France takes the lead NATO high readiness force

On the subject of WW2-era French bashing, remind me again how many Frenchmen fought for the Allies and how many against?

Vichy was limited to 100 000 troops, versus the 750 000 of the FFL + resistence (known).

Vichy was doom right after overlord, so…

Something from some thousands to 100 000.

How many french civilians the allies have killed ? Do you know this amount ?
518 000tons of allied bombs drop on France, you think only the nazi and bad french was killed ?

Must I talk about what the british empire do to its “best friend” aka the US?
At least France is not a state of Algeria…

Dont play a game if you are not sure about it…

And dont forget, the french was the first to hate the collabo, they dont have live peaceful life after the end of the war.

750,000? By war’s end you mean. Certainly not in 1942, when the Vichy Milice were busy eradicating the Maquis.

The Allies killed no French civilians on purpose. The French killed more French people through premeditated action than the Allies did.

More than 400 000 from the start, for the rest, since its about 250 000 from résistance, I dont have any timeline.

“The Allies killed no French civilians on purpose.”
Not being killed on purpose doesnt excuse anything.
That’s why Iraq and Aghanistan was lose.

“The French killed more French people through premeditated action than the Allies did.”
Well, like I said, real french hates more the collabo than the rest of people.
So for these, doesnt count like kill a french. A trash at most.

I just point the fact that the french have paid a big price, from all sides, allies, axis and french…

So, talking about the hard fights, yes…
Which country involved in these wars doesn’t have hard fights ?

Dont think you have the right to judge a people of an invaded country, bombed by your “ally”, shamed by your enemy.
All of these, just because your “leaders” are jerk.
Its easy to talk when London is safe, while Paris is on fire.
(Well if you want my opinion… you can burn paris, even today… But its another question)

Paris on fire? Wasn’t it declared an open city and you know whose army marched in unopposed.

Correct. A German general defied Hitler’s orders. Unlike poor Warsaw.

I was thinking of 1940. Daniele you obviously of 1944. Either way Paris remained intact.

Ha! Indeed I was OS.

More than 400,000 “from the start”? If only. De Gaulle would have been delighted.

No sir, you do not get away with putting down the BEF or claiming victimhood or playing the “no true Frenchman” game.

The BEF sailed away to fight again, while Frenchmen asked to be repatriated and most of those not in the colonies laid down arms until 1944, barring the brave 50,000 or so Maquis who better understood honour and principle than their compatriots.

Frenchmen were not deliberately bombed by the Allies. Nor is there any comparison with Iraq (unless you’re trying to make the case of divided loyalties amongst the native populace). Trial by media and public opinion does not equate to justice. If you don’t understand the difference between deliberate targeting and collateral damage… you are no better than the worst offenders against human decency in the history of the waging of war.

The Vichy were “real” Frenchmen as much as the Maquis were. You do not get to pick and choose.

There is no exclusivity to judgement, and even if there were, the least of all qualified to judge would be oneself. Principle and fact is the only judge and the French do not get to claim any special right to self-arbitration.

Well if you count 1940, a hell of a lot more fought on the allied side. And when you factor in the 300,000 dead, far more died fighting the axis than did fighting the Allies.

Err what did the British Empire do to the US??

“Must I talk about what the british empire do to its “best friend” aka the US?”
Please do, I’m very curious, at least drop me some keywords so I can research it myself.

These types of jokes make me feel sorry for our French allies. It is generally forgotten how hard and bloody France fought WW1 and not really surprising they didn’t want it a second time.

Thats not the issye imho. Its tge ungrateful attityde of tge French. They at times fawn over tge US ( for ww2) or the Australians ( over ww1 but now with AUKUS suddenly the Aussies are disliked and forgotten) but Britain has always been shiuldered off even tho they fought well in wa1 & 2. And as for Brexit the French hypocrisy is breathtaking. Saying the UK owes money when the French reneged on their ww1 debt to uk ( as I’ve said before in todays terms $240bn) and then there’s the rip off regarding the EIB. However one thinks of Brexit the EU ( with France keading the chatge) is utterly shabby.

It’s not a joke, it’s historical fact as much as Chamberlain is. We can learn from history or whitewash it. I don’t mind not bringing up dirty laundry and letting bygones be bygones, but when I see active revisionism, then yes I will put in my oar.

The belligerents of WW1 were much the same as of WW2. What’s your point?

That one had had a rough time of it before is not an excuse to truckle meekly to villainy and oppression. I think most of us here are familiar with the idea that battles are won by the breaking of morale and fighting spirit. It is not acceptable to say one broke before another AND refuse to acknowledge that one has, objectively, less morale than the other.

Or, an alternative view: if one private can last longer than another private in the battle, that soldier gets to be a corporal and the other doesn’t. The other does not get to claim parity.

we accept your thanks, and just be warned, WE WONT DO IT AGAIN. stand up for yourselves. id rather join the other side, wouldnt stab in the back quite so often

“In truth France was far from a nation of resisters. Anti-Nazi partisans in Yugoslavia, Poland and Greece were far more effective and constituted a substantially higher percentage of the population of each country.”

https://www.historynet.com/french-resistance-resistant.htm

Makes for even grimmer reading. But we are not bashing the French. But, many in France still love Napoleon? Seen as some hero figure.

The fact is, France as sided with Germany on most political matters in the EU. Germany allows France to believe you are equal partners but ultimately you are subservient. Prefer to point finger at the UK, rather than the elephant in the room. You mention the commonwealth, well France to this day maintains its own empire.

Agree. Current EU and French attitudes towards the UK and its population raise the question why should our country fight and die on European soil again?
NATO treaty dictates we should and that is the purpose of a mutual defence pact. But did the French and Germans support us when a soverign part of the UK was invaded eg the Falkland idlands? Hell no. The French sold exocet to Argentina and kept their super etenard and mirage jets flying during the conflict.
If thats not stabbing an ally in the back i dont know what is. UK servicemen died on HMS Sheffield, Glamorgan and Atlantic Conveyor because of exocet and France’s technical assistance and support.

I Was there for Corporate and we hated the French for their actions , my Grandfather lies at Dainville near Arras July 1918 for the Freedom of France so I have a reason too dislike the French ,one other thing more French personnel were evacuated from Dunkirk ,than troops from the Highland division those boys fought on and were not evacuated

Whilst I suspect everyone is joking I also detect some uneasiness discussing sometihng which started as an inspired victory by a detestable regime and ended with the free countries of the world ensuring that they remained that way by working together to defeat facism. Victory came thanks to the help of the Russians and oddly Hitler’s own incompetance. We got lucky and therefore we sometimes forget that we only achieved final victory by working together. Let’s hope we never let our guard down again.

It’s meant to be a little good natured ribbing Hermes, probably best steer clear of any BEF references though, let’s respect the enormous number of British and Commonwealth lives that were lost liberating our French friends in two Wars mate…

Re your German reference, while I wouldn’t doubt the French elements would be up for the fight, the Germans won’t deploy any combat elements…

Dont worry.
I can respect all deads and argue with stupid jokes on the web, I’m multitask 😎
For the last 2 centuries France and UK have fougth together on a lot of grounds and against a lot of countries.
I hope for the same in the nexts centuries.

But I prefer the UK-France love-hating relation, than bad jokes about soldiers.
Better to talk about who fishing where.

Fishing you say ….. Before we settle that one, we need to discuss the repatriation of Brittany😁

About that, we need to talk about how much french is the blood of the royal family of england.

That’s what is funny with UK and France, so much history to keep bother the other for at least another millenium.

Ok Hermes, I might have a suggestion for you, you take Prince Andrew and Harry and in return we will take Brittany.🤣

Feel free to wheel out and dust off the Guillotine mate…..

Let me think…

Well:.. no.

But I can send you a guillotine for freedo****… no costs.

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere, some common ground in Anglo French relations…

Ok, you drive a hard bargain Hermes, how about we give you alternate weekends in Gibraltar, you get cheap pubs and fish and chips ( plus the bonus opportunity, to join in the fun annoying the Spanish) , we in turn get the same in Brittany and all the wine and wonderful food we can grab?

Lets shake on the deal…..

“to join in the fun annoying the Spanish”

I’m from the south of France, it’s a normal weekend to go at the border for that x)

Dont forget the worst thing if you get the Brittany.

You will have a ground border with France.

Look what happens when you have a border with us:
Spain ? Invaded
Italy ? Invaded
Germany ? Invaded (well it was not germany at this time huhu)
Belgium ? Piece of cake.
Swiss ? Chocolate:.. wait what ? Oh yes, they have our banks thats true.

At our discharge most of these countries have at least try to invade us…
In fact most of them had invaded us at least one time…
Such a beautiful continent…

Hermes, do you know of any literature wrt to arrival of the French from Dunkirk and where they stayed and how they were reconstituted? TIA

Best not mention Mers-el-Kébir!

I was going to steer clear of that particular incident Daniele, move along now, nothing to see here….

😆

Why not Daniele at least we gave them a heads up prior too the bombardment

We also conveniently forget that we were saved by the sea. If we were attached to the European continent we would have been blown away the same as everyone else by the German advance. There were complex reasons why they were able to win, it does all those who died a great disservice to simplify it.

At least we are all free to have these debates, which came about because we all wired together, including so many brave French citizens who led the resistance.

Well I’d disagree with the sea thing. Had we been attached to the continent our focus would have been less on the Navy and more on the army, like other European powers. Without the supremacy of the Royal Navy against all its European rivals (I mean Germany and Italy) the sea would have meant nothing.

It’s a good thing to keep our success in mind.
But failures are really what teaches us.

I dont want to launch another debate on who was the most courageous or any sterile debate like this.

Just be humble when we talk about our dead soldiers, especially when we have both fight shoulders on shoulders in the 2 great wars.

And I hope to not see another 1940 for any of us…
We have a lot of concerns today, much more important than these bad jokes.

Agreed.

One can look at it in so many ways.

The RAF victory in the Battle of Britain.
The might of the RN which required German air superiority.
Hitlers “halt” order when the BEF was finished.
Manstein’s brilliance.
Above all, and ignored by Hollywood which bigs up everything American, but for the Russians we might all be speaking German. The bulk of the German war effort and forces was deployed in the east. The losses the Poles and Russia especially suffered were enormous.

The Western Allies and the USSR respectively accounted for roughly the same number of Axis casualties and POWs. That the USSR incurred the losses that it did, speaks more about their capabilities than it does about their contributions.

Did they? Never checked.

On the losses front I disagree, so I think we shall agree to disagree and leave it there then mate, regards the USSRs contributions and their capabilities, and what German forces faced them compared to the west and Africa.
Just an small observation on Hermes point of destroyed buildings and infrastructure, Oradour sur glane had over 600 examples in Bylorussia alone.

I think only if you count the closing days of the war, when the Wehrmacht was literally fighting for the chance to surrender to the Allies does it even come close.

Exactly. The scale of the battles, the casualties, and the forces committed dwarf all other theatres.

What?

Thats not technically true Matt. Sorry. Ive extensuvely studied and read WW2 military history. The Russians fought and defeated some 350 axis army divisions on the Eastern front. The Western allies at no time fought and defeated more than 56 divisions.
Hence why the Russian army suffered massive attritional loses. They were fighting upto 4 million axis soldiers during 1942-1943 when the truelly gigantic land battles were being fought on the eastern front.
Russia suffered 21 million dead in WW2. 11 million military casualties mostly in the Red army.

Yes nice summary. The Eastern Front is a particular interest of mine, alongside our modern military.

Time and geographical size saved Russia, along with the elements, German mistakes, and of course the ability of the of the Red Army to take millions if casualties and still survive.

