Re: [OT] French was: [SG]Artillery

--- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> This could become another of those much-beloved OT
> discussions, still...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> > Otherwise the French would have learned something
> in
> > the time period between 1870 and 1940 (a mere 70
> > years, I'll admit) that would prevent their
> getting
> > beat twice (and within 2 Brit Corps of getting
> beat a
> > third time in between them).
> 
> Haven't you conveniently forgotten a minor conflict
> called " WW I " that
> happened within that timespan ?

No.  I actually mentioned that.  See the reference re:
"within 2 Brit Corps of getting beat a third time". 
In 1914, the Germans came within a handful of miles of
knocking the French out of the war, and had it not
been for the BEF stopping one of the main German
attacks cold, the "miracle" involving taxicabs
wouldn't have happened.

Furthermore, the majority of the French Army had been
defeated by 1916 and was no longer good for anything
but static defenses.  In fact, there was a mutiny in
1916 which resulted in this conclusion being more or
less formally reached by the French High Command.  

In 1918, without the addition into the line of fresh
US forces and the promise of more, the entire line
would have collapsed (as it nearly did anyway) and
there would have been no assets available for the
counteroffensive that finally knocked the Germans out
of the war.

> IIRC, the French won that one. Admittedly, they had
> allies, but so did the
> Germans.
> 
> Plus, AFAIK, after 1940, the Free French forces
> fought quite decently.

Yeah.

With US/UK Equipment, organization, advisors, and
training.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup