Why have the French always sucked so much at warfare post Napoleon?

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by SoundAdvice4U

The French fought very well in WW1. France entered WW1 with a population and manpower disadvantage of nearly 2-1 against Germany. Both countries conscripted the maximum number of able bodied troops from their pools of manpower. The French simply could not match the German troop numbers, so their pre-war planning was reliant on being augmented by the British Expeditionary Force. Despite initial German success, the French checked and reversed the German advance at the First Battle of the Marne. From there it was a war of attrition. The French held their own despite taking heavy losses and losing nearly an entire generation of young men. They hardly fought poorly as you suggest.



Before and during Napoleon's reign, France was the largest, most powerful nation in Europe. Germany didn't exist yet and was a bunch of smaller states. By 1870, Germany united and surpassed France in terms of population size, economics, and industry. France meanwhile was stagnant during much of the latter 1800's. They were surpassed by Germany, Britain, and the United States on the world stage. The Franco-Prussian War was certainly a catastrophe for France, but also a coming out party for Germany.



Don't get me started on WW2. The French planners did a poor job. First, France failed to develop an air force equivalent to that of Germany's Luftwaffe. Second, they envisioned WW2 being fought just like WW1, where static troops manned trenches. Third, the Dyle Plan called for half of their units to advance forward into Belgium allowing them to be cut off and encircled. Yes it was a terrible plan. The Maginot Line itself was very strong. The problem was it did not extend along the entire border to the English Channel.


You also overlooked the Crimean War during the mid-1800's where a joint Franco-British Army defeated the Russians.

France had overseas colonies and were fighting on multiple fronts leading up to both World Wars.

Originally Posted by banger

Allow me to sum up the French Military fight prowess.

Franco-Prussian war.... Failure

WWI.... failure.

WWII... unmitigated failure.

Syria... Failure

Indo-china... failure.

Algeria... Failure.

There I just summed up many books on modern French history.

Where have they even "broke even", let alone won?

France had been at it for quite sometime before Germany ever became unified. Germans came late with their overseas territorial expansion. It is hard to compare. You win some, then you lose some.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by Azureth

Post Napoleon, the French have always managed to really suck at warfare and tactics. For example, how they were very easily beaten in the Franco-Prussian war, they were completely pathetic. Then comes WWI. So...You know a very obvious path in which any would-be invading force would be coming from....But don't think to put up a crap ton of defenses beforehand? Yes, I know after WWI they eventually wisened up (how it took them this long just shows how incompetent and inept they were) but even THEN when they made the Maginot Line they didn't take it all the way and the Germans....just easily went around it. The hell? Were all their generals and military advisors just really all that stupid not to see the very obvious weak point?

…...

Originally Posted by mkwensky

To be fair they only 'sucked' against the Germans who are really, really good at war. If Britain or the US shared a border with Imperial Germany they would have trouble with them too. The last paragraph is also quite inaccurate - the French had no trouble defeating Mussolini's army when they attacked near the end of the Battle of France.

Considering the French created the world's second largest colonial Empire (after the British), much of it in countless wars, I do not think they did too bad.

But I think Mkwensky hit the nail on the head.

The rise of Bismarck as Chancellor of Prussia in the mid-1800s and the highly militaristic Prussia's successful takeover of Germany changed European politics forever. Prussia has been described as "not a country with an army but an army with a country". Militaristic Prussia and her takeover of Germany, instead of say by Austria or Bavaria is probably one of the world's great tragedies.

[GVLNATIVE]

What a nasty thread.

France had a smaller population and was not as wealthy as Germany in 1870 or later; it's still smaller. Thus it would be expected that Germany would win a Franco-German war in or after 1870.

In WWII, didn't a fleeing civilian population block roads needed for the French army to use to fight?

The US didn't do much better in Vietnam or the Middle East.

Having lived in France, it's less organized than the US or a Germanic/Nordic society would be, and the "Systeme-D" (each person fending for herself in times of a mess) probably doesn't help, but this thread is still obnoxious.

[unit731]

Originally Posted by cachibatches

Poor leadership. The courage of the French fighting man is never in question (despite some poor jokes out there).

It is all a matter of poor leadership at the top. the Maginot line is one example, but another form WWII is that they produced more fighters than pilots to fly them. Just bad decision making.

Poor leadership skills. Poor choices of leaders. Strategy and tactics.
Getting ready for the last war for the next war.

Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam was a big blunder.

Khe Sanh was the exact same thing. Except the US has massive air power to bomb the mountains surrounding Khe Sanh. The French did not have the air power for Dien Bien Phu. Although they did ask Eisenhower for air support. Eisenhower declined . . . and well the rest is history.

[SoundAdvice4U]

Originally Posted by banger

Allow me to sum up the French Military fight prowess.

Franco-Prussian war.... Failure

WWI.... failure.

WWII... unmitigated failure.

Syria... Failure

Indo-china... failure.

Algeria... Failure.

There I just summed up many books on modern French history.

Where have they even "broke even", let alone won?

Again, WW1 they fought pretty well. I'm not sure how you consider that a failure? They were invaded by Germany and held their own with minimal assistance from foreign powers during the initial phase of WW1. They fought as well as the Germans, British, and Americans. I'm not sure how you consider that a failure?



You ignored the Crimean War where they defeated Russia (with British assistance). We have to put this in perspective. France did not have the raw manpower to match up 1-on-1 with Russia, but their army skills were superior and that evened the odds.



I agree that many of their later campaigns were failures, but the same can be said of the British and even the Americans. Has the U.S. military won any wars since WW2? Maybe the first Iraq?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by SoundAdvice4U

Again, WW1 they fought pretty well. I'm not sure how you consider that a failure? They were invaded by Germany and held their own with minimal assistance from foreign powers during the initial phase of WW1. They fought as well as the Germans, British, and Americans. I'm not sure how you consider that a failure?



You ignored the Crimean War where they defeated Russia (with British assistance). We have to put this in perspective. France did not have the raw manpower to match up 1-on-1 with Russia, but their army skills were superior and that evened the odds.



I agree that many of their later campaigns were failures, but the same can be said of the British and even the Americans. Has the U.S. military won any wars since WW2? Maybe the first Iraq?

It is an unfair topic, not to mention that Napoleon wasn't really French, but Corsican.

In regards to WW1, yes I would argue that France fought well and essentially to exhaustion - they pretty much collapsed militarily in 1917 as a fighting force. Not to blame the soldiers of France, they faught to the limit of human endurance. WW1 was a state of war that resulted in a few countries collapsing militarily - Italy and Russia included. There is only so many casualties that a military can endure.

After WWII (or, we should say, the atomic bomb) of course the face and character of warfare changed. It wasn't about total victory against an enemy state. The standards of taking territory, defeating a military force, occupation and surrender have been replaced by containment and pacification. Limited warfare. The measurements of victory are different. So the comparison is unfair.
Still, we have first gulf war, Granada, Panama, Isis (arguably). Other armed conflict we are still measuring success and also have the uncertain measurement of what would be if there was no conflict at all.

[USC1986]

As stated earlier, the French Army fought very well in the Crimean War, and was certainly better organized and supplied than their British Allies.
Soon after, along with their Sardinian allies, they defeated the Austrians in the Second Italian War Of Independence.
Yes, the French Army was defeated quickly and soundly in both the Franco-Prussian War and in 1940.
I would attribute that to poor leadership, especially in 1940, not to a failure of the troops, although the men of 1940 were not the caliber of their fathers at Verdun; it was a different world and a different war.
Nothing to disparage about Bir Hacheim in 1942, or the French Expeditionary Corps in Italy 1943-45, or the 2nd Armored Division under Leclerc, to name a few.
I'm as much an anglophile as one can perhaps possibly get, but one has to give credit where credit is due. Also respect and admiration as well.

[Anhityk]

Well, maybe post-Napoleon France was not as good militarily as some other countries were but at least it seems that they had good politicians who knew how to choose the "right" side in both World War I and World War II.