Froggies ? [Archive] - Battlefront Forum

Molotov Cocktail

10-12-2003, 08:55 PM

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

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/de-gaulle.jpg

Henri Philippe Pétain

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/d2931159/200.jpg

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

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fr.gif

Flag of the World web site - French State, Vichy government (1940-1944) (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fr-etatf.html)

Free French Forces (1940-1944) Forces Françaises Libres (FFL)

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fr-ffl.gif

Flags of the World web site - Free French Forces (1940-1944) (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fr-ffl.html)

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.

tooz

10-13-2003, 12:24 AM

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:

tooz

10-13-2003, 12:28 AM

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. :rolleyes:

Wallybob

10-13-2003, 04:42 AM

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.

Sergei

10-13-2003, 05:46 AM

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.

Thin Red Line

10-13-2003, 07:21 AM

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).

von Lucke

10-13-2003, 07:59 AM

DeGaulle and Petain? Feh!

I want to see Koenig and Travers!

Berlichtingen

10-13-2003, 08:11 AM

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)

Los

10-13-2003, 02:44 PM

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

Andreas

10-13-2003, 02:51 PM

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.

Joel

10-13-2003, 03:13 PM

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 ! smile.gif

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 ]

Michael Emrys

10-13-2003, 06:01 PM

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

JonS

10-13-2003, 06:28 PM

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>[/QUOTE]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

Xavier

10-13-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by JonS:
...Jean-Pierres-come-latelies.

[/QB]This one is good :D ("French Crapola" too :D )

Berlichtingen

10-13-2003, 08:28 PM

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.

Joel

10-13-2003, 08:32 PM

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.

JonS

10-13-2003, 09:08 PM

Looks like today is a school day (just like all the others) smile.gif Cheers guys.

JonS

Los

10-14-2003, 12:18 AM

Most of the colonial troops (Algerians/Morrocans) were wearing their traditional uniform items still.

Los

Firefly

10-14-2003, 12:12 PM

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 ]

Michael Emrys

10-14-2003, 05:51 PM

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

Thin Red Line

10-15-2003, 09:53 AM

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 ]

Wicky

10-15-2003, 12:17 PM

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

Los

10-15-2003, 12:18 PM

Ellis' Cassino book confirms what TRL is saying. In fact either in that book or somewhere else in a Cassino book, I have seen these troops. IIRC they are wearing French helmets and have these wazoo quilted traditional wool overcoats type things (that actually look warmer than what the normal issue overcoats. Sorry but am at work and can't give more confirm than that right now.

Los

[ October 15, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Los ]

Thin Red Line

10-15-2003, 01:22 PM

http://mapage.noos.fr/4edmm/Images/goumier.jpg

Goumier (Moroccon troops) 1943

JonS

10-16-2003, 12:31 AM

In my earlier posts I was kind-of ignoring the colonial troops, since they were so different, and never became mainstream (as it were). Incidentally, it seems the French have quite a strong history in the raising and utilising of indigenous forces (see: Indochina for more examples).

In addition to dress, the colonial units had quite different TsO&E which made them particularly suited for mountain warfare (or vice versa). And naturally, after throwing out such a tasty tidbit, I have no sources to hand to back that up :rolleyes: Anyway, one I can think of that has quite a long section on the French colonial forces is Bidwell & Graham, Tug of War. The authours give Juin and his merry men a huge thumbs-up for their performance in May 1944.

Regards
JonS

Los

10-16-2003, 02:01 AM

TRL thanks for the pic, I have the same book ("The Armed Forces of WW2:Uniforms Insignia and Organization") by Andrew Mollo. I'll quote a passage:

"French African and Colonial troops continued to wear their existing uniforms as long as possible until they were replaced by British or American uniforms and equipment. American uniform was supplied in vast quantities so by the time the French Expeditionary Corps landed in Italy it was dressed in American uniforms with French Headdress (when available) and French Insignia."

TRL's picture above depicts a Goumier in Italy. He's wearing a brit helmet over his turban. The FEC had five such regiments (maybe about a third of the FEC infantry strength). Another picture shows French North African troops (perhaps Algerians or colonial troops as most look white)wearing US equipment but all sporting French Helmets adorned with camo netting.

Los

Xavier

10-16-2003, 07:02 AM

Anybody knows what is exactly a "Goum" and a "Tabor"? In my understanding a tabor is quite like a bataillon and a goum like a company in size... :confused:

Thin Red Line

10-16-2003, 07:36 AM

Xavier, you're right.
A Group of Tabor (GTM) is approximately the size of a regiment and is composed of one HQ tabor ("hors-rang") and three combat tabors each divided into four infantry goums and one HQ ("hors-rang") goum.

More info here (in french) (http://chtx.free.fr/index2.php?page=goums)

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 11:22 AM

Since it's a slow day in the forums, I thought I'd drag up this thread. Fun to read what we were looking for in CMAK before it came out.
There are some good French battles recently and I wondered about the use of Springfield rifles by the French in CMAK. Seems to me they would have gotten Lee Enfields from the Brits or Garands from the USA. Since they have USA uniforms, I vote for the Garands.

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 12:35 PM

My reply to Micheal Dorosh in the other thread, RE: patch request

MD, Yes. Looking through the French kit, (Thanks to Folke's CMAKdb site and some recent French battles) I see USA MG's and AFV's with a pitiful firepower from the Springfields. You get your choice of grease gun or tommy gun, but only a bolt action rifle???

Michael Emrys

10-03-2004, 12:46 PM

Are they getting Springfields all through the war, or only in the early years? I can see them getting Springfields the first year after Torch, and then Garands after that.

Michael

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 12:57 PM

Rifle 40 dec40-nov42 LE and Bren
Rifle 42 jan42-sep42 MAS and Chat
Rifle 43 and 44 dec43-jul44 Springfields

Above according to CMAKdb, I did not verify the dates.

Sequoia

10-03-2004, 03:43 PM

Seems as if it would be relatively easy to Mod the Vichy French from the Italians using existing bitmaps. How good a fit would Italian infantry be?

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 03:49 PM

The more I ponder this situation, the more it puzzles me. I just don't understand BFC's idea of Springfields. If the early war French have MAS rifles, later they should have brought them along or received kit from the Brits, LE's like the rest of the CW troops or the USA, M1's. Most countries in the CM series used standardized ammo. Did the Springfield share ammo with one of the above? Were they leftover from the Marines or something? Did they capture a warehouse full of them? I can't imagine someone in power shipping a boatload over just for the French.

Can someone help me understand?

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 04:01 PM

Sequoia, I had to go look at CMAKdb. The firepower of the Italians is worse than the Free French, lol. Except for the Airborne. You can use the AB after 43 or the uniforms get all screwd up. I guess if someone wanted to make a battle with Vichy vs someone they could do a uniform mod and the flags. RE: your question, probably a good fit.

Michael Dorosh

10-03-2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by junk2drive:
The more I ponder this situation, the more it puzzles me. I just don't understand BFC's idea of Springfields. If the early war French have MAS rifles, later they should have brought them along or received kit from the Brits, LE's like the rest of the CW troops or the USA, M1's. Most countries in the CM series used standardized ammo. Did the Springfield share ammo with one of the above? Were they leftover from the Marines or something? Did they capture a warehouse full of them? I can't imagine someone in power shipping a boatload over just for the French.

Can someone help me understand? Sharpshooters in Army units and I think headquarters units were armed with the Springfield even after the M-1 Garand was adopted - I thought JonS posted a link to some info on that. It fired 30.06 ammo just like the M-1 IIRC.

junk2drive

10-03-2004, 06:01 PM

Thanks MD, at least the ammo makes sense. It may be historical to have them with Springfields. I that case did the French get leftovers that were "good enough", or did they feel more comfy with bolt action? Maybe the French turned down an offer of M-1's. The Marines didn't want them early on.

Michael Emrys

10-04-2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by junk2drive:
Thanks MD, at least the ammo makes sense. It may be historical to have them with Springfields. I that case did the French get leftovers that were "good enough", or did they feel more comfy with bolt action? Maybe the French turned down an offer of M-1's. The Marines didn't want them early on. Yes, Dorosh is right about both rifles using the same ammo. And once the US took over arming and supplying the French (sometime around the middle of '43?), they would want them using ammo already in the pipeline.

As for why give them Springfields instead of Garands, it might have been a matter of supply and demand. Production of the Garand had trouble keeping up with the rapid expansion of the US armed forces the first year or two of US beligerency. I don't have numbers—I suppose they are floating around somewhere on the web—but it may have been the middle of '44 or even later before there were enough to start handing them out to allies. Meanwhile, there were plenty of Springfields still in storage.

Michael

junk2drive

10-04-2004, 12:29 AM

Thanks ME, nice to see you posting again.

David I

10-04-2004, 10:21 AM

If you want a very good and painless history of Vichy France and how it fit in with French/German/Allied politics and war, watch the documentary "The Sorrow & the Pity". Nominated for(won?) the Academy award for best foriegn movie & best documentary back in '70 something.
Awesome movie. Deals with the surrender in 40 the forming of the Vichy government, the gradual fascistization (if that's a word) of the Gov., British sinking of the French Fleet, Resistance, Collaberation,etc, etc.

One of my favorite scenes is in a German Propaganda filmed in '42 showing happy Frenchmen going off to do "Voluntary" work in Germany. The German "Corrispondent" askes one of the Frenchmen "And how long have you been unemployed?". The Frenchman looks up and says
"Two Years", but his face says "Ever since you invaded my country you kraut bastard".

Again that's "The Sorrow & the Pity" by Marcel Ophuls. Available at a good library or for purchase from BELLE & BLADE.

David I

SpitfireXI

10-04-2004, 10:26 AM

I always wondered about the French arms, but what also puzzles me is why are they still modeled having 'Adrian' helmets? I thought the Free French were wholly equipped using American/British equipment. Any one know the details?

Joel

10-04-2004, 02:10 PM

As one who helped Steve on French matters for CMAK, I'll try to clear up some points mentioned above.
I think the most important point to keep in mind is that the Free French equipment was in no way standardized, even after US deliveries. Thus the French representation in CMAK had to be a compromise, or would have needed far too much work proportionally to their numbers and operational importance.

The rifles :
Before Torch, the few Free French units (mainly Leclerc's column in Chad and 1st FF Brigade group from Bir Hacheim fame) had a mix of British and French weapons, from WW1 vintage rifles to MAS and British Lee Enfields. The 1st FF Brigade Group then became 1st FF Division and was (almost) entirely re-equipped with British weapons.
After Torch, colonial troops in North Africa joined the Allies with their weapons (a mix of MAS and old rifles as individual weapons) then the Anfa agreements were signed that provided a frame to re-equip a number of French divisions based on US TOE.
So most infantry formations were supposed to be issued the same weapons as their US counterparts, however due to some shortages almost none got any Garand M1, they instead got Springfield 1903 or Enfield 1917 rifles. That point is mentioned in almost every inspection report I've read (the French divisions had to go through a US-led inspection after re-equipment and training with US kit, before being sent to Italy.) Springfield rifles seem to be in greater numbers than Enfields for the units in Italy. By the way many units kept these rifles until the end of the war and were never issued the M1, 13th DBLE for instance.
1st Free French division, which had been re-equipped from French to British in October 42, had to follow a crash course for re-equipment with US kit in early 44 to be sent to Italy in April because Alexander wouldn't allow them in a US Army with British equipment (logistical nightmare).

