View Full Version : French army falling apart, documents show
Vladimir
09-08-2008, 16:05
A little friendly ribbing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2084832/French-army-falling-apart,-documents-show.html
Most of France's tanks, helicopters and jet fighters are unusable and its defence apparatus is on the verge of "falling apart", it has emerged.
First the British, now the French. Can’t say I’m too surprised though. Does anyone in Europe have a standing army these days? Germany is too afraid of the military because of the whole NAZI thing and I believe Spain still uses timbered ships in their navy. If oil prices take a nose dive I think Poland has a decent chance to reestablish their empire!
We really should have acquired Sealand. Europe is ripe for the taking!
Warning: I have been traveling and may have aquired Lemur’s disease. The victim is always the last to know. :sad:
It has been suggested that the timing of that report represented an attempt by the french general staff to prevent the french armed forces from following the British model (as proposed by Sarkozy), and stick with attempting to hold back; "...ze invading panzer divisions rolling through ze ardennes. vive la france!"
It has been obvious for some time to me that the stretch must be being felt by the french armed forces, as they spend roughly half-per-head in Defence than the UK.
you cannot have it both ways, i.e. maintaining US style technology and force projection & US style massed armoured divisions.
The UK opted for the former, with the french and germans attempting to straddle both positions. However while germany appears fixated (understandably) on the need to keep the russians out of the fulda gap with endless panzer tanks and conscripts, france appears to be heading in the direction of technology and force-projection.
But the maths tells all, we spend about loads more than our continental partners per-soldier:
United States $387,000
United Kingdom $367,000
France $204,000
Germany $122,000
Italy $97,000
Russia $80000
Gregoshi
09-08-2008, 16:32
Does anyone in Europe have a standing army these days?
Sounds like they all do if their vehicles are in that bad of shape.
ICantSpellDawg
09-08-2008, 17:00
Sounds like they all do if their vehicles are in that bad of shape.
nyuk nyuk!
Sounds like they all do if their vehicles are in that bad of shape.
:laugh4:
Good one, Greg. ~D
Hi Vladimir, where have you been missed ya :2thumbsup:
Vladimir
09-08-2008, 18:08
Where have I been? In a dark region of the country with poor internet access. Been wanting to post this story for two months! Gotta come back with a dig at the French army. :france:
Louis VI the Fat
09-08-2008, 18:09
United States $387,000
United Kingdom $367,000
France $204,000
Germany $122,000
Italy $97,000
Russia $80000Meh. The French army is a social program to keep young unemployed men of the streets by shipping them off to Djibouti until they are of marryable age. Can't believe it costs this much per person still.
Other than this, er..'meaningful' contribution by yours truly, the thread will have to wait for our resident military expert, Brenus.
Good to have you back, Vladimir! :2thumbsup:
Nothing is surprising here. From budget cuts to reduction, all the French Government decrease French Army capacity.
Heavily counting on infantry and special units like the Foreign Legion, paratroopers, or Chasseurs Alpins, for operations in Africa, the French just didn’t bother about other material.
The 18th of August in Afghanistan, after falling in a typical ambush, the weakness of the French appeared to be:
No air cover: The operation wasn’t a priority and the 2 helicopters (French Caracal) were some where else…
The French (1 platoon of the 8 RPIMa, 1 element of the Regiment de Marche du Tchad) applied a usual tactic: Out from the vehicles and recon by foot. The Light Armoured lorry (VAB) given fire support in case of.
The Taliban first shot the radio, then engage the support troops in the back of the French platoon (US Special Forces supposed to coordinate the air-support, 2 platoons of the Afghan Army.
The soldiers took cover. Then they used all their ammo… The support couldn't intervene, the VAB themselves under fire. No reinforcement was sent before SIX hours…
US planes couldn’t intervene, the Taliban were too closed to the French (using a good Vietminh/cong tactic).
So, lack of own material, material not adapted to new missions, (the FAMAS, as all 5.56 mm use his magazines very fast), under gunned vehicles and probably underestimation of the enemy…
The same enemy was fighting the Russian few years ago (did some body saw the 9th Company, Russian movie: not great movie but good for the value).
And skinned them… Literally.
And skinned them… Literally.
Must be terrifying to fight people with such a primitive bloodlust. Fortunatily for us they are so blinded by hate that they can't hit a thing.
Well, the german army isn't taking a lot of losses, apart from those guys who blew themselves up trying to blow up explosives or the guys they prolly had to sent home who photographed themselves with some skulls of dead Afghans. But then that's not surprising since we only deployed them after the minister of defense had been to the region and made sure it's safe so noone gets hurt, I mean we wouldn't want soldiers to run into any trouble, would we?
"Polish empire". Seems ok for me. I assume you are for :D
Theory that whole Europe has weak army is not all truth IMO. Germany has strong army. They don't use it so often, but we have to respect Bundeswehra. They seems to be really good army.
GB too - notice that they could send 18.000 soldiers to IRAQ without bigger problems. With their own support and suplies.
France might have old equipment now, but If France wanted, they could rebuilt their military potencial into 2 years.
I have no info about Italy and Spain, but I assume situation is similar to France - they might even have weak armies, but they got potencial to rebuild them fast.
Of course this information shows us that French behavior into any problems into EU will be "we don't want die for Gdansk" (cause we have no army that can react fast). This is bigger problem. France with such a old army is not good ally - and can't be trusted. Ahh - 1939 again.
Polish army now is worse than mentioned before but I think it will change into 5 -10 years because Poland keeps strenghtening its army. Then polish army will not be as strong as GB or Germany and not as big as French but will be one of the stronger into Europe. This time not by number of men but by a heavy equipment. Our units are training on wars, our equipment is being tested there too. First sings are being watched, like armoured transporter "Rosomak". Not trusted in the moment of buying, appear to be very effective into fight with Taliban. I won't mention Leopard II from Germany = with polish PT 91 Twardy these tanks are serious opponents for every opponent.
Another good news is that today polish minister of defense announced new big plan of army development worth about 30 mld USD. More mechanised units and better anti-rocket weapon, so generally full turn against Russia.
The problem, the major one, is not the material. What is a use of a Leopard, Leclerc or Abrahams in Afghanistan?
10 years ago, in the same scenario, the platoon would have asked fire support from the regimental 120mm mortars, and get a smoke screen. This “infantry artillery” was cancelled few years ago, for saving.
An infantry company had 82mm group support which would have been able to do so as well.
Now, air support is considered as THE solution.
Ennemies never play the game. Especially when the answer to air support was given in Vietnam long time ago…
The French army is now design for light and fast intervention, but because budget restriction with old material. As usual, politicians (and the population) will deny the problem.:sweatdrop:
“Ahh - 1939 again”: Why? The Polish want to agree with the Russian to share a little bit of Georgian territory and to take a part of the Anchluss? Or supporting Russian Nationalism in the fight in still an unknown country (allusion to Polish support to Hitler in Spain)?
Does Poland have SECRET intentions?:beam:
“we don't want die for Gdansk”: They did die for Danzig. The sentence was in fact a question asked by the Germans to the French and English. So you modify it. Fair enough but don’t put the brackets.
And the answer was: yes, we are ready to do so. That is why France and UK (finally) declared war to Germany.
But you will go with your usual rant, so carry on.:beam:
No Brenus
Its France that want divide Georgia on parts. Sarkozy seems to be better friend of Putin than Schreder. Without our president Georgia would be already divided because "France does not want die for Tbilisi". France had to declare war because without Poland on East France;
1)would loose European leadership and became minor country
2)would show that is completely untrustable (actually it was but its another point) and scared of Germany
3)would be easy job for Wermacht (like it was).
Replying on other part of your post Poles supported both sides into Spain but Communist had bigger support. Country never supported any side - I'm rather for Franco into that war, but its just mine point of view.
But getting back to France - this is country that lost every bigger war into last 100 years (or won some due to its allies). I understood why you don't want spent too much on army. Its just a waste of cash :)
“Its France that want divide Georgia on parts. Sarkozy seems to be better friend of Putin than Schreder. Without our president Georgia would be already divided because "France does not want die for Tbilisi". France had to declare war because without Poland on East France;
1)would loose European leadership and became minor country
2)would show that is completely untrustable (actually it was but its another point) and scared of Germany
3)would be easy job for Wermacht (like it was).
Replying on other part of your post Poles supported both sides into Spain but Communist had bigger support. Country never supported any side - I'm rather for Franco into that war, but its just mine point of view.
But getting back to France - this is country that lost every bigger war into last 100 years (or won some due to its allies). I understood why you don't want spent too much on army. Its just a waste of cash :)”
I like you. So predictable…
Of course France doesn’t want to die for Tbilisi. A “genocidor” apprentice who failed won’t have my support that is for sure. It doesn’t make what Moscow doing now right, but sorry to NOT support a President whom on cold blood decided to shell refugees’ camp and towns… Mind you, he won’t have it even if he would have succeeded…
France didn’t have to declare war, nor UK. It was a choice. As proven before…
The second point is even worst: Did France and UK care about their credibility when Germany (helped by the Poles) dissembled Czechoslovakia?
It was quite easy for the Wehrmacht (Sp?). It was not what the Wehrmacht thought at this moment. Legends and propaganda (added to deliberated attempts to insult) can’t give up so easily.
The reality check is Honours of the war given to the Garrison of Lille, battle of Gambloux, a total of 90.000 French KIA and 120 000 injured –these are the minimum figures- for Germans 27 000 KIA (+ 18 000 MIA), 111.000 injured.
You may compare with the lost in Poland: (1st of September to 6 of October 1939). It is roughly the same amount of time.
I speak of the official position of the Polish Government. Following all the appeasement policy followed by the same Government towards Hitler…
Amusing/amazing comment coming from a man living in a country which even didn’t existed when France was allegedly losing all these wars…
You should read a little bit more…
I could answer something very cruel about how to waste money…
Vladimir
09-09-2008, 14:43
The problem, the major one, is not the material. What is a use of a Leopard, Leclerc or Abrahams in Afghanistan?
10 years ago, in the same scenario, the platoon would have asked fire support from the regimental 120mm mortars, and get a smoke screen. This “infantry artillery” was cancelled few years ago, for saving.
An infantry company had 82mm group support which would have been able to do so as well.
Now, air support is considered as THE solution.
Ennemies never play the game. Especially when the answer to air support was given in Vietnam long time ago…
The French army is now design for light and fast intervention, but because budget restriction with old material. As usual, politicians (and the population) will deny the problem.:sweatdrop:
What a shame. There are advantages to “The Army Doctrine” (aka, the doctrine of superior firepower…aka Artillery: King of the Battlefield) and it’s a shame to think all western nations are abandoning it.
Air support is the more modern and popularly accepted form of supporting fire; but you’re right, your enemies never play the game you want them to play. Remember though that it’s easier to counter the threat from mortars than from the air. If the answer to air power was provided in Vietnam the answer to artillery is provided in modern conflicts. The important thing is to keep the enemy adjusting to your tactics, and not you to theirs.
There is a lot to be said for light and fast. The whole point of warfare since, well, forever, is to deliver a small amount matter to a desirable point. What I like about Rumsfeld is that I believe he understood this, but should have been SecDef in the 90’s. Outwardly budget restrictions and aging material may be seen as the reason to go light and fast. However, on the tactical level it makes a lot of sense. The U.S. Army Rangers have a saying: “Speed is security.”
Dutch army is combination of both, heavy artillery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1uOjhuUuE&feature=related and light vevicles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSiac-6I0o, beards die pretty well.
CountArach
09-09-2008, 14:59
Have the White Flags fallen apart yet? No?
Then the French army is fine.
Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too.
Poland did not attack Czechoslovakia into 1938 together with Germany. Into 1920 Poland was attacked by Czechoslovakia and lost some territories. Into 1938 these land was recaptured.
Czechs got what they wanted.
Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too.
France could do something cruel.
What is it with bashing france anyway they take their part for the better or somewhat less at times, they have been just about everywhere. So yeah they have been annoying to Poland so what, wasn't very nice that Germany invaded us and bombed a few cities, so what was normal then we all get a little crazy sometimes now they are good neighbours.
Louis VI the Fat
09-09-2008, 19:57
Edit: On second thought, let's leave it at a flower: :daisy:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to on-topic.
1:
I am not surprised at the poor state of military material.
- As in all sectors, it's more fun to spend money and managerial energy on shiny new things than it is to dilligently maintain existing material. Maintenance is anonymous and unglamorous.
- Even more so than other government sectors, the military wants to be as large as possible. The bigger the army of their country, the better some men will feel. *add link to study 'Masculinity, military prowess, nationalism'
- If new planes, tanks or ships are to be bought, the military will spend the entire budget on aquiring as much 'steel' as possible. Then whinge that they don't reveive the necessary budget to maintain their toys and that this threatens national security.
2:
What should be noted, is the timing of this leaking of 'confidential reports'. They were leaked two weeks before Sarkozy received his White Paper. This is a massive report by a 35 men strong commission on the overhaul of French forces. Was this 'news' leaked to the press to convert those directly involved and to massage public opinion? You decide... ~;)
There is a clear political incentive for presenting the French forces as 'falling apart'. I do believe it is not an inaccurate description of the state of maintenance of French military. But this is not the important story. This 'news' is just to win over public opinion and to convert the - rather closed and aloof - top of the French military hierarchy. The real story is below.
3:
Sarkozy's White Paper and the overhaul of the French military.
Link (http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL1538945320080617?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0). (Why can't a find a decent English link? ~:confused:)
PARIS (Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy vowed on Tuesday to create a smaller, more mobile and better equipped army able to respond to modern day threats ranging from terrorism to computer attacks.
Launching a new defence policy document, Sarkozy said the military needed to direct more resources to help soldiers in the field and put new emphasis on security within France's borders.
France is expected to cut more than 50,000 military posts, affecting the army, navy and airforce. When the restructuring is complete, the military should have 225,000 personnel.
The number of troops who can be sent abroad will fall to 30,000 from their current level of around 50,000, with a 5,000-strong rapid intervention reserve.
"For 15 years, France has not been threatened by invasion. The threats have changed in nature, they are diverse and shifting," he said.
"From now on, France's defence is as much at stake within France as thousands of kilometres away," he said.
In terms of military strategy in general, Sarkozy alluded to an already expressed desire to participate more fully in NATO structures. Analysts say that his aim is to win support for deeper EU defence cooperation.
Savings will free up money to invest in cutting-edge equipment such as satellites and to improve a fleet of ageing helicopters.
Addressing critics who have accused the government of downgrading France's military prowess, Sarkozy said he aimed to make France even more of a military power than it was today.
France has 12,000 troops on foreign missions from Afghanistan to the Balkans but they have been hampered by poor equipment and a shortage of helicopters and air transport.
More than half of the military's personnel perform administrative and support functions, with just 40 percent in operational and combat roles.
France's status as a nuclear power with a strong military is a cornerstone of policy and Sarkozy has pledged to keep defence spending steady at around 2 percent of gross domestic product.
But Sarkozy acknowledged the country's strained public finances had forced it to cut costs and seek more value for money.
Sarkozy said France would spend 3 billion euros (2.4 billion pounds) more per year than it did previously to equip its forces.
The commission charged with carrying out the defence review saw no reason to oppose France's return to NATO military command, he said.
But in order to do so, Sarkozy said France, which withdrew its forces from NATO command in 1966, must keep control of its nuclear arsenal and would not relinquish command of its own forces.
Some major elements of the overhaul:
- a leaner and meaner armed force. Less boots, more technology.
Not an invasion threatens French security and interests. Terrorism, a-symmetrical warfare, instability anywhere across the globe does.
- furthering of European military co-operation
- a return to integrated OTAN command structure
- a commitment to France as a great power, with a shift towards diplomatic means.
- a commitment to independent nuclear capacity.
As usual when concerning foreign policy, Sarkozy is my wet dream I support Sarkozy's policy overhaul and the commision report's recommendations.
“Poland did not attack Czechoslovakia into 1938 together with Germany. Into 1920 Poland was attacked by Czechoslovakia and lost some territories. Into 1938 these land was recaptured.
Czechs got what they wanted.” That is a good summary. Poland just use a good opportunity.:book:
“Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too”:sweatdrop::beam:
The problem is the change in the doctrine and to adapt to new menace. In the 80s it was the Red Tempest. I was trained in anti-tank missile unit (Milan) and I was in an Armoured Division, Mechanised Infantry.
