French army falling apart, documents show

[Brenus]

“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.

“Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too”

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.

[JR-]

“[B]
“Brenus watch your words because I could say something more cruel too”

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]

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"

[Viking]

Oh, bugger! How are the French going to get their killing done now? And the rest of Europe, too?

[Brenus]

“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.

[JR-]

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]

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 .

[KrooK]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

Thank you for calling me nationalist - I'm pround. I'm pround because nationalism is thing Europe needs.

Yeah like the idiot orientated nationalism that wants to kill a soccer ref because it didn't win a game
Whatever happened to your great Polish soccer topic yesterday eh ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[KrooK]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[JR-]

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.