French fighter aircrft

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:

Axis History Forum • View topic - Dutch SS Volunteers

CD

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.

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.

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

French fighter aircrft

Tech Sergeant

Colonel

rotartsinimdA

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman 1st Class

1st Lieutenant

Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Colonel

Senior Airman

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Colonel

Senior Airman

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman 1st Class

Recruit

Recruit

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads