- Thread starter
- #21
Kevin J
Banned
Large expensive to run targets.
Vichy France has 5 aircraft carriers in WW2
- Thread starter Kevin J
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
As far as I understand, the D.520 had some serious low speed handling characteristics, and a relatively bad view over the looong nose. Probably not a wise selection as a carrier fighter. And had the D.790 been built and tested, I assume it wouldn't have lasted long before the program rejected it and looked elsewhere
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
Leaving aside the left-right politics (politics in 1930s France was very toxic), France's major external threat was Germany, a country with a rather small navy. There may have been a secondary threat from Italy, but it should be noted that Italy hadn't invaded France since the Gallic Wars. The other countries on the borders of France: Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Andorra were neither significant military nor naval threats (did Belgium even have a navy at this time?) It's extremely unlikely there were be a war with the UK. The USSR would have to go through several countries to get to France, and hadn't been able to beat Poland in the Polish-Soviet War.
In other words, there was one real threat: Germany. Communism was a strictly internal threat which could be dealt with by such horrifying concepts as treating workers like people and having effective internal policing (the former was, of course, severely deprecated by people like, oh, Franco, and later, Pinochet). Five aircraft carriers would do less than nothing to assist in France's ability to deal with the most serious threat. Indeed, France would probably have been better off canceling Jean Bart and Richelieu and building more armored vehicles and aircraft. The French Navy (Marine Militaire, nicknamed La Royale) was, arguably, getting too many resources.
In other words, there was one real threat: Germany. Communism was a strictly internal threat which could be dealt with by such horrifying concepts as treating workers like people and having effective internal policing (the former was, of course, severely deprecated by people like, oh, Franco, and later, Pinochet). Five aircraft carriers would do less than nothing to assist in France's ability to deal with the most serious threat. Indeed, France would probably have been better off canceling Jean Bart and Richelieu and building more armored vehicles and aircraft. The French Navy (Marine Militaire, nicknamed La Royale) was, arguably, getting too many resources.
Admiral Beez
Major
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The French Navy did order 81 G-36A Martlet Mk I aircraft in '39. They were intended for the Joffry class carriers.
The RN ended up with them instead.
The RN ended up with them instead.
- Thread starter
- #26
Kevin J
Banned
I've looked up the GDP for France, UK and USA at the start of WW2. The no of capital ships per state is in proportion to their GDP. Eight would be the maximum number for France. So only Bearn.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
How so?
- Thread starter
- #28
Kevin J
Banned
The Jeep carrier escorts and transports were cheap to build, operate and expensive. The Bearn is quite big for what it could do. Up to 1943, vulnerable to submarine attacks, like all capital ships. I never realised it was slow. ASW Escort would be dangerous, maybe usable for Strike / Transport or Strike / CAP like the RN Ameer class. It's a bit big to use for ASW Escort.
Shortround6
Major General
Your requirements are at odds with each other and do not reflect the situation France faced. France had limited manpower and so the Maginot line was a way to economize on manpower.
France also had an overseas empire, mainly just about all of West Africa. giving up the Navy means a high risk of being cut off from the colonies and the supplies/raw materials they provide. France had a rather "old" navy as the demeands of WW I had meant no new major ship construction took place during WW I. The Bearn Herself was laid down in Jan 1914 and the design is older than that. That is the newest French Battleship. No cruisers of any size/design were built during the war.
We have the luxury of knowing how the war played out. Had the Italians been more active with their navy the French could have been cut off from North Africa.
Strange that England could build 3 different single engine fighters (and the Whirlwind) 5 different twin engine bombers and be working on 2 different 4 engine bombers in 1939 and yet we are to believe that the french could not manage more than one of each due to limited manpower?
- Thread starter
- #30
Kevin J
Banned
Military production during World War II - Wikipedia
This should give you all a rough guide to the major participants economic strengths.
Germany, USSR and Nationalist China being roughly equal.
British Empire and USA the two global economic superpowers.
French and Japanese Empires equivalent.
The rest irrelevant.
Admiral Beez
Major
That's what happened though. France did not have the industrial capacity and especially not the rate of productivity of Britain. Notwithstanding this limitation, France had EIGHT entirely distinct single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter programs in development and/or production from 1936 to 1940.
- Bloch MB.150. Specified 1934. First flight 1937. Introduced 1939.
- Morane-Saulnier M.S.406. Specified 1934. (same as the MB.150). First flight 1938. Introduced 1938.
- Arsenal VG-33. Specified 1936. First flight 1939. Introduced 1940.
- Dewoitine D.520. Specified 1936 (same as the VG-33). First flight 1938. Introduced 1940.
- Caudron C.714. Specified 1936 (same as VG-33). First flight 1936. Introduced 1940.
- Bloch MB.700. Specified 1936 (same as VG-33). First flight 1940. Not introduced.
