# French fighter aircrft



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 17, 2005)

The french were never known for there great fighter aircraft, or bombers, or really anything in aviation around the outbreak of the war, and didnt have time to really prove themselves. The Arsenal VG-33 is a good example if what the french COULD do, in terms of fighters. The VG-33 managed to get a very impressive top speed of 347mph out of a 860 Hp engine, the Hispano-Suiza 12Y13, 12-cylinder V, liquid cooled engine. It was pretty well armed, with a hub mounted 20mm cannon, and four 7.5mm Darne machine guns. It had a range of 745 miles, and a cieling of a little over 36,000ft. It is then hard to believe you had fighters like the M.S406, with the same Hp, ungainly appearance, one 20mm, and two machine guns, and only 302mph. The range was alose only 497 miles, and a cieling of only a little over 30,000ft. The D.520 was a decent aircraft, sporting a Hispano-Suiza 12Y 45, 12-cylinder engine of 935hp. It had the same armament of the VG-33, slightly less speed at 332mph, and less range at 552miles, but still decent/. The block MB-152, with two 20mm cannon and two machine guns and a top speed of 320mph, and a cieling a little over 32,000ft. range was a pitiful 384 miles. The aircraft wasnt anything special, and almost looked italian. The VG-33 was obviously a good aircraft, but like the best french aircraft, wasnt available in suffecient numbers. 


What are your thoughts on french fighters, and aircraft in general*


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

They could surrender in them. Normally putting the under-carriage down did the trick. See, that's why the Germans were so good at the start, especially with the Stuka - 'cos they were cheating!

The international recognition was, you put your under-carriage down you've surrendered. Here the Stukas come with the fixed under-carriage and everyone just let's 'em fly by. The cheatin' bastards!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

well, i'm willing to put in a good word for the french bombers!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

So I am I, they were terrible and looked like Greenhouses with wings...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

i think they looked great.............


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think they looked great.............


You are in the minority...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

we'll see with your poll...........


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> we'll see with your poll...........


That is why I created it, to prove to you that they are ugly in most peoples eyes.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Nov 19, 2005)

This bomber doesn't seem a greenhouse with wings, neither it was a prototype. Many were on the first line with Armèe de L' air in 1939.
Lloret et Olivier LeO-451 had a maximum speed of 500 km/h with two 1075 HP ( !) radial engines, with 1200 kg maximum bomb load.
It was the smartiest bomber of WW2 in my opinion, with its streamlined fuselage.Its ridge Hispano-Suiza 20 mm gun+ 2 7.5 mm Darne machine-guns in trainable turret ( + 1 front fixed 7.5 mm Darne and 1 more shooting backward from the nose) were very dangerous for a fighter attacking from rear, a french gunner shot down two Bf110 in few minutes.
It was a more advanced aircraft than Ju-88.

France had in general more advanced weapons than Third Reich, OPERATIVE weapons not only prototypes , in air, sea, land .....in random selection.....Hispano-Suiza 20 mm gun was much more effective than Mauser Mg-151 according to Italian pilots who flew on captured Dewoitine520.......47 mm Puteaux anti-tank gun was more advanced than british "two pounder" and German 50/42......Jean Bart was in general better than Bismarck class......Le Terrible and Mogador were on state-of art about destroyers in the world...Panhard built the best armored car in the world in 1939....SOMUA medium tank had an heavier armour than Pzkpfw-III with the same speed , and a better 50 mm gun.....

But why the otherwise excellent SOMUA had only ONE man in the turret?I think this is a sample of the reasons why France was defeated in two days more than the time required by Allied troops to conquest Sicily:

French armed forces had the best weapons, good men on the battlefield but the worst brains in the headquarteers ( Italy had not different troubles), troops were sent to fight WW2 with tactical guidelines still conformed for WW1, and irrational decisions as the missions of close air support for Leo-451 medium bomber without a further support for the suppression of flak. 
An exception was colonel de Gaulle,rapidly classified as "visionary " in 1938.He was the only one who remembered the heavy lesson imposed by general Ludendorff in 1918 with his deep penetration further enemy lines , the first embryonal example of "blitzkrieg".He could not stop the panzerdivisionen , alone with his "automitrailleuses" and light tanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2005)

As I work at USAFA, I sometimes run across some pretty interesting information used for aerospace education. I found this today, I've included the link so the charts can be viewed as well...

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html

It gives a detailed cretique of the French Air Force and I know we're talking about French fighters, I found the information so detailed about the FAF as a whole I decided to post it.


The French Air Force In 1940
Was It Defeated by the Luftwaffe or by Politics? 

Lieutenant Colonel Faris R. Kirkland, USAF (Ret.) 

DURING the Battle of France in May-June 1940, French Army commanders complained that German aircraft attacked their troops without interference by the French Air Force. French generals and statesmen begged the British to send more Royal Air Force (RAF) fighter squadrons to France. Reporters on the scene confirmed the German domination of the skies, and the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Luftwaffe came to be accepted as one of the principal causes of the French collapse.1 

The air force was a convenient scapegoat for the French Army generals who dominated the Vichy regime that ruled France under the Germans. By attributing the defeat of French forces to weakness in the air, the army officers diverted attention from their own failures. Moreover, the Vichy leaders were able to strengthen their claim to legitimacy by blaming the parliamentary regime they had supplanted for failing to provide a sufficient number of aircraft. The Vichy leaders also reproached the British for holding the bulk of their air force in the British Isles. Concurrently, the Vichy army officers used the defeat of the air force to justify abolishing the air ministry and the air force general staff, incorporating their functions into the war ministry and army general staff and returning the air force to its former status as a branch of the army. With the army controlling the postwar sources of information, for many years there was no voice to challenge the official position that France had lost the war because the prewar politicians had not equipped the air force adequately. 

Since the mid-1960s, fragments of information--aviator's memoirs, production reports, aircraft inventories, and Anglo-French correspondence--have come to light. These sources reveal four new facts about the French Air Force. 

The French aviation industry (with modest assistance--about 15 percent-from American and Dutch producers) had produced enough modern combat aircraft (4360) by May 1940 to defeat the Luftwaffe, which fielded a force of 3270.2 
The French planes were comparable in combat capability and performance to the German aircraft. 
The French had only about one-fourth of their modern combat aircraft in operational formations on the Western Front on 10 May 1940.3 
The Royal Air Force stationed a larger proportion (30 percent) of its fighter force in France than the French committed from their own resources (25 percent).4 
These data exculpate the prewar parliamentary regime and the British. They raise questions about the leadership of an air force that had parity in numbers of aircraft, the aid of a powerful ally, the latest radar, and the most advanced aviation technology in Europe, yet lost a defensive battle over its own territory.5 

French Aviation Technology
between the Wars
The French aviation industry built more warplanes during the interwar period than any of its foreign competitors. The Breguet 19 bomber of 1922 (1500 built) and the Potez 25 army cooperation aircraft of 1925 (3500 built) were the most widely used military aircraft in the world. (No more than 700 examples of any other type of military aircraft were built in any country during the interwar period.) One Breguet 19 flew across the Atlantic in 1927; a group of thirty Potez 25s circumnavigated Africa in 1933.6 

French bombers were consistently and technically excellent. The Lioré et Olivier 20 of 1924 was the fastest medium bomber in the world for three years, and it gave birth to a half -dozen derivative designs. The Potez 542 of 1934 was the fastest bomber in Europe until 1936. In 1935, the Amiot 143, which equipped eighteen squadrons, carried a two-ton bomb load at 190 mph at 25,920 feet. Its German contemporary, the Dornier Do 23G, carried half the bomb load thirty miles per hour slower at 13,780 feet. During the following year, the Bloch 210, with a service ceiling of 32,480 feet, began to equip what would ultimately be twenty-four squadrons. No foreign bomber built before 1939 reached 30,000 feet. 

The Farman 222 of 1936 was the. first modern four-engine heavy bomber. Production models reached operational units at the same time that the service test examples (Y1B-17) of the Boeing Flying Fortress were delivered and two years ahead of the production version(B-17B). Typical performance envelopes--5510 pounds of bombs, 1240 miles, at 174 mph for the Farman, versus 2400 pounds of bombs, 1500 miles, at 238 mph for the YIB-17--showed the designs to be technically comparable, with the French emphasizing loadcarrying and the Americans emphasizing speed. Design evolution of the two types tended to increase the speed of the Farman derivatives (to 239 mph for the model 223.4 of 1939) and the load-carrying capacity of the Boeing (to 4000 pounds of bombs, 1850 miles at 211 mph for the B-17G of 1943). Neither design was capable of long-range daylight bombing operations in its 1940 form. The Farman was used exclusively for night raids. 

The Lioré et Olivier 451, at 307 mph, and the Amiot 354, at 298 mph, were the fastest medium bombers during the opening phases of World War II, outpacing the 1940 operational versions of the German Schnellbomber types--the Dornier Do 17K (255 mph), Heinkel He 111E (261 mph), and Junkers Ju 88A (292 mph). The Bloch 174 reconnaissance bomber of 1940 was, in operational configuration, the fastest multiengine aircraft in the world (329 mph). 

French fighter aircraft held eleven out of the twenty-two world airspeed records set between the wars, and seven were held by one aircraft--the Nieuport-Delage 29 fighter of 1921. The Gourdou-Leseurre 32 monoplane fighter of 1924 was the world's fastest operational fighter until 1928, when the Nieuport-Delage 62 overtook it. In 1934, the Dewoitine 371 held the honor; and in 1936, the Dewoitine 510 was the first operational fighter to reach 250 mph.7 The Dewoitine 501 of 1935 was the first fighter to mount a cannon that would fire through the propeller hub. The French fighters in action during 1939-40 were extremely maneuverable, powerfully armed, and able to outfight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E and Bf 110C, as well as the German bombers. 

Only in the summer of 1938 did the air ministry begin awarding contracts of sufficient size to warrant the construction of facilities for mass production of aircraft and engines. Concurrently, the French government began a program of funding the expansion of production facilities in the United States to produce Curtiss fighters, Douglas light bombers, Martin light bombers, Pratt and Whitney engines, and Allison engines. By May 1940, French manufacturers were producing 619 combat aircraft per month, American firms were adding 170 per month against French orders, and the British were producing 392 fighters per month. German production of combat aircraft, averaging 622 per month during 1940, was little more than half that of the industries supporting the Allies.8 The traditional explanation of the French defeat in terms of inadequate supplies of aircraft and aircraft that were inferior in quality does not stand up. The psychological and political milieu in which the air force evolved during the interwar years offers more substantive bases for understanding what happened to the French Air Force. 

Interservice and
Civil-Military Political Issues
The French Air Force was born, grew, and went into combat in an atmosphere of political intrigue. Air force officers were embroiled in three internecine struggles concurrently throughout the interwar period: animosity between the political left and the regular army that had begun before 1800; bureaucratic strife between army officers and aviators about the control of aviation resources, which began during the First World War; and a pattern of coercion and deceit between leaders of the air force and politicians--who, in the late 1920s, began to use the service for political ends. 

