When presenting a case its wise not to overdo it.
Quote:
|
In particular even French heroes among fighter pilots, having fought all the way (some of them on the fabulous D.520) and won many victories (considering the short time) were still complaining, 30-50 years later, about the "good cannon" which alas had "60 rounds only". Of course German cannon were supposed to be fed with at least 120, why not 300 rounds. (Remember that many Me 109 E-3s, and their cannon drums, were shot down during the Phoney war, some of them were captured). What a surprise it was to me when I started reading GERMAN documents and first-hand accounts : hear hear, German cannon equipping the Me 110 and part of the 109s had got... 60 r p g! Much later I "discovered" the respective technical data of the French and German cannon : clearly the French one was much, much better (in muzzle velocity or Vo, in rate of fire and in range... in one word, in everything). Besides, the French started introducing belt-fed cannon in June 1940 (Bloch 155) with 120 r p g, whereas the Germans waited until the introduction of the MG 151 about February or April 1940 (I'm not quite sure).
|
If french pilots complained about their cannon, it was their right, its not fair to answer their case by simply pointing towards the Germans and their lack of a superior gun. After all these were the pilots fighting the air war of 1940, not us...
Indeed "discovered" is the right way of putting it, this information has been fairly easy to obtain after WW2.
Explaining the Battle of France in terms of French supriority would not pay tribute to the men, nor do justice to the subject, in fact you'd probably end up with a french equivalent of "The Luftwaffe War Diaries".
Using the Bloch 155 and belt fed cannon development in 1940 is beside the point, since it didn't matter much in operational terms. How many of these a/c were operational during the Battle of France, and how many saw combat? Besides the equivalent of an operational MB 155 would be a Bf 109F, eventually with a MG 151 or MG 151/20, equally belt fed. This only shows that technological development progresses more or less evenly amongst the protagonists. Also, but that's my own opinion, it rarely pays to overextend one's particular knowledge or field. Those who specialize in general history or operational history tend to make bad judges of technology (and vice versa I must add).
The French AF had to do a difficult job, in some areas they did a superb job, in others they were less successful - reasons ranging from the technical to the political. But such variables come in to play in every war and every battle. The french aren't unique...
IF the French AND British (the latter seem to gloss over their role in the continental
defeat) armies had been able to fight the Germans to a stand still, the French AF would probably have been able to perform at an inreasingly effective level - technologically and strategically. France didn't have the benefit of a sea to hide behind. The defeat of the French AF wasn't caused by the Luftwaffe, it was caused by the Heer. Their is no substitute for a tank on the runway...
What would be nice is to break through the British myths which form the basis of most (english) sources period.
I'd love to see an objective analysis on the air war over france, not a subjective glorification reversing the myth.