Many historians, professional and amateur alike, point to the German Army of WW1 and WW2 as the example of a superlative military force, with excellence in organization, training, doctrine, tactics, and operations only offset by failings at logistics and strategy (and a tendency to get into world wars it couldn't win). So, for the sake of argument, let's set the German Army as the "gold standard" and see how other countries armies measure up.

1. In WW1 and WW2, the German Army invaded 11 countries, 4 of them twice. In all but 2 of these 15 campaigns, the German invaders emerged victorious. The two defeats? The Soviet Union in WW2 and France in WW1. Yet, the praise accorded the French Army in WW1 pales against the tributes heaped on the Red Army.

2. Two other major powers, Britain and the United States, faced the Germans in both world wars and emerged victorious. BUT, neither faced a land invasion, the true test of a nation's will and ability to fight.

3. In 1916, both the French and the BEF attacked on the Somme. The French captured twice as much ground for half the losses. At the same time, the full fury of the German Army fell on Verdun. The French Army held. In 1918, the full fury of the German Army fell on the British. The British Army went into full retreat and needed the intervention of French reserve divisions to stem the tide.

4. In 1940, inadequately trained and led French soldiers at Sedan panicked under furious German air and land attacks. In 1943, inadequately trained and led American soldiers at Kasserine panicked under furious German air and land attacks.

5. In 1942, the stalwart Free French defense at Bir Hacheim held off repeated Axis assaults. When the French evacuated Bir Hacheim, larger British and Commonwealth units along and behind the Gazala Line crumbled under German and Italian attack.

6. In 1944, the French Expeditionary Corps under Juin broke through the Gustav Line, outperforming the neighboring American and British units and creating a opportunity for a decisive victory that was thrown away by incompetent American and British generals.

In all six of these examples, the French Army showed itself equal or superior to its major Allies. Any questions?

Seems accurate to me, Colin. I would add that I consider the French army to have done the best of all of the contenders in 1914...it had the worst plan and recovered from it the best and in admirable fashion, with several extraordinary unit performances.

After all they were fighting for their homeland, still, they had a long way to go to catch up with other contenders, this they did, but not in 1914.

regardin WWI, one could, perhaps, note that whilst the german leadership should have noticed that their plan was flawed (assuming you need to maintain contact between the differing units) and done something about it, the French Army responded reasonably well to their battle plan falling apart, nd in my opinion, better than the British (who were admirably saved by the very high quality of their troops).

Generally speaking, the french wer able to take everything the Germnas threw at them, dealt well with the problems of the mutinies, and went on to a deserved win.

French forces in WWII performed reasonably well (at least, as far as I am aware of) during the Norwegian campaign. During the German assault the performance was less than stellar, but to be fair, so was the British. The performance of the Free French units was, as noted elsewhere, quite good.

My opinion is that Germans both in start of WW I and WW II had the main advantage in their officer training and doctrine from division to platoon level. Most others didn't have that and had to play bit of catch up.

Cheers,

M.S.

Just one. Is it not a rather serious omission to not mention that the French Army also proved itself superior in the art of becoming practically combat ineffective due to mutiny during WW1?

Seriously, I think you are onto something, at least with ref to WW1, altho I think your examples there are just a tad skewed...

all the best

BillB

The big thing to take into account is the incredible attrition of the French Army in WW1. The near collapse in terms of morale etc...

The caution of the French in the early part of the war seems to be explained by this. And the bravery of the free french fighters is quite impressive considering this.

The French "mutiny" in WWI, IIRC, started after the infamous Nivelle Ofensive. At least 100,000 soldiers (out of an army of 4 million) were involved in the mutinies which mainly took place just behind the French lines.

It was caused mostly by badly prepared food, easy access to cheap wine, poorly maintained rest camps, inconsistent policy on leaves for the fighting men and general´s obsession with a quick break-through without concern for the slaughter that always followed. One must admire the French

Well, Frernch top brass learned the lesson. Petain did some reforms and mutiniers-shooting and things settled down by mid-1917.

Nah... Russians were still much better at the whole mutiny thing in WWI .

Vladimir

Well, reguarding WW1 and on an historiographical aspect, it's funny, because in France, WW1 is almost always seen as a french victory, UK (and even more Italy and the US) being considered as a secondary player. The russians are the only other allies considered as important, but they are rarely covered, except for the russian divisions fighting in France and the for french "lend lease" to this country. Funny how ethnocentrism is strong when it comes to History. I was shocked when I realize something like 7 years ago (the first time I visited english speaking history forums) to read posts just about UK/Commonwealth in WW1 and almost nothing about the french army. But the 'fighting for homeland' plays a lot in this case. But still, you had 110 french divisions, 60 brit/commonwealth and 40 (at best?) US divisions (not counting the italian, belgian, portugese, etc... and free czech, polish divisions) on the western front in 1918 IIRC. IMHO, in term of human life, France & the Commonwealth paid a similar price. Industrially, however, France was clearly the winner, outproducing all the other belligerants (Germany included) in every sector, excluding the naval one. This is IMHO the most amazing achievement of WW1. A country which in 1914 was economically less powerfull than the US, UK, Germany and at the same level as Russia which went into the first total war production after a lot of problems from 1914 to 1916.

Good post GdG

There were Free Czech and Polish divisions in France in WWI?

Vladimir

I can vote for calling them generally underated, but perhaps it would be more accurate to call the difference between success and failure overrated.

My point is that the exactly same French Army of 1940, under slightly different circumstances would have performed much better, perhaps even have been victorious. Or that the US Army of 1942 in a strategic context similar to that of the French of 1940, would have done as badly.

The performance of the WWI French Army indeed is impressive, too bad so little is available in languages I understand. Holding out under those circumstances and with such losses should for ever make expessiosn like "surrender monkeys" etc. irrelevant. Even the most tiny French village usually has a monument over the fallen in the world wars, a huge number of names from WWI and a handful or two from WWII.

It must also be remembered that the mutineers never laid down their arms and were as steady in defence as ever, but simply refused to carry out any more futile offensives. Considering what they had been up to until then I'll consider that a very mild reaction! It must not be forgotten that the French were very harsh upon their own however. Where the Germans executed appr. 50 of their own and the British a few hundred the French probably can be counted in thousands.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

IMHO the French Army ( and Air Force ) in WW II did miserable ...

At Bir Hacheim it was a Jewish unit which fought under the motto:"Fight, the Jews of all the World look at us", under FF "label".

Also the FF were, in reality, US equipped and trained troops, deployed in the lower intensity combat zones ( for clear command lines and to not "upset" these units ).

So I won´t talk about WW I, but in WW II their reputation ( bad fighters, to say the least ) is well earned.

H

Well, I wouldn't be as severe as you. Depends if you talk about 1940 or 1940-45. Yes, the defeat of 1940 revealed the flows of the french army (and without any doubt, the flaws of the british or US army would have been revealed if they had shared a common border with Germany. The russians got their asses kicked even more severely as the french in 1940, but they had an huge hinterland and Stalin could afford to deal with his population like a dictator). The Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey isn't deserved, though. The 1940 failure was more the result of grand strategy and structural problems within the french military structure, nothing else. Not a fighting spirit problem. In 1940, the french citizen was as keen as the 1914 one to give his life for his country. Note that a fleeing army can 2 days later turn into a horde of ferocious warriors. See the disbanding units in the french army before the Battle of the Marne in 1914, see the Grossdeutschland (or Das Reich?) regiment surrendering at the sight of french tanks, etc...
Huh?
Wrong. US equipped, yes. But the commanders and almost all the (sub) officers were old school. They belonged for the most part to the Armée d'Afrique, en used the modern equipment which was given to them. Juin, Monsabert, Leclerc or De Lattre were not using the US mottos, but coordinated their efforts with the Allies. Also, the Armée d'Afrique, which fought the Afrika Korp in Tunisia between November 1942 and May 1943 was just equipped with pre-1940 equipment, not accustomed to the US tactics at all, but did a fairly good job and had its share of glory (see the S-35 vs Pz IVF2 story).
You obviously don't know what's war, and how it is won or lost. BTW, talking about the other kind of 'fighters' (the aeroplanes), you'd better read more about the May-June 1940 air campaign...

Eh! What you said! Ken

Please tell me what US equipt and training was received by Koenig's Brigade before Bir Hacheim. As to 1940, we did that last month or two.

----

Edit to add from Samuel Mitcham's 1998 Rommel's Greatest Victory [on Tobruk]:

IMHO, there was nothing wrong with the French fighting man in either war. He was handicapped by bad generals and bad doctrine in WW1, and by atrocious political leadership and abominable planning between the wars and in the early days of WW1. They lacked the room and the time to recover from the handicaps in 1940.

As for French second-line troops suffering 'tank panic' and routing at Sedan in 1940, the German Grossdeutschland regiment suffered tank panic in 1940.
Not germane is Kasserine, where reports of rout were exagerrated and the Americans won in the end. This needs another thread by itself.

Here I am, all lined up to defend my argument, French Roast coffee and croissant on the desk, Nomex suit (created by DuPont, a family of French descent) at the ready, and I find just about everyone agreeing with me! I will have to soldier on.

With respect to WW1, there is no question that the French Army of 1914 was significantly flawed. Modern medium and heavy artillery of all sorts, particularly howitzers, were in very short supply compared to the Germans. The French also seem to have been about the only combatants to buy into the "cult of the offensive" at tactical, operational and strategic levels. (The Germans favored balancing the tactical defensive with the operational and strategic offensive, maneuvering to a position of advantage, allowing the attacking French formations to batter themselves to pieces against the German lines, and then exploiting the resulting weaknesses. The British favored the tactical firefight from a defensive posture from the beginning but knew nothing about the operational art and little about strategy.) Also, I can't for the life of me understand what Joffre was up to with his offensives after the Plan XVII mobilization.

