In all honesty, every single nation (except Germany) "failed to realize that mobility on the battlefield is the key to victory in modern warfare.". Germany was the only nation that used tanks in a modern way, every other nation (inlcuding france) still used them as a support-weapons for infrantry.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Is France's military history really so bad?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
In all honesty, every single nation (except Germany) "failed to realize that mobility on the battlefield is the key to victory in modern warfare.". Germany was the only nation that used tanks in a modern way, every other nation (inlcuding france) still used them as a support-weapons for infrantry.
French people chose not to waste resources on war (Napoleon was Cosican), but they were very good a being aggressive when it came to the injustices of their people and others (Remember Marie Antionette).😀😉
They have historically conquered many place and have given many back. They are not barbaric anymore.
They have historically conquered many place and have given many back. They are not barbaric anymore.
MinorityReport
Senior member
A very important thing we always forget is the French's ability to stop the Islamaic invason of Europe.
Charles Martel or the Hammer stopped the Saracen Moors from spain entering western europe. It was him who ensured the Survival of CHristinalty and westen civilization to some extend.
If it had not been for that Frenchman, entire Iberian peninsula, burgundy, frankish states, southern/western germany etc wourld have been following the islamic faith and spoken arabic or some dialect with strong resemblance to islam.
If Europe were islamic today, I am not sure what would be happening now .. but thank the French for stopping the Arab invaders ( moors and saracens ) from spreading their all over europe.
Siddhartha
Lifer
LOL
The Red Army did keep the majority of the Germans on their front, but it was not 90%.
So, since the USA and Britain sucessfully fooled the Germans about their intended landing point, they suck? I'm sorry, but if you able to decieve your opponent sucessfully in a plan that calls for it, you have good execution. If Hitler had waited till he had finished off the British and taken Africa or as much as he wanted of it, and THEN invaded Russia, either the USA was going to have to move all its troops across the Atlantic for a trans-Oceanic assualt, or channel our troops across Russia. Either way the French would have been speaking German for a lot longer. You can play with a lot of ifs, but you judge anything's ability by its performance.
I doubt the Germans could have taken America in "1/2 the time", based on geographics alone (1,000 miles a week is pretty hard to accomplish from the logistics viewpoint). But, lets assume they are located on Americas eastcoast and invade. They need to move ~3,000 miles to get to the west coast. Moving their tanks that distance against very, very light resistance is going to take more than 6 weeks. However, their biggest problem is really in the USAs population. The Appalachians would be a formidible obstacle at the time, and not just for their size/terrain, but for their population. There are a lot of rednecks in those mountains, and they know how to shoot. You grow up poor and have one round to get your dinner with, you learn to shoot, or you stay hungry. And tanks arent ideal for mountain terrain, so you have to move in with infantry. Infantry is very vulnerable to snipers that know their terrain and have no interest in doing anything other than hitting and running. Ask the red-coats. Basically, the German blitzkreig has its limits, and moving over such a distance, with an armed cilivian population, and encountering the same amount of resistance as the French put up from conventional forces, there is no way you'd take over America in 3 weeks. Who would win you can argue over, but three weeks... riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
Your list is amusing, but this is grossly incorrect. The French WON the Algerian campaign and effectively crushed the rebellion -- brutally and efficiently. De Gaulle, for political reasons, decided to withdraw from the country which is why the military almost pulled off a coup d'etat.
To say that the Napoleonic era does not prove French military prowess is like saying that the Germans are ineffectual at combat because they lost WWI and WWII.
And the French, in their trust of the Maginot line to defend the country against Germany, failed to realize that mobility on the battlefield is the key to victory in modern warfare.
It was not solely their trust in the Maginot Line. It was also their trust in the Belgians, the British, and the 75mm gun. The first failed to show up and also failed to inform the French of the sorry state of their resistance. The second made bold promises about their ability to defend France, and then showed up late and were annihilated in short order by the Germans. The last was one of the finest artillery pieces of the early 20th century and had no equal in direct fire actions but was unfortunately outranged by German artillery, incapable of effective indirect fire, and not powerful enough to penetrate most German field fortifications.
France was the country that did most of the fighting against Germany. Yet you claim that they were "about to lose" and that they were "saved by USA" and that they "tied with Germany". How can that be, since it was France that did most of the fighting and they were clearly on the winnig side of that war?
The Americans did save the Allies. The French were essentially out of men and were outclassed by the Germans throughout the entire war (see above about artillery). The British and French were about to lose when the Americans showed up, and here's the good part: THE FRENCH ADMIT IT. The Brits have always steadfastly insisted that everything was fine throughout the entire war, except they ignore the slaughter that visited their troops throughout the entire war. French historians, however, have admitted that the war was not going well and that the Americans basically saved the day.
I'll get the title of a good book I haven't finished yet, from where I pulled my information.
Your list is amusing, but this is grossly incorrect. The French WON the Algerian campaign and effectively crushed the rebellion -- brutally and efficiently. De Gaulle, for political reasons, decided to withdraw from the country which is why the military almost pulled off a coup d'etat.
To say that the Napoleonic era does not prove French military prowess is like saying that the Germans are ineffectual at combat because they lost WWI and WWII.
And the French, in their trust of the Maginot line to defend the country against Germany, failed to realize that mobility on the battlefield is the key to victory in modern warfare.
It was not solely their trust in the Maginot Line. It was also their trust in the Belgians, the British, and the 75mm gun. The first failed to show up and also failed to inform the French of the sorry state of their resistance. The second made bold promises about their ability to defend France, and then showed up late and were annihilated in short order by the Germans. The last was one of the finest artillery pieces of the early 20th century and had no equal in direct fire actions but was unfortunately outranged by German artillery, incapable of effective indirect fire, and not powerful enough to penetrate most German field fortifications.
France was the country that did most of the fighting against Germany. Yet you claim that they were "about to lose" and that they were "saved by USA" and that they "tied with Germany". How can that be, since it was France that did most of the fighting and they were clearly on the winnig side of that war?
The Americans did save the Allies. The French were essentially out of men and were outclassed by the Germans throughout the entire war (see above about artillery). The British and French were about to lose when the Americans showed up, and here's the good part: THE FRENCH ADMIT IT. The Brits have always steadfastly insisted that everything was fine throughout the entire war, except they ignore the slaughter that visited their troops throughout the entire war. French historians, however, have admitted that the war was not going well and that the Americans basically saved the day.
I'll get the title of a good book I haven't finished yet, from where I pulled my information.
freegeekss
Member
Dari, I'm done having discussions with you -- you are the biggest, dumbest redneck punk on this forum
freegeekss
Member
Dari, I'm done having discussions with you -- you are the biggest, dumbest redneck punk on this forum
so, now you have your answer
I know the book you are talking about, I have glanced at it myself 🙂. It certainly gives interesting info, but I'm not sure that is it the end-all truth (after all, there are several books that claim something else). Of course USA did help in the war, I'm not denying that. But the french did most of the fighting (they fought for several years, whereas US involvement was relatively short-lived, due to appearing late of the war), and they were superior when compared to the british for example.
I think that saying that France "lost the war" is wrong. They did most of the fighting and were certainly on the winning side. And you could say that by the time US forces started to appear on the battlefield, Germans had also lost huge amount of men at the hands of the French, British and the Russians (who werent in the war anymore though).
Had The United States NOT been in WW-I it is HIGHLY likely that the 1918 German Fall offensive would have succeeded. By that time the Brits and The French were bled white from the horrendous loss in men from the criminally stupid French (and sometimes British) generals that wantonly squandered their own soldiers lives.
By 1918 The Germans had ended hostilities with Russia and had a ready supply of replacements that the French and British did not.
Even had the 1918 German offensive failed, the other allies did not have the men to exploit any advantage and the stale mate would have continued.
By 1918 The Germans had ended hostilities with Russia and had a ready supply of replacements that the French and British did not.
Even had the 1918 German offensive failed, the other allies did not have the men to exploit any advantage and the stale mate would have continued.
If you want to talk about "criminally stupid" generals, look towards the british. Take for example Gallipoli. And the british tactics of marching in tight formations towards enemy positions, whereas the French used smaller teams and they tried to take advantage of the protection given by the terrain instead of just blindly marching towards the enemy.
i still laugh out that part of military history....all the way till the end of the civil war. my gawd...marching blindly into the line of fire and getting your men mowed down. i guess it's the legacy of the old way of waging war in which pikesmen get in tight formations and what not heh. anyway, they call that "bravery". i call it "stupidity".
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
So whether or not they suck at fighting, with all the losses they've sustained you still call them cowards?
The point that most stood out from his accounts is that the French historians fairly well agree with the information in his book (well, rather, he agrees with them) so he's not just hanging in the wind on his own opinions. I would like to someday read some of the French books he mentions, but there's little chance I can find any of them where I am currently -- there aren't too many French speakers in Japan.
I never said France "lost the war". I said the French and British were "losing the war". Certainly, they were superior to the British and provided the majority of the troops on the Western front, but their losses were staggering with no substantial reserves to fill the gaps since the Germans were always able to inflict more casualties than they sustained throughout the war. The French needed the bodies and simply didn't have them. The Americans provided the bodies as well as equipment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
