Pages

Praetorium Honoris

Thursday, April 23, 2020

A Magnificent Officer

(Source)
He was 29 years old at the time of his death. He flew with Groupe de Chasse 1/2 Cigognes, a squadron which had inherited the history¹ of the famous Escadrille 3 Les Cigognes (The Storks), the World War I French fighter squadron which the ace Georges Guynemer had helped to make famous.

It was the spring of 1940, the Germans had invaded Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France on the 10th of May and were now charging hard towards the Channel after breaking out of the Ardennes near Sedan.

His name was André Monty, he was a Lieutenant in the Armée de l'Air, the French Air Force. He flew the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406.

(Source)
While the aircraft seems rather stumpy, she was popular with her pilots. Though very maneuverable and able to take a lot of punishment, by 1940 the type was outclassed by the Messerschmitt Bf-109E, the fighter which equipped the invading Luftwaffe.

Lt André Monty
GC 1/2 Cigognes
From what I can find, he had some skill as a fighter pilot -
His aerial victories include: a Heinkel He-111 (11/05/1940) in the Ligny-en-Barrois sector, a Junkers Ju-87 (8/06/1940) in the Soissons sector, and another Junkers Ju-87 (08/06/1940) in the Villers-Cotterêts sector. (Source)
His luck ran out on the 8th of June 1940. His squadron was returning from a mission when they spotted nine Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers², Lt. Monty peeled off to attack what he thought was a lone Bf-109. It wasn't alone, while going after the one he was jumped by another Messerschmitt and was downed in aerial combat against two aircraft technically superior to his own.

His aircraft came down in a forest outside the small commune of Longpont in the Aisne department in Hauts-de-France in northern France. He was buried near the wreckage of his M.S.406, which is still there, next to his grave.

(Source)
(Source)
He left behind a wife and a six month old child. It was said of him -
"Sa finesse et sa modestie cachaient une instruction très complète et étendue. Son esprit du devoir faisait de lui un magnifique officier." 
(His finesse and modesty hid a very complete and extensive education. His spirit of duty made him a magnificent officer.)
In that forest outside Longpont, a traveler visited Lt. Monty's gravesite and had this to say -
On the road from Corcy to Longpont we discover an unusual monument. It is the tomb of aviator lieutenant André Monty, shot down on June 8, 1940 during an air combat. That day, at 7:30 p.m., he took off at the controls of his aircraft, a Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 No.225. Its Fighter Group is the GC 1/2, better known under the name of "Storks" in reference to the emblem which has adorned its planes since the First World War. The mission of the nine pilots accompanying him is to attack ground targets in the Attigny / Soissons region. Along the way, they encountered a flight of the German Ju-87 Stuka bombers, escorted by Messerschmitt ME 109 fighters. During the ensuing combat, Lieutenant Monty is separated from his group after engaging an ME 109. Another ME 109 then comes to the rescue of his comrade.
It is likely that Lieutenant Monty was killed in his cockpit because he made no attempt to escape from his plane which crashed in the forest near Longpont. He was buried next to the debris from his aircraft, of which the engine, propeller and part of the structure can still be seen.
He had four victories in his record although he piloted an aircraft largely outclassed by the German Messerschmitt His flower-decked grave testifies that his memory remains in the memory of his family and the people of the village.³ (Source)
I trust that we can remember him as well. A warrior of the air, lost in a conflict which for many seems ancient history. Not to me.

Say his name.

Remember...



¹ As near as I can tell from a number of sources.
² The sources aren't clear as to whether the two Ju-87s he downed were before his group's encounter with the nine Ju-87s which led to his death. I would guess that was the case as they were in different sectors of the front. That same source also indicates that he had four aerial victories, but only lists three.
³ The original French can be seen at the source listed.

34 comments:

  1. Ig is unfortunate that the fate of many fighter pilots is that they have died alone, and many are not found and honored as Lt Monty has been. Let us remember them all as we prey for the soul of Lt Monty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1. I was struck by the ending of the movie "Fury"--being the FNG, and within a day, the sole survivor, the only one left to tell the tale and remember.

      That story I sent you would be a good companion piece.

      Delete
    2. Thanks RHT447.

      Not sure I've seen that email...

      Delete
    3. @RHT447: yeah, though I was disappointed overall by Fury both as a Hollywood movie and for realism. Gritty in some ways, but so inaccurate in others. Then again, I sometimes think I only live to be disappointed by war movies (I mean, outside my wonderful life with my beloved -- nice save, right? Umm, well, no, since she was looking over my shoulder as I was typing this, and I'm busted). Moo. I now feel like a steer raised for slaughter. :(

      Delete
    4. Funny thing, all the criticisms I've read about Fury are about it's "realism." Mind listing the inaccuracies Larry? I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on this.

      (I have a couple, but then there are mitigating circumstances for what some call inaccuracies. At least in my view.)

      Delete
    5. The battle with the Tiger is the one that sticks out in my memory. I saw it when it came out, so it's been a while. It started out okay, but then the Tiger advanced, something no experienced crew would do unless they were part of a unit. And all Tiger crews were experienced. Inexperienced crews were put into lesser tanks. Then the apparent inability tor penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at only 500 yards range. The 76mm cannon most certainly could penetrate at 500 yards, though might ricochet at angles. The short 75mm would have problems, but not the long 76mm. I seem to remember reading that the actual Sherman Fury the movie was based on was armed with a 75mm gun. The distances are ridiculously close, but that's Hollywood getting everything into frame and making it look more exciting. Then the nonsense about having to get to the rear of the Tiger to penetrate and kill it. The Tiger had the exact same thickness armor on the rear as on the sides, plus if you aim into the sponsons above the tracks and below the turret, you'd have a decent chance at hitting the ammunition stored there and setting off a catastrophic fire/explosion. There were other things, but that's all I remember right now. Things that hardly anyone else in the audience would know or care about.

      Delete
    6. You really can't show a realistic tank battle on a movie screen, getting everything in one frame is rather Hollywood, but understandable.

      But for my money there aren't any better tank movies.

      Delete
    7. What, even better than Kelly's Heroes, arf-arf? :)

      Oh, yeah, it's hard showing any battle on screen. Like the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. The audience would think the
      German positions were right on top of the beaches, like those of the Japanese at Tarawa, not several hundred feet or more away, with the machineguns mostly enfilading the beach, not firing straight into landing craft (though that did also happen).

      Of course, I gripe at most combat scenes of any era. My wife used to struggle to keep me quiet until after the movie is over so I don't ruin it for her. Though now she's picked up enough that she's turning into a bit of a grognard herself. Fury probably is the best depiction of tank combat from inside an American tank. Knowing the state of film-making elsewhere, it's very likely the best anywhere. Mind you, (as the phrase goes elsewhere), that goes for an American AFVs only. There might be better elsewhere but I not only probably haven't seen them, but they're almost certainly biased another way. So, that's probably the best effort, yet.

      But the Tiger crew breaking cover and charging as completely and as unnecessarily into suicide as surely as the Polish cavalry supposedly did in 1939, simply bugs me like a chigger under armor.

      Delete
    8. Yes, the charging Tiger bugs me too. Though truth be told, when it came into the open, my thoughts weren't "What the Hell is he doing?" More along the lines of "OMG, that's an actual, honest-to-goodness freaking Tiger! Not a T-34 dolled up to look like one but an actual freaking Tiger!" At which point The Missus Herself told me to sit down and be quiet, I was disturbing the other patrons at the theater.

      Not quite, but damned near!

      Delete
  2. Just an ordinary guy, doing his duty, under extraordinary conditions.

    Rest in Peace, Warrior!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nothing wrong in the fight in the average Frenchman. Just, dangit, so poorly led, poorly coordinated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could we have bombed the North Vietnamese to the table?

      Delete
    2. And the other side had best of the best at mobile armored warfare, from Manstein who suggested the Ardennes route to Rommel who personally led the defence against Matildas at Arras, to daredevils of Eben Emael...
      French were lions led by lambs with predictable results.
      Couple that with lack of coordination with BEC, and results were what they were.
      Had someone energetic taken command, there was potential of cutting off racing panzerdivisions and turning the offensive into early Stalingrad. Or at least avoiding disaster and making fight more equal.
      Also Germans ended the campaign with just 2 weeks of ammo left for their artillery... Much closer thing than many think.

      Delete
    3. Tuna - When Johnson and McNamara were gone, we did. Prior to that, lots of blood shed to "send messages." Incompetence at the very highest levels.

      Delete
    4. Paweł - There were a lot of reasons for the French defeat in 1940, the ordinary French soldier, sailor, and airmen weren't the reason they lost. Which was kinda my point.

      Delete
    5. There was a reason the Heer okayed the Luftwaffe's attempt to bomb the Dunkirk beaches into oblivion, which, of course, the Luftwaffe failed at.

