The Complete Military History of France

[*DAMN Hazard]

Yes, that is a key part....

[bronto]

Bronto, I happen to find it ignorant to believe that the world is this happy placve where violence does not exist, and that if we just ignore it, it will go away.  Europe has become a place of calm for the most part, which seems to cloud the minds of some of its citizens into thinking that the whole world must act this way or something is wrong.  
     I would have thought that being British you would have remembered your history better.  50 years ago you let a madman run lose with nothing more than a signed document saying that he would be nice.  I'm not saying that Sadaam is Hitler or that his country had anything near the military might of 1940's Germany, but in this era, where a single weapon can kill millions, how can we afford to let someone like Sadaam run lose?  
      He laughed at the UN for the last decade and nobody had the balls to stand up to even his meager army.  Unfortunately, there are still people in this world that only respond to force.  And many times a man like that comes to power, and therefore that whole country will only respond to force.  The only way for evil to win in this world, is for good men to do nothing.  (I have forgotten the original authour of that quote. If someone could remind me I would appreciate it)

1. if you had read my posts you would have noticed that i am in living in america and am experiencing what you experience with the war, so you can dismiss that whole 'Europeans having cloudy minds' bs because it doesnt apply to me.
2. you can dismiss it also because its false, europeans have had just enough terror added up to get a real sense of what its like, while america had remained unshaken. you just have your history a little foggy because all you see and hear is american media, its ok. besides, me being from britain i should know about the IRA launching deadly attacks in britain and northern ireland countless times.
3. dismiss the whole part where you try and teach me a lesson in british history because my ethnicity doesn't have much to do with the core argument here: that mocking france is ignorant.
4. remove the sadaam running loose business because you still have no proof he had weapons, there were other, more peaceful options that could have been taken, before war, and lastly you still havent caught the bastard yet, so don't say "how can we afford.." when you still are affording to let him run loose. get him and the bombs before you lodge that argument.
5. if sadaams meager army did indeed have these weapons of mass destruction, it would seem like attacking them might instigate some kind of nuclear war? scratch that part of your argument, because it's not going to change anyones view on the US deciding to "step up" to iraq.

i would go on but you don't have much for me tear apart at the moment. i'll go see what else these people posted.

[bronto]

I think the French and the Brits are just much better at covering things up then we Americans are.

well they must be doing a damn good job, if even you've never heard anything about it bucc.

[cO.Kuza]

It really is true, Americans do view other countries as 3rd world compared to our "great society". I cannot belive all the French bashing that goes on. It is totaly uncalled for and If you've never even been to the country your talking shit about keep your mouth shut. France is much cleaner than most parts of the US and although not all french people are little angels neither are most americans.


The typical US view of other countries is that if you don't support us your the emeny which is in total disregard to the 1st amendment. i.e. frances involvement in the Iraq war, They are hated upon merley because they disagreed with the views of bush( I would have to agree with them).
I am just putting my oppinion out about this topic, and I think people should have somthing better to do than to just bash other countries because you feel that they are infirior to you.


Peace,
|GM|Kuza:.

[*DAMN Hazard]

First off by saying "I didn't see you mentioning Napoleon was from Corsica" just meant that I overlooked it.

There is a HUGE difference between an Iraqi coalition and a European coalition.

[*DAMN Hazard]

So your saying that, the war you described had more utilization of military resources and tactics?? Your saying those countries compared militarily to the countries France was against?

I wasn't belittling their accomplishments I was saying on the larger scale they don't compare to the European forces such as England and Austria. I doubt the soldiers and weaponry would match up.

Don't put words into my mouth and don't distort history for me. And what of my beliefs? The only beliefs I have is that you are attacking the French in an unfair way.

I support the war in Iraq mainly because I have a great respect for soldiers. Am I mad at the French? Ya, I don't like them but the way you put a spin on them is wrong. You basically shit on soldiers who sacrificed their lives in WWI and WWII to protect their families because after they died for it we fucked their widows.  That's why I'm so against this post, that's why you are narrow-minded.

Hazard

[cO.Kuza]

I think this topic is null and void and serves no perpose to anyone

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I don't really see the accent. Maybe you americans don't words with more than 2 syllables.

That's like me saying that all Canadians have trouble with simple division and conversion because of you Myst.  Thanks for stereotyping.

the crimean war, peters invasion of sweden, they secumbed to the mongol hoard for over two hundred years....


are you saying bucc, that they shouldnt have revolted?

I'm saying that your facts were mixed up over who "fired the shot heard round the world".  That it was the American Revolution that kicked that off, before the French Revolution.

I'm also saying that they did make a mess of their revolution.  Their society was in shambles afterwards.  And that like Germany after WWI, they were ripe for the picking of a martinet with delusions of ruling the world.

well they must be doing a damn good job, if even you've never heard anything about it bucc.

Did I say I hadn't?  I said better, not perfect.  Let's talk about arm sales to Iraq, shall we?  Suez Canal?  The french soldiers killed in Africa last month?  Algiers?  The Rainbow Warrior bombing? Pacific Nuke testing? The assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood?

I'm just saying that if America could cover up that well, we'd still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

[Cossack]

First off, Ghost Sniper didnt type that Ace linked it to me a long time ago (it kinda sounded like some of you thought he typed it)

Second America has only had one military defeat and a stalemate in its short history. Its a bit unfair to compare America's record to say a country like my motherland who has been around as an organized state for 1200 years.

Third, I want to clear up some inaccuracies about my country that were stated in this thread. Peter never invaded Sweden, infact we won that war against Sweden. At the start of it we were being defeated by them. The battle of Narva was really an embarassment in our history, but we defeated them in Poltava and seized Finland, Reval (Tallinn), Livonia, and Lithuania from them. True Peter did suffer a defeat on the Swedish homeland. He still won the war. America was defeated in Kasserine Pass, but they went on to be a victor in World War II.

 I also want to agknowledge to win a war is who accomplishes the objectves.
 For instance, the French won the Hundred Years War because they accomplished the given objectives. They secured British Aquitane and Toulouse. The Dauphain kept his claim to the throne, not the English King. Over all the British were left with Calais and failed to get the throne.

The French do deserve a bit more credit than they are given. True they dont have the biggest baddest army. Keep in mind, the French Foreign Legion was a very skilled unit throughout time. You also cant really blame the Gauls for being defeated by the Romans, I mean who wasnt defeated by the Romans they are the most badass civilization to walk this Earth.

Oh and I'll admit to you that we lost in Afghanistan as long as you people dont pull the "America didnt loose VietNam we withdrew" excuse.

Fourth. America's Military is over rated especially its history. For instance the Soviet Union could have taken Germany all by herself, but America couldnt. This isnt due to America being incompetant. By no means no. Its due to America's geographic location to Germany. Russia could have just sent tank after tank across the steepes. America would have had to ship all its supplies with no stopovers (unlike the Pacific).

Not to mention America's so called way of projecting power through aircraft carriers is inefficent. China and Russia would be able to blow most if not all aircraft carriers up. The so called infamous Sunburn missile would be able to swoop down 9 meters above sea level and blow one of those hunk of junks up. The legendary Phalanx is placed to high to take them out. Type Sunburn missile in google and find out about them. I swear I am not full of ultra pan-slavic shit.

Fifth I want to second the fact that it is not a military history of a country that states a nations use to civilization. France isnt glorious militarily but has produced some of the finest thinkers and artists in this world. Mollier and Voltaire along with the rest of the philisophes were some of the most influencial people in the world. They helped to set off the spark that lead to the American Revolution. They started to question the "devine right to rule" during the Age of Absolutionism. I dont think I need to mention the impressionism and all the other artistic acheivments the French have made. In short, France is an asset to the culture of mankind that should not be overlooked by anyone because they do not invest their energy into arms.

Sixth. Dien Bein Flu <- Thats halarious.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Fourth. America's Military is over rated especially its history. For instance the Soviet Union could have taken Germany all by herself, but America couldnt. This isnt due to America being incompetant. By no means no. Its due to America's geographic location to Germany. Russia could have just sent tank after tank across the steepes. America would have had to ship all its supplies with no stopovers (unlike the Pacific).

Only two problems Sack.

First, you forget to mention that Russia wouldn't go to war, support America with Japan.  So America was fighting on two fronts, Russia on one.

Second, I wouldn't agree that Russia could have taken Germany by itself.  We'll never know that one for sure, because they didn't have to.

Oh, and as for the Sunburn, it's not the threat that you make it out to be.  It's fired by ships, not planes, right?  Land and ship based cruise missile is how it's labeled in everything I've read.  And it has a range of 65miles.  Well, that means that the ship that fires it will have to get well within the defense radius of a carrier group to get the shot off.  

The missile itself is fast, low, and unstoppable once in the air, I'll give you that, but they have to get close enough to actually launch it first.

Don't forget, you also have to find an aircraft carrier, and they are hard to sneak up on.  Can't say the same for most land bases.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Fourth. America's Military is over rated especially its history. For instance the Soviet Union could have taken Germany all by herself, but America couldnt. This isnt due to America being incompetant. By no means no. Its due to America's geographic location to Germany. Russia could have just sent tank after tank across the steepes. America would have had to ship all its supplies with no stopovers (unlike the Pacific).

Not to mention America's so called way of projecting power through aircraft carriers is inefficent. China and Russia would be able to blow most if not all aircraft carriers up. The so called infamous Sunburn missile would be able to swoop down 9 meters above sea level and blow one of those hunk of junks up. The legendary Phalanx is placed to high to take them out. Type Sunburn missile in google and find out about them. I swear I am not full of ultra pan-slavic shit.

Oh Christ...you had to bring me into this with discussion of wars and military equipment.

A) The Soviet Union did not have the means or capability to taking out Germany without a unified Western front and resupply from the West (mainly the United States). If not for Hitler's unwise decisions (even with a Western front opened up) to go North and chase the Red Army instead of leveling Moscow, the Soviet's would have been defeated and unified resistance agains the Nazi invaders would have crumbled. Even after he went up North and chased the Red Army, he still had a chance to crush the Soviet's but he decided to force his generals (who disagreed with Hitler) to attack in the notorious Russian winter instead of fortifying and pounding targets with the Luftwaffe.

B) As for the supposed ineffectiveness of American aircraft carriers...I must respectfully disagree. The Sunburn missile you just mentioned is an effective weapon if the destroyer/pt boat is even capable of firing it. If my memory serves me, it has approx a 250km range, meaning that the Russian ship would have to get that close to get a chance at hitting an Aircraft Carrier. It is true that this missile is 9 meters above sea level (when approaching target area - cruising alt of 20 meters), but you quickly forget that a Carrier is escorted by 10-15 ships, and probably 15-20 ships in times of war. A Phalanx on a frigate or cruiser could knock it down before it had a chance of getting close to the Carrier (if it somehow was able to be fired).

But for an enemy ship to get that close to a Carrier Battle Group is highly unlikely seeing that the strike aircraft on the carrier could deploy and sink the ship before it had a chance to close into an appropriate range (again we assume that the Russian North Fleet is in proper repairs which it is not). Not only would the aircraft be capable of sinking this ship, but also the missiles fired from surface ships or advance submarines would also be able to sink the ship in advance.

Now on to the Chinese being able to sink and aircraft carrier...

The Chinese couldn't do it unless they had a suicide wish because we could simply park several Carrier battle groups about 800 miles off shore and pound the living hell out of all of their air bases with thousands of tomahawk cruise missiles. The only way their air force could touch us is if they all scrambled at once and had no intention of coming back because they do not have the fuel efficiency to carry out a strike and make it back to their home base.

While you think you might know about possibly destroying a Carrier Battle Group, you neglect to think of the tactics that go along with it. An attempt to take one out would be met with a stiff resistance followed by an asswhooping that the attacker would soon regret.

[Jeb]

So here is my stereotype of french people, before this spirals into a bush sucks thread...


Btw, i don't think france has billions invested in korea, mb they will help there.
-jewb
ps. go team

[seth]

You might be interested by a french's opinion on this thread.

Honestly, I could not care less about what people like GhostSniper think about any other country, or anything at all.

[Cossack]

Sunburns can be fired by airplanes, they can be outfitted on SU-27 Flanker attack aircraft. What I am trying to get across as a point is that carriers are good for small piss ant countries like Iraq Iran yadda yadda yadda. I am trying to outline the danger the American military has made by making much of their military might centered on one ship. I am trying to underline the ineffectiveness of having all your power invested in one ship. Also it is very easy to get close to an American Aircraft Carrier. It happens all the time. Russia is very good at pully pranks. There have been a few instances where russian subs collided with air craft carriers. There have been fly-bys over them by other nation's aircraft.

The point is, that your military is too centralized around this machine. So much material and human resources are cramped together under one roof.

Here is an article on the aircraft version http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

First off, I have to seriously doubt that a Russian submarine would have rammed a carrier or that any foreign plane would give it a flyby. If a submarine rammed a carrier, it would be damaged to the point where it would have sunk...not only that, it would have been considered an act of war. As for flyby's, it would never happen unless they were given permission or the command had previous knowledge because the approach of a non-friendly aircraft would trigger the automatic self defenses and a Phalanx gun or Sea Sparrow missile would blow it out of the sky. WHat I am talking about is only during times of peace....during a wartime situation with another country that had even the remotest capacbility of hitting a Carrier, CAP's would be stepped up and there would be multiple E2C Hawkeye surveilance craft to monitor the area around a Carrier Battle group. You make it seem like it is easy to get in close to a Carrier battle group and it really isn't.

The purpose of the aircraft carrier is to provide a mobile airfield and a command and control structure in times of war. America's main strategy in any war is to gain air superiority (tomahawk the hell out of enemy airfields and launch strike aircraft to rule the skies) and the aircraft carrier is the ideal method of delivering this if no land bases are within range of other strike aircraft. An aircraft carrier battle group is also bar none king of the ocean because nothing an enemy force could muster could mange to sink one of these, much less the 7-8 we would utilize in case of war with another country. Point being, the Aircraft Carrier is the ideal method of projecting American military superiority around the world. It is the symbol of dominance that keeps potential foes at bay realizing that we could have a Carrier anywhere in teh world within a 24 hour time period.

Also, dont think so highly of your homeland's military. They are so underfunded and lacking that they cannot maintain their fleet as it is - surface, submarine, air, or land. They have resorted to selling off technologies and older equipment to countries like China just to maintain basic self defense needs.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Ghost you said that the italians only beat 2 other countries in war.. that not compleatly true... remeber the Roman Empire..... Romans were italian.. just b4 the country on Italy was formed as it is today on the maps.
sry had to stand up for my ancestors.. me being an Italian american (my grandmother migrated to the USA from Italy)

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hey Sack, read that article.  It's a carrier airplane that they slung the mini missile to.  

Also, that plane still needs to get within the 65 mile range of the missile.

And I don't think you are giving carrier battle groups enough credit.  It's not like we have just one or two carriers.  And a carrier doesn't sail alone.  

As for your pranks, you must remember there are different rules about war time and peace time.  

And since when are aircraft carriers our only weapon?  I mean, ok, the Battle Ships are now gone (but can come back if needed, some still exist).  But you are still only talking about one branch of the military.  The air force doesn't fly off carriers, and neither does the army.  Hell, the B2's even leave on missions from inside the US, they aren't even deployed out in the forward areas.

One more point.  Many people felt the same way about Soviet tanks, being better then American tanks, and in such great numbers.  This was a big worry about the cold war.  But history showed what a few good Apache gun-ships and good tactics can do to Russian tanks (and damn Iraq had a bunch of them to use as targets back then). And it's not like the Apache is even state of the art (those honors would go to the Comanche).  

That point being: it ain't all in the weapon, it's also in how you use it.  

The thing about aircraft carriers, and why we rely on them so often is most of the population on the planet lives near a coast.  Most of the countries on the planet have a coast.  This means that we don't need to get permission to fly over say Iran or Turkey to get at them.  We just come at them from the water.  That is a much bigger deal then most people think.  

[th.Sentinel]

Ghost, this is the most stupid post I?ve ever seen from you! Actually it makes sick, laughing with another country?s war history, its like laughing with all the ppl who died during the war, who gave their life to save their country and their families.

Oh but it feels great, acting like you?re the hero, you served in the military... its not like you?ve been there, its not like you always live in fear day after day...

Well ghost, there are ppl who live in fear day after day, and those ppl happen to live in some countrys in Europe. Well maybe you should laugh with them. Because you live in a big nice house in America...

Maybe you could consider some facts here:
- History is history, and France has a longer history then the US
- If one French one day says the US governement are all assholes, then all french ppl say it, maybe whole Europe says it, so it seems to you!
- Another fact, how the hell can you compare a country as France with the US? Look at the size of France... Oh the US has a bigger army... well duh! You also have more ppl living over there.

You don?t know shit about the French ppl, so don?t judge them. And stop your stupid racist posts against French ppl and other europeans!

Oh I could mention lots of stuff where the US fucked up:
like why couldn?t they prevent 11 september?
where is Saddam? umm, where is Bin Laden?
who made the most stupid mistake of dropping 2 atomic bombs?
what happens when there is a power malfunction? Oh an entire state looses their power!
Oh, and I don?t see ppl getting shot in the middle of the street in France.

Don?t pretend the US is such a great state, France isn?t either, but at least we?re not making this kind of stupid racist posts.

By this I withdraw from |GM| because I can?t be part of a clan where a member is acting like Hitler was a racist when he?s makin the same mistakes.
And all of this on a fuckin GAME FORUM!!!!

bye!

ps: Libert?, fraternit? et ?galit?, c'est quelque chose que tu ne vas jamais comprendre! (je suis pas fran?ais, je suis belge, je parle n?erlandais, mais j'ai des collegues qui sont fran?ais)

pps: GELIJKHEID! SNAPT GE'T GELIJKHEID! Waarshijnlijk niet, want voor u zijn al andere landen ondergeschikt, gij voelt u zo machtig, maar integenstelling bij het minste is er een nationaal drama!

[BFG]

Sentinel If I could clap my hands loud enough for you to hear me i would. Nice to see someone with a) their head screwed on and b) just with some decency.

Big thumbs up Sentinel

[onwig]

ghost mate..... read sentinals post on here..... he's not a happy bunny... once youve done reading that.... go onto our private forum.... theres things to be discussed.....

cya later