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: If the US Marine Corps, and the French Foreign Legion had a battle, which side would win?
Republican    1/1/2006 4:03:01 AM
I think the Corps would win, but both sides are tough as nails.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
GOP    RE:contest - jtjcp88   1/21/2006 1:42:29 PM
>>I have a lot of respect for the USMC but the foreign legion and USMC are simply uncomparable in my opinion. Id ont even feel the need to back up my claims because its basically a fact already<< Well, all I can say is I am glad your opinion is wrong and mine is right. The USMC is simply better at everything than the Legion. The French just do not make good warriors, although the Germans seemed to think they made good prisoners. I guess we are going to have to prove this once and for all. We need to arrange a fight. 10,000 Marines against 10,000 Legion. :)
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:contest - jtjcp88   1/21/2006 4:39:34 PM
"The French just do not make good warriors" always MUCH better than US people and proven by history.US won only by material superiority and it is not a warrior quality! See Verdun and so on.You would mention Dien Ben Phu and some french defeats but US would never have been able to fight such during so long against 5 to 1 superiority including artillery. BTW we gave won 60% of land battle agaisnt British in history and British are considerably much better than US in soldier martial qualities. At beginning of WW2, US troops were said by German unable and unsuited to fight! (see Kasserine pass).When poorly equiped North African based French troops decided to fight US at Torch operation they succeded in blocking US troops while having no air support despite monstruous US superiority. US have never proved to be able to beat a DECENT ennemy if in inferiority. It is not a racial question, but cultural. A cultural feature because US are deeply democratic and do not consider fighting as a personnal commitment to personnal honour and allegiance to their chiefs (and so need ideological excuses as fighting for liberty and to get US public support backing them) while France military culture as English or former German have retained a part of old medieval values. Moreover in our culture , we are more reactive and imaginative at soldier level and put less emphasis on following rigorously processes unlike US people.(the same in business and current life). Third US soldier always consider that he has to get good supply to fight (because he think that considering US richness and personnal engagement everything have to be provided to him including showers and Coca Cola brought by helicopter). A fourth point is that US degre of liberty about losses have always been weak because US democratic mind and history.In France losing a million man on battlefield is considered normal.The probabilist fate of a soldier is to die. It prevent US to use all options on battlefield and when your opposition is to tought, you can not use certain risky options. Winning by material superiority is a proof of industrial power, not martial qualities! BTW german have always considered the French as world best soldiers after them. We have your technicity but more imagination at soldier level and more ruggerized.And more other we are not afraid of losses. Some US units can be very good (like rangers ) by special selection but never the bulk of army. GOP you have only shown your stupidity and ignorance.You have so attracted my comment based on historical evidences even it can be interpreted as flame post which is not.
 
