All accounts of Colonel Estienne that I have read in the past have contained nothing but praise for his vision, determination, efficiency, and general good-eggery.
Imagine my surprise on finding this assessment of him by J.F.C. Fuller, head of the Tank Corps, architect of Cambrai, author of Tanks in the Great War, and leading advocate inter-war of mechanised armoured warfare.
"an ignorant and amusing little dud" who knew "nothing of the science of war" and only wanted to "fill his billets with chorus girls".
Of the engagement at Soissons he wrote at the time, "The French Tank Corps did not distinguish itself. It never will under such a dud as General Estienne."
He described the French Heavy Tanks as "kitchen ranges on tracks" (which is probably fair) and the FT17s as "very cleverly made mountings for battalion machine-guns, good for local protection but useless for a breakthrough" (which is a little unfair in the circumstances).
Some years later he conceded that Soissons had been a success.
Perhaps it should be borne in mind that Fuller became an enthusiastic fascist after the War and narrowly escaped internment on the outbreak of WWII.
-- Edited by James H at 19:36, 2008-03-31
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I don't have the reference at hand, but I've read a disparaging comment by Fuller about Estienne's enthusiasm for the inclusion of artillery in tanks (something very similar to that chorus girl crack). I think history has rather vindicated Estienne instead of Fuller on that particular score, at least.
Wouldn't give too much on Fuller (the man was a notorious liar), French tank use was brutally effective. They encountered grievious losses that way but generally accomplished their mission (except on their debute on April 16th, 1917, which was a major desaster on its own, inside the the far larger desaster of the Nivelle offensive). - Mangin's tank attack into German 18th Army advance is a very good example. They expended their tanks without restraint and mercy - but managed to stop the German advance.
Blimey. That's not all Fuller was. Just read up on him, and he was a man with many "issues".
It was he who is said to have used the expression "Band of Brigands" about Tank Corps recruits (see post on the subject), but one suspects he might have been a bit anal about neatness and discipline.
Later he became a leading ally of Oswald Mosley, went to Hitler's birthday party 6 months before WWII (where he gave him some advice on Tank warfare), and was a close friend of Aleister Crowley, one of the 20th century's greatest wierdos - a sort of British Rasputin who had some very nasty habits indeed, including witchcraft and a very busy social life.
Apparently, the only thing that saved him from internment by the British was Churchill's personal intervention. How extraordinary.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
I came upon an exchange of mail with Estienne when I did my article on the Papin-Rouilly helicopter for Air Mag. I am under the impression that Estienne was a "techie" who liked innovations, not just tanks.
The Fuller quote about Estienne that I remember reading was something close to "He wants seventy-fives in all his tanks and chorus girls in all his billets. He knows nothing of the science of war."
Of course, by the end of WWII any tank worth owning had at least a seventy-five in it. Score one for Estienne.
Fuller, though, *might* have something of an excuse for being so wrong. First, it's obvious he hated Estienne, and I respect anyone who hates the French... I mean, I imagine that Fuller opposed Estienne reflexively. His logic was probably "Estienne wants 75s, Estienne is always wrong, therefore 75s are wrong." So this may be simply childishness, not idiocy.
But around that time the British army was undergoing a turf war over guns. The artillery corps wanted to control everything bigger than a machinegun, and the infantry wanted its own organic artillery, especially for antitank defense. The compromise allowed the infantry to own guns up to 2-pounders, which applied to the tank corps, too. That's why all those pre-WWII Brit designs stayed with the 2pdr (though they were allowed to build a small number of "CS" tanks with 3-inch howitzers instead of the 2pdr). Even Britain's best Infantry Tank, the Matilda, carried an antitank gun instead of a howitzer.
I speculate that Fuller's disdain for Estienne's 75s may have been a political position. If Britain put 75s in its tanks, they'd have to be part of the artillery arm, and I'm betting Fuller didn't want that to happen.
