The French Army in WWII

To a large degree I think you are doing the French a disservice here as the French Military in WW2 generally performed extremely well with the exception of the German invasion of France where they were poorly led and using outmoded tactics/thinking for the time.
However if you look at the exploits of the Free French forces from 1941 - 1945 you will see a very different story, even if you look at the Vichy forces in Africa they put up far a far greater fight than was ever expected of them.

Personally I would be inclined at this point to say that France was beaten tactically in 1940 but it was not a true representation of the French ability to fight.

Not sure what this means:

"even if you look at the Vichy forces in Africa they put up far a far greater fight than was ever expected of them."

I guess if you mean the Vichy forces fighting the US for 3 days and allowing Rommel to establish a beach head in Tunisia a good fight, then you are correct. The Allies were hoping the Vichy wouldn't fight at all.



"Troops landing at Casablanca consisted of the I Armored Corps of three divisions under Maj. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., shipped directly from the United States, the only instance in World War II in which a force of more than division size was combat-loaded in United States ports for landing directly on a hostile beach. The forces landing near Oran and Algiers included the U.S. II Corps, Maj. Gen. Lloyd W. Fredendall commanding, with elements of three divisions.
During this operation a battalion of paratroopers made the first U.S. combat jump of the war.
The Allies achieved strategic surprise, but the operation was delayed by the French forces, who fought back in every case but one. By 11 November negotiations had succeeded both in ending French resistance and winning French cooperation, and an Allied column headed for Tunisia. Meanwhile, the Germans had moved into Tunisia in force by water from Sicily, and were able to stop the Allied drive short of the Tunisian capital (Tunis)."

source: http://www.worldwar2history.info/North-Africa/

I doubt the French see the Vichy actions in support of Germany as a plus.
 
Not sure what this means:

"even if you look at the Vichy forces in Africa they put up far a far greater fight than was ever expected of them."

I guess if you mean the Vichy forces fighting the US for 3 days and allowing Rommel to establish a beach head in Tunisia a good fight, then you are correct. The Allies were hoping the Vichy wouldn't fight at all.



"Troops landing at Casablanca consisted of the I Armored Corps of three divisions under Maj. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr., shipped directly from the United States, the only instance in World War II in which a force of more than division size was combat-loaded in United States ports for landing directly on a hostile beach. The forces landing near Oran and Algiers included the U.S. II Corps, Maj. Gen. Lloyd W. Fredendall commanding, with elements of three divisions.
During this operation a battalion of paratroopers made the first U.S. combat jump of the war.
The Allies achieved strategic surprise, but the operation was delayed by the French forces, who fought back in every case but one. By 11 November negotiations had succeeded both in ending French resistance and winning French cooperation, and an Allied column headed for Tunisia. Meanwhile, the Germans had moved into Tunisia in force by water from Sicily, and were able to stop the Allied drive short of the Tunisian capital (Tunis)."

source: http://www.worldwar2history.info/North-Africa/

I doubt the French see the Vichy actions in support of Germany as a plus.


Either way it was still French troops in action but originally I was thinking of French North Africa as a whole which includes the Allied invasion of Syria in 1941.

If we want to go further you can look at Free French actions in Italy where despite the focus on the Polish capture of Monte Cassino it was French mountain forces that actually broke the Gothic line making Monte Cassino and the Gothic line untenable.
There is a very good write up on Free French actions in a book called Cassino: The Hollow Victory - The Battle for Rome January-June 1944 by John Ellis.

I would however avoid it if you are a fan of Mark Clark as the writer clearly is not.
 
I have one thing to say about this..... french military vehicles only have 6 gears, 5 in reverse and 1 to go forward just in case they get attacked from behind hahahahahah
 
mmarsh said: Almost 90% of WWI was fought in France (and not in the UK or Germany which were almost unscathed). Over 1/3 the country was utterly devestated -raized flat. If you visit Verdun or Somme today there isnt a 1 meter flat piece of earth for miles, it is just littered with shellholes

i really like youre post mmarsh and you make some good points but please do not forget that ww1 was fought in Belgium to and we suffered greatly (civilian,Military and infrastructure). I do not want to wine but people always forget about that and as a Belgian myself and decendant of soldiers who fought in ww1 i feel obliged of mentioning it.
 
mmarsh said: Almost 90% of WWI was fought in France (and not in the UK or Germany which were almost unscathed). Over 1/3 the country was utterly devestated -raized flat. If you visit Verdun or Somme today there isnt a 1 meter flat piece of earth for miles, it is just littered with shellholes

i really like youre post mmarsh and you make some good points but please do not forget that ww1 was fought in Belgium to and we suffered greatly (civilian,Military and infrastructure). I do not want to wine but people always forget about that and as a Belgian myself and decendant of soldiers who fought in ww1 i feel obliged of mentioning it.

