France's navy in world war 2?

Question

how many ships did it have, describe the naval battles(were they a success or failure and does this contribute to the overall success of the war). pretty much anything about their navy during ww2

Answer 1

During WWI, the French Army had huge numbers of troops rebel against their officers. Sometimes, the officers rebelled with them and marched away from the trenches. If you want proof, read Jeff Shaara's "To the Last Man". Shaara is notable military historian.



Your own Marshal Petain and Marshal Foch formally petitioned US Army General Pershing to send in troops to cover the lines held by the French, so that the various rebellions could be sorted out. Did you know that the French army officers actually withdrew from positions held near the village of Lucy-le-Bocage, and encountered United States Marines on their way to back them up? On the way there, when the platoon commander was told to fall back, the USMC officer, Captain Lloyd W. Williams replied "Retreat? Hell, we just got here!"



Aside from that, I also agree with the fact that the French government left their mess in Indochina for the United States and goaded us into sending forces into the country.



It's a proven fact that the French naval vessels accounted for during WWII were in fact either laid up in England, or scuttled, so as to keep them from falling into enemy hands.



I'm not exactly sure as to why you put down those statistics of KIA during the war because frankly, they don't compliment your tirade in any way.



The United States entered the war in 1917 after declaring war on April 6th. After close to 4 years of fighting for the rest of the Allied side, the United States accomplished a significant amount of the war within a short period of time. It's also a known fact that the United States did not send in as many soldiers and Marines as the rest of the Allied side sent in soldiers. Its proven that the United States also has a higher casualty-infliction rate than any other nation in the world, since the early 1800s. For ever 1 Marine killed in the early 1900s, over 8 enemy soldiers would die. For every 1 Marine killed in WWII and Korea, more than 15 enemy soldiers would die. Nowadays, those ratios have increased. The French casualties have also been exacerbated because the fighting was on their doorstep. Hell, the fighting was right in their homeland; they were hit hard because they were right there. Your "anger" is unjustified as is the denial you've spouted.



I do agree, France has some fine damn soldiers but the past has been written and nothing you say or I say can change that.



Calling his information "half-truths" still shows that you're denying the facts. I've written A-grade papers on this stuff. I've spent hours of my time in libraries researching military history, and all that he's typed out is correct. The French military DID NOT do most of the job holding the Western Front. The British Forces under Field Marshal Haig were given that task and they did well (Although, Haig was a pompous ***). It's the truth. The French military has a long and varied history of cutting and running when the going gets too tough to handle.



Did you know that the French government selfishly requested that the United States stay out of the war, but instead send their troops to fight under the French name? Did you know that?

Marshal Petain was personally against it and he promptly informed General Pershing and Brigadier General Harbord about it. Yet, Marshal Foch and Clemenceau attempted to disavow Petain, and started to insult Pres. Wilson for not cooperating with their messed up requests.

Why do you think that they requested American troops to fight in the French Army? Over 49 French divisions mutinied. 49! They needed the reinforcements to back up the remaining 46%-47% of their crumbling military. Want proof? Read the works of a native French military historian, Guy Pedroncini. He did a ton of research on the subject in the late 60's and 70's. If you'd like to quote numbers of KIA, then you should also include the number of Russians who died: 1.81 million.



You're being ignorant yourself by grouping us Americans in the same category. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. There's no need for that. But I am trying to tell you this. Your so called "anger" is completely unjustified. As I said earlier, the French military does indeed have some damn fine soldiers but for the most part, they have always cut and run when the s**t hits the fan. That's the way things are.



I'm not ignoring the fact that soldiers died. I respect that. Neither am I denying the fact that there were large numbers of French soldiers present at a quantity of the major battles. But I am telling you this. They marched out in the opposite direction that the rest of the Allies progressed.

As soon as they started taking casualties due to flawed tactics and stubbornness on the part of French flag-equivalent officers and junior officers, they took as many of their troops out as possible, leaving in certain fresh divisions but taking out their vast majority. Who did that leave?



You have a very irrational view of your country's contributions.

Answer 2

The French navy was pretty good in WW2. That was actually a problem for the Allies when Pétain surrendered. The British destroyed a part of the French navy before it would fall in the hands of the Germans. An other part was destroyed by the French themselves.

The rest of the navy didn't have a really significant role in the war.







USAFisnumber1, what a stupid, inaccurate and hateful answer.



This line was particulary despicable: "In WW1, there was the Mutiny where the French soldiers refused to fight. Fortunately the American Army soon arrived and saved them."



American casualties in WW1: 130 000

British casualties in WW1: 800 000

French military casualties in WW1: 1 300 000



Enough said, you fail.

If you hate France, just say it, don't try to justify your hatred with odious lies.





EDIT: Iceman, I never denied there was a mutiny, I also never claimed that the Americans were cowards or anything, but USAfisnumber1 comments on WW1 ignored the majority of the war, and his claim that French soldiers lacked back bone in the 20th century is unacceptable.



Plus, the mutiny happened after years of intense fighting which killed hundreds of thousands of French soldiers (cowards, obviously), and it led to a change of leadership in the French army, so it wasn't useless.



This kind of hateful, highly offensive comments on the French military is far too popular in the US, and it really is annoying, that's why I answered.

Defending someone who insults so many men who died for their country is despicable.



By the way, you're right, history has been written, so has been the number of casualties. I posted it because it shows how much claiming that the French refused to fight is wrong.



"Hell, the fighting was right in their homeland; they were hit hard because they were right there."

Of course, but there's also the fact that the French army did most of the job of holding the Western front.



Anyway, you're right, I was wrong, USAF didn't lie, he just posted half-truths in an heavily hypocritical and highly offensive way.





EDIT 2: For the last time, I didn't deny there was a mutiny.



"The French military has a long and varied history of cutting and running when the going gets too tough to handle"

Not particulary, no.

This kind of rethoric on the French military is limited to biased or ignorant Americans (and some British people).



"The French military DID NOT do most of the job holding the Western Front. The British Forces under Field Marshal Haig were given that task and they did well"

Not really. Haig was made commander-in-chief of the BEF only in December 1915, one and half year after the war started. The battle of the Somme, in November 1916, was actually the first major battle in which the British took the lead (though the French contribution remained significant, despite Verdun).

Before the Somme, the Germans considered Britain as a naval power and not that much a force to be reckoned with on land, focusing instead on France and Russia.

A major reason for the huge number of British casualties at the Somme was that most soldiers were inexperienced since the British army had not been really tested before (though the French didn't do much better, I'll give you that.)

If not the French, then I guess the guys doing most of the job of holding the Western front until the Somme (and whose participation was still decisive after that) were aliens from outer space.



And you're still speaking like there was nothing but mutinies in the French army in WW1.

What about Verdun, what about the Somme ?! I guess the fight there wasn't tough....



Oh and the fact that the man chosen to be the supreme commander of the Allied forces was French doesn't matter of course, nevermind either that French troops outnumbered both American and British in the last major battles, it's obvious that the British made most of the job, that the Americans saved the day, and that the French were of course useless cowards.



I'm very much aware this is a rant, by the way, but my anger is totally justified.

You're trying to prove the fact that there was a mutiny in WW1, a fact I never denied. The problem is that you do so, ignoring the huge sacrifice made by French soldiers in WW1, instead defending the stupid "French are cowards" rethoric Americans are so fond of.



(I didn't forget the Russians, but unlike some Americans and British, the Russians don't try to belittle the sacrifice of the French, that's why I didn't include the number of Russian casualties.)



EDIT3: "You have a very irrational view of your country's contributions."

No, you do.



"for the most part, they have always cut and run when the s**t hits the fan"

"They marched out in the opposite direction that the rest of the Allies progressed."

Ridiculous.

You just passed into the "no-fact zone". I won't follow you there.

Answer 3

The Free French Navy had a good Navy during W.W.II. The smaller ships, Corvettes ,were used for A/S vessels, in which they operated with the R.N., R.C.N.,Allied Navies in The Battle of The Atlantic. Their Cruisers did land bombardment, etc. Submarines, did work ups with Allied Escort Vessels and hunted for U-boats. Some of their Navy were captured by the Germans, when France was invaded. They weren`t a failure, though, i don`t think their NAVY was large enough to be given the credit for the Battle of The Atlantic, 1939-1945; in which NAVAL HISTORY does not mention much of them!!!

Answer 4

The French in the 20th Century showed a true lack of back bone.



In WW One, there was the Mutiny where the French soldiers refused to fight. Fortunately the American Army soon arrived and saved them.



Then you have the French Foreign Legion, probably their best combat unit, made up of foreigners.



In WW Two the French continued to show their lack of spine. Even though MOST of France had yet to be invaded by the Germans and even though MOST of the French Army was still intact and almost ALL of the French Navy was still combat capable, the French bellied up and surrendered. (Contrast that with Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Germany itself, all fought until the enemy had taken every piece of their nation before surrendering.)



So you want French Naval battles in WW Two? Against who? About the only Naval action was when the British on 3 JULY 1040 destroyed the French Fleet in Algeria. The few French ships that were not there was blockaded by the British in Alexandria and on 7 July the French agreed to disarm those ships. The French Navy actually did not get into any kind of fighting until 1943. Some French ships did get to Toulon but were scuttled by the French to keep them from falling into German hands.



Bottom line, the French Navy like the French Army bellied up, but in the case of the Navy, it was literally true, their ships went belly up. They were not successful at anything because they kept to the ports and got nailed by everyone. The overall impact on the war was minimal because even with what they had, it would not have really helped either side. After all, the crews would have been French.



After WW II the French also cut and ran in Indochina, leaving the whole mess in Vietnam to the USA.



The French also cut and ran from NATO, knowing Germany and the other nations were keep the USSR away from France without France having to defend Germany and the others in return.



As Patton once supposedly said, "I would rather have the German Army in front of me than the French Army behind me." Probably just as true today as it was then.

Answer 5

On the first day of Operation Dynamo, only 7,010 men were evacuated, but by the ninth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers (198,229 British and 139,997 French)[5] had been rescued by the hastily assembled fleet of 850 boats, which included a flotilla of around 700 merchant marine boats, fishing boats, pleasure craft and Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats — the smallest of which was the 15 ft (4.6 m) fishing boat Tamzine, now in the Imperial War Museum — whose civilian crews were called into service for the emergency. The "miracle of the little ships" remains a prominent folk memory in Britain. . . . . . A list of the "little ships of Dunkirk" is included in the 2nd referenced site. I hope this is helpful in your research!

Answer 6

Basicaly the Frenchies gave up and their navy became Nazi. The allies sank or disabled the french fleet.