French make their own "ultimate army" game, ultimate surrender!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


If you are losing the peace, declaring war even when unlikely to succeed is not lunacy. It is making the best of a bad lot.

I find it amusing that the French actually had more combat ready troops and equipment at the end of the battle of France than they did for the whole 6 weeks of the campaign. They lost because of tactics, not because of manpower.

Ahh, a strategist eh? Not only did the French have the manpower, they had superior weapons in many instances, the most glaring weakness being their artillery and some of their aircraft. Their real weakness was doctrine.

I get tired of all of this French bashing btw. Sure they are annoying in many ways, but they are not the cowards and idiots that they tend to be portrayed as here.

I'm surprised that Rogan Josh finds their women attractive. By British standards perhaps they are, but they pale in comparison to German girls, and Rogan should know that as well as anyone.

[The Pioneer]

Sorry!

Edit to my post above:

Sorry but it's not true. In my experience French are very unfriendly, they actually bark at tourists, especially if the license plates are German! The food is terrible and expensive. If you like some good food go for Italian, Greek, Turkish, Japanese, etc. As for the girls I am not sure I have no personal experience. I did like the landscape and all the interesting villages in France but other than that...

The best thing that ever came out of France is Asterix and Obelix. As for a better place to live than Germany or the US it's certainly not, I can't speak about the UK, although I can't imagine anybody would like living there.

What surprises me about WWII and the French defeat is that the had months to prepare in the winter of '39-'40 and the British as allies but it didn't help any! Poland and other countries were blitzed by the Germans in a surprise atttack and were left to the Germans by the allies. France at that time used to still be a mega-colonial power that lost the war in two weeks .

Where are the French anyway? Are they so xenophobic that they do not visit international sites like this one or did they just "dissappear" . They should take an example of Paikti who vigorously defends my beloved Greece against a huge number of "anti-greek" posters!!

[Pavlov]

Originally posted by The Pioneer
What surprises me about WWII and the French defeat is that the had months to prepare in the winter of '39-'40 and the British as allies but it didn't help any! Poland and other countries were blitzed by the Germans in a surprise atttack and were left to the Germans by the allies. France at that time used to still be a mega-colonial power that lost the war in two weeks .

Once again, the French were prepared but they had a lousy plan and doctrines. Poland was hardly sneak-attacked, they had the time to mobilize their forces fully before the German attack.

[Rasbelin]

Sikander,

WWII or the Great War? If you're talking about WWII, have a look at my previous posting on the French (the long one). But if you're talking about the Great War, then my input is that they're artillery was as good as the German, and the weponry in general was as good as theirs. Except the zeppelins that were something neat made by the Germans.

BTW the French air forces (in WWII) were quite weak with no suitable bombers, and fighters that could have been far more better.

The Pioneer,

as I already said in that French-Italian posting people don't seem to have read at all, the Maginot line (model Rasbey), spiced up with some good leadership would have been enough to defend against Germans

[Rasbelin]

Pavlov,

you're right, but let's not forget that the Poles were still living like in the Prussian age, so they couldn't expect anything like Bliz warfare. Or perhaps they could have, but as so many others (like Finland), no one else, except the Axis, seemed to be prepared properly prepared (IMHO) for a war in the summer 1939. The takeover of Austria didn't seem to work as a wake up call.

Chamberlain, the old fool...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by The Pioneer
Sorry but it's not true. In my experience French are very unfriendly, they actually bark at tourists, especially if the license plates are German! The food is terrible and expensive. If you like some good food go for Italian, Greek, Turkish, Japanese, etc. As for the girls I am not sure I have no personal experience. I did like the landscape and all the interesting villages in France but other than that...

I am only retelling my own experiences, having lived in each of these countries. I am enjoying living in France much more than I did the UK, US or Germany.

As I said, I have always found the French extremely friendly, and for the first few months I did have German plates on my car (having moved here from Germany).

I suppose it all comes down to personal taste. I can't stand Greek, Turkish, or Japanese food....

[Pavlov]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Pavlov,

you're right, but let's not forget that the Poles were still living like in the Prussian age, so they couldn't expect anything like Bliz warfare. Or perhaps they could have, but as so many others (like Finland), no one else, except the Axis, seemed to be prepared properly prepared (IMHO) for a war in the summer 1939. The takeover of Austria didn't seem to work as a wake up call.

Chamberlain, the old fool...

It seems to me that both the British and the French generals were livng in the past. They had tanks but chose to use them as isolated support weapons. They weren't flexible enough to consider that the Germans would try something new. Perhaps they thought that the Poles were simply underdeveloped and that's why Germany could achieve so much in Poland.

In other words, "blitzkrieg might work against those Poles but we're French and British dammit!"

[Rasbelin]

So we're at the roots of the foolishness of the British and French; bad leadership that thought this war (WWII) would be like the Great War - trenches, trenches and trenches - nothing else than that. And the "Allies" (not really the Allies in 1939) had quite old fashioned weaponry in terms of tanks and small arms. The Germans were that good strategists (especially Hitler at this point) that realised the need of SMG's and MG's. And that caused Hitler to give the order the speed up the production of MP40's and Stg44's. And they were desgined to be easilly massmanufactured, so the production could be kept up at a high level.

But even the French could have done better with their reserves, if Finland could make it with less. The most amusing thing was that when the Winter war began in November 1939, the only thing available for all soldiers were trousers, and one thing to notice about the weaponry is that there was millions of ammunitions, but lack of wepons to use them with.

[Pavlov]

But Finland were attacked with extremely many Russians who were pretty much ordered to walk in a straight line into Finland. They lacked proper equipment on the Russian side as well, winterized equipment that is. At least the Finns had pants.

[Rasbelin]

The first wave of attack was indeed strong, but it was also well equipped with modern state of the art weapons, backed up with tanks, artillery and air support. Stalin's goal was before the actual attack to reach Helsinki in 2 weeks, but that failed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rasbelin
Sikander,

WWII or the Great War? If you're talking about WWII, have a look at my previous posting on the French (the long one). But if you're talking about the Great War, then my input is that they're artillery was as good as the German, and the weponry in general was as good as theirs. Except the zeppelins that were something neat made by the Germans.

BTW the French air forces (in WWII) were quite weak with no suitable bombers, and fighters that could have been far more better.

I was speaking of WWII where the French artillery was poor in comparison to German, not large enough caliber, not mobile enough etc. They had some good guns, but they weren't ready to make the most of them. The same is true of their fighters, they had one fighter (I can't remember the name) which was capable of holding it's own against the ME109, but they had very few of these, and as you say the rest of their planes were almost useless. The French had better tanks than the Germans, and more of them, but they were not concentrated enough to meet the German Panzers in anything like equal numbers, and because they were attached to infantry units they had no strategic mobility. If the French had a better organization and plan they could have taken the battle to the Germans in 1939, and at the very least avoided being crushed.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Pavlov
But Finland were attacked with extremely many Russians who were pretty much ordered to walk in a straight line into Finland. They lacked proper equipment on the Russian side as well, winterized equipment that is. At least the Finns had pants.

Fortunately they were able to overcome their initial shock and disgust at the pantless Cossacks in time to man their weapons and hold the line.

[Ecthy]

Did I ever mention how we'll always kick France's arse?

[Rasbelin]

Those stats about the Finnish army in autumn 1939...

337 000 reservists available for call to field duty

250 000 rifles
19 300 pistols
5 000 SMG's
4 900 rapid fire rifles
2 500 MG's

317 000 uniform coats
350 000 pairs of trousers
219 000 coats
112 000 fur hats
75 000 helmets
270 000 soup cans
65 000 pairs of skis
7300 tents

And a grand total of 156 million rifle bullets.

[Ecthy]

looks like they lacked some weaponry and uniforms, eh?