Do the French mean business?

[Hard_Rom]

Did not really mean MBTs when talking heavy armour. I was thinking more along the lines of the IED "proof" vehicles and light tanks. Light armour I should have said. Tanks are susceptible to man held AT weapons but that is what infantry is for to protect the tanks. The inevitable RPG is about ISIS level of AT weapon. There is also the awe and fear inspired by armour. I doubt ISIS fighters have much experience with armoured vehicles. Dug in you can laager up nicely for 7 days while conducting reprisal raids.

ISIS fighters don't need much in logistics. They can forage for food and fuel. 7.62 Warsaw pact rounds probably litter the ground over there. Like the little yellow guys in black pajamas. A handful of rice and a clip for his AK and he was good.

Taliban and Afghan army smoke a big hash fatty and have a cup of hot sweat tea for breakfast and are good to go.

There must be enough civilians in towns that the B-52s aren't brought out yet again to carpet bomb them. (B-52 still operational?)

 

[1sickbastard]

There must be enough civilians in towns that the B-52s aren't brought out yet again to carpet bomb them. (B-52 still operational?)

B-52H are slated to stay in service as the USAF's heavy bomber until 2045.
The earlier variants have been decommissioned and scrapped, or waiting to be scrapped at Motham AFB, per treaty with the USSR and it's successor state, Russia.

 

[1sickbastard]

The French military is tough. People criticize them for surrendering in WW2, but that was due to incompetent generals. The solders fought hard.

Also, don't lets forget blitzkrieg tactics were brand new, and the French army at the outset of WW2 hadn't the doctrine or tactics to cope, nor did they have the vitally crucial air superiority.

 

[Ishmael]

Did not really mean MBTs when talking heavy armour. I was thinking more along the lines of the IED "proof" vehicles and light tanks. Light armour I should have said. Tanks are susceptible to man held AT weapons but that is what infantry is for to protect the tanks. The inevitable RPG is about ISIS level of AT weapon. There is also the awe and fear inspired by armour. I doubt ISIS fighters have much experience with armoured vehicles. Dug in you can laager up nicely for 7 days while conducting reprisal raids.

ISIS fighters don't need much in logistics. They can forage for food and fuel. 7.62 Warsaw pact rounds probably litter the ground over there. Like the little yellow guys in black pajamas. A handful of rice and a clip for his AK and he was good.

Taliban and Afghan army smoke a big hash fatty and have a cup of hot sweat tea for breakfast and are good to go.

There must be enough civilians in towns that the B-52s aren't brought out yet again to carpet bomb them. (B-52 still operational?)

Harkening back to my statement re. brutality. There will be no 'foraging.' Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. And while they may have plenty of 7.62 rounds lying around, they're hard to chew and taste like shit.

Go back to the link I provided, Julius never invaded the city, ever. Never even mounted an attack. Schwarzkopf did much the same with the Iraqi army on the Kuwaiti border. They were starved and demoralized. A little different situation to be certain, Sadam was trying to fight a conventional war, but his troops were denied the beans.

"Winter time is coming, the windows are filled with frost."

Ishmael

 

[Hard_Rom]

Also, don't lets forget blitzkrieg tactics were brand new, and the French army at the outset of WW2 hadn't the doctrine or tactics to cope, nor did they have the vitally crucial air superiority.

Militarily they were defeated but they could have fought on. Make the Germans pay for every last square inch. But two world wars fought on your soil could be enough to suck the will to fight out of anyone.

French tanks were superior to German tanks. At this stage in the war everybody had glorified light tanks. It was how they were used that mattered. Could France have learned to fight before entire country over run. Maybe. French fleet could have declared for De Gaulle and joined Allies.

Neither NA or the UK has had a major conflict on it's soils in over 150 years. Europe has had at least four or more. Three fought in France.

Churchill's "We shall never surrender" luckily was never put to the test. His speech started with "We shall fight in France."

 

[Hard_Rom]

Harkening back to my statement re. brutality. There will be no 'foraging.' Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. And while they may have plenty of 7.62 rounds lying around, they're hard to chew and taste like shit.

Go back to the link I provided, Julius never invaded the city, ever. Never even mounted an attack. Schwarzkopf did much the same with the Iraqi army on the Kuwaiti border. They were starved and demoralized. A little different situation to be certain, Sadam was trying to fight a conventional war, but his troops were denied the beans.

"Winter time is coming, the windows are filled with frost."

Ishmael

You couldn't impose such a siege on the region. Way to porous borders. And images of starving civvies would put an end to forced starvation. No hearts or minds won there.

You have to get tough in a war but there is a danger.

Churchill was heard to say to Truman regarding Nuremberg trials, "I hope we win the next one."

Our aversion to casualties hampers our military as much or more than anything.

 

[Ishmael]

You couldn't impose such a siege on the region. Way to porous borders. And images of starving civvies would put an end to forced starvation. No hearts or minds won there.

You have to get tough in a war but there is a danger.

Churchill was heard to say to Truman regarding Nuremberg trials, "I hope we win the next one."

Our aversion to casualties hampers our military as much or more than anything.

I never implied otherwise. You do it one city at a time, just like ISIS did. They moved with lightening speed against virtually no opposition. Now they're entrenched, starve their ass out. Best way to keep OUR body count down. Fuck them.

Ishmael

 

[1sickbastard]

Militarily they were defeated but they could have fought on. Make the Germans pay for every last square inch. But two world wars fought on your soil could be enough to suck the will to fight out of anyone.

French tanks were superior to German tanks. At this stage in the war everybody had glorified light tanks. It was how they were used that mattered. Could France have learned to fight before entire country over run. Maybe. French fleet could have declared for De Gaulle and joined Allies.

Neither NA or the UK has had a major conflict on it's soils in over 150 years. Europe has had at least four or more. Three fought in France.

Churchill's "We shall never surrender" luckily was never put to the test. His speech started with "We shall fight in France."

Yes, the AMX was considered the all around best tank at the outset.
The "how they were used" is part of military doctrine and tactics. The French were still using tanks dispersed as infantry support vs the German's use of them as the sharp edge of the spear. Still, Colonel DeGaulle managed to press the German flanks hard, but was stopped short of cutting their supply lines, due in a large part, to the German's having air superiority and and the Ju-87.

I doubt the French fleet would have been much help. The war the French were faced with was a land war, not to mention the bulk of the fleet was in the Mediterranean.

And yes, one cannot underestimate the psychological effects lingering from WW1, which was why the Maginot Line was built. It was planned to be extended up along the Belgian frontier, but the damn thing was fucking expensive, and no one (except the Wehrmacht) thought the Ardennes could be used by mechanized, armored forces, at least not without enough delay that defensive forces could be mobilized and dug in

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, the AMX was considered the all around best tank at the outset.
The "how they were used" is part of military doctrine and tactics. The French were still using tanks dispersed as infantry support vs the German's use of them as the sharp edge of the spear. Still, Colonel DeGaulle managed to press the German flanks hard, but was stopped short of cutting their supply lines, due in a large part, to the German's having air superiority and and the Ju-87.

I doubt the French fleet would have been much help. The war the French were faced with was a land war, not to mention the bulk of the fleet was in the Mediterranean.

And yes, one cannot underestimate the psychological effects lingering from WW1, which was why the Maginot Line was built. It was planned to be extended up along the Belgian frontier, but the damn thing was fucking expensive, and no one (except the Wehrmacht) thought the Ardennes could be used by mechanized, armored forces, at least not without enough delay that defensive forces could be mobilized and dug in

The French never embraced the tactics of Gudarian.

Ishmael

 

[Fala]

The French Prime Minister said in effect that a declaration of war exists between France and ISIS. But I wonder if this is just a politician saying this because he is expected to, or is he going to put his words into action? France has a formidable enough military to conceivably invade ISIS territory. They can even do it without the US helping them. So will they man up, or let ISIS slip through the Ardennes forest and pull there pants down?

My opinion on all this: ISIS suffered a blow to their egos when we took out Jihadi John...just the day before the Paris attacks.

Obviously, France is PISSED over the attacks. I hope when the world finds the one who reportedly planned this attack (and the one who got away); he is extradited back to France to stand trial.

If/with no doubt that he planned and took part in these murders, he should be found guilty. The death penalty in France that was abolished back in 1981 should be reinstated.

He should promptly face the guillotine...how appropriate, eh?

I am also against the US invading (boots on the ground) Syria. ISIS has lost already with the massive exodus of people from there with any sense of humanity or worth to our world..***** wouldn't be worth living under their rule.

The US agreed to take in only 10,000 refugees from that region. In the grand scheme of things, 10,000 people are only a pittance of people who are literally DYING to get into this (or any) large country.

My heart breaks to see/hear of all these people who just want a chance to live.

In the event that a bad guy or two lands here....

I don't know the status of most of the US, concerning guns in this Union...But Texas is the most gun-slinging-est state in the Union.

They'll need way more planning, people and piss & vinegar to try to pull off something like that here.

Bless the people of France. God be with the refugees and bless them with peace and a safe place to live.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

All the rats that fled Iraq ahead of The Gulf War ended up in Syria's sewers along with semi loads of "stuff".

 

[Ishmael]

All the rats that fled Iraq ahead of The Gulf War ended up in Syria's sewers along with semi loads of "stuff".

You are just SOOOOOOOOO un-PC.

(Then again I refer to them as cockroaches.)

Ishmael

 

[Hard_Rom]

The French never embraced the tactics of Gudarian.

Ishmael

Hell, De Gaulle could have told them. I'm sure he tried. Over reliance on defensive warfare and static emplacements. Gasoline and diesel engines had restored mobility to the battlefield. Tanks are the answer to machine guns and barbed wire that kill soldiers so well. The cavalry horse that can't be killed as easily as you can.

Before truly modern rifles and machine guns, wars were sweeping engagements over large territory. Horsemen could raid deep into enemy lands after a defeat.

In WWI trench warfare you could not fight or move forward fast enough to stop enemy from using trains and roads to move troops into 2nd line of defence. Without mechanized transport any breakthrough was doomed to peter out.

Stormin' Norman lost more men to traffic accidents when he shifted his forces north and went behind Iraqi lines not through them with his left hook. Brilliant fucking move. On par with the Germans and the Ardennes. Saved lots of American and huge amounts of Iraqi soldiers lives. Gave them at least the chance to surrender, even if it went down so fast.

 

[miles]

If France declares war on ISIS members of NATO are treaty bound to defend them.
An attack on one nation is an attack on all of NATO.

Would Obama refuse to send troops?

Yep.

 

[Ishmael]

Hell, De Gaulle could have told them. I'm sure he tried. Over reliance on defensive warfare and static emplacements. Gasoline and diesel engines had restored mobility to the battlefield. Tanks are the answer to machine guns and barbed wire that kill soldiers so well. The cavalry horse that can't be killed as easily as you can.

Before truly modern rifles and machine guns, wars were sweeping engagements over large territory. Horsemen could raid deep into enemy lands after a defeat.

In WWI trench warfare you could not fight or move forward fast enough to stop enemy from using trains and roads to move troops into 2nd line of defence. Without mechanized transport any breakthrough was doomed to peter out.

Stormin' Norman lost more men to traffic accidents when he shifted his forces north and went behind Iraqi lines not through them with his left hook. Brilliant fucking move. On par with the Germans and the Ardennes. Saved lots of American and huge amounts of Iraqi soldiers lives. Gave them at least the chance to surrender, even if it went down so fast.

Two military genius's working in concert. Horner with his nucleus model of the use of air power and Schwarzkopf with his envelopment instead of confrontation.

Schwarzkopf's model was from Jackson's moves at Chancellorsville. Horner's had no model, it was new doctrine.

Ishmael

 

[Hard_Rom]

Two military genius's working in concert. Horner with his nucleus model of the use of air power and Schwarzkopf with his envelopment instead of confrontation.

Schwarzkopf's model was from Jackson's moves at Chancellorsville. Horner's had no model, it was new doctrine.

Ishmael

I would have thought it was more of a turning movement trying to place his forces astride the road out of Kuwait. Hannibal used it to force the Romans to fight at Cannae. The Iraqis surrendered.

Not up on Horner except how to destroy germ warfare bunkers.

 

[Disgustipated]

If France declares war on ISIS members of NATO are treaty bound to defend them.
An attack on one nation is an attack on all of NATO.

Would Obama refuse to send troops?

Yep.

I'm not sure how this would play out... Since Obama has let ISIS infiltrate every last crevice of the earth, I'm not really sure how NATO would be able to back France on this one.

 

[Hard_Rom]

If France declares war on ISIS members of NATO are treaty bound to defend them.
An attack on one nation is an attack on all of NATO.

Would Obama refuse to send troops?

Yep.

Legally I am thinking that the Taliban formed what could legally be called a government. Their harbouring of Al-Qaeda was legal excuse for NATO involvement. No "legal" government is harbouring ISIS. Nor is anyone willing to refer to ISIS as a government. Therefore no treaty obligation to go in.

Obama does not have to escalate the conflict. America would never go back on NATO treaty. They would lose so much credibility with their best allies, it would destroy the alliance.

Do you want American soldiers dying in some foreign sandy shit hole or something?

 

[Ishmael]

I would have thought it was more of a turning movement trying to place his forces astride the road out of Kuwait. Hannibal used it to force the Romans to fight at Cannae. The Iraqis surrendered.

Not up on Horner except how to destroy germ warfare bunkers.

No, Cannae was a completely different maneuver. Cannae was a head on battle, Chancellorsville was envelopment A flanking maneuver by an agile force if you will.

Hannibal collapsed his center inviting the Romans in. In effect the Romans allowed themselves to be out-flanked, right and left in their mistaken belief they had routed the Carthaginians.

Hannibal's mistake was to not march directly on Rome. Why he didn't is still fodder for the historians. There was nothing to stop him.

Ishmael

 

[Hard_Rom]

No, Cannae was a completely different maneuver. Cannae was a head on battle, Chancellorsville was envelopment A flanking maneuver by an agile force if you will.

Hannibal collapsed his center inviting the Romans in. In effect the Romans allowed themselves to be out-flanked, right and left in their mistaken belief they had routed the Carthaginians.

Hannibal's mistake was to not march directly on Rome. Why he didn't is still fodder for the historians. There was nothing to stop him.

Ishmael

Leading up to the battle. The Romans were doing the Fabian thing and refused combat. So he placed himself astride the road to Rome. That was the turning movement. Then used a double-envelopment.

 

[1sickbastard]

If France declares war on ISIS members of NATO are treaty bound to defend them.
An attack on one nation is an attack on all of NATO.

Would Obama refuse to send troops?

Yep.

A NATO member declaring war does not obligate other member states to also declare war. It's a defensive pact designed to counter the Warsaw Pact/Soviet threat to western Europe during the Cold war, not an unconditional agreement to support individual member states offensive military adventures, such as the Suez Crisis, Vietnam, or the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Obama and the next POTUS will likely commit to logistical support, intel sharing, coordinating naval and air ops, maybe running a few small-scale joint ops, but large-scale ground troop commitment is doubtful.

 

[Hard_Rom]

If the Assad regime was to attack the home countries of NATO, we all would be treaty bound to kick his ass. But renegade forces like ISIS and military adventurism like that practiced by G.W. do not fall under NATO obligations.

 

[Fala]

Legally I am thinking that the Taliban formed what could legally be called a government. Their harbouring of Al-Qaeda was legal excuse for NATO involvement. No "legal" government is harbouring ISIS. Nor is anyone willing to refer to ISIS as a government. Therefore no treaty obligation to go in.

Obama does not have to escalate the conflict. America would never go back on NATO treaty. They would lose so much credibility with their best allies, it would destroy the alliance.

Do you want American soldiers dying in some foreign sandy shit hole or something?

I agree with you!

ISIS is no government, nor ever will be. They are only pertinent today because of their brutality. No entity such as this will survive long.

Seems they must video/televise all of their atrocities. They rule thru fear and maniacal brutality. They use terror and element of surprise, then believe they've accomplished something.

With all due respect to the victims in Paris, I'm still stunned that only two men could wreak all that havoc and cause all those deaths at the Bataclan in Paris. If only a few people had bum rushed them and taken them down..

It's hard to guess what I would have done either...The attack had to be terrifying.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The problem happened in Paris and theyre bombing lizards and rocks in Syria.

I'd bomb Muslim neighborhoods in France and Belgium.

What would Hitler do?

He surround the Muslims with razor wire and troops and huge dogs. I mean, its war, right?

 

[Hard_Rom]

The problem happened in Paris and theyre bombing lizards and rocks in Syria.

I'd bomb Muslim neighborhoods in France and Belgium.

What would Hitler do?

He surround the Muslims with razor wire and troops and huge dogs. I mean, its war, right?

And how did Hitler end up? Did he wins his little genocide thing with the Jews?

You might want to quote some one who won. Even if they are also evil degenerates such as your wannabee prison bum buddy. Hitler was a fucking whack job who ended his own life with a bullet to the head. Real good example of a successful strategy there. Moron!