French Armour 1940

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.


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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

I do too

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.

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.


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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 one of the best tanks 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.

 

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.