French Falklands Style Intervention?

Delta Force

Banned
What would a French Falklands style intervention have looked like? For the purposes of this we'll assume it's either a conflict in the Caribbean (likely with Cuba) or a conflict over French Guiana, although a conflict with a stronger Madagascar over nearby islands would likely be closer to the Falklands experience.
 
Xgentis

Xgentis

French Guiana is considered to be fully part of France. If a foreign power try to seize it would be in a world of hurt.
 

rfmcdonald

I've had the idea that, in a scenario where Canada becomes an Argentine-style military dictatorship, it might resort to a military effort against St. Pierre et Miquelon to unify the country.
 

rfmcdonald

Delta Force said:
Isn't Reunion Island considered to be a full part of France as well?
Click to expand...

Yes. France's overseas territories, unlike Britain's, have in the post-Second World War era been fully integrated into France proper, with their territory considered as French as anyone's in the metropole and their populations being full French citizens. There is no room for ambiguity on this front, which perhaps suggests that any power trying this has to be confident in its ability to hold the territory.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm interested more in the logistics than the specific scenario through which something like this would occur.
 

Blue cat

rfmcdonald said:
I've had the idea that, in a scenario where Canada becomes an Argentine-style military dictatorship, it might resort to a military effort against St. Pierre et Miquelon to unify the country.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the extreme implausibility IMHO of this actually occurring, and IMHO the implausibility of the resulting conflict being limited to Canada and France, depending on the time frame this takes place there is some scope for some interesting sets of scenarios.

Frankly though I don't see this ever happening.
 

rfmcdonald

Blue cat said:
Leaving aside the extreme implausibility IMHO of this actually occurring, and IMHO the implausibility of the resulting conflict being limited to Canada and France, depending on the time frame this takes place there is some scope for some interesting sets of scenarios.

Frankly though I don't see this ever happening.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it's a good idea. Leaving aside the likelihood of Canada ever falling under a junta of the Argentine type, there's the question of this junta's relationship with the US. Will it allow this to happen? Will it collaborate with it? The Falklands' international legal position, meanwhile, has been consistently challenged by Argentina in ways lacking any close parallels with St. Pierre et Miquelon versus Canada. Even a junta is not likely to pick a war over fishing rights.
 
GSpectre

GSpectre

The problem with France getting into such a situation is that they have a reputation for being willing to fight at the drop of a hat. If you look at their Africa policy, it has always been unusually active for an ex-colonial power. They might no longer be the super power they were before the second world war but they are still a great power and have invested a lot of effort into keeping that status active, and the international community aware that they are willing to act in their own best interests.

That said, the question of logistics is one that is dependent on the era. Although they have kept up a solid water born logistics net in order to supply their African adventures (See the Mistral, B2M, and BATRAL class ships). They are a bit light on air to air refueling, but they also haven't forgone CATBAR carriers so projecting air power is and has been easier for them then it was for the British. Honestly they would be in a much better position to not only retake any of their possessions lost to an aggressive foreign power but then to go in and punish said power for daring to attack France.
 

Blue cat

rfmcdonald said:
I'm not saying that it's a good idea. Leaving aside the likelihood of Canada ever falling under a junta of the Argentine type, there's the question of this junta's relationship with the US. Will it allow this to happen? Will it collaborate with it? The Falklands' international legal position, meanwhile, has been consistently challenged by Argentina in ways lacking any close parallels with St. Pierre et Miquelon versus Canada. Even a junta is not likely to pick a war over fishing rights.
Click to expand...
Frankly I don't believe any remotely rational Candaian government would ever conclude that invading neighbouring territories for the purpose of annexing them would be a wise plan. IMHO Canada (as a large country with a small population) would have a lot to loose if the concept of seizing another nations territory for the purposes of anexation were to become fashionable again.
 

rfmcdonald

Blue cat said:
Frankly I don't believe any remotely rational Candaian government would ever conclude that invading neighbouring territories for the purpose of annexing them would be a wise plan. IMHO Canada (as a large country with a small population) would have a lot to loose if the concept of seizing another nations territory for the purposes of anexation were to become fashionable again.
Click to expand...

In fairness, the Argentine junta was not especially rational. Expecting to be able to get away with a land grab from the United Kingdom while counting on protection from the United States shows, among other things, a decidedly optimistic evalution of Argentina's situation.

A Canadian invasion would be reckless and foolish, there's no question of that. Given a sufficiently unhinged government, and a United States somehow disinclined to intervene (or incapable of intervening?), it might possibly happen. Might.
 

NamelesStatistic

Banned
Canada taking St. Pierre and Miquelon in 2016 would be easy; holding it from a determined French counterattack would be less so, especially with Canada's current land based airforce. The CF18s are pretty old and there are only 79 in operational use, and even then probably only a fraction of these can be deployed to airbases in striking range on the east coast. Given that the DeGaulle can theoretically carry 35 Rafalee fighters (normally it is 18 Rafales and 8 Super Étendards) I am not entirely sure that even with the bulk of the RCAF fighters deployed to the east coast air dominance over the region would be assured. Also, considering we are down to a single ancient air-defense destroyer (HMCS Athabaskan) and 12 less capable Halifax class frigates along with a collection of patrol ships and 4 90s vintage British hunter-killer subs with less than stellar service records (they like to catch fire) I am not sure the Canadian navy would be looking for any sort of confrontation with the French task force, even if the CF-18s establish air superiority. Canada wouldn't be as grossly outclassed as Argentina was against the RN (our military may be relatively paltry by Western standards but it is still light-years better trained and equipped then a third-world conscript force; which is what the Junta backed invasion force was at the time), but when you break down the specifics, the numbers are far less one-sided in favor for the Canadians then it might seem at first glance; yes they have numbers and the luxury of operating out of their home-bases, but the risk of the French fleet inflicting some pretty humiliating losses to Canadian air and sea assets, in Canadian waters at that, is a real possibility.

Totally ASB from a political standpoint, but interesting to talk about. Makes me think of something like an AH version of the "Turbot War" that would have pitted Canada against Spain in 1995 (back when Canada's pretty much identical to 2015 air and sea asset were 20 years younger and still seen as close to 1st rate platforms).
 
Last edited:

Riain

I won't avoid the question by focusing on the scenario.
If the French faced a Falklands style scenario in the early 80s of an out of area operation at the end of an extremely long logistic chain and no forward bases they could bring to bear:
Carrier battle Group with Clem and Foch, maybe 2 sqn of Crusade and 4 sqn of super etenard, escorted by 2 ships with Masurca SAMs and up to 4 with terrier/standard SAM
Amphibious group of Jean D'Arc with 6 or so Super Frelon and 700 troops, 2 LSD and 5 smallish LST
1 and maybe 2 SSN plus some SSK and a raft of reasonable escort frigates

Apart from the 2 carriers and J D'A they were considerably worse off than the British in every respect: they had less Area SAM ships, smaller and weaker amphibious group, less subs and escorts and nothing like the British long range air capability with Vulcans, Nimrods and Hercules.
 

Blue cat

NamelesStatistic said:
Canada taking St. Pierre and Miquelon in 2016 would be easy; holding it from a determined French counterattack would be less so, especially with Canada's current land based airforce. The CF18s are pretty old and there are only 79 in operational use, and even then probably only a fraction of these can be deployed to airbases in striking range on the east coast. Given that the DeGaulle can theoretically carry 35 Rafalee fighters (normally it is 18 Rafales and 8 Super Étendards) I am not entirely sure that even with the bulk of the RCAF fighters deployed to the east coast air dominance over the region would be assured. Also, considering we are down to a single ancient air-defense destroyer (HMCS Athabaskan) and 12 less capable Halifax class frigates along with a collection of patrol ships and 4 90s vintage British hunter-killer subs with less than stellar service records (they like to catch fire) I am not sure the Canadian navy would be looking for any sort of confrontation with the French task force, even if the CF-18s establish air superiority. Canada wouldn't be as grossly outclassed as Argentina was against the RN (our military may be relatively paltry by Western standards but it is still light-years better trained and equipped then a third-world conscript force; which is what the Junta backed invasion force was at the time), but when you break down the specifics, the numbers are far less one-sided in favor for the Canadians then it might seem at first glance; yes they have numbers and the luxury of operating out of their home-bases, but the risk of the French fleet inflicting some pretty humiliating losses to Canadian air and sea assets, in Canadian waters at that, is a real possibility.

Totally ASB from a political standpoint, but interesting to talk about. Makes me think of something like an AH version of the "Turbot War" that would have pitted Canada against Spain in 1995 (back when Canada's pretty much identical to 2015 air and sea asset were 20 years younger and still seen as close to 1st rate platforms).
Click to expand...


In the 90's things might have been more interesting and the Canadians chances might have been better...

More CF18's in service (albiet with out the upgrades the current fleet has), possibly CF5's still in service etc... Would need to check when all the DDH280 destroyers received their refits with SM2, when the Halifax class frigates came into service, when the CF18's got PGM's, etc... There were a lot of changes to the Canadian force structure in the 90's..

The French forces in the 90's were also different..

Like I said before I really don't see Canada invading one of their neighbours.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

Banned
Most realistic scenario (IMHO) is the Brazilian dictatorship goes nut (post- 1964) and invade French Guyana, threatening Kourou launch complex. That would be a casus belli !
 
GSpectre

GSpectre

Riain said:
I won't avoid the question by focusing on the scenario.
If the French faced a Falklands style scenario in the early 80s of an out of area operation at the end of an extremely long logistic chain and no forward bases they could bring to bear:
Carrier battle Group with Clem and Foch, maybe 2 sqn of Crusade and 4 sqn of super etenard, escorted by 2 ships with Masurca SAMs and up to 4 with terrier/standard SAM
Amphibious group of Jean D'Arc with 6 or so Super Frelon and 700 troops, 2 LSD and 5 smallish LST
1 and maybe 2 SSN plus some SSK and a raft of reasonable escort frigates

Apart from the 2 carriers and J D'A they were considerably worse off than the British in every respect: they had less Area SAM ships, smaller and weaker amphibious group, less subs and escorts and nothing like the British long range air capability with Vulcans, Nimrods and Hercules.
Click to expand...

To start at the end of your post, Mirage IV has a ferry range that is comparable to the Vulcan although its listed combat radius is half of the Vulcan's listed range (sourced from Wikipedia so if someone can get better numbers i won't dispute them), 15 Vs 21 1000 lb bombs so that advantage goes to the Vulcan, Supersonic vs subsonic depends on the Air defense they face, so the comparison is pretty much a wash in my eyes. Especially since the air frame was active and being upgraded as a bomber until 1996, as opposed to the Vulcan which was being phased out in 82, which meant that its bomb aiming avionics would have been much more modern in the time period in question. Nimrod, meet the Breguet Br 1150 Atlantic which according to my 78-79 edition of Janes has 6 more hours of endurance then the Nimrod (Again, ferry range vs standard range makes the range comparison iffy with the numbers given, although they are comparable 4854 n. miles of standard range for the Breguet against a ferry range of 4500-5000 n.miles for the Nimrod mr 1). Hercules i will give you as clearly superior to the Transtall C-160, as long as its before 1981. After 1981 the range advantage for Hercules goes away as the Transtall v2 were fitted with air to air refueling capability standard. That said, the lift advantage stays with the Hercules as the useful load of 33000 Kg is more then the Transtalls max load of ~32000 Kg. So while the British forces do have theoretical superiority in the air, its not by enough to really matter for an operation like the one we are discussing. A French Blackbuck style raid is possible, but not very likely given the doctrine of the AdA, they never really went in for the bomber mania, although they did keep the capability around. Of more importance in my mind is the disparity in transports, but that would only really matter for an extended campaign after they had liberated their objective.

Which brings me to the naval disparity you were talking about... as of 80-81 according to Combat Fleets of the World the Brits had 2 LPDs (fearless class) 6 LST's (Sir Bedivere class) 2 LSM's (Ardennes class) along with a host of landing craft. The French had 2 LPDs (Ourange class), 5 LST's (Argens Class), 4 LSM's (Champlain class) and a host of landing craft. Not really seeing that much of a difference here in terms of lift capacity. The fleets destroyer assets are just about the same, (21 DDG's for the British including planned ones as opposed to 20 active ships for the French, including the Colbert in that number). Sub's, the British have a clear advantage in, as their nuclear boats were out in the water as opposed to the french who were just getting their SSN's built. Frigates, again advantage to the British as they had 53 in service as opposed to 23. Carriers... advantage France, not even a question, the Clem's might have been flawed but their air group was more then enough to get the job done in style. Over all looking at the ship numbers i would have to conclude that the French were weaker on subs and sub defense in exchange for a stronger defense against air attacks, while being a comparable fleet. In the scenario given, the french have the better fleet for accomplishing the task, as their main threat would come from airborne attack not nuclear powered submarines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top