PDA

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



Zoe Brain
10-02-2013, 00:14
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html

This explains many facts that had previously been inexplicable to me.

Flying Officer Kyte
10-02-2013, 00:27
Certainly a very telling article Zoe, and it backs up the opinions of Polish pilots who were fighting in France at the time. Rob.

Lt. S.Kafloc
10-02-2013, 00:54
Well written and laid out. explaining each point very clearly. Something I had never thought about political or military or both.

Nightbomber
10-02-2013, 04:57
Very interesting article on a somehow forgotten battle, Zoe. Many thanks for sharing it.

Nightbomber
10-02-2013, 05:16
Certainly a very telling article Zoe, and it backs up the opinions of Polish pilots who were fighting in France at the time. Rob.

Thanks, Rob.

Caudron unit was not the only Polish one during the Campaign. Many pilots served in French units many others were sent to - so called - "Chimney Flights", forming pairs of planes flying in defense of vital industries.

Some further statistics of Polish pilots exploits:

Campaign in France, 1940

sorties 714
flight hours 2238

Enemy loses inflicted by Polish pilots in France:

destroyed 51 and 9/10
probably destroyed 3
damaged 6 and 3/5

Polish pilots lost

KIA 11(3)
WIA 2
MIA 5

Planes lost (all reasons) 44

Flying Officer Kyte
10-02-2013, 06:39
I am reading "For your Freedom and ours" at the moment Andrzej, and it gives a lot more detail about the fighting in France than the film. Rob.

Kaiser
10-02-2013, 10:54
In a german history forum this article from Kirkland is heavily critisized.

Example:



Yet in spite of committing only a minor portion of its resources at a low usage rate, the fighter force accounted for between 600 and 1000 of the 1439 German aircraft destroyed during the battle.
1.439 deutsche Verluste sind ebenfalls nicht zutreffend:

Inklusive des Norwegen-Feldzuges werden die deutschen Verluste 10. Mai -1. Juli 1940 wie folgt angegeben:
635 Bomber,
147 Stukas und Nahunterstützungsflugzeuge
457 Jäger (1- und 2-mot).
Zusammen 1.239 (Druckfehler?). Bericht des Quartiermeisters der Luftwaffe (Karlsruher Dokumenten-Kollektion: Die deutschen Flugzeugverluste 1939-44). Dabei ist zu beachten: als "Verlust" werden der Studie nach Beschädigungen größer 10% gewertet, das sind bei weitem nicht alles Abschüsse (Speidel-Studie zur Luftwaffe im Westfeldzug, S. 490).
[/quote]

Translation:
1.439 german losses arent true either: :

Including the Norway campaign the german losses from May 10th to July 1st 1940 are as follows:
635 Bombers,
147 Stukas and Ground Attack Aircrafts
457 Fighters(1- and 2-mot).
together 1.239 (printing error?). Accounting of the Quartermaster of the Luftwaffe (Karlsruher Dokumenten-Kollektion: Die deutschen Flugzeugverluste 1939-44). To note is: Counted as "losses" are, according to this study, damage higher than 10%, this aren't by far all shot downs. (Speidel-Study about the Luftwaffe im Westfeldzug, S. 490).

The whole thread (you want to use google-translator for this one if you don't understand german):
http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f68/luftkrieg-franz-sische-luftwaffe-1940-a-19971/

csadn
10-02-2013, 17:17
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/sep-oct/kirkland.html

Um -- link is 404. Given it's ".af.mil"....

Naharaht
10-02-2013, 19:14
That is an interesting article. Thank you for posting the link, Zoe.

Diamondback
10-02-2013, 21:22
I used to use a lot of AU papers as sources back in my own college days... they've done some real monkeywrenching on the site since then though.

gully_raker
10-02-2013, 22:02
:confused: Tried to access your link today Zoe & kept getting a 404 error.:eek:

Zoe Brain
10-03-2013, 01:53
Try getting to it via the wayback machine. The URL works for me. Or bung me an e-mail, I'll send you the saved HTML in reply.

Flying Officer Kyte
10-03-2013, 02:04
I can still get the link fine on Internet Explorer but get the 404 on Firefox Zoe.
Rob.

Kaiser
10-03-2013, 05:15
The article seems to be a myth:
http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=GMCC_202_0007

English summary:
[quote[L’action de l’armée de l’air en 1939-1940 : facteurs structurels et conjoncturels d’une défaite
The action and role of the French Air Force in 1939-1940 was affected by several factors, including inadequate production, lack of up-to-date aircraft, and delays in delivery. Its performance in the Battle of France has been harshly criticized, but the myth of an « absent » or « nonexistent » air force has given way to the myth of an « unbeaten » air force. Statistics now show that the French Air Force in the Battle of France suffered losses of 2,000 aircraft against some 500 enemy aircraft destroyed.[/quote]

Jager
10-03-2013, 09:03
I have to say the numbers in the prime article seem off, or mistaken. The couple of books I've read on the subject ("French Aircraft from 1939-1942" by Breffort & Jouineau being read last night) indicates that factory production of the new types was just getting up to speed, and that large numbers of aircraft delivered were not getting to the squadrons. The "why" isn't explored, though a manpower issue, and interservice squabblings
would explain much. And If the MS 406 was still a contender against the Bf-109, and the LeO 451 a superb fast bomber, why were the French desperately buying Hawk 75s, DB-7s and GM 167Fs?
Karl

Doug
10-03-2013, 12:11
My sarcastic view is that the French left all the fighting up to their Allies, and the only times the French did fight was against the Allies in colaberation with the Germans. I could also add that when I was growing up in the 60's Airfix never made a French WW2 Aircraft model (to the best of my knowledge). No disrepect the the French airmen who did fight and fought damed hard.

Flying Officer Kyte
10-03-2013, 12:12
I have to say the numbers in the prime article seem off, or mistaken. The couple of books I've read on the subject ("French Aircraft from 1939-1942" by Breffort & Jouineau being read last night) indicates that factory production of the new types was just getting up to speed, and that large numbers of aircraft delivered were not getting to the squadrons. The "why" isn't explored, though a manpower issue, and interservice squabblings
would explain much. And If the MS 406 was still a contender against the Bf-109, and the LeO 451 a superb fast bomber, why were the French desperately buying Hawk 75s, DB-7s and GM 167Fs?
Karl

As I understood it Karl, all the new machines and top pilots were being shipped out to the French colonies as fast as they could go.
Mind you, I have only just started into this period, so could well have it all wrong.
Rob.

Jager
10-03-2013, 13:00
As I understood it Karl, all the new machines and top pilots were being shipped out to the French colonies as fast as they could go.
Mind you, I have only just started into this period, so could well have it all wrong.
Rob.

Which really makes no sense if the wolf is coming in the side door.
There was a determined exodus of the top of the line aircraft to North Africa, but this started after Dunkirk and when the collapse of the French armies out side Paris was occurring. By then, it was clear that France had lost, just undetermined how badly they would pay. So the plan was to get as many of the best aircraft out of Axis reach before an armistice was signed.
Now, Casablanca was being used as an assembly depot for US imported aircraft, so a number of DB-7s and GM-167Fs were there already (I don't know if the Hawks were there, or a northern port). But the evacuation was done after defeat was admitted.
Karl

Baldrick62
12-23-2013, 06:55
Which really makes no sense if the wolf is coming in the side door.
There was a determined exodus of the top of the line aircraft to North Africa, but this started after Dunkirk and when the collapse of the French armies out side Paris was occurring. By then, it was clear that France had lost, just undetermined how badly they would pay. So the plan was to get as many of the best aircraft out of Axis reach before an armistice was signed.
Now, Casablanca was being used as an assembly depot for US imported aircraft, so a number of DB-7s and GM-167Fs were there already (I don't know if the Hawks were there, or a northern port). But the evacuation was done after defeat was admitted.
Karl

The Hawks were amongst the most successful fighters in the Armee de l'Air during the Battle of France in terms of kill ratio. 'While only 12.6% of the French Air Force single-seater fighter force the H75 accounted for almost a third of air-to-air kills during the 1940 Battle of France.' - Facon, Patrick. "Slowing Down Blitzkreig - A Curtiss Fighter Ace in the Battle of France."

There is a much more balanced analysis of the reasons for France's failure, due to pol/mil strategy, organizational/inter-service flaws, technological/logistical weaknesses and poor operational theory in A.C. Cain's chapter in http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?8254-GENERAL-Why-Air-Forces-Fail-The-Anatomy-of-Defeat

Rabbit 3
12-24-2013, 03:17
I could also add that when I was growing up in the 60's Airfix never made a French WW2 Aircraft model (to the best of my knowledge). No disrepect the the French airmen who did fight and fought damed hard.
That probably had a lot to do with Airfix releasing models that would sell in the UK which in their hayday in the `60`s and `70`s was their core market.
They rather left the more obscure subjects to their main UK competitor Frog, who did do models of the Ms 406 and D.520 at that time.

fast.git
12-28-2013, 18:27
Interesting article... and a great discussion. Thank you. :)

Jager
01-05-2014, 09:46
There is a much more balanced analysis of the reasons for France's failure, due to pol/mil strategy, organizational/inter-service flaws, technological/logistical weaknesses and poor operational theory in A.C. Cain's chapter in http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/showthread.php?8254-GENERAL-Why-Air-Forces-Fail-The-Anatomy-of-Defeat

Just finished the French chapter today; it indeed answers a lot that didn't make sense.
Karl