The helmets : it was a matter of compromise again. To make a long story short, there were all kinds of helmets and hats among the Free French troops but a large majority wore French helmets, except most troopers in the 1st Free French Division who kept their British helmets. I don't remember seeing one single pic of French troops in North Africa or Italy wearing US helmets, I guess the deliveries of helmets was not at the top of the list ! ;)

Michael Emrys

10-04-2004, 02:35 PM

Thanks very much for the information and insight, Joel. Anything you can tell us about how French troops in the ETO were equipped after August, 1944?

Michael

junk2drive

10-04-2004, 02:37 PM

Joel, thanks for the insight and clarification. The compromises make sense to me.

I'm wanting to use the French for something else, and I guess I'll just have to deal with it.

The low firepower makes it tough to balance a battle with them. Unless it is against Italians, lol

Dandelion

10-04-2004, 04:58 PM

"Rearming the French" (Marcel Vigneras) extensively lists all deliveries made by the US to FF. Types and dates. He also mentions the Springfield issue as described by Joel. Solid quality book, easily obtainable, US Army Special Study series. I even believe they are about to publish it on the internet in extensio.

The French forces in North Africa joining after Torch were not colonials tho. They were just French troops of darker shades. The men came from Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Algeria was part of France, the other two were protectorates. The whites appearing in the force (Chasseurs d'Afrique, LE, Zouaves etc) were employed by the Army (French North African Army, a separate entity from the Metropolitain Army), not the Colonial Department.

In the columns from the Western Desert were some colonials. Though only a handful.

I feel it is relevant and justified to have the French wear Adrian post Torch. If they had any, they would. Like all exile troops, the French tried to keep characteristic equipment and insignia. To retain a separate identity. Thus the widespread wearing of the Adrian need not indicate shortages. Just like the Dutch who kept their strange helmet as long as possible, wearing it with British battledress, even though the British most probably offered them Teller helmets.

Cheerio
Dandelion

junk2drive

10-04-2004, 05:26 PM

Dandelion, maybe you could squeeze this info into the CMAKdb info box. I do so enjoy reading your posts there.

Thanks to all who replied. So much better than reading a peng thread.

Dandelion

10-04-2004, 06:08 PM

Thanks J2D, squeeze is the word smile.gif Still got some work left on the German OOB tho. If nobody better has ventured into the French by then I'll give it a go. Am still having a super-crashing PC here. Average time between Bluestop o death; 2 minutes.

Cheerio
Dandelion

Joel

10-05-2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Dandelion:

The French forces in North Africa joining after Torch were not colonials tho.
My mistake, redface.gif I often misuse "colonial troops" in a far too broad meaning.
Dandelion is indeed right, French units who joined the Allies after Torch were in majority Tirailleurs regiments, with locals (mainly Algerians and Morrocans) forming 75% of the manpower in each regiment.

Michael,
Equipment for French infantry divisions after August 44 was essentially the same as in Italy. However whereas there were only infantry units in Italy (except 4 armored cavalry and 2 TD regiments), three armored divisions were sent to the frontline in 1944 : 1st and 5th in de Lattre's "Armée B" in the south and Leclerc's "2e DB" under US command in the north. These were organised along the TOE for US "medium" armored divisions, the main differences with their US counterparts being the newest toys arriving a bit later and the Enfield M1917 instead of the Garand in the armored infantry battalions.
Also some special units were employed, such as the "Bataillon de choc" (Brit style commandos armed mainly with Stens and French LMGs), "Commandos d'Afrique" (Thomsons and BARs, French cavalry M1935 helmet), or the 1st Parachute Infantry Regiment (1st RCP, which was one of the few French units to get the Garand). Many partisan units, about battalion size, were also integrated in de Lattre's army. Most of these units didn't fit in the Anfa re-arming agreement and thus had to be equipped with what was at hand, ie not much. That's the main reason why you can see pictures of French troops with a wide range of equipement and light weapons between September 44 and May 45.

Hope this helps a bit in this very confused area. ;)
Cheers,
Joël