French Armour 1940

[Owen]

What do Forum members think of the French Armoured Units and their equipment in the Battle of France 1940?
Badly lead, trained and equiped?
Where they in the wrong place?
Could they handle the Panzers or were they simply out gunned and outfought?
What was the best tank the French had? Somua S35 perhaps?
Did the French crews go on to form the core of the Free-French armoured units later?

Lots of questions.
What answers are there?

[Gotthard Heinrici]

I think that the French Armored Forces in 1940 had better tanks, a bit like the Russians, but where they fell down was in the Deployment and organisation. The Tanks were not organised Efficiently, and when committed tended to be piecemeal and in support of Infantry. Remember this was a French army that was committed to a Defensive Doctrine. Tanks were not seen as an intstrument of maintaining victory on their own. They were seen as firmly subordinate to the Infantry.
The design of French Tanks were flawed too. For Example, french Tanks such as the Renault 35 or the Char B1s required the Commander to take on dual roles in the tank, such as Loader or Gunner as well, whereas the Germans took this into account when designing their tanks and so worked better as a crew.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally Posted by Owen D

What do Forum members think of the French Armoured Units and their equipment in the Battle of France 1940?
Badly lead, trained and equiped?
Where they in the wrong place?
Could they handle the Panzers or were they simply out gunned and outfought?
What was the best tank the French had? Somua S35 perhaps?
Did the French crews go on to form the core of the Free-French armoured units later?

Lots of questions.
What answers are there?

Yes,that's a lot of questions.

The easy one first...the S35 was probably the best tank in Europe in 1940.

However, it had the same problem as many French tanks, one-man turret, and crewmembers separated from each other. German tanks had two-man turrets, and the crewmembers were close to each other so they could give visual signals to each other. French tanks also lacked radios, and had short ranges...they needed constant refueling, and not from jerricans, but mobile fuel trucks. Guess what the first German target for their guns was.

French tanks were badly led, handled, and had poor doctrine. Three French armored divisions were sent to face the German attack through the Ardennes. One was pretty much caught detraining in a rail yard and shot up there. The second was caught while refuelling. The third was scattered into penny packets and could not fight cohesively. The French tanks were mostly used as infantry support.

I do not know what happened to surviving French tankers. Most were taken POW and spent the war as industrial labor in the Reich.

Hope that helps.

[Owen]

Cheers chaps, it still amazes me that a Nation with such a fine Military background as the French had such a rotten Army in 1940.
How differnt the Armies of 1914 and 1940 were.

[drgslyr]

I agree with others about the weaknesses of French armor and doctrine. French tanks provided greater armor protection and had more powerful guns, but they were NOT better tanks, for the reasons listed above: their one man turret and lack of radios. They were also generally less mobile and the imposing Char B1-bis had the same problem as other "heavy" tanks in WW2, it was mechanically unreliable. The dominance of German airpower also had a lot to do the ease of their breakthrough; in fact, it probably played a more crucial factor in Blitkrieg tactics than the German tanks. It was proven time and again throughout the war that Blitzkrieg tactics don't work without air superiority.

[von Poop]

Originally Posted by drgslyr

but they were NOT better tanks

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.

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Owen D

Cheers chaps, it still amazes me that a Nation with such a fine Military background as the French had such a rotten Army in 1940.
How differnt the Armies of 1914 and 1940 were.

I don't think the French had a particularly good Army in WWI. Considering they would have lost had they not had British and American help.

The Char B1 bis was very effective against PzKw IIIs and IVs. At this point in the war, the two gun system 47mmAT/AP and 75mm coupled with the radio link in the right hands were successful. The men and leaders deploying the weapons system were not and therefore the French suffered losses. Had the French massed these tanks with Artillery and Mobile Infantry support they would have been more than a match against the Germans.

Owen, being English, How does French arrogance amaze you?

[Owen]

Herr Oberst I don't think the French had a particularly good Army in WWI. Considering they would have lost had they not had British and American help.

Go to France, look at the ground, visit the Battlefields, see the cemeteries then tell me the French Army of WW1 was not up to much.
Their losses in August 1914 make the First Day of the Somme look like a picnic.
Verdun, for example. They knew how to fight and die there.
By 1917 they were worn out admitedly, not surprising really.
The French Army of 1940 never showed anything like this spirit did they?

Photo I took this February of one "small" French mass grave on the Marne battlefield of 1914.

[Herroberst]

Originally Posted by Owen D

Go to France, look at the ground, visit the Battlefields, see the cemeteries then tell me the French Army of WW1 was not up to much.

I don't understand what up to much means.

Originally Posted by Owen D

Their losses in August 1914 make the First Day of the Somme look like a picnic.

Losing alot of people doesn't mean you have an effective Army. It illustrates my point, that they had a rather a poor military in WWI.

Originally Posted by Owen D

Verdun, for example. They knew how to fight and die there.

An effective military makes the other guy die for his country.

Originally Posted by Owen D

By 1917 they were worn out admitedly, not surprising really.

The French Army would have been completely overrun by the Germans without the Americans and the British.

Originally Posted by Owen D

The French Army of 1940 never showed anything like this spirit did they?.

If you mean they knew better than to be slaughtered, like they were in WWI, then I agree. Although, they still fought in 1940 the same way they fought in 1918.

Originally Posted by Owen D

Photo I took this February of one "small" French mass grave on the Marne battlefield of 1914.

And they should be remembered as giving their lives to protect their homeland and honored accordingly.

However they can still be criticized as being a largely ineffective military in WWI. Now if you want to talk of Napoleon I Bonaparte, then that was an effective French Army, well lead, that was ground into defeat by the other nations of the Europe.

[Owen]

Now if you want to talk of Napoleon I Bonaparte, then that was an effective French Army, well lead, that was ground into defeat by the other nations of the Europe.

So you do agree with me the French do have a fine military background.
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.
Don't forget the French forces that fought us British to help your own country gain Indepnedence.
I do find it odd sticking up for the French.
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.

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.

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.