Talk:History of the Armée de l'Air (1909–1942)

Untitled
This is a lovely page! I'm so glad people have taken this ball and run with it.
 * Agreed ... vy interesting indeed. I had always wondered about the role of the FAF during the Vichy period.Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

tightened up
This article needs to be tightened up. We should be trying to write an encyclopedia article not a history article. The three parts should be merged into one and shortened. Also some information about the current make up of the Air Force would be beneficial.


 * I personally disagree with the second statement. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to rename the articles, "The history of the Armee de l'Air", and keep them as they are in a kind of series. There are very few articles on the net which deal with the history of the French air force, so Wikipedia ought to encourage people to write about topics largely neglected elsewhere, not discourage them by such unhelpful remarks. As for "writing encyclopedia articles, not history articles", have not all general encyclopedias got history articles in them? You might as well say we would rather not write "geography" articles or "science" articles, so that only adds to the absurdity (in view) of the remark. Regarding some information about the current state of the French air force, that would be something for a separate article, assuming that it is going to be written by "somebody".


 * Would the person who recommended that the three articles be cleaned up stand up and be counted. There is nothing on the Clean-up pages (as at 2005-6-27 02:34 UTC) listing any of these three articles, merely the comment made in the second paragraph on this talk page. Any good reason(s) should be listed on that page, so that fellow Wikipedians can comment on whether or not the articles should, as this person suggests, be "cleaned up". Having looked at the articles myself, I do not see anything wrong with them. From my POV, they are perfectly OK. In fact, I would welcome some more articles on the history of air forces - and, indeed, on modern air forces, as some do not even get a look in - though perhaps I can concede that they are a trifle over-length; after all, this is not an internet encyclopedia of aviation! Having said that, maybe some dedicated aviation enthusiasts could start one! What say you?


 * I am not saying that there should not be a history of the French air force article but that there is only a history. I have started a stub at French Air Force that could be the beginning of general article on this subject. There should be a brief history there similiar to the structure that the Royal Air Force and the United States Air Force articles exhibit. The series of articles that have been written should be moved to an article titled the History of the French Air Force or History of l'Armee de l'Air. This would be a more appropriate place for this information and more in line with the rest of the Wikipedia. Here is the editors recommendations on size of an article:

Size
Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles, other than lists, should aim to be less than 32kb in size. When articles grow past this amount of readable text, they should be broken up to improve readability and ease of editing. The headed sub-section should be retained, with a concise version of what has been removed under an italicized header, such as Fuller treatment is at History of Ruritania. Otherwise context is lost and the general treatment suffers.

Name
I appoligize if anyone took my comments negativley or if they discouraged someone from contributing to this article. A more general article should be started at Armee de l'Air or at French Air Force that links into this article. Currently Armee de l'Air redirects to Armée de l'Air (Part I: From birth to "Torch", 1909-1942) which to me seems inappropriate. The French Air Force article is in a very preliminary state.

Corrections?
I'd beware the claim Fonck scored 75; I've seen 73 & 76 cited. Also, I'm less than sure Allied airforces in WW1 kept official tallies. Trekphiler 11:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"the American aviation industry was too small and too committed to orders from American forces to be of any help."

It's a fact that the US supplied 1,000 aircraft to France by the beginning of May, 1940. About 300 were P-36 fighters the older brother of the famous Flying Tiger P-40. These were very effective shooting down 240 to 300 German aircraft. Modern Martins and Douglas DB7s were also provided, though not enough of the delivered were assembled in time to make a difference in the outcome. More American aircraft were on the way when France fell. The orders including P-40s were diverted mostly to England. If Hitler had waited another month the American deliveries and French production would have very possibly changed the outcome.

