Why are the French so bad at wars?

I mean seriously, they lost the majority of conflicts they get into.

Why are the French people so different from the rest of Europe which has nowhere close to the amount of losses they do?

Here is the short list of lost wars in French history.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-wars-had-France-lost

And this is being generous by the way, they have lost way more than even this.

Why do the French suck so bad at military stuff?

 

It's hard for them to shoot the enemy when their hands are in the air.

 

They're historically quite good at wars. It's just finishing them that seems to be the problem. Hell, a 19 year old illiterate girl managed to almost kick the English completely out of the country. Then Napoleon wreaked Havoc in Europe all up until Waterloo. Don't forget that they also owned England all up until Agincourt.

 

British officers worn Red Jackets to hide any wounds from their troops. French officers worn brown pants so what were they hiding?

 

Because for the most part the English and Germans are better. Since the beginning of the Napoleonic wars Frances best and brightest have been largely destroyed in war, And Keep in mind until the Russian and Spanish campaigns the French were largely undefeated on the continent. By the way the bleeding sore that was the Spanish campaign killed far more Frenchmen than Russian. The "French t.o.e. for the Russian Campaign, was largely composed of Napoleon's continental allies some of them primarily, the Austrians and Prussians contingents, not there of their own will.

 

As much military history as I've read, it would take a lot more reading to come up with a good reason. They share a lot of the same blood as Germans. The Franks took over the entire area and West Francia became France while East Francia became Germany. Maybe it's because they are so fickle. It might be nothing but the bias from entertainment but one movie stuck with me when a WW II German general said France was a nation of whores. In a similar light in a satire magazine in the 70's did an article using GI Joe action figures to represent the different factions in WW II. They had GI Jerry who they said were our enemies, then became our friends, or at least half of them did (related to east/west Germany). For GI Frenchie, they said first they were our friends then they weren't, then they were. Then they said what are they today? The answer was which way was the wind blowing. I have no real answer though except that they are located between the most powerful European nations and have been at war with all of them at one time or another.

 

It is an attitude problem. They believe they have a superior mind and believe they know how the enemy will react. They get an idea and then believe it 100%. There are numerous examples of where they came up with an idea for defense where there was a fatal flaw because they thought their enemy would only react a certain way. For example. The Maginot line. It could not be penetrated. The Germans simply went around it. In Quebec city, they defended from only the sea side. The Americans climbed up a cliff on the back side..

 

Americans whinge about French history? Not sure what the political opinion and belief angle really is. Perhaps a vehicle to advertise the negative consequences of nationalism for rational discourse?

 

For sale:
French rifle
Never fired
Only dropped once.

 

How about simple observing them and wondering why they would do such things?

 

The nationalists? An experiment, no less. Good point.

Shhhh, I was never here.

 

Parochialism at its finest!

A Frenchman might ask why Americans used to tell one another that the US never last a war, when that was never true. Or why Americans are fat, loud and obnoxious (which, of course is not true.....although the man in the White House does a brilliant imitation).

 

Well we couldn't have won our Revolutionary war without them. And the statue of liberty is a gift that we should appreciate. I don't know much about French history but o think all European countries aren't in a situation where they can win any war right now. They are too busy thinking war is old fashioned and not an issue to be concerned about. Especially since America and the Brits are prepared if war does come to pay a visit and they depend on us.

 

In Vietnam they lost because their purpose was unjust. And their methods were unjust.
Uncle ho just had unjust methods and horrible allies.
Too bad he didn't get to meet with President Wilson in 1931, things might have been much different.

 

France has about a 50/50 win loss ratio over 2,000 years of history. That's not bad.

You want to know people who are bad at war: Italians (not Romans, because post-6th century Italians aren't Roman). The shortest history book ever would be "Italian Military Victories After 1550". It would have one chapter on Ethiopia where the Italians beat spears and muskets with poison gas, bombers, and tanks and it took them several years to do so.

 

Except that was the French plan. The French intended for the Maginot Line to force the Germans to invade through Belgium again.

The plan failed on two counts: 1. The British and French defense plan for Belgium was too far forward, meaning they had no strategic reserve and took too long to get into position. 2. No one expected the Germans to launch a major armored offensive through the Ardennes Forest, and for what its worth, it nearly failed when you account for how much German material was lost doing so. There's a reason the Germans had to wait more than a year to invade Russia, their losses of tanks and trucks through attrition in the Ardennes took that long to replace.

 

A big part of the war they fought was against themselves. In that case a victory is also a loss.
They also, like the british, have an history of picking their officers according to their nobility titles and not their skills up to the late 19th century. The french soldiers fought bravelly and heroically but they had lousy officers and thus no over reaching strategy. Hell, the commander in chief at the star of WW2 picked an isolated castle without radio or phones as the main HQ...

The debacle in WW2 during the german breakthrough was a combination of luck for the germans and bad positioning of units for the french. The Ardennes breakthrough happened smack in the middle of a "C" reserve units, meaning those troops were newly conscripted, untrained and not equiped, of course they fled. Those are the one you see on those archive film fleeing. The situation was quite different when germans encountered the regular troops even Rommel commented on it. Funny enough the same thing happened to the US troops at the start of the battle of the bulge.

 

The French are good at making weapons though.
The Dewotine fighters of early ww2 were very good but their command structure was very bad and didn't allow for an effective resistance against the germans.

Mirage Jet fighters were also very good

The Roland anti aircraft system is also exceptional, just wish they would have been more selective when it came to selling them.

 

"Why are the French so bad at wars?"

Because they are so GOOD at KISSING!

French kissing, as in what "Jennifer" likes to do so much, Spooky!


SCNR

 

Like I said. The French would come up with a plan and then believe the enemy wouldn't possibly do something they hadn't planned on. I saw that at Quebec City and then at Louisbourg.

 

Why is the USA so bad at wars?

 

1- there's also the fact that Belgium refused to let the british and french troop enter belgium at first, delaying the allies intervention.

2- and as it would be a repeat in '44, the allied used that region as a training/staging area and had untrained and under equiped troop stationned there.

The maginot line was also supposed to reach the coast but belgium changed her mind and it had to stop at the border.

 

We aren't. We are good at it and the world is a better place for it.

 

They fully understood that the enemy could do things they hadn't planned on. They had no strategic reserve to deal with those situations when they happened. The reason they had no strategic reserve is because the defensive line they drew in Belgium was drawn for political reasons. They drew the line at the Dyle because it meant saving the Belgian capital, which was seen as the key to securing Belgian cooperation. It meant their line was so long and so far forward, it took all of their available armies.

Had they drawn the line at the Scheldt instead, they could have had an entire Army free as a strategic reserve, but that would have meant surrendering 80% of Belgium and telling the Belgians "we won't defend your country except as an expedient so we don't have to fight on French soil again".

 

Because the Maginot Line reaching the coast is telling the Belgians "We won't protect you if Germany invades." There's a good chance the Belgians at that point would go to Berlin looking for a better offer on allies.