- SNCAO 200. Specified 1937. First flight 1939. Not introduced.
- Potez 230. Specified 1937. First flight 1940. Not introduced.
This is indicative of the wasteful and inefficient military procurement system in France. Whirlwind aside, Britain ran a competition, with the Spitfire and Hurricane winning and went to town producing just these two. Britain didn't field another home-grown single-seat, single-engine, monoplane fighter until the Typhoon enters general service in 1942. Even the Royal Navy when it needed a single-seat fighter was forced to choose from the Spitfire and Hurricane. Instead of running a concurrent line for the He.100, Germany chose one single-seat, single-engine monoplane fighter, the Bf-109 to start the war with, not adding the Fw-190 until late 1941.
France should have chosen one type for the 1934 Specification and another for the follow-on 1936 Specification, and then focused on making lots of them, like in this Bloch video.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
This seems fair. Japan was able to build a first rate, though in ways fatally flawed Kido Butai because they could neglect the army, and neglect its people through a military-led absolute monarchy. Had France not bordered on Germany nor been recovering from the disaster of 1914-18, the French navy of 1940 would have the resources to build and field aircraft carriers.
Admiral Beez
Major
Not to rag on the French too much. Their single seat monoplane fighters were nice looking.
- Thread starter
- #34
Kevin J
Banned
To me the Nazi invasion of the Netherlands was a stupid unnecessary act of aggression. If left alone, the Dutch could have forged an independent policy in the Far East supplying the Japanese with oil. In Europe they would have formed a buffer against RAF bomber raids making Germany easier to defend. Vichy could have been allowed to develop the D 790 and complete the 2 Joffre class aircraft carriers, after all D 520 production continued after their Armistice.
Under these circumstances, the war in the Far East may have had a different outcome with the Japanese choosing only to attack British and American possessions in the Far East as there would have been no need to seize the Dutch East Indies. I'm assuming the American iron and oil embargo still occurs. That the French allow Japanese bases in Vietnam and the Pacific, that the Japanese cut off Australia from the USA successfully taking Guadalcanal in early 1942.
Maybe it's time for a new thread.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 904
- Feb 16, 2013
The M.406 was "nice" looking? We have very different tastes then!
I think it looks like an inbred, pregnant Hurricane. It is not without its own, specific charms however.
Admiral Beez
Major
Well, I can see your point. I was just impressed to see that one survived.The M.406 was "nice" looking? We have very different tastes then!
I think it looks like an inbred, pregnant Hurricane. It is not without its own, specific charms however.
There were a few in service in FIC when Japan invaded in Sept. 1940. I wonder how they did against the IJAF Nates and Oscars. Too bad they didn't fly to Malaya to join the Brits.
Sweet model, problem is, the Dewoitine D.520 was the exception to the rule that if it looks good it flies good. It was a handful to fly and its pilots were extraordinarily wary of its dicey characteristics. Putting it on a carrier deck would have been a disaster. The view from the cockpit was not very good for starters, it being set a way back as it was and it made taxying difficult. It had savage stall characteristics and would spiral into a spin very quickly, which if corrected would just reverse the direction of the spin! On the ground it had a nasty reputation for ground looping and operating it was described as riding a knife edge. Erc Brown (him again) said that it wasn't all bad, but what was bad was very bad. One French pilot stated "That little She-Devil is never to be trusted until she is in the hangar."
I do like the look of the little She-Devil though.
Shortround6
Major General
It seems you are being a bit selective in what you consider programs.
If you want to consider prototypes as programs then the British could add the Gloster F5/34, the Bristol 146 and the Martin Baker MB 2. Any others?
I would note that numbers 5 through 9 on your list (and I believe you missed one the Roussel R-30) were all "light fighters" using small engines (Hispano 12X V-12s or Gnome Rhone 14M engines or in the case of the Caudron C-714 (and there were two later developments) the 500hp or under air cooled Renault V-12. They had gross weights much less than the full sized fighters. While speed might have been close to what was needed climb was not and only the Caudron C-714 was produced in numbers and it was quickly judged a failure, even the Finns would use the few they got in combat.
However it was made of wood with all the strategic benefits to production that material seems to be blessed with (so was the Arsenal series of which the VG-33 was just one version) according to some people, (France had a lot of trees and furniture makers?)
France was faced with a dilemma, it took so long to get some of these aircraft into production they were obsolescent almost from the date they entered service.
I would note that the french had no idea of how many different types of Single engine fighters the Germans were building, One or 3 or more?
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
A handful of MS 406s arrived in Indochina, destined for China, but the transfer was blocked by Japan. They lacked the 20mm cannon so operated with just the wing guns. Early in 1942 a patrol was accidentally(?) bounced by a flight of Ki-27s. All the French aircraft were downed.
