French army falling apart, documents show

[Vladimir]

A little friendly ribbing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ents-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.

[JR-]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

United States $387,000
United Kingdom $367,000
France $204,000
Germany $122,000
Italy $97,000
Russia $80000

Meh. 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!

[Gregoshi]

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]

Sounds like they all do if their vehicles are in that bad of shape.

nyuk nyuk!

[Martok]

Sounds like they all do if their vehicles are in that bad of shape.

Good one, Greg.

[Fragony]

Hi Vladimir, where have you been missed ya

[Fragony]

doublepost huh

[Vladimir]

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.

[Brenus]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Edit: On second thought, let's leave it at a flower:

~~~~~~~~~~~

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. (Why can't a find a decent English link? )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[JR-]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

much as i said above in my first post. :)

Huh? I read your post, even replied to it.

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.

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?