i don't put a lot of stock in egyptians overall, either. but '73 proved them capable of a few surprises and sensible strategy/tactics(using the high-pressure hoses to cut path through the canal berms, not extending their feba beyond air defense network). so even as they have been described as still using the old russian methods with western weapons, i think they could still put up a robust defense, which is all they have to do. In this case the French have to come to them. The Chad force could be a feint, but, one of the rules of a good feignt is it has to be reasonable/believable. there is nothing out there that would make this attack either of those. So what is the cost-effectiveness of this for the French, considering all the resources used to support the force. as i said before there is only 1 place to go from there (to the water) and the egyptians know where it is, so they could send a division down there and wait. I imagine the average egyptian is a little more educated than in '73 and maybe i'm not familiar enough with the subject, but, breaking and running is not something I have heard about the Egyptians. If they could get off a styx in '67 they should be able to launch a few more modern missiles 38 years later.

Both sides are nothing but paper. Neither side has been in a real fight in almost 30 years. ret13f - let me tell you a little secret. The Styx missle can still kill a frigate and particularly an oiler or civilian craft. If you can get in close and fire it from a short distance it works just fine. They still have them on Osa/Komar type boats, and they can be used in ambush. The French should not dismiss them. If I were on an Aegis ship I wouldn't, unless I'm in blue water. Littorals change everything.

unlike a lot of others in here I am not french basher (not the military, anyway). I have much respect for their military (read Bernard Fall's books and a reasonable person can't help but have respect). However they do have a knack for overextending themselves or when not, to demonstrate poor generalship. I have much respect for US military, but, realize that there are some things that can not, reasonbly, be done.

"i have to admit that after reading up on egypt and its armed forces, i do have serious doubts if france could occupy egypt... the french army is simply too small. this i concede. this is why i proposed that france choke egypt, bomb it and then negotiate for a settlement whereby france gets strategic bases. a long drawn out occupation is pointless anyway; and france does not have the manpower nor the political will, i assume, to carry it out. but why bother?" which is why I have been rabbiting on about understanding the tactical objective. from my perspective this is really simple. 1) it's a cross water transnational conflict 2) the defender does have an advantage unless they are clinically decapitated at the command level from day 1 3) going on the Balkans experience where the French military were being partially supported by tourist boat operators - one has to question the issue of cross water logistical support. 4) persistence - heavily dependant on logisitics 5) projection - heavily dependant on logisitics 6) precision - heavily dependant on logisitics 7) tempo - heavily dependant on logisitics I've stated quite clearly that France has the edge at sea - translating and converting that advantage to an opposed landing requires absolute dominance in the air. to get saturated sortie levels over the egyptian land mass requires substantial AAR - the AAR requires protection. - unless air dominance is achieved at the egyptian end, then the CdG is reduced to being a raider, a malevolence that keeps egypts navy locked up - it's a disproportionate cause and effect as it requires extensive protection. expecting an expeditionary force to be able to apply a "D Day" level of compression when the defender has shortened response lines and thus greater flexibility is a big ask. I don't see that France has the degree of flexibility or platform attrition to run multiple feints. I have no doubt that if France gets sufficient forces on ground that the story changes - it's getting those forces on ground where molestation is neglible and "local forces manageable" that is one of the key issues. It's not a question of competency - it's an issue of logistics providing the minimum impetus to carry it off. Personally, I'd be using specforces to damage egyptian critical assets and comms hubs before bringing in the sexy toys. Finally, if you're going to talk about running feints with Libyans or from across the border with Chad, then you can't discount the use of sympathetic muslims in France acting as agent provocateurs etc...

man, this is getting like an IM. that's one of the points they are ignoring. they are waiting for them to come out and meet them and i think they can pretty much sit close to port under SAM network and wait for the phibs. PS: i have a post up on subs, maybe you can give a few answers there.

I have no doubt that there has been some French bashing among the 722 posts on this thread. However, I don't think its necessary to be a French basher to postulate that the Egyptians could resist a non-nuclear French attack. As you mentioned the Egyptians have purchased a large amount of military material from the U.S., including F-16s, M1 Tanks etc. as an American taxpayer I would only dispute the word purchased. They also have military hardware from France, Russia, China, and who knows who else. The Egyptian military has fought bravely in the past and perhaps given half way decent leadership and some luck they could prevent Chirac from proclaiming himself the reincarnation of Napoleon in the shadow of the Pyramids. Having said that if for God knows what reason France was utterly determined to conquer Egypt IMHO they have the military and economic power, coupled with first world organizational skills to accomplish that objective.

gentlemen, i was not referring to you among the french-bashers; i have great respect for you all (except, of course, for JIMF because of his persistent preference for Lichtenstein chicks). i am a neutral party; i have no interest in the matter: as you know i am not french and FS is not holding a .45 to my head as i type (actually, it's a FAMAS he he). if anything, as a muslim, i should be vocifericously supporting the egyptians if i were biaised that way. i am taking the french side because of what i see as clear french strategic advantages. perhaps in doubting egypt's forces, i am grafting my disdain of my nation's own military onto the egyptians'. i know how things 'work' (or don't work) in a third world country, which is where my doubts of the egyptians stem from... i admit this could be biasing my opinion.

