The French Army in WWII
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
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.
mmarsh
Active member
Oh boy its going to be along night... I was a history major in college guess what I wrote my senior thesis on??? Ill keep it short...
The Loss of France in WWII really goes back to the victory WWI.
1. In WWI France lost 1.1 Million men in KIA alone. Let me explain just how significant that is. In every village, town, and city there is at least one memorial to those townspeople killed in WWI. The names onscribed can be as few as a dozen to thousands.
2. 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.
With that in mind, nobody in France could ever imagine that there would be another World War, and more to the point nobody in France could imagine that Germany would want one either, as the Germans had lost a similar amount of KIA. The Allies failed to understand two things, first that German was humiliated by the defeat and at the terms of Versailles and that they wanted revenge more than they wanted peace. The Germans had been forced to disband their military, but the architechs of the war machine were still free. Meaning the Germans werent as weak as the allies thought they were, and the Germans started to make plans...
One of the greatest failures of the French military was the low caliber of their general staff. While the Germans, Americans, (and to a degree British) were experimenting in innovation, these dinosaurs were still clinging on to the old system of warfare that handnt changed much since Napoleon. The funny thing was that the Two best French Generals Foch and Petain won in WWI because they were willing to try new things other than standard frontal infantry charge. The person that really invented Blitzkreig was in fact Napoleon himself, while the Germans learned Napoleon lesson of speed and menuverability, the French stook to the dark ages notions of strong static defense, the very thing Napoleon was an expert in defeating. This meant that every tactic, every weapon, every asset was focused on defense. Infantry were to be deployed to defend the border in defensive positions, tanks were designed to support the infantry. etc.
The idea that the German would completely outflank them in the Ardennes was a shock, but its exactly what the corsican emporer would have done. My grandfather (the reason I chose my thesis) was a Chasseur Alpine (the guys who wore the funny barets) roughly equivilant to our 10th Mountain Division. He was stationed at the Maginot Line in 1940, he never even got a shot off, so fast was the German encirclement.
The Loss of France in WWII really goes back to the victory WWI.
1. In WWI France lost 1.1 Million men in KIA alone. Let me explain just how significant that is. In every village, town, and city there is at least one memorial to those townspeople killed in WWI. The names onscribed can be as few as a dozen to thousands.
2. 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.
With that in mind, nobody in France could ever imagine that there would be another World War, and more to the point nobody in France could imagine that Germany would want one either, as the Germans had lost a similar amount of KIA. The Allies failed to understand two things, first that German was humiliated by the defeat and at the terms of Versailles and that they wanted revenge more than they wanted peace. The Germans had been forced to disband their military, but the architechs of the war machine were still free. Meaning the Germans werent as weak as the allies thought they were, and the Germans started to make plans...
One of the greatest failures of the French military was the low caliber of their general staff. While the Germans, Americans, (and to a degree British) were experimenting in innovation, these dinosaurs were still clinging on to the old system of warfare that handnt changed much since Napoleon. The funny thing was that the Two best French Generals Foch and Petain won in WWI because they were willing to try new things other than standard frontal infantry charge. The person that really invented Blitzkreig was in fact Napoleon himself, while the Germans learned Napoleon lesson of speed and menuverability, the French stook to the dark ages notions of strong static defense, the very thing Napoleon was an expert in defeating. This meant that every tactic, every weapon, every asset was focused on defense. Infantry were to be deployed to defend the border in defensive positions, tanks were designed to support the infantry. etc.
The idea that the German would completely outflank them in the Ardennes was a shock, but its exactly what the corsican emporer would have done. My grandfather (the reason I chose my thesis) was a Chasseur Alpine (the guys who wore the funny barets) roughly equivilant to our 10th Mountain Division. He was stationed at the Maginot Line in 1940, he never even got a shot off, so fast was the German encirclement.
mmarsh
Active member
There is actually more too it than that. Another big was the continual labor strikes during the late 1930s and 1940.
Hitler and Stalin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovosk. Which basically said that each would lend a hand to the other. At that time the labor unions were all run by the communists who took their orders directly from Moscow. There was almost constant disruption in the war industry during the 1930s so much that the French Government actually had to use troops to quell it temporarily.
