French airforce

[Kuniworth]

Historically the french airforce outnumbered the German counterpart. France should have 3 airfleets just as Germany.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

edit it, but remember, if you do, you should put their readiness down to 5%, i think that is why presently there is only 1 AirFleet, because the french air force wasnt worht a damn.

[Zeres]

Disband it and Buy an HQ!

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

edit it, but remember, if you do, you should put their readiness down to 5%, i think that is why presently there is only 1 AirFleet, because the french air force wasnt worht a damn.

Statements like this are indicative of a gap in knowledge.

[Yohan]

What gap in knowledge dgaad?

The french airforce was of extremely light impact and there training was no match for German pilots who had seen battle, including in Spain.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

whoa there dgaad!!!!!!!

I understand that you are new, so i will let that little comment slide. Know you enemy before you attack. -Sun Tzu (chinese guy )

First off, it is not a 'gap' in knowledge, the FAF was in complete disarray when the germans invaded. So next time before you attack, know your enemy.

CvM

BTW, The First and the Last by Adolf Galland. Read it, and you'll understand what i mean.

[ October 13, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ]

[Rouge]

mournia saunlier fighters vs. Messershmitts, i know wat i would prefer

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

whoa there dgaad!!!!!!!

I understand that you are new, so i will let that little comment slide. Know you enemy before you attack. -Sun Tzu (chinese guy )

BTW, The First and the Last by Adolf Galland. Read it, and you'll understand what i mean.

How trite.

The FAF had 740 effective modern fighters and 140 effective bombers in May 1940, including the Dewoitine 520 which many aeronautical analysts contend was better than the Me109. The Germans, on the other hand, had 4500 aircraft of all types, including about 1200 fighters. Some 500 RAF planes participated, mostly during the Dunkirk evacuation. A total of 853 Luftwaffe planes were destroyed in the campaign.

Feld Marshal Kesselring wrote that after only 3 weeks of combat starting on May 13, 1940, most Luftwaffe units were at 50 to 70 percent below effective strength. This contributed, in part, to their inability to destroy the RAF in the Battle of Britain. Because France surrendered, Luftwaffe pilots who bailed out were mostly recovered; the same would definately NOT be true in the coming Battle of Britain. However, the months necessary to replace and repair machines proved critical.

The Curtiss-Hawk were the most significant segment of the French fighter force and were in action from almost the first day that the war began in Europe. On September 8, 1939, the Groupe de Chasse II/4, operating Hawk 75As succeeded in destroying two Messerschmitt Bf 109Es, the first Allied aerial victories of World War 2. However, during the invasion of France in May of 1940, the Hawks were generally outmatched by the Messerschmitt Bf 109E. The Hawk 75A served with Armee de l'Air Groupes de Chasse III/2, I/4, II/4, I/5 and II/5, these units claiming 230 confirmed kills and 80 "probables", as against losses totaling only 29 aircraft destroyed in aerial combat. Although these figures are probably over-optimistic, it seems likely that the French Hawks gave better than they got. The Hawk 75A was neither as fast nor as well-armed as the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, but it was more maneuverable and could take more punishment. The leading French ace of 1939/40 was Lt Marin La Meslee, who scored 20 "kills" while flying the Hawk.

Read "Hunter in the Sky" by Jean Marie Accart (French fighter pilot who personally shot down 11 German bombers)

"The Forgotton Air Force : French Air Doctrine in the 1930s" by Lt. Col. Anthony Christopher Cain (USAF).

Here is a link to a host of books on the FAF during WW2.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/france/france.htm

I wouldn't exactly call the FAF a non-factor, and neither did Kesselring.

[ October 14, 2002, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

As to the basic point made by the thread starter, each air fleet probably represents about 1000 planes, as they appear to roughly correspond to the Luftflotte sized unit. As such, the ratio of German to French planes is about right.

[ October 14, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[dgaad]

Just because a military force is defeated does not mean that it was of little consequence or no effect. Indeed in military terms the effects of minor actions can sometimes be completely disproportionate. Victors are often defeated by their own assumptions and actions following their victory. As the Romans said : "Sic Transit Gloria".

[ October 14, 2002, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Posted bt dgaad:

including the Dewoitine 520 which many aeronautical analysts contend was better than the Me109.

Some 500 RAF planes participated, mostly during the Dunkirk evacuation. A total of 853 Luftwaffe planes were destroyed in the campaign

Both true, except i think your figure of Luftwaffe planes lost is a bit high, ill check later, as i am home all day. In response to your DE 520 statement, you are correct, it was in some aspects a superior a/c. However, there were only 100 D 520'S considered ready on May 10, by June 10, only 36 were considered flyable. I understand your wanting to add units to the french, in that case, use the editor, because right now i think the FAF is represented if not overly by the current setup.

CvM

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

I understand your wanting to add units to the french, in that case, use the editor, because right now i think the FAF is represented if not overly by the current setup.

CvM

What what what? You have me confused with the thread starter.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

OK, my bad, that goes to Kuni, however it will also go towards you 'gap' comment

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

OK, my bad, that goes to Kuni, however it will also go towards you 'gap' comment

I stand by my comment.

You said : "the French Air Force wasn't worth a damn".

The FAF caused substantial numbers of damaged and destroyed Luftwaffe aircraft during the French campaign. The numbers of planes lost or in need of repair was so great, that the Germans could not start the air attack on Great Britain in earnest for at least 6 weeks after the bulk of fighting was finished in France (around June 14).

This, in turn, affected the ability of the Luftwaffe to conduct a successful air campaign against Britain. In sum, the FAF contributed to the victory against the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, in no small way.

Your assessment of the FAF contravenes the comments of many historians and analysts, to say nothing of the actual participants in that campaign (see "Kesselring - Master German Strategist of the War", by Kenneth Macksay).

[ October 14, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[docd]

Absolutely wrong, according to my history books, dgaad.

I refer to a book that criticizes the german "Master of strategy" von Manstein, written by a soldier of the french army. He compared many sources and refers to the very carefully studies of Frieser, who says that french, dutch etc. forces were twice as big as german forces (air and army).

Anyway, I don´t damn you about your opinion, dgaad, but one thing is true: One historian says this one that. As we were not involved and didn´t count, we can only rely on the on source or the other.

Personally, I believe to my book, because it is a from a former french soldier (who fought then), who wants to find the truth (and take away the "glory" of the german fieldmarshal v. Manstein).

If you like, I find the passages and post the names and numbers...

[Russ Bensing]

I did a brief internet search. You can find a pretty thorough article on the subject at http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html#kirkland

The bottom line appears to be that while the French Air Force was equivalent to the Luftwaffe from an OOB standpoint, because of various military, logistical, and political factors, it could never come close to contesting German air supremacy. Dgaad's comments about German loss of effectiveness are correct, but this seems due as much to flak and combat stress as anything the French Air Force did; as most people who've studied air combat in WWII know, the wear and tear on planes, especially fighters, during constant combat is appalling.

The short version is that the game seems to accurately reflect this. In fact, combat on the Western Front, both at the beginning and the end of the war, is replicated for more faithfully than combat on the Eastern Front.

[dgaad]

Russ : Truly a relief to see a serious and objective reply with which I agree wholeheartedly.

The losses to the Luftwaffe are not broken down by source, but one can add up the kills and probables from FAF air to air action, and get a sense of a group of airmen struggling hopelessly against great odds, who did the best they could and who did make serious contributions to the course of the war, although they probably didn't know it at the time.

docd : "absolutely wrong" ? The book on Kesselring is a biography of the man written by Kenneth Macksay, who interviewed Kesselring numerous times himself. I quoted one of the GERMAN Luftflotte commanders, not a French one.

Its a mistake to "believe" one book over another in serious historical analyses, as you say "I believe my book because (whatever)". You need to expand your sources and base your opinions on objective assessment of those sources.

I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered bias and completely wrong understandings of events, bias that I believe comes from lack of serious study, propaganda, cultural biases, and movies.

Let me list for you some facts that popular misconceptions have completely wrong :

1. "The Polish charged German tanks" - completely fabricated by Josef Goebbels. An action took place involving Polish lancers which destroyed two German infantry battalions, which Lancers promptly withdrew upon the appearence of Wehrmacht reconnaissance vehicles. The next day, Italian journalists were invited to the dressed up site, and took photographs of the recon vehicles surrounded by the (now moved) Lancer corpses.