Our target was to destroy the combination tank/infantry and to keep the Russian in the German Territory during 3 days, time for the US to cross the Atlantic.
So all projects in armament development were aimed to an armoured confrontation. So Leclerc and Attack Helicopters were developed.
We saw a great deal of improvement for the individual grunts as well. The FAMAS, new uniform, new transmission finally arrived in the units…
But, hoops, no more Warsaw Pact…
Suddenly no more enemy, just peace keeping mission, and usual business in Africa… No more need of Leclerc, Rafale and other costly material… All was on fast intervention, cheap but with high professionals.
THEN need again of heavy material. But, well, the second aircraft carrier was postponed, the delivery of new Leclerc extended on time, the Rafales and its equivalent at sea delayed… Of course, reduction of numbers, all the usual tricks when politicians want to save money. I wonder to pay want because they cut all budget, except theirs of course…
Then we have the attraction for the US model: Technology. The problem is France can’t afford. But it doesn’t matter. We just need a unit able to demonstrate we have the capacity.
Except after a while we have to not only to talk the talk but to walk the walk.
And suddenly the paratroopers who were trained in the system got trapped and the system failed them.
Meneldil
09-10-2008, 05:05
Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too.
Now I'm both scared and curious.
Do you somehow found documents stating that France is in fact leading teh evil germano-russo-sionist conspiration against Poland ? Or is it just your usual rant about France betraying Poland in 1939 (wut ?)
As for the topic, I think Louis summarized the issue pretty well : the French army is a way to offer a job and some basic teachings about "how-to-not-completly-screw-up-your-life-by-acting-like-a-scumbag" to uneducated people that would otherwise probably cause some troubles. No wonder it's actually in a sad state, but then again, I don't see why we even need an army at the moment.
2:
What should be noted, is the timing of this leaking of 'confidential reports'. They were leaked two weeks before Sarkozy received his White Paper. This is a massive report by a 35 men strong commission on the overhaul of French forces. Was this 'news' leaked to the press to convert those directly involved and to massage public opinion? You decide... ~;)
There is a clear political incentive for presenting the French forces as 'falling apart'. I do believe it is not an inaccurate description of the state of maintenance of French military. But this is not the important story. This 'news' is just to win over public opinion and to convert the - rather closed and aloof - top of the French military hierarchy. The real story is below.
As usual when concerning foreign policy, Sarkozy is my wet dream I support Sarkozy's policy overhaul and the commision report's recommendations.
much as i said above in my first post. :)
and i agree with Sarkozy too.
“
“[B]Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too”:sweatdrop::beam:
The problem is the change in the doctrine and to adapt to new menace. In the 80s it was the Red Tempest. I was trained in anti-tank missile unit (Milan) and I was in an Armoured Division, Mechanised Infantry.
Our target was to destroy the combination tank/infantry and to keep the Russian in the German Territory during 3 days, time for the US to cross the Atlantic.
So all projects in armament development were aimed to an armoured confrontation. So Leclerc and Attack Helicopters were developed.
We saw a great deal of improvement for the individual grunts as well. The FAMAS, new uniform, new transmission finally arrived in the units…
But, hoops, no more Warsaw Pact…
Suddenly no more enemy, just peace keeping mission, and usual business in Africa… No more need of Leclerc, Rafale and other costly material… All was on fast intervention, cheap but with high professionals.
THEN need again of heavy material. But, well, the second aircraft carrier was postponed, the delivery of new Leclerc extended on time, the Rafales and its equivalent at sea delayed… Of course, reduction of numbers, all the usual tricks when politicians want to save money. I wonder to pay want because they cut all budget, except theirs of course…
Then we have the attraction for the US model: Technology. The problem is France can’t afford. But it doesn’t matter. We just need a unit able to demonstrate we have the capacity.
Except after a while we have to not only to talk the talk but to walk the walk.
And suddenly the paratroopers who were trained in the system got trapped and the system failed them.
really, what is krook wittering on about, and how does it relate to the matter at hand?
Back on topic: France can afford the technology route, provided it accepts the same tradeoffs the UK made, i.e. smaller forces.
Of course the UK is an island which makes us a lot more secure from "ze panzer divisions rolling across ze ardennes", but i still think it is the right choice, we are past the days of industrial war.
Tribesman
09-10-2008, 11:02
really, what is krook wittering on about, and how does it relate to the matter at hand?
Its just Krook being Krook .
Let me translate for you .....
GB too - notice that they could send 18.000 soldiers to IRAQ without bigger problems. With their own support and suplies.
Great Britain (that other bunch of treacheous cowards who sold out glorious Poland to the Nazis and communists and ukranians and jews) managed by cutting back on other deployments ,utilising reserve and territorial forces to send some troops to Iraq very short of supplies and equipment and with lots of outdated and useless stuff to make up the bulk . They also manged to achieve this by borrowing heavily , this heavy borrowing has led to cuts in the defense procurement and development programs as well as a large reduction in force capabilities . In addition the deployment had to be largely facilitated by hiring or leasing transport which led to more expense and added delays ......
So you see what you must do to understand these posts Furunculu5 ?
Look at them , try and work out which real events he is trying to fit his alternate reality to and then try and decipher the nonsense .
For example take this ......
Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too.
.....
that translates as "I might write some more rubbish and it would severely tax any rational mind that tried to make any sense of it":yes:
Oh, bugger! How are the French going to get their killing done now? And the rest of Europe, too? :help:
“Back on topic: France can afford the technology route, provided it accepts the same tradeoffs the UK made, i.e. smaller forces.
Of course the UK is an island which makes us a lot more secure from "ze panzer divisions rolling across ze ardennes", but i still think it is the right choice, we are past the days of industrial war.”
Here we disagree: Not on the back on topic but on the smaller force topic.
Again it depend what are your mission.
Peace keeping needs a LOT of manpower, as the US experiment in Iraq.
Technologies will NOT replace men.
In Afghanistan, you need to win heart and mind, and no drone will vaccinate kids, speak to the elders and secured the road, reopen the markets, which is actually what hi needed.
The Foreign Legion was known to built school, bridge, and roads. It was even in the instruction from Lyautey (or Gallieni) (famous generals in the French Colonial Empire) to built a school and to open a market in each new conquered village.
The French won the battle of Algeria in deploying masses of soldiers, combined with Intelligence Services and mobile highly trained forces (using helicopters even before the US Mobile Cavalry) and cutting the Algerian Forces from the bases (Maurice line). All these aspect needed a lot of men.
With a small amount of professionals you may able to win a short war, but even professional can get exhausted and kill. Proof in Iraq again: US and UK have to send Territorial and National Guards to fill the gap.
Army work doesn’t stop at fighting. To win a war isn’t winning battles… Especially in the frame of the “asymetric” war…
And that is why I think the actual Sarkozy’s policy will lead to a disaster, as in UK and USA.
Tribesman and now I don't understand YOUR IRONY.
British army seems to be very strong in my opinion. Its probably last European Army (I exclude Russia because we are talking about EU armies) that can work alone - without allies. Who like who but Ireland should know it best. So sorry but I can't undestand your issults to me.
For rest
Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs. Your countries (France especially) will be soon part of new Califate while mine will be still independent. For me you are like Greeks into IVth century BC or Romans into IVth century AD - "everything is ok we are lucky Europeans, we will be living safety with our brothers". People jailed into
political correctness matrix.
So live happily and prepare on sharijat.
Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs.
Yup
ps, england will fall first, it basicly already did.
Tribesman
09-10-2008, 11:47
Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yeah like the idiot orientated nationalism that wants to kill a soccer ref because it didn't win a game :dizzy2:
Whatever happened to your great Polish soccer topic yesterday eh ?:oops:
Banquo's Ghost
09-10-2008, 11:48
Yup
ps, england will fall first, it basicly already did.
Fragony, old chum, doesn't it concern you just a tiny wee bit that you are agreeing with a political analysis of Krook's?
'Cause, y'know, you're freaking me out. I thought you only used cocaine at weekends. :wink:
I am not nearly as hardcore as Krook but I do agree that europe needs nationalism, look at england it's simply pathetic.
Tribesman
09-10-2008, 12:12
I am not nearly as hardcore as Krook but I do agree that europe needs nationalism, look at england it's simply pathetic.
The problem there is that nationalism is usually the realm of braindead idiots .
Take this Irish nationalist as an example.....http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007/02/croke-park-protest-or-war-against-irony.html
The problem there is that nationalism is usually the realm of braindead idiots .
Take this Irish nationalist as an example.....http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007/02/croke-park-protest-or-war-against-irony.html
That is sadly true.
Louis VI the Fat
09-10-2008, 16:06
much as i said above in my first post. :) Huh? I read your post, even replied to it. ~:confused:
I was too lazy to write an extensive reply. Then later when I did I seemed to have totally forgotten that you made the argument about the timing of this leak already. How very sloppy of me. Sorry. :embarassed:
Peace keeping needs a LOT of manpower, as the US experiment in Iraq.
Technologies will NOT replace men.
In Afghanistan, you need to win heart and mind, and no drone will vaccinate kids, speak to the elders and secured the road, reopen the markets, which is actually what hi needed.
The Foreign Legion was known to built school, bridge, and roads. It was even in the instruction from Lyautey (or Gallieni) (famous generals in the French Colonial Empire) to built a school and to open a market in each new conquered village.
The French won the battle of Algeria in deploying masses of soldiers, combined with Intelligence Services and mobile highly trained forces (using helicopters even before the US Mobile Cavalry) and cutting the Algerian Forces from the bases (Maurice line). All these aspect needed a lot of men.
With a small amount of professionals you may able to win a short war, but even professional can get exhausted and kill. Proof in Iraq again: US and UK have to send Territorial and National Guards to fill the gap.
Army work doesn’t stop at fighting. To win a war isn’t winning battles… Especially in the frame of the “asymetric” war…
And that is why I think the actual Sarkozy’s policy will lead to a disaster, as in UK and USA. That is a very good case for the argument of boots. I have to think it over.
Where would I be without you? :2thumbsup:
Great Britain (that other bunch of treacheous cowards who sold out glorious Poland to the Nazis and communists and ukranians and jews) managed by cutting back on other deployments ,utilising reserve and territorial forces to send some troops to Iraq very short of supplies and equipment and with lots of outdated and useless stuff to make up the bulk . They also manged to achieve this by borrowing heavily , this heavy borrowing has led to cuts in the defense procurement and development programs as well as a large reduction in force capabilities . In addition the deployment had to be largely facilitated by hiring or leasing transport which led to more expense and added delays ......
I recognise the problems of small army syndrome, but our problems in iraq are compounded by two serious problems.
1. Labour refuses to allocate wartime spending when we are fighting two wars, seriously, we are down to 2.0% of GDP from a Cold War high of about 3.5%
2. Underfunding has also caused a wage crisis which means that almost all of our infantry battalions are only at ~80% strength (about 5% overall), which is why we have relied upon the territorials so heavily.
Here we disagree: Not on the back on topic but on the smaller force topic.
Again it depend what are your mission.
Peace keeping needs a LOT of manpower, as the US experiment in Iraq.
Technologies will NOT replace men.
In Afghanistan, you need to win heart and mind, and no drone will vaccinate kids, speak to the elders and secured the road, reopen the markets, which is actually what hi needed.
The Foreign Legion was known to built school, bridge, and roads. It was even in the instruction from Lyautey (or Gallieni) (famous generals in the French Colonial Empire) to built a school and to open a market in each new conquered village.
The French won the battle of Algeria in deploying masses of soldiers, combined with Intelligence Services and mobile highly trained forces (using helicopters even before the US Mobile Cavalry) and cutting the Algerian Forces from the bases (Maurice line). All these aspect needed a lot of men.
With a small amount of professionals you may able to win a short war, but even professional can get exhausted and kill. Proof in Iraq again: US and UK have to send Territorial and National Guards to fill the gap.
Army work doesn’t stop at fighting. To win a war isn’t winning battles… Especially in the frame of the “asymetric” war…
And that is why I think the actual Sarkozy’s policy will lead to a disaster, as in UK and USA.
you also have to be able to sustain a force at the far ends of the world, and frances Fulda Gap mentality utterly precludes it from fighting two separate wars in afghan and iraq as is being done (with extreme difficulty) by the UK.
as i said it is an easy choice for the UK, we are an island, and france has to make its own choices where its priorities lie. :)
Tribesman
09-10-2008, 19:39
1. Labour refuses to allocate wartime spending when we are fighting two wars, seriously, we are down to 2.0% of GDP from a Cold War high of about 3.5%
During the Cold War you had to maintain a very different set up and had to maintain a large number of expensive establishments , vast numbers of those expensive outlays are no longer required .
2. Underfunding has also caused a wage crisis which means that almost all of our infantry battalions are only at ~80% strength (about 5% overall), which is why we have relied upon the territorials so heavily.
Nothing new about that , during the falklands infantry brigades and battalions were very understrength which meant that battalions were moved to bring the deployed brigades up to strength and then troops were taken from other battalions to bring the deployed battalions up to strength .
HoreTore
09-10-2008, 20:25
Bah, who wants a military anyway? 30 billion NOK my country can spend on better things...
And don't give me that "the russkies will invade us"-nonsense. Because if they do, our army will be as effective as in 1940 no matter what, ie. reduced to guerillas after the army is soundly thrashed. These days it will be a LOT easier for the russkies than it was for the germans though, since the norwegian defence plan consists of grouping our entire army on one mountain(Mauken), and one tiny nuke will solve that problem in one go.
Spending 30 billion per year to let thousands of people die instantly? It doesn't sound like a very good investment to me, at least.
I say we should disband the entire army, train a few volunteer guerilla forces and leave it at that. No point in spending billions on cannon fodder.
Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.
Strike For The South
09-10-2008, 22:28
Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.
Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy
Sarmatian
09-11-2008, 00:53
Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy
I give a slightly bigger chance to Zulu invasion of England, but that's just me.
For small countries small army that would deal with small threats is quite enough. If we're ever attacked by big boys, it wouldn't make a difference whether we spent 50% or 0.5% of our GDP on military.
But for countries like France, respectably sized and effective army is a must, if they want to stay in the big boys group.
I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion :)
I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion :)
Is it the nationalism talking?
:poland: :whip: :russia:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-11-2008, 03:51
Bah, who wants a military anyway? 30 billion NOK my country can spend on better things...
It doesn't matter if you want a military or not, but eventually, sometime in the future of your country, you will need one. War in the Western World is not a thing of the past, and I doubt it ever will be.
To rely on a small highly trained professional is a return to medieval Ages when a bunch of knights were quarrelling each others to control counties and towns.
When Bush came with the idea that the Iraq campaign will sustain itself we were right back to the pillaging and live on the field things…
The French Revolution showed that at the times of mercenaries and small professional armies have lived.
Because the cost and this absurd believing in technology, our leaders think they can go back to this system.
Now, the SS and Germans soldiers were probably better trained than my grand parents. However, to blow up their train didn’t take too much training, so…
I was a highly trained professional. At this period, to be a soldier was not fashion, and was no respect was due just because you were wearing a uniform. We were more often spit up than applauded…
Did we (me and my comrades in arms) cared? No. Why? Because when you train, you developed as well a high level of arrogance, self confidence, this feeling to be elite. You are cut from the society you are supposed to protect.
I trained with US and Germans. We were sharing the same values... Foreign professional soldiers were closer to me (at least they understood what and why I was doing things, AND they went through the same hardship. They physically knew what is to suffer the weight of a backpack, the sleepless nights, the burning of the physical training etc…).
I was cured by training draftees who just put my feet back on the ground…
"I'm not claiming that Norway is Russian objective. I'm telling that russian invasion is not same like american invasion"
Is it the nationalism talking?
:poland: :whip: :russia:
a very reasonable sentiment really.
Grozny or Baghdad, i know where i would rather have been at the height of hostilities.
Its not nationalism - its analise Russian military history.
Its not nationalism - its analise Russian military history.
While I agree with most of your post, war with russia is really unlikely. War is more likely going to come further east then them. You have 2 massive countries, india and China, with massive populations starting to hurtle themselves headlong into industrialization and overall modernization. They sit right next to themselves, and already have over the past century border conflicts. Not to mention India can very well become China's main competition to being the worlds manufacturing center for the west. Also Russia has to play nice with europe for the time being since they are their main oil buyers, least until the pipeline to china is finished.
But other then that yes, nationalism has it's place. So do armies, we should not become complacent and lazy about our defense. I doubt that most will listen or even bother to think too far into the future about things like that, most people these days are more interested in entertaining themselves, or finding the next thing to entertain themselves with. Pride in where you live, I guess that's just no longer acceptable.
Quite sad to see the decay of a once great military power. I just hope the foriegn legion is not hit to badly. The history and the beliefs of it are remarkable and interesting.
HoreTore
09-11-2008, 16:12
Somehow I doubt a russian invasion of Norway anytime soon. Call me crazy
Well, it's not that far off, seeing as how we have several border and resource disputes with them...
Nice Hore but with one weak point.
Russkies will not behave like Americans - only like nazis in Russia.
They will kill you all into 3 - 4 years.
It doesn't matter if you want a military or not, but eventually, sometime in the future of your country, you will need one. War in the Western World is not a thing of the past, and I doubt it ever will be.
No, see that's the point. Having a military won't do even a tiny bit of difference to the outcome. The best we can do, is a guerrilla war.
the choice is always individual, and i make no judgments, but i would not want to live in a nation were the collective response to invasion by a neighbouring state is resignation.
HoreTore
09-11-2008, 16:57
the choice is always individual, and i make no judgments, but i would not want to live in a nation were the collective response to invasion by a neighbouring state is resignation.
I'd rather call it reality. The reality is; Russia is bigger than us. A lot bigger. We have no chance to win a conventional war. Or even cause some damage.
If we want to make a stand, if we want to fight back, a guerrilla war is the way to go. That's the one thing that can have any effect besides wasting lives.
And it will be that way whether we want it or not, whether we waste the lives of thousands of soldiers first or not. Since I'm not a big fan of cannon fodder, I say we scrap the army and go straight for the guerrilla's.
Oh boy is europe ripe for the picking, to even consider that your country doesn't need an army is so naive, you will be teared apart.
I'd rather call it reality. The reality is; Russia is bigger than us. A lot bigger. We have no chance to win a conventional war. Or even cause some damage.
If we want to make a stand, if we want to fight back, a guerrilla war is the way to go. That's the one thing that can have any effect besides wasting lives.
And it will be that way whether we want it or not, whether we waste the lives of thousands of soldiers first or not. Since I'm not a big fan of cannon fodder, I say we scrap the army and go straight for the guerrilla's.
that is different, that is not resignation :)
Ironside
09-11-2008, 19:04
No, see that's the point. Having a military won't do even a tiny bit of difference to the outcome. The best we can do, is a guerrilla war.
You can keep them busy until some you allied with decide to show up, but I agree fully on a 1 vs 1. :book:
Tribesman
09-11-2008, 19:32
Oh boy is europe ripe for the picking, to even consider that your country doesn't need an army is so naive, you will be teared apart.
By who ? the same people who are tearing Iceland apart :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
By who ? the same people who are tearing Iceland apart :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Wouldn't be the first time russian tanks are too close for comfort near scandinavia and I am not talking about ww2. Think they are very concerned with that circus in brussels? Of course we need strong armies, if only because it's so very very cool.
Sorry Hore but ... did you hear me. Guerrilla works when enemy does not want kill all population.
If Russia invade Norway - they would surround you, take your capitulation, send to special camps and murder into <happy now Sarmatian !!!!>nearby forests. All of you - men, women and children. After this guerrilla war will be perfomed by .... elks.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-11-2008, 20:05
No, see that's the point. Having a military won't do even a tiny bit of difference to the outcome. The best we can do, is a guerrilla war.
Like Fragony said, if a country is so naive as to believe that it doesn't need a military, one day it will pay. You cannot predict the future, so it is always best to be prepared.
Sarmatian
09-11-2008, 20:16
and murder nearby forests.
Greenpeace is already forming special guerrilla forces to deal with those forest-murdering Russians... They are not just a threat to the population but native flora as well.
HoreTore
09-12-2008, 01:43
Sorry Hore but ... did you hear me. Guerrilla works when enemy does not want kill all population.
If Russia invade Norway - they would surround you, take your capitulation, send to special camps and murder into <happy now Sarmatian !!!!>nearby forests. All of you - men, women and children. After this guerrilla war will be perfomed by .... elks.
There is no other option, Krook, that's the point.
Not that I'm accepting your claim that the russkies will murder 4,8 million people though... I hear the Georgians are still alive ~;)
Like Fragony said, if a country is so naive as to believe that it doesn't need a military, one day it will pay. You cannot predict the future, so it is always best to be prepared.
Gah! Seriously, am I talking to a brick wall here, or what?
I'm not saying we don't need an army because we won't get invaded. I'm saying we don't need an army because it won't matter.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 02:34
I'm not saying we don't need an army because we won't get invaded. I'm saying we don't need an army because it won't matter.
It always matters. You always have a chance. And you don't know who will attack. For all you know, in fifty years the Finns or Swedes could be knocking at the door of Oslo. Unlikely, yes, but it could happen. Be prepared.
It always matters. You always have a chance. And you don't know who will attack. For all you know, in fifty years the Finns or Swedes could be knocking at the door of Oslo. Unlikely, yes, but it could happen. Be prepared.
Shut up! :idea2:
T
I'm not saying we don't need an army because we won't get invaded. I'm saying we don't need an army because it won't matter.
You need an army so invading wouldn't be worth the trouble.
edited in the name of niceness. :)
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 09:56
You need an army so invading wouldn't be worth the trouble.
What you mean like Poland or France in 39/40 , or Norway perhaps , maybe Holland and Belgium too ?
What about S. Vietnam , they had an army didn't they , just like Iraq did as did Georgia ?
So what you really must mean Frag is that you need an army that is so big and so powerful , permanantly at the ready at great expense with all the latest gadgets and constanty upgraded defences that invading wouldn't be worth the trouble .
Or as Hore correctly says ..... bugger that for a laugh why not spend the money on better things , or maybe as Swedishfish so eloquently put it .
So what you really must mean Frag is that you need an army that is so big and so powerful , permanantly at the ready at great expense with all the latest gadgets and constanty upgraded defences that invading wouldn't be worth the trouble .
Yep, that's basicly what I am saying.
HoreTore
09-12-2008, 11:57
why not spend the money on better things
:2thumbsup:
Things like :inquisitive:
Vladimir
09-12-2008, 12:33
Things like :inquisitive:
Buying votes, silly.
Oh wait, I meant to say: Shut up!
That's the new standard for excellence here. :yes:
I'm pretty sure SwedishFish's "Shut up!" was more a "Shut up, you're giving away the secret Swedish plan to get Norway to disband its armed forces leaving it helpless in the face of the planned Swedish invasion", rather than a "Shut up, your post was stupid".
Am I the only one who got it? Well, I :laugh4:ed anyway.
That's the new standard for excellence here. :yes:
Appeared to be joke I dunno
edit beaten to it why do they do that?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-12-2008, 13:08
I'm pretty sure SwedishFish's "Shut up!" was more a "Shut up, you're giving away the secret Swedish plan to get Norway to disband its armed forces leaving it helpless in the face of the planned Swedish invasion", rather than a "Shut up, your post was stupid".
Am I the only one who got it? Well, I :laugh4:ed anyway.
I took it that way as well. :bow:
Louis VI the Fat
09-12-2008, 13:18
I'm pretty sure SwedishFish's "Shut up!" was more a "Shut up, you're giving away the secret Swedish plan to get Norway to disband its armed forces leaving it helpless in the face of the planned Swedish invasion", rather than a "Shut up, your post was stupid".
Am I the only one who got it? Well, I :laugh4:ed anyway.To quote Swedishfish: Shhh, quiet...:quiet:
I've fallen for the trap too: the written word is more direct, sounds harsher than the spoken word. The quick joke, some random nonsense, is easily mistaken for an aggressive verbal slur. It just happens. Between the writer and reader something is lost in translation.
Not that I'm accepting your claim that the russkies will murder 4,8 million people though... I hear the Georgians are still alive
Ohh yes and you check Czeczenia. 50% of civizents "disappeared". And they are officially citizens of Russia...
Tribesman
09-12-2008, 15:48
Ohh yes and you check Czeczenia. 50% of civizents "disappeared". And they are officially citizens of Russia...
~:rolleyes:
I've fallen for the trap too: the written word is more direct, sounds harsher than the spoken word. The quick joke, some random nonsense, is easily mistaken for an aggressive verbal slur. It just happens. Between the writer and reader something is lost in translation.
Really makes you wonder why people keep reading books, doesn't it?
Sarmatian
09-12-2008, 16:58
Really makes you wonder why people keep reading books, doesn't it?
That's why I only watch movies. All education one needs. Without them, I wouldn't know that Superman is a wuss when exposed to kryptonite....
Things like :inquisitive:
Giving them back to the tax payers. :beam:
Meneldil
09-13-2008, 00:01
Sorry Hore but ... did you hear me. Guerrilla works when enemy does not want kill all population.
If Russia invade Norway - they would surround you, take your capitulation, send to special camps and murder into <happy now Sarmatian !!!!>nearby forests. All of you - men, women and children. After this guerrilla war will be perfomed by .... elks.
These russians are really evil :-o
Here I was thinking my former russian girldfriend was an human being just like me, while in fact she's nothing but a baby eating monster. Crazy stuff.
Sarmatian
09-13-2008, 00:34
These russians are really evil :-o
Here I was thinking my former russian girldfriend was an human being just like me, while in fact she's nothing but a baby eating monster. Crazy stuff.
That's why she's former right? You've seen her try to eat a baby after she murdered a forest?
Louis VI the Fat
09-13-2008, 00:36
Crazy stuff.Œuf Corse it is. Forget about the beauffoon. (Y'all work that one out - need two languanges for that)
This thread should've been fun. Vladimir opened with a delicious find to start some friendly banter. Several posters tried a serious discussion too. Then it went quickly downhill. Gah, I can read YouTube commentary for that level of discussion, with the added bonus of a video playing on top of the screen.
I'm pretty sure SwedishFish's "Shut up!" was more a "Shut up, you're giving away the secret Swedish plan to get Norway to disband its armed forces leaving it helpless in the face of the planned Swedish invasion", rather than a "Shut up, your post was stupid".
Ummmm....uhhhhh....yeah.....it was the latter? Yeah.....the latter......
Sarmatian
09-13-2008, 02:22
Œuf Corse it is. Forget about the beauffoon. (Y'all work that one out - need two languanges for that)
This thread should've been fun. Vladimir opened with a delicious find to start some friendly banter. Several posters tried a serious discussion too. Then it went quickly downhill. Gah, I can read YouTube commentary for that level of discussion, with the added bonus of a video playing on top of the screen.
Apart from Brenus' insight that French army is indeed in need of a reorganisation, I don't think there's much more to say. And krook sometimes begs for it. But, I have indeed made some stupid and unnecessary remarks, if you meant me. Sorry about that.
Meneldil
09-13-2008, 07:21
No prob Sarmatian. Just make sure that there's no baby eating russian monster under your bed.
Banquo's Ghost
09-13-2008, 08:35
Thank you Louis, for a final flourish of style. :bow:
I believe this thread has run its course.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.