redflag Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 what about the french troops in CMAK? Especially the Free French Forces (Leclerc, Bir Hakeim) , the Vichy forces (the Syria campaign...), and the french troops fighting against then with the Allied troops in Tunisia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 What about them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 I think the Free French are there... the real question is: will someone make a Holy Grail sound mod for them? "I fart in your general direction!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Cocktail Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: What about them? He probably means, are both included in CMAK the "good" French or Charles De Gaulle's Free French forces and the "bad" French or Philippe Petain's Vichy France? Charles De Gaulle Henri Philippe Pétain If both are included so somebody can do Syria scenario, were French are fighting each other, or scenario were Vichy French are fighting againt Americans in Tunisia or was it in Morocco? If the Vichy French forces would had better motivation in North-West Africa against Americans and Jean-Francois Darlan would had not changed to Allied side. If I remember right the Vichy France airforce in 1942 was quite effective compared to it's size and equipment against Allies ( I mean fighter planes), unlike its ground troops, Maybe the fighting in Africa would had last little longer. French flags (I hope Battlefront uses right flags for the French, but if not flags are easily moddable) French State, Vichy government (1940-1944)Etat français, gouvernement de Vichy Flag of the World web site - French State, Vichy government (1940-1944) Free French Forces (1940-1944) Forces Françaises Libres (FFL) Flags of the World web site - Free French Forces (1940-1944) By the way US recognized Vichy goverment, US had ambassador in Vichy. Vichy was collaborationist state, but It was not Axis country. Petain did not want to participate in war. Most disgusting on behalf of Vichy France was deportation of jews to the hands of Nazis and so to the concentration camps Vichy France was if not fascist at least semi-fascist country far from democracy. You could say the Petain was the dictator, but after the Germans invaded in 1942 the whole France (with Italy?), the Germans run the business totally in Vichy France, and Vichy French were totally puppets of Germany after German invasion of Vichy. Petain just want guard the sovereignty of France and it's colonies or what was it left after German invaded northern France and Paris and third republic collapsed, so in his eys the Free French were rebels. Pierre Laval otherwise wanted that Vichy France would militarily cooperate with germans, he was collaborationist in every sense, if not nazi at least truly opportunistic bastard. And of course in Charles De Gaulle's and Free French eyes the Vichy French were traitors of Motherland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooz Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I believe that BFC has already announced that the Free French have been included in CMAK, but no mention of the Vichy French. I believe that this MAY pose a problem for the programmers, having one country fighting on both sides. Then again, if this is NOT the case then will we be able to have the Italians fighting AGAINST the Germans? It happened--quite a bit actually. This option opens up a whole new field of cool battles and ops. So, Matt? Moon? a little help here... :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooz Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 HEY!!! That can't be right (my previous post)! After all, we have two Romanian forces in CMBB. So it CAN be done, but will it? If not I'll... :mad: I'll... :mad: just buy the game anyway and whine on the new CMAK Forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by tooz: I believe that BFC has already announced that the Free French have been included in CMAK, but no mention of the Vichy French. I believe that this MAY pose a problem for the programmers, having one country fighting on both sides. Then again, if this is NOT the case then will we be able to have the Italians fighting AGAINST the Germans? It happened--quite a bit actually. This option opens up a whole new field of cool battles and ops. So, Matt? Moon? a little help here... :confused: Since the units had radically different equipment, it shouldn't be a problem. Free French mainly had Brit organization and equip at first, Vichy had the older French crapola. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by tooz: I believe that this MAY pose a problem for the programmers, having one country fighting on both sides.Don't think so. You can already have Romanians vs. Romanians in CMBB. But CMAK already has a whole lot of parties. Unlike Romanians, the Vichy troops wear a different uniform and have different TO&E from the FF - that'd mean more work than copy 'n paste. The only thing you could avoid redoing would be sounds. Worth it? I guess not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by redflag: what about the french troops in CMAK? Especially the Free French Forces (Leclerc, Bir Hakeim) , the Vichy forces (the Syria campaign...), and the french troops fighting against then with the Allied troops in Tunisia. And the French Expeditionary Corps in Italy (2 divisions). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 DeGaulle and Petain? Feh! I want to see Koenig and Travers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Wallybob: Since the units had radically different equipment, it shouldn't be a problem. Free French mainly had Brit organization and equip at first, Vichy had the older French crapola.Nope, the Free French mostly had older French crapola. Early on they did get a large number of trucks from the British, but even as late as Tunesia, they were using a lot of 1940 era French tanks. They were still using the excellent *sputter* Chatellerault LMG and the Hotchkiss was still the most common MMG. Also, the WW1 era 75mm was their artillery (actually, the 75mm was still a decent weapon) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Some detailed study of Cassino would find that the French Expeditionary Corps in Italy had some of the better performing troops and one of the best commanders (Juin IIRC). So they did OK with their crapola (hey who wants a french rifle when you can have a garand or a lee-enfield!). Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Los I thought at Cassino the French had been completely refitted in US kit and weapons. But you are dead-on about Juin (and Dimoline of 4th Indian Division who was sacked for it) being the only one right about what to do at Cassino, on the Allied side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Thin Red Line: And the French Expeditionary Corps in Italy (2 divisions). Actually they ended up with 4 infantry divisions there, plus supporting units and one light division's worth of Morroccan Goums ! Andreas is right, all French units were fitted with US kit and weapons before shipping to Italy, though some retained older stuff (British or French helmets for instance). Also the Springfield was generally issued instead of the Garand. [ October 13, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Joel ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: I thought at Cassino the French had been completely refitted in US kit and weapons.I think you are right. Other than a regiment of Morrocan troops in Sicily, the French army spent most of the last half of 1943 being re-equiped, re-organized, and re-trained. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wallybob: Free French mainly had Brit organization and equip at first, Vichy had the older French crapola.Nope, the Free French mostly had older French crapola. ... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: ...Jean-Pierres-come-latelies. [/QB]This one is good ("French Crapola" too ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Berli, are you sure about that? IIRC, there were two seperate streams of FF forces. The first stream came from France to England via Dunkirk, et al, and was suplemented by troops from sub-Sahara Africa and some from Syria. Overall, it included a fairly high proportion of Foreign Legion chaps. These guys amounted to about two brigades worth (again, IIRC), and were kitted out just like any other British or Commonwealth unit. The second stream came from Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia after Op TORCH, and were essentially formed bodies of Vichy troops who swapped sides. As such, they tended to keep their own French crapola, though they did get some US kit. Numerically, this stream was far larger, but their effectiveness wasn't terribly great (see: Kasserine). As has been stated, after the campaign in Africa was over they were all re-organised and re-equipped with US kit. Although (once again, IIRC) there was some animosity between the guys who'd been FF since 1940, and the 1942/43 Jean-Pierres-come-latelies. Regards JonS Yep, I'm fairly sure. Joel should be along eventually to regale us with details A big chunk of the initial forces came from Chad IIRC, and the only Foreign legion unit to come from England intially was the 13ème DBLE in time for Keren. Also, I thought there was some bad blood between LeClerc (Chad) and De Gaulle (England) even before the Vichy changed sides. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: The first stream came from France to England via Dunkirk, et al, and was suplemented by troops from sub-Sahara Africa and some from Syria. Overall, it included a fairly high proportion of Foreign Legion chaps. These guys amounted to about two brigades worth (again, IIRC), and were kitted out just like any other British or Commonwealth unit. Yes but they were fully re-equiped with British kits only in October 42. Before that, they had mostly French crapola. This is quite clearly stated in both Koenig's "Bir Hakeim" book and the official history of 13th DBLE (Foreign Legion). By the way, you could also add a third stream, with Leclerc's Forces operating from Chad into southern Libya as soon as early 41. Mostly small scale action against Italians throughout 41 and 42, featuring French crapola vs Italian crapola... Hey, Leclerc's Free French even used captured Italian crapola!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: Then this third stream formed "Force L" and was on 8th army's left flank in Tunisia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Looks like today is a school day (just like all the others) Cheers guys. JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Most of the colonial troops (Algerians/Morrocans) were wearing their traditional uniform items still. Los 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Also, I thought there was some bad blood between LeClerc (Chad) and De Gaulle (England) even before the Vichy changed sides. I'm not sure about bad blood between LeClerc and De Gaulle, there may have been clashes of personalities, but LeClerc did accept De Gaulle as his superior officer, after all LeClerc was only a colonel at the start of the war and De Gaulle outranked him. It was the civilian governor of Chad, a Monsieur Ebroué, who declared for De Gaulle after the fall of France, although there appears to have been no lack of support from the local garrison. There was a good documentary series on British TV called Allies at War about the whole tangled relationship between Roosevelt, Churchill and De Gaulle, which is well worth watching, if it crops up on anyone's local TV station. [ October 14, 2003, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Los: Most of the colonial troops (Algerians/Morrocans) were wearing their traditional uniform items still.I would like to hazard a question here that is not rhetorical because I truly do not know the answer. I have been under the impression (derived no doubt by the fine wargames in the GDW-GR/D Europa series) that the French army distinguished between native Morrocan and Algerian divisions and Colonial divisions, which were composed of French colonists. Thus, if true, Colonial divisions would have contained few if any native troops. This might appear to be nothing more than a point of nomenclature, but my understanding is that they were quite distinct formations just as the Foreign Legion was. So, can anyone authoratively address this issue? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: This might appear to be nothing more than a point of nomenclature, but my understanding is that they were quite distinct formations just as the Foreign Legion was. So, can anyone authoratively address this issue? Michael I probably have no authority to answer this, but i don't think that in WWII there was a big difference, other than the name, beetween colonial infantry divisions and Algerian/Morocon division in terms of recruitment. Both type were a mix of natives (who were the vast majority and most of them from muslim origin) and "metropolitan" frenchs (most of the COs plus many men escaped from occupied France). The 9th Colonial Infantry Divison (9ème Division d'Infanterie Coloniale) for instance included senegalese rifle regiments (régiments de tirailleurs sénégalais). Some units like Tabors or Goums conserved the traditional organisation and uniform, but they were commanded by regular officers. [ October 15, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 In An Army at Dawn describing winter 42/43 situation with French, Rick Atkinson wrote: "The French possessed almost no antitank weapons, but Allied planners considered most of the Eastern Dorsal too mountainous for German armor. Besides, the French lacked almost everything else, too: ammunition, artillery, uniforms, boots. Horses pulled trucks, men pulled wagons. Artillerymen wagged signal flags to communicate between batteries, as their forefathers had in Napoleon's legions. Morale slumped; some French soldiers pleaded for American helmets, to fool the Germans into thinking they were facing better-armed U.S. troops. Scattered on the lonely ridgelines, A.J. Liebling wrote, the French units resembled "goats set out to lure a tiger." An American liaison officer reported to Eisenhower that the French were "somewhat discouraged" because "it seems to be a question of running or being overrun." "This past week has been a succession of disappointments," Eisenhower confessed to his diary after returning to Algiers from Casablanca. "I'm just writing some of them down so as to forget them." The abandonment of SATIN was one; he cited, as well, the "signs of complete collapse" by the French." OCR'd from An Army at Dawn. Rick Atkinson. Chap 3, Page 303 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.