Would the French army be good in a real fight or do they just exist to bully African militias?

Would the French army be good in a real fight or do they just exist to bully African militias?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.
    Yes.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yes they are only behind the us and Poland i would say

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody considers that Poland is still affected by soviet boomer command chains taking kick ups

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >poland
      LOL. Poland is Ukraine in 2014 with more money

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        why does poland make you ziggers seethe so much?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Poland only upsets the Germans and French. They are also a net drain on the EU.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Poland only upsets the Germans and French.
            British literally left the EU because they were fed up with toilet cleaners.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          poland has mediocre military. it's not ukraine-in-2014 bad but it's pretty fricking bad.
          at least the schizo government went on a big spending spree; it remains to be seen whether they can manage to get people interested in the shitpit that is military service instead of earning 5x as much after studying javascript for 6 months or fricking off to western europe

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      wut. probably behind USA/UK / South Korea/ Japan and Israel

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Behind US, within error margin of UK over or under, but above SK and Japan.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Has the UK relied on France for strategic and tactical airlift?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            UK wouldn't dare ask for strategic lift to carry a stupidly low number of troops in such a low intensity conflict. This goes for both Sagiris and Mali.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >and Poland

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no we are total dogshit lol, we got dozens of vehicles stuck in southern france a few years ago in an exercise because the major of a small village gave us outdated maps and one of our moronic drivers didn´t see the fricking river
      3 more vehicles crashed while trying to retrieve the first one and then the shitshow started

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What was their last relevant combat experience?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They participated in the Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the conflict with ISIS, and like a dozen protracted conflicts in Africa. They have more recent experience than most other militaries with prolonged organized force projection, live combat, and logistics infrastructure maintenance. Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

      France is very involved in the francophone world and has actively been trying to resurrect a more benign version of their former colonial empire.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

        French deployment to Afghanistan was tiny compared to the Brits. The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq. Mali and other African adventures also deployed a very small amount of forces.

        The French are great, and definitely one of the most experienced about. But they have less modern experience than the Bongs.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Anon, I am literally planning on taking my commission and becoming an officer in the british army in the next few years, and even I can admit that the french army is fairly superior to the british army. Not by a ridiculous margin, not by an insane amount, but still decisively. The british army in its' current state is quite simply not fit for purpose. It cannot defend our state alone. We are so dependent on the yankees and so shit at doing things ourselves that the paras (the reg I intend to join) can't even rely on the RAF for air transport, they need the americans to fly them everywhere. I do not blame the british army itself for this however, they are all fantastic lads - I blame the suits in westminster, those out of touch, corrupt dogs.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            French here. No it would not. Our army is utterly pathetic, almost no artillery and MLRS, no true IFV, almost no tanks, geriatric logistic trucks, almost no ground air-defense… And it’s not going to get better with moronic designs like the Griffon (glorified MRAP) and Jaguar (recce truck) arriving en masse. The Air Force is barely better with no true SEAD capacity, anemic stocks, no heavy lift… But hey at least we got the Rafale, Meteor and MRTT… The Navy is also in a poor state, ridiculous number of VLS on first rank ships, lack of logistic ships, not enough subs…

            Don’t get me wrong we have lot of experience, some niche capabilities and an actual will to deploy troops, even if it’s for figuration, but the French army would not fare well in case of an actual high intensity conflict.

            The question is would they be good in a real fight, and the answer is yes. You have to realize that even though everything you said might be true, you have to compare it to other nations, most of whom suck even more.

            Think of it this way:
            USA: undisputed MMA heavyweight champion.
            France, UK: lightweight amateur fighters, that train regularly multiple martial arts, regularly win (and sometimes loose) a few fights/comps. Still have a life outside of fighting and don't have the time and resources to focus solely on this.
            Most other countries: Never ever fought, except some once or twice in the hood or train in a MacDojo.
            Then you have countries with huge manpower (China, Russia, India) who are simply in a heavier weight category. They might win simply because they are used to bullying others around because they're bigger, but will definitely get a few bruises or injuries in the process.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              of it this way:
              >USA: undisputed MMA heavyweight champion.
              >France, UK: lightweight amateur fighters, that train regularly multiple martial arts, regularly win (and sometimes loose) a few fights/comps. Still have a life outside of fighting and don't have the time and resources to focus solely on this.
              >Most other countries: Never ever fought, except some once or twice in the hood or train in a MacDojo.
              >Then you have countries with huge manpower (China, Russia, India) who are simply in a heavier weight category. They might win simply because they are used to bullying others around because they're bigger, but will definitely get a few bruises or injuries in the process.

              He, not sure how true that is, but I like the metaphor

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Congratulations, you’re exactly the kind of uninformed moron that seems to get commissioned these days. If you can cling to your teenage ignorance, you will do well.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/iTWFOhn.jpg

              Anon, I am literally planning on taking my commission and becoming an officer in the british army in the next few years, and even I can admit that the french army is fairly superior to the british army. Not by a ridiculous margin, not by an insane amount, but still decisively. The british army in its' current state is quite simply not fit for purpose. It cannot defend our state alone. We are so dependent on the yankees and so shit at doing things ourselves that the paras (the reg I intend to join) can't even rely on the RAF for air transport, they need the americans to fly them everywhere. I do not blame the british army itself for this however, they are all fantastic lads - I blame the suits in westminster, those out of touch, corrupt dogs.

              Yeah this lad will fit right in at home with the paras and their brain drooling.

              The RAF refusing let the paras jump out of planes is an example of great resource allocation. Outside of SF it serves very little purpose today.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, Paras are ace and the capability is essential. They also had the highest rate of degree officers in the 70s and 80s. He won’t be able to join them though. You’re just as stupid as the child.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just fricking eat crow and rejoin the EU.

            You fricking people are pathetic, Christ. It's like watching an aristocrat burn paintings for fuel because they can't afford wood.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Not by a ridiculous margin
            >but still decisively

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >France
          >Iraq War
          You don't remember calling French fries "freedom fries"?

          >The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq.
          Operation Chammal

          I think beintg deployed for 8 years and counting, and having boots on the ground in the battle of Mossul counts.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/u27ZMH0.jpg

            >The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq.
            Would you kindly learn a thing or two norf FC anon? The frogs deployed during Chammal to clean the shit left behind after the invasion of Iraq had turned wrong.
            >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opération_Chammal

            The Caesar also became famous due to Chammal.

            In Mossul the advancing iraqi were thanking the french for using precision rounds which minimized collaterals. Plot twist: the shells were not precision rounds.
            [...]
            >I think being deployed for 8 years and counting, and having boots on the ground in the battle of Mossul counts.
            Chammal ended alongside inherent resolve in december 2021.
            >https://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/actualites/chammal-fin-mission-combat-troupes-coalition-internationale-irak#:~:text=internationale%20en%20Irak-,CHAMMAL%20-%20Fin%20de%20la%20mission%20de%20combat%20des%20troupes,la%20Coalition%20internationale%20en%20Irak&text=Le%209%20décembre%202021%2C%20une,lutte%20contre%20Daech%20au%20Levant.

            >French troops deployed to Iraq
            >3200
            >British troops deployed to Iraq
            >46,000
            Lmao French deployments are pathetic but spoken of like they are some big deal. You hardly ever hear bongs bragging about Sierra Leone even though it was a similar sized operation as the French one in Mali with the exception they did it entirely on there own and actually won.

            France lacks combined arms experience and deploying large amounts of troops.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Nigel, compare the size of your army now with your army in 2003.
              You couldn't do it again even if you wanted to.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry to make you look silly Pierre but you just don't compare.

                >blah blah blah
                France permanently deploys all around the world around 30 thousand men and women. This has been true for every day of every year for several decades.

                Fantastic, that's amazing peace time deployments are totally the same thing right lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >blah blah blah
                France permanently deploys all around the world around 30 thousand men and women. This has been true for every day of every year for several decades.

                Let's just get the numbers here.
                >Iraq
                >UK 46,000
                >France 3200
                >Afganistan
                >UK 42,000
                >France 4000
                >Mali
                >UK 300
                >France 4000

                As you can see it's pathetic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >those fudged numbers
                Peak british troop deployment to Afghanistan was 9500 Nigel.
                And as said, the 46000 to Iraq were during the peak of the invasion, and that didn't last very long and with a significantly bigger British army then than it is now.
                The Bong army nowadays is roughly 70 thousand men.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Got the numbers for Iraq.
                Past the initial invasion, there were less than 9000 troops on the ground.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Peak numbers was 9500
                Wrong see picrel for non French cope.
                Its sad to see how you are trying to move the posts to avoid such embarresment as to the minute size of French deployments. This trend goes back to the Gulf war too.
                >Gulf War
                >UK 54,000
                >France 11,000
                Sad, just own it frog.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bongoid, that's the number of troops who rotated in Afghanistan every year, not the max number on theatre which was 10 000 in 2010.
                https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/twenty-years-of-british-troops-in-afghanistan

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >At 28th February 2014, the number of UK personnel deployed to Iraq since 2001 was 141,640; the number of UK personnel deployed to Afghanistan since 2001 was 140,350.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What an absolutely moronic way to count.
                >same ops got rotated three times in a year
                >WE DEPLOYED 15000 TROOPS!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kek keep seething sub 10k deployer and also strategic lift-let.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t. ignore my moronicness when I didn't know what peak strength was

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t. still tries to present the overall number of troops deployed over a year as peak strength
                No wonder you guys can't even build your own SLBM's and need help for your nuclear reactors.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >lying after being caught out
                >or missed a digit
                >desperately searches for something else to talk about
                it's a shame one can't just put it out of its misery

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Thinks rotational deployments is 40k
                >Gets proven wrong
                >Spergs
                Do you want a lift home frog? Could I call you a C17?

                >lying after being caught out
                >spergout
                That describes you very well indeed.
                You literally can't count holy shit.
                >peak troops in theatre 10000
                >get rotated several times
                >That MEANS WE HAD 40000 TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Thinks rotational deployments is 40k
                >Gets proven wrong
                >Spergs
                Do you want a lift home frog? Could I call you a C17?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                France are, at any times, more than 30k troops deployed all over the world, for years and years. Also the UK abandoned some permanent deployment zones, while the french dont.
                Just last year the US say they did not considered the UK to be a first rank capacity army because of this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how we are talking about combat deployments not holiday destinations or Policing duties.
                The mysterious anonymous general who told that to the UK def minister who leaked that to the press 2 weeks before asking for a budget increase? Don't be moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >France are, at any times, more than 30k troops deployed all over the world
                Not a combat deployment.
                >4k Mali
                >2k CAR
                >3k Iraq
                That's the height of French combat deployments, not even 10k. Bongs had 4x that in Iraq alone. I don't know why this dumb argument is still going on its simple numbers that France doest come close too.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Bongs had 4x that in Iraq alone.
                20 years ago for less than 1 year, now look up how much the british army shrunk since then and weep.
                Those deployments lasted with this tempo over 2 decades when you factor in Serval started when we pulled out of Afghanistan.
                >Not a combat deployment.
                Sending ready forces to every corner still implies training, preparation and logistics. They're not just there to take photos and plant a flag.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So they did it and France didn't they did it in 91 too at the Gulf when France only managed 11k to 55k the Army shrank in size from 91 to 03 and they deployed 43k Iraq and 10k to Afgan at the same time. France doesn't compete in anyway shape or form in deployments.
                >Sending forces on peacekeeping missions shows prep for logistics and training
                >Logistics
                Your arguing in bad faith it's not a combat deployment and the UKs non combat deployments aren't included. Bringing up logistics is a bad idea too.

                He's right you know. Most of french air lifting was achieved by AN-124 operated by private russian companies. Not US UK C-17s.

                >Most of french air lifting was achieved by AN-124 operated by private russian companies
                Mostly Ukrainian through Antonov directly.

                Ah look more French bullshit, care to provide sources because I can to prove that shit you just said is laughable. But you go first. You will just deflect like the deployment numbers though.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >So they did it and France didn't they did it in 91 too at the Gulf when France only managed 11k to 55k the Army shrank in size from 91 to 03 and they deployed 43k Iraq and 10k to Afgan at the same time.
                1. not at the same time. You had 43k people in Iraq in 2003 for less than 1 year. You didn't have 10k people in Afghanistan at this time, not even fricking close.
                2. Compare what is comparable. The French army in 1991 was a conscription army that pretty much could not be used offensively abroad. The bongs had a small, professional army because even during the height of the Cold War they never expected to face the ruskies with more than what they sent to Iraq in 1991.
                >Your arguing in bad faith it's not a combat deployment and the UKs non combat deployments aren't included. Bringing up logistics is a bad idea too.
                Black person just look up in history to see how quickly and often "non-combat deployments" in Africa turned to full combat deployments.
                >hurrrr logistics C-17 lmaooo
                Ah yeah, I forgot troops deployed abroad eat grass and piss in their gas tanks.
                You could bring up the bong "non-combat deployments" as well, maybe then you'll finally see that you have far less foreign commitments.
                >Ah look more French bullshit, care to provide sources because I can to prove that shit you just said is laughable.
                >hurrduurrr BS cuz I said so

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Wall of cope. Miniscule deployments. Bad logistics. Pathetic combined arms.

                Brasil commited during the initial stage half their C-130 and the Russian 224th Air Detachment of Military Transport Aviation transported most of the initial stuff (because they were on retainer for especially time like this) using An-124 and Il-76.
                The brits were the only ones that actually reacted on time and sent ONE C-17 to help the logistical effort.
                The rest of NATO including the US did NOTHING.
                The US initially demanded payment for their logistic service EXACTLY because we were paying the Russians.

                You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                But it's still what happened.

                You can head to the (sanitized) armée de l'air facebook photos of the crucial days (11th to 15th january 2013) where you will can still see some antonov being loaded.

                Wikipedia is a sauce.

                My guy, you are fricking deluded.
                >Belgium 2x C130 2xAW109
                >Canada 1x C17 (asked for extended stay)
                >Denmark 1x C130
                >Germany 3x C160 1x A310
                >Holland 2x KDC10 4x C130 3x Chinook
                >Spain 1x C130 1x C295
                >Nato (Swedish time slot) 1x C17
                >UAE 2x C17
                >UK 2x C17 1x Sentinel ISR 3x Chinook
                Oh and this bit...
                >US did NOTHING.
                Bruh you fricked up
                >US 5x C17 5x KC135 1x RC135 ISR
                See how biblically wrong you are? You dumb frick never ever say such a stupid thing again.
                >B-b-but Brazil and Russia and Antanov!
                >You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                >But it's still what happened.
                I've never ever seen such a ridiculous post on here in my life. This is the true moronicness of the fricking French.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >>My guy, you are fricking deluded.
                >Belgium 2x C130 2xAW109
                >Canada 1x C17 (asked for extended stay)
                >Denmark 1x C130
                >Germany 3x C160 1x A310
                >Holland 2x KDC10 4x C130 3x Chinook
                >Spain 1x C130 1x C295
                >Nato (Swedish time slot) 1x C17
                >UAE 2x C17
                >UK 2x C17 1x Sentinel ISR 3x Chinook
                >Oh and this bit...
                >US did NOTHING.
                >Bruh you fricked up
                >US 5x C17 5x KC135 1x RC135 ISR
                See how biblically wrong you are? You dumb frick never ever say such a stupid thing again.
                >B-b-but Brazil and Russia and Antanov!
                >You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                >>But it's still what happened.
                I've never ever seen such a ridiculous post on here in my life. This is the true moronicness of the fricking French.
                The true moronicness of the bong.
                Can't read dates.
                Can't tell how many rotations they've made.
                Can't tell how much tonnage they transported.
                Pulls up a list of anything that got involved at some point and thinks it absolutely proves its point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ELEVEN C17S!!! (11) EIGHT C130S (8) SEVEN TANKERS (7) SIX CHINOOK (6)
                and lots more!
                How the frick can you still try to argue you deluded c**t lmaoooo

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                see

                >>My guy, you are fricking deluded.
                >Belgium 2x C130 2xAW109
                >Canada 1x C17 (asked for extended stay)
                >Denmark 1x C130
                >Germany 3x C160 1x A310
                >Holland 2x KDC10 4x C130 3x Chinook
                >Spain 1x C130 1x C295
                >Nato (Swedish time slot) 1x C17
                >UAE 2x C17
                >UK 2x C17 1x Sentinel ISR 3x Chinook
                >Oh and this bit...
                >US did NOTHING.
                >Bruh you fricked up
                >US 5x C17 5x KC135 1x RC135 ISR
                See how biblically wrong you are? You dumb frick never ever say such a stupid thing again.
                >B-b-but Brazil and Russia and Antanov!
                >You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                >>But it's still what happened.
                I've never ever seen such a ridiculous post on here in my life. This is the true moronicness of the fricking French.
                The true moronicness of the bong.
                Can't read dates.
                Can't tell how many rotations they've made.
                Can't tell how much tonnage they transported.
                Pulls up a list of anything that got involved at some point and thinks it absolutely proves its point.

                >Can't read dates.
                >Can't tell how many rotations they've made.
                >Can't tell how much tonnage they transported.
                >Pulls up a list of anything that got involved at some point and thinks it absolutely proves its point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Arrête tu t'enfonces...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Si t'es suffisamment con pour ne pas considérer ces facteurs, ta gueule.

                None of your greentext addresses the fact it took all of that shit to get your poxy 4k troops and equipment 3000km away from France. You would have been FRICKED without them.

                Black person do you realize how long it lasted? At NO point during 8 years there did it amount to more than about a fifth of what was transported.
                Having a bunch of C-17 do a single or 2 rotations don't compensate the fact that most tonnage didn't get there through those means, even if they helped significantly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                None of your greentext addresses the fact it took all of that shit to get your poxy 4k troops and equipment 3000km away from France. You would have been FRICKED without them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Not quite right, most of the early shit (especially special forces) came either from pre-deployed troops in the region (Burkina, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon) and then by road transiting by Mauritania after unloading in Senegal

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Most of the early shit....
                How do you think the stuff in CAR got there...
                >Before the start of the operation, the French Ministry of Defence had demarched several European allies, as well as the US, to request support with air logistics, both strategic (long-range) and tactical (short-range).[87] The British quickly announced their support, providing a number of Boeing C-17A Globemaster IIIs.[88] Germany followed suit by committing a medical transport plane.[89] On 13 December 2013, Belgium sent an Airbus A330 and deployed a Lockheed C-130H Hercules tactical transport. Other countries, such as Spain, Poland and the Netherlands, were also approached.

                Si t'es suffisamment con pour ne pas considérer ces facteurs, ta gueule.
                [...]
                Black person do you realize how long it lasted? At NO point during 8 years there did it amount to more than about a fifth of what was transported.
                Having a bunch of C-17 do a single or 2 rotations don't compensate the fact that most tonnage didn't get there through those means, even if they helped significantly.

                The frick are you still going on about, the British C17s stayed for the entire duration doing two trips each month. The Chinooks stayed the duration and lifted the entire French deployment three times over.
                Stop coping and just admit you haven't a fricking clue what your talking about.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why are you talking about CAR? All the choppers that stopped the column came from TF Sabre in Burkina Faso and the first GTIA were made up of various units that deployed by road from Chad and Cote d'Ivoire...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The frick are you still going on about, the British C17s stayed for the entire duration doing two trips each month.
                I'm sure that measures up to the daily trips taken by A400's, A330MRTT, C130, and even the An-124's on loan.
                But yeah, sure, go ahead and say it aaaaalll hinged on those 2 trips a month.
                Maybe stop coping and just admit you haven't a fricking clue what you're talking about, because I'm getting tired of explaining in so many words that you can round up every fricking foreign contribution on a neat list, it doesn't give any fricking perspective when you're comparing a few C-17's trips with the whole merry-go-round that took place.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Provides no source
                >Still coping after all the proof presented to him
                Frog you are insufferable. All you have done is deflect cope and seethe.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Do you need a fricking source to deduce that no, that "tiny 4000 troop deployment" cannot just rely on 2 C17 trips a month you humongous disingenuous moron?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                >But it's still what happened.
                Proof for that ridiculous statement. Your tiny deployment was carried by a ridiculous amount of nations your trying hard to refute it but its the cold hard truth. Disingenuous is the definition of your behavior itt everything you said has been proven wrong lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh the irony

                >Provides no source
                https://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2022/08/23/150-convois-aeriens-23271.html
                There you go.
                65% French flights
                17% loaned flights
                18% allied flights
                Can you shut the frick up now?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >misrepresenting anon’s argument
                Cope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Provides no source
                https://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2022/08/23/150-convois-aeriens-23271.html
                There you go.
                65% French flights
                17% loaned flights
                18% allied flights
                Can you shut the frick up now?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Half of all freight and personnel transported for the French-led Operation Barkhane in the Sahel is carried out by allied and European countries, France has revealed.
                >The French defence ministry on 25 June said its allies have since 2019 been responsible for 50% of freight and personnel transport for Barkhane forces, which are fighting armed terrorist groups operating in the Sahel region.
                >Spain has contributed 15% through the Mamba and Marfil missions from Gabon and Senegal. The logistical support provided by the British Chinook helicopters within the area of operation also weighs in with more than 15%. The United States (with almost 10%) and Germany (over 6%) are also strongly committed to Barkhane, as are Canada and Belgium, the French defence ministry said.
                >50%
                At least you are able to deploy 2000 soldiers by yourself France, good job you have the capabilities of Denmark lol

                Frog here, I support this, mainly because I genuinely don't care enough about bongs to post in their threads but they always have the irresistible urge to shit up the joint.
                Must be that 53-10 butthurt.

                >He says in English
                Kek

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I knew the French logistic meme was bad but this is ridiculous. Begging Canada on all places for a C17 and the Saudis...how low can you go.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >blah blah blah
              France permanently deploys all around the world around 30 thousand men and women. This has been true for every day of every year for several decades.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >France lacks combined arms experience and deploying large amounts of troops.
              lolwut
              their whole GTIA deployment is based around combined arms

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >their whole GTIA deployment is based around combined arms
                And it is doubtful how well it works in practice
                >bbbut Mali
                Fighting hadjis is not a true war; it will be very different when the cost of making a mistake is not "oops Gazelle shot down it's okay we can rescue the crew" but rather "we lost an entire GTIA to artillery barrage"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >And it is doubtful how well it works in practice
                You're just asserting the opposite that what can be seen plain as day is not what it is, insisting we believe you and not our lying eyes.
                The proof is in the pudding of their successful deployments.
                >we lost GITA to artillery
                Have you never heard the phrase "the right tool for the right job"?
                They deploy the forces appropriate for the expected opposition.
                When they were in Kosovo they sent Leclercs because the opposition had tanks, when they deploy in Africa and Afghanistan they bring the AMX or ERC because the opposition does not have tanks.
                If their opposition has artillery they'll deploy forces accordingly.
                And the GITA grew out of the Cold War doctrine of dispersing forces to reduce risk of being wiped out by artillery.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >insisting we believe you
                Yeah, about that...
                Since the invention of the tank all militaries know they have to train in combined arms together. BAD SHIT happens when units are unfamiliar with each other.