That 56 Divisions was the garrison of France in Army Groups A and B in June 44.
Many of them were skeletons, like Coastal Divisions. Few were 1st rate formations.
By that point the Russian front was collapsing, Bagration was about to swamp Army Group Centre, and the Panzer Divisions of the west were outfitted better than those of the East.
Even then the allies did not fight all at once, many were kept back in Calais.
The British Army had to take on the role of grinder to pin down and wear out the Panzer Divisions around Caen till the US Army could break out from the west and envelop them.

“Jean has a long Moustache! “

IM sitting on the sidelines enjoying all postings some say banter but the undercurrent is a little vitriolic how ever i have to intervene at your post Mr Bell which claims the Russians faced 350 divisions that seems extreme to say the least . I dont think any Army boasts a nmber even close to that , Explain your claim

The same for USA. At the begining of the war, the US Army was weak with no experience of fighting except for some vets from WWI.

i doubt keeping your mouth closed is an option you use much. wave that white feather little Napolean. we really don’t care anymore.

You sound like you’ve spent a long day on the ointment

And you still have tactical nukes, I think?

Yes, they do. Including on the CDG.

If we can call a 300kt supersonic missile with 400+Km of range, “tactical”.
Yes.

The ASMPA is used by a bomber (Rafale) squadron from France, and can be deployed by the Rafale M from the CVN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ-jCFEdDSk

I also recall when France maintained its own Triad, most impressive.

Costly is probably the best description.

With the size of France, ground based missiles is almost useless.

Fun fact, the ground based missiles was at the “Plateau d’Albion”.
In France, England is greatly described as the “Perfide Albion” .

Maybe it is some subtext to understand with this choice.

True. Yes, fixed IRBM silos too vulnerable and pointless given the accuracy of Russian 1st strike.

Which is why I always support a SLBM deterrent.

Carrier? U.K., little competition.
Air Defence? U.K. with its Type 45 destroyers which, even the USN agrees, are the best in the world.
Amphibious? I disagree. It’s two Albions and 3 Bays and 4 Points against 3 Mistrals, so while the MN may have more helicopter carrying capacity on amphibious assault ships, throwing in one QE for britain solves that. The RN and RM can land many more troops than the MN.
Submarines? 7 Astutes against 6 Barracuda (I’ll count future not current) isn’t much of a competition again, Astutes are far more capable and almost 50% larger.
Patrol? Hands down France, FDIin development, OPVs. Type 31 and the return of the Batch 2s to home waters may balance things out, but France has the corvette programme with Italy so here France is ahead.
Support/Auxiliary? The Royal Fleet Auxiliary displaces more in tonnage than all European auxiliaries combined. 3 FSSS at around 40k, 4 Tide Class at 40k, 2 Wave Class at 30k. France will have 4 Vulcano class tankers at 25k. Definitely the RFA wins here.
Missiles? Technically MN but practically neither would stand up to some Chinese or Russian missiles. FC/ASW will solve those problems for both.
Historically, I agree. Britain has been a naval power and France a land power, and that continues today. If we did this for Army I think it would be almost entirely france ahead 😉
I just hope our nations cooperate and use their strengths to their advantages and cover each other’s weaknesses

For carrier operations, Its more complicated than that.
Having 2 STOVL vs 1 CATOBAR, its not an easy equation.

When available the CATOBAR is far superior in overall capabilities.
Like I said on another post, the QE really lack of refuel capability for their F35.

But ofc, having only 1 carrier is such a weakness…

I prefer to avoid the issue and say we complete each other :d

For amphibian, I must desagree, I prefer the Mistral class.
Each mistral can deploy up to 500 troops (With vehicle), versus the 405 of the albion.
A QE can give you some heli, but he cant deploy ground vehicles.
You just cant compete with 2 Albions + QE and 3 Mistrals.

As for the Type 45… everything is fine if he run.
Good platform, but not really so much better than the Horizon and FREMM.

We can see something when talking about RN and MN.
All of our ships doesnt have enough VLS for a modern high intensity fight.

There is no way to justify the superiority of a single 40,000 tonne carrier over two 70,000 tonne ones. There just isn’t. QEs are getting cats and traps for UAVs, and those will be able to in air refuel. QE’s can sortie many more jets, as well as being able to carry many more jets. QE can provide helicopters, Albions + Bays = 1900 against Mistral’s 1350 and fewer helicopters. Don’t forget the Bays, they’re very important to British amphibious capability. VLS shortage… definitely. Type 26 is FINALLY going in the other direction and hopefully Type 32 and type 83 continue. If 1SL succeeds in arming 31s with Mk.41 as well, that would be fantastic.

Sorry but you must not compare 42 000 tons CATOBAR CVN and 65 000 tons STOVL GAS.
One of the reason the QE is big is also because he need to store a lot of fuel for himself.

Size doesnt mean everything.
A Rafale have the same payload than the F15, with 6tons of difference (MTOW).

CATOBAR means:
Farther (Refuel), bigger(Full payload), better awareness(Hawkeye).

(And I keep out of the table the nuclear strike capability of the Rafale M on board of the CDG with the ASMPA, even if diplomatically, its important)

All of these means also 2 things:
-Farther from the coasts => more security for the CV and its group.
-Closer from the coasts => able to strike deeper in the lands.

With the new generations of antiship missile, the first point is for me the most important.

As for the refit of the QE with cat and traps…
Wait and see, nothing done for the moment, its hightly speculative, we all know about the “great change” in our armies…
And even with these, really depend on the size, it doesnt mean you will be able to operate a stringray (or alike).

To be completely honest, I prefer to have 10 more FREMMS (Or mostly next gen destroyer) with 48-64 VLS than a new CVN.
Maybe less prestigious, but really more future proof…

There’s no way a 40kt carrier is equal to the 65kt ones the UK have, true.

But France is a lot further along in its carrier development right now and generally can provide a much more capable air wing on board its single carrier, even if it available far less often.

In all capabilities? Can CdG maintain AEW 24/7? Because a QE can. Does CdG embark 5th gen fighters? QE can. How many Allies can cross deck onto CdG?

AEW 24/7, probably not on the long run.
But 2 Hawkeye are far superior to a crowsnest, farther, longer, better…
And its coming to be far better with the E2D.
I agree, a third on the deck can only be better, but ofc the CDG is small.

“5th gen” fighters or not on board is more complex than what you seem to think.
Especially with less than half the range of a Rafale/F18/F35C…
Not without a reason if the USN want a F18ASH or another fighter than the F35C.
(How many times before you will have the F35B to replace the last lost ?)

Its interesting to be able to crossdeck with different countries but… Be realist 3 min, with how many countries do you think being able to fight in a war far from home ?

Only the Australian, US, maybe the Italian will really fight where the carrier are really needed.
Japan ? Maybe.

Since its better to be alone in war situation than being with people with different standard.
If you dont train regularly with, I dont it as the best plusvalue.

Even for us, (UK with the USMC and France with the USN), it will not be so easy to operate from others carrier in war situation.
And we share the same procedures…
I dont know about the IT and Japanese, but I’m not sure about that.

AeW any less than 24/7 is not AEW. Doesn’t matter how good you platform is if you have to have it down for maintenance it’s inferior.

I suggest you look at the range of qn F18 it’s actually less than an f35s combat radius.

Japan, US, Italy, South Korea, and Singapore all can cross deck with the RN qnd all are operational in combat areas. (On the subject how many carriers operate Rafale?). Italian F35s have already operated off QE too.

Plus we can afford 2, qnd don’t rely on the US to qualify our pilots, unlike the MN.

“if you have to have it down for maintenance it’s inferior.”
Same with the Crowsnest…
You need more of them because to cover the same area for the same time…

“I suggest you look at the range of qn F18 it’s actually less than an f35s combat radius.”
Since you cant refuel the F35B from the QE, no, Rafale/F18/F35C have a lot more range…

“Japan, US, Italy, South Korea, and Singapore all can cross deck with the RN qnd all are operational in combat areas.”
Being able to crossdeck in peaceops doesnt mean being able to do it in war times.
That’s why I talk about the fact that even if the MN and USN are very close and share the same procedures, its not realist to talk about doing it by war times.
Excep to save a lost F18/F35C pilot…

“qnd don’t rely on the US to qualify our pilots, unlike the MN.”
Yes, you just rely on the US to have your fighter and keep them in the skies…
And I dont talk about the fact to rely on the US for the greatest sanctuary => SLBM.
If you want to talk about dependancies, its over for the UK, so keep straight facts.

