French military performance in 20th century

...And because of the Spitfire. Even though two thirds of the German planes shut down in 1940 over England were killed by Hurricanes. Anyway, Spitfire was better, but in lesser numbers. Did you have the chance to see the documentary about Mr. Mitchell, the designer of Spitfire?

...And also because of Mr. Turing, the genius who built the computing machine able to "crush" any of the billions of billions of encodings of "Enigma".

...And also because of the British Navy, of course. Remember, in 1940 Bismark and Tirpitz were still in the shipyards.

And remember, the American aid was not for free.
The UK got big debt by paying the equipment. The debt was finished to be paid last year, or something like that. UK also gave the Virgin Islands in the Carribe Sea, for 99 years (only 35 are left! ). It also sent all the British atomists to work for the Manhattan project, and gave to the Americans the turbojet engine technology. Etc....

This post has been edited by Florin on October 30, 2004 05:28 am

In 1883, up to early 1900's, the standard equipment of the Chinese soldier, including the elite imperial guard, was the arrow and bow, and the sword or spear.

The kind of wars you are mentioning were as "glorious" as the "victories" performed today by the American Army against some remote villages in Iraq.

Let us consider serious wars... "Of course WWI", to use your words. In which case, I fully subscribe to the note written by Denes: Germany lost the war. This does not mean France won it.

Because the international public opinion learned about the fact that the French tortured in jails their Algerian prisoners. They also killed tens of thousands of Algerian civilians (some say 200,000). This put some pressure over the French government.

Sounds familiar?

The greatest days of France were under the command of an Italian.
Isn't this really sad?

The joint British and French forces had as many tanks as the Germans.
The French tank Somua was better than any other tank involved in the Western Front in the summer of 1940. And a British tank Matilda could withstand to 20 shots fired from PzIII's, and still be operational, while its shells traveled through PzIII's as through cheese.

In 1940 France alone had more airplanes and more military trucks than Germany. The most modern French and British airplanes were as good as the Messerchmidt 109.

So if they could not face Germany on land, it was because of their military incompetence.

The Arch of Triumph in Paris was built to allow to the victorious troops to march in celebration under it.

That's why only the Germans and the Americans used it.

(This is a joke, and it's not mine.)

The greatest days of France were under the command of an Italian.
Isn't this really sad?

How so ? He was as French as, say, Washington was American. But then I do not believe that he was the brightest France ever put in the arena. Charlemagne certainly dwarfed him but I can think of a couple of others too in more recent history. Anyway a great man rarely makes a great country alone. The Napoleonic era is the legacy of the social fabric of revolutionary France. If Napoleon was born in Russia he would have been sergeant at the end of a 20 years career. In France, at the same time, competence was the main criterium for rising. Loosers were rotated out quickly.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on October 30, 2004 09:41 am

Its not true ! The chinesse army from Viet-Nam was equiped with the last models of Krupp field guns and also, german, british and american rifles. Just read more books about the conquer of Indochine. Just they keep their very coloured uniforms.

More than that, chinesse fighters lost all hand to hand combats and they started to run at almost all bayonet atacks.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on November 01, 2004 04:56 am

...And because of the Spitfire. Even though two thirds of the German planes shut down in 1940 over England were killed by Hurricanes. Anyway, Spitfire was better, but in lesser numbers. Did you have the chance to see the documentary about Mr. Mitchell, the designer of Spitfire?

...And also because of Mr. Turing, the genius who built the computing machine able to "crush" any of the billions of billions of encodings of "Enigma".

...And also because of the British Navy, of course. Remember, in 1940 Bismark and Tirpitz were still in the shipyards.

And remember, the American aid was not for free.
The UK got big debt by paying the equipment. The debt was finished to be paid last year, or something like that. UK also gave the Virgin Islands in the Carribe Sea, for 99 years (only 35 are left! ). It also sent all the British atomists to work for the Manhattan project, and gave to the Americans the turbojet engine technology. Etc....

If Britain wasn't separed from the mainland by the chanel,all those things were with no importance in 1940.
Not many Spits those days.
The Enigna wasn't captured yet.
The U bouts were in their best days.
The US wasn't sending much help.
No Virgin Islands were given to the US.
The Menhattan project if he existed was in his dipers.
Yes I did saw the movie about Mitchell.The Original with Leasly Howard.

What about the others... or whole the French army was Italian?

How so ? He was as French as, say, Washington was American. But then I do not believe that he was the brightest France ever put in the arena.....

You have a point, but it was not quite an identical situation.

George Washington was born on the American continent. The same for his father, and the same for his grandfather. His grand-grandfather, John Washington, was born in Purleigh, Essex, England, in 1633. However, I accept that considering those times, and the mentality of the people, somebody in the late 1770's was feeling more as an Englishman, even though his family lived on the new continent for 4 generations.

However, Napoleon was child when his native Corsica changed hands from the Italian state of Genoa to France. It is quoted that he once said, as child: "I will make to the French as much harm I can." But of course, we are saying a lot of things as children, and then we forget the most of them. Certainly Napoleon as an adult felt very much as a French, and the way he spoiled Italy through taxes, in 1797-1799, shows that he was not too fond of it.

I would not say that Charlemagne dwarfed Napoleon. I would say that both men had equal importance in influencing history for the following generations of Europe.
Remember, Charlemagne's empire also did not survive to his death, but yes, it was the seed for the Holy German Empire, and if I remember right, he turned the Germans into Christians.

Maybe a better way to write my idea would be: The greatest military accomplishments..., in stead of: The greatest days of.... It is hard to attack your point: "I do not believe that he was the brightest France ever put in the arena". So I'll not do it.

You have a very good point in writing:
Anyway a great man rarely makes a great country alone. An acceptation of this idea would be also as a reply for the message of Johny_Bi.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 01, 2004 01:16 am

Maybe "dwarfed" is a bit too strong. However, at the end of his life, Charlemagne has succeded in reaching his ambitious goals, while Nappy could only ruminate over lost opportunities. An interesting comparison point would be to look at how they both fared in Spain. They both blundered rather unhappily into it, but while Charlemagne recognized his error and cut his losses, Napoleon stayed and sealed the coffin of his empire.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on November 01, 2004 05:18 pm

It's certainly a way to present things and there is truth in it. Several other countries equally well equipped or not have been washed off the continent at the same time. In fact I believe that in 1940, no one could stand up to the Germans in Europe. The Germans just had a critical edge in mobile warfare doctrine. Unfortunately for the French, they could not retreat 1000 miles or cross the channel while seeking a solution for the problem

Its not true ! The chinesse army from Viet-Nam was equiped with the last models of Krupp field guns and also, german, british and american rifles. Just read more books about the conquer of Indochine. Just they keep their very coloured uniforms.

More than that, chinesse fighters lost all hand to hand combats and they started to run at almost all bayonet atacks.

Do not forget the russian made rifle, and maybe some "Obuhov" field guns/howitzers.

Iama

Arisaka rifle apeared in that period, or latter? Because i found some data about russians with Arisaka, but im not sure, maybe it was from after ww1. Chinesse have some Arisaka, but, in conclusion i forgot the data.

... hmmm! Some precisation: because of their up-leaders incompetence...

Iama