French Fighting ability

[Owen]

I've just been reading a few posts about how well the Vichy French fought.
That is about the only praise for the French fighting forces I've read on this Forum, when they're on the "wrong" side.
I know that is not the case. They French fought gallantly in 1940 on their own soil again in North Africa, Italy and back in France in 44.
The ferocious actions of French-Colonial Troops in Italy makes me shudder.
To read a US member on this Forum denigrate the French fighting ability is rather sad.
I'd like to ask for examples of the French in action both good and bad.

[lancesergeant]

The Vichy French fleet at Oran put up a spirited fight, and there is mention of their fighting ability in Syria. Desert Dog is more genned up than me on this part of the Middle East.

[Glider]

I suspect its a bit like the Italians. The individual soldier was as brave as the next man. However they had some of the worst generals, leaders, tactics and the often forgotten infra structure, so what do you expect.

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I suspect its a bit like the Italians. The individual soldier was as brave as the next man. However they had some of the worst generals, leaders, tactics and the often forgotten infra structure, so what do you expect.

I agree with you on leadership, very true with the poles and czechs.

[Kiwiwriter]

Besides the defenders of Bir Hakim, the French Expeditionary Corps was one of the best Allied forces in Italy. Their boss, Marshal Juin, tried to use the mountains, rather than see them as an obstacle. He lacked the manpower to push on at First Cassino.

The 2nd French Armored Division was a fine outfit, too, which refused to serve in the 1st French Army, which consisted mostly of former Vichy forces...anathema to the 2nd Division's Gaullistes.

[David Layne]

http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm

or

http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com


Neither of these links work for me.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally Posted by David Layne

http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm

or

http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com


Neither of these links work for me.

Hmm...that's odd.

Do a Google search under "World War II Plus 55" or my name, "David H. Lippman," and that should get you there.

[Desert Dog]

You have to keep in mind that you have to distinguish the French of 1939/1940 from the French Colonial Forces.

During the opening Blitzkrieg days, you had a British and German army who were essentialy profesional armies and in the case of the Germans, very rehearsed as to what they were going to do.

The French on the other hand were essentialy reservists that were called up. It was an army in name only, most of them fought in WWI and may in fact been part of the mutnies caused by the wholesale slaughter of 10s of thousands of their fellow soldiers who were told to go over the top (of the trenches) into certain death. These French conscripts knew war and didn't have the enthusiasm of either the German or even the British professional soldiers they fought alongs side and faced.

Furthermore, keep in mind both Britain and France were just comming out of the Depression and their armamament spending was very low. In the case of the French, they were using alot of obsolete equipment.

Obsolete equipment and unenthusiastic reservists result in a bad combination.

The French Colonial Forces who were in North Africa and Syria on the other hand, were their professional soldiers. Like the French Foreign Legion, they were well trained and knew how to fight. They were definitely well trained and professional as they fought their former allies on the orders of the Vichy Government.

The Italians were a different situation. The ones that O'Conner faced in the opening days of the war were under equiped and under trained. The only menancing thing of the Black Shirt Divisions were their black shirts. Most of the equipment was WWI era also. They were in Libya to keep the natives in check, not to fight the British.

The reinforecements that arrived with Rommell on the other hand were better equiped and trained. Also keep in mind that they were under German supervision which probably made most of the difference.

The difference between a 'good' soldier and a 'bad' soldier is weahter he stays and fights or retreats. It is the officers that have to keep them at the line fighting.

I think I said too much

[Owen]

I think I said too much

No, far from it. More please.
Can anyone cite an example of the French fighting well in 1940?
The image we have is them is very poor in respect to how well they defended their Homeland. I'm sure this isn't true at all.

[David Layne]

So are you saying there is no truth associated with French soilders wearing brown trousers for a reason similar to the reason British soilders once wore red tunics?