Wrong! RN has enough crowsnest to maintain 24/7 unlike CdG. Funny how you try to wriggle around that fact, but it doesn’t change the truth: CdG doesn’t have enough.

Again trying to wriggle around facts, but F35s range is actually better than an F18 (and good luck to a Rafale that is in a F35s combat radius).

Basically the MN is incapable of cross decking, buy the RN has proven it can do it, so like everything else you’re pretending that it doesn’t happen. RN, MM, and USMC have all cross-eyed aircraft qnd other nations listed can do so. The MN physically can’t. Wriggle around as much as you like, but that’s a huge disadvantage for a French LHDN.

And mow your just spitting disinformation. Trident is sovereign, and doesn’t rely on the US. And the UK retains sovereign control of F35s, due to it being the only tier 1 partner in the project. But nice try.

How can you be so wrong and dont understand anything ?
Especially about the Trident and F35 manufacturing…
Sad to see you dont even know you country.

“Basically the MN is incapable of cross decking”
Clearly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnBcSjs_QLo

Well, I will stop here, since you are not able to understand the basics, and visibly dont even know your country and industries.

Regards Trident, some areas require clarification, but I believe Dern is correct.

“Our” Trident missiles are pooled with US ones and maintained at Kings Bay. So yes, not totally sovereign.

The warheads within are British versions, with assistance from LANL, so not totally sovereign.

Warheads are created, stored, maintained, rotated, and issued in the UK, so sovereign.

Operationally, the most important bit, Trident is sovereign. It can be fired by the UK without US permission. There is no magic plug where the US can “turn it off”

From DCMC, NOTC, CTF345, at the top of the firing chain downwards. I cannot be bothered to explain the acronyms!

The only US inputs are in targeting and programming, via US private companies inputting data into the UK MoD systems at CCC and other places. This is in liaison with the UK nuclear ops team based in the states at Strat Com.
Which is actually sensible, considering our targets have to be integrated into the US SIOP and NATO war planning( has a new name now )

So is Trident “sovereign” ? Absolutely. You might as well say any modern combat aircraft that has any US component operated by any nation is not sovereign.

As for the C-17s, I’m not certain if 8 of them are strategically more valuable than 28 A400Ms.

Well, I dont think so, but they exist and they are important.

The C-17 and C-5 are the only western heavy lifters that can carry a main battle tank. A400M cannot.

Swings and roundabouts Hermes, the good thing is between us, we have the mass and equipment to compliment each other….

Ah, true that. I was also including 3 R Gurkha Rifles in my 33 which won’t now form. Its 2 companies have gone into Ranger Btns.

I wasn’t including R Gib Reg. Yes, it has 1 regular company, a reserve company, a battery, and other small bits and pieces.

I am not following your points David. We did not need upwards of 70k security forces in NI – I did not say that we did.

My point about a Div being required for the UK’s Task Force Helmand was based on the size of that province (as big as wales) and the difficulty to track down and defeat small groups of well dispersed insurgents with a small Force, whilst bearing in mind that only 25% of the force would be infantry and then, not available all the time.

Korea – Those 38k US troops have done a good job – proves the value of deterrence and demonstration of the backing of South Korea by a superpower. Thats why we had 55,000 troops in West Germany and 5,000 in Berlin for all those years, together with NATO allies.

Afghanistan – in the modern era, we first deployed RM commandos to the Tora Bora area a few weeks after 9/11 (2001). We then provided Task Force Kabul, then ramped up to an operation in Helmand. Op Herrick ceased in Oct 2014, but some British troops stayed on for mentoring and protection duties, until the recent evac from Kabul airport – so 20 years committment.

