Frank Herberts Dune vs the USA and UK

[Captain Seafort]

Do you mean not in strength overall or just because of the location? American units scored a number of victories against german forces. None of which were war winning in their own but to say that they didn't have an effect is just silly.

I'm not questioning that they were involved in Foch's continuous offensive, I'm simply pointing out that with only two field armies, and in secondary sectors of the line, they couldn't play a decisive role in the battle. That role was played by the BEF, first in the Battle of Amiens, and later in the breakthrough of the Hindenburg Line.

[Sionnach Glic]

The AEF had an effect where they were deployed, certainly, but you can't say their presence swung the war decisively. Had they not gotten involved, it is quite likely that Germany would still have been defeated.

[Deepcrush]

Oh, don't take me wrong. I wasn't saying that the AEF was the decisive factor for anything. I'm just saying that we played our part. Had the war rolled into 1919 then the US would have had the chance to shine.

EDIT

I'm not so sure about the defeat of germany though. What kind of shape was the BEF in by the end of the war? Could they alone have carried the war for another year and take victory?

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not so sure about the defeat of germany though. What kind of shape was the BEF in by the end of the war? Could they alone have carried the war for another year and take victory?

The BEF of late 1918 was the best in the world - the French and Germans were exhausted by four years of war and the AEF was still inexperienced, albeit learning quickly. They had well-developed tactics for the use of artillery, and for tank-infantry cooperation. They were bundling the Germans backwards rapidly, with the blows of the French armies and the AEF playing only a supporting role in distracting German attention. Had the war continued into the next year the French and Americans would have pushed into southern Germany, but the BEF would have driven into the Ruhr, and ultimately across Lunenburg Heath towards Berlin.

[Aaron]

That the French didn't do anything meaningful in Gulf War I, is sheer nonsense. They contributed a division and secured the left flank, fighting several engagements. I'm pretty sure that they were the third largest contributor of ground forces in the war. That makes them a major partner in the Coalition.

[Captain Seafort]

That the French didn't do anything meaningful in Gulf War I, is sheer nonsense. They contributed a division and secured the left flank, fighting several engagements. I'm pretty sure that they were the third largest contributor of ground forces in the war. That makes them a major partner in the Coalition.

I knew they had forces in the Gulf, but I thought they were limited to logistic support. I was unaware that they were involved in the ground offensive - thanks for the correction.

Nonetheless, by the standards of "winning the war", their role was similar to that of 1944-5 - the decisive blow was struck by the US military, with support from 1 (UK) Armd Div.

[Aaron]

I knew they had forces in the Gulf, but I thought they were limited to logistic support. I was unaware that they were involved in the ground offensive - thanks for the correction.

France, like Canada, The Netherlands and Belgium are often short changed or over looked in these things. How many people know that the Legion was in Somalia along with the Belgium Para's shooting and mistreating Somalia's left and right?

Nonetheless, by the standards of "winning the war", their role was similar to that of 1944-5 - the decisive blow was struck by the US military, with support from 1 (UK) Armd Div.

And prey tell how would the war have gone without them to secure the flank, a vital part of any military operation? They had a large and mobile formation, ideal for the job. If the Coalition had relied on the mish-mash of other units available the operation might not have gone so well.

Yes, the decisive blow was struck by the UK and the US but lets not short change nations because they didn't get to do more killing. Their are no non-vital roles in military operations......... well maybe the clerks.

[Captain Seafort]

And prey tell how would the war have gone without them to secure the flank, a vital part of any military operation? They had a large and mobile formation, ideal for the job. If the Coalition had relied on the mish-mash of other units available the operation might not have gone so well.

Yes, the decisive blow was struck by the UK and the US but lets not short change nations because they didn't get to do more killing. Their are no non-vital roles in military operations......... well maybe the clerks.

You could say the same about WW2, with the French 1st Army's role in clearing Toulon and dealing with the Saar offensive. Nonetheless, the whole debate started with Deep's question of "when did the French last win a war" - meaning them delivering the decisive blow. I would say that the question of whether a nation's presence was critical, rather than the specific troops, is determined by whether they were replaceable or not. Had the French not been in the Gulf the role of flank guard could have been taken by US or British forces, albeit at the cost of an extended build-up, or weakening the "Hail Mary". Had the US forces not been present Kuwait would never have been liberated.

[Mikey]

I think that the last major conflict with widespread consequences in which the French can claim a victory, without fear of argument, was the French Revolution.

But then again, they lost that one too.

[Aaron]

You could say the same about WW2, with the French 1st Army's role in clearing Toulon and dealing with the Saar offensive. Nonetheless, the whole debate started with Deep's question of "when did the French last win a war" - meaning them delivering the decisive blow. I would say that the question of whether a nation's presence was critical, rather than the specific troops, is determined by whether they were replaceable or not. Had the French not been in the Gulf the role of flank guard could have been taken by US or British forces, albeit at the cost of an extended build-up, or weakening the "Hail Mary". Had the US forces not been present Kuwait would never have been liberated.

Part of the whole point of the Gulf War was to build a coalition, Bush didn't want to go in alone and he wanted a UN mandate. The question of when the French last won a war on their own is rather pointless given that modern wars are fought mainly as a group effort. And that very few nations have the means to prosecute a war on their own save the US and Russia.

In addition, the modern French military is a far different animal than the stereotype. There is almost nothing in common with the past incarnations. Now if you want to talk about militaries that do live up to their reputation, there's the Italians.

[Deepcrush]

You could say the same about WW2, with the French 1st Army's role in clearing Toulon and dealing with the Saar offensive. Nonetheless, the whole debate started with Deep's question of "when did the French last win a war" - meaning them delivering the decisive blow. I would say that the question of whether a nation's presence was critical, rather than the specific troops, is determined by whether they were replaceable or not. Had the French not been in the Gulf the role of flank guard could have been taken by US or British forces, albeit at the cost of an extended build-up, or weakening the "Hail Mary". Had the US forces not been present Kuwait would never have been liberated.

DAMN YOU SEAFORT!

I must agree. The French made only 1 in 50 of all troops sent to the gulf. I must also agree with seafort about Kuwait. It was left to the USMC in total which leads me to believe that heavy fighting was at the least a guarantee. US Marines respect few others in the world. British Royal Marines are the top of that list. Had it not have been the USMC then I'm sure the BRMs would have carried one in their place. The French Regulars were laid to a minimal need position on the far flank away from any heavy fighting.

This by the way is an American insult to those of you over the pond. The greatest slap in the face to a unit is being moved away form combat. My brother told me long ago that he laughed when he heard where the bulk of the coalition was being sent.

Also if I heard right, wasn't Belgium given first reserve next to the Saudi's?

In addition, the modern French military is a far different animal than the stereotype. There is almost nothing in common with the past incarnations. Now if you want to talk about militaries that do live up to their reputation, there's the Italians.

Even I'm to nice to go here... for now!

Part of the whole point of the Gulf War was to build a coalition, Bush didn't want to go in alone and he wanted a UN mandate. The question of when the French last won a war on their own is rather pointless given that modern wars are fought mainly as a group effort. And that very few nations have the means to prosecute a war on their own save the US and Russia.

Russia can't win anything on its own right now, even in 1992. They weren't able to even control their own armies, let alone start a war with major nations around them.

As to the group effort we can reask the question. When was the war that the French were vital to victory?

[Captain Seafort]

Russia can't win anything on its own right now, even in 1992. They weren't able to even control their own armies, let alone start a war with major nations around them.

They were pefectly capable of starting a war in '99, as the story surounding my sig quote proves.

[Deepcrush]

My uncle could start a war. Cpl Kendall said they could win one on their own which I believe is total......... just not true.

I should have said start a war with a hope in hell of winning.

[Captain Seafort]

They managed it in 1941-45 - and that was after half a decade of having the best and brightest of their high command eviscerated by Stalin's purges. Underestimating the Russians is a mistake more than one major European power has made - and paid the price.

[Deepcrush]

The folly wasn't that Russia won WW2. It's that Germany lost it. The Russians bogged down into a slow and grinding war that just drained out the Germans. You should never fight an attrition war with a country 5 times your size. It was the same mistake that Japan made against the US. Also, again, the Russians could not have won if it had not been for allied help. They were however vital for saving in US planning to protect England which was more important then any other nation in Europe at that time. Russia had a single purpose in that they were to soak up German fire as much as possible. They did so very well, even if the russians killed more of their own then the germans could ever have hoped to.