Is The French Army of WW1 and WW2 Underrated?

[black berret]

hi guys!

are we on tank-net? i can't believe some American posters are being fair...finaly! just kidding.

 

i'm from Normandie, i grew up with monuments in my villages,monuments on my beaches, bunkers covered with flower pots...and always 4 big flags floating in the center of every village/city: the french, canadian, american and british flags.

 

i apreciate that people know and remember that part of history. France has always been invaded...and we're still there, that resumes the personality of frenchmen,always grumpy about everything,specialy ourselves, but great lovers of their homeland.

we should mention people of the resistance, them giving a hard time to the invaders surely was decisiv to the turn of the war.

both of my grandfathers would tell you.

 

thanks for this topic!

[black berret]

as for the history of my unit.

in the midle of the war,french soldiers, mostly tankers, got together and became the first tank company "autonome" (sorry i don't see how to translate) it wasn't commanded by any division...it was recieving its orders directly from London,from CDG.

it took part in the landing of Narvik, in the Norwayen campaign, fought alone in the African campaign ( bir hakeim, el alamain,...) and joined the Leclerc division, sticking up with the 501 RCC.

so american equipped...but always doing it the french way!

[BillB]

At risk of dragging the thread off topic:

 

Not ot change the subject too much the first really succussful use of the creeping barrage was by the Canadians Under Gen. Currie in April 1917 at Vimy.  Like the French in many ways the Canadian efforts in both wars are always over looked, and what makes it worst for Canadian efforts included under the blanket term of British colonials or comman wealth.

 

Two points here. First, I think you will find that the first effective use of the creeping barrage was as part of the Nivelle "formula" employed in the closing stages at Verdun in late 1916. Also, (and I'm not being sarky here - that comes in a minute ) how many of the *artillery* units providing the creeping barrage on Vimy Ridge were Canadian?

 

Second, ref the last bit, IMO this is an an example of the all too frequent tendency to view and label the past through the lens of the present. The Canadians who fought in WW1 did not do so as Canadians in the currently understood sense. They did so as the subject citizens of a British colony rallying to the Mother Country in a time of need, as they had done in the Boer War. The "blanket terms" of colonials or Commonwealth were not therefore an attempt to deflect due credit, there were an accurate reflection of the situation as it stood at the time and, perhaps more importantly, as those Canadians saw it themselves. Personally, I think the attachment of the Canadian attainment of nationhood to Vimy, like the similar tendency of the Aussies and New Zealanders to Gallipoli, rather curious, and I cannot escape the suspicion that it was a handy way for their domestic politicians to deflect blame for the results of their enthusiasm for involvement in the war.

 

Getting back to the French, I'm always amazed at how American and British posters never given them much credit.  But if look at the British proformance in 1940 it was no better than the French and in Britian hadn't of been an island it would of been defeated too. After the fall of France in 1940 Britian had 2500 bren guns.. that's it.  Germany would of rolled over the UK just as fast.. if not for the water in between.

168757[/snapback]

 

Fair point ref the post-Dunkirk bit, altho I think the Germans would have found it a bit more difficult than you suggest. Ref the first part, I don't think it's a matter of giving or more accurately denying credit, it is a matter of language. How many books aimed at the general reader about the French in WW1, or the French Army generally have been published in English? AFAIK there are not very many - de la Gorce's The French Army, Clayton's Paths of Glory, Porch's March to the Marne (IIRC), Ousby's The Road to Verdun, Horne's The Paris Commmune, The Price of Glory and To Lose a Battle, Brown's Verdun 1916, a couple of Osprey titles - and I suspect the situation is the same in reverse and to a lesser xtent with regard to Germany too. I suspect the problem lies with publishers, who in my experience are leary of straying off the beaten track when it comes to publishing. Which is why we keep getting the same old stuff recycled endlessly every few years with the same errors and misconceptions (sorry if I'm sounding a bit jaded, but I've just had the misfortune to see a pre-release copy of yet another "startling and groundbreaking" new TV docu about Arnhem and my eyes are bleeding with a mixture of rage and despair... )

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Right, while I'm in pouring petrol on the flames mode...

 

I agree with the general sentiments expressed thus far, but it strikes me the thread has drifted away from its original topic. Colin's question was "Is the French Army of WW1 and WW2 underrated?", and we are now avidly discussing the fighting quality of the French soldier, which is not quite the same thing. Consequently, King is quite right to point out that there was not a lot wrong with the French poilu, but given the parameters of the topic we can't really separate that from the bad generals and bad doctrine he also refers to, can we?

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Durandal]

BillB Is it Murph second nickname? always wasting the cool threads.... well at least about French

[BillB]

BillB Is it Murph second nickname? always wasting the cool threads.... well at least about French   

168816[/snapback]

 

I resent that slur about wasting cool threads, Durandal. Perhaps you'd be happier if we just subscribed to the comfortable fiction that makes up large chunks of French military history, like the way France liberated herself in 1944 and so forth...

 

Bill "The False Ecossais" B

[Durandal]

I resent that slur about wasting cool threads, Durandal.    Perhaps you'd be happier if we just subscribed to the comfortable fiction that makes up large chunks of French military history, like the way France liberated herself in 1944 and so forth...     

 

Bill "The False Ecossais" B

168845[/snapback]

 

 

Argh!

WAR!!

I will have to invade England again one day, one French is needed for such an easy task!

Wait we should rather fill the channel once and for all or sink this island.

[Durandal]

And i have more post than you anyway. another easy victory over a Brit!

[Colin Williams]

At risk of dragging the thread off topic:

Two points here. First, I think you will find that the first effective use of the creeping barrage was as part of the Nivelle "formula" employed in the closing stages at Verdun in late 1916. Also, (and I'm not being sarky here - that comes in a minute ) how many of the *artillery* units providing the creeping barrage on Vimy Ridge were Canadian?

 

 

168810[/snapback]

 

UberBrit Alan Brooke was the Artillery Chief of Staff for the Canadian Corps in 1917 and wrote the fire plan for the attack on Vimy Ridge. Nothing like succeeds like raw colonial enthusiasm wedded to superior British intellect!

[Colin Williams]

hi guys!

are we on tank-net? i can't believe some American posters are being fair...finaly!   just kidding.

 

168794[/snapback]

 

Just for balance read this! - http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=9643

 

[BillB]

And i have more post than you anyway. another easy victory over a Brit! 

168865[/snapback]

 

Another? When was the first one then? Anyway, you'll change your tune when we come to reclaim the lost territories down Gascony way. we already own Calais and environs, and our undercover second home owners are undermining your society as we speak...

 

BillB

[black berret]

Another? When was the first one then? Anyway, you'll change your tune when we come to reclaim the lost territories down Gascony way. we already own Calais and environs, and our undercover second home owners are undermining your society as we speak...     

 

BillB

168878[/snapback]

 

com'on, we all know that GB belongs to the Normands!

[Durandal]

Just for balance read this! - http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=9643

 

168877[/snapback]

 

 

I can't blame you last time with Stevely; he was the one drinking whine, i was the one drinking Coca cola.

[Durandal]

Another? When was the first one then? Anyway, you'll change your tune when we come to reclaim the lost territories down Gascony way. we already own Calais and environs, and our undercover second home owners are undermining your society as we speak...     

 

BillB

168878[/snapback]

 

 

Your football teams are still invaded by French coachs and players.

Especially by a squad of Tirailleurs Sénégalais!

Another victory!

 

Rugby where is the English team again?

(you sucked a bit more than us )

but this is still a victory.

Do you want more?

 

Edit: Sorry for this disturbance in this is great thread but this is all because of BillB

as usual.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Durandal

[Durandal]

com'on, we all know that GB belongs to the Normands!

168882[/snapback]

 

 

This time i agree with BB

[black berret]

Your football teams are still invaded by French coachs and players.

Especially by a squad of Tirailleurs Sénégalais!

Another victory!

 

Rugby where is the English team again? 

(you sucked a bit more than us  )

but this is still a victory. 

Do you want more?

168892[/snapback]

 

Durandal,mon ami, you forgot to mention the final of the europeen rugby cup between 2 french teams ( stade francais for Paris vs stade toulousain for Toulouse) on the british soil!

[gregoire]

Another? When was the first one then? Anyway, you'll change your tune when we come to reclaim the lost territories down Gascony way. we already own Calais and environs, and our undercover second home owners are undermining your society as we speak...     

 

BillB

168878[/snapback]

 

 

No problem with that when I was in london there was over 200 000 french resident

Try to find an english speaker in some street close to south kensington

[GdG]

Well, IMHO, the current attitude of the pseudo-historians toward the french role during both wars was caused by the 1940 collapse. Having read a lot about the 1940 campaign, including the press of this time or the 30's, I noticed a completely opposite perception of France in the US, and to a lesser extend, UK (as the old anglo-french rivality was still playing a role).

 

After 1919, France was seen as the main contributor to the allied victory. At least, the myth of the platoon of poilus resisting in the past the german advance at Verdun or the legend of the Blue Devils (mountain troops resisting at Verdun) was very strong. See the huge number of franco-US commemorations during the 20's and 30's. See the US millionaires' wives patronizing french units , the US nurses in France during the Phoney War...

 

Nobody expected the 1940 collapse. Sure, the Allies and pro-allied neutrals expected an (initial) strong push from the Germans, defeats (on the battlefield, not an overall one), but they trusted the poilus (and they could. See the fighting spirit on the Weygand Line. The press was talking about a second battle of the Marne) The french military sure emphasized it, but the international press as well. See how Churchill was surprised to hear on May 16th that the situation was already desperate. See how Roosvelt reacted. They both had high hopes, and certainly, just like their public opinions, felt fooled. Just like when you realize that the girl you're dating with isn't really the one you expected her to be.

 

I think that it's because nobody in this affair took its responsabilities: the french government, always referring to the US as the future allied arsenal and hoping an US belligerance, hoping to save as many french citizens as possible from the incoming blood bath. Same situation toward UK: expecting the Brits to blocade the Germans and to bring the RAF on the continent. Note that the french diplomacy, from 1932 to 1939 was totally tied to the british one. The warmongers in the minesteries during the Rhineland crisis lost because UK didn't want to back France (that irrationnal, in 1936, France alone was able to force the Germans out of Rhineland).

 

UK didn't take its responsabilities either: they still had in mind that huge french army of 1918, and after all, didn't France have the most guns and tanks? UK began its rearmament way too late, relying way too much on the french military potential.

 

The US either. The US sure had a pro-french policy, and Roosvelt was intelligent enough to bypass the arm exports ban. But he also relied too much on the french military potential, and still had in mind the 20's problems, when France was seen as a tyranical winner toward Germany (feeling shared by UK as well).

 

The Allies were scared. That's it. Nobody wanted to deal with that monster hanging on the other side of the Rhine. Nobody wanted to believe that 20 years were wasted and that the bloodbath was about begin. Because had war stabilized on the western front in 1940, we'd have faced a really bloody war. Sure, both sides were more keen on using equipment rather than chests. But see how bloody the war was on the eastern front. We can hardly imagin somebody willing to experience this, especially France, which hadn't already recovered from the WW1 destructions. That's why you had the Dyle-Breda plan, planning to fight in Belgium, not in France, which led to the 1940 collapse. Had it just been called the Dyle plan, with the VIIth army kept in reserve able to counter attack at Sedan alonside the DCRs, it wouldn't have been a defeat. But still a bloodbath, and I sincerly doubt that I'd be here to post, both my grand fathers serving in 1940. The western allies are really lucky to just have had 300 or 450 000 KIA for the whole war. Keep in mind that between May 10th and June 24th, 92 000 french soldiers were killed. I let you make the math.

[gregoire]

Sad new on monday Léon-Alfred Navarre died he was one of the last surviving poilu of the great war.

 

of the 8.5 million frenchmen that "faught" in the great war only 10 are still alive

 

Léon-Alfred Navarre was born in august 1899. he join the army at 18 in april 18 and saw combat he was promoted aspirant during WW1 he was Lt

[BillB]

Well, IMHO, the current attitude of the pseudo-historians toward the french role during both wars was caused by the 1940 collapse. Having read a lot about the 1940 campaign, including the press of this time or the 30's, I noticed a completely opposite perception of France in the US, and to a lesser extend, UK (as the old anglo-french rivality was still playing a role). SNIP

168907[/snapback]

 

Good post, GdG. Only thing I'd disagree with is the bit about the Allies being "afraid of the monster across the Rhine". I don't think they were scared, I think they just miscalculated in thinking Hitler was not serious, largely because they assumed Hitler viewed the events of 1914-18 in the same way they did. Which was arguably a fair one as I don't think a lot of Germans thought he was serious either until it was too late.

 

all the best

 

BillB

[BillB]

Durandal & black berret - by assuming gangs of grown men kicking bags of wind around bits of grass counts for anything, you are falling into our cunning Anglais trap. We allow you a trivial victory or two to create the illusion you have achieved someting that matters in order to keep you happy and to distract you from important things...

 

gregoire, I'm not really surprised there are 200,000 Frenchies in London. Apart from Londoners and foreigners, everyone over here knows that London is British in name and physical location only. You are welcome to it as fair exchange for all those Brit holiday homes that are destroying French village life!

 

all the best

 

BillB

[Guest Murph]

I think the French Army in WWI was under-rated, but the problem is, that there are few histories in English that speak about the French contributions. I think the French Army had some problems, which they overcame (lots of bad generals, and initial tactics). After all the US Army was pretty much a French trained, French equipped, French oriented army in WWI (and arguably in the early part of WWII).

 

In WWII I think the French Army was vastly over-rated in the beginning, with its ability to resist the Panzers over estimated. Plus you had Maginot line syndrome which prevented good forward thinking mobile warfare officers slighted. Again, there are few reliable reference sources in English.

[gregoire]

One of the problem with french army in WW1 is the amount of it saw

in 14 it was red cap and troussers, breast plate cavalry and horse drawn 75mm and only a few heavy gunwith men charging in pack and infantry being over 75% of the army

in 18 it was steel helmet (france was the first country to have one even if it was not the best) 5 to 10% of the riflemen were using an automatic gun, those riflement were only making half of the infantry (other being grenad laucher and chauchat gunner one for 8 men) half of the infantry was using heavy gun. it must be nottice that if the french was doing most of the fighting in the first two years, it's performance were as good as the british (or us) in the last two year.

it held for all the war more than half of the front line and for aviation one must remember that all the rotary engine were at some point of french origine (the camel was using a french of french licensed clerget) and even the german oberusel was a copy of a french motor

since verdun the french army was the most motorised in the world (in fact it was more motorised in 18 than in 40)

in 18 the french army was testing self propelled gun

[Ken Estes]

In WWII I think the French Army was vastly over-rated in the beginning, with its ability to resist the Panzers over estimated.  Plus you had Maginot line syndrome which prevented good forward thinking mobile warfare officers slighted.  Again, there are few reliable reference sources in English.

169071[/snapback]

 

Actually, Murph, we covered that and more in our various 1940 threads [still avail?] in Feb-Mar. The French Army had excellent tanks, doctrine, orgn and capable armored leaders [not including the infantryman De Gaulle]. The Mod 1897 75mm worked just as well as an AT gun as an infantry or artillery piece, and there were plenty of 25mm and some 47mm available. French Inf-Arty doctrine used properly by the 1st Army stopped an attacking PzKps cold at Gembloux [sp?] just as their mech corps fought another to a standstill a few days earlier. The Maginot Line was actually a success: it was intended to guard against a surprise attack, allowing the army to complete mobilization and move into the field. The field armies were always supposed to decide the outcome. Not a single Maginot major work fell to the Germans [not to speak of the Italians] before the Armistice. That means that 75% of the frontier was safe and the remainder was the theater in contention.

 

But for the German initiative at the Ardennes and the French high command remaining glued to the telephone, May-June 1940 could have been a much closer thing. Cheers, Ken

[cdnsigop]

wrong topic.

Edited April 29, 2005 by cdnsigop