Why didn't Germany or Continental Europe develop big bore cartridges like the British did?

[IvW]

The Germans developed some of the finest hunting calibers availible......

 

[mark-hunter]

Yes I'm aware of the 500 Schuler but in general when you think big bore, dangerous game cartridges it's the British (and Americans) that come to mind. Sure Germany had the popular 9.3x62 but it's not quite in the same league as the following.

Germans lost the influence in 1918, after they lost the war and their African colonies.
This is also the time when golden era of safari started.
By that time, British colonial influence in Africa and India created most famous calibers for big game. Simply put, this happened to satisfy the need of hunting in their colonies.

While loosing the first world war may be excuse for Germans not developing other big game calibers, exception maybe 9.3x64 (1927) I cannot find the reason for other colonial powers not to develop their own sporting ammunition such as French gun industry, Portuguese, Belgians etc???

There is also, another point:
Historically, Europeans seam to be conservative in developing new calibers. In Europe, there are strict gun laws. million regulations, regulations about CIP gun proof and standardisation, etc. Now and then large companies develop something new, for something specific. But over all, very rare. And legal environment is almost impossible for a single rifle enthusiast to develop something new.

In America, there is 2/a, easier laws and no CIP proof system etc, all of which gives very good ground for developing wildcats. Big companies, and small workshops can easily attempt to make new design.
dozens of wildacts are created, dozens disappear and got forgotten, few remain and become commercial cartridges.
Those which remain, make their commercial presence.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, American influence to international market, especially after world war 2.

Recently I listened to an interview with local gun shop owner, he said: best selling calibers these days are: 308 win, 30-06, 300 win mag. The rest, much less.

Regarding the big game calibers:
Big game, dangeorus game hunting, takes insigificant part of hunting market. There is no incentive in creating something new. Basically the last development was creating short big bore magnums for american industry, to fit medium size action. African safari industry is mainly maintained by American clients, and I dont see too much incentive for modern Europe to develop some new big bore cartrdidge.

 

[Huvius]

Germans lost the influence in 1918, after they lost the war and their African colonies.
This is also the time when golden era of safari started.

I don't buy the WW1 loss argument.

500NE - 1890(?)
450NE - 1898
450-400 - 1902 (3-1/4" even before)
404 Jeff. - 1904
470NE - 1907
476 Westley - 1907
500/465 - 1907
425WR - 1908
416 Rigby - 1911

All developed and marketed well before WW1and all during the time that Germany was greatly involved and had colonies on the African Continent.
The golden era of Safari started about 1910 in my book.

 

[John Wasmuth]

You are going to need to explain this because I'm sure you are not talking about the Otto Bock who was a prosthestist and founded the company Ottobock in Germany in 1919. Otto Bock is a global leader in prosthetics, orthotics, and rehabilitation technology.

Herr Otto Bock was a gunsmith in Berlin. He developed, among other things, the 9,3x62 which was designed to work through M98 Mauser.

 

[mark-hunter]

I don't buy the WW1 loss argument.

Compare 9.3x64 and 375 H&H.
They are practically identical , except for tiny 0.2 mm difference in diameter.
.
But in majority of African countries, 375 H&H is legal minimum for dangerous game.
Why?
Legislative under British imperial influence, post WW1.
I think is good example.

 

[Huvius]

Compare 9.3x64 and 375 H&H.
They are practically identical , except for tiny 0.2 mm difference in diameter.
.
But in majority of African countries, 375 H&H is legal minimum for dangerous game.
Why?
Legislative under British imperial influence, post WW1.
I think is good example.

True, and a modern development, nothing to do with the OP question though.

 

[One Day...]

I think the French were focused on fashion and fine furniture

I meant the French industries were more focused on those than firearms

Hmmm....

History records that the French:

• were the ones who invented smokeless powder (Paul Vieille, 1884);
• were the first to adopt a modern repeating rifle firing a modern cartridge (Lebel rifle, 1886);
• were the first to develop a light infantry squad automatic weapon (Chauchat, 1915) -- do not fall for the purely American tale about its lack of reliability, it worked well enough with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge for which it was designed (although magazines were fragile), and it only had issues when the U.S. converted it to .30-06, a cartridge with a fundamentally different pressure curve*;
• adopted the 7.5x54 cartridge in 1929, which the 7.62x51 NATO (1957) essentially cloned (same bullet diameter - lands vs bore designation, indistinguishable ballistics, and indistinguishable field performance);
• etc. etc.

* the same story applies to the remarkable MAS 49 and subsequent 49-56 which operate flawlessly with the French cartridge and only had issues when surplus rifles were converted to .308 by Century Arms, and for the same reason by the way: ammo pressure curve.


I could go on with the absolutely autonomous and single-handed development of:

• the world-success Mirage III fighter that allowed Israel to dominate the middle East for decades;
• the current Rafale omnirole fighter - essentially the only serious competitor to the F35 on export markets although it is not designed to be a "stealth fighter";
• the Redoutable then Triomphant classes of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and their M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), smaller but on par with the Lafayette and Ohio classes;
• the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off, barrier arrested recovery) carrier in the world outside of the US Navy;
• the Meteor air to air missile with a no-escape zone almost twice that of the state-of-the-art American AMRAAM;
• the Caesar self-propelled howitzer, universally recognized as the best field gun in the Ukrainian theater;
• etc. etc.

Not bad for a small, fiercely independent and resolutely autonomous nation of only 60 million people and a GDP about 10% that of the United States...


Yes, yes, I know, I know, Germany soundly defeated France in WW II, but one should not be confused about why. France was not defeated because its equipment or soldiers were inferior, it was defeated by the stupidity of its WW I-inherited cadre of generals who dispersed all over France, Belgium and Holland 1,000 groups of 3 tanks, when Germany made a concentrated attack with 3 groups of 1,000 tanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best material (the tanks B1 B and Somua S35 were demonstrably superior to the Panzers II and III), and the bravery of the troops (the German themselves, to this day, honor those they fought in 1940), simply could not overcome an inept deployment doctrine............

Come to think of it, there are a few examples also in American history where troops and material quality could not compensate for command stupidity...

Do not throw the French baby with the bath water when it comes to military engineering and industries


Of course, there is this question about France becoming an Islamist Socialist Republic under the pressure of illegal immigration and marxist "elites" but this is another subject............................................

 

[Red Leg]

Hmmm....

History records that the French:

• were the ones who invented smokeless powder (Paul Vieille, 1884);
• were the first to adopt a modern repeating rifle firing a modern cartridge (Lebel rifle, 1886);
• were the first to develop a light infantry squad automatic weapon (Chauchat, 1915) -- do not fall for the purely American tale about its lack of reliability, it worked well enough with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge for which it was designed (although magazines were fragile), and it only had issues when the U.S. converted it to .30-06, a cartridge with a fundamentally different pressure curve*;
• adopted the 7.5x54 cartridge in 1929, which the 7.62x51 NATO (1957) essentially cloned (same bullet diameter - lands vs bore designation, indistinguishable ballistics, and indistinguishable field performance);
• etc. etc.

* the same story applies to the remarkable MAS 49 and subsequent 49-56 which operate flawlessly with the French cartridge and only had issues when surplus rifles were converted to .308 by Century Arms, and for the same reason by the way: ammo pressure curve.


I could go on with the absolutely autonomous and single-handed development of:

• the world-success Mirage III fighter that allowed Israel to dominate the middle East for decades;
• the current Rafale omnirole fighter - essentially the only serious competitor to the F35 on export markets although it is not designed to be a "stealth fighter";
• the Redoutable then Triomphant classes of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and their M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), smaller but on par with the Lafayette and Ohio classes;
• the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off, barrier arrested recovery) carrier in the world outside of the US Navy;
• the Meteor air to air missile with a no-escape zone almost twice that of the state-of-the-art American AMRAAM;
• the Caesar self-propelled howitzer, universally recognized as the best field gun in the Ukrainian theater;
• etc. etc.

Not bad for a small, fiercely independent and resolutely autonomous nation of only 60 million people and a GDP about 10% that of the United States...


Yes, yes, I know, I know, Germany soundly defeated France in WW II, but one should not be confused about why. France was not defeated because its equipment or soldiers were inferior, it was defeated by the stupidity of its WW I-inherited cadre of generals who dispersed all over France, Belgium and Holland 1,000 groups of 3 tanks, when Germany made a concentrated attack with 3 groups of 1,000 tanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best material (the tanks B1 B and Somua S35 were demonstrably superior to the Panzers II and III), and the bravery of the troops (the German themselves, to this day, honor those they fought in 1940), simply could not overcome an inept deployment doctrine............

Come to think of it, there are a few examples also in American history where troops and material quality could not compensate for command stupidity...

Do not throw the French baby with the bath water when it comes to military engineering and industries


Of course, there is this question about France becoming an Islamist Socialist Republic under the pressure of illegal immigration and marxist "elites" but this is another subject............................................

Let us also not forget Claude Etienne Minie whose bullet design consigned the musket and Napoleonic tactical formations to the ashcan of history.

 

[One Day...]

I don't buy the WW1 loss argument.

500NE - 1890(?)
450NE - 1898
450-400 - 1902 (3-1/4" even before)
404 Jeff. - 1904
470NE - 1907
476 Westley - 1907
500/465 - 1907
425WR - 1908
416 Rigby - 1911

All developed and marketed well before WW1and all during the time that Germany was greatly involved and had colonies on the African Continent.
The golden era of Safari started about 1910 in my book.

It seems that the answer to this very valid and relevant observation is the difference between invention and distribution.

Inventions took place pre-WW I, broad distribution took place post-WW I, typically 1920s and 1930s.

As history keeps teaching us, the victors write it, and those who wrote the East Africa safari history books were English speaking...

 

[hseII]

A question is also why my compatriots the French did not designed a big bore cartridge for hunting in our great colonial empire.

And I believe The French being the French they had no intention of doing so.

 

[hseII]

I think the French were focused on fashion and fine furniture

 

[CoElkHunter]

Let us also not forget that without France's military and financial backing we would not have won our Revolutionary War against England. Let us also not forget that without French soldiers valiantly fighting and stalling the Germans advance towards Dunkirk, the 338,000 French and British soldiers would not have been able to escape to Great Britain to fight another day. MANY French soldiers were killed and wounded defending Dunkirk, along with many taken prisoner. That could have been game over for GB in WW2 had that escape not happened. If we don't pay attention to history, we are doomed to repeat some of the worst parts of it.

 

[Wheels]

Germany actually had 4 colonies pre-1918..Tansania, Deutsch Südwest Afrika (Namibia), Kamerun and Togo. When they lost their colonies all caliber developement for Africa became redundant.

Germany also lost Rwanda, Burundi and a small part of what is now Mozambique in the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[cajunchefray]

Had Germany won the First World War, German East Africa (Tanzania) and German Southwest Africa (Namibia) would have remained German. Kenya and Uganda would almost certainly have been ceded to Germany as well. The interwar years were the period when Safari exploded in the West. However, under German control, American sportsmen travelling to any of the classic safari destinations would have been met by a PH named Hans or Jurgen rather than Phillip or Harry. Those PHs would have been carrying OU or bolt action rifles in heavy metric calibers. SxS British rifles and calibers would have become a historical oddity noted perhaps for their use in India.

Within this historical context, it’s also the economy. We should follow the money.
Imperial Germany advanced in heavy manufacturing and arms manufacturing prior to WW1.
Oberndorf Mauser Sporting Rifles were a fraction of German rifles for export.
German industry, Krupps Essen, DWM( with Mauser Werke A/G Oberndorf, FN Herstal and others) manufacturing 1000:1 military rifles versus sporting rifles, dominated the economy.
Just follow the money, and opportunity costs to market goods.

Following the end of WW1, and the Weimar Republic’s crushing inflation, German arms makers, making only sporting arms (in theory) could not sustain new product development.
Most of the great calibers were already developed ( sans the 11.7x73 Schuler).
With no colonies left in Africa, and no rich people to buy big game rifles, Weimar Germany focused on producing basic goods and services.
The 1933 Nazi era led to the re-industrialization of Germany, now the focus on weapons of war.

Big game rifles just didn’t have much of a place in the economy.

 

[cajunchefray]

Within this historical context, it’s also the economy. We should follow the money.
Imperial Germany advanced in heavy manufacturing and arms manufacturing prior to WW1.
Oberndorf Mauser Sporting Rifles were a fraction of German rifles for export.
German industry, Krupps Essen, DWM( with Mauser Werke A/G Oberndorf, FN Herstal and others) manufacturing 1000:1 military rifles versus sporting rifles, dominated the economy.
Just follow the money, and opportunity costs to market goods.

Following the end of WW1, and the Weimar Republic’s crushing inflation, German arms makers, making only sporting arms (in theory) could not sustain new product development.
Most of the great calibers were already developed ( sans the 11.7x73 Schuler).
With no colonies left in Africa, and no rich people to buy big game rifles, Weimar Germany focused on producing basic goods and services.
The 1933 Nazi era led to the re-industrialization of Germany, now the focus on weapons of war.

Big game rifles just didn’t have much of a place in the economy.

Correction:
12.7x70mm Schuler, later transcribed as .500 Jeffery.

 

[Red Leg]

Within this historical context, it’s also the economy. We should follow the money.
Imperial Germany advanced in heavy manufacturing and arms manufacturing prior to WW1.
Oberndorf Mauser Sporting Rifles were a fraction of German rifles for export.
German industry, Krupps Essen, DWM( with Mauser Werke A/G Oberndorf, FN Herstal and others) manufacturing 1000:1 military rifles versus sporting rifles, dominated the economy.
Just follow the money, and opportunity costs to market goods.

Following the end of WW1, and the Weimar Republic’s crushing inflation, German arms makers, making only sporting arms (in theory) could not sustain new product development.
Most of the great calibers were already developed ( sans the 11.7x73 Schuler).
With no colonies left in Africa, and no rich people to buy big game rifles, Weimar Germany focused on producing basic goods and services.
The 1933 Nazi era led to the re-industrialization of Germany, now the focus on weapons of war.

Big game rifles just didn’t have much of a place in the economy.

I am not debating that point. My thesis is based on Germany and Austria winning the war rather than Great Britain - and France, the US, Italy and Japan. They didn't. But in that alternative universe where the Central Powers did emerge victorious, the development of dangerous game rifles and the rounds they fired would have been quite different.

 

[cajunchefray]

I am not debating that point. My thesis is based on Germany and Austria winning the war rather than Great Britain - and France, the US, Italy and Japan. They didn't. But in that alternative universe where the Central Powers did emerge victorious, the development of dangerous game rifles and the rounds they fired would have been quite different.

I agree.

Certainly did not intend to debate, rather just add an economic element to this discussion.

If the Central Powers did emerge victorious, I can’t imagine the world we would live in today.
Yes, our PHs names would be so different, and learning a few German phrases would be important.
But I still like Mauser 98 rifles.

 

[Pondoro]

Hmmm....

History records that the French:

• were the ones who invented smokeless powder (Paul Vieille, 1884);
• were the first to adopt a modern repeating rifle firing a modern cartridge (Lebel rifle, 1886);
• were the first to develop a light infantry squad automatic weapon (Chauchat, 1915) -- do not fall for the purely American tale about its lack of reliability, it worked well enough with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge for which it was designed (although magazines were fragile), and it only had issues when the U.S. converted it to .30-06, a cartridge with a fundamentally different pressure curve*;
• adopted the 7.5x54 cartridge in 1929, which the 7.62x51 NATO (1957) essentially cloned (same bullet diameter - lands vs bore designation, indistinguishable ballistics, and indistinguishable field performance);
• etc. etc.

* the same story applies to the remarkable MAS 49 and subsequent 49-56 which operate flawlessly with the French cartridge and only had issues when surplus rifles were converted to .308 by Century Arms, and for the same reason by the way: ammo pressure curve.