2. "The Germans had the best tanks". Also completely wrong. A German Wehrmacht study conducted immediately after the French Campaign, in 1940, proclaimed the French Somua S-35 as the best tank of the campaign in the West. It was faster than every German tank except the Pz II, had much more armor, and a devastating 47mm main gun which could kill any German tank then in existence.

There are dozens of other examples, the idea that the French airforce had no influence on the war and was wiped out without a fight being just one of them.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by dgaad:

Its a mistake to "believe" one book over another in serious historical analyses, as you say "I believe my book because (whatever)". You need to expand your sources and base your opinions on objective assessment of those sources.

I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered bias and completely wrong understandings of events, bias that I believe comes from lack of serious study, propaganda, cultural biases, and movies.

Ah so, and not to mention,

1) The Heisenberg Effect, wherein the viewer changes the thing being viewed. There is no such thing as a world unfolding beneath a Bell Jar (... in a vacuum).

2) Reconstructed Memory: Vast amounts of research (but of course! -- itself! suspect) have suggested as possibility that anyone -- being interviewed or bewaxing autobiographical, does not exactly, or even closely remember -- even very recent events.

To test the latter, tell yourself what happened yesterday between 3:30 and 4:00 PM. Tell it again next week. And again next month (... you are writing this down on separate papers, not reviewed) and finally, 3 months from now.

Take a good long look at those papers, arranged side by side.

There are cultural accomodations (fitting in, or faux fauve, out).

There are narcissistic enhancements.

There are mistakes of form, focus, fact.

There are legends, myths, heroic ideals that inter-weave in the gullible mind, subconscious mostly.

There is not -- History.

There is just... story-telling, as we ALL are doing now, and -- at first only an oral tradition... BUT

certainly NOT more factual simply because the story has been bound between fancy covers and harumph, ahem, adjudged scholarly by those who will just as easily be fooled by such confounding factors as -- Heisenberg and Reconstructed Memory -- as will you

and I.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

There are cultural accomodations (fitting in, or faux fauve, out).

There are narcissistic enhancements.

There are mistakes of form, focus, fact.

There are legends, myths, heroic ideals that inter-weave in the gullible mind, subconscious mostly.

There is not -- History.

There is just... story-telling, as we ALL are doing now, and -- at first only an oral tradition... BUT

certainly NOT more factual simply because the story has been bound between fancy covers and harumph, ahem, adjudged scholarly by those who will just as easily be fooled by such confounding factors as -- Heisenberg and Reconstructed Memory -- as will you

and I.

While I agree with the larger point that human flaws lead to misperception, I disagree with the underlying philosophy that all stories are equally truthful, and would even more strongly disagree that serious historical research is not possible because it is impossible to find out what really happened and when.

Modern historical figures, in particular, had staffs and keep voluminous records on their day-to-day activities. We have transcripts of every "Fuehrer Conference" ever held during the war, except for the one at Wannsee. And so on, and so forth.

Unlike average people struggling with the heavy challenges to everyday existence, historical figures have a responsibility to, and in many cases do, document events, thoughts, decisions, and rationale. Organizations do the same thing, particularly military ones.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by dgaad:

While I agree with the larger point that human flaws lead to misperception, I disagree with the underlying philosophy that all stories are equally truthful, and would even more strongly disagree that serious historical research is not possible because it is impossible to find out what really happened and when.

I shall not encumber you with such cautionary tales as: History is written by the winners,

nor with a frivolous-serious rejoinder, such as: How many teeny tiny misperceptions does it take to make just ONE un-trustworthy fact?

However, I agree that there are certain historical references that I trust over and beyond others, which implies that somewhere inside me there is a s**t-detector (... as Hemingway claimed to be blessed with) that is finely discriminating, and, presumably this is true for you as well.

But each and every day that I am eye-blinking alive, I read of some prior research, theory, tract, tome, or Gadzooks! phenomenon that is NOW determined defunct. Or anyway is modified in some new fangled fashion. :eek:

Given that, I am conceding that there can be a more trustworthy STORY (... become common parlance, become myth, become legend, and now epic or ode told by Meistersingers and Troubadours in a future Golden Age) and there can be more rousing, or poetic or fanciful versions, as you darn well please.

I am troubled that close-as-we-can-get History is "dallied with" everyday in every way, most especially in Hollywood and usually for the sake of establishing power-grabbing Ideologies -- left right and center stage.

And so, mea culpa, you are right to expose my weak flank, and I hereby enthusiastically encourage: Everyone! Read! Read History.

And Philosophy. And Anthropology. And old and faithful religious psalms & songs and encomiums.

But, please I implore -- do not imagine that Mass Media Inc is telling it like it is. It ain't.

Not a prayer.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

But, please I implore -- do not imagine that Mass Media Inc is telling it like it is. It ain't.

Not a prayer.

I think most historians would agree that modern mass media lacks true analysis, and that in terms of reliability it is probably less reliable than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.

I also think that if we can read the stories of the winners, and the losers, and the non-participants, we may approximate the truth, and that is the best we can do.

[ October 15, 2002, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[docd]

Originally posted by dgaad:

docd : "absolutely wrong" ? The book on Kesselring is a biography of the man written by Kenneth Macksay, who interviewed Kesselring numerous times himself. I quoted one of the GERMAN Luftflotte commanders, not a French one.

Its a mistake to "believe" one book over another in serious historical analyses, as you say "I believe my book because (whatever)". You need to expand your sources and base your opinions on objective assessment of those sources.

I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered bias and completely wrong understandings of events, bias that I believe comes from lack of serious study, propaganda, cultural biases, and movies.

QB]

1. I think you are absolutely wrong with the number of the enemy at Fall Gelb!!! According to my history books the enemy had double size of german force. The fact, that you didn´t want to see that I talked about force size and the fact that you tried to relate my statement to Kesselring shows me, that you don´t want to see facts, instead only what you want to see. "I cannot tell you the number of times I have encountered bias and completely wrong understandings of events" Yes, I agree, you showed once more, that you didn´t get the point!!!

You say: "You need to expand your sources and base your opinions on objective assessment of those sources. " I think this is what you should do, because you seem to deny the studies of Frieser, which are very well known and very carefully researched.

It is also known, that the french army had no interest in fighting and a very low readiness. Their partly better, partly equal equipment could not win, because of their bad command HQ (Gamelin) and their bad morale and readiness.

So keep on as a fanatic "historian", it is amusing me.

[dgaad]

Relative Strength of Air Forces 10 May 1940, deployed for French Campaign

German

Fighters : 1016

Bombers : 1562

Other (Recon, etc) : 1056

French

Fighters : ~ 764

Bombers : 143

Other : 792

British :

All aircraft deployed for French Campaign : 500

Belgium / Holland

All aircraft deployed for French Campaign : 160

Totals

German aircraft : 3634

French/Brit/Allied : 2613

Comments : Fighter strength was approximately equal. Bomber strength was in favor of the Luftwaffe by a ratio of more than 4 to 1.

[ October 15, 2002, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[docd]

Originally posted by dgaad:

Your assessment of the FAF contravenes the comments of many historians and analysts, to say nothing of the actual participants in that campaign (see "Kesselring - Master German Strategist of the War", by Kenneth Macksay).[/QB]

1. Interesting book, but the point is, that not Kesselring was the Master German Strategist, but v. Manstein was it (like it is written history). Kesselring played a role defending North Italy, but not much more. So this first line of your book shows everything about the rest!!! Really amusing!

2. Next thing, dgaad: I refer also to a participant of the war, Marcel Stein, who was german but fought for french. In his book "Generalfeldmarschall Erich v. Manstein - Kritische Betrachtung des Soldaten und Menschen" is he trying to show the real man Manstein.

Stein follows the (CONTESTED of french side) opinion of a superiority of the french in quantity and quality! (page 117). (As a participant of the french side, and as someone who wants to destroy the image of Manstein as superior german strategist, I think he invested a lot of time in his studies, but he must give in to the facts!!!)

He refers to Frieser (page 301), who says that french Prioux had a tactical victory, but german Hoepners tanks and german Luftwaffe decimated Prioux Corps.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by docd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dgaad:

Your assessment of the FAF contravenes the comments of many historians and analysts, to say nothing of the actual participants in that campaign (see "Kesselring - Master German Strategist of the War", by Kenneth Macksay).

1. Interesting book, but the point is, that not Kesselring was the Master German Strategist, but v. Manstein was it (like it is written history). Kesselring played a role defending North Italy, but not much more. So this first line of your book shows everything about the rest!!! Really amusing!

[/QB]</font>