Understanding the French Navy leading up to WWII

[dseehafer]

Greetings all,

 

 

   So I'm reading a book...

 

 

 

 

... and I am learning so much! It's only fair that I pass this learning on to those of you who are willing to learn as well. The book begins by giving a little bit a French naval history and explaining the hardships of rebuilding their navy before WWII. Here are some of the main points...

 

1: The French people never liked the Navy

 

     France has always been a country tangled up in wars and fighting. While France had her share of both defeat and victory it was always the army that got all the praise. When France was victorious, the people did not recognize the navy's part in bringing victory. Often because the navy was unable to play a major role in the fighting but also because the roles they did play were seen as insignificant when compared to the feats of the army. When France lost the navy was blamed for being unable to assist.

     This is perhaps because of the French Navy's roots. Unlike other nations, who built their navy's to protect and engage in commerce, the French navy was built strictly as a political tool. This is because the wealthy Noblemen of France did not engage in commerce as it would forfeit their position as a noblemen. Most French commercial trading was done by the poor and as such was not worth spending large amounts of money to protect.

     It is likely that France would not have had a navy during WWII had Admiral Darlan not had such great political ties. This meant that the government would actually take him seriously in his requests and demands despite the general public's lack of enthusiasm concerning the navy.

 

2: The Allies screwed France after WWI

 

Among the 3 largest Allies of WWI (America, Great Britain and France) France was in the worst shape after WWI. Her economy was in shatters and her land had been destroyed. The latter of which was not the case with England and America. 

 

     After WWI there was a movement by England and the US to ban or decrease the use of submarines as the only chance a surface ship had against them - at least initially - was to attempt to ram the sub or drag anchors and try to hook them. In short, they were seen as a threat against the normal control of the seas by the major naval powers. France refused to give up her submarines thereby drawing sharp rejoinders from the British. And partly as a consequence, France found herself, along with Italy, forced to accept a capital ships tonnage ration of 1.75 to 3 for Japan and 5 for the US. 

    Justifiable or not, in time of peace the political power of a nation and hence her influence in world affairs, is often measured by the relative strength of her naval forces. With this limitation on her battleship tonnage, the measure of naval might at that time, France was deeply humiliated by the ratios of the Washington Naval Treaty.

     The problem was made worse by the condition France's navy was in at the time. When WWI started in 1914 France's navy consisted of 690,000 tons of combat ships in commission, with an additional 257,000 tons under construction. At the time time of the Washington treaty of 1922, the combat fleet totaled only 485,000 tons in commission and a mere 25,000 tons under construction - an obvious indication that even obsolete ships were not being replaced. All of the other principal naval powers had emerged from the conflict larger and more modern. The French navy lost 40% of it's fighting strength, and the remaining Fleet units were ill assorted and decrepit. Morale was low and neither the Government or the public seemed to have any interest in naval affairs.

     Furthermore, because France was bound by the same limitations as Italy she could not guarantee naval supremacy over Italy, France's most likely naval adversary. France continually warned America and England about this and begged for her limitations to be lessened. At the 1927 naval convention England wanted to place restrictions on heavy cruisers and to get rid of the limitation placed upon the French navy. America had a great need for Heavy cruisers and not only rejected the proposition, but to emphasize the rejection the US congress passed a building program providing for 15 10,000 ton cruisers.

     In upcoming naval conferences the US would request that all naval restrictions on all navies be increased... Germany would insist that either everyone disarm, as was initially agreed upon, or that the naval restrictions on Germany be lifted... Japan announced in 1934 that she would not renew the Washington naval treaty, which, as a matter of fact, she had already been secretly violating... and France sent out a similar notice in order to emphasize once and for all that she would not accept naval parity with Italy. Italy responded by announcing the laying of keels for two 35,000 tons battleships in the near future. Soon, everyone was breaking the rules.

 

3: Rebuilding the French navy

 

      The French navy did not have a very large budget, therefore funds would not be provided for the building of new warships unless it was deemed absolutely necessary. This led to a sort of naval-leapfrog breaking out. For example when Germany announced that it would be building 5 Deutschland class ships France approved funds for the Dunkerque to be built, when Italy announced that they would be building two 35,000 ton battleships France quickly gathered funds for Strasbourg to be built and when they learned that these battleships would mounts 15" guns funds were approved to build two 35,000 ton battleships of her own (although neither of these would be in commission before WWII broke out). Not to mention the fierce naval competition that erupted between France and Italy concerning the construction of cruisers and destroyers.

     In the end, the Fleet that France would go to war with would be the most modern in the world as, not counting her old battleships, there was not a single combat vessel in the Fleet over 13 years old. The ships were well built and dependable; their gunnery was excellent. The new super destroyers - actually small cruisers - proved themselves the fastest ships in the world. Modern communications, including ship-to-ship voice radio, had been installed. The listening devices were good. And all ships had been trained in day and night squadron maneuvers. 

      The only major weakness was in aviation striking power and also a weakness in air cover, owing to a lack in aircraft carriers and also because the Navy was forced to transfer it's entire air-arm to the Air Force and had only regained shipboard aviation (float planes) in 1932. Although French ships boasted superb high-level anti-aircraft guns in the form of 75mm, 90mm and even 130mm guns, these were sadly handicapped by lack of radar. The main weakness in the Navy's anti-aircraft defense - other than lack of radar - was an insufficiency of machineguns and light-guns of 25mm or 37mm, for use against low-flying torpedo-planes and dive bombers. One difficulty was that the Navy was dependent upon the Army, which was charged with furnishing her light automatic guns. And the complete lack of dive-bombing and low-flying attack planes in the French Air Force was not conducive to impressing the Army with the critical need for an adequate number of short-range anti-aircraft weapons.

      

4: Conclusion 

 

     In the end, despite having the most modern navy in the world when the war broke out, it was only about half the size of the Italian Navy. France spent almost a decade begging England and America to allow them a larger navy, not wanting to accept naval parity with Italy. However, realistically, naval parity with Italy was the best case scenario, if even possible at all, as a lack of financial backing from the government and a great deal of distrust and lack of interest among the general public meant that the Navy had very little potential to outgrow the Italian navy despite finally having done away with the limitations imposed upon them.

 

 

I hope you enjoyed this. Again, it's only a very small sample of what the actual book has to offer. But it's certainly worth sharing, at least I thought it was.

[Wulfgarn]

Good info!

[mr3awsome]

Regarding 1), the French navy never had anything like Trafalgar et al. to help bolster its image. 

 

One of the reasons that France suffered so much from WWI, in terms of the navy, is that many of the workers were conscripted into the army. This rendered all the pre war schemes redundant, and meant that by the end of the war what units were being built were out of date, and that several of the most powerful French vessels in the immediate post war period were actually German reparations. 

Italy and France didn't accept any of the limitations below capital ships and aircraft carriers from the London Treaty, meaning that they had an unlimited cap on cruiser and destroyer numbers, and the only qualitative restriction was 10,000t & 8" guns.  Which is why they both started WWII with 7 CAs, compared to Japan's 10 or the UKs 15. 

The 130mm HA guns weren't particularly good, whilst the 100mm is of note for being good. 

[1Sherman]

This is quite interesting. The French not liking their navy kind of makes sense given that they basically abandoned furthering it in the Napoleonic Wars after Nelson curbstomped them at Trafalgar.

[dseehafer]

Regarding 1), the French navy never had anything like Trafalgar et al. to help bolster its image. 

 

One of the reasons that France suffered so much from WWI, in terms of the navy, is that many of the workers were conscripted into the army. This rendered all the pre war schemes redundant, and meant that by the end of the war what units were being built were out of date, and that several of the most powerful French vessels in the immediate post war period were actually German reparations. 

Italy and France didn't accept any of the limitations below capital ships and aircraft carriers from the London Treaty, meaning that they had an unlimited cap on cruiser and destroyer numbers, and the only qualitative restriction was 10,000t & 8" guns.  Which is why they both started WWII with 7 CAs, compared to Japan's 10 or the UKs 15. 

The 130mm HA guns weren't particularly good, whilst the 100mm is of note for being good. 

 

Well, the French Navy was key in helping America gain it's independence from Great Britain. But this did little to impress the French public back home and any impression it did have was overshadowed by the French Fleet's inability to slow the British invasion of French Canada shortly after The Revolutionary War.

