French Armor in WW2 (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

I don't really read too much in regards to the Fall of France in 1940 but from what I have read, sounds like French armor- the Char B1 and the Somua were both excellent tanks and the equal of the Panzers they faced (2's and 3's I would presume). I think there is this misconception that the Nazis rolled in and just shot everything up but it sounds like the French armor was technologically equal, if not better. Was this simply a case of the French officer corps being out soldiered by the Germans? In other words did the French armor tactics lag too far behind and the Germans Blitzkreig was the factor that gave them the decisive advantage. It seems to me, from the minimal amounts I have read, that the Germans really put on a display of combined arms during the French campaign, to the likes of which the world had not seen before- Grunts and armor with Luftwaffe and artillery air support.

That being said, were there any French tank "Aces"?? Any battles of note where the French decisively beat/ quelled the advance of the Blitz? If so, was that a result of good tactics by the French or had the Germans simply got themselves overextended?

Any insight would be appreciated.

CC

 

[Poppo]

Well, the answer is one word: " blitzkrieg". German tanks in 1940 weren t technically better, nor in bigger number than the french and the british ones.

The fast german victory on the british and french army( don' t forget that in France was also a big british army), was due to the new tactic created by great german generals like Guderian and Von Meinstein: a concentrated and fast attack of panzers in few weak points on the enemy line, supported by fighter-bombers and a perforation deep inside the enemy lines. The infantry and artillery could follow later and destroy the bags of resistance left behind the tanks..

The french and british armies at that time still conceived the tanks as a support of their infantry , like in WW1, so the allies tanks were of no use against the german attack.

The french made only seldom resistance to the german attacks....Only one young french tank commander created problems to whermacht, he was named Charles De Gaulle. He was the only one to use the french tanks like an independant corp...

 

[PanzerAce1944]

From what I have come across the Char B1 was an excellent tank. The big mistake that the French made with their best armored vehicles was to break them up into small groups versus using them in mass.
Groups of 2 or 3 Char B1's were easy pickings for the numerically superior German armored forces. Another added note was look at how many captured French armored vehicles were put into service by the Germans.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The only strong counter attack was by the British at Arras where the Matildas over ran the motorized SS regiment "Totenkopf". Their 37 mm Pak 37 anti-tank guns couldn't penetrate the Matilda armour. Rommel attacked with Pz. II and Pz. 38(t) but they couldn't take out the Matildas either. In desperation Rommel ordered the use of 88s to stop the Matildas.

The attack by the Matildas shook up the High Command to the point where Hitler stopped Rommel's advance for 24 hours and was hesitant to attack Dunkirk. The Matilda attack may have contributed to the success of the Dunkirk evacuation.

Terry

 

[valmy33]

Hello to all,

In 1940, the mode of manufacturing of the french tanks was upper to the German. Indeed, the armor plating consisted of chromium and steel. It was more hard and weapons antitank German were very often ineffective.

At Moncornet, tanks were stopped only by the antiaircraft 88mm, the lack of gas and the stukas.

On the other hand, the conception(design) was not completed. Indeed, oft the leader(head) of tank acted as shooter and as charger (1 man in the turret, the example tank R35), system of aim were often rudimentary and the few radios. So, tanks communicated with flags.

The doctrine and the implementation were old and tanks evolved as in 1918. No lesson about the Spanish Civil War, or Poland. The tanks were used in small platoons to help infantry. That was one of mainly mistakes of the french generals.

Faithfully
Valmy

 

[Poppo]

The only strong counter attack was by the British at Arras where the Matildas over ran the motorized SS regiment "Totenkopf". Their 37 mm Pak 37 anti-tank guns couldn't penetrate the Matilda armour. Rommel attacked with Pz. II and Pz. 38(t) but they couldn't take out the Matildas either. In desperation Rommel ordered the use of 88s to stop the Matildas.

The attack by the Matildas shook up the High Command to the point where Hitler stopped Rommel's advance for 24 hours and was hesitant to attack Dunkirk. The Matilda attack may have contributed to the success of the Dunkirk evacuation.

Terry

About the delay in Dunkirk attack I wouldn't be so sharp.....It is still a mistery why Hitler didn't let Guderian push his tanks to Dunkirk and finally destroy the british army; these are the reasons:

1) Goering wanted the glory for that attack so that Hitler stopped Guderian and let the luftwaffe finish the work ( but Goering as usual wasn't able to do the job)

2) Hitler never wanted the war against UK; in his vision of the world, there would have been a great Germany empire and a british empire...He always respected the british empire and thought british and german people derived from the same race, but as UK declared the war against Germany , he was obliged to make the war. So, he wouldn't have ordered the final attack to let the british army retreat and in future to negotiate a separate peace( The Hess' flight to Scotland to negociate a separate peace is an evidence of this.)

3) The german army after a long and using run to the sea had to stop and replace, repair the materials..Hitler was afraid to risk for the final attack.

 

[jazzeum]

Well, the answer is one word: " blitzkrieg". German tanks in 1940 weren t technically better, nor in bigger number than the french and the british ones.

The fast german victory on the british and french army( don' t forget that in France was also a big british army), was due to the new tactic created by great german generals like Guderian and Von Meinstein: a concentrated and fast attack of panzers in few weak points on the enemy line, supported by fighter-bombers and a perforation deep inside the enemy lines. The infantry and artillery could follow later and destroy the bags of resistance left behind the tanks..

The french and british armies at that time still conceived the tanks as a support of their infantry , like in WW1, so the allies tanks were of no use against the german attack.

The french made only seldom resistance to the german attacks....Only one young french tank commander created problems to whermacht, he was named Charles De Gaulle. He was the only one to use the french tanks like an independant corp...

I would add to Poppo's succinct analysis that the French Army at the onset of WW II was viewed, rightly or wrongly, as the best in the world. Thus, when the Germans initially surprised them with their novel tactics, the Army quickly lost its confidence, creating a steamrolling effect in the rest of the Army and the French public and political structure, which quickly doomed them.