French Military Prowess Re-visited
-
A wee bit dated but something rather thought provoking
French Military Prowess Revisited
By Anonymous
From the Net | February 10, 2003
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld may be upset that the French are not "assisting" us in this fight, but out here at the tip of the spear, there is nothing but jubilation at their absence. Last thing we need is to be carrying the French on our shoulders.
A cursory review of French military history reveals the following:
1 - Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
2 - Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "French armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."
3 - Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
4 - Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
5 - Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant but still manages to get invaded. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
6 - War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
7 - The Dutch War - Tied. Dutch farmers and tulip growers are tougher than they look.
8 - War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War - Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
9 - War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
10 - American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; " France only wins when America does most of the fighting."
11 - French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
12 - The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for the Russian winter, Prussian grenadiers or a British footwear designer.
13 - The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. For the first, but certainly not the last time, Germany plays the role of drunk frat boy to France 's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
14 - World War I - Invaded, humiliated and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Winds up a tie for les francaise. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, the American fascination with personal hygiene (a fascination totally foreign to French women) incites widespread use of condoms by American soldiers, thus precluding any improvement in the French bloodline.
15 - World War II - A decisive defeat even by French standards. Hitler and the German Youth spend Christmas time sleeping soundly through the winter, then arouse themselves to conquer France in six weeks. Hitler dances in front of the Eiffel Tower, while the French command staff retreats to Algeria to institute a crash language program to teach French privates how to say "I surrender" in German and French generals to say "We surrender" in German. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song and some small portion of the German work ethic. De Gaulle of it all...
16 - First Vietnamese war (in Vietnamese circles, known as "the scrimmage", or "the exhibition game" where the varsity squad is kept on the sideline to see how the second string will play) - Lost. French soldiers, fresh off their four year occupation by the Germans, catch a terminal case of Dien Bien Flu.
17 - Algerian rebellion - Lost. First time an Arab army has beaten a Western army since the Crusades, and produces the first rule of modern Islamic warfare: "We can always beat the French." A nice phrase, but it lacks something in originality, since it is also the first rule of warfare for the Italians, Russians, Prussians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese, Native Americans and capitalists.
18 - War on Terrorism - Lost. Incensed at not being included in the original "Axis of Evil," France refuses to participate. When it becomes clear that this is a "no-kidding war," Jacques Chirac looks at his cards and immediately surrenders to that old warhorse, Gerhard Schroeder. For good measure, he also surrenders to five million illegal immigrants from Algeria.
The moral of the story is - give thanks to God on high that the French are not helping us! -
And I hafta agree
-
The French did not actually lose the Algerian war. The involvement of French special forces and their brutal tactics succeeded in destroying the insurgent force but so alienated both domestic and international public opinion that the French eventually withdrew due to political (not military) pressure. A classic case of winning the battle but losing the war. There's a definitive movie on the France's campaign called 'The Battle of Algiers'. Catch it to find out. And the way this author put down Napoleon! One of the greatest military genuises of all time! And the American War of Independence? Without French support, the Americans would still be flying the Union Jack now. Not the Stars and Stripes. The author's just's another one of those bloody arrogant American brats who think the world of themselves. Wake up, kid
-
it's a joke man...a jokeOriginally posted by Langley:The French did not actually lose the Algerian war. The involvement of French special forces and their brutal tactics succeeded in destroying the insurgent force but so alienated both domestic and international public opinion that the French eventually withdrew due to political (not military) pressure. A classic case of winning the battle but losing the war. There's a definitive movie on the France's campaign called 'The Battle of Algiers'. Catch it to find out. And the way this author put down Napoleon! One of the greatest military genuises of all time! And the American War of Independence? Without French support, the Americans would still be flying the Union Jack now. Not the Stars and Stripes. The author's just's another one of those bloody arrogant American brats who think the world of themselves. Wake up, kid -
Either way, it makes for a good laugh at France's expense. However, the French arms industry is currently one of the world's best so the next battle it embroils in may be a good one to watch.
-
If you look at the british and the french "actually their prowess" is mostly in the form of paid mercenary forces like gurka contigent or foreign legion to spearhead their battles for them or to do other dirty work.
Once these foreign forces captured or cleared the front, the bulk of the forces would then go in.
I think if they were to send real english and french men into thick of battles it would cause such an outcry back in their homes. -
So you're saying that the British Paras and Marines let the Gurkhas do their fighting for them in the Falklands? Maybe you ought to check up on your facts and come back when you've finally heard of places like Goose Green and Wireless Ridge.Originally posted by paulho:If you look at the british and the french "actually their prowess" is mostly in the form of paid mercenary forces like gurka contigent or foreign legion to spearhead their battles for them or to do other dirty work.
Once these foreign forces captured or cleared the front, the bulk of the forces would then go in.
I think if they were to send real english and french men into thick of battles it would cause such an outcry back in their homes.
-
no I'm not saying, but since you brought up the falklands, I suggest you go check yurs properly b4 u start biting peoples head off.Originally posted by Gedanken:So you're saying that the British Paras and Marines let the Gurkhas do their fighting for them in the Falklands? Maybe you ought to check up on your facts and come back when you've finally heard of places like Goose Green and Wireless Ridge. -
marines and para's fought along side the gurkas...
-
The evidence from the Falklands clearly shows that soldiers from the British Army and Royal Marines led the way, not the Gurkhas or any other mercenary force. Following are some facts that you are obviously not aware of - you know what facts are, don't you, paul?
- The first British troops in were from D Squadron, SAS and 2 Section, SBS, at South Georgia on 23/4/82.
- In the first days of May 1982, recce for landing sites was conducted by the SAS and SBS.
- On the morning of 21/4/82, the first British forces landed on the Falklands. These comnprised of 3 Commando Brigade, 2 Para Regiment and 40 Commando. 42 Commando landed that afternoon.
- 45 Commando took the hamlet of Douglas.
- 2 Para took Goose Green after 2 days of heavy fighting.
- On the way to Port Stanley, Mounts Kent and Challenger were taken by 42 Commando with SAS support.
- 3 Commando and 5 Brigade led the charge into Port Stanley.
- Two Sisters and Mount Harriet were captured by 42 and 45 Commando.
- 2 and 3 Para took m ount Longdon on the way to Stanley.
In the final days of the Falklands War, 1/7 Gurkhas took Mount William before joining the 1st Welsh Guards to take Sapper Hill. That was the sum of their involvement in the war.
So the Gurkhas captured the front in the Falklands? That must be some achievement considering they didn't see action until towards the end.
You're an ignoramus, paul, and you deserve to only have your head bitten off on a day when I'm feeling charitable. You have absolutely no regard for facts, instead pulling this mercenary rubbish out of your arse. -
* Post which contributed nothing deleted. Rubbish belongs in the trash bin *
-
Oooh - what a clever response. With that wit, what need could you possibly have for facts?
You're now even more of an ignoramus than you were before, as impossible an achievement as that seems. -
if u don't agree, why don't we see some facts that proves your case that mercenaries played the main role in the Falklands?Originally posted by paulho: -
Hey Gedanken,long time no see!How's the Scottish lass?
damn,go easy on the guy man.Chill.anyway,back to the point;the French are....less than gifted at waging war,though still capable.This myth about the pathetic performance of the French is merely an invention of arrogant,ignorant Americans.
btw,back in the beginning of the year when I asked about what I neede to do to increase chances of joining Cdo for NS,well,being an only son and having a fractured knee certainly dampens my chances of joining Cdos,though perhaps I still have a shot at Guards.(blindly optimistic,aren't I!) -
This sort of response is totally uncalled for. This is merely a debate and if you think you're right, bring in the facts to prove it. If someone else has better facts to back his claims, be a gentlemen and accept defeat.Originally posted by paulho: -
Paulho, if you cannot provide facts to rebut an argument, you'd do well to keep quiet. I have nothing against posters getting agitated when putting their arguments across, but a post like that you've just made, which just consisted of insults and obscenities, will not be tolerated here.
