Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Sign in to follow this  
goreblimey

FreeFrench/Colonial troops

Recommended Posts

goreblimey

Given that most French forces used up until the Liberation of Paris were colonial , shouldnt the toons reflect that.  

Ie non white Troops just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
3 hours ago, goreblimey said:

Given that most French forces used up until the Liberation of Paris were colonial , shouldnt the toons reflect that.  

Ie non white Troops just a thought.

In one sense I'm totally onboard with that, as my squad is named after Quatrieme Chasseurs d'Afrique- 4th Hunters of Africa, a cavalry squadron converted to armor cars then armor for WWII.  Our back story was always that we got called up to Metropolitan France, as the RCAs were during WWI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Africa_(France)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasseurs_d'Afrique

 

And there were black colonial troops that fought in 1940, and were treated poorly by the Axis when captured.  Then treated poorly by their country afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegalese_Tirailleurs

https://www.historynet.com/senegalese-tirailleurs-the-forgotten-infantrymen-of-world-war-2.htm

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24173

https://theconversation.com/the-time-has-come-for-france-to-own-up-to-the-massacre-of-its-own-troops-in-senegal-35131

 

Significant WWII forces were African, which kind of caused..... problems.

When Paris was liberated, it was decided that it would be best if the French 2nd Armored did the honors, as kind of a psywar/morale/national pride op thing.

Problem was, most of the French units were composed of North African units mostly comprised of black soldiers.  Leadership in the Allied side and French decided those were bad.... optics as we would put it, they wanted a white face on the liberators for the full intended effect.

So they rolled in with a mostly white 2nd Armored with the lead units being- Spanish Republican escapees from fascist Spain.

 

So, I kinda get what you're driving at, it would be pretty cool to have that history in especially in light of, ah, current events. 

BUT.

You're getting into touchy political territory, the same reason we don't have SS units, civilians, a Vichy France subgame, or deal with a lot of US black soldiers being put on construction/labor/Red Ball Express work rather then frontline combat.

Not to mention de Gaulle's postwar white folks army thing.

Get the attention of the PC types who would ask 'why are you portraying the German army as not being absolute evil, aren't you racist glorifiers of the Nazztis' making us hot button clickbait of the week, so I don't know that we would end up getting positive credit for the move.  Just best something we do as a nod to the history for ourselves and stay the hell out of the culture wars.

 

So, credit to you for the thought, but I think it's dangerous territory to walk in, need to have that thought out before doing.

I want to say I seem to recall some French brigades already in game with Senegalese regiment names.  I'd start there.

Edited by Kilemall
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

It probably would be possible...not saying marketing-desirable or cost-effective...to add a switch to an Allied player's client that would swap the continental French avatars for colonial ones.

Lots of minefields to be avoided, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

Minefields for sure , was just a thought. Watched a French movie about an Algerian unit can’t remember its name , pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey

Indigenes was the movie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morant

IIRC we have Tirailleurs Algeriens and Senegalais brigades ingame already, and I think the British Army units were de-segregated by that time. I suppose it's theoretically possible for the Rats to mock up a couple of new infantry models based on that.

3 hours ago, Kilemall said:

 

Get the attention of the PC types who would ask 'why are you portraying the German army as not being absolute evil, aren't you racist glorifiers of the Nazztis' making us hot button clickbait of the week, so I don't know that we would end up getting positive credit for the move.  Just best something we do as a nod to the history for ourselves and stay the hell out of the culture wars.

 

 

TBH I've always seen this game as existing in some sort of alternate universe where Germany was ruled by military junta after a mid-1930s coup by the Army. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
7 hours ago, morant said:

IIRC we have Tirailleurs Algeriens and Senegalais brigades ingame already, and I think the British Army units were de-segregated by that time. I suppose it's theoretically possible for the Rats to mock up a couple of new infantry models based on that.

TBH I've always seen this game as existing in some sort of alternate universe where Germany was ruled by military junta after a mid-1930s coup by the Army. 

