Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: France ends role as Superpower??
Le Zookeeper    7/15/2008 12:18:09 AM
As one of the big 5 France was a superpower for a while, but no Rafale sales, Iran nukes, etc and it seems to that France is no longer a power. Last customer for Rafale -India seems to go to F-18? Is it finally over for France as superpower??
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
JFKY       7/16/2008 12:28:03 PM
 Mrbinga, a true enough statement....The Soviets paid in blood because of Stalins mistakes leading up to June 1941, and then after wards, because People is what they had.  Certainly, the Soviets didn't need to bleed as much as they did.
 
Quote    Reply

bartrat       7/17/2008 12:37:55 AM
In WWI  - BEF and colonial troops (especially the Aussies) held more trench lines that French, AEF, and Belgians. I am fond of saying British blood (French blood also) and American dollars won WWI. The statistics are IMHO clear on this;. Without USA money France or UK were out of money by sometime in 1917, not just broke but out of credit resources. Modern wars are VERY expensive and US money keep them in the war, so by 1918 we ALL could win it.
Also, please remember the US was NOT ready for WWI. No American designed fighter plane fought in WWI.  
 
In WWII - Somewhat like WWI. UK and the colonies shed a lot of blood, but by sometime in 1940 they were out of money. Lend-Lease and the Destroyer - Base trade really helped Britain. The USA pumped a HUGE amount of money and production to the war effort. By 1944 (if you include PTO) the USA is doing a majority of the fighting. But our Allies (especially British and its colonies) did a lot of fighting in 1944 and 1945 and shed a lot of blood. So again you could say US money plus UK blood (and USSR blood) defeated the German Nazis.
Also, while America did much in the technology department, UK did much great work. Radar, and jet engines are just a few examples. An FYI, the British turned over several patents to the US. Among them were a jet engine patent (for about a million dollars, a steal!) that led to our huge multi-billion dollar jet engine industry. This IMHO should be counted as part of the British repayment to the US taxpayers.
 
PS: I am a US Citizen, but I take a wide view of our allies' contributions.

 
Quote    Reply

beersheba    solid point   7/17/2008 2:36:26 AM
Nice post bartrat. Everyone played their part in the first big punch on, and yeah, the Australians did a hell of a lot, which I think is forgotten by some. Monty did say that Monash was the best general on the western front 
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       7/17/2008 4:24:54 AM

Prometheus:

Technology:

Thank you for the cavity magnetron and the help in the Manhattan Project, thanks for the Merlin engine..now ask yourself this?  What value is technology unless it's made into combat power?  Germany had lots of technology, too...but not enough of it was transformed from a neat idea into a usable weapon.  Britain had some great ideas, ideas don't and didn't defeat the Wehrmacht, tanks, plances and rifles did and do. 

 

First World War:

Yes, the BEF advanced, as did the French, AFTER being reinforced by 1.2 million Yank Troops of the AEF!  You certainly hadn't been advancing much PRIOR to that had you?  By 1918 the Kaiser Heer was fought out...thanks to you guys on the Western Front, whereas the Allies had 1.2 million EXTRA, fresh combat troops...we made the difference..convinced Ludendorff that the war was lost.  Without us, you guys on the Western Front, strike a deal, Germany withdraws from France, takes a dominant role in Belgium and keeps the gains of Brest-Litovsk...making Germany a relative winner in that version of the First World War.

 

Second World War:

My point is that Lend-Lease kept both Britain AND the USSR in the war.  If you Brit's hadn't received hundreds of tanks from 1941 on, yes well-crewed by Brit's, but a tank crew with no tank ain't a tank, you'd have lost in the Middle East and probably would have had to make a peace with Germany.  No Britain, no Lend-Lease, Germany wins in the East...the US was VITAL to both projects Lend-Lease and a British victory in the Middle East.  Bottom-Line: US productive capacity kept both Britain and the USSR in the fight.

 

Final note: I wouldn't talk about British tactics being the source of much of anything good in the desert, were I you.  The British stank at fighting the Germans, at the tactical level.....JFC Fuller and the Tankers of the Inter-War Period got things dreadfully wrong for Britain and it took you years to sort out their mistakes.

Your point about the WW1 is not entirely accurate, neither side had advanced much until 1917, when the British got the tank to work, and the germans developed the Sturmtruppen concept, had the AEF been pitched into the line in 1916, do you believe the Allies would have started to make dramatic advances? Remembering that the first battles the AEF fought as an army resulted in little ground gained and high casualties becuase Pershing refused to learn the lessons of the BEF and french armies earlier.
While the burgeoning presense of US forces may have been what commited Ludendorff to the 1918 offensives, which ultimately failed, it was the BEF victory at Amiens that convinced him that the German army had shot it's bolt, had finally had it's back broken after 4 years of attrition, not some radical offensive by thr AEF that swept over all the fields that the British and french had been unable too. After that, the main brunt of the final offensives were carried out by the BEF, of that there can be no argument, it was the BEF that finally incorporated all the hard won lessons and broke the back of German resistance, while the victory was certainly allied, the BEF does deserve the credit for those last, dramatic advances.
 
In the second world war all that amazing US combat power would have been to no avail if you did not have an invasion base to launch it from, a secure supply line behind it and access to the middle eastern oil, which is precisely what the British forces achieved by resisting Invasion, being by and large responsible for winning the second battle of the Atlantic, re-opening the mediteranean and winning Alamein. At the same time, it's impossible to imagine any western invasion - despite the preponderance of US materiel -from succeding without the Russians bearing the brunt of the ground war with germany.
 
And one final point, you misunderstood what I was trying to say about Alamein, my point is that US tanks and equipment had not been decisive at Gazala, simply giving an army a good tank gaurentees nothing, depsite what exponents of 'US produciton wins the war single handed' might believe. Similarly those Shermans would ahve been wasted in the Alamein position had Montgomery not re-trained the 8th army and re-thought the way to fight battles(and if anyone wants a debate about that, start a different thread,
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       7/17/2008 6:35:54 AM
I believe Pearl Harbor was provoked by America.  Think about if America stayed completely out of World War II.  Russia would not have been able to defeat both Germany & Japan.  Britain would not have been able to protect her Canadian and Australian colonies from Japan.
 
 
 
All this talk of America having no hope of taking the war to the Germans is in accurate.  America took war to Japan.
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       7/17/2008 7:58:50 AM

I believe Pearl Harbor was provoked by America.  Think about if America stayed completely out of World War II.  Russia would not have been able to defeat both Germany & Japan.  Britain would not have been able to protect her Canadian and Australian colonies from Japan.

 

 

 

All this talk of America having no hope of taking the war to the Germans is in accurate.  America took war to Japan.


Not all at once, Island hopping towards japan with a few marine divisions is one thing, trying to Invade Japan from pearl harbour is a little different. trying to cross the atlantic with a big enough force to make a dent in festung europa, with only a few hundred carrier borne aircraft for support, with an intact U-boat arm hitting at a supply line that goes from the east coast of the US to europe. trying to get a haulage turnaround fast enough to keep men coming in through the ports, facing down 300 German divisions, much more heavily armed than the Japanese equivalent. The US wore the Japanese down overseveral years of hopping close rto their target, how do you propose to do tha tin the Atlantic theatre. The logisitics of going form the South coast of England to France was bad enough....
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       7/17/2008 8:23:26 AM
With the use of nuclear weapons.  No one is analyzing the affect nuclear weapons would have played or if it would have been possible for Germany to develop & create them before the US.
Please note, you are looking at the scenario on how America would fight Germany without Britain.  One of the reasons we fought Germany was that Britain & France were allies.  Who says we would have entered the war?  Why not look at how Germany would take the war to America?
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       7/17/2008 8:26:12 AM
Conceivably, America could remain neutral, especially with nuclear weapons.  If nuclear weapons prevented a war with the USSR, they could prevent a war with Germany as well.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       7/17/2008 8:27:33 AM
Nuclear weapons ended a war with Japan, in theory they could have done the same thing with in a war with Germany.
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Lizard   7/18/2008 4:58:27 AM

Are you Herc the Merc?


That would be Le Merc, but who is Herc le merc anyways???? some historical figure on this board??? u claim i am the nxt avatar???
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics