French military performance in 20th century

The Black Flags were pretty well equipped with firearms and had numerical superiority. It wasn't such an easy task as you may think. Similarly, battling Berbers in the rugged terrain of Morocco or the Druze in the Syrian Desert called for a different approach each time and the development of new tactics. And, unlike the present situation of the US Army&coallition in Irak, the French army won.

As I said, it is my opinion that in 1939-41, there wasn't any army in the world that could effectively oppose the Wehrmacht on land. Yet you don't hear similar jokes about the British, who also took serious beatings both in 1940 and in 1941 and needed a large superiority of forces to eventually break Rommel's back in 1942.

It is true that the allied tank strength was superior to the Germans in 1940 (France 2,475+ UK 600 vs. Germany 2,574), but the tank tactics were by far inferior to the German ones. Also, even though, they were superior in armor, they lacked the speed and range of the German tanks. An efficient tank is not characterized only by its armor and gun, but also by other specifications.

As to aircraft, you are grossly mistaking, from what I read. L'Armee de l'Air possessed 580 modern fighters, 96 (!) modern bombers and 300 recon aircraft in France. The RAF had deployed only 300 modern aircraft on the continent. On the other side, the Luftwaffe had some 1,500 fighters and 3,500 bombers.

The military campaign was not won because some prisoners were tortured or some civilians were killed, but because the French army knew how to use its forces best to win it.

According to the Macmillan, in 1938 Armee de l'Air had over 5,000 aircraft, but in May 1940 it had only 740 modern fighters and 140 effective light and medium bombers. Nevertheless, the losses in aircraft on the Western front up to July 1940 were 1,095 for Luftwaffe (due to all causes) and 757 for the French.

Also rember that the French artillery was considered the best in the world. The cause of the French defeat was the static defense doctrine, which traded mobility for firepower.

About the Algeria, I have seen some time ago a very interesting documentary with veterans interviews. It was a guerilla warfare, with atrocities from both sides. Except patrols, the life was extremely monotonous. The French soldiers were spending most of their time in their garrisons, drinking and playing cards 24 hours a day. They recalled having some astonishing records, 18-20 beers a day

Its not true ! The chinesse army from Viet-Nam was equiped with the last models of Krupp field guns and also, german, british and american rifles. Just read more books about the conquer of Indochine.

Your quote made me curious.
Can you recommend to me a book, and its author, supporting what you mentioned? And then I'll have to hope to find it in a library. And then to pray to have some time to read it.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 02, 2004 03:05 am

Well, yes, the Channel is an anti-tank trench 30 kilometers wide.

About the rest... At least 300 Spitfire were ready at the verge of the war, in September 1939. And the battle of Britain started 9 months later.

Well, if the British did not give the Virgin Islands to the US (which I remembered were purchased from Denmark, maybe in 1917), what islands did they give? Because the UK gave an archipelago to the US, for 99 years, in exchange for 50 American obsolete destroyers.

And the rest of my remark, around the nuclear research, has nothing to do with the summer of 1940, so you do no need to link them.

I am glad you could see that documentary. It was mentioned there that as the Hurricanes were in bigger numbers, actually they made more kills than the Spitfires. But my interest was captivated mostly about the design issues, and about the eternal struggle when you submit something new to a skeptical audience. And also, about the sad story of the designer dying of cancer, in his early 40's, 2 years before Spitfire saw any combat action.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 02, 2004 02:42 am

The Russians suffered by far much worse defeats, in the beginning. Yet they also are remembered as a great victor, regarding WWII. However bad were the losses of the British or Russian forces, at least they kept fighting and they did not surrender.

Well, I know the French had many obsolete planes, but there were also other problems. All the time, until their surrender in July 1940, France kept more than 500 airplanes in North Africa, and did not use them. They kept more than 1000 airplanes in the south of France. Even the most obsolete sluggish French bombers needed only 2 hours to transfer from their airfields in the south to the battle grounds of the north. They never did it.

The military campaign was not won because some prisoners were tortured or some civilians were killed, but because the French army knew how to use its forces best to win it.

My first quote answered to your mention that the rebels won politically, even though they lost the war. So I accepted the military success of the French army, but I answered why politically it was a failure.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 02, 2004 03:10 am

Unlike the British or the Soviet Union, there was nowhere to retreat. Continuing the fight from the colonies was an option, but as seen in the case of the Free French forces it had to be done with much external support, something that the British weren't capable of providing for themselves in 1940 and 1941. A large force would have been harder to maintain. It was however a decision of the politicians. A part of the French military continued to fight under De Gaulle or in the Maquis.

i belive during the same period the RAF lost 931 airplanes.
obviously only a part of the 1095 (i read about 1284 somehwere but can't find the link) luftwaffe losses are attributed to french combat activities.

When fellow Americans joke about the French, I try to remind them that France lost more men in WWI alone then all of our foriegn wars combined. Half the time they actually feel bad for what they say, the other half don't give a shit.

The same way, when one year and a half ago I complained in AOL online about the destruction and the stealing of the ancient artifacts in Iraq (Summerian, Assirian, Babilonian, Helenistic, Roman etc.), I got several responses saying: "Who cares about all that crap."

I am curious if these people will have the same approach if somebody will blow up, let say, the Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where de Declaration of Independence was signed in July 1776, or the museum house in Mount Vermont, which was the house of George Washington etc.

Otherwise... Half against half, to the end, to the electoral poles... I hope this American nightmare will end in few hours. Otherwise, there are not too many things remained to save this country.

Georges Blond, "Istoria Legiunii Straine", the chapter about the conquer of Indochine. I don t have this book near to me ... so I can t tell you in wich year and wich publishing house was printed.

another joke :

annoncement on e-bay: brand-new french WWII rifle for sale. Never been fired, dropped once.

I choose to post here some text about Mirage 2000, and not in topic about Romania future fighter, because it is about "Freanch military performance..."

Operation like Kosovo demostradet his efficiency. The french Mirage 2000-D, involved within NATO strikes, with 3 ori 4 Air to Air refueling per mission, using NVG, and delivering french Laser Guide Bombs, were awarded with the best kill accuracy on of the whole coalition. Thanks to this lessons learned from Kosovo, the M2000D crews were the only non-americans authorized to shoot during Enduring Freedom operation in Afghanistan.
In 2002, the first land based to strike in Afghanistan were Mirage 2000. Thanks to an unmatched availability of more than 95 % during 7 months, more than 4400 flights hours were achieved. More than 110 flight hours per month and per aircraft with daily missions lasting up to 7 hours were performed in rudimentary conditions, with reduced number of technical support staff (average 5 per aircraft and per shift).
Mirage 2000 striked 48 hours after living their French bases, more then 7000 kilometers away. Weekly aerial links were organised for logistics. Its robust design and excellent reliability, made Mirage 2000 the only combat aircraft there at high altitude, enduring low temperatures, whitout hangars and facing a rustic runway, until building of NATO standard facilities allowed other combat aircraft to operate, 2 months later. Interoperable suport was thus achieved. Oxigen and ingredients were shared with American aircrafts.

I think it is just an example. Another may be the excelent Jaguar, french & uk project; In Gulf war they had Daguet division, french troops are "live trained" in Africa, etc.

Iama

Isn't that an older plane ?

Topic is "... in 20 th century" ! Older ones go slightly blind...

Iama