‘g’ block number probably means it was made around May/June 1940 so didn’t go to Norway during the initial invasion of April 1940, and likely ended up there later on. Who knows, it may have even got there aboard the Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst etc.
Its all matching (even down to the original floor plate screws) with the exception of the bolt assembly and the butt plate. Bizarrely, the bolt assembly is very close in number being a similar high 9000 number, but in the next letter block, although lack of Waffenamt codes on everything other than the safety lever suggest a later than 1940 bolt? And also strangely, the butt plate is also a high 9000 number as well, but ‘o’ block, and is a ‘37’ code JP Sauer marked one, but probably 1939/40 timeframe so similar to the rifle. I suspect that maybe a post Norwegian service replacement though.

Attachment 111829Attachment 111830Attachment 111831Attachment 111832

That is a beauty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by usabaker

I'd help you

---

me too !!! :thup:

More big piles of Mausers and MG's etc., at the end of this short clip of film of German troops surrendering to British troops in May 1945.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIk8dS70uUQ

I can remember the stories my Dad told me of him doing exactly this when he was with the Royal Engineer's in Germany at the time of the German surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

Well, heading back to Norwegian Mausers…… :)
As promised, as few photos of my 1940 Mauser-Borsigwalde produced K98k, originally issued to the Kriegsmarine and post WW2 to the Royal Norwegian Navy. A ‘g’ block number probably means it was made around May/June 1940 so didn’t go to Norway during the initial invasion of April 1940, and likely ended up there later on. Who knows, it may have even got there aboard the Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst etc.
Its all matching (even down to the original floor plate screws) with the exception of the bolt assembly and the butt plate. Bizarrely, the bolt assembly is very close in number being a similar high 9000 number, but in the next letter block, although lack of Waffenamt codes on everything other than the safety lever suggest a later than 1940 bolt? And also strangely, the butt plate is also a high 9000 number as well, but ‘o’ block, and is a ‘37’ code JP Sauer marked one, but probably 1939/40 timeframe so similar to the rifle. I suspect that maybe a post Norwegian service replacement though.

Attachment 111829Attachment 111830Attachment 111831Attachment 111832

---

That's a beautiful K98.... Absolutely Superb!

See the last few seconds of the video the British lad had sorted himself out a decent looking German rifle slung over his shoulder :thup: