PDA

View Full Version : How many french soldiers does it take to


EmbassyMarine
January 29, 2003, 18:04
How many french soldiers does it take to defend Paris.?
No one knows.....they have never tried...!!:biggrin:

Falunga
January 29, 2003, 18:12
That's not fair! It is much more accurate to just say that they have never succeeded.

Jim - FALunga

FALout
January 29, 2003, 18:15
The world may never know!

Shankton
January 29, 2003, 19:44
I hear that the reason the French are against a war with Iraq is that it in the event of a war it is unclear to them who they should surrender to.

FAL_FREAK
January 29, 2003, 19:54
The French have soldiers? :tongue:

John Culver
January 29, 2003, 21:52
yup an they're all pulling out of Ivory coast now..guess they are worried about losing to the rebels

leftent
January 29, 2003, 22:26
Sorry Marine...Bad Joke.
WW1 French Army Casualties:
1.3 million Men KIA.
6.1 million Men Total Casualties.
73.8% of Men who served became casualties.
The Germans did not reach Paris.

No wonder they lost their appetite for war.

Leftent:fal:

EmbassyMarine
January 30, 2003, 00:49
The only reason they did not reach paris is cause of American DoughBoys...

leftent
January 30, 2003, 01:38
I've heard that one before.
The US arrived after the other protagonists had been bleeding each other dry for 3 years. A bit late don't you think?
BTW: U.S. casualties as a percentage of men who served 8%
French Casualties as a percentage of men who served 73.8%

Not that I particularly care for the French, I just think that they are getting a bad rap here. There are still no better troops in Equatorial Africa than the French....even if they didn't use the FAL.

Leftent:fal:

panchop
January 30, 2003, 01:50
Country
Military casualties
Civilian casualties
British Empire and Commonwealth
452.000
60.000
France
250.000
360.000
USA
295.000
---
Soviet Union
13.600.000
7.700.000
Belgium
10.000
90.000
Holland
10.000
190.000
Norway
10.000
n/a
Poland
120.000
5.300.000
Greece
20.000
80.000
Yugoslavia
300.000
1.300.000
Checoslovaquia
20.000
330.000
China
3.500.000
10.000.000



_

erthmun
January 30, 2003, 05:41
"The US arrived after the other protagonists had been bleeding each other
dry for 3 years. A bit late don't you think?
BTW: U.S. casualties as a percentage of men who served 8%
French Casualties as a percentage of men who served 73.8%"

Just curious, but would it be fair to say that the US suffered fewer casualties because they were better trained ?????:?

erthy

vmtz
January 30, 2003, 07:22
Originally posted by EmbassyMarine
The only reason they did not reach paris is cause of American DoughBoys...

Uhhh, sort of. What you are forgetting is that they stopped the 1914 drive to Paris and held the line for a few more years.

Just curious, but would it be fair to say that the US suffered fewer casualties because they were better trained ?????

erthmun,

Yes and no. We were able to break out of the trenchs and fight on open ground. Lucky for us we did not have leaders like Haig (SP?), who squandered their men.

Vince

EmbassyMarine
January 30, 2003, 08:02
Common quote around Europe is/was...
Give a German a rifle and he will march on Paris.
Give a Frenchman a rifle and he will hock it an buy wine.
:devil:

Blood of Tyrants
January 30, 2003, 10:31
Originally posted by erthmun
Just curious, but would it be fair to say that the US suffered fewer casualties because they were better trained ?????:?

erthy

The French were there MUCH longer than the U.S., therefore they had a greater chance of being injured or killed.

leftent
January 30, 2003, 10:49
Unfortunately General Pershing did not pay attention to the lessons that his allies learned at great cost and American casualties were much higher than they should have been. (Approximately the same as the Canadians or Australians suffered in 4 years of almost constant combat)
Don't get me wrong, American involvement played a great part in ending the war. In particular the Germans feared American Economic might. American industry was able to supply almost unlimited amounts of war materiel at a time when the German troops, (and people) were surviving on turnips, and making boots out of cardboard.
The Allied leaders had anticipated the war ending in 1919 with the Germans exhausted, this without American involvement.
The American involvement helped the war to end a year earlier

Leftent
:fal:

Groucho
January 30, 2003, 12:52
Just to wade in here, folks. The Americans were somewhat better led than our French allies. We realized quite soon that a static war of attrition was not the way to fight. Patton learned that early and used it in the next war.
Also, the French Infantry had been so badly used by the French generals, that they were close to mutiny on at least one occasion. The French generals clung to the idea of the "brave and glorious" mass charge. Of course, the machine gun (Maxim) made that obsolete and the French generals never caught on. The common infantryman did, but not the generals.

Also, by the last 6-months of the war there was a new killer on the battle field. That was the Spanish Flu. IIRC, half of our losses were due to the flu. Also, if you'll look on a census table for 1918, that's the only year this country (the U.S.) lost population in the 20th century. Our doughboys brought the flu home with them and it was a terrible time.

Regards,
Tom

bykerhd
January 30, 2003, 13:28
The French and British forces were very poorly led. Their generals were still bogged down with 19th(or 18th) century tactics and thinking. They seemed to have failed to notice that changes in technology had made most of the "classic" battle plans obsolete. They also didn't learn anything useful from the American Civil War, Franco-Prussian Wars or the Boer War. I think it probably took a shortage of horsemen before the British stopped sending cavalry against machineguns. The French and British both seemed to settle on trying to crush the enemy with often suicidal mass charges directly against enemy positions as the correct strategy. No wonder French troops were ready to mutiny. Makes you wonder why the Brits weren't considering it also. U.S casualties would likely have been much worse if they had been piecemealed out to allied forces as replacements as the French and British had called for.

EMDII
January 30, 2003, 17:47
Originally posted by erthmun
[BJust curious, but would it be fair to say that the US suffered fewer casualties because they were better trained ?????:?

erthy [/B]

No.

The US participated actively in the trenches for around one year. The Allies and Germans had been at it for 4 years. They fought Napoleonic battles for the first two, including Paschendale and The Somme. During the Battle of the Somme (IIRC), nearly 1.6 MILLION Men died on all sides.

The French do not lack courage as soldiers, any more than USGI does. What they lack is moral fortitude in their polity. See Indochina and Algeria as examples. A problem we've NEVER had in America.
:rolleyes:

PS- my Dad was born in 1917. He caught the Flu from Granddad, who bought it home from Europe. Both survived :wink: but it was a major killer of US forces.

leftent
January 30, 2003, 19:51
Apparently the flu killed more people worldwide than the war did.
Walking through our local WW1 veteran's cemetary one sees a lot of headstones dated 1919-1921. Doubtless some of these men succumbed to wounds suffered overseas, however most of them died of influenza after returning safely home. Some of the big military bases in the U.S.were perfect breeding grounds for the didease, and many men died without ever making it overseas.
The Allies, in particular the BEF had learned some lessons in the first 4 years of the war. The Canadian General, Currie and the Australian, Monash were slated to take over command of the BEF in 1919 following their superb results in earlier actions. They pioneered tactics involving the creeping barrage, counter battery fire, and individual responsibility and were very well thought of by the men under their command. As a matter of fact, when Currie was charged postwar with misappropriation of Regimental funds (he was acquitted) his men raised funds for his defence...A rare thing!

Leftent :fal:

BTW: The British sent very few Cavalrymen against machineguns. For the most part they waited behind the lines for the breakthrough that never came (until 1918), or fought in the trenches as Infantry.

Talyn
January 30, 2003, 21:40
The French are planning to surrender to the eight "New" European countries that just announced their support for us. :rofl:

kenhorse
January 30, 2003, 22:00
i was with the french in the desert, not a very impressive group. arrogent a**holes.

FOE HAMMER
January 30, 2003, 23:48
I think the French and the Germans want to hold off on war with Iraq is because Iraq has not payed them for the WMD yet.