Ya, or the Kaiser is back, and it's German militarism without the fascist/genocidal ick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh
On 6/20/2020 at 9:19 PM, goreblimey said:

Given that most French forces used up until the Liberation of Paris were colonial , shouldnt the toons reflect that.  

Ie non white Troops just a thought.

This game starts in 1940 and ends when the Germans meet the victory conditions, that of knocking the French 3rd Republic out of the war.  There can be no Free French troops in the game until France surrenders, and when it surrenders the campaign is over.

The French would use colonial troops, and they do.  If you look at the list of French units you will see colonial troops.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

"Problem was, most of the French units were composed of North African units mostly comprised of black soldiers.  Leadership in the Allied side and French decided those were bad.... optics as we would put it, they wanted a white face on the liberators for the full intended effect."

North Africans are not black.     Moroccans and Algerians are mostly Arabs and Berbers.  Some Berbers are a little more dark skinned than Arabs, but you would not call them black.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
33 minutes ago, blakeh said:

"Problem was, most of the French units were composed of North African units mostly comprised of black soldiers.  Leadership in the Allied side and French decided those were bad.... optics as we would put it, they wanted a white face on the liberators for the full intended effect."

North Africans are not black.     Moroccans and Algerians are mostly Arabs and Berbers.  Some Berbers are a little more dark skinned than Arabs, but you would not call them black.  

Okay fine, point still was they wanted whitey troops so the folks in Metro France felt Frenchy good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

There were troops from  Senegal present in the Battle of France.   I don't know what the French attitude was towards them, but they did fight with distinction against the Germans.  Some were killed as POWs by the Germans, who were offended by Black soldiers daring to fight against them.

Before  WW1 the French certainly did not think it was civilized to use Black African troops against white troops.  That changed by 1914 and many Black African soldiers served on the Western Front.

 

Edited by blakeh
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
On 6/21/2020 at 4:10 AM, morant said:

I think the British Army units were de-segregated by that time.

Not so. Britain had many colonial units...especially in theaters other than continental Europe...but those units were effectively segregated from the rest of the army, paid much less, led by whites, with much harsher standards of corporal punishment for minor infractions, and in some cases filled with troops that were effectively enslaved. Britain didn't commit to the equivalent of the US's 1948 desegregation of the military until 1976.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

5fd956068d6e8fc43338aa039b43d489

Senegalese soldiers, June 20, 1940. They're being led into a field near Chasselay so the PZs can MG them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Britain was not that diverse in the early 20th century.  Individual blacks living in Britain did serve in British regiments during both wars, and likely experienced a great deal of abuse.  Separate units were not formed most likely because there were not enough blacks to create them.   Colonial units are not segregated, they are composed of individuals recruited in a particular colony and usually commanded by white officers.  Exploited and misused certainly. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

For what you guys will just plop a bunch of Brit garrisons into town anyways and the French will get the same treatment  they due get now. 

And once the Americans come in it be Brit and Americans up on the Frontline and the French get to be in the rear. 

Edited by dre21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 hour ago, dre21 said:

And once the Americans come in it be Brit and Americans up on the Frontline and the French get to be in the rear. 

Unsurprising given the fact that the entirely counterfactual French stay in some early tier effectively.

The only way for the French to progress is to either replace French gear with US gear (since US gear after 1940 actually existed), or the French could get reasonable stuff that was under development actually done by the French.

The latter is hard, the only 2 obvious choices are for the MAS 40 to become the standard issue French rifle after tier-0 (this was the intent of the French, after all). Later, the 5 round stipper fed MAS 40 can be replaces with the MAS 44—exact same gun, but with the floorplate replaced with one that accepted a 10 round box magazine. So The French inf would be all semi auto rifles fairly soon, then later war they get a 10 rnd mag added (becoming standard over time). All the other French stuff stays pretty "meh" though unless they had some armor designs that never got made to borrow from, or some that were pre-war designs that they ended up making after the war?

French will always be goofy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
Quote

All the other French stuff stays pretty "meh" though unless they had some armor designs that never got made to borrow from, or some that were pre-war designs that they ended up making after the war?

We know, because production contracts were in place or we have other evidence, that the following would have been the 1941 French tanks and other fighting vehicles:

SOMUA 40 ... two man turret, longer hull and tracks for lower ground pressure than S 35, lower hull for better hiding, more horsepower, various fixes to improve reliability and improve maintainability. (H tanks were to be retired once sufficient S tanks were available.)

Renault B1 ter ... improved turret, more horsepower, troublesome Naedar micro-aiming transmission replaced with lateral traverse for 75mm gun, improved armor.

Renault R40...higher velocity 37mm gun with tungsten core AP, improved tracks and suspension for higher crosscountry speed (this was already in production, and some were used in BoF).

SAu 40...an assault gun version of the SOMUA 40 chassis. Production started in late May 1940. The prototype, with the intended 75mm gun on the SOMUA 40 chassis, and the first six production units, built on the S35 chassis because the S40 chassis's factory was just changing over and armed with the Mle1937 47mm L/50 gun because the intended 75mm gun was still being sorted out for volume production, were used in the 1940 fighting.

Panhard 201...the original armored-car ancestor of the 1950s/1960s EBR series of wheeled tanks and APCs.

Panhard 178...upgraded with new turret with same 47mm gun as S35 and B1 bis. A small number of these fought in 1940.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blakeh

Despite what people think, the French Army was well equipped in 1940 and was equal to the German army.  France did not fall due to a failure of equipment, it fell because of a failure in leadership and tactics.   The French leadership had a defeatist attitude from the start and the French spread their tanks across the entire front, instead of concentrating them together as the Germans did.   The world was shocked in 1940 by the defeat of the French Army which was considered to be the best trained and equipped army in the world.

If the French had held, there would have been some progression in weapons as Jwilly indicates.   But France at some point would require more and more American equipment to keep it going.  French production would never keep up to demand.

As for the MAS-40-- there were only 7 or 8 prototypes in 1940. I doubt the French would have disrupted their production plants to retool  for it.  Semi-auto rifle vs bolt rifle was really not as big of a deal as people think.  Battle ranges were usually about 100 -200 yds and most killing was done by artillery.  In this game, the side with the semi has a huge advantage simply because we are fighting at extreme close range.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
3 hours ago, blakeh said:

Despite what people think, the French Army was well equipped in 1940 and was equal to the German army.  France did not fall due to a failure of equipment, it fell because of a failure in leadership and tactics.   The French leadership had a defeatist attitude from the start and the French spread their tanks across the entire front, instead of concentrating them together as the Germans did.   The world was shocked in 1940 by the defeat of the French Army which was considered to be the best trained and equipped army in the world.

If the French had held, there would have been some progression in weapons as Jwilly indicates.   But France at some point would require more and more American equipment to keep it going.  French production would never keep up to demand.

As for the MAS-40-- there were only 7 or 8 prototypes in 1940. I doubt the French would have disrupted their production plants to retool  for it.  Semi-auto rifle vs bolt rifle was really not as big of a deal as people think.  Battle ranges were usually about 100 -200 yds and most killing was done by artillery.  In this game, the side with the semi has a huge advantage simply because we are fighting at extreme close range.  

Easy for you to say re: semi.  I think a few rounds of RL battle with your tush out there would alter your bolt vs. semi no big deal perspective.

The French Army definitely had doctrine problems, but the equipment fit the bad doctrines, so I don't know about 'best' either.  The S-35 and Panhard equipped DLMs beat the Panzers tactically in the world's first armored corps battle, but ended up retreating due to no infantry flanking which made it a loss as they lost tanks they left behind and couldn't replace fast- the Germans fixed their tanks and reconstituted their combat capability pretty quickly.

