The French Army Thread

[charlie962]

6 minutes ago, MikeMeech said:

they want their 'own story' more than 'other people's stories'

Always going to be the case.

But add to this that we British and French seem reluctant to take pride in the great victories of 1918. Why ?

 

charlie

[phil andrade]

Mike,

 

You’ve got me there !

 

Of course, we indulge what interests we have in our own national narratives.

 

What did rather shock me, though, are the allusions to the French that Haig made in his diary.

 

I don’t want to go and get it now and pick out citations , but I’m sure he emphasises several times in the 1918 fighting  that the French were unwilling to fight hard, and couldn’t be relied upon.....actually, in the light of the figures that I’ve just been investigating, his comments seem outrageous.  Could it be that there was French fighting that he “just didn’t know about”, or that he didn’t want to know about ?

 

The figures surprised me, especially the very heavy French loss in the defensive phase : I had got a feel for the overall balance between Anglo French casualty figures in 1918, but didn’t appreciate just how severe the blow that struck in May and June must have been. A bit of a revelation, and one that makes me feel aware of my own susceptibility to under stating the severity of the French ordeal, and, concomitantly, how admirably quick and effective their riposte was on and after July 18th.

 

The other aspect that demands attention is the sheer amount of frontage that the French armies were fighting along. The BEF suffered 300,000 casualties on the Western Front in March and April in 1918.  Of these, about four fifths - approaching 240,000 - were in the armies that were in the main battle sectors of the Michael, Mars and Georgette offensives. There were another sixty thousand or so that were incurred elsewhere on the Western Front.  If this was so for the British, then how much more so was it for the French ?  In their efforts to support the British in the Picardy and Artois battles of March and April, they suffered 92,000 casualties by official count ( 112,000 according to another figure ).....I wonder how many more men they lost during that time along the Aisne, Champagne, Argonne, Verdun and so forth.  More than sixty thousand, I guess.

 

Phil

Edited 7 September , 2019 by phil andrade

[phil andrade]

There is an anomaly in these casualty statistics that I can’t ignore.

 

The Germans, in the decade after the Great War, provided a breakdown of their casualties on the Western front which were broken down into those they suffered against the French and those that they suffered against the British.  The most striking feature is the great success achieved by the French in terms of the exchange rate between the commencement of the Battle of the Somme in 1916 and the end of 1917.  It’s very clear from the comparison that the British consistently failed to match their French allies in this respect.

 

Things changed dramatically in the defensive fighting between March and June 1918 : the British succeeeded in inflicting heavier loss on the Germans than they themselves sustained, while the French suffered a setback in their exchange rate and suffered disproportionately, losing more men than the Germans who attacked them.  How might we account for this ? 

 

There is always, of course, the old trope about statistics , especially casualty figures.  It might well be that the casualties that the French inflicted while  supporting the British in Picardy and Artois were  attributed by the Germans to the British...maybe the same had occurred in reverse in the earlier fighting in 1916 and 17. 

 

On the face of it, though, it looks as if the French progress of mid 1916 to the end of 1917 suddenly failed, and that the British became the more successful when it came to inflicting damage.

 

Phil

[Sly]

Hi Phil,

It's a very interesting thread, of course the comparison of the casualty rate for the British and the French is not that easy for that period considering the contribution of both in the different battles of 1918. I was wondering if you have any statistics of the casualties sustained by the different countries for the period of the 8th of August to the end in the whole Picardy region ? I mean for the hundred days (with the British and Commonwealth) and also for "other" battles where the French and the British were fighting at the same time in the area (battles of Albert, Montidider, second battle of Noyon, etc...). That would be the frontline of the entire Fourth British Army, the First French army and a part of the third too ?

Thank you,

Sly

[phil andrade]

Hello Sly,

 

The most authoritative figures I can find for the French in the Picardy fighting appertain to what is known as 3rd Picardy, and are confined to the period 8th to the 29th August 1918, for the 1st, 3rd and 10th Armies :

 

Killed, 9,533

Wounded, 68,435

Missing, 7,428

 

Total : 85,396.

 

The missing include prisoners , but it’s fair to assume that more had been killed than captured.  In addition, several  thousand of the wounded, I assume, would  die of their wounds. The same source, which I think was cited by Edmonds, stated that French casualties for the entire Western Front in August totalled 99, 696. 

 

The British 4th Army reported 10,253 killed, 66,041 wounded and 5,770 missing, but that includes the month of September.  British 3rd Army casualties were very similar in total.  The 1st Army suffered fewer than thirty thousand.

 

For August 1918 alone, the BEF reported 122,272 casualties : significantly more than the French total that I cited.

 

The French parliamentary source suggests much higher totals than those presented by the official army history : for the entire period of July 1918 until the Armistice, 531,000 casualties were tabulated, of whom 110,000 were killed, missing or prisoners, and 53,000 died in hospitals. I’m sure that the latter figure includes deaths from illness as well as wounds, with 9,000 influenza deaths in October alone. The Salonica casualties are also included.

 

BEF casualties for July to the Armistice were 411,636, of whom 350,000 are attributed to the period commencing 8 August.

 

Hope this is useful.

 

Phil

Edited 10 September , 2019 by phil andrade

[Tomb1302]

All,

 

If I were interested in improving my understanding in the evolution and variation of French uniforms over the course of four years, where would I begin?

 

Thank you.

[Robert Dunlop]

Do you have any books on French uniforms at the moment or are you starting from scratch?

 

Robert

[Sly]

Thank you very much Phil,

your very well detailed answer is much appreciated !

Regards,

Sly

[Tomb1302]

2 hours ago, Robert Dunlop said:

Do you have any books on French uniforms at the moment or are you starting from scratch?

 

Robert

Robert, I'm afraid I'd be (more or less) starting from scratch.

[Robert Dunlop]

See if you can get hold of André Jouineau's books:

 

L'Armée française de 1914 de août à décembre (ISBN-13: 978-2352500834)

 

and

 

L'Armée française de 1918 de 1915 à la Victoire (ISBN-13: 978-2352500841)

 

Robert

[Michael Haselgrove]

Tomb 1302,

Try having a look at the website below.  The two volume set "The French in the First World War" is, in my opinion, excellent albeit expensive.  Another good publication is "Gazette des Uniformes - L' Uniforme du Poilu 1914 - 1918" although whether that is still available for a reasonable price I don't know.

https://www.militaria.at/

Michael.

 

[Tomb1302]

Gentlemen,

 

Thank you for the advice. I'll definitely look into these sources.

[Tomb1302]

Everyone, to revive this thread slightly, I thought I'd share some of the postcards I've recently bought.

 

Any opinions or interesting observations?

 

 

[charlie962]

Top one looks interesting and is presumably French PoWs; photo not clear enough to make out any unit number nor read what it says over the doorway. Why do some wear labels ?

 

Charlie

[charlie962]

Second photo looks interwar years ? Soldiers left and right are wearing medals. What is that object behind the machine gunner. Again photo a bit too blurred to make out much detail.

 

Thanks for sharing

 

Charlie

[Tomb1302]

3 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Second photo looks interwar years ? Soldiers left and right are wearing medals. What is that object behind the machine gunner. Again photo a bit too blurred to make out much detail.

Charlie, do you think it is interwar?

 

Were Chauchats and Benét-Mércie machine guns common after the war?

[charlie962]

It just has the feel of post-WW1 but I'm not an expert.

 

MGs- Chauchat is presumably the gun held by man lying down (halfmoon magazine).

I would suspect the surplus stock of MGs will have continued to be used for a considerable time afterwards for training and for Colonial operations even if withdrawn from main army ?

[Tomb1302]

1 minute ago, charlie962 said:

It just has the feel of post-WW1 but I'm not an expert.

 

MGs- Chauchat is presumably the gun held by man lying down (halfmoon magazine).

I would suspect the surplus stock of MGs will have continued to be used for a considerable time afterwards for training and for Colonial operations even if withdrawn from main army ?

I did see it was a Chauchat. 4th man from the left, standing in the back, I feel has a distinctly WWI look.

 

Would you not agree?

[charlie962]

Do you not think that the MG on tripod is a Hotchkiss (look at that straight magazine sticking out to the right hand side as we look at it) ? The WW1 model remained in service with French Army until WW2.

 

Charlie

 

Edit- looks remarkably like this one, on '1915 Omnibus Tripod'. It seems the Hotchkiss 1914 originated from the Hotchkiss 1897.

Edited 21 September , 2019 by charlie962

[Tomb1302]

20 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Do you not think that the MG on tripod is a Hotchkiss (look at that straight magazine sticking out to the right hand side as we look at it) ? The WW1 model remained in service with French Army until WW2.

 

Charlie

 

Edit- looks remarkably like this one, on '1915 Omnibus Tripod'. It seems the Hotchkiss 1914 originated from the Hotchkiss 1897.

Charlie, you may very well be right. It is difficult to make out.

 

Another neat purchase:

Edited 21 September , 2019 by Tomb1302

[charlie962]

Very tidy uniforms. I see those infamous shiny mess tins perched on top of the back-pack.

 

Rifle experts will no doubt be able to date this ?  (edit -Berthier model 1916 ? )

 

Charlie

Edited 21 September , 2019 by charlie962

[Tomb1302]

6 minutes ago, charlie962 said:

Very tidy uniforms. I see those infamous shiny mess tins perched on top of the back-pack.

 

Rifle experts will no doubt be able to date this ?  (edit -Berthier model 1916 ? )

 

I do think they are Berthiers.

 

And there are two like this one, but with different poses, meaning the photographer took two in quick succession.

[Jools mckenna]

Looks like dark trousers under the greatcoat, so possibly red.

[Tomb1302]

Another good find for anyone interested in offering thoughts or opinions.

 

 

[robins2]

they look like a battle hardened group, the individual holding the shell looks like he is wearing wood shoes??clogs??