My points were:
Armed Forces incl the Ulster Regt, police, security services as well as the odd one or several pilgrims popping over the water meant the Crown forces in NI numbered circa 70k(Big Boy’s Rules) and there was still shootings and bombings; a Div in our Afghan AOR where we did not share culture, language, imbedded int sources and several thousands miles from home would still not have made a big difference – we needed critical mass re the American surge.

Followibg that surge, keeping the bare min. in Afghanistan could have kept the lid on things as the Afghans stood up to run their country – we gave up 40 years too early. Imho 🙂

Thanks David, No matter how large Security Forces are, the insurgents will still ‘get lucky’ and accomplish some shootings and bombings. Just that they will be less lucky and more prone to capture if there is a large Security Force.

Wikipedia: “In the spring of 2008, a battalion of U.S. Marines (say, 500 tps) arrived to reinforce the British presence. In the spring of 2009, 11,000 additional Marines poured into the province”. If we had a division in Helmand, the US would not have had to bail us out with a 11,500 surge. But I accept that it did not mean the Taliban would definitively have been beaten – however insurgents are only rarely beaten by soleley military means.

Does the British public (and politicians) have the appetite for 60 years commitment in Afghanistan (the 20 years we were there plus your 40 years)? I doubt it.

Hello Hermes, Havin deployed to Africa with the military and worked in Africa for some 20 odd years I have seen when the West get tired of propping up the the government the Chinese and Russians come rushing in they take any and all of the local resources from Gold, Diamonds, hard woods to bush meat and they pay for them with armaments from AK47’s and RPG’s. If you look at the Sudan which supply’s China with 12% of its oil and gas, go to port Sudan and you will see ship after ship coming in full of weapons to be sold by the Sudanese government to the highest bidder then if you cross the continent and look at Equatorial Guinee which was supplying America with LNG for 30 years but now has lost a number of contracts due to America making LNG cheaper from home, so have now turned to the Chinese who have prommised to buy all of the LNG and will “redevelop” the port facilities on Malabo island. So my point is we (the West) need to be present at the table we need to step up and have more commitment to Africa not less it is a big political blunder to thing by pulling out we will be saving lives and money.

Being in Africa to work on developpement, create industries, parternship.
Yes we need.

Being in Africa with bombs, clearly no.

Hello Hermes, Yes you are right, money talks bullshit walks as our North American brothers like to tell us but you have to be in a position of strength so you need a strong economical package along with a military presents to help train and in most cases keep an eye on the local military to keep pointing them in the right direction. As the French did in the past with Chad as it was not the French troops that kicked Gadhafi out of Chad it was the Chadian troops supported by the French.
There is a sense of nationalism in most of the African states and pride we should be helping them bring that forward and not leaving them to the religious nut cases, armed gangs and mercenary’s because our politicians do not have the stomach to see some thing through.

Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland. Didn’t have to to think about either.

Northern Ireland? Well if you count that as a war deployment…
Sierra Leone was a good ops, but very small in size in comparison… More like Kosovo.

More of a war than Mali, and we actually won our unilateral deployments.

Then again Mali is only possible because of UK Strategic Airlift so that’s not exactly unilateral.

Well Sahel, is pretty special because of its big size.
But I agree, its not the most combats intensive’s deployment.

But for logisticians, I think it was the biggest hell!

“Then again Mali is only possible because of UK Strategic Airlift”
Well, no, they help, of course, but “only possible”, its an exageration.

Funny you mention logistics since that’s where we had to bail you out.

Giving a hand doesnt mean doing all the jobs.
I know its a british thing.
But ukranians companies have moved more freight than the british for the sahel ops…

But you also think the F35 and Trident are all build in UK…

We lost in Afghanistan becsuse there was never a chance of winning. Winning was redefined when the West decided on ‘nation building’ etc. I recall hearing about it in the media – I just shook my head ( or some such) and thought to myself that it would all go pear shaped and they’ll learn ( as in regret it when they lose). It was so obvious. Anyone who has read history ( Astan, Vietnam etc) should have got the message. We should have left after the first year.