Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Military Jokes and Humor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ted Nugent and the French
smitty237    12/18/2006 1:07:37 PM
Ted Nugent, a heavy metal guitar legend and devoted (bow) hunter, was being interviewed by a French journalist. Eventually, the conversation turned to his love of outdoor pursuits. The journalist asked, "What do you think the last thought is in the head of a deer before you shoot it? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or maybe 'Are you the one who killed my brother?'" Nugent replied, "They aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, 'What am I going to eat next? Who am I going to screw next?' and, 'Can I run fast enough to get away?' They are very much like the French..."
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
U.N. Spacy       4/2/2009 9:48:54 PM
Har har...har?
 
French military jokes are old now. =|
 
Quote    Reply

brit cadet       5/9/2009 5:22:27 PM

Har har...har?

 

French military jokes are old now. =|




french military jokes never grow old
 
Quote    Reply

brit cadet       5/9/2009 5:22:32 PM

Har har...har?

 

French military jokes are old now. =|




french military jokes never grow old
 
Quote    Reply

jock       2/13/2010 8:16:52 AM
Maybe Ted should spend a lttle time indoors reading , it might round out his opinions. Too much raw meat and  noise muzak dull the brain. Perhaps he should wipe the squirrel blood off his lips and read SONG OF ROLAND for starters. If thats not enought , he ought to rent out a tank and attempt to stop it with his 22 varmit  gun. That's what the French were up against when the Germans attacked during WW2/ Killing unarmed animals is easy, maybe a week or two in a real Army might uncloud his vision of the world.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    What History Are You Reading   2/13/2010 11:03:37 PM
While it is true that Germany had some significant advantages in 1940 including better training, doctrine, leadership, communication equipment, AAA, more aircraft, etc., it's complete rubbish to imply it was tank vs .22 and in many areas the allies had the advantage.  The allies on May 10, 1940 had 4,200 tanks, 3,254 French, vs 2,439 German tanks.  French tanks had better armor and heavier guns but suffered from small crew size (1 and 2 man turrets) and lack of communication equipment.  Indeed it was the German's who had more trouble destroying French tanks than the other way around.
 
Frankly Germany took a huge gamble in 1940 and it paid off.  In order to achieve local superiority at the main point of attack they took big risks in the other sectors.  Army Group B's attack on the Low Countries with 29 divisions diverted the attention of 57 allied divisions including the best French and British units.  In the south Germany deployed 19 division against the 36 French in the Maginot Line.  This allowed them to concentrate 45 divisions vs 18 second rate French divisions in the Ardennes.  Moreover, the allies expecting a long campaign kept much of their air forces in reserve while Germany went all out from the start.  Indeed on May 10th alone the Luftwaffe lost 347 planes (including many transports in Holland and Belgium) and by the end May the Luftwaffe lost 30% of their starting strength plus another 13% seriously damaged.
 
In any case I'm not a big fan of France, especially after 2003, and I do not buy anything made in France but facts are facts.
 
 
Maybe Ted should spend a lttle time indoors reading , it might round out his opinions. Too much raw meat and  noise muzak dull the brain. Perhaps he should wipe the squirrel blood off his lips and read SONG OF ROLAND for starters. If thats not enought , he ought to rent out a tank and attempt to stop it with his 22 varmit  gun. That's what the French were up against when the Germans attacked during WW2/ Killing unarmed animals is easy, maybe a week or two in a real Army might uncloud his vision of the world.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/14/2010 7:19:10 AM
Yeaap, they could've kept their Marseille fleet free and evacuated as many Vichy and other French soldiers as possible to the African colonies. Might've speeded up the African and Italian campaigns a lot. 
 
That said while I enjoy most French jokes, and this one is quite funny (because of the great French couisine, their reputation and history of sexual peccadiloes and retreat-surrender), this one is also somewhat discriminatory... but a lot of jokes do that.
 
Anyway, there's plenty of brave Frenchmen, and France today is stronger in terms of doctrine than what it was in 1940 I think... but of course they will continue to suffer this reputation until their next important engagement.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/14/2010 7:20:42 AM
Anyway the part about sex is quite unfair, most people do that and many French have good morals (well ok, they're Atheist-Agnostic most of them by a slight margin, but still) and the food is making their good part look bad.
Let's just say if I was French I'd be justly offended, except partly about the running away and sex thing... they should at least not let their President run around and boast about having had multiple women in legit relationships with others.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       2/14/2010 7:21:23 AM
Actually I am a bit offended anyway, Americans do weigh more on average than the French. And they screw a lot too, though they're not as public about it.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/14/2010 9:22:51 PM

While it is true that Germany had some significant advantages in 1940 including better training, doctrine, leadership, communication equipment, AAA, more aircraft, etc., it's complete rubbish to imply it was tank vs .22 and in many areas the allies had the advantage.  The allies on May 10, 1940 had 4,200 tanks, 3,254 French, vs 2,439 German tanks.  French tanks had better armor and heavier guns but suffered from small crew size (1 and 2 man turrets) and lack of communication equipment.  Indeed it was the German's who had more trouble destroying French tanks than the other way around.

 

Frankly Germany took a huge gamble in 1940 and it paid off.  In order to achieve local superiority at the main point of attack they took big risks in the other sectors.  Army Group B's attack on the Low Countries with 29 divisions diverted the attention of 57 allied divisions including the best French and British units.  In the south Germany deployed 19 division against the 36 French in the Maginot Line.  This allowed them to concentrate 45 divisions vs 18 second rate French divisions in the Ardennes.  Moreover, the allies expecting a long campaign kept much of their air forces in reserve while Germany went all out from the start.  Indeed on May 10th alone the Luftwaffe lost 347 planes (including many transports in Holland and Belgium) and by the end May the Luftwaffe lost 30% of their starting strength plus another 13% seriously damaged.
 
The essence of the French myth has two critical underpinnings in fact: wrong engineering solutions and wrong leadership. This is not exclusive to the French, nit in their specific 20th Century case, it is glaring.
 
1. Politics. Socialists do not make or field good war machines. They lack objectivity and a true appreciation for what works. 
2. Managers. Incompetent then and now, their lawyer and accountant classes never listen to French engineers and operational users, or they, les despicables,  would finally use technological history, instead of paper theory to drive their national choices.   
3. Business practices.  If you thought LockMart was corrupt and incompetent, try Dassault. The French aviation industry is peculiarly damnable for sheer managerial incompetence and thievery. Its a miracle that ARIANESPACE escaped their  normal business model. 
 
 
Not much has changed since then.  Look good and fight terrible.
 
Army failure.
 
1. French defensive doctrine.  Forts? Not even in WW I. The trench lines moved, not much, but they did move. Nothing wrong with defensive operations to slow down an enemy, but the spade and the landmine was and is more efficient than poured concrete  when you plan a defense. The Second Battle of the Ardennes when combat engineers created hasty obstacles and American infantry fought to hold the road net until Allied armor could counterattack the shoulders of the penetration, show that the French high command (the professional military staff) was just STUPID about this as they were about so many things.  This incompetence was and is true for their military disasters in 1865, 1872, 1914, 1940, 1956, 1958, 1961, etc.
 
2. Overestimation of true combat prowess. The French soldier is as good as anyone, far better than most. When the leadership is anywhere near as good as the poilu (hairy one), what so many French officers through the 20th Century called "les contemptibles", the Gallic line soldier performed miracles. Verdun was no accident ir negation of this, but rather the proof of the rule. The Hermans should have won there, given the actual level of incompetence shown by Petain among so many French generals (He couldn't read a map so he allowed his roadnet and rail communications to almost collapse?).  The poilu just dug in and held his ground, while the French artillery (always very good [thanks to the Corsican who gave it that tradition], broke the German assaults up just short of their objectives.)  The Aisne Offensive that Petain bungled in 1918 shows furth
 
Quote    Reply

FCUS       3/18/2010 7:15:59 AM

good post Hamilcar

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy