Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why no thread on the French military intervention in Mali?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
    Ratatouille actually consists of vegetables.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
      The French have historically had a very capable military. The whole "french are weak" meme only came about after they got conquered by the Nazis, and let's face it, Russia faced a bigger thrashing than the French ever did, and the only reason they didn't get conquered was because they live in an abominable snowy wasteland and have terrible roads. But no one ever calls Russia weak.
      That was the third time they had their asses handed to them by the Germans in 70 years. Without British intervention in WWI, the French would never have lasted until the US got involved.
      When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

      Comment


      • the French were considered to have Europe's finest army in 1940
        Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..

        Look, I just don't anymore, okay?

        Comment


        • For what, six weeks?
          When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

          Comment


          • Actually no, the French had a number of unfortunate tank designs. Their light tanks were woefully under-armored, under gunned and amazingly not terribly fast for light tanks. Their big tank was terribly slow and it's short barreled main gun was neither a decent artillery piece nor an acceptable anti-tank weapon.
            When you compare German and French armor protection on a mm to mm basis it appears that some French tanks were better protected, but German armor was of superior composition. Generally 10 mm of German armor would stop as much ordinance as 15 mm of Allied armor.
            "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

            Comment


            • The French Army had a huge system of fortifications which might have worked had it not been for the fact that they lacked sufficient anti-air guns, they didn't extend across the entire border (including with Belgium and Luxembourg), and they weren't adequately defended in the rear against airborne assault.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dr Strangelove View Post
                Actually no, the French had a number of unfortunate tank designs. Their light tanks were woefully under-armored, under gunned and amazingly not terribly fast for light tanks. Their big tank was terribly slow and it's short barreled main gun was neither a decent artillery piece nor an acceptable anti-tank weapon.
                When you compare German and French armor protection on a mm to mm basis it appears that some French tanks were better protected, but German armor was of superior composition. Generally 10 mm of German armor would stop as much ordinance as 15 mm of Allied armor.
                There were a few flaws in the design, but the French stuff at the start of the war was still very good. The German stuff was actually pretty crappy, with the possible exception of the Czech 38(T) that the Germans pinched when they occupied. The Panzer III was woefully undergunned for the France invasion.

                Originally posted by MOBIUS
                Hmmm, well I thought it was a case of the French using their tanks as infantry support and not in actual armoured units, crap tactics in general and the fact that most/a large number of them lacked radio communication, that was their main downfall.
                Bingo. The French were still using tanks pretty much as everyone did in WWI. I did read something a while back that challenges that idea, but the bulk of opinion still supports it.

                Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                The French Army had a huge system of fortifications which might have worked had it not been for the fact that they lacked sufficient anti-air guns, they didn't extend across the entire border (including with Belgium and Luxembourg), and they weren't adequately defended in the rear against airborne assault.
                It wasn't going to work. It was WWI military thinking, and already well outdated by the time the Germans launched Fall Gelb. It gave the French a terribly misguided sense of security, which played a part in their failure to properly prepare their forces. In an age of combined arms, trying to hide behind a wall just doesn't save you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat View Post
                  They don't care. They view the locals as apostates and heretics.
                  It's an old complaint in some Muslim circles- some African interpretations of Islam are just too syncretic and female friendly... I was talking to a very interesting man from Ethiopia who was saying that the women in some of the nomadic Muslim tribes there go bare breasted. A Nigerian woman I used to work with last year was saying that women have much more of a say in running the mosques there than they do elsewhere, which has caused some friction in mosques in the U.K. .
                  Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.

                  ...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                    Bingo. The French were still using tanks pretty much as everyone did in WWI. I did read something a while back that challenges that idea, but the bulk of opinion still supports it.
                    de Gaulle (for all his faults) was a supporter of blitzkrieg tactics. Unfortunately much of the rest of the French military had learned the wrong lessons from WWI and the rebellion in Spain. That and a depressed economy and the German acquisition of quite a lot of Czech armaments, and an up to date airforce courtesy of a Weimar agreement with Soviet Russia... well the rest is fairly well-known.

                    Rather surprisingly, the Germans used a huge amount of horses in the attack on France. Possibly as potentially edible distractions....
                    Vive la liberte. Noor Inayat Khan, Dachau.

                    ...patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone. Edith Cavell, 1915

                    Comment


                    • The Germans didn't have to defeat the Maginot line. They went around it. In fact they themselves were surprised their tactics worked.
                      "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dannubis View Post
                        The Germans didn't have to defeat the Maginot line. They went around it.
                        Well yeah, which was kind of the point. Building walls wasn't an effective strategy anymore in a world of air power and combined arms operations.

                        Originally posted by dannubis View Post
                        In fact they themselves were surprised their tactics worked.
                        Hmm, not really. Maybe pleasantly surprised by quite how well the operation went, but it's not like they just tried it on a whim and came up a winner. Bear in mind how much was riding on it, if it had failed then Germany could have been in deep, deep ****.

                        Comment


                        • Hitler repeatedly told his generals to stop the advance of the armored spearheads. Only after it the breakout proved successful he got on the bandwagon.

                          BTW, the only reason why the BEF got away at Dunkirk is because the Germans decided to listen to Hitler and stop the advance.
                          "Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dannubis View Post
                            Hitler repeatedly told his generals to stop the advance of the armored spearheads. Only after it the breakout proved successful he got on the bandwagon.
                            The invasion plan wouldn't have happened at all if he hadn't already been on the bandwagon. He kept slowing them down because he was afraid they were pushing too fast and risking getting cut off and encircled, which wasn't a particularly unreasonable concern.

                            Originally posted by dannubis View Post
                            BTW, the only reason why the BEF got away at Dunkirk is because the Germans decided to listen to Hitler and stop the advance.
                            Well I wouldn't say they 'decided' to listen to Hitler, it wasn't like they had a lot of choice.

                            We tend to view it now though with a lot of hindsight, and this image of an all powerful Germany conquering most of Europe. I think it's important to remember that to the Germans themselves at that time there was a lot of fear and a lot of uncertainty. Hitler was gambling the existence of his country on a war that much of the world thought he couldn't win. Less than 20 years before, the French had occupied the Ruhr and now Germany was taking on not just France but Britain as well. Considering how insanely confident his major strategic moves were, I don't think we can make too much out of him showing a little caution with some of the smaller ones.

                            Comment


                            • He was crazy, and lucky at the same time that Wehrmacht had some exceptional officers under his command. Unfortunate for the rest of the world, and Germany for that matter as well, that the officers were very capable, and that a bunch of lunatics was in charge.

                              If he had some incapable bozos underneath, like the French military command at the time, Kitler would have gone ahead anyhow, but it would have ended with a lot less bloodshed.
                              Socrates: "Good is That at which all things aim, If one knows what the good is, one will always do what is good." Brian: "Romanes eunt domus"
                              GW 2013: "and juistin bieber is gay with me and we have 10 kids we live in u.s.a in the white house with obama"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat View Post
                                That was the third time they had their asses handed to them by the Germans in 70 years. Without British intervention in WWI, the French would never have lasted until the US got involved.
                                Well it isn't as if the Germans weren't good at warfare. The French may not have been able to handle the Prussians/Germans after the deposition of Napoleon, but that doesn't mean their military sucked... just that it sucked compared to the Germans .
                                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X