Actually I think your opinion is correct. When I worked for Nissan in Tokyo a number of years ago they were getting pressure from the Egyptian government to include significant local content in the vehicles that they sold in Egypt. The Nissan Engineering group concluded that there was virtually nothing the Egyptians could produce, outside of floor mats, that Nissan could use. They are a third world country. Thanks a lot, now all those French guys will be hitting on the Lichtenstein chicks.

Ok ok. Please forgive the title of the post. But I had to be sure certain unnammed individuals read this one because its important. While we debate the merits of this France vs Egypt fiasco. A huge issue is being completely ignored by some. Actually this issue is even more important than all these list of toys and operations. Since we all kow wars do not happen inside a political void. What does the United States think about France taking over Egypt? Now before you go screaming that other nations helping arent allowed consider two things. 1st is FS insist on using other nations, violating nuetral countries to achive his mission. 2nd is that France has tried, AND FAILED, this before. And since this thread is titled "how does France rank in world power". The reaction of the rest of the world is an important consideration. Lets use recent and not so recent history to get an idea of just how things might turn out. Not so recent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_crisis A quick and easy read. I really dont have a lot to add to this link as it speaks for itself. But allow a few comments please so as to link it more closely to this discussion. First, the military achievements of France and Britain were meaningless in the end. The reason? The didnt have the political clout and INFLUENCE to hold their gains. So no matter how great of an operation they pulled off. The end result was disaster. You would be hard pressed to find a more obvious example of Clausewitz "War is Politics by other means". My contention is that France would need the approval of the USA to carry out its interest in Egypt. Failure to do so would result in repeat of the Suez Crisis with the US having a veriety of means to influence events. This approval is not likely given US/Egyptian relations and US/French relations. Also the Suez is still a critical choke point and there are many nations who might take a hostile view of it falling into French hands. There would also have to be approval from Israel and Libya both of whom could swing this war in Egypts favor even faster. SO you have 3 nations whos approval is absolutely mandatory to France. None of the three nations mentioned are on particularly good terms with France. A side note but still relevant is that even if France could get Chad and Djibouti to allow use of their nations for offensive operations. And buy Sudan and Eritria off. It still would not matter due to logistical reasons that have been conclussively debated to death and proven to be insurmountable. Recent: http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Prof/FalkSAASSpresentn03.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Countries_supporting_and_opposing_the_war Ok are things becoming more clear now? In the first link. The U.K., not a superpower, but capable of limited force projection. Had the essential task of FIRST getting US approval to conduct its combat operations in the Falklands. And even after that it did not have an easy time of long distance operations and required help. And Argentina only had a few Exocet! Imagine if they had 4 to 6 SSK's with SSMs and 100+ HARM and Exocet ect. I think Argentina would still have the Falklands! In the second link notice the list of nations opposed to OIF! France is on that list. Hell India ,China and the Vatican are on that list! Im too lazy to do the math but Im sure thats got to be 1/3 to 1/2 or more of the world was against the US. Some nations even provided direct support up to the opening shots. The US simply decided it was in our interest to invade and conquer Iraq and did it with impunity from a half a planet away! Thats a Superpower! But I'm not gloating. There are very good reasons why I use this example here. If you examine the site you will find that Saudi Arabia actually refused to let the US attack from its soil. Because we needed at least some degree of legitimacy we respected that wish and used Kuwait. This is amazing considering that 15 or the 19 9/11 murderers were Saudi! US could easily have forced Saudi Arabia to help or at least ignore the use of their territory as FS proposes to do with Libya and Sudan. And the US population would have supported it then! But we didnt because it would have been a political nightmare. Yes a political nightmare! Why because the insurgency would have been able to justify their claims of the US being imperialist and while fighting from Saudi Arabia would have helped tactically. From a strategic point of view it would have cost us dearly as the insurgency would be many time more powerful and in our rear area! FS and BW are ignoring this in their plan! How can any competent strategist make this error! Ok I'm calm now but I think you get the point. Now another link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Countries_supporting_and_opposing_the_war Read the third paragraph. Turkey caused one of the biggest FRAGOs of all time right before the war by refusing to let the US use its territory. Only th

your experience with nissan confirmed the facts on the ground, JIMF. i spent two months in morocco, which i assume to be culturally and economically (though in recent years egypt has made gains) similar to egypt. there is almost no economic activity. most people are just walking around smoking, drinking coffee and bitching about 'arab solidarity', politics, etc: meanwhile in the households, out of view, the women do ALL the work. washing, cleaning, house repairs, take care of the kids, make bread, cakes, etc and flog them in the souk. the men seem to have zero productivity. the women are virtual slaves. it is not really a model for a dynamic, vibrant society. the fact that they could make floor mats, i even call that into question. no need to fear though, buddy, the Lichenstein chicks are too domineering and agressive: the French men wouldn't be interested. your monopoly on them is safe:)