Question: French Military?

I don't see how you can say this of the British campaign in Palestine. Especially their doing things like defeating Falkenhayn's Force Yilderim.


The body count for their investment in the theater could hardly be called worth it; and if anything it was a sideshow compared the gigantic futile blood baths at the Somme and Paschendall
 
The body count for their investment in the theater could hardly be called worth it; and if anything it was a sideshow compared the gigantic futile blood baths at the Somme and Paschendall

This also applies to von-Lettow Vorbeck, not that it stops his crew from proclaiming him the best general of the war.
 
This also applies to von-Lettow Vorbeck, not that it stops his crew from proclaiming him the best general of the war.

I wouldn't use Vorbeck as evidence of the Germans running a quality war effort either :p

The British had gigantic clusterfucks were they could not get out of their own way in the planning stages let alone the operational stages; take cambrai for example

1. surprise attack with massed tanks (good idea) (as all their weeklong barrage attacks had failed miserably)
2. choose a section of the front hemmed in by canals on both sides so the tanks have nowhere to go after a couple miles (bad idea)
3. don't have any serious plan for exploitation should the tanks break through (really stupid idea)
4. after the tanks break through but wear themselves out; send the infantry (unsupported) against the strongest section of the hindenberg line over and over again until they are worn out shells leaving them vulnerable to german counter attack which retakes the lost ground and the british jump off points; and 100 of their broken down tanks (really really stupid idea)

and cambrai was after they had been at the game for 3+ years
 

Caspian

Banned
Doesn't most of the credit there go to the British, though? As far as I know, France was failing hard until Britain came through.

On the contrary, the French had to convince the British commander (Sir John French) to continue the fight and not retreat off the continent, so that they would continue to have British support when they launched their counter-offensive against the German First and Second Armies at the Marne. The battle was an exhibition of superior French command and control - the Germans didn't keep their armies together, Moltke was not suited to command the German Army, Joffre adapted to the situation (once he was dissuaded from his incorrect beliefs about what the Germans were doing) and replaced commanders with aggressive generals.

Basically, Joffre got fooled at first, but kept his eye on the ball and managed to connect when he realized the pitch was a hanging curve.

The BEF was an important contributor to the victory at the Marne - the British troops were extremely well-trained, capable soldiers (probably the best soldiers in the world), and their fighting retreat at Mons helped slow the German advance and set up the battlefield for counter-offensive. The BEF supported (or heavily contributed - the right word escapes me, but it lies somewhere between these two) French Fifth Army (whose commander had recently been replaced with the aggressive d'Esperey) in its attack into the gap between German First and Second Armies, which broke the Germans, causing them to blink and forcing them to retreat. Paris, which was only some thirty miles away from the German lines, and the entire French war effort was saved.

The British contribution to the war was probably equal to that of the French - the British provided a lot of troops, held a lot of ground, fought a lot of battles, and was right there in the end. They blockaded Germany, which helped defeat them in the end. They provided a lot of financial and industrial power and a lot of scientific development. They fought Germany and her allies in Africa, the Middle East, the Atlantic, and the Western Front. France could probably not avoid defeat without Britain - but the same goes the other way. Britain didn't win the war - Britain helped win the war.
 
I wouldn't say that von Lettow-Vorbeck was the best general of WWI but his achievements are impressive. Considering the situation he found himself in being outnumbered, surrounded by enemies and with no hope of reinforcements, his being able to run rings around the British and South Africans for 4 years and keep a far larger enemy army tied down is a success that I can't think any other WWI general can claim. Or very many from any other conflict for that matter. I'm not sure what else he could have done?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
This also applies to von-Lettow Vorbeck, not that it stops his crew from proclaiming him the best general of the war.


UK in Palestine is a bit different. They could have used the forces elsewhere, so it was a choice. vLV had no other use for his troops, it was fight or surrender, so for Germany, it was a wise use of resources.


Blondie,the French Foreign Legion is one of the very best elite units in the world,it´s reputation is very well deserved,it´s tradition magnificent.Diferent from othe units,the Foreign Legion take enormous pride in their defeats,and if you take a look at the battle of "Camerone"(the Legion holy grail) you will see why.Today,the Foreign Legion is the rapid deployment force of the french army.

I never said they were a poor unit, I just stated they should be compared to other elite units, not entire armies. You seem to be saying they are the best unit in the world, I am not so sure this is true.

You should comapre FFL to comparable elite, conventional forces. Comparing them to USMC is much more accurate then comparing them to SEAL or even rangers. Also comparing individual units (be it brigade or division) is less than accurate because they are not ment to operate on their own but rather as aprt of whole force. FFL and USMC / simialr can and do operate on their own.

You make it sound like the FFL has can operate 100% autonomous. Do they really have that ability like the USMC does? Logistical transport, Logistical ships, fighters, etc. If not, then the FFL should be compared not to services, but the best unit in services. And with that measure, they don't look as exceptional.

In size they are a heavy brigade or a light divisions (7800), so this seems to be the type of units to compare them too. The US Army rangers are a regiment (2000), so they USA special forces command has to be about the same size as the FFL. When you exclude equal size units, you no longer have any claim to "best unit in the world". I would take 7800 men out of the USA special forces command over the FFL any day. And the best RCT of the USMC is better. As it is likely the best Army brigade. And the best brigade size unit of the Russian army is likely as good. As likely is the best RCT/brigade of the Israel army. Or the best Storm trooper brigade of Germany in WW1.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It's worth noting, however, that Sickle-Slice was actually *not* the first German plan, and if the Germans had gone with the Mk. I version the Allies probably would have smashed them up and then been able to launch their own 1941 offensive after that. The Germans were intending a version of the Schlieffen Plan with better technology, and what failed the first time wasn't going to work any better a second time.

It would not have worked as well for the Germans, but it is no where near as bad as you suggest. When making the breakout, the Germans inflicted 60% loss rate on Allied air planes. While in the original plan the this battle for control of the would take place on a different day and a different location, but the result would be the same. And in the WW2 era in good weather with roughly equal forces, the side who controls the skies wins.

Exactly what about the original plan do you see allowing the Allies to control the skies?
 
Not entirely sure which cambrai Blairwitch is talking about but

Tanks at Cambrai were an afterthought to the final plan ( the original plan was for a tank only raid which was dropped then readded) the tactical innovation was the use of a predicted fire barrage.

Given that until the introduction of the 106 fuze (large numbers in early 1917) the only way to cut wire was a long barrage how would you propose getting through the wire?

Cambrai area was chosen because it was dry and not cut up by the shellfire of previous battles, and because it led to the main german supply hub but generally was a ‘harum scarum affair’ with no real clear strategic objective ( unless you go for Haig knowing about the french mutinies)and just for a bit of Family pride one of my ancestors was Carringtons platoon sergeant see the link below.

http://www.1914-1918.net/bat21.htm gives reasonable account of the genesis

The exploitation force consisted of 5 cavalry divisions attached to 3rd army XXX corps circa 1945 would have been nice but that’s all the cavalry in the British OOB in the west. Given that the actions was only supposed to last 48 hours what other force would you have available?

The failure of them to exploit is normally held to be because the main bridge to be used collapsed, under the weight of a tank. Nice pic of it on the site linked.

The tanks never broke through. One of the problems was the failure of the tank/infantry cooperation because the local commander had rejected RTC doctrine, (but given it’s the third time tanks are used his reasons are understandable) for the attack on Flesquiers. With that in German hands the entire flank of the attack was under fire and unable to advance. The second attack also led by tanks featured 38 being knocked out by german AT guns.

The Hindenburg advance and battle positions were all taken, normally by infantry/tank/cavalry teams the support line was not entirely taken.

2 days after the end of the battle from the British perspective - if you suggest they should have continued the attack I suggest you read up on Passchendaele btw. The German counterattack by 20 Divisions ( vs. 15 british of which 5 cavalry). The attack is called off after 2 days with the BEF still holding some of the grounds, which costs it in 1918.

Speaking of which Blair - If the German army was defeated prior to the Hundred days - please explain where and how that happened?

And a small point Foch was not the Allied CinC as WW2 would know it he coordinated the different national army commands (one of which was Petain)
 
Depends. They managed to fight on in 1914 despite the loss of their industrial heartland and heroically save their city.

The Germans gave out because they went a little hungry even though there were no allied troops on their soil.

And today, Elsass Lothringen is known by its french name, while Prussia is known as Poland.

As for "Didn't win a war on their own?" Who did?
 
You make it sound like the FFL has can operate 100% autonomous. Do they really have that ability like the USMC does? Logistical transport, Logistical ships, fighters, etc. If not, then the FFL should be compared not to services, but the best unit in services. And with that measure, they don't look as exceptional.

Not sure what logistics they have but my point is they are a separate unit that can and is ment to operate separate from French army. Same way as USMC can operate separate from US Army and is ment to. If you'd compare them to US Army units the problem you get is that these are not ment to operate on their own separate areas but as part of whole Army.

In size they are a heavy brigade or a light divisions (7800), so this seems to be the type of units to compare them too. The US Army rangers are a regiment (2000), so they USA special forces command has to be about the same size as the FFL. When you exclude equal size units, you no longer have any claim to "best unit in the world". I would take 7800 men out of the USA special forces command over the FFL any day. And the best RCT of the USMC is better. As it is likely the best Army brigade. And the best brigade size unit of the Russian army is likely as good. As likely is the best RCT/brigade of the Israel army. Or the best Storm trooper brigade of Germany in WW1.

But the problem comparing them is their missions are different, hence their equipment and doctrine is different. It would be like comparing US armored and airborne division, saying armored is better because they have more tanks and more artillery and pack a heavier punch.
 
I never said they were a poor unit, I just stated they should be compared to other elite units, not entire armies. You seem to be saying they are the best unit in the world, I am not so sure this is true.

You make it sound like the FFL has can operate 100% autonomous. Do they really have that ability like the USMC does? Logistical transport, Logistical ships, fighters, etc. If not, then the FFL should be compared not to services, but the best unit in services. And with that measure, they don't look as exceptional.

In size they are a heavy brigade or a light divisions (7800), so this seems to be the type of units to compare them too. The US Army rangers are a regiment (2000), so they USA special forces command has to be about the same size as the FFL. When you exclude equal size units, you no longer have any claim to "best unit in the world". I would take 7800 men out of the USA special forces command over the FFL any day. And the best RCT of the USMC is better. As it is likely the best Army brigade. And the best brigade size unit of the Russian army is likely as good. As likely is the best RCT/brigade of the Israel army. Or the best Storm trooper brigade of Germany in WW1.

Not sure what logistics they have but my point is they are a separate unit that can and is ment to operate separate from French army. Same way as USMC can operate separate from US Army and is ment to. If you'd compare them to US Army units the problem you get is that these are not ment to operate on their own separate areas but as part of whole Army.

But the problem comparing them is their missions are different, hence their equipment and doctrine is different. It would be like comparing US armored and airborne division, saying armored is better because they have more tanks and more artillery and pack a heavier punch.
To get things straight: today's FFL is not a separate unit, but a branch of the army just like the infantry, cavalry, engineers, etc. It does not operate separately from the rest of the French Army and it's units are spread out all over it as a result*. Their training isn't much, if any, different from that of other units fulfilling the same role either. (so no comparing to Rangers or Special Forces)
Basically, there are only two things differentiating the FFL from the rest of the French Army. First comes the fact that most*** of its members are foreigners. Secondly, it's rich history & special make-up has resulted in an extremely strong esprit de corps where the legionnaires truly consider each other and the legion to be their family****, much more so than in normal army units.

* not counting the training units:
- 1er REC (cavalry, operating wheeled tank destroyers), 2e REI (infantry) & 1er REG (engineers) are part of the 6th Light Armoured Brigade, a rapid reaction unit that also contains a marine** infantry regiment and a marine artillery regiment.

- 2e REG is the engineer regiment of the 27th Mountain infantry Brigade

- 2e REP is one of four infantry regiments of the 11th Parachute Brigade

- 3e REI is the French Army's presence in French Guyana

- 13e DBLE (demi-brigade, basically a regiment) is the main force in Djibouti.

- Finally, there is a detachment on Mayotte in the Indian Ocean.

** The French Troupes de Marine are part of the army.

*** IIRC up to 30% of the legionnaires are actually Frenchmen.

**** The fact that most members do not have any real family in France and aren't even Frenchmen obviously helps in developing that attitude...
 
This also applies to von-Lettow Vorbeck, not that it stops his crew from proclaiming him the best general of the war.

Except von Lettow-Vorbeck does have the distinction of requiring zero during-war investment from the German government. Whether he accomplished anything strategically of value is extremely debatable, but he did accomplish several well-deserved propaganda victories.
 
I am not saying that the FFL is the best tropp in the world,i know it can´t be compared to specialized units liKe the S.A.S,Green Barets and others special forces in general,but they were and still are an elite fighting force.The concept of "elite" has changed since the 1900´s. I sincerily don´t know if the legion training was or is better than the regular french army but they peformed way,way better than the regulars troops historicaly,they were the most condecorated unit in the french army in WWI,for exemple,the espirit de corps of the legion made a hell of diference in the actual battlefield.
 
Top