The French Army in WWII

Panzercracker said:
Armored, motorised, armored-motorised, motorised cavalry, partially motorised cavalry.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, in beginning of WW2 only 2 countries had modern structurized armored divisions - Germany and USSR, while other countries still planned to use tanks not as independent arms but generally as direct infantry support, just like in WW1.
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not. I'm sure there are 420 vehicles (or motorised means of transportation), however I can not say for sure `trucks`.
 
From memory French indeed seemed stuck in WW1 mode trying to fight mainly with a static defence, major failing of most leaders to move on from this. Tanks as in most countries were to be used in infantry support role, hence most lacked radios making using them difficult. Otherwise though would say equipment outclassed Germans on the whole so pretty much the same boat as the Russians found themselves in at the start poor tactics. Will also agree they were very quick to fold this was even more obvious as fighting alongside the Brits who would hold the line.
 
The Germans or should I say Hitler had started rearmament as soon as he got into power. Britain, France and America were still worrying about the big depression which had ravaged their economies. Also there would have been a public out cry if they had started to rearm any earlier. Britain and France and to some part America were still very aware of the people that they lost in the WW1 and the Slogan a War To End All Wars. When WW2 Started both Britain and France where short on many different types of weapons and spent much of the war playing catch up with the Germans.
On top of that in many of the western countries the Generals running those Armies were reluctant to give up their horses for MT
 
As I see it, the biggest problems for Britain and France weren't economical ones, but the fact that they concentrated on the Maginot Line and Air Defense of the British Islands. Also, believing the Ardennes to be impassable for tanks proved to be fatal.
But in my opinion, what eventually broke the neck of the French defensive lines was the terrible incompetence of their generals (not all of them, but still too many). I already mentioned this in another thread (worst commander it was, I think), there were generals in the French military who were afraid of attacking 30 German tanks when they got about 300 tanks at hand themselves.
More than 4000 allied tanks and 5500 planes against ~2500 tanks and planes on the German side aren't bad odds at all, and most of the British and French tanks were superior to the German ones in terms of weaponry and armor (more than half of the German armored divisions consisted of the Panzer I & II models, which were really poorly armed with their MGs [Panzer I] and 20-mm guns [Panzer II]).
 
More than 4000 allied tanks and 5500 planes against ~2500 tanks and planes on the German side aren't bad odds at all, and most of the British and French tanks were superior to the German ones in terms of weaponry and Armour
Click to expand...

I'd like to see where you got these figures from, in terms of numbers at least I think the numbers of tanks were approximately equal. Their was a vast superiority in the German aircraft, most of the allies aircraft were obsolete.

My understanding is that the French came off slightly better in the initial exchanges between tanks but whereas the French then deserted the battlefield leaving their crippled tanks, the Germans repaired theirs.
 
perseus said:
I'd like to see where you got these figures from, in terms of numbers at least I think the numbers of tanks were approximately equal. Their was a vast superiority in the German aircraft, most of the allies aircraft were obsolete.

My understanding is that the French came off slightly better in the initial exchanges between tanks but whereas the French then deserted the battlefield leaving their crippled tanks, the Germans repaired theirs.
Click to expand...
German armor strength on 10 may 1940 :2439
French armor strength (noth East Front):3254
BEF armor strength (without the 1st armoured division ):310
Belgian army :27O
Dutch Army :40
Thus a quantitative allied superiority
Source :The Blitzkrieg legend (K.H. Frieser)

Aircraft (same source )
Germany:3578 combat aircraft
France :3097 (in France)
Brittain : 384(on the continent)
Belgium : 118
The Netherlands:72
Thus:a small allied superiority
Artillery:
Allies :13974
Germany :7378
 
sorry for faulty typing (Am very stressed these days ):French armor strength =on the North East Front .
 
Yes I think that represents the situation better, a slight superiority in allied armour although probably more equal on the front itself, but a distinct superiority of German airpower especially when the quality of the aircraft were taken into account, only 50 French aircraft were modern front line and much of the RAF were kept in the UK. Admittedly the French airforce made a poor showing even after allowing for this, and even the RAF were outclassed.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Yes I think that represents the situation better, a slight superiority in allied armour although probably more equal on the front itself, but a distinct superiority of German airpower especially when the quality of the aircraft were taken into account, only 50 French aircraft were modern front line and much of the RAF were kept in the UK. Admittedly the French airforce made a poor showing even after allowing for this, and even the RAF were outclassed.
Click to expand...

The French Airforce made a poor showing? The Germans lost over 1200 aircraft in the Battle of France. Thats over 20% of their entire air strength. The French mostly used the Hawk 75A but they had over 275 Dewoitine 520 which were comparable to the 109 Emil.

The first scrap the French Airforce was in against the Luftwaffe ended in 3 victories and no losses.
 
From what I've heard and read and seen, I think that the French clung their beliefs that from their experiences in WWI that defense is the best offense. However, in WWII, there were new innovations, upgrades, and plans and since the stationary defenses of France were in no shape to match the amazing agility and power of the German Panzers, they were dead.
 
Of those 384 operational aircraft a large chunk of the were Fairy Battles on which my father served, and he was scheduled to fly out on the raids on the Mers Bridges where the whole squadron was lost. He was stood down as he had a young family, ie me. It should also be remembered that the German pilots were Battle trained after spending a period of time in Spain and had developed tactics in Spain which they found handy in France as well.

Details of the Fairy Battle

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/fairbattle.html


.
 
Korean Seaboy said:
From what I've heard and read and seen, I think that the French clung their beliefs that from their experiences in WWI that defense is the best offense. However, in WWII, there were new innovations, upgrades, and plans and since the stationary defenses of France were in no shape to match the amazing agility and power of the German Panzers, they were dead.
Click to expand...

You know the funny thing about the Blitzkrieg was that its first real inventor of it was Napoleon Bonaparte (A Frenchmen) who used such tactics primary against the Germans and Austrians. The Germans took Napoleon's ideas and moderized them to incorporate tanks and aircraft and then used them against their creators.
 
Last edited:
The first one to use a mass tank attack behind a creeping barrage of artillery with aircraft going in to attack the trenches and any reserves making their way to the trenches was the British General called Roberts during WW1. Using this method he smashed the German lines and pushed them so far back that they then started to sue for peace. If any one had started a Blitzkrieg it was him
 
LeEnfield said:
The first one to use a mass tank attack behind a creeping barrage of artillery with aircraft going in to attack the trenches and any reserves making their way to the trenches was the British General called Roberts during WW1. Using this method he smashed the German lines and pushed them so far back that they then started to sue for peace. If any one had started a Blitzkrieg it was him
Click to expand...

Blitzkrieg isnt simply the use of tanks. Its simply the ability to move very fast in an organized way rather than a slow moving mob. And it was Napoleon who pioneered this because it was he who invented Corps. -The idea that an Army can be divided into smaller sizes armies with its own infantry, cavalry, artillery and support units. Each Corps operates independently but within a 24 hour march of each other allowing them to cover vast differences very quickly yet able to come to the aid if another corps runs into trouble. This is the very idea of Blitzkreig. Its exactly how Napoleon won battles like Austerlitz because his opponents (Austria and Russia) couldnt imagine that Napoleon would be able to move so fast.

In the 20th century, I give more credit to the Germans than the British on this because they were ones who took Napoleons original ideas further, by incorporating tanks and aircraft (blitzkrieg only works with air support) as the spearpoint of the attack.
 
mmarsh said:
The French Airforce made a poor showing? The Germans lost over 1200 aircraft in the Battle of France. Thats over 20% of their entire air strength. The French mostly used the Hawk 75A but they had over 275 Dewoitine 520 which were comparable to the 109 Emil.

The first scrap the French Airforce was in against the Luftwaffe ended in 3 victories and no losses.
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff mmarsh have you got the references for these? It is widely believed that the French made a poor showing. I'm aware of the Dewoitine and some compared it to the Spitfire, but how many of these were operational and entered into battle?

Of this 20% loss how many were actually shot down, or caused by wastage due to the various faults which are prevalent in a campaign
 
LeEnfield said:
Of those 384 operational aircraft a large chunk of the were Fairy Battles on which my father served, and he was scheduled to fly out on the raids on the Mers Bridges where the whole squadron was lost. He was stood down as he had a young family, ie me. It should also be remembered that the German pilots were Battle trained after spending a period of time in Spain and had developed tactics in Spain which they found handy in France as well.

Details of the Fairy Battle

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/fairbattle.html
Click to expand...

These were very brave men, as was your Father. I believe one pilot who was shot down got told off by the Germans for being so stupid for attacking days after they had taken the bridge and set up their AA guns! He had to agree!
 
MMarsh.....I have you ever read the the battles that General Rawlinson fought during 1918 when he put all what he had learned into practice. General Rawlinson got a lot of bad press over the Battle of the Somme, where Haig over ruled what he wanted to do yet left Rawlinson to carry the can for it's failure.
 
perseus said:
Interesting stuff mmarsh have you got the references for these? It is widely believed that the French made a poor showing. I'm aware of the Dewoitine and some compared it to the Spitfire, but how many of these were operational and entered into battle?

Of this 20% loss how many were actually shot down, or caused by wastage due to the various faults which are prevalent in a campaign
Click to expand...
From a post on AHF (alas,forgotten which one:oops: ):CL of the Luftwaffe in Fall Gelb and Fall Rot:
Combat aircraft :960 destroyed
Transport aircraft :275 destroyed
323 aircraft damaged
Personnel losses :
KIA :1355
WIA :1226
POW :715 (or 379 )I think the difference is the nyumber of POW liberated at the armistice (remember Galland )
 
Perseus

I got this http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-france#German

"The Luftwaffe virtually destroyed the Armée de l'Air during the campaign and inflicted heavy losses on the RAF contingent that was deployed. It is estimated the French lost 1,274 aircraft during the campaign, the British suffered losses of 959 (477 fighters).[82] The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed (1,129 to enemy action, 299 in accidents). A further 488 were damaged (225 to enemy action, 263 in accidents), making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively affected.[83][84]"

Footnotes are from Hooton, E.R. (2007). Luftwaffe at War; Blitzkrieg in the West. London: Chervron/Ian Allen.

**Note I could seperate German lossed brought down by AAA or by the RAF. So total combined includes everything. I dont think AAA counted for much because allied AAA wasnt much in 1940 though the RAF certain got a chuck of the total.

My Great-Uncle (who passed away last summer sadly at 87 years old) was a gunner/photographer on board a Potez 25 Reconnaissance Plane during the entire 1940 war. He used patrol over the German border during the "Phoney War", he said the Germans were good but no better than they or the RAF.

He also was rather greatful toward German flyers, as one time his reconnassaince plane got "lost" over Germany and two 109s actually escorted him and his pilot back over the border -without shooting them down. It was a very strange part of the war.


About the Dewoitine 520. When the Battle of France started the French actually had about 275 Dewoitines. Unfortunatly all but 75 were really at the front because as luck would have it the others are been recalled back to the factory to recieve a minor refit. The Dewoitine was slightly inferior to the Emil but not by much, it was about 30MPH slower. However the Dewoitine was more menuverable and better armed that the Emil (4x 7.5mm MG + 1x20mm Cannon vs 2x 7.7mm and 2x 20mm machine cannon. It was faster than the Hurricane MKI, but slower that the Spitfire MKI.

Still the Dewoitine was able to claim 108 kills before France capituated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top