No your're absolutely right. I did say France but I really meant to include Belgium as well.
 
Last edited:
I had two Uncles on HMS Hartland who the French managed to kill. There were two ships from the RN that were sent in to Oran harbour a few hours after the Torch landings. Now Hams Hartland had about 300 American Marines on her decks when the French warships opened up on her with every thing they had blowing her out of the water and killing all the American troops on board. The second ship suffered much the same fate although the captain survived and was awarded the VC for his actions, except that the plane he was on taking him home was shot down and he was killed as well. Now it was reckoned that if these ships had entered the harbour at the same time as the landings then their mission would have been successfull but the planners thought the French would not oppose them and a lot of brave men died needlessly
 
I had two Uncles on HMS Hartland who the French managed to kill. There were two ships from the RN that were sent in to Oran harbour a few hours after the Torch landings. Now Hams Hartland had about 300 American Marines on her decks when the French warships opened up on her with every thing they had blowing her out of the water and killing all the American troops on board. The second ship suffered much the same fate although the captain survived and was awarded the VC for his actions, except that the plane he was on taking him home was shot down and he was killed as well. Now it was reckoned that if these ships had entered the harbour at the same time as the landings then their mission would have been successfull but the planners thought the French would not oppose them and a lot of brave men died needlessly

Yes they did. But that happened on both sides. My Great Uncle ship was Sunk by friendly RN Swordfish, and then got strafed in the Water by a RAF Blenheim which killed many of his comerades in the water. Needless to say, he doesnt have such a great admiration for the British.

Concerning the Torch landings, the Allies made a major blunder by letting the RN steam into Oran in 1942. You might recall that the RN shelled the French Fleet anchored at port of Algiers a 2 years earlier which killed 1300 French sailors in a unwarrented attack because they were (erronuously) afraid the French Fleet might fall into German hands (although the armistice signed with Germany specifically prohibited that, and the French Navy had no intention of letting their fleet be used by Hitler as was later discovered in Toulon). One really cannot fault the French Navy, who still felt betrayed, for seeing the same British Navy that attacked the exact same port 2 years earlier and not reasonibly expect them to defend themselves.

The allies made a tactical error in assuming the attack in 1940 had been forgotten. They should have defused the situation with the FN before attempting a landing. The made a agreement with Resistence fighters in ALgeria, but opted not to inform the French Government until they showed up with a Invasion fleet.
 
Last edited:
The shelling of the French fleet in 1940........Could Britain allow these ships to fall under German control. The French may have had to give these ships up if their arms were twisted enough by the Germans in France and if they had done this then the whole of Naval balance of power would have changed over night. Lets face it the French had signed away most things to Germans and were in a right defeatist mood. Now if the French had sailed these ships to a neutral port as requested this would not have happened.
 
Last edited:
The shelling of the French fleet in 1940........Could Britain allow these ships to fall under German control. The French may have had to give these ships up if their arms were twisted enough by the Germans in France and if they had done this then the whole of Naval balance of power would have changed over night. Lets face it the French had signed away most things to Germans and were in a right defeatist mood. Now if the French had sailed these ships to a neutral port as requested this would not have happened.
What neutral port? Spain would hardly be acceptable to G.B. In WWI a German Battleship & Cruiser sailed to neutral Turkey, just before they joined the Germans. S. America? Viewed as very pro German, @ 1 point the US Military was planning an invasion of Brazil.
 
What neutral port? Spain would hardly be acceptable to G.B. In WWI a German Battleship & Cruiser sailed to neutral Turkey, just before they joined the Germans. S. America? Viewed as very pro German, @ 1 point the US Military was planning an invasion of Brazil.

Which is odd given that Brazil was the only South American country to send troops to aid the Allies and declared war on Germany and Italy only 8 months after the United States and in fact stopped all diplomatic contact with the Axis in Jan 1942.
 
The shelling of the French fleet in 1940........Could Britain allow these ships to fall under German control. The French may have had to give these ships up if their arms were twisted enough by the Germans in France and if they had done this then the whole of Naval balance of power would have changed over night. Lets face it the French had signed away most things to Germans and were in a right defeatist mood. Now if the French had sailed these ships to a neutral port as requested this would not have happened.

First of all, the UK demand was that they sail directly into a ALLIED port, not a neutral one. And if they had done so in either case do you think the Luftwaffe would have just let them go? The Germans controlled the airspace, and they had no aircover of their own, nor was the RAF in position to help them either. So they where much safer staying were they were.

Secondly the British were flat-wrong in their belief that the French would hand their ships to the Germans. The French-German Armistice SPECIFICALLY forbade the French Navy being used by the Germans. And when the Germans attempted to seize the fleet in Toulon by force the French Navy scuttled them before letting them fall in Nazi hands. Proving the French never at any time had any notion of giving them to Germany.

And third of all, if the situation was reversed do you really think the RN would have simply handed their fleet to the French simply because they demanded it...I don't think so.
 
First of all, the UK demand was that they sail directly into a ALLIED port, not a neutral one. And if they had done so in either case do you think the Luftwaffe would have just let them go? The Germans controlled the airspace, and they had no aircover of their own, nor was the RAF in position to help them either. So they where much safer staying were they were.

Secondly the British were flat-wrong in their belief that the French would hand their ships to the Germans. The French-German Armistice SPECIFICALLY forbade the French Navy being used by the Germans. And when the Germans attempted to seize the fleet in Toulon by force the French Navy scuttled them before letting them fall in Nazi hands. Proving the French never at any time had any notion of giving them to Germany.

And third of all, if the situation was reversed do you really think the RN would have simply handed their fleet to the French simply because they demanded it...I don't think so.
Third of all:In the autumn of 194O Roosevelt asked Churchill that in case of a successfull German landing,the Royal Navy should leave the UK for the US;Churchill refusedsaying that in that case there would be an othet government that would use the R N to obtain better conditions for the Germans . Double standards ? And Churchill saying in public:"We will fighting on the beaches.......and if the worst should happen we will liberate the UK from Canada .." All bla bla bla.
 
Which is odd given that Brazil was the only South American country to send troops to aid the Allies and declared war on Germany and Italy only 8 months after the United States and in fact stopped all diplomatic contact with the Axis in Jan 1942.
Appearances & perceptions caused by Brazil(& most of latin america) buying rifles, ect., from Germany. Planning was secret & FDR overuled the military. Instead he decided to sell weapons to Brazil & Brazil behaved the way FDR hoped. The Army's reason for wanting to invade was to secure the US-Brazil-West Africa to England & the CBI Theater "Air Bridge".
 
the french

personaly i beleve the french were a little shall we say weak fist of all at the begining of ww2 we were asked if we could send some thompsons over to asist there stoops the day the guns arive they surrender in ww1 there machine guns sucked they jamed the troops through them at the germans at least that would do more damage than the rounds:biggun:
 
the french

personaly i beleve the french were a little shall we say weak first of all at the begining of ww2 we were asked if we could send some thompsons over to assist there stoops the day the guns arive they surrender. In ww1 there machine guns sucked they jamed the troops through them at the germans at least that would do more damage than the rounds:biggun:
 
The main reason of French fail in campaign of 1940 was because they were excellently prepared for another WW1 - they had almost unbreakable fortified line, capable of covering troops from artillery barrage, lines of supply and enough tanks, machine guns un howitzers.

French army discovered itself not ready for such war which was driven on them by Germans, in the means of transport. Actually, the units of modern WW2 armies were highly mobile, especially mechanized ones. All divisions had trucks and tractors in their structure. This is often forgot, when self-proclaimed history experts count number of tanks but forgot to do the same with trucks.

Actually, Red Army suffered the same problem in 1941. It is well known that Soviets had ~24 000 tanks, while Germans had only ~3500. However, if we count trucks, we seen totally different picture: at the beginning of that war German army had half million of trucks, while Soviets - 350 thousands (and that is total number of trucks in country; to use them for military needs request to take them from economy ar first and then transfer to army). As result of this, the large number of tanks couldn't be used with maximum effect - if tanks ran out of ammo or fuel, there were no enough trucks to supply it properly, and if tank broke, there were no enough mobile technical assistance.
 
The main reason of French fail in campaign of 1940 was because they were excellently prepared for another WW1 - they had almost unbreakable fortified line, capable of covering troops from artillery barrage, lines of supply and enough tanks, machine guns un howitzers.
French were capable of putting together more then 20 fast divisions, they were fully prepared for a mobile war.
French army discovered itself not ready for such war which was driven on them by Germans, in the means of transport. Actually, the units of modern WW2 armies were highly mobile, especially mechanized ones. All divisions had trucks and tractors in their structure. This is often forgot, when self-proclaimed history experts count number of tanks but forgot to do the same with trucks.
The French had over 130k trucks as opposed to 100k German trucks, also you tell me how an immobile Polish army of foot sloggers managed to draw Germans into a massive bloody battle of 650k troops on both sides yet the French who had on average 10x more of everything failed to engage and tie Germans on such a scale?

Equipment was not an issue in French defeat.
Actually, Red Army suffered the same problem in 1941. It is well known that Soviets had ~24 000 tanks, while Germans had only ~3500. However, if we count trucks, we seen totally different picture: at the beginning of that war German army had half million of trucks,while Soviets - 350 thousands (and that is total number of trucks in country
German army had around 140k trucks in 1941, Russian army around 120k.
As result of this, the large number of tanks couldn't be used with maximum effect - if tanks ran out of ammo or fuel, there were no enough trucks to supply it properly, and if tank broke, there were no enough mobile technical assistance.
The problem was there was no technical maintainance at all, not mobile or no, there were just no mechanics and workshops, no spare parts were produced etc, trucks were never an issue for Russia, rail transport was king.

As for the French, their failure came from lack of the will to fight, their soldiers were unwilling to die for their county, unwilling to make sacrifices in consequence resourcefulness, brave and other attributes required werent there.

Paradoxally Poland fell because it had the balls but no hardware, France fell because it had the hardware but no balls.
 
French were capable of putting together more then 20 fast divisions, they were fully prepared for a mobile war.
What do you mean by `fast division`? :)
The French had over 130k trucks as opposed to 100k German trucks [...] German army had around 140k trucks in 1941, Russian army around 120k.
Halder disagrees with these statements, as he wrote in his diary in March 20, 1940 the German Army has 420 000 trucks...
Equipment was not an issue in French defeat.
Not equipment as such, bet the organization on how it was deemed to be used.

However, I do not argue on `spirit argument` - French willingless to defend their country also mattered.
 
What do you mean by `fast division`? :)
Armored, motorised, armored-motorised, motorised cavalry, partially motorised cavalry.
Halder disagrees with these statements, as he wrote in his diary in March 20, 1940 the German Army has 420 000 trucks...
I'd have to take a peek since i'm writing from memory so i'll take it on faith however are you sure you didnt confuse it with all motorised vehicles in German army? Cars, bikes, trucks and halftrucks would be possible but building 300.000 trucks in a year is a bit much.
Not equipment as such, bet the organization on how it was deemed to be used.
Again overrated, Poles had the same organisation and regularly stopped german armored units with light AT assets alone heck Western Allies had the same kind of organisation all throught WW2.

Ultimately French had everything to put up a succesfull defence and then grind Wehrmacht to dust, i know i'm going to be accused of stereotyping but when discussing the 1940 campaign the primary reason for the French losing is their lack of guts, also putting up Russia is not really a good analogy.

Wehrmacht won against Poland because of the gigantic disparity in amount of equipment.

Against France because of huge disparity in morale and determination.

Against Russia because of huge difference in organisation quality.

Today we put strategies and tactics first but the fact is each of the three countries had at the time a different major weakness that could be exploited Blitzkrieg or not.
 
Back
Top