 

 

Concerning the 130mm guns, the book simply says.. "The Navy also had some very good anti-aircraft weapons (75-mm. 90-mm. and even 130-mm. on the Dunkerque), but these were sadly handicapped by lack of radar."  That's what my statement was based on.

[dseehafer]

This is quite interesting. The French not liking their navy kind of makes sense given that they basically abandoned furthering it in the Napoleonic Wars after Nelson curbstomped them at Trafalgar.

 

The book also touches on Trafalgar. According to the Authors France had nothing to gain by engaging the British in a large naval battle. The only reason they went out to fight was because the Admiral had been called a coward and wished to die with honor. Interestingly enough, he survived the battle and would later commit suicide to satisfy his desire for an honorable death.

[1Sherman]

 

 

 

 

Concerning the 130mm guns, the book simply says.. "The Navy also had some very good anti-aircraft weapons (75-mm. 90-mm. and even 130-mm. on the Dunkerque), but these were sadly handicapped by lack of radar."  That's what my statement was based on.

 

Since you said that the French Navy at the beginning of WWII was the most modern in the world at the time, I wonder if they could have realistically done anything to slow down the Germans. For sure they'd stand no chance on land against Heinz Guderian's blitzkrieg, but I wonder if the French Navy could have prolonged the defeat in any way (that is, when they weren't getting dive-bombed by Ju 87s).

[dseehafer]

 

Since you said that the French Navy at the beginning of WWII was the most technologically advanced in the world at the time, I wonder if they could have realistically done anything to slow down the Germans. For sure they'd stand no chance on land against Heinz Guderian's blitzkrieg, but I wonder if the French Navy could have prolonged the defeat in any way (that is, when they weren't getting dive-bombed by Ju 87s).

 

I never said that they were the most technologically advanced... just that they had they had the most modern navy. In other words, their new ships to old ships ratio was higher than any other navy. 

 

But to answer your question... No, I dont think they'd be able to help all that much. The speed of the German advance surprised even the Germans (Originally the Germans didnt plan on taking all of France, they just wanted a seaport on the English Channel, they only took all of France because.. well... they saw that they could, so they did.) 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Nice book report! +1 for you Sir.

[Martymart1976]

Didn't the Brits sink a large part of the French fleet in harbor?

[Paint_Huffer]

The OP misses one critical point. France in the late 19th and early - mid 20th centuries was primarily a continental power. That is to say that most of the direct threats to its national security shared land borders with it. For the French government and people a large and powerful navy was something that could be useful, but that would always play second fiddle to the funding requirements of their army and land based air forces. Germany and Italy faced similar issues and had similar funding priorities.

 

On the other hand The US, UK and Japan are true maritime powers. That is to say that they are either island nations or they are nations whose land borders are occupied by weak / peaceful neighbors. Almost all of the direct security threats that maritime powers face will require a large and effective navy since their armies are useless useless unless their navy is able to move that army where it needs to be. It also means that their navies are likely to get first priority for funding.

[dseehafer]

Didn't the Brits sink a large part of the French fleet in harbor?

 

Temporarily, but yes.

[1Sherman]

 

I never said that they were the most technologically advanced... just that they had they had the most modern navy. In other words, their new ships to old ships ratio was higher than any other navy. 

 

But to answer your question... No, I dont think they'd be able to help all that much. The speed of the German advance surprised even the Germans (Originally the Germans didnt plan on taking all of France, they just wanted a seaport on the English Channel, they only took all of France because.. well... they saw that they could, so they did.) 

 

I'd think that with regards to ships, technological advancement would be a part of modernity. Regardless, I misread what you said. Sorry about that.

[mofton]

I'm surprised France was so worried about Italy, my view has always been that any war involving France after WWI would be very likely to include Britain and Britain had enough naval power, even if French forces were weaker than Italy to make up the shortfall. That only broke down in my view when Japan entered WWII and covering the Pacific, Med and German BB's in the Atlantic meant something had to give - the Pacific with only PoW/Repulse sent over.

 

There's also the same lack of requirement for a Navy as Germany realistically had.

• In the Franco-Prussian war France had total naval superiority over Prussia... and it availed them absolutely naught as they were soundly defeated
• In the whole French Revolutionary War France was able to conquer most of Europe, an area from Spain to Italy to Russia despite having weaker naval forces than Britain
• However, because France could never invade Britain the British could regroup and fund unending Coalitions in Europe - so maybe it was a draw back
• Whatever the strength of the French Navy it did nothing to prevent the occupation of France and then refused to battle on afterwards

 

So if France were weaker at sea than Italy, then so what? Either Britain would pick up the slack, or what would sea control of the Med have done for Italy, sharing a land border with France?

 

Which is the bigger issue, France being unable to afford significant shipbuilding or naval restrictions? It looks like they didn't use their full tonnage allotments at some stages.

 

Might be an aside, but I have a poor opinion of Adm. Darlan, an anti-semite, seemingly littering his career with morally bankrupt decisions. Did more to help the Axis than the Allies. If he did sponsor the rebuild of the Navy that's something in his favor but the way he used it and French Colonial forces was pretty distasteful. Some of that's based on 'The Guns at First Light' about the Torch landings in North Africa, but in general he's a strange character.

[dseehafer]

 

 

Might be an aside, but I have a poor opinion of Adm. Darlan, an anti-semite, seemingly littering his career with morally bankrupt decisions. Did more to help the Axis than the Allies. If he did sponsor the rebuild of the Navy that's something in his favor but the way he used it and French Colonial forces was pretty distasteful. Some of that's based on 'The Guns at First Light' about the Torch landings in North Africa, but in general he's a strange character.

 

Aw come on mate, you gotta give Darlan a little more credit than that. If he really wanted to support the Axis he wouldn't have scuttled his fleet at Toulon. He had every reason to hand his ships over to the Germans to get back at the British after what they did at Mers El Kebir. Speaking of Mers El Kebir... after the incident there was a massive outcry from the French public to declare war on Great Britain. However, the government (rightfully) didnt believe that France was fit to go to war against Great Britain or to go to war at all for that matter either with or against Great Britain. Darlan could have used his political influence to push for war against Britain if he really wanted to.

And yeah, Darlan was an Anti-Semite, who in Europe at the time wasnt? (Well, besides the Jews themselves of course) Heck, Winston Churchill was an Anti-Semite. Does that make being anti-semitic okay? No, but it was "the norm" at the time.

[mofton]

Darlan's role in resisting the allies in Algeria as hard as he could while tacitly accepting a massive German airlift into Tunisia - which would then drag the war out there for months - before demanding to be treated as Generallisimo of French allied forces sticks in my craw. That is direct support to the Axis.

 

There's being anti-semite and then there's colluding with German efforts to destroy the Jewish population in North Africa, a population which was not insignificant at the time. There's a difference between that and for instance Roosevelt making comments about too many Jews in certain professions. Certainly anti-semitism was widespread, collaborating with the holocaust was not (and in fact some countries went out of their way to prevent it like Denmark shipping out to Sweden IIRC).

 

If he'd really wanted to support the Allies he should have sailed out of Toulon to join them once Case Anton was activated, scuttling was a net-neutral decision.

 

No one is a total hero or total villain but I don't think history judges Darlan harshly enough (when it remembers him at all).

[Michael_200061]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/95375-naval-myth-talker-03-large-destroyers-and-small-cruisers/page__p__2336733#entry2336733

One my my post mention about the French as well. The French screwed up their navy as their "new school" idea of torpedo=beat big navy, has a certain effect on why is their fleet so inferior as well. 

 

[Sad_But_Drew]

The French Navy had 2 roles at basic level.

 

1.  Cover the Mediterranean to allow troops and recruits to be moved between the North African Colonies (likely opponent Italy).

2.  Protect the overseas colonies and show the flag (which is why being held to parity with Med-focused Italy hurt).

 

Add in 3.  Not cost too much, it is very much the junior service (and role 1 is basically helping the army)..

 

The initial Cruiser building spree after Washington, kinda pointed out why it was so hard to achieve what the wanted (save money, stop building wars).  The treaty limited the SIZE of cruisers not the NUMBERS.  So a cruiser-building race started.  the London treaty of 1930 put cruisers under the same limits as other capital ships (and Allowed the British to build more small cruisers and the Americans more large ones).  The French ones were considered some of the best of the 1st generation of "treaty cruisers" but fell behind in the second (better than Indy and Pensecola, not as good as New Orleans).  The French "treaty stretcher" was to build some of their cruisers with coal bunkers even though they were entirely oil-fueled.  Coal bunkers added to protection but "fuel" didn't count against the tonnage limits.

 

The big limit on AA would have been fire-control.  Put simply, they really didn't have much of it.  Only the US system was considered at all capable against maneuvering planes (and even then prox fuses made a BIG improvement).  Keep in mind that a lot of the lighter AA would be Hochkiss 25mm, which the Japanese also used, which put simply, wasn't very good.

 

Even before WWI the French navy was often called a "fleet of prototypes" since most capital ships were unique in one way or another.  They also took a LONG time to build (even before the war started) over 5 years for a battleship was not unheard of.

[Phoenix_jz]

 

...or what would sea control of the Med have done for Italy, sharing a land border with France?

 

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. French North Africa was why France needed to keep her sea lanes open in the Med. And Italian domination of the Mediterranean would've cut France off from North Africa, and It would also have opened up the coast of France to attacks. That also means the French couldn't do much to hurt Italian shipping and troop movements in the Mediterranean.

Don't forget, France also has territories in the Middle East (Syria), and it would've been very difficult to support those colonies in the event of revolutions.

 

[cwjian90]

IIRC, in the initial pre-war plans, it was intended that the Dunkerque and Strasbourg would act as the skirmishers for the slower British battleships like the Nelson-class, etc.

[mofton]

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. French North Africa was why France needed to keep her sea lanes open in the Med. And Italian domination of the Mediterranean would've cut France off from North Africa, and It would also have opened up the coast of France to attacks. That also means the French couldn't do much to hurt Italian shipping and troop movements in the Mediterranean.

Don't forget, France also has territories in the Middle East (Syria), and it would've been very difficult to support those colonies in the event of revolutions.

 

The initial complaint from the French though was that they only had 'parity' with Italy - in such a circumstance it's likely that neither side will establish sea control over the Med. Thus some communication will continue, it's unlikely that the Italians will bombard the French coast any more than the French will bombard the Italians.

 

Again, in the Franco-Prussian War, WWI (where allied sea control still took 4 years to win) and early WWII (where the allies had sea control but France still lost the war within weeks) sea control did not prove decisive between continental powers sharing land borders. I can't see why it wouldn't have been the same Italy v. France?

 

 

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

Just remember that France wasn't just worried about Italy. The UK's constant appeasement of the Germans led to some not so small worries these two countries would form something greater between themselves. We probably wouldn't even have this game if it wasn't for the British appeasement practice. 

[mofton]

Just remember that France wasn't just worried about Italy. The UK's constant appeasement of the Germans led to some not so small worries these two countries would form something greater between themselves. We probably wouldn't even have this game if it wasn't for the British appeasement practice. 

 

I seem to recall France was a signatory to the Munich Agreement and the pinnacle of appeasement too and France with the direct border to the Rhineland and the massive military superiority did nothing during the remilitarization in 1936. 

 

Probably all the UK's fault though.

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

Interesting yard stick and rant. I don't recall the Anglo German naval treaty involving the French. It wasn't the French that reneged on backing the British, etc. When others where opposing Germany the British where bending the knee. Get angry all you want it doesn't change anything. Cheers. 

[mofton]

Rant? Huh, two sentences and two uses of the scary italicized text counts as that these days?

 

AGNA may have excluded the French, but the French also failed to show any robustness, why is it then all on the UK?

 

As I pointed out many posts ago, Germany was a continental power. The Prussians were able to decisively defeat France in 1870 despite total French sea control. The allies had the balance of sea power for the majority of WW I yet it took them 4 years to win and Germany spent most of the war camped out in eastern France and still knocked Russia out of the war. 

 

Given how the Battle of France went in WWII I'd say France had far more pressing issues than naval superiority... and as for bending the knee I believe it was France that capitulated in 1940 despite her overseas possessions and fleet, so overall I'm relatively happy with the British approach of opposing Germany.