French Military falling apart?

www.telegraph.co.uk...

According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.

Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.

Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present.

I've read many comparisons on here regarding European military strength and lots of chest beating from the various countries... but it seems safe to say we can eliminate France from any comparisons with the best in Europe if this report is anything to go by.

mod edit: changed quote tags to external quote tags.
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 12-6-2008 by UK Wizard]

Personally i would discount France anyway.
This has reminded me of an old "joke" i made up, its not meant to offend anyone but is just a bit of observational huour.

Q) Why do you never see two Frenchmen having a fight?

A) Because they both surrender before it starts.

Again not meant to offend, just a joke.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by smokey101]

Originally posted by smokey101

Q) Why do you never see two Frenchmen having a fight?
A) Because they both surrender before it starts.

Again not meant to offend, just a joke.
[edit on 12-6-2008 by smokey101]

Not an offensive joke, just poor and wrong.

On topic. I thought that it was typical for a third of military kit to be "in maintenance".

Regards

not so much poor and wrong, it is accurate in its use of sterotypical views of the French based on my Dad who is 77 and was in the army and alive around the time of the second world war.
He quite often refers to them as cowards for allowing the Germans to occupy their country and so were you a 70-odd year old Englishman then the joke would be both funny and salient.
But it all hinges on your own personality and sense of humour.

I don't think the French "allowed" the german war machine to take their country. It wasn't exactly a choice.. and many french resistance fighters lost their brave lives for it.

reply to post by SteveR


France fell during WWII do to poor planning on their part not because they were cowards or anything like that. They were thinking WWII would be fought just like WWI they spent way too much resources on a static defensive position, known as the Maginot Line

If the fact was known the French at the out break of WWII actually had better tanks and more of them than the Germans. But the Germans had practiced tank warfare and moving tank units as one force with combined arms AKA
" The Blitzkrieg "

The better and more numerous French tanks were spread way too thin along the Maginot Line, and could not mount a proper defense. The legend of the Germans tanks came later in the war when they truly made awesome tanks!
THE END!

As far as the post goes I believe it the M-1 Abrams and the Apache both had horrible records The Military was told to fix them and they did!

Same will happen in France!


[edit on 12-6-2008 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by Lucretius


France has always relied on an international organisation otherwise known as the 'french foreign legion' to do it's dirty work, it's kinda like what the Americans do when they hire mercs to go about raising hell in places like Afganistan and the Congo, except perfectly legal.

They also employ an awful lot of people who see it as an opportunity to escape from their crimes.

The French have mastered an aspect of warfare i like to term "The 'Underdog' strategy", whereby they rely on small select groups of elite soldiers to get the job done (kinda like the SAS in a way, but not as disciplined), and because of their 'underdog' mentality, they're often more than willing to put the torch to a village or two if they seem to be harbouring the enemy.

The French don't need to worry about tanks and helicopters, they've got NATO for that.

In a way, you are correct, the french military is falling apart.

But that's only because the French political administration see no real use for it, after all they are surrounded on all sides by allies, and they'd have plenty of time to go into a state of total war if the old blood between Russia and America started to bubble up again.

Ah, the ever changing face of modern warfare...

Vive la France! Americas hero in the first war we had. When life is so good who wants to fight?

But yeah they are in the EU and they are in NATO so where is the drive to defend France? I would like to see all militaries falling apart.

I guess that brave Frenchmen must have been spread very thinly on the ground when 5 of my adoptive mother's brothers died during WWI and again during WWII when she lost another 2 brothers.

As to your view [SteveR] about brave French Resistence fighters, I can only assume you're not referring to the utter b*stard who gave up my Aunt Jean to the Gestapo in Paris in '44.

That particular 'gentleman' caused the deaths of at least 20 fellow resistence people and thankfully, he was dealt with accordingly after the war by the members of his group who survived being held in Frenzes.

Aunt Jean was liberated from Bergan-Belsen in 1945 and lived till she was 95. But not once did she ever have a bad word to say about the Germans and their collaborators.

La Legion Etranger have always done France's dirty work for her. From the arrid wastes of the African deserts to the humid, dank jungle of Viet Nam - 2 ReP has seen and done it all.

As to somebody's assertion that some Legioniers have criminal records and have joined to escape justice, that has now finished.

If you attempt to join La Legion nowadays, they do ask if you have a criminal record but, anbd it is a very big but, if you are on the run, they WILL not accept you and will 'probably' hold you until the Gendarms can hand you over to your own police.

We won't go into France's military past as it will offend the defenders of this historical country.

France seems to spend more money on socialistic projects and keeping the masses happy than their common self defense. Given their history of "let them eat cake", the politicians know what to do and where to cut money. They have an over dependence of NATO, as do several other countries, which ultimately relies on the good ol' USA to save their asses, again.

With the prices of scrap metal so high, I have an idea with some good, but never used, military hardware.

Originally posted by SteveR
I don't think the French "allowed" the german war machine to take their country. It wasn't exactly a choice.. and many french resistance fighters lost their brave lives for it.

I agree the french resistance remained active throughout the war and were instrumental in the events leading up to D-day.A very brave and noble country France is.

Quick note on the past:
Neither Americans or French have much to boast about on WW2. Combined you took down 30-40% of the Wehrmacht, while Russians did the dirty work.

As for present day French military. It's highly professional force, both Legion and Regular military are constatly deployed in Africa. Many peace keeping ops are/were relying on French airlift capability so it's natural that they have large percentage of their crafts undergoing maintenace.

How many % of Apaches or Blackhawks are currently in maintenace?

England won WWII and as a proud Englishman i stand by my original statements and so does my dad and the numerous veterans i have spoken to.

Originally posted by smokey101
England won WWII and as a proud Englishman i stand by my original statements and so does my dad and the numerous veterans i have spoken to.

Eating American food and shooting American ammo.

The Russians did have a harder time and I do have a soft spot in my heart for that Russian generation who fought in the Patriotic War (their name) while driving Ford trucks for logistics.

The Russians may, may have been able to win WW2 on their own without any second front. Hitler was a military idiot and his tactics show it. The USA and it's allies would have won also, without Russian help. It would have taken a little longer from a logistical point of view, but it would have happened.

As for the French connection, I don't want to see Pierre cry on Father's Day. Let's just leave it alone and say they have problems.

Originally posted by smokey101
Personally i would discount France anyway.
This has reminded me of an old "joke" i made up, its not meant to offend anyone but is just a bit of observational huour.

Q) Why do you never see two Frenchmen having a fight?

A) Because they both surrender before it starts.

Again not meant to offend, just a joke.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by smokey101]

Hi.

I heard the French have 3 defense conditions;

Defcon 1: Run away

Defcon 2: Surrender

Defcon 3: Collaborate

Sorry for any offense,just a bit of fun.

Originally posted by hinky
Eating American food and shooting American ammo.

Yes and we paid for every bit of support. I think we have only just paid up recently, think of all that interest you made from us, our "allies".

The Russians may, may have been able to win WW2 on their own without any second front. Hitler was a military idiot and his tactics show it.

I very much doubt that but you never know. Russia had one hell of a stroke of luck.

Britain and it's allies would have won also, without Russian help. It would have taken a little longer from a logistical point of view, but it would have happened.

Made a few changes.

Originally posted by hinky
Eating American food and shooting American ammo.

You got us on the food, but not the ammo.



Actually, i'll admit that without the massive paratrooper deployment behind enemy lines, it would have been hell for us on the beaches, regardless of the technological acheivement of amphibious tanks which was originally designed by british engineers, just like the original tanks were.

We got lucky, though - if Jerry wasn't so bothered about his eastern front then we would have faced the full force of Hitler's armies both on and behind the battle-lines.

As for the rest of you, Say what you like about the french, but remember that they were also instrumental for the intelligence service thanks to the resistance movement - without them, we wouldn't have known where the paratroopers were supposed to hit once they'd landed and 'regrouped'.

They also helped to get an awful lot of downed pilots back on friendly soil.

Tell me, should a successful resistance be counted as a military acheivement?

In defence of the French, I think these poor jokes are unfounded and discredit the vast numbers of French who have died in wars in the last century.

The French as “cowards” is a result of being rolled over by the Nazis in 1940 and certain French politicians and top-brass sold out wider France, but they did so once the French had been militarily defeated. That much is history. I did not recall the brave US standing up for democracy when Britain, the Commonwealth and France declared war on Nazi Germany in September 1939.

With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that none of the “soft” democracies were capable of standing up to Nazi Germany. Britain only survived because of the English Channel. Had the USA been located on mainland Europe they too would have been lost (at the time the US fielded a standing army substantially smaller than Nazi Germany) and there is nothing to suggest that democratic USA would have lasted more than five minutes against the Nazi battle wagon.

I am sure we can all drag up stories of collaboration and betrayal, but this should not write off an entire nation as being cowardly or denigrate the large numbers of French civilians who died in WW2 resisting Nazi rule and supporting the Allies.

The cowardly French lost c. 250,000 military deaths in WW2 – c. 100,000 in the Battle of France. They lost well over a million military dead in WW1 (they won that one).

If losing a war signifies national cowardice, then where does that leave the USA and Vietnam?

Can we stop this unhelpful national slurring. Thank you.

Originally posted by Knights

Originally posted by hinky
Eating American food and shooting American ammo.

Yes and we paid for every bit of support. I think we have only just paid up recently, think of all that interest you made from us, our "allies".

The Russians may, may have been able to win WW2 on their own without any second front. Hitler was a military idiot and his tactics show it.

I very much doubt that but you never know. Russia had one hell of a stroke of luck.

Britain and it's allies would have won also, without Russian help. It would have taken a little longer from a logistical point of view, but it would have happened.

Made a few changes.

Enjoyed the editing.

I've argued the points of WW2 over the years with veterans. Their take, and these were an American points of view, were that Russia would have stopped at the English channel. The US and Allies needed to land in Europe to stop the Ruskies. France just happened to be there.

It's a shame they fought harder at the Allied invasion of North Africa than they did for their own homeland. Some Allied causalities were incurred before they surrendered. Oh well, it's history, now.