Still, as Ken pointed out, the French recovered their balance and drove the Germans back from the Marne. Despite their prewar prejudice in favor active service soldiers over reservists, the French Army became the expression of a true "nation in arms". Because the British could contribute only a modest number of divisions until the middle of 1916, the bulk of fighting on the Western Front in the 1914-1916 timeframe fell on the shoulders of the French, with the extraordinarily heavy casualties from those years due, perhaps more than anything else, to the shortage of medium and heavy artillery as well as high explosive shells. In many ways the battles of 1915 were the French equivalent of the British experience on the Somme. Knowledge and skill came at a terrible price, but it did come. Captain Laffargue and others began to develop infiltration tactics, and Foch's handful of divisions on the Somme showed impressive skill in fire and movement with coordinated artillery support. The creeping barrages used during the later Verdun counterattacks were developed in parallel with British and German practice. Only perhaps with the advent of sudden, pre-registered barrages in late 1917 did the Germans and British move ahead of the French in artillery state of the art, but I believe that the French did not take long to catch up.

France, although heavily reliant on the British Empire and neutral America for raw materials and other supplies, truly became the "arsenal of democracy". French weapons generally set or equalled the standard for the time and were often used by other countries' armed forces. The British, for example, relied heavily on French planes until the arrival of the Sopwith Camel and SE5a late in the war. Except for rifles and pistols, the American Army was armed nearly 100% with French artillery, machine guns, automatic rifles, infantry guns, planes and tanks. Although the Schneider and St. Chamond tanks were poor performers, the development of the highly effective Renault FT17 opened a new era of tank warfare and set the basic model for all future tank development. We've already debated the Chauchat and noted that, despite its flaws, the Chauchat was essentially unique as an effective squad automatic weapon until the BAR came into service. By the end of the war, successful French offensives combined sophisticated infantry and artillery tactics with advanced weapons systems, allowing for signficant advances with casualties a small fraction of those incurred by attacks early in the war. Only the ebbing French manpower limited the achievements of 1918.

Certainly the mutinies of 1917 were a low point, but I notice John Keegan has argued that nearly every army in WW1 reached its breaking point when casualties equalled approximately 100% of the mobilized strength. For the French this came in the spring of 1917, for the Russians somewhat earlier, for the Italians later in 1917 and for the British in early 1918. Keegan makes an exception in the case of Germany, arguing that repeated victories buoyed German morale, deferring the date of crisis. I haven't started on Hew Strachan's new books on WW1, but perhaps BillB has some insights via his former professor on the "collapse" or lack thereof of the British army in early 1918.

That's true. To someone who grew up with British war memorials, & so was used to the idea that they have large numbers of names on them, & twice as many WW1 as WW2, the sheer numbers of WW1 names on the memorials in French villages was shocking to me the first time I ventured into rural France, aged 14.

Actually, the number from WW2 isn't so small, it only appears so compared to WW1. GdG said French losses were similar to Commonwealth losses. He was being kind to us. Excluding colonial troops (Indians, Senegalese, etc), who were volunteers & tiny proportions of the populations of those countries, French military dead were more than twice as high, relative to population. And yet, apart from the entirely understandable mutiny (but they still held the line: the mutineers refused to attack, but with few exceptions stood ready to defend), they fought damn well.

Very well said indeed.

I could see France from my home in Irun, and my parents loved travelling through that area of the Pyrinees. That same thing always shocked me, that even the tiniest village lost in the mountains would have its monument to the fallen in the Great War, *always* dwarfing that of WWII. It is not hard to understand why the French were not looking exactly forward to another war in 1939.
Personally I find the entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" theme, so prevalent in Amerian forums, quite disrespectful and simply unfair.

[quote=Colin Williams,Wed 27 Apr 2005 1627]
"The creeping barrages used during the later Verdun counterattacks were developed in parallel with British and German practice. Only perhaps with the advent of sudden, pre-registered barrages in late 1917 did the Germans and British move ahead of the French in artillery state of the art, but I believe that the French did not take long to catch up."


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.

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.

I did see in a TV show dealing with the History of the 1st Infantry Division, a veteran talking about a landing in North Africa against Vichy troops that were mostly from the Foreign Legion, and who gave them quite a time of it, evidently. Certainly, the vets interviewed didn't think they were bad fighters! One of them said that afterwards, the legionaires showed them how they should have done the landing!

Atkinson's Army at Dawn has some excellent material on this point, among many. Some troops roughly handled in the Western Task force ended up surrendering to Vichy infantry, and they were not legionnaires. In Nov42 the way ahead was a long one, but by the end in Tunisia, a seasoned force was in the making.

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!

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!

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?

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.



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

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

This time i agree with BB

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!

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

wrong topic.