I could go on with the absolutely autonomous and single-handed development of:

• the world-success Mirage III fighter that allowed Israel to dominate the middle East for decades;
• the current Rafale omnirole fighter - essentially the only serious competitor to the F35 on export markets although it is not designed to be a "stealth fighter";
• the Redoutable then Triomphant classes of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and their M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), smaller but on par with the Lafayette and Ohio classes;
• the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off, barrier arrested recovery) carrier in the world outside of the US Navy;
• the Meteor air to air missile with a no-escape zone almost twice that of the state-of-the-art American AMRAAM;
• the Caesar self-propelled howitzer, universally recognized as the best field gun in the Ukrainian theater;
• etc. etc.

Not bad for a small, fiercely independent and resolutely autonomous nation of only 60 million people and a GDP about 10% that of the United States...


Yes, yes, I know, I know, Germany soundly defeated France in WW II, but one should not be confused about why. France was not defeated because its equipment or soldiers were inferior, it was defeated by the stupidity of its WW I-inherited cadre of generals who dispersed all over France, Belgium and Holland 1,000 groups of 3 tanks, when Germany made a concentrated attack with 3 groups of 1,000 tanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best material (the tanks B1 B and Somua S35 were demonstrably superior to the Panzers II and III), and the bravery of the troops (the German themselves, to this day, honor those they fought in 1940), simply could not overcome an inept deployment doctrine............

Come to think of it, there are a few examples also in American history where troops and material quality could not compensate for command stupidity...

Do not throw the French baby with the bath water when it comes to military engineering and industries


Of course, there is this question about France becoming an Islamist Socialist Republic under the pressure of illegal immigration and marxist "elites" but this is another subject............................................

You are quite right about this.. Who came to Narvik in 1940..? The Royal Navy..the british army, french mountain troops and Légion Etrangère and the free polish army..!

And today.. France is probably the only european country able to deploy a major force to a distant state.. Look up for instance Operation Serval in Mali..

 

[Rosch]

Germania, as identified by Julius Caesar, has existed as geo/ethnic region for at least two millennia. However, Germany, as a nation state/empire rather than a collection of principalities. did not emerge until the 18th of January 1871. The creation of Germany as an actual nation was the crowning achievement of Otto Von Bismarck. However, I doubt that had much to do with firearms development, because Prussia and Suhl had been a primary developer and innovator for centuries.

I think this is pretty simple. Caliber development and the firearms to shoot them are a function of need and use. With the loss of its African colonies in 1918 and their new administration by the UK, development of ammunition and the rifles to use it tailored for dangerous game lost its emphasis in Germany and Austria. The subsequent focus of those developers was the military and European game animals - for which the 9.3 is a superb "heavy."

Had the outcome of the war been different, it would have been Germany who welcomed foreign hunters to Africa during the golden years of safari between the two world wars. The UK likely would have had no colony at all on the African continent. English calibers and the quaint doubles that fired them would have been a footnote to that story.

Well thought and I think very close to the point!

 

[Grumpy gumpy]

As to the French inventions, look no further than the stoner ar15 bolt, almost an exact copy of a French bolt from, I believe, the 1920’s

Hmmm....

History records that the French:

• were the ones who invented smokeless powder (Paul Vieille, 1884);
• were the first to adopt a modern repeating rifle firing a modern cartridge (Lebel rifle, 1886);
• were the first to develop a light infantry squad automatic weapon (Chauchat, 1915) -- do not fall for the purely American tale about its lack of reliability, it worked well enough with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge for which it was designed (although magazines were fragile), and it only had issues when the U.S. converted it to .30-06, a cartridge with a fundamentally different pressure curve*;
• adopted the 7.5x54 cartridge in 1929, which the 7.62x51 NATO (1957) essentially cloned (same bullet diameter - lands vs bore designation, indistinguishable ballistics, and indistinguishable field performance);
• etc. etc.

* the same story applies to the remarkable MAS 49 and subsequent 49-56 which operate flawlessly with the French cartridge and only had issues when surplus rifles were converted to .308 by Century Arms, and for the same reason by the way: ammo pressure curve.