At the core of French civil-military relations for the past two centuries had been fear on the part of the political left of repression by the regular army. The regular army had repressed leftist uprisings in bloody confrontations in 1789-90, 1848, and 187 1. It had supported rightwing coups d'état in 1799 and 1851, and a possible coup by General Georges Boulanger had alarmed the politicians in 1889. One of the principal issues in the Dreyfus Affair of 1894-1906 was the claim by the army that the word of its officers was not subject to question by civilian authority. The politicians prevailed over the officers and seized every opportunity to weaken and humiliate them. The Combes and the Clemenceau governments in 1905-07 forced Catholic officers to supervise the seizure of church property, degraded them in the order of precedence, and appointed a Dreyfusard general as minister of war. A right-of-center government in 1910 used the regular army to crush striking railway workers, confirming the leftists' perceptions of the army as their enemy. In 1914, a central tenet of the Socialist program was replacement of the regular army with a popular militia. The left won the election of 1914 but could not enact its program because war began two months later. During the war, the generals assumed extraordinary power and robbed the left of its electoral victory. But in 1924, the left again won control of the government and moved swiftly against the regular army. A series of laws in 1927-28 reduced the army from a combat force to a training establishment, a 1931 law mandated laying off 20 percent of the regular officers, and two laws (1928 and 1933) amputated military aviation from the army and navy and set it up as a separate service. Though there were logical arguments favoring an independent air force, the move was primarily a demonstration of the politicians' power over the military leaders. 

The aviators' welcomed the politicians' support because they had been struggling with officers of the ground arms since 1917 concerning the appropriate role for military aviation. The flyers saw aviation as most effective when employed in mass to strike at decisive points designated by the commander in chief, but each army general wanted a squadron under his direct orders. The aviators had achieved their objective, on paper, in the organization of the 1st Aviation Division in April 1918. The division was a powerful striking force of twenty-four fighter squadrons and fifteen bomber squadrons--585 combat aircraft. It could deploy rapidly to widely separated sectors and apply substantial combat power in support of the ground forces. However, the ground commanders in whose sector the 1st Aviation Division operated used the force primarily as a pool of extra fighter planes to protect their observation aircraft.9 

The aviators' ability to influence the development and employment of their branch was limited by their junior status. The commanders of brigades, escadres (wings), and groups in the 1st Aviation Division were lieutenants or captains appointed as acting majors; and the divisional commander during the war was only a colonel. In the postwar army, major commands went to nonflying generals and colonels from the infantry, cavalry, or artillery. Having tasted senior command responsibility during the war with only eight to ten years of service, the leading aviators were impatient for promotion; but the structure of their branch under the army offered few positions for officers above the rank of captain (serving as commanders of squadrons, units comprising ten to twelve aircraft in peacetime). 

The formation in 1928 of an air ministry independent of the ministry of war offered the aviators a separate promotion list, the opportunity to organize the air force as they saw fit, and an air force general staff to make policy. The aviators lost no time in reorganizing to create additional positions for field grade and general officers. Between 1926 and 1937, the number of squadrons rose from 124 to 134, while the number of grouses (commanded by majors) rose from 52 to 67. The fifteen aviation regiments, formations composed of several groups, were converted to thirty escadres, each having only two groups. The number of command positions for colonels was thereby doubled. The senior aviation commands-two air divisions in 1926-were changed to four air regions in 1932 and to two air corps and six air divisions in 1937. In addition, eight army aviation commands (headed by brigadier generals) and twenty-six corps aviation commands (headed by colonels or lieutenant colonels) would come into being upon mobilization. Having created an abundance of positions for senior officers, the air ministry accelerated the promotion process: In the army, the average time in service for fast-track officers to reach major was sixteen years; colonel, twenty-six years; and brigadier general, thirty years. In the air force after 1928, these averages fell to thirteen, nineteen, and twenty-two years.10 

The question of aviation policy was not so easy to control. The army and the navy had fought the creation of the air ministry and the independent air force with sufficient vigor to retain operational control of 118 of the 134 combat squadrons. The air force officers were responsible for training, administering, and commanding the air force in time of peace; but in wartime, only sixteen squadrons of bombers would remain under the air force chain of command. 

Many aviators saw the primary role of the air force as close support of the ground forces--observation, liaison, and attack of targets on the battlefield. The French had developed close support techniques during the First World War (1914-18 ) and had refined them during the war against the Rif rebellion in Morocco in 1925. In Morocco, aviators flying in support of mobile ground forces perfected the use of aviation for fire support, flank protection, pursuit of a beaten enemy, battlefield resupply, and aeromedical evacuation." But many air force officers sought a broader mission for their service. 

Aviators who were impatient with the close support mission-because it enta, 'led the subordination of aviation to the army-gradually gained ascendancy on the air force general staff. In 1932, General Giulio Douhet's concepts of strategic aerial warfare were translated into French with a laudatory preface by Marshal Henri Petain.12To placate the politically powerful army general staff, air force doctrine prescribed that the entire air force should be capable of participating in the land battle. But the aircraft the air staff sought to procure were the type Douhet had described as battleplanes--large, heavily armed machines designed to be capable of bombing, reconnaissance, and aerial combat. These were clearly intended for longrange bombing, not close support. The air staff claimed that such aircraft could support the land battle, but the army staff was skeptical. The army had sufficient influence to continue to dictate air force procurement policy until the beginning of 1936. In January of that year, the air force had 2162 first-line aircraft. Of these, 1368 (63 percent) were observation and reconnaissance planes dedicated to the army, and 437 (20 percent) were fighters dedicated to protecting the observation planes.13 

In 1934-36, the tension between the army and the air force surfaced in a series of incidents. During a command post exercise in 1934, the army called for attack of battlefield targets; the air force protested that technical problems and limited resources made it impossible to meet the army's demands. The army appealed to the Supreme War Committee, which ruled that the air force should be responsive to the ground commanders and that there was no need for a supreme air commander. In 1935 during joint army-navy maneuvers, the army called for an air attack on motorized columns. The air force responded after a long delay with a strike by heavy twin-engined Bloch 200 battleplanes flying at treetop level. The umpires declared the aircraft to have been wiped out.14 The air force had no aircraft suitable for the attack of battlefield targets, and the air staff on several occasions declined to consider proposals for dive bombers or assault aircraf t on the grounds that the attack of battlefield targets was contrary to air force policy.15 

The strategic bombing enthusiasts found their advocate in Pierre Cot, air minister from June 1936 until January 1938. Cot tripled the bomber force by organizing five new bomber escadres, converting seven of the twelve observation and reconnaissance escadres to bomber escadres, and equipping four of the five remaining reconnaissance escadres with aircraft capable of long-range bombing. The observation mission, except in the colonies, was turned over to the air force reserve so that the maximum number of regular air force units could participate in the strategic bombing mission.16 (See Table I.) 

Table I. Strength of the French Air Force by Branch and Year (squadrons fully organized and equipped) May 
Branch 1920 1926 1932 1938 1940 
Fighter 83 32 37 42 67 
Bomber 32 32 27 66 66 
Observation and
Reconnaissance 145 60 46 26* 30 (plus 47
Reserve 

Totals 260 124 110 134 163 (plus 47
Reserve)** 

*Sixteen reconnaissance squadrons were equipped with battleplanes to participate in the long-range bombing mission.
**Of these, twenty-one fighter, forty-four bomber, six reconnaissance, and eleven reserve observation squadrons were fully organized but were reequipping in May 1940.
Cot's all-out support of strategic bombing met some opposition in the Superior Air Council--the seven or eight senior generals in the air force. To facilitate acceptance of his program, Cot convinced the parliament to pass a law reducing the mandatory retirement age limits for each grade by five years. This move forced all of the members of the Superior Air Council into retirement and removed 40 percent of the other officers as well. Cot filled the vacancies by promoting NCOs and calling reserve officers to active duty--men he believed were more amenable to his new programs of political indoctrination.17 His purges and the sudden promotion of strategic bombing enthusiasts generated a crisis of morale in the officer corps. The crisis was exacerbated rather than alleviated when Guy La Chambre replaced Cot in 1938, because the new air minister conducted his own purge--of the men whom Cot had promoted. La Chambre denounced strategic bombing and directed the air force to prepare to provide close support to the army. Following these developments, the air force leaders perceived the government as an adversary, as well as the army. They began a practice of ignoring governmental policies and deceiving the air minister and the parliament while pursuing narrowly institutional interests. 

The struggle for independence occupied the energies and attention of the air staff so completely that they neglected to develop fully the ground observer corps; command, control, and communications systems; and airfield facilities.19 Because they were preparing to wage a defensive aerial battle over their own territory, the French aviators could have prepared these elements in peacetime, but they were still in a rudimentary state in 1940. During the battle, the French had difficulty tracking and intercepting intruders, were unable to mass units and consequently suffered unduly heavy losses, and achieved an operational availability rate only one-fourth that of Luftwaffe units. 

Possibly because of their disenchantment with the government for using their service as a political toy, the aviators were unable or unwilling to believe that they might be provided with more than a handful of additional aircraft. Thus, when the director of aircraft production advised General Vuillemin, the chief of the air force, in January 1939 that 370 to 600 aircraft per month would come from French factories in 1940, the general said the air force required only 40 to 60. There were not enough aircrews or ground crews for a larger number, and to expand the training program would require the efforts of the entire strength of the air force. In March, Vuillemin agreed to accept 330 aircraft per month. However, even by using forty- to forty-five-year-old reservists to fly in first-line combat units, he could not fully man his units after mobilization.20 The availability of aircrews became the limiting factor on the number of units that Vuillemin could field, and the physical capacities of his aging pilots became the limiting factor on how frequently the aircraft would fly. 

To keep from being buried under the flood of aircraft pouring from the factories, the air staff imposed multiple requirements for modifications, conducted complex acceptance inspections, and kept key components (guns, propellers, and radios) separated from the aircraft on which they were to be installed. Aircraft newly arrived from America were let in their crates. Still the air force received many more aircraft than it could man, and the air staff had to conceal the surfeit from prying parliamentary eyes by dispersing brand-new, combat-ready planes to remote airfields far from the battle zone.21 

As a consequence of the political struggles between the officer corps and the political left, between the army and the air force, and between the air force and the government, the French Air Force entered combat with an incomplete ground infrastructure, insufficient personnel to man its aircraft, and a doctrine so completely at variance with the army's doctrine that the two services were destined to fight largely independent wars. 

The Battle of France: 
10 May-25 June 1940
The French faced the German invasion with 4360 modern combat aircraft and with 790 new machines arriving from French and American factories each month. However, the air force was not organized for battle. The regular air force had only half again as many units as during its peacetime nadir in 1932. As the battle opened, 119 of 210 squadrons were ready for action on the decisive northeastern front. The others were reequipping or stationed in the colonies. The 119 squadrons could bring into action only one-fourth of the aircraft available. These circumstances put the Allied air forces in a position of severe numerical inferiority vis-à-vis the Luftwaffe. (See Table II.) Qualitatively, however, the French pilots and aircraft proved to be more effective than their adversaries. 

Table II. Modern Combat Aircraft Deployed on the Western Front, 10 May 194022

Type
French
British
Belgian,
and Dutch
Combined
German

Fighters 583 197 780 1264 
Bombers 84 192 276 1504 
Reconnaissance
and Observation 458 96 554 502 

Totals 1125 485 1610 3270 

The fighter units on the northeastern front were equipped exclusively with machines built within the preceding eighteen months. The American-made Curtiss 75A fighter joined French squadrons beginning in March 1939. It was the most effective type in its class in combat over France until the Dewoitine D520 became operational in mid-May 1940. Eight squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A shot down 220 German aircraft (confirmed kills), losing only thirty-three pilots. In seven aerial battles in which the Curtiss fighters were engaged with Messerschmitts, the total score was twenty-seven Bf 109Es and six Bf 110Cs destroyed for three of the French aircraft.23 

The Morane-Saulnier MS 406 equipped eighteen squadrons in France on 10 May 1940. The kill-loss ratio for units flying the MS 406 was 191 to 89. The shortcomings of the Morane fighter compared to the Bf 109E have been the topic of many memoirs, but in the reported battles in which Messerschmitts faced Moranes alone, the French posted a record of thirty-one kills and five losses. Both the Morane and the Messerschmitt were designed to met specifications issued in 1934, prototypes flew in 1935, and quantity production began in 1938. The Messerschmitt design was better suited for evolutionary development, and the Bf 109E-3 model of December 1939 was superior to the Morane. (See Table III.) During the Battle of France, the air staff converted twelve squadrons equipped with Moranes to other types as rapidly as training facilities permitted. This policy marginally increased the efficiency of the individual units, but it acted to decrease the effectiveness of the fighter force as a whole by taking combat-experienced squadrons out of the line at a critical time. Further, it failed to capitalize on new production to increase the size of the fighter force. 

Table III. Comparative Characteristics of Fighter Aircraft in the Battle of France25

Country Type Horse-
power Speed (mph) at
Best Altitude (ft) Service
Ceiling (ft) Armament 
France Curtiss 75A-3 1200 311 at 10,000 33,700 six 7.5-mm 
France Dewoitine 520 910 329 at 19,685 36,090 one 20-mm
four 7.5-mm 
France Morane 406 860 302 at 16,400 30,840 one 20-mm
two 7.5-mm 
France Bloch 152 1100 320 at 13,120 32,800 two 20-mm
two 7.5-mm 
England Hawker Hurricane I 1030 324 at 16,250 34,200 eight 7.7-mm 
Germany Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 1175 348 at 14,560 34,450 two 20-mm
two 7.9-mm 

Another fighter designed to meet the same specification as the MS 406 was the Bloch MB 150. Though it lost out in the procurement competition to the Morane, the Bloch firm developed the basic design around a more powerful engine. The resulting Bloch MB 152 was faster and more powerfully armed than the MS 406. Twelve squadrons had Bloch fighters on 10 May 1940, and six more became operational with them during the battle. Units while equipped with Blochs shot down 156 German planes and lost 59 pilots.24 

The first two squadrons equipped with the fast and agile Dewoitine 520 entered the battle on 13 May; eight others completed conversion training and became operational before the armistice. Between them, they shot down 175 enemy aircraft for a loss of 44 aviators. Polish pilots manned two squadrons of Caudron C 714 fighters. The ultralight Caudron (3086 pounds, empty) was capable of 302 mph with a 450-horsepower engine. Becoming operational on 2 June, the Poles shot down seventeen German aircraft and lost five pilots before their unit was disbanded on 17 June. 

The French fighter force had available to it during the battle more than 2900 modern aircraft. At no time did it have more than one-fifth of these deployed against the Germans. The operational rate of the fighter force was 0.9 sorties per aircraft per day at the height of the battle. (German fighter units flew up to four sorties per aircraft per day.) Yet in spite of committing only a minor portion of its resources at a low usage rate, the fighter force accounted for between 600 and 1000 of the 1439 German aircraft destroyed during the battle. 

The bulk of the published commentary on the French bomber force has focused on the fact that eight squadrons of Amiot 143M twin-engine medium bombers remained in the French order of battle. Designed in 1931 and manufactured between 1935 and 1937, the Amiot 143M by 1940 had been left behind by the rapid evolution of aviation technology. Critics of the prewar regime and apologists for the air force have drawn attention to this aircraft to highlight the poor quality of the equipment with which the French Air Force had to fight. Operationally, units equipped with the Amiot 143 performed with distinction. The eight squadrons flew 551 night bombing sorties between 10 May and 16 June and lost only twelve aircraft. In addition, six of the squadrons furnished thirteen aircraft for one desperate daylight mission on 14 June against German bridges and vehicular traffic approaching Sedan. A strong fighter escort kept the loss to three Amiots.26 

The French long-range, four-engine heavy bomber, the Farman 222, equipped four squadrons. These squadrons flew seventy-one night bombing missions, striking targets such as Munich, Cologne, and Koblenz. They lost only two aircraft. 

Modern French day bombers included the 307mph Lioré et Olivier LeO 451 ( 18 squadrons, 392 sorties, 98 losses), the 298-mph Amiot 354 (4 squadrons partially equipped, 48 losses), and the 304-mph Breguet 693 (10 squadrons, 484 sorties, 47 losses). The French machines were supplemented by shipments from America of the 288-mph Martin 167F (first of 8 squadrons into action 22 May, 385 sorties, 15 losses) and the 305-mph Douglas DB-7F (first of 6 squadrons into action 31 May, 69 sorties, 9 losses). 

The effectiveness of the French bomber force was reduced by poor communications arrangements that made massing of bomber squadrons impossible and rendezvous with fighter-escort problematic. Attacking piecemeal, the two day-bomber wings operational on 10 May lost twenty-eight of their forty-two aircraft in the first week. RAF day-bomber units, operating in the same command/control/communications environment, lost 132 out of 192. Most of the surviving machines were in need of extensive repairs. Although new aircraft and units came into action, the low operational rate (.25 sorties per aircraft per day) of the bomber force degraded its ability to have a significant effect on the land battle. 

French reconnaissance and observation units had the most powerful aircraft in these two categories in the world. The standard French strategic reconnaissance aircraft, the Bloch 174, was capable of 329 miles per hour and an altitude of 36,000 feet. First delivered to units in March 1940, the Bloch 174 was produced quickly enough to equip all of the strategic reconnaissance squadrons during the battle. The reconnaissance units obtained early, accurate, and detailed information on German concentrations and axes of advance. They continued to keep senior army headquarters informed, irrespective of weather and enemy opposition, throughout the battle. However, the tempo of activity in reconnaissance units was extraordinarily low--an average of one mission every three days for a squadron (.04 sorties per aircraft perday). At the peak of intensity--from 10 to 15 May--the most active squadron flew two missions per day.27 

The observation branch, relegated to reserve status in 1936, was the stepchild of the air force. The air staff had no program to modernize its equipment--aircraft dating from 1925 to 1935. Guy La Chambre in June 1938 directed the air staff to reequip the observation squadrons. Pilots in operational units wanted an ultrafast singleseater for long-range reconnaissance and a light two-seater capable of landing on unimproved fields for short-range observation missions. The air staff, preoccupied with political issues and indifferent to the views of men on squadron duty, ordered the Potez 63.11, the fastest, heaviest, most complex observation plane in the world. With a top speed of 264 miles per hour, it was 40 miles per hour faster than its German counterpart (Henschel Hs 126 B) and 50 miles per hour faster than the British Lysander. With twelve machine guns, it was the most heavily armed machine in any air force. Too fast and heavy to land on improvised strips yet too slow to escape German fighters, it was an elegant and graceful coffin for its crews. 

Observation squadrons trained and mobilized under the army commands they would support. Army corps commanders viewed their observation squadrons as their private air forces and often imposed unrealistic demands that led to heavy losses early in the war. The air force general staff made rules to protect observation aircraft that limited their utility--for example, they had to fly behind friendly artillery, no mission could exceed fifteen minutes, fighter escort was required, and only the most modern (Potez 63.1 1) aircraft could be used. Poor liaison between the army and air force, coupled with slow communications within the air force, led to many observation squadrons being kept on forward airfields until they were about to be overrun by German motorized units. As a result, more than half of the observation aircraft in units on 10 May were destroyed to prevent capture or simply abandoned by the end of the first week. When the front stabilized between 25 May and 5 June, the observation units performed effectively, but coordination between the air force and army was too threadbare to permit them to function in a war of movement.21 

The ability of the air force to provide close combat support to the army had been fatally compromised by the aviators' struggle for independence. Senior army officers were ignorant of the capabilities and limitations of aviation, and the air force had done almost nothing to develop a capability to attack battlefield targets. Army generals declined strikes on appropriate targets. They demanded support without being able to describe the nature or location of the target or the plan and timing of the friendly maneuver to be supported. The air force organized maximum efforts to support French armored counterattacks. On 14 May, British and French bombers flew 138 sorties and lost 51 planes in support of General Charles Huntziger's counterattack at Sedan. He postponed the attack. The next day the air force mounted 175 sorties; the attack was canceled. The air force did its best to support Colonel Charles de Gaulle's armored thrusts toward Montcornet on 16 and 17 May. Night fighters received day ground assault missions, and the remains of the bomber units were committed. But Colonel de Gaulle failed to tell the air force the time and direction of his movements. As a result, 68 bomber sorties went in before de Gaulle moved and were of no assistance to him. A major breakout south by the encircled Army Group 1 was planned for 21 May. The air force received orders to support the attack but had no information on the time, place, or direction.29 (The mission was canceled.) 

The air force general staff, dedicated to the strategic bombing mission, had quietly ignored Guy La Chambre's directive to prepare for the ground assault mission. La Chambre had forced the air staff to procure assault bombers in 1938, and the first aircraft arrived in units in October 1939. The instructional manual for assault bomber units did not appear until January 1940, and there never was a manual for the employment of fighters in the assault role. The air staff complied with the letter of ministerial and army demands for a ground assault capability but did not commit intellectual, developmental, or training resources to developing one. 

With German armor overrunning France, the air force belatedly sought to improvise an antitank capability. More than 2300 of the 2900 French fighter planes and all of the 382 assault bombers available during the battle carried 20mm cannon capable of penetrating the topside armor of all of the German tanks. The air staff designated Fighter Group III/2 to carry out the first aerial antitank missions. Its MS 406 aircraft carried high-velocity, engine-mounted 20-mm guns, but no armor-piercing ammunition was available. On 23 and 24 May, the unit flew nine sorties, lost three aircraft, and destroyed no tanks. Two weeks later, several fighter units flew a total of forty-eight antitank sorties over a four-day period--again without armor-piercing shells. They lost ten aircraft and did inconsequential damage. Two attacks in mid-June cost an additional three aircraft without seriously damaging any tanks.30 The capability of the armament and the valor of the pilots were wasted because of the absence of intellectual and logistical preparation. 

The story of the French Air Force is one of gallant and competent individual performances that made no perceptible difference in the outcome of the battle. A dozen years of political strife had unraveled the network of trust and confidence through which bravery and professional skill could have an effect. The army and the air force each fought its own battle, weakened by the lack of coordination. The air staff, with its eyes on Berlin, neglected the preparation of command/control/communications systems and thereby denied the French Air Force the ability to integrate the efforts of individual units. The air force was so bitterly alienated from the political leadership that it declined to expand its organization and thereby deprived France of the powerful air force that its industrial base had provided. 