After Hitler Launched Blitzkreig against the west in 1940, Stalin wanted to stay in Hitlers good graces, ao he ordered a massive labor strike in France espicially in the Saar region where all the coal mining takes place. This meant that all war manufacturing and all transportation ground to a stop as their was a fuel shortage for industry and the railroads.
My grandparents hated the communists ever since, because of them they were forced to endure 5 years of Nazi occupation. Of course when Hitler attacked Russia, Stalin ordered the French communists to resist as much as they could. Which is why the French resistence was made up of so many communists. After the war, French communists realized they had been used and abandoned to their fate by Stalin and while they remained communists the severed Moscow's control over them.
Hitler and Stalin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovosk. Which basically said that each would lend a hand to the other. At that time the labor unions were all run by the communists who took their orders directly from Moscow. There was almost constant disruption in the war industry during the 1930s so much that the French Government actually had to use troops to quell it temporarily.
After Hitler Launched Blitzkreig against the west in 1940, Stalin wanted to stay in Hitlers good graces, ao he ordered a massive labor strike in France espicially in the Saar region where all the coal mining takes place. This meant that all war manufacturing and all transportation ground to a stop as their was a fuel shortage for industry and the railroads.
My grandparents hated the communists ever since, because of them they were forced to endure 5 years of Nazi occupation. Of course when Hitler attacked Russia, Stalin ordered the French communists to resist as much as they could. Which is why the French resistence was made up of so many communists. After the war, French communists realized they had been used and abandoned to their fate by Stalin and while they remained communists the severed Moscow's control over them.
The Titanic was a great ship untill it sank on its 1st voyage.:shock:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
benakaatz, you're taking a lot of the technologies available now for granted. Back then, operations like these took months to prepare but the forces at the Maginot Line were effectively cut off from all their supplies. It was over. I would have suspected that the Army would have starved before they could actually get going.
Also, as Mmarsh pointed out, there wasn't a whole lot of creativity in the French leadership.
Great post Mmarsh.
Also, as Mmarsh pointed out, there wasn't a whole lot of creativity in the French leadership.
Great post Mmarsh.
mmarsh
Active member
Two reasons, first the encirclement happened so fast that their was no time to react, and secondly when they realized they were trapped all CnC became total chaos. Imagine the encircement of 6th Army at Stalingrad, only done much faster.
To be honest, if they had resisted they would have been slaughtered, and it still wouldnt have changed the result. Surrender was probably the best option. Remember the French thought of the German Army in WWII as they did in WWI, basicially the Aristocrat Prussian Military Class not the absolute savages that the Nazis were.. They hadnt met the Nazis, SS and the Gastapo until after the occupation.
The Nazis did things that no WWI Prussian Officer would have ever dreamt about.
Last edited:
perseus
Active member
I believe if the French could have made an intact retreat back to the Somme they would have drawn the Germans into a stalemate or inflicted such damages on them they wouldn't have been in a fit state to attack Russia for some time. The initial tank battle actually went in France's favour but they retreated and left their damaged tanks on the battlefield whereas the Germans repaired theirs. The remaining French Armies actually put up a decent defence in early June but at that stage their defeat was almost inevitable.
I suspect the main German thrust could have been stopped or substantially slowed in it's tracks given a few booby traps and mines in the Ardennes but they waited behind the river and canal barriers.
I suspect the main German thrust could have been stopped or substantially slowed in it's tracks given a few booby traps and mines in the Ardennes but they waited behind the river and canal barriers.
Doppleganger
Active member
The French military doctrine in WW2 was one of defence, ever since their experiences of WW1 and to a lesser degree, their defeat at the hands of the Prussians in 1870, where Bismarck announced a united Germany for the first time in history. Hence the reason for the Maginot Line that mmarsh has already mentioned.