I could go on with the absolutely autonomous and single-handed development of:

• the world-success Mirage III fighter that allowed Israel to dominate the middle East for decades;
• the current Rafale omnirole fighter - essentially the only serious competitor to the F35 on export markets although it is not designed to be a "stealth fighter";
• the Redoutable then Triomphant classes of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and their M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), smaller but on par with the Lafayette and Ohio classes;
• the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off, barrier arrested recovery) carrier in the world outside of the US Navy;
• the Meteor air to air missile with a no-escape zone almost twice that of the state-of-the-art American AMRAAM;
• the Caesar self-propelled howitzer, universally recognized as the best field gun in the Ukrainian theater;
• etc. etc.

Not bad for a small, fiercely independent and resolutely autonomous nation of only 60 million people and a GDP about 10% that of the United States...


Yes, yes, I know, I know, Germany soundly defeated France in WW II, but one should not be confused about why. France was not defeated because its equipment or soldiers were inferior, it was defeated by the stupidity of its WW I-inherited cadre of generals who dispersed all over France, Belgium and Holland 1,000 groups of 3 tanks, when Germany made a concentrated attack with 3 groups of 1,000 tanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best material (the tanks B1 B and Somua S35 were demonstrably superior to the Panzers II and III), and the bravery of the troops (the German themselves, to this day, honor those they fought in 1940), simply could not overcome an inept deployment doctrine............

Come to think of it, there are a few examples also in American history where troops and material quality could not compensate for command stupidity...

Do not throw the French baby with the bath water when it comes to military engineering and industries


Of course, there is this question about France becoming an Islamist Socialist Republic under the pressure of illegal immigration and marxist "elites" but this is another subject............................................

Hmmm....

History records that the French:

• were the ones who invented smokeless powder (Paul Vieille, 1884);
• were the first to adopt a modern repeating rifle firing a modern cartridge (Lebel rifle, 1886);
• were the first to develop a light infantry squad automatic weapon (Chauchat, 1915) -- do not fall for the purely American tale about its lack of reliability, it worked well enough with the 8 mm Lebel cartridge for which it was designed (although magazines were fragile), and it only had issues when the U.S. converted it to .30-06, a cartridge with a fundamentally different pressure curve*;
• adopted the 7.5x54 cartridge in 1929, which the 7.62x51 NATO (1957) essentially cloned (same bullet diameter - lands vs bore designation, indistinguishable ballistics, and indistinguishable field performance);
• etc. etc.

* the same story applies to the remarkable MAS 49 and subsequent 49-56 which operate flawlessly with the French cartridge and only had issues when surplus rifles were converted to .308 by Century Arms, and for the same reason by the way: ammo pressure curve.


I could go on with the absolutely autonomous and single-handed development of:

• the world-success Mirage III fighter that allowed Israel to dominate the middle East for decades;
• the current Rafale omnirole fighter - essentially the only serious competitor to the F35 on export markets although it is not designed to be a "stealth fighter";
• the Redoutable then Triomphant classes of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and their M51 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), smaller but on par with the Lafayette and Ohio classes;
• the nuclear powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, the only CATOBAR (catapult-assisted take-off, barrier arrested recovery) carrier in the world outside of the US Navy;
• the Meteor air to air missile with a no-escape zone almost twice that of the state-of-the-art American AMRAAM;
• the Caesar self-propelled howitzer, universally recognized as the best field gun in the Ukrainian theater;
• etc. etc.

Not bad for a small, fiercely independent and resolutely autonomous nation of only 60 million people and a GDP about 10% that of the United States...


Yes, yes, I know, I know, Germany soundly defeated France in WW II, but one should not be confused about why. France was not defeated because its equipment or soldiers were inferior, it was defeated by the stupidity of its WW I-inherited cadre of generals who dispersed all over France, Belgium and Holland 1,000 groups of 3 tanks, when Germany made a concentrated attack with 3 groups of 1,000 tanks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The very best material (the tanks B1 B and Somua S35 were demonstrably superior to the Panzers II and III), and the bravery of the troops (the German themselves, to this day, honor those they fought in 1940), simply could not overcome an inept deployment doctrine............

Come to think of it, there are a few examples also in American history where troops and material quality could not compensate for command stupidity...

Do not throw the French baby with the bath water when it comes to military engineering and industries


Of course, there is this question about France becoming an Islamist Socialist Republic under the pressure of illegal immigration and marxist "elites" but this is another