Could the French Air Force Have 
Seized Command of the Air?
On 10 May 1940, the operational units of the French Air Force committed to the Western Front were heavily outnumbered. The low rate of operations in the French Air Force compared to that of the Germans increased by a factor of four the French inferiority in the air during the first month of the battle. By mid-June, however, the Luftwaffe was exhausted. It had lost 40 percent of its aircraft. Its flyers had been operating above hostile territory without navigational aids and with the certainty of capture in the event their aircraft were disabled. The air and ground crews were working from captured fields at the end of lengthening supply lines. The French, on the other hand, had conducted much less intensive flight operations, were able to recover the crews of disabled aircraft, were falling back on their logistical bases, and were bringing new units on line with brand new aircraft every day. By 15 June, the French and German air forces were at approximate parity with about 2400 aircraft each, but the French were operating from their own turf, and they had the support of the RAF. Mastery of the air was there for the seizing, but on 17 June the French air staff began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not protect the airfields. 

An examination of which units were ordered to North Africa and which were left behind reveals much about the motivation behind the evacuation. The units flown to North Africa were those regular air force squadrons with the most modern and effective aircraft--all of the squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A (10), Dewoitine 520 (10), Amiot 354 ( 8 ), Bloch 174 (18 ), Farman 222 (4), Douglas DB-7 ( 8 ), and Martin 167 (10), plus most of those with the Lioré et Olivier 451 (12 of 18 ). Those left behind included all of the air force reserve units--47 observation squadrons and 12 fighter squadrons--and all of the units closely connected with the army (the observation squadrons, the 10 assault bomber squadrons, and 7 night fighter squadrons converted to the ground assault role).31 

The behavior of the leaders of the French Air Force before and during the Battle of France suggests that their primary purposes were to protect the regular air force against its domestic adversaries and to ensure its survival after the battle and the expected defeat. Refusing to expand the regular air force, spinning off the dangerous and unglamorous observation mission to the reserves, maintaining a low operational rate, declining to seize command of the air when the Luftwaffe was weak, and selecting only regular air force units and those unconnected with direct support of the army to send to North Africa constitute a coherent pattern. The senior aviators kept their service small, protected the cadres from severe danger, and kept most of the regular air force together out of the Germans' reach. Such decisions suggest a preposterous misordering of priorities in a nation at war but do make psychological and institutional sense when one reflects on both the frustration the aviators had suffered in their struggle to achieve operational independence from the army and the cavalier and callous way in which parliamentary officials had played with their lives, careers, and values. 

The relevance of the French experience for leaders of the United States Air Force lies in the fact that the institutional struggle for autonomy and the operational necessity for cooperation are permanent and uncongenial elements of every defense establishment. The U.S. Army Air Service (and Air Corps) endured as much destructive and capricious treatment by uniformed and civilian officials of the army and the navy during the interwar years as did the French Air Force.32 By facing the issue of institutional independence for aviation just after (rather than just before) a great war, American military leaders avoided an interservice confrontation on the battlefield. But the interservice struggle goes on: doctrinal divergence retains its potential to sabotage mutual support among the services in future wars. The French experience can be useful as a cautionary tale about the ease with which institutional loyalties can weaken a national defensive posture. 

Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania 

Notes 

1. For a survey of French efforts to obtain more air support, see Patrick Fridenson and Jean Lecuir, La France et la Grande Bretagne face aux problèmes aériens (Vincennes: Service Historique de l' Armée, 1976), A sampling of army generals who complained about air support includes Lieutenant General René Prioux (Souvenirs de guerre 1939-1943. Paris: Flammarion, 1947); Lieutenant General Henri Aymes (Gembloux: succès français. Paris: BergerLevrault, 1948); Lieutenant General Benoît Fornel de la Laurencie (Les opérations du IIIe Corps d'Armée en 1939-40. Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1948); and General Alphonse Georges in preface to General Gaston Roton's Années cruciales (Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1947). Historians who accepted French aerial inferiority as a given include Alistair Horne (To Lose a Battle: France 1940. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969, pp. 184-85); Guy Chapman (Why France Fell: The Defeat of the French Army in 1940. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968, pp. 33-34, 69-72); William L. Shirer (The Collapse of the Third Republic. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969, pp. 611, 616-20); and Jeffrey A. Gunsburg (Divided and Conquered. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood, 1969, pp. 107-10). 

2. Joseph Roos, "La bataille de la production aérienne," Icare, 59 (Autumn-Winter 1971), pp. 44-51; Jean Truelle, "La production aéronautique militaire jusqu'en 1940," Revue d'Historre de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, 73 (January-March 1969), p. 103; Pierre Cot, "En 40, on étaient nos avions?" Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer l971), pp.36-57; Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Entscheidungsschlachten des Zweiten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt-am-Main: Verlag fur Wehrwesen Bernard und Graefe, 1960), p. 25. 

3. For details and sources on combat performance and numbers of French Air Force units, see the discussion in this article on the Battle of France. 

4. The Royal Air Force sent 12 of its 40 operational fighter squadrons to France--30 percent. The French committed 580 of their 2200 fighters--26 percent. RAF fighter losses were 227 of those based in France plus 219 from Fighter Command units based in England. Total--446. French fighter losses totaled 508. Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of France were: French--892, British--1029, German-1469. These figures were derived from data and discussion in Major L. F. Ellis, The War in France and Flanders (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1953), pp. 98, 309, 312, 372-73; Robert Jackson, Air War over France (London: Ian Allen, 1974), pp. 76-78, 136-37; Fridenson and Lecuir, pp. 184-85, 189, 198; Chapman, pp. 160-61, 225, 290; Gunsburg, pp. 111-12, 268; Shirer, pp. 700, 766, 767, 783; General Maurice Gamelin, Servir (Paris: Plon, 1946), vol. 1, p. 282; William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 2, Fighters (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), p. 61. 

5. The French had developed radar on their own; the British provided the French Air Force with superior radar equipment in early 1940. Gunsburg, p. 107; Fridenson and Lecuir, pp. 167-70. 

6. Breguet 19 ocean flight--Heiner Emde, Conquerors of the Air (New York: Viking, 1968), p. 79; Potez 25 African flight--André Van Haute, Pictorial History of the French Air Force (London: Ian Allen, 1974), pp. 97-103; production of Breguet 19 and Potez 25--EIke C. Weal et al., Combat Aircraft of World War Two (New York Macmillan, 1977), pp. 88, 97. 

7. Performance data on interwar aircraft from Weal et al, C. G. Grey and L. Bridgman, Jane's All the World's Aircraft (London: Sampson Low Marston, 1919-1939); Martin C. Windrow and Charles W. Cain, editors, Aircraft in Profile, 14 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1967-1971); Kenneth Munson, Fighters between the Wars 1919-1939 (New York: Macmillan, 1970); and Bombers between the Wars 1919-1939 (New York: Macmillan, 1970); William Green, The Warplanes of the Third Reich (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1970), and James C. Fahey, U.S. Army Aircraft (New York: Ships and Aircraft, 1946). Data on 1939-40 aircraft from same sources and also from William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vols. 1-11, and Famous Bombers, vols. 1 and 2 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959-60). Speed records from Christopher Chant etal., The Encyclopedia of Air Warfare (NewYork: Crowell, 1975), p. 54, 

8. German production--William Green, Warplanes of the Third Reich, pp. 296, 387, 433, 455, 543, 578; French production--William Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 1, pp. 21-22, 29-30, 32, 46; vol. 7, pp. 88, 110, 113,117,140,142-44; vol. 8, pp. 12,13,32; John McVickar Haight, Jr., American Aid to France, 1938-1940 (New York: Atheneum, 1970), pp. 139-40 (aircraft built in the United States); and British production--Derek Wood and Derek Dempster, The Narrow Margin (New York: Paperback Library, 1969), p. 453, 

9. Van Haute, pp. 60-64; General André-Paul-Auguste Voisin, "La doctrine de l'aviation française de combat en 1918." Revue des Forces Aériennes, 3 (1931), pp. 885-90, 898-910, 1299-301. 

10. Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1927 , p. 57a; van Haute, pp. 66-70, 81-83, 89-92; Lieutenant General Jean Henri Jauneaud, De Verdun à Den Ben Phu (Paris: Editions du Scorpion, 1960), pp. 38-39; France, Ministère de la guerre, Annuaire officiel de l' armée française (Paris: Charles Lavauzelle, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1932, 1936). 

11. Colonel Paul Armengaud, "Les enseignemenls de la guerre Marocaine (1925-1926) en matiere d'viation," Revue Militaire Francaise, 28 (January-March 1927), pp. 150-71, 340-56; 28 (April-June 1928), pp. 73-94, 151-64; editors of Revue des Forces Aériennes, "Aït Yacoub--le role de l'aviation dans les affaires de Guefifat, Tarda, et Aït Yacoub en Maroc," Revue des Forces Aériennes, 1 (August-December 1929), pp. 295-308. 

12. General Giulio Douhet, La guerre de l'air, translated by J. Romeyer (Paris: Journal "Les Ailes," 1932). 

13. Van Haute, p. 108. 

14. Brigadier General Jean Hébrard, Vingt-cing années d'aviation militaire (1920-1945), 2 vols. (Paris: Editions Albin Michel, 1946), pp. 162-67, 170-75. 

15. Brigadier General Fleury Seive, L'aviation d'assaut dans la bataille de 1940 (Paris: Editions Berger-Levrault, 1948). pp. 21, 50, 53-55; Hébrard, pp. 179. 

16. Pierre Cot, The Defeat of the French Air Force," Foreign Affairs, 19 (October 1940-July 1941), pp. 790, 805; Jauneaud, pp. 46-47; Hébrard, p. 185; Robert W. Krauskopf, "French Air Power Policy 1919-1939" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, 1965), pp. 98-99, 122, 223-26; Robert J. Young, "The Strategic Dream: French Air Doctrine in the Inter-War Period, 1919-39," Journal of Contemporary History, 9 (October 1974), pp. 67-69. 

17. Major General Paul Armengaud, Batailles politiques et militaires sur l'Europe. Témoignages (Paris: Editions du Myrte, 1948), pp. 37-40. 

18, Krauskopf, pp. 254-56, 263; Young, pp. 72-73. 

19. General Henri Hugo, " Une expérience inestimable, " Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), pp. 92-93; General Joel Pape, "Parfois, j'ai envie d'oublier," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), pp. 100-01; General Raymond Brohon, "Le groupement de bombardement No. 10," Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer 1971), p. 87; Lieutenant Colonel René Josselin, "Sept semaines sur la front de la Sarre," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), pp. 163-64. 

20. Lieutenant General Francois-Pierre-Raoul d'Astier de la Vigerie, Le ciel n'était pas vide (Paris: René Julliard, 1952), pp. 48, 53-54; Major Jean Fraissinet, "De la drôle de guerre à la vraie," Icare, 56 (Winter 1970), p. 123n; Pierre Jean Gisclon, "Maurice Arnoux est mort au combat," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 135; Pape, p. 99; Lieutenant Colonel Henri Dietrich, "Point de view d'un réserviste," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 118; Colonel Jacques Ballet, "A l'abordage sur Potez 63," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), p. 118; Colonel Henri Moguez, "Histoire du groupe 501," Icare, 59 (Fall-Winter 1971), pp. 138-40; Major Jean Ridray, "Comme à la fête," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 128; Jacques Lecarme, "Triste campagne de France," Icare, 57 (Winter 1970), pp. 149-50; Roos, pp. 46-49; Gunsburg, p. 74. 

