French fighters : a detail

By the way, it's MARCEL Bloch not Maurice.

After WW II he changed his name to Marcel Dassault because one of his relatives (a brother I think, or some in-law) had been active in the French résistance under the name of "Char d'assaut" or "Dassault". (I'm not quite sure about the details). Most post-war French fighters were made by Dassault including famous "Mirage III". (Not including the twin-engined SNCASO Vautour (Vulture) and the franco-british SEPECAT Jaguar (French part by Breguet).

Besides, Marcel Bloch produced some potentially excellent fighters 1939-40 but also twin-engined bombers and recce AC : Bloch 200, 210, 131, which were not satisfactory and suffered heavy losses 1939 but possibly because the engine makers were not able to produce any suited engines (their losses were heavy in percentage not in actual numbers because HQ realised their vulnerability and tried not to use them as far as possible).

The Bloch 174-175 twin-engined recce and light bomber AC was a superlative aircraft, as fast as a Dewoitine 520, and 50 (?) were produced before the armistice. They were very hard to catch for the 109s. According to Paul Martin only 4 were lost to Me 109s with all 12 aircrew killed except one who was wounded : a consequence of the height at which they were shot down? This AC type was a French equivalent of the "Mosquito" but several years earlier.

[Ruy Horta]

Tip, in order not to fragment a discussion it is best to keep responses within the original thread.

That was a typo or mental breakdown, perhaps I was mistaking him for M. Chevalier??

Char d'Assault, isn't that a tank or armored vehicle?

There is a mod which allows for the merging of several threads, I've adopted it on the test forum, but haven't been able to test it thoroughly.

Both Avions/Jets book and the Ailes de Gloire books on the Bloch fighter are very nice, although I haven't had the time to dig in the Avions title.

Didn't the Bloch 150/151/152 suffer from poor range, to the point of it being an operational liability?

Also comparing the Bloch 170-series to the Mosquito is somewhat stretching it...

In the end any a/c is only as good as the sum of its parts, the engine included...how many promising types were handicapped by poor engines, too many to name.

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Tip, in order not to fragment a discussion it is best to keep responses within the original thread.

- Sure! Sorry, I was overwhelmed by the old board reflex, thinking the original thread was too old already. Silly ain't I?

Char d'Assault, isn't that a tank or armored vehicle?

- Yes, the right spelling is char d'assaut actually. "Assault tank" or "Attack tank", nowadays "Main battle tank" (like the US Abrams (seen daily in Irak-reports), the German Leopard 2, the French Leclerc), possibly to make a difference with light tanks, which were not designed for attacks on heavily fortified and defended positions. Today's French phrase is "char de bataille".

Both Avions/Jets book and the Ailes de Gloire books on the Bloch fighter are very nice, although I haven't had the time to dig in the Avions title.

- Yes, these are good books. Serge Joannes's "Le Bloch 152" (in fact 150-157) is probably a whole life's work (over 900 photographs!), I admire and value him and it very much. A "great" book in all meanings of the words, big and heavy. Technical description, history, development, all combat missions, you name it!

Didn't the Bloch 150/151/152 suffer from poor range, to the point of it being an operational liability?

- I have to admit that I don't really know (yet) but yes, I think their range was limited (the 152's certainly was improved). A liability - no. I think ALL French fighters, like the Spitfire and Hurricane, except perhaps the twin-engined ones, had a limited range because they were designed to defend the border, the ground troops and the French territory against an imminent German attack, not for in-depth penetration, Mustang-style (and the Mustang became active only 1944!). For this they had designed and developed several types of long-range, heavy, twin-engined fighters. French "110s" or French "P-38s"? I don't know but France HAD ordered the P-38 too. They fullfilled their rôle well (not ideally - but the RAF Fighter Command was not ideal either in the BoB, and they won) - in spite of contrary legends.

They were more interceptors (a word which I think didn't exist at the time). Long range was not essential and not a requirement. French fighters were not all stationed exactly on the borderline. For example the very active and very successful GC I/5 was stationed at Suippes, in the greater Reims area (closer to Châlons sur Marne), fairly far from the border. This made airfields more difficult to find and attack. Most other GCs were stationed a good bit back, including around Paris and Le Havre, to be able to protect the vital areas too : Paris region, Le Havre (big harbour, oil refineries), Rouen (idem,). Only a few were close to the border : Calais, Norrent-Fontes, Cambrai (all three near Belgium, which was expected to resist for at least 3 weeks), Laon and, in the deep territory behind the Rhine, Xaffévillers and Luxeuil. On 10 May 4 GCs were stationed near Marseille (very far from the Rhine) and Cannes - both on the Mediterrenean as you know - but GC I/3 and II/3 very soon were sent to Northern France with 72 D. 520s, much to the Luftwaffe's chagrin. The Luftwaffe actually attacked Marseille (on 10 May already I think), a vital harbour too, and Bordeaux etc. These places, their factories and oil refineries had to be defended and units stationed locally or on the way (near Lyon not Lyons, in the Jura mountains etc.) were more useful than long-range fighters, which possibly would have needed two hours to come.

There were dozens of small units, mostly 4-6 fighters, up to approx. 12, the "chimney flights", protecting local objectives. One of them became numerically so strong and so effective that it was officially changed into a regular GC (I/155 or some). They flew mostly the same AC types as GCs but their equipment was varying and heterogeneous, according to circumstances, deliveries etc. They were not at all negligible. Curtisses defended Bourges (where Curtiss fighters were being assembled) right in the centre of France, Bloch 151 and 152s defended Châteauroux with the Bloch factory, D.520s defended Toulouse (Dewoitine factories) etc. This is how famous Zumbach flew at least one combat sortie on the brand-new, superlative Arsenal VG-33. He never complained about the type.

On June 16 or 17 the French government ordered all aircraft which had the range to do so to fly to French North Africa. The only single-engined fighters which were able to do it were the Curtisses and D.520s - often by the skin of their teeth, depending on navigation, wind etc. I think a few landed in African sea-water. Bloch 152s and Moranes didn't have the range but this is another story... Well, no, I don't think the 152's range was a liability. More petrol would have made her heavier etc. Certainly it could have been improved later, if necessary.

Also comparing the Bloch 170-series to the Mosquito is somewhat stretching it...

- Not at all. Similarly to "1946-Luftwaffe" theories the Bloch 174-175 obviously would have been further developed, it had an enormous potential (the 174 was the first type of this new series). But remember that it really existed, flew and fought! More powerful engines, etc., and you'd have got 1,000 terrible "Moustiques" already 1941. The 1940 version - actually a strategic recce AC - could officially carry 400 kg of bombs already. Experience shows (for ex. 1940 Stuka, which was designed for 250 not 500 kg!) that you can double the original, official (cautious) bomb load, in particular if you have some good, hard airstrips at your disposal (remember the 1940 Me 109s, which jumped from nought to a 250 kg bomb). Likewise the Breguet 693-695 series were excellent ground-attack AC with a big development potential and a forward-firing armament of one cannon and 1-2 light MGs - like fighters, already 1940 when all other nations except the USSR still were sticking to light MGs. Blenheim, Battle, Stuka, Do 17 : no cannon!

The Bloch 175 was so good that the French Navy ordered several dozens AFTER WW II (!), 1946 I think, mainly as torpedo-bombers. They probably enjoyed a few improvements but basically these were 1940 MB-175s. They were used for a long time. I doubt that any other 1940-type was produced and used after WW II! The French could get any other type virtually for free at the time : German, British (Beaufighter, Mosquito), American (Avenger) etc.

In the end any a/c is only as good as the sum of its parts, the engine included...how many promising types were handicapped by poor engines, too many to name.

- Yes, this is very true. Look at the He 111 H! Nevertheless the French, who had waken up all too late (the British too, not to mention the USA...), were working frantically on this too. The Moranes had got a 860 ch-engine. Already in August-November 1940 the D.523s and 524s would have flown in front-units with new engines (developments of the old ones) reaching up to 1,200 ch - with fuel injection. Same thing for radial engines. Taking the 1940 state of the art the Bloch 174-75 really was a superlative, future "Moustique". There were some others in the pipe, too.

[TonyC]

Fascinating! Thanks for the analysis.