                Now suddenly the modern French Army supposedly has come up with a magic sauce that means totally unrelated units will work absolutely fine when thrown together from the get-go
                and this is totally not copium for having to pull different units from different brigades together, because frick knows what readiness is really like
                nor is it just fancying up mission specific task organisation which all NATO armies practice, no sir
                it's some SPECIAL SAUCE that makes French combined arms better than other combined arms
                yeeeeeah
                sure
                >their successful deployments
                we'll see when it's not fighting sand Black folk in Toyotas, won't we?

                >If their opposition has artillery they'll deploy forces accordingly
                it's not about the hardware, RTS-playing moron; it's about how people work under fire, heavy artillery fire, not random plinking by sandBlack folk firing AKs above their heads

                >its bad for your allies to assist you in rapid deployments
                why
                [...]
                >if the French didn't need the help
                who has argued this

                >who has argued this
                just about every moronic frog sucking serval dick

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >and this is totally not copium for having to pull different units from different brigades together
                t. has zero actual idea how force generation works
                They're drawn from the same brigades.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t. doesn't know how to greentext and doesn't know what the French Army says about its own doctrine
                Op Serval GTIA One
                VAB coy - 21 Reg Inf Marine, 6e Brigade Legere Bilndee
                VAB coy - 3e Para Inf Marine, 11e Brigade Para
                VAB coy - 2e Reg Inf Marine, 9e Brigade Legere Blindee Marine

                ONE battalion, THREE companies, from THREE brigades... holy shit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Copium or not since the french army was professionalized (aka since the army of africa was all that survived post-conscription army) ALL deployement have been interarm deployement oftentime intra coy even. And it was the case since fricking WWII for the army of Africa.
                And so far all the retex indicate that yeah it works.
                There is no secret sauce there is standardized training (which A LOT of efforts go to) and a high degree of interoperability (which again A LOT of efforts go to). The result is the GTIA or even Sub-GTIA mixing troops from available regiments with different companies often time, different sections pulled from various regiments, brigades and corps.

                And as far as anyone can tell it works, you don't get to decide it doesn't.

                The time you sent a regiment or even a brigade to fight as a single unit is under the pretense they won't fight well died around the end of WWII when germany created the kampfgruppen which our anglo-saxon allies call taskforce and which we call GTIA.

                So I just check the OP Serval wiki...
                Why does that shit look like France needed Ukraine tier support lmaooo
                >Supported by
                >Belgium
                >Canada
                >Denmark
                >Germany
                >Netherlands
                >Spain
                >Sweden
                >Poland
                >Australia
                >United Arab Emirates
                >United Kingdom
                >United States
                All that for 4000 measly troops NOT EVEN TANKS FFS

                Brasil and Russia participated more to the logistic effort of Serval than NATO cargoes and other diplomatic tokens.
                t. French that actually know how the french deployement works.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Brasil and Russia participated more to the logistic effort of Serval than NATO cargoes
                >t.a fricking idiot gayuette
                Your entire post has been disregarded for that ridiculous statement that is easily proven wrong with a simple Google you absolute seething cretin.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He's right you know. Most of french air lifting was achieved by AN-124 operated by private russian companies. Not US UK C-17s.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Most of french air lifting was achieved by AN-124 operated by private russian companies
                Mostly Ukrainian through Antonov directly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Brasil commited during the initial stage half their C-130 and the Russian 224th Air Detachment of Military Transport Aviation transported most of the initial stuff (because they were on retainer for especially time like this) using An-124 and Il-76.
                The brits were the only ones that actually reacted on time and sent ONE C-17 to help the logistical effort.
                The rest of NATO including the US did NOTHING.
                The US initially demanded payment for their logistic service EXACTLY because we were paying the Russians.

                You won't find it written anywhere on wiki.
                But it's still what happened.

                You can head to the (sanitized) armée de l'air facebook photos of the crucial days (11th to 15th january 2013) where you will can still see some antonov being loaded.

                Wikipedia is a sauce.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >cries about MUH FRENCH BELITTLED
                >lies about other nations helping him
                baguettes, not even once

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >yeah it works
                >never fought anyone other than sandnigs
                shades of 1940

                >The time you sent a regiment or even a brigade to fight as a single unit is under the pretense they won't fight well died around the end of WWII when germany created the kampfgruppen which our anglo-saxon allies call taskforce and which we call GTIA
                lol
                lmao even
                well, this is what to expect from an "army" that's only ever fought sandnigs

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >well, this is what to expect from an "army" that's only ever fought sandnigs
                Oh yeah bong, tell us about the ruski brigades you annihilated in the past 60 years!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Since losing Algeria the French never fought anything even on the scale of the Falklands
                Those are the facts, seethe cope and dilate

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Has France ever fought against a military with anything other than a pickup or motorbike lol? Even in the Gulf they got sidelined kek

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Tell us about any jet fighters the French have shot down in the past 50 years

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Tell us about any strategic jet bomber the Bongs shot down in the past 50 years

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sure
                Two Canberras, 1982

                How many antiship missiles did the French shoot down?

                How many air-to-air kills does the Armee l'Air have? (We won't talk about WW2.)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >How many antiship missiles did the French shoot down?
                Hey there bongs, we know you have a propension of shooting down anti-ship missiles with your entire ships.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >How many antiship missiles did the French shoot down?
                So the answer is none? Gotcha.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We've also lost no ships to anti-ship missiles Nigel, Gotcha.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >can't lose ships if we don't use them

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That will happen when you fight nobody with anti-ship capability and your flagship is a harbour-queen.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh harbour queen
                70% availability rate is higher than any other CATOBAR CVN in existence but ok
                >That will happen when you fight nobody with anti-ship capability
                Weird flex but ok
                Thanks for contributing to the PR for French arms sales by losing a few ships to a literal third world country with about a dozen total ASM's btw.

                >Half of all freight and personnel transported for the French-led Operation Barkhane in the Sahel is carried out by allied and European countries, France has revealed.
                >The French defence ministry on 25 June said its allies have since 2019 been responsible for 50% of freight and personnel transport for Barkhane forces, which are fighting armed terrorist groups operating in the Sahel region.
                >Spain has contributed 15% through the Mamba and Marfil missions from Gabon and Senegal. The logistical support provided by the British Chinook helicopters within the area of operation also weighs in with more than 15%. The United States (with almost 10%) and Germany (over 6%) are also strongly committed to Barkhane, as are Canada and Belgium, the French defence ministry said.
                >50%
                At least you are able to deploy 2000 soldiers by yourself France, good job you have the capabilities of Denmark lol
                [...]
                >He says in English
                Kek

                >asking for foreign contributions for an operation they voted for means you're already using 100% of your capacities to support the op
                Non sequitur
                >>He says in English
                >HAHA YOU SPEAK IN ENGLISH ON AN AMERICAN SITE LOL REKT
                I don't have a brainletjak image strong enough to convey the pits of moronation you evoke.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >means you're already using 100% of your capacities to support the op
                >Of your capacities
                You have exactly 0% strategic lift capacities you dumb frick lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh strategic
                There wasn't a single piece of material there that didn't fit in a C130 or A400.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                CdG is shit.
                t. Pays attention when formers pilots like Pierre-Henri “Até” Chuet who flew from missions from CdG give their opinions and talk about their experiences

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What's wrong with CdG?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The reactors suck

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Have the French sunk any warships since WW2?
                >WARships, so treehugging civvys don't count

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Like clockwork and very much on topic, the first footage of ukrainians serving onboard AMX10RC dropped:
                >https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1635602717279404032?s=20
                I hope they're in SEPAR configuration with side armor. Pic related.

                the french no. French missiles yes. The Sheffield destoyed by an argie Exocet. How could you forget this?

                Tell us about any jet fighters the French have shot down in the past 50 years

                The french no. French jets yes. Only F-14 ever shot down by another jet was by an iraqi Mirage F1. Only F-16 ever shot by another jet was by a greek Mirage 2000.
                We get it anon, the french suck, their weapons suck, and if you say otherwise you're being mean towards the bongs.
                Get out.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >the french no. French-made missiles

                >The french no. French-made jets

                Mon coeur cochon, Usain Bolt may wear French panties when he runs the race, but that doesn't mean France gets any part of the gold medal

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > the end of WWII when germany created the kampfgruppen which our anglo-saxon allies call taskforce
                We call them battlegroups and the concept predates WWII

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >you only need artillery if your enemy has it
                Kek

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Operation Chammal
            That is considered part of the ISIS conflict, like

            They participated in the Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the conflict with ISIS, and like a dozen protracted conflicts in Africa. They have more recent experience than most other militaries with prolonged organized force projection, live combat, and logistics infrastructure maintenance. Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

            France is very involved in the francophone world and has actively been trying to resurrect a more benign version of their former colonial empire.

            stated. I was saying France did not participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq or in OIF.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq.
          Would you kindly learn a thing or two norf FC anon? The frogs deployed during Chammal to clean the shit left behind after the invasion of Iraq had turned wrong.
          >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opération_Chammal

          The Caesar also became famous due to Chammal.

          In Mossul the advancing iraqi were thanking the french for using precision rounds which minimized collaterals. Plot twist: the shells were not precision rounds.

          [...]
          >The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq.
          Operation Chammal

          I think beintg deployed for 8 years and counting, and having boots on the ground in the battle of Mossul counts.

          >I think being deployed for 8 years and counting, and having boots on the ground in the battle of Mossul counts.
          Chammal ended alongside inherent resolve in december 2021.
          >https://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/actualites/chammal-fin-mission-combat-troupes-coalition-internationale-irak#:~:text=internationale%20en%20Irak-,CHAMMAL%20-%20Fin%20de%20la%20mission%20de%20combat%20des%20troupes,la%20Coalition%20internationale%20en%20Irak&text=Le%209%20décembre%202021%2C%20une,lutte%20contre%20Daech%20au%20Levant.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They fired 18k shells. Arround 80 per days during they deployment of Task Force Wagram.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >France
        >Iraq War
        You don't remember calling French fries "freedom fries"?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >iraqi "army"
        >shitty balkan militias
        >goatfrickers (lost)
        >iraqi "army" 2 : electric boogaloo & other moronic groups
        >abu hajaar state
        >nogs
        all by piggybacking the US
        you already know the outcome if they get dragged into a real war

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          meme argument meme thread

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >you already know the outcome if they get dragged into a real war

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >and has actively been trying to resurrect a more benign version of their former colonial empire.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >muh CFA Franc means it's still literal colonization
          We fricking wish.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Chad is French
          lol

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            "Oui."

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >France... has actively been trying to resurrect a more benign version of their former colonial empire
        They have nigs on the Franc like Ronald Reagan had them on crack. And the central authority for the African Franc is in France.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >iraq
        >force projection
        Gr8 b8

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >frog shill
        >lying frog shill
        Incredibly distasteful (and so incredibly true to form). Just focus on the African end of the med Pierre and STFU.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Iraq
        I know y'all weren't born yet but they famously told the US to frick off and we called pommes Freedom Fries for like, 4 months in retaliation. Sure showed them!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Frog here. I was 16 at the time. I remember the shitstorm and the sheer hatred against the french after french PM de Villepin speech in the UN in february 2003, and the veto against the war in Iraq.

          To this day 20 years later the effects of this hate campaign can still be felt on the internet. "Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia". This did not age well.
          >https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/punish-france-ignore-germany-forgive-russia-no-longer-fits/
          How many americans died or were maimed because of Iraq? Yet the frogs were anti american for opposing it?
          Chirac was the first foreign president to visit New York after 9/11.
          Pic related.
          >https://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/ret.bush.france/index.html
          Yet he was called a "worm" by the Sun from Bongland.
          >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2784339.stm
          Then he was accused of "endangering british troops" by the same clowns.
          >https://dimension6.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/chi.jpg
          I mean who would not like to lose hundreds of soldiers for a shit war waged for oil under the pretense of finding WMD and countering terrorism? A war that spawned the most unspeakable horror called ISIS over the false pretense to fight against Al Qaeda.
          In the US Fox News hosts were asking the military to send a few divisions in France to deal with Chirac.
          On some M-1 Abrams the crew had painted "today Baghdad, tomorrow Paris".
          >https://i.pinimg.com/736x/18/53/73/185373b550e49c3ad5de0402fcdfbdf3--m-abrams-battle-tank.jpg
          All this while the french had been the first air force to provide CAS to US SOF in northern Afghanistan a year prior since Mirage 2000D operated from Dushanbe in Tadjikistan when no other jet did.
          Since 2003 I have never been able to take the US or the UK warmongers seriously again, both officials and commoners.
          And I'm pretty sure the cultural impact of these francophobe PR stunts are the root cause for the bong moronation displayed ITT.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

      French deployment to Afghanistan was tiny compared to the Brits. The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq. Mali and other African adventures also deployed a very small amount of forces.

      The French are great, and definitely one of the most experienced about. But they have less modern experience than the Bongs.

      >France
      >Iraq War
      You don't remember calling French fries "freedom fries"?

      Buttblasted bongoloid detected.
      Still angry about that 53 - 10 Nigel?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why would anyone British not be aware of what the French military was doing?

        Do you even Anglo?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          British perception of the French is based on coping mechanisms.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            See

            https://i.imgur.com/TYKAquU.png

            >Peak numbers was 9500
            Wrong see picrel for non French cope.
            Its sad to see how you are trying to move the posts to avoid such embarresment as to the minute size of French deployments. This trend goes back to the Gulf war too.
            >Gulf War
            >UK 54,000
            >France 11,000
            Sad, just own it frog.

            [...]
            Let's just get the numbers here.
            >Iraq
            >UK 46,000
            >France 3200
            >Afganistan
            >UK 42,000
            >France 4000
            >Mali
            >UK 300
            >France 4000

            As you can see it's pathetic.

            France Post WW1 is pathetic.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Buttblasted bongoloid detected
        Limeys don’t call them French fries, dummy. They call them chips.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The sooner people accept that all modern 21st century armies (including the US) are utter virgins the better.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      WW2

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yesterday.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    More Caesar pics.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every current or ex military person I know (several family members and lots of friends) who's done exercises or worked with other countries' militaries has said the French are neck and neck at the top with the British in terms of professionalism, competence, etc.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Again I will never understand people who don't rate African theatres. There's all that fun, and yet you deny yourself.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Would the French army be good in a real fight or do they just exist to bully African militias?
    I think that they could give the vast majority of nations on earth a run for their money in an all out war. Now some countries might end up winning just because of sheer resources and manpower, but it would ultimately be a pyrrhic victory.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No they have been taking L´s since a long time now when they used to be the wargaye kings and they cant cope with it.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    > Be Anglo
    > Only redeeming quality is that you apodictically recognize France's superiority and have multiple subconscious mechanisms in place that make you willing to die in drove to protect it.
    > Be born 50 years after the Boches finally learned their lesson.
    > Now you have no more purpose on this Earth.
    Must be hard to be Anglo.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think their main strength is their ability to go their own way, with their own strategies, doctrines and weapons that are (quite) successful, based on their needs, actual experience and resources.

    At best, against the stronger nations of the world it would end in a pyrrhic victory for either side (or a stalemate). I think their biggest threat would be a zerg rush type attack where sending waves after wave of meatpower on the battle field would just make them run out of ammunition. In terms of western/technological advanced nations, only the UK would be a serious match for them, with either one winning the war, but at what cost?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Forgot to say, I didn't mention the USA because... well, it's the USA ¯_(ツ)_/¯

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They exist to look aesthetic as frick

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That guy on the left
      >"Pierre, I can't breathe*

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      shame they're switching to a multicam, the old camo was cool

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    they couldnt have projected power to libya (something turkey did without trying hard) and begged help from obama. it's lamer paper tiger than even russia.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    French here. No it would not. Our army is utterly pathetic, almost no artillery and MLRS, no true IFV, almost no tanks, geriatric logistic trucks, almost no ground air-defense… And it’s not going to get better with moronic designs like the Griffon (glorified MRAP) and Jaguar (recce truck) arriving en masse. The Air Force is barely better with no true SEAD capacity, anemic stocks, no heavy lift… But hey at least we got the Rafale, Meteor and MRTT… The Navy is also in a poor state, ridiculous number of VLS on first rank ships, lack of logistic ships, not enough subs…

    Don’t get me wrong we have lot of experience, some niche capabilities and an actual will to deploy troops, even if it’s for figuration, but the French army would not fare well in case of an actual high intensity conflict.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >almost no artillery and MLRS
      You have a healthy number of Caesar and French M270s
      >no true IFV
      8x8 VBCI is pretty tough
      I'm not saying I agree with getting rid of the AMX10P with no replacement, but it's not entirely bad
      >no true SEAD
      Previous generation anti radiation missiles aren't all that effective, arguably SCALP is better though this simply means a better HARM needs to be developed by NATO

      The other points yeah true unfortunately.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I would not call <10 MLRS and <60 155mm healthy... The SEAD part is a huge issue because the Rafal is not stealthy and must really on SEAD/DEAD/EW to increase survivability against AA systems

        [...]

        [...]

        Un John Pierre belge ne dirait pas ce genre de choses, faut savoir différencier la mélancolie française de la puérilité wallonne

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the Rafal is not stealthy
          that's a problem for every army not fielding the F-22 or F-35, to be fair
          ><10 MLRS and <60 155mm
          numbers have dropped for everyone due to Ukraine
          some AuF1s are still operational I believe

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah supposedly 32 of them are still active, with more than 200 in storage... Should be way higher considering a big part of the French doctrine is to use speed and manoeuver to force the enemy to concentrate and destroy him with indirect fires

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >the SEAD part is a huge issue
          Not really.
          When asked about by the ministry of defense (during the new budget hiring), the chief of staff say a SEAD variant of the Rafale was not needed because the fighter already had good enough capacities with the Spectra and the newer version will have enhanced capacities.
          In Libya when Rafale entered before american SEAD, they used Hammer bombs as SEAD "missiles" with coordinate from the Spectra.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This is supreme cope as the AASM can only engage long distance targets if the fighter carrying it is flying high. Such a mission would require two Rafale, one with a low-high profile to pop up and guide an AASM that the second with a low-low profile would launch at close range. The only true capability against long range air-defense systems is DEAD missions using SCALP, but then we lack long range live-observation assets like HALE drones, satellites and EW planes...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The SEAD part is a huge issue

          French here. No it would not. Our army is utterly pathetic, almost no artillery and MLRS, no true IFV, almost no tanks, geriatric logistic trucks, almost no ground air-defense… And it’s not going to get better with moronic designs like the Griffon (glorified MRAP) and Jaguar (recce truck) arriving en masse. The Air Force is barely better with no true SEAD capacity, anemic stocks, no heavy lift… But hey at least we got the Rafale, Meteor and MRTT… The Navy is also in a poor state, ridiculous number of VLS on first rank ships, lack of logistic ships, not enough subs…

          Don’t get me wrong we have lot of experience, some niche capabilities and an actual will to deploy troops, even if it’s for figuration, but the French army would not fare well in case of an actual high intensity conflict.

          >with no true SEAD

          >almost no artillery and MLRS
          You have a healthy number of Caesar and French M270s
          >no true IFV
          8x8 VBCI is pretty tough
          I'm not saying I agree with getting rid of the AMX10P with no replacement, but it's not entirely bad
          >no true SEAD
          Previous generation anti radiation missiles aren't all that effective, arguably SCALP is better though this simply means a better HARM needs to be developed by NATO

          The other points yeah true unfortunately.

          >no true SEAD
          SEAD using anti-radiation missiles is an outdated concept, enemy IADS have too many way to spoof them. Serbian conflict proved that by having so many HARMs hiting decoys, the serb IADS still kept going after a month of NATO firing all their anti-radiation inventory worth of missile.
          SEAD is done by blasting land based radars and hunting mobile units using real time intel (sattelites) and fast/stealthy cruise missiles which france very much have.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            correct

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >frog
      >not delusional
      >gives a fair assessment on Frances capabilities
      Based

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Best army in the EU

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Look at Operation Serval in 2014
    They deployed very rapidly
    They were in high tempo operations continuously engaging with the enemy for weeks
    Now granted these were hadjis in technicals in the Mali desert but what they lacked in quality they made up for in quantity

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      He'll reply to you "but you couldn't deploy without us!!!", nevermind the fact that allied logistics amounted to roughly a fifth of the transported mass.
      Sangaris happened concurrently as well, and although more brief, it was a very high intensity ~4000 troops deployment that happened at the same time as Barkhane but didn't get half as much attention because it's tribal Black folk Black personing each other instead of hadjis.
      Knowing guys who've done both Sangaris and Mali, Sangaris was worse.
      >literal cannibals and wasted morons charging ahead with ak47's thinking themselves invincible because magic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        France in africa are more of a police actions they lost like 3 men in sangaris
        Its not a war not even a counter insurgency operation

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          And? His point was that they had to deploy and sustain 4000 men concurrently with OP Serval.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sustaining two active battles at once is not the same as one battle and one peaceful patrol

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Sangaris
              >peaceful
              Ammo consumption says otherwise.
              Black person inability to shoot straight doesn't imply peacefulness.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Mali 4000
                >Sangaris 2000
                T I N Y deployment is tiny. Throw in the fact you couldn't get there by yourself and do your own heavy lift costs doubt if you would even be able to deploy half that number abroad independently.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kek keep seething sub 10k deployer and also strategic lift-let.

                >Y-YOU COULDN'T DEPLOY INDEPENDENTLY!
                t. smaller army that couldn't sustain now its deployments of 15 years ago and has deployed independently for the last time 40 years ago

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I think you mean
                >t.Smaller army with 10x the number of troops deployed than France that is more capable in every metric and that has actually done combined arms and trains with battlegroups regularly

                Why are you trying so hard to make 4000 troops sound like a major feat lmao its literally nothing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >t.Smaller army with 10x the number of troops deployed
                lol
                Lmao even
                >that is more capable in every metric
                Ok lol
                >and that has actually done combined arms and trains with battlegroups regularly
                And France doesn't. Ok lol
                >Why are you trying so hard to make 4000 troops sound like a major feat lmao its literally nothing.
                You're the one saying it's literally nothing.
                It's also a fraction of the troops deployed, which you always seem to ignore.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a fraction of the troops deployed
                post Serval peak strength then, moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, Serval was 100% of the French troops deployed abroad moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Post combat deployments then you fricking mong it's miniscule. You know this because instead of coming back with fugues you've the entire time coping and deflecting like the slimey gayuette you are.
                Infact it's already been done for you

                >Mali 4000
                >Sangaris 2000
                T I N Y deployment is tiny. Throw in the fact you couldn't get there by yourself and do your own heavy lift costs doubt if you would even be able to deploy half that number abroad independently.

                >Mali 4k
                >CAR 2k
                Both needed international support on mass.
                Who the frick has the audacity to ask for help and to borrow C17s to deploy two fricking thousand soldiers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Who the frick has the audacity to ask for help and to borrow C17s to deploy two fricking thousand soldiers.
                You voted for it at the UN, you may as well take up some of the load. It's not like France decided to intervene alone out of the blue, moron. Why should France carry the cost alone for something you agreed was necessary?
                >Post combat deployments then you fricking mong it's miniscule. You know this because instead of coming back with fugues you've the entire time coping and deflecting like the slimey gayuette you are.
                You moronic mong should really learn to shut the frick up and hold your shit-licking tongue
                This was 2015, with concurrently Mali, CAR, Iraq and several other minor deployments.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            So what? Its not the same as deploying to an active warzone or invading a country

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >France in africa are more of a police actions they lost like 3 men in sangaris
          Dumb luck and literal Black folk.
          >squad in narrow street
          >a grenade is thrown in the middle of them
          >ohmerde.jpg
          >nothing happens
          >pin still attached on grenade
          Or other instances where a bunch of morons literally charged down the street just to be gunned down by a sagaie because they thought their magical talismans would protect them, I'm not exaggerating.
          I can also personally attest they can't shoot for shit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Dumb luck and literal Black folk
            My point is that france losses probably 10x more people in training accidents in a year than in missions in africa

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >personally attest
            Were you deployed recently? Suppose I joined pic related and got deployed, what would life be like over there?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Do you like murder, rape and child abuse?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >rape
                Don't like.
                >child abuse
                Don't like.
                >murder
                Depends on who's getting murdered. If it's rapists and child abusers, for example, then I'm ok with it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You won’t like the FFL then. The murder is between different factions in the unit.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >allied logistics amounted to roughly a fifth of the transported mass
        but all of the heavy lift, sweaty
        if the French didn't need the help they wouldn't be accepting lifts from Saudi fricking Arabia and the forward GTIAs wouldn't be on 24 hours of supply
        that is literal WW2 Jap tier logistics planning, BAKA

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >its bad for your allies to assist you in rapid deployments
        why

        >allied logistics amounted to roughly a fifth of the transported mass
        but all of the heavy lift, sweaty
        if the French didn't need the help they wouldn't be accepting lifts from Saudi fricking Arabia and the forward GTIAs wouldn't be on 24 hours of supply
        that is literal WW2 Jap tier logistics planning, BAKA

        >if the French didn't need the help
        who has argued this

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          > why
          First of all, it was for the entire duration of the operation. As to why, if you can’t move and support yourself to a country two thousand miles away it indicates a dangerous lacked of joined up thinking and planning, and shows France can’t act alone. It’s not unique to the army and airforce either, the navy also struggles to project force.
          It’s important to remember that France’s army isn’t geared to fight wars as that is not its primary mission - it exist to patrol France to defend against the hordes of Muslims and nogs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > They deployed very rapidly
      They deployed after begging a dozen nations for a ride to Mali.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Mali was small
    Who is the buttblasted liar here?
    Initially was several company sized taskforces operating in widely dispersed parts of the country, these eventually expanded into battalion-sized taskforces.
    I am curious about why this is criticized, it's supposed to be a bad thing you dont take weeks to deploy and you cant logistics below a division and your field officers aren't trained to operate on their own?

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    maybe
    yes

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So I just check the OP Serval wiki...
    Why does that shit look like France needed Ukraine tier support lmaooo
    >Supported by
    >Belgium
    >Canada
    >Denmark
    >Germany
    >Netherlands
    >Spain
    >Sweden
    >Poland
    >Australia
    >United Arab Emirates
    >United Kingdom
    >United States
    All that for 4000 measly troops NOT EVEN TANKS FFS

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cause each one of them donated a couple of cargo transports, because frogs cheaped out on logistics

      the UK and US also donated recon imagery

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    With their latest deployments it seems France has specialized into fast, small scale operations.
    It is actually a clever strategy as a western countru; alonein a full scale war they would be easily curbstomped (unless they pull out the nooks card), but since it's expected they would be fighting alongside allies they could put their expertise to good use in deep and fast strikes.

    >Also I bet fights against islamists were more vicious than drunken vatniks conscripts

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Wrong
    It would be a civilised discussion if only fricking frogs would sit down and accept that their military has both strengths and weaknesses, instead of pretending everything is cool and all and being OUTRAGED OUTRAGED MONSIEUR HOW DARE YOU IMPLY FRANCE IS ANYTHING LESS THAN GOD'S GIFT TO NATO, SECOND BEST ARMY, SERVAL CHAMMAL GTIA RAH RAH

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >It would be a civilised discussion if only fricking frogs would sit down and accept that their military has both strengths and weaknesses, instead of pretending everything is cool and all and being OUTRAGED OUTRAGED MONSIEUR HOW DARE YOU IMPLY FRANCE IS ANYTHING LESS THAN GOD'S GIFT TO NATO, SECOND BEST ARMY, SERVAL CHAMMAL GTIA RAH RAH
      You truly are buttblasted.
      Nobody said otherwise in this thread.
      You came with rebuttals.
      You tried to belittle.
      You played off the capability of the french.
      You injected the brits into the conversation when nobody had been mentioning them or comparing the french with them:

      >Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

      French deployment to Afghanistan was tiny compared to the Brits. The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq. Mali and other African adventures also deployed a very small amount of forces.

      The French are great, and definitely one of the most experienced about. But they have less modern experience than the Bongs.

      And there you are, after trying to belittling the frogs, pretending that the same frogs are in fact boasting about them when they truly weren't?
      Jesus Christ just calm down Bong anon.
      I understand things are not great right now, but it's not France's fault despite what BoJo and the UKIP told you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >You tried to belittle
        see, herein lies the problem: nobody can say anything negative about France or you accuse them of this
        My Black person in Paris, it's not BeLiTtLiNg to acknowledge you have weaknesses and discuss them
        The fact that you think so is precisely why you are the Black person shitting up this thread
        >You injected the brits into the conversation
        Lol
        not even me
        You however, reacted predictably:

        [...]
        [...]
        Buttblasted bongoloid detected.
        Still angry about that 53 - 10 Nigel?

        Because that is what you are: unable to make a polite refutation, but resorting immediately to childish slurs

        You have to be 18 to post here, ma petite salope

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > Nobody said otherwise in this thread.
        >You injected the brits into the conversation when nobody had been mentioning them or comparing the french with them
        False. You know we can read the earlier posts, that they don’t disappear when you scroll past them?
        > You came with rebuttals
        >you are not allowed to argue when people make vast overestimations of frog capability
        The absolute state.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    https://i.imgur.com/PkaFUJu.jpg

    >It would be a civilised discussion if only fricking frogs would sit down and accept that their military has both strengths and weaknesses, instead of pretending everything is cool and all and being OUTRAGED OUTRAGED MONSIEUR HOW DARE YOU IMPLY FRANCE IS ANYTHING LESS THAN GOD'S GIFT TO NATO, SECOND BEST ARMY, SERVAL CHAMMAL GTIA RAH RAH
    You truly are buttblasted.
    Nobody said otherwise in this thread.
    You came with rebuttals.
    You tried to belittle.
    You played off the capability of the french.
    You injected the brits into the conversation when nobody had been mentioning them or comparing the french with them: [...]
    And there you are, after trying to belittling the frogs, pretending that the same frogs are in fact boasting about them when they truly weren't?
    Jesus Christ just calm down Bong anon.
    I understand things are not great right now, but it's not France's fault despite what BoJo and the UKIP told you.

    >The frog resorts to making pictures to feel better
    Lmao
    Could you please post total deployment figures to avoid being absaloutley destroyed again by the eternal bong...or make a picture instead kek

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You know what's funny about that picture.
    The captions are in English, that alone makes the author look like a seething ex gf.
    That children is how you know the Bongs trump the Frogs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Well anon we are on an english speaking board. Do you want me to post stuff in french within pictures that you can't run through a translator so nobody understands? Je peux le faire mais pas sûr que ça te plaise. By the way since around a third of all of english words are directly coming from the french language I find this kind of comment quite spicy to say the least.
      Pic related. You'll be kind to tell me what sort of strange english is that. Maybe you should ask King Charles III to "reeimagine" that in order to adapt it to a "modern audience" like so many other things in the UK these days. Right? For starters, the unicorn is way too white.

      >You tried to belittle
      see, herein lies the problem: nobody can say anything negative about France or you accuse them of this
      My Black person in Paris, it's not BeLiTtLiNg to acknowledge you have weaknesses and discuss them
      The fact that you think so is precisely why you are the Black person shitting up this thread
      >You injected the brits into the conversation
      Lol
      not even me
      You however, reacted predictably:
      [...]
      Because that is what you are: unable to make a polite refutation, but resorting immediately to childish slurs

      You have to be 18 to post here, ma petite salope

      >see, herein lies the problem: nobody can say anything negative about France or you accuse them of this
      Right
      >complains he can't say negative things about the french
      >always ever says only negative things about the french
      >somehow the french is to blame for this
      Is this the trve brainpower of the bong?

      >the Rafal is not stealthy
      that's a problem for every army not fielding the F-22 or F-35, to be fair
      ><10 MLRS and <60 155mm
      numbers have dropped for everyone due to Ukraine
      some AuF1s are still operational I believe

      >numbers have dropped for everyone due to Ukraine
      In the case of France the 40 or so MLRS have been abandoned in favor of 13 LRU, of which only 8 were really preserved as reserves and never deployed. We gave 3 to the ukrainians I believe. Word is now some HIMARS could be ordered. But that'd make no sense since the french had a Himars lookalike project 30 years ago and everything in house to do it themselves, but didn't. Hence there is both no real need for such a system, and no real need to buy abroad either. Especially since spending without generating revenue or economic activity is a net loss.
      >some AuF1s are still operational I believe
      32 yes as

      Yeah supposedly 32 of them are still active, with more than 200 in storage... Should be way higher considering a big part of the French doctrine is to use speed and manoeuver to force the enemy to concentrate and destroy him with indirect fires

      said. The AUF2 was supposed to be mounted on a Leclerc châssis instead of AMX30 and to have a 52 caliber gun instead of 39, but was never funded, and that's how the 52 cal 155mm ended up on the Caesar. Nexter are now looking at 78 caliber lengths.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >of which only 8 were really preserved as reserves and never deployed. We gave 3 to the ukrainians I believe.
        Wrong.
        13 in inventory, 2 given to the Ukies, and 8 actually currently operational. Three of them were also briefly deployed to Mali in 2016, but they had to be pulled back due to air force whining.
        There is a pretty high probability that we will indeed order himars off the shelf in the near-future.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In a grand ecumenical move to break the petty circle of squabble between Bongs and Frogs and elevate this thread above the reeking bilge of this thread one can only remind them that both their armies suck ass and would be nothing would Uncle Sam decide to turn tide towards better shores.

    t. Pierre (baisez vos morts les Gros Britons)

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    oh i thought you were talking about USA

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >just exist to bully African militias?

    We can't expect God to do all the work.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Now now, France did very well indeed with that little patch of desert we asked them to control in the Gulf War.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >little patch of desert
      >literally the entire northwestern flank
      >implying there wasn't anybody in front
      2956 POW's, 6000+ routed iraqi's, 22 mbt's destroyed or captured 66 guns and howitzers captured or destroyed, 17 armored vehicles and 121 trucks destroyed or captured, 70 mortars captured for 4 days of operation is pretty respectable.

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think he's crying into his croque monsieur now, can you guys stop? I think you've made your points lol

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ban bongs from being able to post in France threads and frogs from being able to post in British threads

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Frog here, I support this, mainly because I genuinely don't care enough about bongs to post in their threads but they always have the irresistible urge to shit up the joint.
      Must be that 53-10 butthurt.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Kek. Rent free in frogs heads so much they have to create fictional statistics. Delicious.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >fictional statistics
          https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=france+angleterre+rugby#sie=m;/g/11sx_84l0z;8;/m/06m4l;dt;fp;1;;;
          53
          10

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah you were talking about the rugby. I’m not English, and am chuffed to bits with that score.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Frog here, I support this, mainly because I genuinely don't care enough about bongs to post in their threads but they always have the irresistible urge to shit up the joint.
      Must be that 53-10 butthurt.

      Noooooooo the British are bullying me again ban them :'(

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Noooooo France is living rent free in my mind how am I able to live without thinking about them and hating them 24/7?

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    In an interventionist/expeditionary capacity sure. Same with counter insurgency. In a full scale war? It's doubtful at best.

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    They are french.
    So no.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just once I would like frogs to make posting on /k/ a joy rather than a battle

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Blame the bongs. It all started with this guy:

      >Realistically outside of the US they probably have the most live military experience of any country over the last few decades.

      French deployment to Afghanistan was tiny compared to the Brits. The also most definitely did not deploy to Iraq. Mali and other African adventures also deployed a very small amount of forces.

      The French are great, and definitely one of the most experienced about. But they have less modern experience than the Bongs.

      injecting the bongs in the discussion when nobody had mentioned them. The bong can't help but compare bongland with frogland.

      CdG is shit.
      t. Pays attention when formers pilots like Pierre-Henri “Até” Chuet who flew from missions from CdG give their opinions and talk about their experiences

      Até never said anything bad about the CdG.

      no we are total dogshit lol, we got dozens of vehicles stuck in southern france a few years ago in an exercise because the major of a small village gave us outdated maps and one of our moronic drivers didn´t see the fricking river
      3 more vehicles crashed while trying to retrieve the first one and then the shitshow started

      >no we are total dogshit lol, we got dozens of vehicles stuck in southern france a few years ago in an exercise because the major of a small village gave us outdated maps and one of our moronic drivers didn´t see the fricking river
      >3 more vehicles crashed while trying to retrieve the first one and then the shitshow started
      Ah ouais ce sont les maires des villages qui donnent des cartes aux militaires français maintenant?
      Appuyez sur [X] pour douter
      Arrête de te faire passer pour un français sale rat d'égout

      The reactors suck

      >The reactors suck
      Oh it's the reactors now? Yeah it can't be the propellers anymore since the fricking QE shafts are all fricked up, am I right?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No.
        I blame YOU entirely.
        You are a complete c**t who is completely unpleasant to speak to.
        Defensive. Prickly. Stubborn. Unable to give the slightest inch.
        In these discussions sometimes when I write my appreciation for the French military even, I have been attacked by YOU, because I didn't praise it to the high heavens.
        I sincerely hope that you are not actually a Frenchman, or at least not representative of the country.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >UK vs France military thread

    Two bald men fighting over a hairbrush

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *