French Armour in the 30s.

I haven't paid much attention before, other than to note French tanks had one man turrets which is crap, but the French had a lot of tanks around in 1939.

OTL they had 3 1/2 horse 1/2 armoured DLC divisions and 3 armoured DLM divisions. In Jan 2 DCR divisions were formed, in Feb 2 more DLC divisions were formed and in Mar another DCR division was formed.

2 DLM divisions were put together in the Cavalry Corps and the DCR divisions were pretty much designed to support infantry Corps, the heavy Char 1 were in the DCR divisions.

Given this materiel what would be the best thing for the French to do in terms of organisation leading up to WW2?

ACtually, the French had a few tanks with 2 men turrents in the mid 30s (in addition to the FCM monsters, obviously) and even a project with one with 3 men turret (would have been operational in late 41-early 42). It's just that most of their tanks in 39-40 had a 1 man turret, so these are most well known.

If you read some French (or are willing to use auto-translation), you might find this site useful

http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/

They also fielded a tank brigade for most infantry corps.
Quite detailled OB here
Gives you quite a number of vehicles to shuffle about.

Riain said:

Given this materiel what would be the best thing for the French to do in terms of organisation leading up to WW2?

Click to expand...

Organize and use them the same way the germans did ! In "Light divisions" and/or "Panzer divisions".

But - unfortunatly - they mostly used them in the same manner as they did 1917/18 : as a support for infantry.

With one notable exception : DeGaulle launched with "his" tanks a counterattack at the flanks of Panzer-group Kleist between 17th and 19th of may that gave the germans quite some headaches. But as DeGaulle didn't have much support backing him he had to withdraw and was pushed away by the 12th army "List".

The DLM (Division Legere Mechanique/Light Mechanised Division) was pretty much the ideal armoured formation - it was pretty much the same thing as the mid and late war German panzer divisions. Light for the French did not refer to the equipment but rather how easily and quickly the unit could be deployed. All their fully mechanised units had "light" in the name.

The DCR (Division Cuirassiere de Reserve/Reserve Armoured Division) divisions were a stopgap measure and looked like the German early war panzer divisions, only smaller but with much heavier tanks.

The plan was to remake the DLC (Division Legere de Cavalerie/Light Cavalry Division) and the DCR into DLM and raise further DLMs.

The French planned to stop the Germans in Belgium and then build up a superior force to attack during Summer 1941, when the Belgians could have been reformed and the British would be in France in strength.

They would probably have 10-12 DLMs by then.

3 original, 1 forming DLM 1940.
3 DLC reformed into DLM.
3 DCR reformed into DLM.
1 Polish DLM (was under set up, only the armoured brigade ready 1940).

Plus probably another 1-2 raised during early 1941.

The doctrine should drive the process for what equipment is procured and operated.

Still, the French had several good options for fully-tracked, half-tracked, and wheeled personnel/equipment haulers; to go along with a cross section of light to very heavy tanks.

I personally wouldn't bother with the DCR, I would keep the char 1 regiments assigned to infantry corps but use the light tanks, mot inf and artillery to make the 3 DLC into DLM. I would also make the 2 DLC formed after the outbreak of war into a single DLM.

The French had already formed a cavalry corps with 2 DLM, if they had 6 or even 7 DLM they could make more cavalry corps and/or make it/them bigger.

Riain said:

I personally wouldn't bother with the DCR, I would keep the char 1 regiments assigned to infantry corps but use the light tanks, mot inf and artillery to make the 3 DLC into DLM. I would also make the 2 DLC formed after the outbreak of war into a single DLM.

The French had already formed a cavalry corps with 2 DLM, if they had 6 or even 7 DLM they could make more cavalry corps and/or make it/them bigger.

Click to expand...

How do you overcome the defensive mindset that gripped the French Army at this time or will this be about developing a force structure and doctrine to use tanks in a mobile defense?

Zheng He said:

How do you overcome the defensive mindset that gripped the French Army at this time or will this be about developing a force structure and doctrine to use tanks in a mobile defense?

Click to expand...

Experience I suppose, a few exercises showing armoured units going wide and deep and hitting enemy flanks could give higher commaders an idea of the potential.

Driftless said:

The doctrine should drive the process for what equipment is procured and operated.

Still, the French had several good options for fully-tracked, half-tracked, and wheeled personnel/equipment haulers; to go along with a cross section of light to very heavy tanks.

Click to expand...

In the industrial era doctrine must go hand in hand with technology otherwise doctrine leaves an army without the latest gear and thus the latest capabilities.

Zheng He said:

How do you overcome the defensive mindset that gripped the French Army at this time or will this be about developing a force structure and doctrine to use tanks in a mobile defense?

Click to expand...

Need a change in top leadership. Is there anyone with a calvary or mechanized warfare background who could be put in charge?

Admiral Beez said:

Is there anyone with a Calvary or mechanized warfare background who could be put in charge?

Click to expand...

That would be put into the top spot? No, not really. Everyone that was around that position was from the army, (I don't think they'd appoint a navy commander) The closet person would be Jean Flavigny, who was an Army general. He was part of? the first lightweight mechanized division and also part of the 21st corps?
I can't get that much info about him.

Zheng He said:

How do you overcome the defensive mindset that gripped the French Army at this time or will this be about developing a force structure and doctrine to use tanks in a mobile defense?

Click to expand...

Some of the French armored units that went into Belgium beat up a couple German panzer divisions pretty thoroughly, as was posted in another thread. So the aggressiveness was out there.

Who commanded the OTL Cavalry Corps? IIUC it did some good work in Belgium, so with a pre-war reshuffle resulting in more DLMs that commander could get another DLM or even 2 under his command. That would be a real armoured fist.

I've thought for some time now that one of the worst decisions either the British or French made in regards to their armour was to convert cavalry units to tanks. Motorcylces (with & without sidecars), armoured cars & (maybe) light tanks, yes. Keep them in the scouting role, but without enough firepower that they forget themselves (ie: lose their heads & keep charging as of old). Better to leave the serious armour in the hands of a new branch WITHOUT the traditions and prejudices of the cavalry towards the other branches. That said, everyone did that with their airforces and they just developed a whole new set of prejudices, so...

As to the one man turrets, did it ever occur to any one in the French Army to throw someone from the procurement department, the tank designer or even a general, into the turret of one of their tanks and tell them do everything required of them while running it through a combat course?

Salamander said:

...

As to the one man turrets, did it ever occur to any one in the French Army to throw someone from the procurement department, the tank designer or even a general, into the turret of one of their tanks and tell them do everything required of them while running it through a combat course?

Click to expand...

Back in 1982 I heard some remarks from a French tank officer & WWII veteran. He prefered the single man turret over the M4 Shermans he later trained in. He said it was easier to keep track of the battle - better situational awarness. I also recall his take on rate of fire. It amounted to: 'We fired slower but hit what we aimed at, the Germans fired a lot but wildly & missed a lot.' I wish I'd taken notes but did not think the testimony would be usefull 35 years later

Bottom line here is the specifications for the French tanks were written by the tank commanders who actually used and trained with them. The difference is in how they expected to use the tanks. That is the tasks required from a French tank crew were not the same as for a British, US or German, tank crew.

Riain said:

Who commanded the OTL Cavalry Corps? IIUC it did some good work in Belgium, so with a pre-war reshuffle resulting in more DLMs that commander could get another DLM or even 2 under his command. That would be a real armoured fist.

Click to expand...

That would be general Piroux. He was promoted to command the French 1st Army later in may, after the Army commander was bumped up to Army Group command. After the 1st DLM & a motorized Div were transfered from the 7th Army Piroux as the Army commander had the three DLM & three MID. the battle at Arras included his effort to use these mobile units to attack the Pz corridor.

Flavigny another cavalry officer with a high pre war reputation had command of the 21st Corps in May 1940. He was given the 3rd Motor Inf Div, the 3rd DCR, and assorted survivors for counter attacking at Sedan 14-22 May. He failed to achieve the assigned objectives, that is destroy Guderians bridgehead across the Meuse River.

Driftless said:

The doctrine should drive the process for what equipment is procured and operated.

Still, the French had several good options for fully-tracked, half-tracked, and wheeled personnel/equipment haulers; to go along with a cross section of light to very heavy tanks.

Click to expand...

They had more of those fielded than the Germans. The dragoon squadrons & troops of the mech cavalry had armored and tracked carriers for the rifle & weapons sections. They also had a tracked & armored ammo carrker. A armored SP artillery weapon was nearly ready for production. That included a armored OP vehicle.

LP participates

Zheng He said:

How do you overcome the defensive mindset that gripped the French Army at this time or will this be about developing a force structure and doctrine to use tanks in a mobile defense?

Click to expand...

Money for training. Germany used massive defict spending and fraudulent bookeeping to arm and train. German conscripts got three years active service training the French got 18 months. The German officers got 2-3 times the training the French officer received. Any French politician who proposed a Army training budget comparable to the German would have been shunned by the party & lost the next election.

The army leaders planned on making up this training deficit in wartime, but it would take 18 to 24 months. As it was they only got ten.

Since they had limited time for training they focused on the defence. Proper attack training had to come later.