21. Cot, pp. 799-800; Shirer, p. 618; Colonel Jean Louveau, "Jusqu' à l'abordage," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 110. Colonel Louveau in September 1939 saw 150 new fighters sitting at Chateauroux, and when he went to pick up replacement aircraft in May he was offered one without guns and one without sights. Colonel Dietrich of Fighter Group II/10 had a similar experience at Cazeaux--the missing parts were radios and firing pins (Dietrich, p. 122); General Paul Stehlin, "De la diplomatic au renseignements et à 1'escadrille," Icare, 55 (Fall-Winter 1970), p. 46; Pape, p. 105; Frank Fremond, "Le dernier vol du Colonel Dagnaux," Icare, 57 (Spring-Summer 1971), p. 136; Roos, pp. 46-49, 52; Haight, pp. 242-43. 

22. The best sources on numbers of aircraft available on 10 May 1940 are the technical works by Green, Cain and Windrow, and Haight (see footnotes 7 and 8 ). 

23. "Effectifs, pertes, palmares des 24 groupes à 2 escadrillcs et des 4 escadrilles de chasse de nuit dans la Bataille de France," Icare, 54 (Summer 1970), p. 72; Martin C. Windrow and Charles W. Cain, Aircraft in Profile, vol. 6, profile 135, p. 16; vol. 7, p. 24; vol, 9, p. 235; Lieutenant Colonel Salesse, L'aviation de chasse française en 1939-1940 (Paris: Berger-L,evrault, 1948), pp. 36, 40, 48, 54, 57, 61, 72, 83, 85, 175, 

24. Salesse, pp. 72, 83, 85, 91, 94, 97, 102, 106, 110-11, 113-16, 118, 120, 130, 132-34, 136, 143, 145-46, 149, 151, 154, 158-59. 

25. Green, Warplanes of the Second World War, vol. 1, pp, 30,40, 49, 57; vol. 2, p. 69; vol. 4, p. 44; Green, Warplanes of the Third Reich, p. 549. 

26. For performance, see entries for particular aircraft in Weal et al., Windrow and Cain, and Green, Warplanes of the Second World War. For operational rate, see Jackson, pp. 60-70, and Colonel Pierre Paquier, L'aviation de bombardment française (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1948), pp. 208-49. 

27. Lieutenant R. P. Guy Bougerol, Ceux qu'on n'a jamais vus... (Paris:; B Arthaud, 1943), and Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Paquier and Major Cretin, L'aviation de renseignement française en 1939-1940 (Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1947), pp. 88-89, 92-93, 97, 99,102,106, 114, 116. 

28. Paquier and Cretin, pp. 48, 57, 62-64, 67, 75. 

29. Astier, p . 72 (General Corap says army is "betrayed" by the air force), p. 104 (General Huntziger declines bombing on massed German tank), p. 105 (General Bilotte declines bombing of crossing at Houx; General Corap asks for air strike but can't say where), pp. 110-14 (all-out effort to support Huntziger's Counterattack, subsequently postponed), p. 127 (General Corap calls for air strikes but cannot specify targets), p. 167 (Colonel de Gaulle declines to give air force his plan of maneuver), p. 238 (General Altmayer refuses air support for attack on Abbeville). Also, Salesse, p. 109 (de Gaulle calls for help too late); Paquier, pp. 200-01. 

30. Astier, pp. 136, 150-51, 181; Salesse, pp. 103, 116, 118, 143, 146, 148, 161-62, 169. 

31. Paquier, pp. 186-87; Salesse, pp. 166, 170, 187-88; Paquier and Cretin, p. 172; Jackson, pp. 134-35, 

32. For an interesting summary of the American experience, see Dewitt S. Copp, A Few Great Captains (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1980). 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributor 

Lieutenant Colonel Faris R. Kirkland, USA (Ret) (A.B., Princeton University; M.A., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania), is a lecturer in history at Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. Formerly he was director of the Social Science Research Group at the University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In his initial assignment as a young Army officer, he served as an artillery forward observer in Korea; at the conclusion of his military career, he was operations officer, XXIV Corps Artillery, coordinating land-sea-air action in Hue, Khe Sanh, and Cap Mui Lai in Vietnam. 

Disclaimer 

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

Well I just learned something new.

Thanks for the info! Good post.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2005)

Thanks! It's amazing that some of the French Fighters that were always thought to be junk did seemingly well. It looks like they (The French) were their own worse enemy.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)

Good post FBJ.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 19, 2005)

Excellent.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 19, 2005)

Yeah, good post. Does seem like they were they're own worst enemy. Granted the french had some good weaponry, generally superior, but they didnt know how to fight defensively effectively. They had better tanks, and more of them. But tragically theyre defences were sectored around the maginot line, which was just not effective as they thought, becuase the germans always found a way around it. The french tanks were all spread out, and usually a commander would also have to be the gunner, thinking they could devote more to crew protection, with less crew in the tank itself. As for the headquarters, they werent centralized enough to deal with coordinated armoured and infantry thrusts supported by effective ground attack and fighter cover. With leaders like rommel spearheading deep into enemy lines, outrunning his own logistics and using allied ones to his advantage to always stay on the move, he made the french so confused they didnt stand a chance. As with the ground forces, the armee del air was victim of the people in control. The aircraft, while maybe better armed, were woefully outclassed in tactics and concentration against the luftwaffe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 19, 2005)

According to this information the MS 406 and MB 152 didn't do too badly, but even with the D520 and the Curtiss Hawk 75A, the FAF couldn't gain air supremacy and had little effect on German ground forces. This article solidifies comments from another threat that the Hawk 75A, while a bit slower than it's contemporaries, was under rated and definitely a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## WEISNER (Nov 19, 2005)

All french aircraft had the same top speed, approx. 650 mph just before hitting the ground in flames....


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 19, 2005)

Now that was funny.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2005)




----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2005)

FJ I may be setting myself up for a fall here, but I question some of the findings in the posting you made. Before everyone jumps on me, I should add that it only effects the MS406, which is the only French fighter that I have any real information on. I must say that it doesn't paint as good a picture that the bare facts included in the post would indicate.

On performance the figure of 302 as the max speed of the 406 is the same, but and its a big but, this was hardly ever reached in combat. To reach that speed you had to retract the radiator which gave you about 5 mins before the engine overheated. With the radiator open the max speed was around 280mph in a factory fresh aeroplane. Most Moranes would only reach around 260mph after any time with a squadron as hangers were in short supply due to the reasons quoted in the post.
In addition, a large proportion of the planes were fitted with the two pitch Chauviere airscrew which changed the pitch pneumatically invariably froze solid at altitude in cold weather which left the crews with two choices
a) chose fine pitch for the climb and lose more speed (down to around 186mph) when you reached altitude
b) chose coarse pitch to keep the speed but climb slowly with a heavy load on the engine.
Both options reduced your chances of intercepting anything to close to zero.

To make it worse the wing mg's also froze at approx 13,100ft leaving you with the 20mm which was very effective but only 60 rounds which gives you 2 maybe 3 bursts before your out of ammo. If the MG's did fire the mountings flexed giving a poor concentration of fire.
The sight was derided by a lot of the pilots as being poor. It was mounted in a cutout of the windscreen, was buffeted by the airflow and often flexed ruining the sighting. This is in addition to the lamp being weak and often vanishing if you were to within 60 degrees of the Sun.

As a final problem the radio was fairly good but the pilots had to use a Duplex radio procedure so they transmitted on one frequency and received on another. As a result there was no direct conversation between the pilots with an obvious effect on the ability of the pilots to work together.

With all the above and the lack of combat experience of the French airforce I find it hard to believe that the 406 outscored the German fighters in fighter vs fighter combat. 
It should also be remembered that the French captured a 109E during the battle of France and tested it against the 406 and other aircraft declaring the 406 to be Superior. Any organisation who can make that claim must be suspect.

That wasn't the experience of the French fighter pilots who knew that the 109 was faster, had superior acceleration, climb and dive figures and that they only had a real chance against inexperienced German pilots and getting them in a turning combat.

My information gives different loss claim figures. They say that French figures say that 146 406's were lost in combat with 75 pilots losing their lives and that they claimed 171 kills plus 93 probables. There is a note in the paper that Luftwaffe Quartermaster General loss returns do not substantiate these figures. Unfortunately they don't say what the German figures were. 

The information re the problems with flying the 406 in combat is from an article written by Colonel Pierre Boillot who was an experienced pilot who flew the 406 with the Groupe III of the 7th Escadre during the Battle of France. 

I will now find a nice deep bunker and see what comes in.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 19, 2005)

To me, those figures sound about right. I can highly doubt the the M.S406 could outscore the germans in a 109E. The 109E was a damn good fighter for the time, and the MS406, well, wasnt. The lack of gun heaters for the weak 7.5mm darne's reduced its altitude performance, giving the germans and much higher cieling of operation, and the ability to use theyre superiour diving and climbing characteristics to attack flights of the MS406's from above, and then climb up to altitudes where the Ms406 wouldnt be able to use its machine guns, run out of cannon ammo quickly with inferior sights, and be unable to reach, or even come too close to its maximum speed. The VG33 was the only major threat, besides maybe some hawks, that the 109E had to worry about. my opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

The Hawk-75 was the only threat to the Luftwaffe, in numbers, that came from the French Air Force. And a real threat it was too! The RAF lost half of it's strength aiding the French during Fall Gelb, luckily the RAF never wasted any Spitfire squadrons in France. 

I can, but don't want to, believe that the French blame the air force for it's army failures. The loss of that campaign was solely down to the slow reaction and out-dated tactical thinking of Army command, and nothing else. 

It's a shame that France collapsed so quickly ...because, although I strain to say it...the French had some really good equipment in their army and air force!


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

Yeah they did, but there tanks had the commander/gunner scheme, and the one man in the turret is enough mentality, and that simply wouldnt work. They had good equipment, but were victims of times past. They used theyre superior tanks (in armor, range sometimes, and armament) in a horrible fashion, spreading a little everywhere hoping that it would stem the tide, instead of having a strong, coordinated fast reaction group to stop an armoured thrust directly. The airforce, wasnt suited especially to ground attack and support of land forces. French bombers, though in my opinion cool looking, were slow, under-defended, lumbering beasts that made a great target for the luftwaffe. The french fighters, especially the Hawk, and VG33 were the only real contenders for air superiority, but again, the pilots didnt have experience like those of the luftwaffe. And then theres the maginot line, while a decent concept, the defense budget of the french could have been much better spent in local defense of towns, using maybe half the budget, and putting the rest into aircraft puchase/production and tank production/modernization of ideas and tactics.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 20, 2005)

The way I read that report, the Hawk 75A had the best showing against the Germans....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

It was the best fighter in there fleets but the best way to see the French airforce was on the ground because the pilots had all surrendured. No I should not say that. The French airforce fought more than likely with great valor in a lost cause, just like the Polish airforce.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 21, 2005)

Hows about the D.520?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Hows about the D.520?



