[Colin Williams]

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?

:)

[Ken Estes]

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.

[RETAC21]

Ken Estes, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 0802, said:

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.

[Sardaukar]

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.

[BillB]

Colin Williams, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 0639, said:

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

:)

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? :P :D

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

[Icicle]

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.

[Jaguar]

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 :D

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

[yak_v]

BillB, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 0805, said:

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?  :P  :D

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

Vladimir

[GdG]

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.

[Jeff]

Good post GdG

[yak_v]

GdG, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 1036, said:

(not counting the italian, belgian, portugese, etc... and free czech, polish divisions)

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

Vladimir

[Redbeard]

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

[Arminius]

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

[GdG]

Arminius, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 1842, said:

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

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...

Quote

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".

Huh?

Quote

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 ).

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).

Quote

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

H

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...

[Ken Estes]

Redbeard, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 1756, said:

Holding out under those circumstances and with such losses should for ever make expessiosn like "surrender monkeys" etc. irrelevant.

Eh! What you said! Ken

[Ken Estes]

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]:

Quote

  That evening, Pierre Koenig signaled Ritchie: "Am at the end of my tether. The enemy is outside my HQ." The Eighth Army commander knew that the end had come; he ordered the French garrison to break out that night.
Early on the morning of 11 June, the German wireless intercept unit picked up the news that the garrison was about to break out. The 1st Free French were attacked as they worked their way through a narrow gap, but, even so, more than half the brigade managed to escape, although it lost twenty-four guns and many of its motorized vehicles. Out of an original garrison of 3,600, about 2,300 or so made their way back to friendly lines, including 200 wounded. General Koenig was among those who got away. Ironically, he would become the military governor of the French Occupation Zone in Germany after the war.

This post has been edited by Ken Estes: 27 April 2005 - 1430 PM

[KingSargent]

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.

[Colin Williams]

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.

[swerve]

Redbeard, on Wed 27 Apr 2005 1756, said:

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.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

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.