Actually, it was in 1939 where this failing was most noticeable. When the Germans were invading Poland their western frontier was only defending by a light screening of around 25 divisions, most of which were poorly equipped and with 2nd echelon troops. German General Siegfried Westphal estimated that the French could have reached the Rhine in two weeks if they had tried. However, the French General Staff lacked ambition, foresight and leadership. To cut a very long story short they lacked the stomach for a fight with Germany, borne out of past experiences. They forgot the old maxim; that offence is often the best form of defence. They actually did mount an offensive called Operation Saar but this ended up being a total fiasco.
http://www.historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
The French Army in 1939 was one of the largest, best-trained armies on the planet. It had some of the best tanks in the world but had not kept up with the fast moving developments in armoured warfare. They tended to use their tanks piecemeal as infantry support weapons instead of grouping them together in an armoured fist as the Germans did. So despite them having better tanks the manner in which they used them, coupled with the over reliance on defence, meant that the Germans were quickly able to outflank and outmaneuver them.
The French Army in 1939 could have ended the war right there and then. The Wehrmacht was committed in Poland and any determined French invasion of Germany at that time would have spelt disaster for Hitler. They missed their big opportunity to affect the outcome of WW2 and consequently the French faced invasion once again in 1940 where, simply put, they were simply outhustled, outfought and outgeneraled.
Actually, it was in 1939 where this failing was most noticeable. When the Germans were invading Poland their western frontier was only defending by a light screening of around 25 divisions, most of which were poorly equipped and with 2nd echelon troops. German General Siegfried Westphal estimated that the French could have reached the Rhine in two weeks if they had tried. However, the French General Staff lacked ambition, foresight and leadership. To cut a very long story short they lacked the stomach for a fight with Germany, borne out of past experiences. They forgot the old maxim; that offence is often the best form of defence. They actually did mount an offensive called Operation Saar but this ended up being a total fiasco.
http://www.historynet.com/operation-saar-a-lost-opportunity-september-99-world-war-ii-feature.htm
The French Army in 1939 was one of the largest, best-trained armies on the planet. It had some of the best tanks in the world but had not kept up with the fast moving developments in armoured warfare. They tended to use their tanks piecemeal as infantry support weapons instead of grouping them together in an armoured fist as the Germans did. So despite them having better tanks the manner in which they used them, coupled with the over reliance on defence, meant that the Germans were quickly able to outflank and outmaneuver them.
The French Army in 1939 could have ended the war right there and then. The Wehrmacht was committed in Poland and any determined French invasion of Germany at that time would have spelt disaster for Hitler. They missed their big opportunity to affect the outcome of WW2 and consequently the French faced invasion once again in 1940 where, simply put, they were simply outhustled, outfought and outgeneraled.
mmarsh
Active member
Doppleganger is correct...
The French could have beaten the Germans, their campaign was one of missed opportunties, bad decisions, and obsolete ways of thinking of the part of the leaders. But there was nothing inheritatly wrong with the French Army itself.
They had more planes, better tanks, and well trained men. The Char 1bis and the Somua S-35 were much better than the Pz II+III+IVD (the early infantry version). Had they grouped them together into the Panzergruppen as the Germans did, History could have taken a much different (and better course).
Also remember the the French were not alone, the BEF suffered the same mistakes the French did. The advantage that the British had of course was that their little patch of soil happens to be on a very difficult to invade Island which they were able to evacuate to, and learn from their mistakes.
I also agree with what Perseus said.
The French Government surrendered, the entire Army never did. They would have lost Paris, but that was a forgone conclusion. They could have made a stand in the mountains in center France. The French had reserves in Southern France covering the Italian border, if they had pulled their remaining divisions into Center France (like Auvegne) they could have made the Germans lifes very hard. As the US found out in Italy and the Pacific, Mountain fighting is best left for the infantry. The Mountain Roads in Auvergne are very dangerous, definatly too Narrow and steep for Tanks. Also mountains over good protection for both Arty and Airpower. So the Germans would have had to use their landsers, and the French would have had a defensive advantage and possibly a numerical one as well as the Germans would have had to bled off troops to occupy the parts they controlled.
Unfortunatly we will never know, the French government couldnt bare the thought of losing Paris and decided to throw in the towel once it was clear it was lost.
The French could have beaten the Germans, their campaign was one of missed opportunties, bad decisions, and obsolete ways of thinking of the part of the leaders. But there was nothing inheritatly wrong with the French Army itself.
