Why are the French so bad at wars?

Our track record since WW2 has been ABYSMAL.

Korea was a near disaster that ended in a stalemate.

Vietnam has a cluster**** and that is being generous.

The Gulf War was only successful because we had so many WILLING allies.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was a repeat of Vietnam.

The occupation of Afghanistan is a quagmire with no exit strategy.

So we score 1.5 out of 5!

And the middle east is a way WORSE off because of our warmongering.

 

Two factor played for Quebec. First, the conscripted canadians didn't care about the french nobility nor did they want to die for them fighting in formation on a plain devoid of cover. Most of them were descendant of people forced to immigrate there. Those were really trained to fight the native in guerrilla fashion, and were pretty good at it, so they decided en mass to live and fight another day leaving the french force to go at it alone.

Second, it was quite silly to go toe to toe with the british when you have a fortified position to operate from. They should just have let them start the siege then use those canadians irregulars pick them off while they forage for food.

 

We haven't won a war since 1945, and it isn't the fault of the military.

 

And how did that worked out for them?

As I said, they even refused entry to the bef and french troop when germany invaded.

 

No, they gave permission within hours of the invasion. Which is exactly what the French and British planned on. They refused to give permission for the French and British to enter Belgium *prior* to a German invasion because that would be as much a violation of Belgian neutrality as a German invasion would be.

 

They consistently misjudged their enemy. They did it with the Maginot line, Quebec City and Louisbourg. They protected in one direction and the enemy simply came in from another direction. A more difficult direction which the French did not think they would use.

 

Again, how did that worked for them?

By then it was too late. Having the troops in belgium prior would have give them time to prepare and fortify. It may have even prevented the war.

 

The Maginot Line was not in any way misjudgment. It was in fact 100% successful.

 

It is quite an interesting question, France in WW2 had the best tanks and aircraft but were fighting WW1 tactics wise. De Gaulle actually showed what the french should of been capable of if they were not hamstrung by lousy generals. Then again if you look at it from another point of view, France suffered far less in WW2 than Germany/Austria did but we tend to think of Germany as being good at war despite losing twice in the wars that really mattered!

 

Then I wonder why the German's occupied France for most of the war. It would appear that all that money spent on the wall might have been better spent on weapons.

 

Korea, kept half the country free. And we nearly wiped out the north Korean army then thr Chinese invaded. We should have dropped an a bomb on them for the win.

Vietnam yup Johnson made a hash of it.
Nixon however fixed it though until idiots in congress intervened and handed the win to the communist murderers. Remember tet of 68? You know the battle where we wiped out the Viet Cong?

Iraq, we won hands down and most of thoes willing allies? Did nothing. See the press briefings of Schwarzkopf for full details of our allies actions.

Iraq 2 / Syria ISIS is dead they'd be even deader if people would quit whining about it.

Afganistan. Why would there be an exit strategy for a fight that isn't over? Ifvour goal was the unconditional surrender of the Taliban maybe thing would move along better. Congress wouldn't allow that though the pansies..

The middle east is a mess because the UN continually undermines the concept of peace through strength. And they undermine Israel.

 

France defeat in WW2 rest squarelly on Gamelin's shoulders.
Also, a factor to consider is that french hadn't fully recovered in both manpower and psychology from WW1 where she suffered catastrofic lost of lives. Many serving in WW2 had also fought in WW1 and were totally revolted in how the officers behaved and just snapped.

A prime example of that was Joseph Darnand, a highly decorated hero of WW1 and WW2, who was so disgusted by the defeat that he formed the Milice and served the germans. He even joined the waffen SS later on.

 

It was not weapons the French and British lacked it was communications, in battle after battle lack of coordination caused the loss. Radios was what they should of spent more money on and not having WW1 generals in command. The Maginot line needed to be extended but as usual it was political decisions that stopped this.

 

The germans made a gamble that payed off. Passing through the ardennes was a desperate measure since the original invasion plans had been captured by the allied. They were lucky that the troops south of the maginot line were untrained and under equiped. The US made the same mistake at the bulge.

 

So you are operating under the false belief that the Maginot Line was intended to entirely defend France? It wasn't. It was intended to force the Germans to go around it.

The Maginot Line was a force multiplier. France took so many losses in WW1 that they knew they weren't going to have enough manpower to defend Eastern France and fight the Germans in Belgium too, so the Maginot Line was constructed so that a relative handful reserve units could occupy it, freeing up regular troops that were needed for Belgium.

 

Except the Germans had no hope of winning at the Bulge.

 

Good points, many forget the french mutinied in WW1 and refused to go on the offensive, stating they would only fight to defend France. Was Gamelin the one who shut himself up in a chateaux without radio communication relying on dispatch riders instead?

 

Unbelievable denial of factually documented reality!

 

The Italians proved themselves surprisingly good fighters in WWII, after they surrendered. The joke was that Rommel would turn them over to the enemy before the battle started because they were more use to him as fractious prisoners on the other side. The Italians have a reputation as Americans writ small. They can be good fighters but they have to think they are in the right; being conflicted yourself makes for a poor conqueror

Calling the French bad fighters is indeed parochialism of the worst stripe, especially from an American. You owe your very existence to the French, who in fact brought on their own big Revolution after they bankrupted themselves supporting yours. After that they were were well nigh invincible for 20 years, coming closer to creating a United States of Europe than anybody else until the EU. Even in defeat they didn't lose that reputation for almost the next 60 years. If you asked anyone in the early and middle 19th century who was the Continental military premier the answer was invariably France. The Germans were seen as these dreamers and philosophers who could never quite get their **** together, (until they did with something of a vengeance in 1866)

France's downfall was WWI. The Great War was truly catastrophic for France, it bled them white and they never recovered. England suffered too, but not nearly as much and Germany actually gained people somehow, People forget there were scarce more than 20 years from 1918 to 1939. France was still war-weary when WWII started

 

Never said they did. I only commented at the quality of the troop in front of them.

 

The Germans were very good at making desperate measures that paid off. Of course, a few of them ended in disaster.

But it did not work in the long run did it? It is much easier to defend than attack. It takes several times the forces to attack than defend.

 

Yep... He was sacked for leaving his command to attend a birthday party for him and mouthing off at the said party that he didn't care for the small tactical detail that his job was only to represent the armed forces vis a vis the government. He was sacked the next day.

 

I was assigned to Heidelberg German in the late 1970s. We crossed over into France at Strasbourg a few times. At that time, you could not tell Germany had been in a war. France was still showing the scars with bullet pocked buildings.

 

Wow, this is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Passing through the forest was a breeze for Germany, they didn't lose material.

It only took them 4 days to move everything through even with all the bridges blown, they simply made pontoon bridges. Their only resistance were some scout forces and the French communications systems were horrible so the main force didn't even know they were coming.

There is absolutely no record of losing mass amounts of armor in the forest.

 

Only because that gamble paid off. If the troops on the other side of the Ardenne had been regular troops with adequate equipment the breakthrough would have been stopped. The ardenne was a bottleneck and a couple of day of delay would have had those tanks and troops bombed to oblivion with no chance to maneuver or defend themselve in that dense forest.