I think the 520 was a good aircraft and probably had the potential to grow as the Spitfire and -109 did, but for the most part it seems the most effective fighter the French had was the Hawk 75A. The 520 was used effectively by several other axis airforces....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 21, 2005)

The D.520 was a decent aircraft, and had some room to grow, but i dont know if the french would have been able to develop an engine in time with the reliability, altitude performance, and power to be competitive with the germans. They would have been able to keep up against the Italians most likely, since they were still flying Biplanes and very poor monoplanes for the most part at that time. Though the Cr.42 had a top speed near enough the french fighters to make it not too much of an advantage, except against the VG33.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 22, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> To me, those figures sound about right. I can highly doubt the the M.S406 could outscore the germans in a 109E. The 109E was a damn good fighter for the time, and the MS406, well, wasnt. The lack of gun heaters for the weak 7.5mm darne's reduced its altitude performance, giving the germans and much higher cieling of operation, and the ability to use theyre superiour diving and climbing characteristics to attack flights of the MS406's from above, and then climb up to altitudes where the Ms406 wouldnt be able to use its machine guns, run out of cannon ammo quickly with inferior sights, and be unable to reach, or even come too close to its maximum speed. The VG33 was the only major threat, besides maybe some hawks, that the 109E had to worry about. my opinion.



I think that you are mis-reading the information posted Carp.

Couple of important sentences;

>>The Morane-Saulnier MS 406 equipped eighteen squadrons in France on 10 May 1940. The kill-loss ratio for units flying the MS 406 was 191 to 89. The shortcomings of the Morane fighter compared to the Bf 109E have been the topic of many memoirs, but in the reported battles in which Messerschmitts faced Moranes alone, the French posted a record of thirty-one kills and five losses.<<

i.e. despite its shortcomings the MS 406, when flying combat missions, posted a kill ratio close to 2:1, when flying just against the Bf-109E, it had a 6:1 K/L ratio. Even if kills claims are double actual kills, that is still a very good showing.

Similarly, the article posted lists quite favourable kill/loss ratios for the MB 152 and D 520, at least in terms of enemy planes shot down to pilots lost.


----------



## d_bader (Nov 25, 2005)

In my opinion if you are looking for the best French built fighter it has got to be the D520. 
If you are looking for the best fighter in French service then it would have to be the Hawk 75a


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

I will agree with that.


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2005)

Jabber. I think you will find that Carp was agreeing with my posting. Forgive me Carp if I am wrong. 
In the posting I was pointing out that with all the massive disadvantages that the MS had compared to the 109 I simply find it hard to believe that the MS could have achieved that kill ratio against the 109. The numbers and figures that I was quoting were from an experienced MS406 pilot who had flown pre war in the French Air Force and flew the MS406 against the Germans during the Battle for France. There is no doubt that he knew which was the better plane.


----------



## FalkeEins (Feb 22, 2009)

..it's a shame that Kirkland's article got posted here - it's very misleading in certain respects. Certainly Glider's info about the Ms 406 was about right...


----------



## FlexiBull (Feb 22, 2009)

So one minute your flying over France fighting the Germans.

Then you fly to Tunisia/Syria and call yourself the Vichy Airforce and start shooting down Hurricanes and Kittyhawks, while some of your own mates pop over to Russia and have ago at the Germans on the Eastern Front while the other lot are still shooting down Allies.

Meanwhile waiting in England the Free French Air Force are preparing!!

"During his complicated combat career, Pierre Le Gloan shot down 18 aircraft (4 German, 7 Italian and 7 British), which gave him the 4th position among the French flying aces of the war."

What's all that about then???


----------



## Marcel (Feb 24, 2009)

FlexiBull said:


> So one minute your flying over France fighting the Germans.
> 
> Then you fly to Tunisia/Syria and call yourself the Vichy Airforce and start shooting down Hurricanes and Kittyhawks, while some of your own mates pop over to Russia and have ago at the Germans on the Eastern Front while the other lot are still shooting down Allies.
> 
> ...



Those were different times, Flex: "My country is wrong, my country is right, *my* country". That was true for the French as well. Remember it was the French government (at least the one controlling some French soil) that turned against the allies. The fact that they were at least based in France gave some the opinion that they were the real French government. I think we cannot judge those who fought for Vichy that easily. I cannot guess what my fellow Dutch countrymen would have done if the Germans would have installed a puppet Dutch government her in the Netherlands. Probably some of our soldiers would have fought the Allies as well.


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2009)

> Remember it was the French government (at least the one controlling some French soil) that turned against the allies.


I think you have that backward. Beginning in July 1940 Britain fought an undeclared war against the legitimate French government.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 24, 2009)

From what I've read, there were volunteers from all of the occupied countries, including Poland, in the Wehrmacht. Had the US fallen to the Germans, I'll bet a number of Americans would have joined, too.

Here's a link to a web site post on the subject of Dutch volunteers in the SS:

Axis History Forum • View topic - Dutch SS Volunteers

CD


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2009)

FalkeEins said:


> ..it's a shame that Kirkland's article got posted here - it's very misleading in certain respects. Certainly Glider's info about the Ms 406 was about right...



And why is it 'shame' to post the Kirkland's article here? Is there perhaps a more accurate assessment of French armed force prior and at start of WWII? 
If so, please post something about that.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

I have read that one of the main reasons that the H-75 did so well in French hands, relative to other aircraft that were seemingly superior in performance (like the D 520) was that the H-75 was delivered on time, and that the pilots had plenty of time to get proficient on the type. The uits that went into battle with these mounts were fully trained units, unlike the rush jobs that went into battle after the invasion had started.

The MS 406 in my opinion was the weak link in the French fighter forces. The other thing that is really striking about the french air force was its lack of a modern bomber force. I pay due deferance to the very superior bombers in the pipeline, like the LeO 451, and the AM 354, but these were arriving in only small numbers at the critical moment.

If the french aero industry had made its modernization moves even 8 months before it did, things may have been very different, but like all the air forces that faced the LW up until August 1940, they were just peacetime puppies up against the most professional air force of its time. The LW had superior tactics, and experience, thanks to its experiences in Spain and Poland, the french had antiquated tactical concepts (a failure to concentrate air resources at the critical points on the front, outdated aerial formations, ground attack methods....the so called "hedge hoppers"liike the Bre 690... that were second rate compared to the pinpoint attacks of the Stukas, and a high command that failed to appreciate the impact of airpower until it was too late.

I have read Kirkland before, and whilst he is a good source, he needs to be treated with a certain degreee of circumspection. I do agree with his broad conclusions....namely that the french high command was one of the main factors in its own demise. but his claims about the missing airframes is just exaggeration. Every airforce has to maintain large reserve, and there are always large numbers of airframes apparently unnaccounted for. Just loo at the LW in 1944, it produced something like 40000 fighters in 1944, was losing about 2000 airframes per month (just roughly...im not trying to be super accurate here) and yet at the end of the year had less than 5000 fighters on strength....what happened to all the other aircraft. Similar arguments can be levelled at every major player in the war....they could never field all the aircraft they produced....


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

Something further to add, concerning losses. I cant answer the combat records for individual types, or formations, but overall, the breakdown of losses was as follows:

"The Luftwaffe virtually destroyed the Armée de l'Air during the campaign and inflicted heavy losses to the RAF contingent that was deployed. It is estimated the French lost 1,274 aircraft destroyed during the campaign, the British suffered losses of 959 (477 fighters). The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,428 aircraft destroyed. A further 488 were damaged, making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively affected. The campaign had been a spectacular success for the German air-arm. The Luftwaffe had effectively destroyed three Allied air forces and inflicted heavy losses to a fourth.

The LW emerged from the battle with approximately 860 S/E fighters, and had been reinforced during the 6 week campaign to the tune of about 100 aircraft. Since their fighter forces started with 1016 machines, and 100 were added to that total, the net losses to the LW Me 109 equipped units was no more than 260. Since the MS 406 formations are known to have been decimated (not all from fighter engagements....many were lost to bombing raids on the airfields, many more were burnt to avoid capture) and there were about 400 of them on strength at the time of the battle, it is highly unlikley that the claim they achieved kill ratios of 6:1 over the german fighters has any validity at all. perhaps they achieved something like that against all german aircraft , but I doubt very strongly that such an exchange rate was achieved against the fighters

One more thing to note. The loss rates suffered by the LW in the 6 week campaign in France were higher than any comparable period in 1940, including the very height of the BOB. Despite these heavy losses, the campaignis considered a decisive German victory in the air battle, why, because the LW achieved nearly all that was expected of it (except over Dunkirk....)


----------



## delcyros (Feb 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The MS 406 in my opinion was the weak link in the French fighter forces. The other thing that is really striking about the french air force was its lack of a modern bomber force. I pay due deferance to the very superior bombers in the pipeline, like the LeO 451, and the AM 354, but these were arriving in only small numbers at the critical moment.
> 
> 
> Just loo at the LW in 1944, it produced something like 40000 fighters in 1944, was losing about 2000 airframes per month (just roughly...im not trying to be super accurate here) and yet at the end of the year had less than 5000 fighters on strength....what happened to all the other aircraft. Similar arguments can be levelled at every major player in the war....they could never field all the aircraft they produced....



The FAF had the perhaps best tactical bomber technically by 1940: The Br-690/691/692/695 series. They were just wasting it unnecessary in suicide attacks.

The official production figures for defense fighters in 1944 totalled only around 10.000 A/C, not 40.000. The source is a primary one, showing the deliveries of fighterplanes to Luftwaffe units for each month. Best delivery figures were just above 1100 planes/month in late 1944. Correspondingly, the loss figures averaged at under 500 A/C/month.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

Del

Thanks for the correction, but its not the delivery numbers you need to look at....its the new airframes produced that generates the discrepancy....Looking at this 1944 year, I dont doubt that 10000 aircraft were delivered, but Germany produced 26326 (according to Ellis....not a great source, but good enough for this discussion), not including specialised ground attack aircraft like the FW190 F-8 (???).

So, if they produced 26000 fighter, and received only 10000, what happened to the other 16000 fighters????


----------



## Marcel (Feb 24, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> From what I've read, there were volunteers from all of the occupied countries, including Poland, in the Wehrmacht. Had the US fallen to the Germans, I'll bet a number of Americans would have joined, too.
> 
> Here's a link to a web site post on the subject of Dutch volunteers in the SS:
> 
> ...


It's true. I would not place them in the same league as the Vichy forces though. These were traitors of their own country and usually very pro-nazi. Quite a number of them were known to be more brutal to their own people then the German Nazi's.



davebender said:


> I think you have that backward. Beginning in July 1940 Britain fought an undeclared war against the legitimate French government.



Yep, but Vichy was German-friendly and thus no friend of the Allies. That's what I meant.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2009)

parsifal said:


> If the french aero industry had made its modernization moves even 8 months before it did, things may have been very different, but like all the air forces that faced the LW up until August 1940, they were just peacetime puppies up against the most professional air force of its time. The LW had superior tactics, and experience, thanks to its experiences in Spain and Poland, the french had antiquated tactical concepts (a failure to concentrate air resources at the critical points on the front, outdated aerial formations, ground attack methods....the so called "hedge hoppers"liike the Bre 690... that were second rate compared to the pinpoint attacks of the Stukas, and a high command that failed to appreciate the impact of airpower until it was too late.



That about sums it up. 

Now add the usage of German ground forces in the similar way and it's really a miracle that French defenses lasted as it did.


----------



## FlexiBull (Feb 24, 2009)

I am sorry to have split this thread between aircraft and politics, but it is strange that it is the aircraft that links the two. The Dewoitine D520 was fine aircraft, and possibly a match for any fighter, Allied or Axis at the time (my opinion). The very fact that it was taken en mass and used by the Vichy Airforce and by the Italians, Romanians and Bulgarians must mean that it had some pedigree. It was in the process of being re-engined and developed as the D 551. 

The D 520 even lasted through to 1944 when a Free French squadron was formed using "recaptured" D520.

The aircraft went from side to side during the war, which brings me back to the politics. An aircraft can swap sides easily, but is it or should I say was it that easy for a pilot to swap allegiance from fighting for his country to fighting against his country's allies.

Le Gloan was born in Brittany, a strongly independant region of France and as about as far from the Vichy Region as you can get in France. These are not likes the Freikorps, people who original believed in German Socialism and were prepared to fight alongside Germans against communism and indirectly their mother country, a case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". 

Le Gloan and his colleagues in the French airforce must have mentally switched sides. Was pressure put on them, how do you change your allegiance in such a dramatic way. I understand that in the French Navy, sailors scuttled their ships rather than have them used against their allies.

Whereas in other areas of France, resistance against their oppressors was growing with all too often sad consequences







One of many, many memorials to those Frenchmen who died for France.


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2009)

A bunch of nations had people fighting in the Spanish Civil War. Including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and the USA. Apparently only Germany learned anything from the experience....


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

silly as that may seem, it is probably closer to the truth than trying to argue that all nations learnt from the experiences in spain. i think it has to do with the fact that the tgermans were usuing the conflict as a test bed for equipment, personnel, and tactics, whereas the others (except possibly Russia, but this became irrelevant anyway, because stalin had all the officers sent to spain killed, so anything they learnt was lost anyway) were sending guys in to fight mindlessly, and then not watching wwhat worked and what didnt. Germany very much was observing the results of its operations in Spain....


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 24, 2009)

> Germany very much was observing the results of its operations in Spain....


Fortunately, much of what they learned was wrong, such as the use of unescorted "fast" bombers. That gave them confidence in planes like the He-111, which couldn't survive without fighter escort.

CD


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

They also learnt the use of the Rotte or pair, which was very right, and the proper use and importance of precision close support.

On the ground the importance of the "all arms" concept was tested and vindicated.

IMO the benefits accrued from the Spanish experience far outweighed the wrong conclusions reached.

The high speed bomber, versus the slow well armed bomber was, and is anever ending cycle.....best example i can thnk of is the Mosquito. Developed at a time when the fast bomber concept 9exemplified by the he 111 and the Blenheim) the unarmed Mosquito outclassed any of its heavy cousins in terms of survivability. Once fighters were developed with a sufficient turn of speed to catch the mossie, this popular little aircraft was looking at a similar fate to the hapless Blengeim....

The provision of escort for the bombers was a lesson quickly learned and absorbed IMO. They certainly were providing escorts for their bombers over England


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> I think you have that backward. Beginning in July 1940 Britain fought an undeclared war against the legitimate French government.



"legitimate French government"??? 

The Vichy Regime from it's inception tossed out a democratic constitution and democratically elected parliament. I wouldn't call that a legitimate government. It was only made "legitimate" by recognition of foriegn occupying powers like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and very unfortunately a few democratic nations like the USA. To others, like the UK, de Gaulle's Free French and other governments in exile, Vichy represented everything that an oppresive government based on non-democratic principals could stand for. Even as Petain and Laval were incorporating collaborationist and racial anti-Jewish policies, Leahy presented himself as American Ambassador to the Vichy regime with all the credentials afforded to him by FDR and that dork of a Sec. of State, Cordell Hull.


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 24, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> Fortunately, much of what they learned was wrong, such as the use of unescorted "fast" bombers. That gave them confidence in planes like the He-111, which couldn't survive without fighter escort.
> 
> CD



It was actually right, fast bombers could work unescorted just He-111 also the blenhim were no longer fast by 1940. 

France was not defeated by deficiencies in tactical concepts, the blunder was a strategic one, sending the bulk of their forces into belgium and how slow they were to recognise the location of the main attack. The rush then to move to counter the Germans weakened and disorganised these divisons before they even ecountered the Germans.

However the biggest blunder IMO was simply not following through with their own pre war plans of going on the offensive while Germany was tied up with Poland.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 24, 2009)

FlexiBull said:


> I am sorry to have split this thread between aircraft and politics, but it is strange that it is the aircraft that links the two. The Dewoitine D520 was fine aircraft, and possibly a match for any fighter, Allied or Axis at the time (my opinion). The very fact that it was taken en mass and used by the Vichy Airforce and by the Italians, Romanians and Bulgarians must mean that it had some pedigree. It was in the process of being re-engined and developed as the D 551.
> 
> The D 520 even lasted through to 1944 when a Free French squadron was formed using "recaptured" D520.
> 
> ...


Were some families threatened? I have heard some families of US citizens in Germany were threatened in the 1930s. Aviators were prized posessions. I could see the Nazis seeking out the families of fighter pilots and telling them how fast their parents, wives, sons and daughters could fall on hard times if they didn't toe the right line.

Would I fight for Nazi Germany to save my kids? You bet I would. I'd pray to God every night they'd lose, but I'd do it because I wouldn't have any choice.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 24, 2009)

Hi and welcome back HT

I agree with most of what you say, but even in tactical concepts the french were at a severe disadvantage. On the ground they were wedded to the idea of the continuous front, which was already outdated in 1940. It meant that leg infantry, instead of hedgehogging and not moving when attacked and using every availble weapon as an AT device (since as stalin prophesised..."all defence is antitank defence in modern war"), they continually kept giving position after position up after being "outflanked", only to be run down by the motorised forces as they attempted to run. What they needed to do was have the Infantry dig in, hedgehog, form a defensive box, and await relief from the armoured counterattack (which never came) 
To be fair, and to their credit, after the initial debacles that cost them 40% of their army and nearly all of their mobile and armoured reserves, the french were the first to implement the "quadrillage" defence against armour. It was implemented as the 'pakfront" in Russia, and the 'defensive Box" in the desert. The germans no doubt had their term for it. Overnight, the french learnt to centre their defences around fixed positions, using 75mm over open sights as their main AT weapon (replacing the inneffective 25mm gun). The germans in the latter part of the campaign noted a marked increase in the resilince of the french defence, but unfortuately the other key element to a successful modern defence, an armoured counterattack force was no longer possible because of the losses. DeGaulle's counterattack pointed to what may have been possible if the french had known what to do when they had 2500tanks instead of 250....


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 25, 2009)

HellToupee said:


> It was actually right, fast bombers could work unescorted just He-111 also the blenhim were no longer fast by 1940.
> 
> France was not defeated by deficiencies in tactical concepts, the blunder was a strategic one, sending the bulk of their forces into belgium and how slow they were to recognise the location of the main attack. The rush then to move to counter the Germans weakened and disorganised these divisons before they even ecountered the Germans.
> 
> However the biggest blunder IMO was simply not following through with their own pre war plans of going on the offensive while Germany was tied up with Poland.



The blunder was both tactical and strategic! 

The concept of fast light bombers can certainly work just look at the huge success the Mosquito had by outrunning the Axis interceptors!

Surely the D.520 was the best french fighter during the Battle of France! Although in limited numbers it was one of the best fighters in Europe at the time! It could have accomplished more than the Hawk if brought to operational status at the same time and crews knew the plane well! It could very much hold its own against the Me-109!


----------



## HellToupee (Feb 25, 2009)

parsifal said:


> To be fair, and to their credit, after the initial debacles that cost them 40% of their army and nearly all of their mobile and armoured reserves,



It wasn't so much they lost there reserves its that they kept no significant reserves all they had were penny packets all their best units were sent into Belgium and hardly saw much action at all. 

Continuous front defense wasn't the brightest idea more political than practical but it was the complete lack of a strategic reserve to plug the holes that was the bigger problem, they were thinking more of their future offensive than a proper defense.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 25, 2009)

Couple of points about the D.520:
-it was the best airframe (along with prewar Yu IK-3) to put the not-so-strong HS-12 engine* to a good use - it was significantly faster then MS-406 with almost the same power
-it required 30-40% (!) less man-hours then the MS-406 to build 


*peak power was some 920 HP, while DB-601 of the same time frame bolstered 1175 HP IIRC


As for French soldiers tossed from one government to the other, the similar happened in ex-Yu and Soviet union after German attack: some people fught against German forces, while other welcomed them as liberators against the opressive regimes. 
It is much easier to know what side to choose with hindsight.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Feb 25, 2009)

Fast bombers only work as long as you keep them fast, which the Luftwaffe didn't.

CD


----------



## peperez (Mar 9, 2011)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> "legitimate French government"???
> 
> The Vichy Regime from it's inception tossed out a democratic constitution and democratically elected parliament. I wouldn't call that a legitimate government. It was only made "legitimate" by recognition of foriegn occupying powers like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and very unfortunately a few democratic nations like the USA. To others, like the UK, de Gaulle's Free French and other governments in exile, Vichy represented everything that an oppresive government based on non-democratic principals could stand for. Even as Petain and Laval were incorporating collaborationist and racial anti-Jewish policies, Leahy presented himself as American Ambassador to the Vichy regime with all the credentials afforded to him by FDR and that dork of a Sec. of State, Cordell Hull.


 
Pétain received his power from the National Assembly. Democratic elected representatives formally and legally considered the French State as the right successor of the Third Republic. Vichy France kept its neutrality even after British forces attacked Mers-el-Kebir, killing 1,297 French sailors. Despite this, Admiral Darlan ordered the fleet to scuttle its fine ships at Toulon to comply with compromises taken with its former allies, in 1940, that no French ship would serve under German flag.

I have no sympathy for Pétain and for Vichy France, but its pilots and soldiers lived in a very complicated moment. The attack at Mers-el-Kebir just turned things even more complicate. Imagine the reaction of Douglas Bader if Britain was defeated by Nazi Germany and the French fleet appeared at Scapa Flow to shoot at defenseless Home Fleet ships anchored there. 

About French fighters, the Dewoitine D.520 was the best choice. The engine was very reliable and new versions, with more effective blowers, gave better performance. About Colonel Kirkland’s article, there’s a lot of misunderstanding. Almost half of Bloch 152 production was incomplete at the Armistice. Many of them without guns and propellers! Amiot 350 bombers were working up their bugs. That was the reserve kept outside the battle.

Germany won Battle of France on the ground, but, believe it or not, Belgium, British and French soldiers imposed more casualties to Wermacht than Soviet forces at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. They fought bravely, even with incompetent commanders. In my opinion, Battle of France and Battle of Britain must be considered as two phases of one single Campaign. French defeat worked for British victory.

Cheers

Pepe


----------



## peperez (Mar 9, 2011)

Only TWO WW2 fast bombers were effective: Mosquito and Petlyakov Pe-2...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 10, 2011)

"... Imagine the reaction of Douglas Bader if Britain was defeated by Nazi Germany and the French fleet appeared at Scapa Flow to shoot at defenseless Home Fleet ships anchored there. "

 No disrespect pepe, but I find that analogy quite amusing.

Are you suggesting that the French Fleet have been left untouched as an instrument of the"legitimate" French gov't?

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 10, 2011)

peperez said:


> Imagine the reaction of Douglas Bader if Britain was defeated by Nazi Germany and the French fleet appeared at Scapa Flow to shoot at defenseless Home Fleet ships anchored there.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Pepe


 
Hi pepe

i understand the point you are trying to make, but the analogy is just based on a false premise. whereas the french allowed their fleet to remain in harms way, with the potential to be captured and used by the enemy (the germans), the british would never have allowed that. The Royal navy was ordered to relocate to Canada, in the event that the british isles were occupied. Failing that, it would have scuttled. 

The french never understood that. As for the reaction of someone like Bader, he would not have taken the loss of the fleet personally. he would simply have gotten on with the job and continued towards the defeat of the enemy. because britiain was never going to surrender, under any circumstances, the situation of the french, and the british just arent comparable


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 10, 2011)

peperez said:


> Pétain received his power from the National Assembly. Democratic elected representatives formally and legally considered the French State as the right successor of the Third Republic. Vichy France kept its neutrality even after British forces attacked Mers-el-Kebir, killing 1,297 French sailors. Despite this, Admiral Darlan ordered the fleet to scuttle its fine ships at Toulon to comply with compromises taken with its former allies, in 1940, that no French ship would serve under German flag.



Sorry Pepe but I have to take issue with your statements. "Independent" Vichy France was no paragon of democracy. The Vichy leaders started shipping thousands of Jews - French citizens - to Germany before the Nazis even asked them to do so. There was absolutely no guarantee that the French fleet would remain independent, particularly since offers to have the Vichy fleet join Free French forces in the UK or sail to a non-combatant country like the USA were refused.


----------



## peperez (Mar 11, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Imagine the reaction of Douglas Bader if Britain was defeated by Nazi Germany and the French fleet appeared at Scapa Flow to shoot at defenseless Home Fleet ships anchored there. "
> 
> No disrespect pepe, but I find that analogy quite amusing.
> 
> ...



No, what I'm saying is that British action at Mers-el-Kebir aroused a lot of hate at French forces, even at the Free French soldiers. Even Admiral Summerville, the task force commander, was critic about the action. About Vichy legitimacy, the decision to give Petain was taken by French Legislative, legally. There was no German influence on it.

It's necessary remark that the French fleet was ordered by Darlan to sail to America's colonies if there was any possibility of a German or Italian attack. Britain's action only put a lot of fine ships at Toulon, at Nazi reach. There's a large bibliography to support my post. If Summerville ultimatum proposed the transfer of the fleet to American ports at first place, probably there would be no combat. The French fleet would lifted anchors and follow the British ships to Martinica. Darlan never received the last part of the ultimatum that established this option. 

As I say, I have no sympathy for Vichy, but it was a legally formed state, supported by a French Parliament decision, and I can understand why people like Marin de la Meslée and Le Gloan defended it. You can not judge them by today’s standards. They have to choose between a legal and dictatorial French state and a rebel general that stand up aside a country that attacked a neutral country (yes, Vichy was neutral, even after Mers-el-Kebir).

I must remark that De Gaulle is a hero for me. But I can understand why great pilots preferred Vichy. As I say before, it was a complicate time with complicate choices to do.

Cheers

Pepe


----------



## peperez (Mar 11, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Sorry Pepe but I have to take issue with your statements. "Independent" Vichy France was no paragon of democracy. The Vichy leaders started shipping thousands of Jews - French citizens - to Germany before the Nazis even asked them to do so. There was absolutely no guarantee that the French fleet would remain independent, particularly since offers to have the Vichy fleet join Free French forces in the UK or sail to a non-combatant country like the USA were refused.



Where I say Vichy was a paragon of democracy? Legally its not democratic synonym. You can have a legally formed state that it's not democratic and USA supported a lot of them in Latin America. Judge Le Gloan and La Meslée by today's standards it's not fair. About joining Free French, that was not an easy option for the officers at Mers-el-Kebir. You have Petain, a WW1 hero, legally stated as chief-of-State by the Parliament, against a lone wolf condemned for treason, General Charles de Gaulle. Admiral Summerville admitted the ultimatum was bad prepared. Darlan never received the last part of it.

Obviously, I preferred democracy. As a journalist, I combat a dictatorship in my country that received all political and material support from a democratic country: USA. It was a legally stated dictatorship. For people like Lindon Johnson and Richard Nixon it was a necessary evil to combat communism (believe me, there was no danger to transform Brazil in a communist country). It was necessary a man of principles like Jimmy Carter to change it.

Britain survived thanks to a mix of Nazi incompetence and corruption and a lot of luck. Just imagine Heinkel He100 or FW187 instead of BF110 at Zestorer Geshwader at Battle of Britain. They have the same range and were superior, but Udet was suspiciously a Messerschmitt unconditional partisan. Every time I saw the great film about Battle of Britain I imagined what could happen and I thank God for the few that defeated Nazi Germany. 

Cheers

Pepe


----------



## peperez (Mar 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Hi pepe
> 
> i understand the point you are trying to make, but the analogy is just based on a false premise. whereas the french allowed their fleet to remain in harms way, with the potential to be captured and used by the enemy (the germans), the british would never have allowed that. The Royal navy was ordered to relocate to Canada, in the event that the british isles were occupied. Failing that, it would have scuttled.
> 
> The french never understood that. As for the reaction of someone like Bader, he would not have taken the loss of the fleet personally. he would simply have gotten on with the job and continued towards the defeat of the enemy. because britiain was never going to surrender, under any circumstances, the situation of the french, and the british just arent comparable



I made a lot of remarks above. The French Fleet received similar orders and scuttled its ships when German forces approached Toulon. No German regiment ever reached Algeria and Morocco at WW2... The fleet was safe at North Africa and the British action just put it at German reach. About Bader, thanks God he never needed to did difficult choices like Meslée and Le Gloan.

Cheers

Pepe


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 11, 2011)

".... Britain survived thanks to a mix of Nazi incompetence and corruption and a lot of luck".

Pepe .. no skill or grit involved ....? 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 11, 2011)

pepe, you are utterly missing the point. Churchill once said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". he should also have said "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". Because it was that kind of thinking that led to mers el kebir, the campaign in Syria and the invasion of Mozambique. Churchill bent over backward to accommodate and pandy to french interests....they rejected every one of them. Union with the french empire was even offered, for the duration, which would have cost the British far more than it was worth, they rejected it. The French fleet was a dagger to britains throat, and had to be neutralised, why, because the french refused to do the right thing and join the allies, as they knew they should. Their behaviour in the levant was anything but neutral...they were allowing Axis planes and other forces the rights of passage to Iraq and Persia. a totally unnacceptable position. the british were absolutely correct and right to blow them out of the water there as well.

Wherever the french did not act loke jerks and sympathisize and co-operate with the germans they were treated as equals, more than equals really, they were given favoured treatment. Where they collaborated, or behaved as a potential threat to the british, they were dealt with. They had no one but themselves to blame for being shot at, when they displayed clear sympathies toward the germans.

As I said, you would never have found a British fleet acting in the way the french fleet did in 1940. They would never have opted to play games like the french did. no matter what was happening, the British fleet was going to continue to fight the germans to the bitter end. They would never have sat in a port, offering the potential to be captured, or to collaborate. This sort of behaviour by the french was shameful, they should hold their heads in shame over this. The British action was absolutely justified, and the right thing to do.

as for the other comment you made concerning british victory being the result of german mistakes. That is just so much bollocks and rubbish its laughable, and really makes my blood boil whan I here such trash talk. The introduction of a single new piece of equipmewnt was not about to change the outcome of the battle of Britain. German defeat in that battle was much more complex and comprehensive then a single equipment failure. and neither was it the solely the result of hitlers mistakes, or gorings mistakes, or any other isolated excuse you care to proffer as the 'reason" for British victory. sure, german mistakes and mismanagement and equipment failures were factors in Germanys defeat, but equally so were the victories Britain won against the uboats, against the german navy, in north Africa, and ultimately in Northern Europe, and in ahundreed other situations. Britain had her fair share of mistakes and dud equipment, and dumb decisions. This did not stop her ultimate victory. Allied victory was a complex and and hard fought for prize that is cheapened and misunderstood when comments like you are daring to make are made.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 11, 2011)

What I find amazing is the continued claims that the He 100 was some kind of wonder fighter. It may have been fast and it may have had range but with existing technology in 1940 it would have been a toothless wonder. It took until 1941 to get the engine mounted cannon to work in the Bf 109 using the same engine and cannon. That leaves a pair of 7.9mm MGs. Maybe more guns could have mounted in other places but then that rather changes the performance of the plane and not for the better.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 11, 2011)

peperez said:


> Where I say Vichy was a paragon of democracy?



Pepe, you didn't. I did. But you did say "Democratic elected representatives formally and legally considered the French State as the right successor of the Third Republic." My point is that formal and legal succession does not mean that it was right. Hitler was legally the leader of Germany but nobody in their right mind would suggest he was anything other than evil. As Parsifal has pointed out, Vichy France was absolutely NOT independent - it sided with Nazi Germany, hence my point about its treatment of Jews. I also agree with Parsifal that my enemy's friend is my enemy. Britain stood alone after all of Europe fell. The fighting moved to the Mediterranean and North Africa. The Vichy French fleet was a viable and potent threat to British interests and activities in both those theatres and, when every peaceful attempt to neutralise that threat had been rebuffed, Britain had no choice but to destroy it with military force.


----------



## Glider (Mar 12, 2011)

peperez said:


> Britain survived thanks to a mix of Nazi incompetence and corruption and a lot of luck.


Nazi incompetence if that equals Goering Incompetence then you may have a small point, however the RAF had its moments of madness.


> Just imagine Heinkel He100 or FW187 instead of BF110 at Zestorer Geshwader at Battle of Britain. They have the same range and were superior, but Udet was suspiciously a Messerschmitt unconditional partisan.


You might equally say 'imagine the RAF with Whirlwinds instead of Blenhiem and Defiant fighters, far superior'. Few would deny that the Defiant and Blenhiem fighters were examples of British incompetence, Germany didn't have a monopoly on stupid mistakes.



> Every time I saw the great film about Battle of Britain I imagined what could happen and I thank God for the few that defeated Nazi Germany.


On that I can agree with you


----------



## Tartle (Oct 12, 2011)

Interesting to note that before the fall of France their government had agreed in principle to build Merlins in France (maybe by Ford?) and a Dewoitine d.520 and Amiot 356 had flown with Merlin X. Anyone got a picture... there is a Dewoitine pic is in RRHT Historical Series No 2: 'Merlin in Perspective' book by Alec Harvey-Bailey


----------



## Readie (Oct 12, 2011)

[QUOTE.... Britain survived thanks to a mix of Nazi incompetence and corruption and a lot of luck".

Pepe 

[/QUOTE]

I was going to reply...but, I cannot be bothered.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Britain stood alone after all of Europe fell. .


Missed the bit when the Aussies and Kiwis and others packed up and went home


----------



## Readie (Oct 12, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Missed the bit when the Aussies and Kiwis and others packed up and went home



The Island of Britain stood alone, that much is true but, as Neil says we had our allies, the Commonweath America.
We should remember that....and who our friends were then and are now.
Cheers
John


----------