They had more planes, better tanks, and well trained men. The Char 1bis and the Somua S-35 were much better than the Pz II+III+IVD (the early infantry version). Had they grouped them together into the Panzergruppen as the Germans did, History could have taken a much different (and better course).
Also remember the the French were not alone, the BEF suffered the same mistakes the French did. The advantage that the British had of course was that their little patch of soil happens to be on a very difficult to invade Island which they were able to evacuate to, and learn from their mistakes.
I also agree with what Perseus said.
The French Government surrendered, the entire Army never did. They would have lost Paris, but that was a forgone conclusion. They could have made a stand in the mountains in center France. The French had reserves in Southern France covering the Italian border, if they had pulled their remaining divisions into Center France (like Auvegne) they could have made the Germans lifes very hard. As the US found out in Italy and the Pacific, Mountain fighting is best left for the infantry. The Mountain Roads in Auvergne are very dangerous, definatly too Narrow and steep for Tanks. Also mountains over good protection for both Arty and Airpower. So the Germans would have had to use their landsers, and the French would have had a defensive advantage and possibly a numerical one as well as the Germans would have had to bled off troops to occupy the parts they controlled.
Unfortunatly we will never know, the French government couldnt bare the thought of losing Paris and decided to throw in the towel once it was clear it was lost.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
There is also one thing I have seen mentioned elsewhere that one of the biggest problems in the defence of France was the British plan to move the BEF into Belgium which effectively created separation between the British and French forces that killed any chance of a mobile defence.
perseus
Active member
Not sure what you mean Monty, the line was still continuous after the allies had moved up, with the Belgians on the BEF left and French on their right. The BEF only held a part of the line through Belgium (it would have been smaller still if the Belgians had their way).
From my understanding (mainly based on biographies of Charles de Gaulle), the main cause of the failure of France was political rather than military in the first place. The lack of political unity combined with defaitism and lack of dedication in defending their own country doomed France even before the war started, and even more during its early course. Even such events as petty misgrievances between mistresses of cabinet members were allowed to hamper meaningful action in some cases.
As said earlier this reluctance to enter another bloody war after WWI is fully understable, even though perhaps not very honorable on the part of the french government given how later events turned out. I guess my point is that having a powerful, well equipped army as France definitely had is of little value if you lack the political will to use it.
(First post jay!)
As said earlier this reluctance to enter another bloody war after WWI is fully understable, even though perhaps not very honorable on the part of the french government given how later events turned out. I guess my point is that having a powerful, well equipped army as France definitely had is of little value if you lack the political will to use it.
(First post jay!)
LeEnfield
Active member
Most the French defence budget had gone itno static defence, they did not have a modern Airforce and they only had six modern single seater fighter aircraft, that is why when Dowding refused to commit any further fighters to France as our Airforce would not be able to hold the German Airforce and this what caused the big rift between France and England. Now of course Dowding was right to save the few fighters he had left for the Battle of Britain
GreatestAlive
Active member
I think the German's Blitzkrieg was to effective for the French and its Allies to re-act to quickly enough for a good counter-attack or a good defense to materialize.
mmarsh
Active member
I dont agree. My Great Uncle was a Photographer on a French Recon Aircraft, he met ME-109 over the border during the "phoney war" (he also served in Vietnam), he said they were good, but not better then they or the RAF were.
In 6 weeks of the Battle of France Germans lost 1200 Aircraft, in fact the first ME-109 ever shot down by a Allied Aircraft was brought down by a French Hawk-75A.
Their Aircraft and Pilots were comparable to the Germans. The French lost because of two major reasons, A) the bungling of the French Government and Military Bureaucracy in the running of the Air Force. And B) Because of their very few numbers, which was due to reason A).
Frankly the Air Force acquitted itself well considering what they were up against.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The end result affects the reputation of those who served.
Not their honor, but their reputation.
Not their honor, but their reputation.
LeEnfield
Active member
mmarsh.......I did not rubbish the French but said that they did not have more than half dozen front line fighters that they could up against the Germans as they had spent all their money on fortifications. Those fighters that they had were good planes but just could not stop any decent attack from the Germans