French army falling apart, documents show

**Fragony** · 09-08-2008, 19:15

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

**Husar** · 09-09-2008, 00:32

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?

**KrooK** · 09-09-2008, 00:53

"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.

**Brenus** · 09-09-2008, 08:09

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.

“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?

“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.

**KrooK** · 09-09-2008, 11:25

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 :)

**Brenus** · 09-09-2008, 13:22

“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

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

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.”

**Fragony** · 09-09-2008, 14:55

Dutch army is combination of both, heavy artillery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1u...eature=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.

**KrooK** · 09-09-2008, 18:35

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.