      The Army was spent. Done. Tired. Broken down. Short to out of ammo. Too long of a logistics train and not able to keep up. The rail lines were somewhat spotty and the Germans didn't have enough gas or diesel to keep the limited amount of motorized transport going, and horse-drawn transport could not keep up.

      In some respects, the Germans were victims of their own competence.

      Delete
    6. Beans - I'll disagree there. You might have a point, but the reasons for letting the Luftwaffe "finish off" the troops at Dunkirk were many. Perhaps I should cover that in a future post.

      The Heer wasn't too tired to continue their pursuit of the defeated French Army well into June.

      Delete
    7. One reason OKW (German high command) tried to conserve troops and material at Dunkirk was they did underestimate British capacity for naval evacuation, other, perhaps more important was that they kept watching behind their backs at Stalin who was actually banking on both sides exhausting each other to pounce at Europe. Even with vague idea of extent of Soviet gargantuan military, Germans were aware of vulnerability to two-front war.

      Delete
    8. Also, Germans comletely did not take the logistics lessons of France and Poland (we dont have offensive reach beyond max 500km at a time?) into account when getting into Russia...

      Delete
    9. Some French units failed the test, but for the most part in 1940, it was the high command that failed the common poilu. Also in 1914-1918, but the contempt the average French conscript was held in by their high command was really only bettered (worsened?) by the Russians. Not as bad as WWI, but still bad. And yet, in 1940, quite a few French units fought nearly to the death. It wasn't their fault they were utterly failed by a high command that was probably out of their OODL (see Boyd, et al) by the Wehrmacht in 1930, let alone 1940. Let's not forget that the Wehrmacht was suffering all the deep problems that a rapidly expanding military will suffer. Case in point: the USA in 1940-42. There were a number of Wehrmacht units that broke and ran under fire in 1939, and, in general, quality was judged as 'poor' to 'barely acceptable' in late 1939. At least by the very professional standards of the Reichswehr of the Weimar years (best of the best kept on active duty).

      @Pawel: yes, the Germans suffered badly from 'victory disease' as the Japanese called after WWII. The planning for Operation Barbarossa was, umm, optimistic, to say the least. The logistics were simply unsupportable, and Barbarossa was falling behind schedule by the 3rd day, according to David Stahel. The 'planning' was bonkers. It might as well have been an acid trip pushed down from on high. Umm, not that I would know anything about that. Not at all.

      Delete
    10. Larry - "optimistic, to say the least" - that has to qualify for understatement of the year. Too true!

      Delete
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBdOp4Btfrg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fight around Stonne is well-known to students of the the 1940 campaign. Too many lazy historians never point out that many French units fought hard and well. French armor was excellent, their doctrine sucked. De Gaulle was one who tried to remedy that but it was too little, too late.

      Delete
    2. Nothing wrong with their air force, either. Nor their navy. Except, again, poor leadership, civilian overwatch that failed, etc, etc.

      Delete
    3. A number of French generals were out of touch with the state of the military art. Hidebound is one way to describe them, incompetent probably fits as well.

      Delete
    4. regarding the Navy.... UK had done some quite ruthless things to make sure it doesnt fall into German hands... Mers-el Kebir, cough, cough...

      Delete
    5. Re: OldAFSarge, my father's opinion (especially after reading German accounts was, "What were they thinking? Good grief, what were they thinking?! Were they even thinking at all past their unbelievably savage internecine political battles? I'd say, "Not much." From June 1944 through at least 2000, nothing else matters, as far I can tell, much to the confusion and dismay of anyone who had to deal with them. Ah, well. At least they still mostly want to remain French, just like most Americans still want to remain American. They'd be idiots to give that up. The culture has a number of admirable characteristics, as do most, and I'd hate to see them lost, especially to transnational globalism (which usually seems to mean, "Anything but what I grew up with," to the intelligentsia (our so-called 'betters')).

      Delete
    6. Paweł - Remember, that happened AFTER the French surrender. Though admittedly, not long after.

      There's a reason the French don't completely trust the English. A brutal, but necessary move I think.

      Delete
    7. Larry - Indeed. I have a certain soft spot for les français being about a quarter French myself. But there's a reason my ancestors left for the New World.

      Delete
  5. (Don McCollor)..thinking about a movie (I think it was 'The Big Red One' in the invasion of North Africa [Vichy French after some nasty fighting]) they offered to surrender. An American voice roared over bullhorns "We will not accept your surrender. If you are Nazis fight us, if you are Frenchmen, join us"...

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.