The French Army in WWII

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

Would this mean that the Germans used Concentration of Force to achieve an objective?

Let's remember that the German forces had a more focussed strategic aim, whereas the nascent allies had to hold the line - as any commander knows holding the ground for grounds sake is not a good way to win a battle or war - Offensive action and spirit are what is needed.
 
Would this mean that the Germans used Concentration of Force to achieve an objective?

Let's remember that the German forces had a more focussed strategic aim, whereas the nascent allies had to hold the line - as any commander knows holding the ground for grounds sake is not a good way to win a battle or war - Offensive action and spirit are what is needed.
Of course,they used concentration of force (Schwertepunkt )
On AHF,I am discussing the aims and results of Sichelschnitt ,and my conviction is that the aims and -possible- results of Sichelschnitt were the same as these of the German spring offensive of 1918 :as long as France and the UK were united,they were invincible :as long as there was a British army on the Frencg territorynFrance would fight on;but,if the BEF was eliminated,France woulfd give up:this was the aim of Sichelschnitt (but all this is of topic:cool: ).
 
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.
Interesting story
 
It should be remembered that the Free French fought well in North Africa, and it was the Free French that broke the line at Monte Casino. The difference was they were better led this time and better equipped.
When the Germans out flanked the French on the Maginot line then there was little or no communications between the French High Command and the troops under them and they just got cut off and destroyed
 
The problems with sending more fighter squadrons to France was that the Germans were over running the airfields with such speed we did not have a secure base to operate from in France
 
French Airforce/Army cooperation

It seems, from what I've read, that the French airforce was reasonably well equipped - as the army with good modern tanks - but that there was a problem
of communication between the forces.
The Airforce flew very few sorties (never more than 2 a day, sometimes 1 every 2 days, but they seem to have destroyed may German planes, and generally
achieved their goals quite well. However, attempts at ground support were
usually cancelled because the army did not give the time and location of their
operations.
The old bombers (apparently built as flying gunboats), were also quite successful on the missions they flew.
I would draw the conclusion that the French high command had no real notion
of the tool they had, in the Airforce, also internecine rivalry between the Army and Airforce had it's role.
In conclusion it seems that the correct training was never in place, for any kind of combined operations, which severely limited the French attempts at countering the fast, well orchestrated German attack.
As far as the quality of the pilots, they would seem to have been of a very high standard.
 
All true but to a large degree this was because they were still fighting WW1, they were thrown well and truly out of their comfort zone by the German plan and never managed to put together an alternative in time to save themselves.

As far as military's go the French were not as bad as history has made them out to be and as has been pointed out in later years they were a very good force but they were unprepared to fight the war the Germans thrust on them.
 
It seems, from what I've read, that the French army with good modern tanks -
That's what is said, the Char B, but it seems the Germans had little sucsess in battle with most captured French tanks vs other captured types.
 
German attack - moral perpective

OK, so we get to the point where the French could never have won. What I'd like to do now is turn around 90 degrees, and ask should they?
OK look at it like this, the crazy neighbours have been quiet for 20 years, I've got an 8 foot chain link around the entire property, I'm asleep in bed at 3.45 am,
and they come in through the wall in an armoured truck, laying down automatic
heavy caliber - boy! I may go down the range, work out, but nothing prepared me for this! I guess that's what it was like for those guys!

Or put it this way, I'd have had to be a little obsessive to even be that prepared (God bless Winston by the way, or what language would we be speaking?) - And by the way, they didn't start the first one, did they? 1.1 million dead?

Just a pacifists point of view, but hey, someone has to start it :)
 
Char B maintinance

I believe the Germans may have had issues keeping them going.
German engineers in those days did not know the French system, French engineers not always doing their best...
 
The French should have listenend to DeGaulle instead of the old WWI generals.
They needed someone with up to date thinking that could have made sweeping changes, Kinda like when the Royal Navy retired a bunch of antiquated Admirals & brought in Jackie Fischer who did the Dreadnought & changed the world's navies.
 
The Somua S35, though fast enough, suffered from having no turret hatch (the Germans later fitted them) and poor reliability. They were committed to early, and were strategically bluffed into falling for a faint. The large amount of chasing about to get back into position that ensued saw most of them broken down.
 
There were a lot of tactical and strategic factors which cloud the issue. If anything the French got the better of the early tank battles, however the French didn't attempt to retreive damaged tanks off the battlefield, wereas many of the German tanks were repaired using mobile workshops.

Another factor was the relatively complex French logistical system which required seperate specialised fuel transporters. The Germans just stole gasoline from civilian fuelling stations using jerrycans!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top