Links?
Is there a page for French Air Force units? If not, I recommed we start one. For instance, include Deuxieme Groupe de Chasse, the famed Storck Squadron (so named for the stork symbol). On that subject, what about a page on side/nose art, that would include the Storck, the Cavallino of Baracca, the Hat in the Ring (USAAS 17h Aero Sqn?), & so forth? Trekphiler 11:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvements to the article
Ths article, while very good overall, could use some cleaning up. Only reading the mere part from 1918 to 194, I think that the article tends to be Rama 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * needlessly lyrical : "This certainly added meaning to the French phrase, Drôle de guerre, which was referred to by the English-speaking world as the “Phoney War”, except that it referred to the period in western Europe between the outbreak of war and the invasion of Belgium, Luxembourg and France. That “Phoney War” was well and truly over."
 * takes very hard short-cuts into perhaps more subtle realities: "When war inevitably did break out, the Armée de l'Air would suffer greatly as a result of the total chaos that was reigning within government"
 * Sometimes to the point where it is downright misleading: "The doctrine of the German armed forces was Blitzkrieg – “lightning war” – very modern, geared solely for fast-paced attack, while the doctrines of the defenders were hopelessly out-of-date and based heavily on the events of the 1914-1918 war, even if Hitler had allegedly said years earlier that the next war would be very different from the last. Whereas the Luftwaffe had their infamous “Stuka” dive-bombers, the western Allies had absolutely nothing like it in their inventories."
 * For what I read, the “Stuka” was always a rather vulnerable aircraft whose main interest was terrorising civilians on the run; suggesting that it was a capital weapon seems to me like an exageration.
 * Blitzkrieg tactics were largely improvised on the spot by local commanders. See Battle of France, which offers perspectives into this subject beyond the usual clichés
 * Some things do not really make sense: "The lack of modernity in strategy, tactics, aircraft, weapons and even in communications equipment - not to mention the unbelievable lack of availability of much of the hardware owing to “technical problems” - on the part of the French was to become only too apparent when the Germans advanced swiftly through France and decimated, almost with contemptuous ease, all opposition, including British army and RAF units." (The lack of modern equipment of the French is the reason why the British were wiped out like the French themselves ? Come again ?)
 * Cryptic allusions which obstructifate the text: "Yet a certain event that took place on 3 July 1940, would help to change the German attitude towards France still having armed forces, even as a conquered nation." (which event, for Goodness shake ? I do not even know myself !)
 * The whole discussion about Mers-el-Kébir as nothing to do here. It should be at most a link.

The Stuka was a very effective aircraft, providing it didn't come into contact with modern fighters which, over Poland and to an extent over France, it generally didn't. It was only really over Britain that it became really vulnerable, and even then it continued in use over Russia well into 1943/44. I'm not sure about a capital weapon, but it was important in providing support to the Panzer columns which quickly outran their own artillery (whether by improvisation or plan) and, as you say, in harrassing refugee columns, clogging up the roads and preventing reinforcements from reaching the front. Certainly, the French forces of 1940 thought of it as one of the reasons for their defeat, which is perhaps significant here? Brickie 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim, even if weasel-worded, of being the first "air force" is disingenuous. The first military air organization was in the United States by a good two years. Whether or not either of these was a "force" or when is a matter of semantics.--Buckboard 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Vide infra. 195.92.40.49 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "For what I read, the “Stuka” was always a rather vulnerable aircraft whose main interest was terrorising civilians on the run; suggesting that it was a capital weapon seems to me like an exageration."

French military aviation before 1909
Balloon (aircraft) says that the French army had an aeronautical corps from 1794 to 1799. Should this be mentioned in the article? 195.92.40.49 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Air combat in Syria
This piece omits any details on the air combat in Syria against British and Commonwealth (mainly Australian) forces in 1941. There was quite a bit of aerial combat over the course of the six-week campaign, and Armee de L'Air gave quite a good account of itself, actually winning air superiority at various times before finally being forced out of action due to the exhaustion of fuel stocks.

75.37.22.108 05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for help
I have started work on the Air commanders of World War I. Any help that editors can offer in the French section, or elsewhere, would be greatly appreciated. Greenshed (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citations
This article is taking shape nicely but can't we get some citations in place sooner rather than later? It's so difficult to "repair" a article at a later stage ... one just doesn't know where the information has come from. Mikeo1938 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)