The French Air Force In 1940: Was It Defeated by the Luftwaffe or by Politics?

Air University Review ^ | October 1985 | Lieutenant Colonel Faris R. Kirkland

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Politics of course. By the time france understood that it was woefully short of aircraft(They started buying aircraft from Curtiss beginning in 39(IIRC)it was too late. There were shipments of aircraft headed to france when the surrender was signed with these aircraft set off on the island of Martinique and the order for 200 tomahawk p-40s was taken over by the british. Too little too late.

[alfa6]

Thanks and a Bump for later

Regards

alfa6 ;>}

[Cronos]

The french leadership was traumatised by WWI when there were vast battles on French/Belgian soil

[tanuki]

Wow! A fascinating and informative read. Truly, the collapse of the French military is one of the great, obvious mysteries of the ‘best-researched’ war in history.

[tcrlaf]

“Truly, the collapse of the French military is one of the great, obvious mysteries of the ‘best-researched’ war in history.”

France was wracked by Communist-inspired Political and civil unrest in the years before the war, paving the way for the defeat that was to follow.

The violence and the political scandals of the far left led to the rise of fascism within France, along the lines of National Socialism, as an alternative to the Soviet-inspired Communists and radical Socialists (the “Popular Front”), while the “old-Line” right, warning about a new war on the horizon, was increasingly marginalized. It just wasn’t the message the sheep wanted to hear.

This led to political paralysis, and the inability to come to a consensus on anything, until the threat was standing directly in front of them.

SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE??.

[Pontiac]

Interesting read

Thanks

[Pontiac]

The Link doesn’t work.

[Sherman Logan]

The French aviation industry (with modest assistance--about 15 percent-from American and Dutch producers) had produced enough modern combat aircraft (4360) by May 1940 to defeat the Luftwaffe, which fielded a force of 3270.2. The French planes were comparable in combat capability and performance to the German aircraft.

Same is true of armor. The Germans had about 2400 tanks on the Western Front, the French alone had 3200. The other Allies had few tanks. The French tanks were on average better than the German tanks.

Also for men. The Germans had about 3M for the invasion, the Allies a total of at least 4M, depending on how you count them.

The Allies had about 2x the artillery.

There has been an almost universally held belief for 70 years that the Allies were tremendously outnumbered and outgunned in the BoF, which explains their defeat completely. The truth is that they were at minimum competitive in numbers in all categories, and had a significant advantage in most. The reason for defeat must be sought elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#Strength

[Sherman Logan]

With possible rare exceptions, French politicians between the wars were despicable. It wasn’t just the commies and fascists.

[WhiskeyX]

The French had sufficient fighters and other combat aircraftto gain air superiority and conduct close air support against the AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicles). The simply failed to organize and deploy enough pilots, command and control capabilities, and combat support to make these aircraft effective in the battlespaces.

This is truly a cautionary tale for the present day U.S. Air Force and U.S. Naval Air Force. As the Germans learned in Big Week 1944 and the French learned in May-June 1940, the current shortage of combat pilots and flight time for proficiency training and maintenance results in the loss of air supremacy and air superiority with catastrophic consequences for naval surface forces and Army ground forces. The Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations have been quite effective at destroying more of the American air forces than all of the hostile combat actions combined, excepting the Truman disarmament post-WWII.

[Mr Radical]

Curtiss Hawk 75A-1 – a truly unique fighter | Shortfinals's Blog

[Sherman Logan]

Which military in the world do you believe poses an air superiority threat to USA?

Military capabilities are of themselves unimportant. They only take on meaning in comparison to the opposition.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Nice article, but the link doesn’t work for me. Can it be saved?

The motto of the French Armed Forces: “Sauve Qui Peut”

[wally_bert]

Very interesting reading. Thank you.

[2001convSVT]

Great article, I hope that we can learn not to make the same mistakes.

[yawningotter]

How many of those squadrons were waiting for an attack on the Maginot Line?

[WhiskeyX]

“Which military in the world do you believe poses an air superiority threat to USA?”

Your question embodies the classic error of being prepared for the last war and the last battle instead of the future battle, future war, and future enemy capability often unanticipated when your own battleforce was being designed, constructed, and trained. Our air forces are at the present moment the most numerous and most effective on the planet. Nonetheless, they are bbadly aged and susceptible to being severely degraded by high attrition rates. While the potential cause of such high attrition rates may not be apparent at this moment, it must be planned for in the event of unforseen commitments and enemy weaponry capabillities. An error in this area is not a problem which c an be remedied during the course of a modern battle or war. Aircraft procurement and pilot training requires years of time which modern warfare does not provide.

“Military capabilities are of themselves unimportant. They only take on meaning in comparison to the opposition.”

At the time in which the aircraft procurement and pilot training must take place to account for the unexpectedly high attrition rates, the opposition and threat are likely to be unknown and/or underestimated. France, Germany, and Japan paid deraly for making this crucial mistake. The United States is presently playing it dangerously close with its aging aircraft and low pilot strengths. The currently envisioned F-22 Raptor and F-25 aircraft strengths are much too thin to support sustained combat operations in a combat environment in which any kind of significant losses are to be sustained. By the time you subtract the aircraft being used in training, maintenance, and assignments outside the theater of combat, you’ll have at best one or a few dozen of these advanced combat aircraft in that theater of combat where you need them.This is much too thin of a margin for error.

[Sherman Logan]

So aren’t other air forces similarly aged and degraded?

I agree that the present “strategy” of a very small number of highly sophisticated weapons platforms is probably ill-advised.

[WhiskeyX]

“So aren’t other air forces similarly aged and degraded?”

No, in large part due to the United States obligations to sustain a global mission versus the potential adversaries having regional missions permitting concentration of forces bolstered by 3rd and 4th generation combat aircraft coming online now iand in the next decades. Just as the French Air Force of 1940 did not bring the majority of its combat air forces into the theater of the air campaign, the United States will be unlikely to have the opportunity to deploy more than a part of its most advanced combat aircraft into the theater of combat before consequences may ensue. In other words, the United States requires a larger and more capable complement of air forces, because the mission requirements are so much broader than those of most threats. U.S. failure to maintain a suitable depth of force could result in adverse battlefield results.