As a longtime war gamer, I've heard and said about every joke possible about the French and Italian armies. But here is a good article on the French Army of WWII.
Even today the French really do not honor their army of 1940. The thing is, the army didn't fail France. At least not in the sense of cowardice. They were outmaneuvered. That's on the generals, not the soldiers.
The French developed a plan to hide part of their army in the Maginot line, and to advance part of their army into Belgium to hold firm there. The intent of the plan was not to lose a vast amount of France in the opening of the war as they had done in 1914. I think the French were right in one important regard, fighting a war in your own country comes at a high cost. The area between these two armies was the Ardennes. Given the lack or roads in the area, and the poor terrain, the decision was made it did not need much protection.
Much is made about the French not believing the Ardennes to be passable. They were right, it was impassible by the German Army as a whole. The German Army even in 1945 was horse-drawn. Dragging artillery through the Ardennes via horse would have been a slow and painful process. The Germans however decided to risk not taking their artillery with them. The Stuka would serve as their 88. Instead of calling for 88 fire, waves of Stukas would pound French positions. The French did not have this concept on their radar.
When the Germans came out near Sedan, they found a key bridge very lightly defended. Guderian saw his chance and quickly seized the bridge even though his force wasn't close to being fully available.
Now France's other great weakness came into play. The Germans had seen the power of armored forces. The French believed armor should be diluted in infantry units. Had the French seized a German bridge, the Germans could quickly order an armored unit to assault. The French had no armored units, they had a handful of tanks scattered in infantry. Because of this approach, not only would they be slow to respond but their tanks were slow moving. No need for a tank that can take off an leave the infantry behind.
So the French and the British did the only thing they could do, they sacrificed their air units. Both countries launched repeated attacks against the bridge. But 1) the technology to hit bridges successfully wasn't nearly as advanced in 1940 and 2) the Germans defended that bridge with as much flak and air as they could. The British air commander would eventually war Churchill that the Battle of France was over and if Churchill didn't preserve some of his air force, the Battle of Britain would also be lost.
So France falls in a little over a month. It goes down in history as a route, the French soldier is made fun of and/or vilified. But if you have read that article, the truth is a bit different. In that one month of combat, the Germans lost 50,000 men dead and 160,000 wounded. We lost roughly 50,000 men in a decade of Vietnam. The Germans lost 1800 of the 3000 tanks they attacked with. They lost 1600 of their 3500 planes. To an extent this is a pyrrhic victory for Germany, those men/tanks/planes would have been desperately needed in the vast Russian steppes.
I don't know what there is to discuss about it, but it is interesting how we take a snippit of history and make a truth out of it. Yes, France lost a major war in one month. But that was not indicative of an army that refused to fight, or fought poorly. It is indicative of an army that advanced to meet the enemy only to discover the enemy was now behind them. Those men that fought probably deserve that the truth be told about that war. The French soldier didn't lose that war, their commanders did.
Somewhere out there is an Onion I wanted to link here but couldn't find. It was a story of a German commander praising the valor of the French commander. The German said something like being close to considering ordering his men to fire before the Frenchman surrendered.
Even today the French really do not honor their army of 1940. The thing is, the army didn't fail France. At least not in the sense of cowardice. They were outmaneuvered. That's on the generals, not the soldiers.
The French developed a plan to hide part of their army in the Maginot line, and to advance part of their army into Belgium to hold firm there. The intent of the plan was not to lose a vast amount of France in the opening of the war as they had done in 1914. I think the French were right in one important regard, fighting a war in your own country comes at a high cost. The area between these two armies was the Ardennes. Given the lack or roads in the area, and the poor terrain, the decision was made it did not need much protection.
Much is made about the French not believing the Ardennes to be passable. They were right, it was impassible by the German Army as a whole. The German Army even in 1945 was horse-drawn. Dragging artillery through the Ardennes via horse would have been a slow and painful process. The Germans however decided to risk not taking their artillery with them. The Stuka would serve as their 88. Instead of calling for 88 fire, waves of Stukas would pound French positions. The French did not have this concept on their radar.
When the Germans came out near Sedan, they found a key bridge very lightly defended. Guderian saw his chance and quickly seized the bridge even though his force wasn't close to being fully available.
Now France's other great weakness came into play. The Germans had seen the power of armored forces. The French believed armor should be diluted in infantry units. Had the French seized a German bridge, the Germans could quickly order an armored unit to assault. The French had no armored units, they had a handful of tanks scattered in infantry. Because of this approach, not only would they be slow to respond but their tanks were slow moving. No need for a tank that can take off an leave the infantry behind.
So the French and the British did the only thing they could do, they sacrificed their air units. Both countries launched repeated attacks against the bridge. But 1) the technology to hit bridges successfully wasn't nearly as advanced in 1940 and 2) the Germans defended that bridge with as much flak and air as they could. The British air commander would eventually war Churchill that the Battle of France was over and if Churchill didn't preserve some of his air force, the Battle of Britain would also be lost.
So France falls in a little over a month. It goes down in history as a route, the French soldier is made fun of and/or vilified. But if you have read that article, the truth is a bit different. In that one month of combat, the Germans lost 50,000 men dead and 160,000 wounded. We lost roughly 50,000 men in a decade of Vietnam. The Germans lost 1800 of the 3000 tanks they attacked with. They lost 1600 of their 3500 planes. To an extent this is a pyrrhic victory for Germany, those men/tanks/planes would have been desperately needed in the vast Russian steppes.
I don't know what there is to discuss about it, but it is interesting how we take a snippit of history and make a truth out of it. Yes, France lost a major war in one month. But that was not indicative of an army that refused to fight, or fought poorly. It is indicative of an army that advanced to meet the enemy only to discover the enemy was now behind them. Those men that fought probably deserve that the truth be told about that war. The French soldier didn't lose that war, their commanders did.
Somewhere out there is an Onion I wanted to link here but couldn't find. It was a story of a German commander praising the valor of the French commander. The German said something like being close to considering ordering his men to fire before the Frenchman surrendered.