As for your claims that the British and French armed forces let their mecernaries do their fighting for them, has been well and truly rebuted. But as Gedanken has said, you have just insulted and shamed the contributions of units like the Paras, Royal Marines, SAS and SBS among others. -
We're doing fine, thanks!Originally posted by Sardaukar:Hey Gedanken,long time no see!How's the Scottish lass?
damn,go easy on the guy man.Chill.anyway,back to the point;the French are....less than gifted at waging war,though still capable.This myth about the pathetic performance of the French is merely an invention of arrogant,ignorant Americans.
btw,back in the beginning of the year when I asked about what I neede to do to increase chances of joining Cdo for NS,well,being an only son and having a fractured knee certainly dampens my chances of joining Cdos,though perhaps I still have a shot at Guards.(blindly optimistic,aren't I!)
I can't say I can clearly remember anyone in my lot having had a fracture before enlisting, but unless it is serious enough to keep you from parachute landings, it shouldn't pose much of a problem. As for the only son myth, well, you're talking to an only son here. -
Lesson to be learnt:Originally posted by paulho:* Post which contributed nothing deleted. Rubbish belongs in the trash bin *
This is not a forum for kids!! And brush up your history!!
Consider yourself lucky you didn't made the comments in other forums on the Brits using mercenaries to lead the front (read "www.warships1.com" etc), cos the Brits will screw your ass like there is no tomorrow!!!
-
its not exactly wrong... mercenary forces were present in all imperialist armies... and the roles they played varied...Originally posted by warspite:Lesson to be learnt:
This is not a forum for kids!! And brush up your history!!
Consider yourself lucky you didn't made the comments in other forums on the Brits using mercenaries to lead the front (read "www.warships1.com" etc), cos the Brits will screw your ass like there is no tomorrow!!!
in the american revolution, the brits had thousands of ruthlessly efficient hessian mercenaries... hasn't anybody watched Sleepy Hollow? the story of the American Revolution wasn't just the story of Mel Gibson's The Patriot...
in southeast asia, the british had the indian sepoys, mostly bengalis (aka. sikhs) and the gurkhas... and THESE were all ruthlessly efficient mercenaries that established british rule and guarded british interests. there were hardly any white troops, especially in Malaya...
its just so that it is more true of EARLIER colonial wars and less so for modern warfare.
we shouldn't make too many sweeping generalisations in this respect... different time periods saw different trends. -
Hello to all. Don't know whether this would appeal to anyone, but since we are on the thread on the French military;
1) The following is an article on the modernization of the French Armed Forces and subsequent contributions to the war on terror.
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/french-reform.cfm
2) This weblink is also about the modernization of the French Armed Forces;
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/drion.htm
If any of the following links have been posted before then please accept my sincerest aplogies. -
You are absolutely right, but just to correct any confusion, I was referring more to the recent conflicts, esp. w.r.t the Falklands....Originally posted by CX:its not exactly wrong... mercenary forces were present in all imperialist armies... and the roles they played varied...
in the american revolution, the brits had thousands of ruthlessly efficient hessian mercenaries... hasn't anybody watched Sleepy Hollow? the story of the American Revolution wasn't just the story of Mel Gibson's The Patriot...
in southeast asia, the british had the indian sepoys, mostly bengalis (aka. sikhs) and the gurkhas... and THESE were all ruthlessly efficient mercenaries that established british rule and guarded british interests. there were hardly any white troops, especially in Malaya...
its just so that it is more true of EARLIER colonial wars and less so for modern warfare.
we shouldn't make too many sweeping generalisations in this respect... different time periods saw different trends.
As for the colonial ones, I don't think I can comment on those...
unless you include WWII, which I think they have proven themselves quite a fair bit, except for a few, namely the Malayan campaign..