Given the Rats' 'solution' to later tier French, I wonder to what extent the Italians will ever make the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
3 hours ago, blakeh said:

Despite what people think, the French Army was well equipped in 1940 and was equal to the German army.  France did not fall due to a failure of equipment, it fell because of a failure in leadership and tactics.   The French leadership had a defeatist attitude from the start and the French spread their tanks across the entire front, instead of concentrating them together as the Germans did.   The world was shocked in 1940 by the defeat of the French Army which was considered to be the best trained and equipped army in the world.

True, which is why I think that the BDEs should be less universal. More inf vs armor BDE difference (and reduced garrisons all around, and those with at most some scout vehicles).

3 hours ago, blakeh said:

If the French had held, there would have been some progression in weapons as Jwilly indicates.   But France at some point would require more and more American equipment to keep it going.  French production would never keep up to demand.

Probably true.

3 hours ago, blakeh said:

As for the MAS-40-- there were only 7 or 8 prototypes in 1940. I doubt the French would have disrupted their production plants to retool  for it.  Semi-auto rifle vs bolt rifle was really not as big of a deal as people think.  Battle ranges were usually about 100 -200 yds and most killing was done by artillery.  In this game, the side with the semi has a huge advantage simply because we are fighting at extreme close range.  

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1822

"Finally, after tests of a MAS 38-39, it was adopted on March 28, 1940, as the MAS 40, whose series production was to begin in July 1941… World events decided differently!"

So maybe fewer MAS 40s should be around (or none) until whatever tier summer '41 is. Then MAS 40 becomes common, and next tier it becomes standard until replaced by MAS 44?

Given the lack of other weapons for the French, adding some small arms capability is not a bad thing for the ww2ol combat environment (I think the German SMG numbers should get bumped in later tiers, for example).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
4 hours ago, blakeh said:

France did not fall due to a failure of equipment

In fairness, French tanks needed improvements...and many of those improvements were planned for 1941.

German tanks in 1940 weren't perfect by any means, either, but as the winners of BoF they were able to accomplish their improvement programs.

Quote

The French spread their tanks across the entire front, instead of concentrating them together as the Germans did.  

This story actually comes from the British histories written during WWII. The modern understanding on all sides, I think, is that France had substantially the same philosophy of tank employment as Germany and later the US, and to some extent Britain, namely combined arms.

Germany had ten armored divisions containing tanks and infantry, plus some mechanized infantry divisions stiffened with armored fighting vehicles. France had three all-heavy-tank breakthrough units intended to work with infantry divisions in a combined arms task force structure; several fast cavalry/armored divisions, with too little infantry of their own to fight independently, so they needed to be part of a similar combined arms task force; and many mechanized infantry divisions stiffened by attachment of tank units. Britain had a few armored divisions, generally along the German approach but with less infantry, and the rest of their tanks in separate all-tank units that needed to work with infantry divisions in task forces. From an organizational perspective, in theory, the French should have been Germany's equal.

Quote

If the French had held, there would have been some progression in weapons as Jwilly indicates.   But France at some point would require more and more American equipment to keep it going.  French production would never keep up to demand.

France had about the same 1940 tank production rate as Germany, so in a protracted fight as is usually the case in-game, both sides would have run short of tanks.

Germany eventually increased production using forced labor, and particularly made use of captured French equipment...but of course that isn't part of the picture in-game. There is no way for us to know what alternate plan Germany would have developed if the BoF fighting had continued.

The French did have capacity problems, mostly because of the labor union situation in France in 1940. As a strategic workaround, the French were in discussion to have 2000 S-series tanks made on contract in USA. Because of start-up time, those probably would have been the 1942 version.

They also were considering building an armaments manufacturing complex in Savannah, Georgia, primarily to build tanks, engines and cannons.

So I don't think there is an evidence-based argument that France could not compete in regard to its military economy. If anything, that would be better argued in regard to Germany, if their gamble in the BoF had not worked and the fighting had stabilized. 

Quote

As for the MAS-40-- there were only 7 or 8 prototypes in 1940. I doubt the French would have disrupted their production plants to retool  for it.

A plan and contract to do so was in place...and in any case Tater's proposal is for 1941, so the number of prototypes in May 1940 isn't determinative.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...