Quote    Reply

BasinBictory    RE:contest - jtjcp88   1/21/2006 4:54:54 PM
>>BTW german have always considered the French as world best soldiers after them.<< Actually, A German general was once quoted that the best soldiers he ever faced were the British, followed closely by the Soviets, then the Americans. The French were not mentioned. Perhaps because the key word in his sentence was "fought" >>Moreover in our culture , we are more reactive and imaginative at soldier level and put less emphasis on following rigorously processes unlike US people.(the same in business and current life).<< Yeah - that is why the French economy is casuing American and Japanese business execs to cry in their beer (and sake) This is such an infantile discussion it's almost laughable. For the record, a lot of the Islamist fighters in Iraq thought, much as you did, that American soldiers and Marines depended far too much on air and artillery superiority, and were unpleasantly surprised when this generation of American soldiers and Marines proved highly adept at infantry tactics. Yes, it is true that in the past (WW2, Korea and Vietnam) the typical American infantry doctrine was to make "contact" with the enemy (actually - just find them) and then call in air and artillery to blast the Germans/Japanese/Chinese/North Vietnamese to kingdom come, while just pulling back a little and watching the fireworks. An aggressive spirit of infantry wasn't taught or highly encouraged except in SOF units and the Airborne. However, much has changed since Vietnam, and the US military trains very hard and constantly. Okay fine - man for man the Legion Entrangere might be more highly trained and more rigorously selected, but the USMC has organic heavy assets that the LE simply does not. Being able to do 100 pull-ups and run 3 miles in 14 minutes might make you king of the kill in a reality show, but it's not much help against an M1 Abrams or an F/A-18 Hornet.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:contest - jtjcp88   1/21/2006 5:25:38 PM
>>always MUCH better than US people and proven by history.US won only by material superiority and it is not a warrior quality!<< Winning is winning, losing is losing. Excuses are excuses. >>See Verdun and so on.<< Most of a generation pissed away by incompetent leadership? That would, at best, demonstrate that any French martial spirit does not translate into the skill to actually lead men in combat. >>You would mention Dien Ben Phu and some french defeats but US would never have been able to fight such during so long against 5 to 1 superiority including artillery.<< It appears that the French could not either. Beyond that -- Khe Sahn. Bastogne. Both notable events in wars France had, um, already lost . . . >>BTW we gave won 60% of land battle agaisnt British in history and British are considerably much better than US in soldier martial qualities.<< Outside of French assistance to the American Revolution, the last war France won against England or the UK was in the 14th century. One could suggest that once English kings stopped speaking French as their primary language, French victories became pretty much non-existent. >>At beginning of WW2, US troops were said by German unable and unsuited to fight! (see Kasserine pass).When poorly equiped North African based French troops decided to fight US at Torch operation they succeded in blocking US troops while having no air support despite monstruous US superiority.<< So green American troops with leadership of the quality one normally associates with French forces did poorly. A couple years later they overran France and invaded Germany . . . again in a war that France had already lost. >>US have never proved to be able to beat a DECENT ennemy if in inferiority.<< Of course not, because, in your eyes, every enemy we've pummeled senseless is, because of that, no longer a decent opponent . . . in your eyes. >>It is not a racial question, but cultural.<< Oh, I agree completely. >>A cultural feature because US are deeply democratic and do not consider fighting as a personnal commitment to personnal honour and allegiance to their chiefs (and so need ideological excuses as fighting for liberty and to get US public support backing them) while France military culture as English or former German have retained a part of old medieval values.<< Which prompts French leadership to consider grand and pathetic gestures as required by honor -- i.e. Dien Bien Phu as well as the various other occasions they simply threw away airborne forces in Vietnam on suicidal die-in-place missions, etc. But, of course, your belief that Americans put democracy over a sense of honor is rather seriously silly. If you don't believe me, come down to the American South (where our regional culture draws heavily on Scottish, Borderlands, and Scotch-Irish heritages), go into a bar, and tell the biggest guy you see there that Americans lack the honor to fight proper wars. If you're lucky, that guy will be me, and I'll debate it while laughing at you. If you're not lucky, you're going to get your a$$ beat by someone to demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking. And, of course, let's not even consider how our very significant Latin American minority population feels about personal and family honor . . . >>Moreover in our culture , we are more reactive and imaginative at soldier level and put less emphasis on following rigorously processes unlike US people.(the same in business and current life).<< This is sufficiently comical that I really have no response except to wonder at the level of BS apparently being sold to French citizens these days. >>Third US soldier always consider that he has to get good supply to fight (because he think that considering US richness and personnal engagement everything have to be provided to him including showers and Coca Cola brought by helicopter).<< Again, sputtering out stereotypes with no basis in fact hardly does anything to advance your argument. And we're not the nation whose soldiers get all weepy if their rations do not include a wine ration wherein whatever courage is available may be found. >>A fourth point is that US degre of liberty about losses have always been weak because US democratic mind and history.<< No, not really. Our non-military serving elites in government wring their hands about such things, while Americans by and large accept it provided the cause is remotely understandable. Vietnam, our "casualty aversion" demonstrating war only cost us almost 60,000 killed -- about six or seven thousand more combat losses than "hairy chested" France could bear before running away. >>In France losing a million man on battlefield is considered normal.The probabilist fate of a soldier is to die.<< Right -- that is, in summary, the heart of your nation's military weakness. The probable fate of the American soldier is to live . . . but kill the enemy. Any idiot can die for his
 
Quote    Reply

lrsrng    RE:contest - jtjcp88   1/21/2006 5:34:35 PM
The sign of a nation having little military influence conventionally is when its leader states that they will use nuclear weapons if attacked by terrorist. Does France now acknowledge that some other states they do buisness with sponsor terror.Who do you nuke.Nukeing a country because of terror is terror and a sign of cowardice and weakness.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:contest - GOP   1/21/2006 7:10:05 PM
"The French just do not make good warriors" Well, maybe... but do those names ring a bell? Alma Arcole Aspern-Essling Auerstadt Austerlitz Avein Beneventi Borodino Bouvines Brienne-le-Château Castillon Champaubert Cocherel Eckmühl Einzheim Elchingen Eylau Fleurus Fontenoy Formigny Fornoue Fort Carillon Friedland Garigliano Hanau Hastenbeck Hastenbeck Hohenlinden Hondschoote Iena Inkerman Isly Jemappes Kempen Kolweizi La Birse La Brossinière La Marsaille La Roche aux Moines Las Cumbres Lens Lerida Leucate Leuze Lodi Lützen Magenta Maloyaroslavets Marengo Marignan Marne Mars-la-Tour Marsaglia Millesimo Mons-en-Pévèle Montereau Montjuic Montlhéry Montmirail Mormant Neerwinden Nördlingen Poitiers Rivoli Rocroi Saalfeld Saint-Denis Sinzheim Smolensk Soissons Solferino Staffarda Staffarde Abbey Steinkerque Ter River Tornavento Tourcoing Turckheim Ulm Valmy Vauchamps Wagram Wolffenbüttel Zusmarshausen
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:contest - GOP   1/21/2006 7:33:35 PM
>>Well, maybe... but do those names ring a bell?<< Doesn't one name trump all those? Waterloo
 
Quote    Reply

jlb    RE:contest - Horsesoldier   1/21/2006 8:00:03 PM
"Doesn't one name trump all those? Waterloo" Well, if all you can answer is of the short&cheap kind... :) I'll just say that yours is a pretty British-centric point of view. Or in other words, when your jewel-box ain't as full as you'd like, you'll make'em shine the brightest you can... ;)
 
Quote    Reply

bunkerdestroyer    RE:doomed   1/21/2006 8:13:31 PM
well jtj, depends.... A)shouldnt have gotten into the mess in the first place: fault of the commanders B)should have a more realistic appreciation of your situation, capibilities and the enemy: fault of the commanders C)Be able to give full support, and if you dont have the assets, then if it isnt a climatic necessity, then dont try it: fault of the commanders I doubt all their battles were DBP-or what is that place that is edged in their history? Begins with a 'c'? Any, Perhaps someone more clearer on the FFL history can say(I am only vaguely)....but the ones they had were certainly notable, esp DBP and their part(I believe) in Algeria/the revolt.... I think the soldiers did fairly well, but after you slam the commanders/planners like the coachs, manager, and team owners, just how much blame lies on the players themselves?
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:contest - Horsesoldier   1/21/2006 8:16:44 PM
Waterloo is maybe a defeat vs Prussians (LOL - as they played the major role as more numerous than UK troops!), but France was at war during 20 years vs ALL other best armies of its time. But for our biggest victories of 20th century La Marne and Verdun are still incredible victories vs best army of XXth century (i.e german) of the most militarist industrial country. BTW the best is to compare French and Anglosaxon troops when they fought together in the same front vs same adversary against a decent ennemy: La Somme 1916 , Bir Hakeim, Monte Cassino, Crossing of the Rhine 45, etc... We fought better and faster than our allies in all these case whatever British or US To come back on FFL I prefer words of a US military commentator: http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETINTERNET/HOMEPAGES/AC/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/0/3e67373caac8a92285256e5b00577ba0/$FILE/ATTNPVKY/Volume155BREicher.pdf Yet, “how [can] an elite unit come to be fashioned out of material regarded as unpromising?”26 This question seems the primary impetus for Porch writing The Legion. With very few exceptions, the French Foreign Legion has rightfully earned its badge of honor as one of the toughest fighting forces in history. How can refugees from the normal motivating factors of home, family, community, and country be molded into a crack military force? Is it love for France (or the liberty France traditionally has represented)? Hardly. Porch tells us that, almost to a man, recruits who came to the Legion with such idealistic motivations are routinely ostracized as “fools.”27 Neither is it the pay. While some legionnaires have of course enlisted for the “gamelle” (mess tin),28 legionnaire pay was traditionally too low to be much of a draw; even today, a legionnaire recruit starts out at only $300.00 per month.29 So, what accounts for the Legion’s tenacious fighting spirit? The selection process is part of the answer. Currently, the Legion receives far too many applicants for its 8500 strong ranks. Thus it is relatively easy to weed out the physically unfit and unstable recruit.30 To a certain extent, this has always been the case. “Avoid all intellectuals, argumentative people, persuasive speakers able to influence opinion . . . . Give preference to farm workers, day laborers and all other manual trades,” a legionnaire officer advised in 1943.31 In the end, it seems the very thing which causes men to come to the Legion in the first place accounts for their valor and discipline under fire. “To those who have forsaken their past, the Legion provides a new family— a polyglot brotherhood of grit and endurance.”32 Combine this with the legendary Legion discipline (as well as extremely tough training), and the result is a fraternal bond uncommon to even the most homogeneous of “national” armies. The official Legion motto, “Legio Patria Nostra” (The Legion, Our Father) says it all.33
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics