French Armour 1940

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Owen D

So you do agree with me the French do have a fine military background..

No, I don't. I think it is a myth. I believe the Armee de Naploleon was an effective historical military. I also believe that the French Foreign Legion was and is also effective. Ironically, after WWII, made up of many Germans from the Wehrmacht.

Originally Posted by Owen D

That Napoleonic heritage together with the spirit and grim determination of the way they fought in The Great War is what "amazes" me about their performance in 1940.

I thought I answered that for you in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Owen D

Don't forget the French forces that fought us British to help your own country gain Independence.

Half of my Family was still in Britain until 1910.

The others who came over in the 1640s would have a good laugh about the French help. They were all good Englishmen who got tired of paying taxes.

Originally Posted by Owen D

I do find it odd sticking up for the French..

I do too

Originally Posted by Owen D

In saying the French knew how to fight and die for their country I didn't mean they didn't also know how to make the Germans die for theirs too.

They did kill alot of Germans, but consider the cost in their lives and you'll perhaps agree with me.

Originally Posted by Owen D

I'm currently reading a book about the 1940 campaign and it is full of descriptions of lack of disipline and aggression in the French units so different to French Armies of previous times.

Please share the title with me, it sounds interesting.

Originally Posted by Owen D

As to the Americans in WW1, their first big commitment to defeating the Germans never came until July 1918.
After the Germans final offensive had failed.

No argument from me about Mr. Wilson's war. I hope you weren't forgetting the British and American support given to the French by that statement.

[spidge]

Originally Posted by Herr Oberst

No argument from me about Mr. Wilson's war. I hope you weren't forgetting the British and American support given to the French by that statement.

Don't forget the Australians et al lads.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

The French Army of 1914 was the equal of the Germans in organisation and the Poilu was as brave as any Prussian in that war. The French were bled white by the conflict but then no more than any other nation. Remember that it was not just Frenchmen who were senselessly minced, the Germans and English suffered the same fate.

[von Poop]

Back to the 1940 armour, even if those excellent vehicles had been properly deployed could it really have made much difference? I'm not sure it would even have been possible assuming the continued concentration of forces in the useless Maginot line. I suppose the 2 concepts simply couldn't have existed side by side.

How modern was the French logistical system at this time? I know they were pretty good at trucks and practically invented the half-track but was their supply system locked onto the static defences too?

[Owen]

Just read part of the Dunkirk book where Jean-Marie de Beaucorps, an 18 year old Somua S35 driver attacks the Panzers. Turret blown off, but he carries on, rams a couple of Panzers (I or IIs.) then blows his own tank up taking the Panzers out.
That lad could fight!

[von Poop]

Did he survive? this chap shares his name and appears to have had a lively career:
Translated version of http://www.livresdeguerre.net/forum/liste.php

Soldat de plomb sur le forum "Livres de guerre"

[Owen]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Did he survive? this chap shares his name and appears to have had a lively career:
Translated version of http://www.livresdeguerre.net/forum/liste.php

Soldat de plomb sur le forum "Livres de guerre"

just checked chapter notes and yup that's the man. Story is quoted from his book.
Well found VP.

[von Poop]

Doesn't appear to be in translation, only published 1997 so you never know, can anyone reccomend anything else on this period from the French perspective? Getting more intrigued.

[drgslyr]

Originally Posted by Von Poop

Got to disagree there mate, in comparitive terms the French were fielding far better tanks for the period. Remember that the vast bulk of German Panzer forces were pz.1's & 2's, the 3 & 4 models were really rather rare and to a great extent irrelevant in a comparison of armour during Fall Gelb. I'd rate the Somua as the best tank in the world at that time despite the crew problem, excellent cast armour, good gun, good speed, outclassing even the Pz.3 & 4 models (that had so far been produced). The Char was also one of the better tanks of the time despite it's flaws (no tank was/is perfect) I always think if France hadn't fallen there was a great potential for development there.
If the French armour had been properly deployed the Germans could have faced a real problem in Tank vs. Tank encounters, very few of their vehicles being able to deal with the french designs and having to rely on 37mm AT guns which they found to be largely innefective. As it actually went sheer numbers could 'easily' overwhelm the 'Penny packets' that the hidebound French command sent up.

Granted, the Panzer I and II tanks were nothing to brag about, but the deficiencies of the French tanks outweighed their merits. This point is made clear by the Germans themselves. Given their limited manufacturing capabilities, Germany made a habit of incorporating equipment from annexed countries into their arsenal. Trucks, tanks, artillery, ... if they could make use of it they did. Whey then didn't Germany appropriate French tanks for their campaign against Russia? Because the Germans deemed them unsuitable for front-line combat due to the deficiencies that have already been listed. Their chassis weren't even good enough to convert to mobile AT guns. And remember that the Germans were so desperate for tanks at the onset of Operation Barbarossa that they were still employing Panzer IIs in some numbers. I stand by my claim that the French tanks were better in some ways than the German tanks, but they were only suitable for a defensive, static form of warfare in which their crews wouldn't be forced to react to dynamic battlefield developments. The French tanks were too limited in function to be given the designation 'best tanks of the period.' Rather, they were the best armed and armored tanks of the period, but the most limited in deployment.

If the French tanks had been used as originally intended, as mobile bunkers in a repeat of WWI trench warfare, they would easily have been the best tanks of that period. However, that was not the type of warfare they were involved in. If given the opportunity, I do not believe the Germans would have exchanged their panzers for the French tanks at the outset of the invasion of France, regardless of the weaknesses of their own tanks.

[Paul Reed]

While I agree they did not employ French armour for the Russian campaign, it is not true that the Germans did not use it at all. Char Bs were turned into flamethrower tanks (several came up against 1st AB at Arnhem) and on D Day most of 21st Panzer Division was equipped with canablised French tanks largely turned into SP Gun platforms. French vehicles also came up against US Airborne units around St Mere Eglise.

Do also remember that after the fall of France and the creation of the Vichy government, France still kept an army. And a lot of vehicles had been lost in 1940, of course.