Why do Yanks always bag the fighting ability of the French? (4 Viewers)

[lancer]

Al...

I stand corrected. from what I read about the debacle was more numbers and type of attack aircraft dive bombers, torpedo etc, than highly trained for the mission like the pilots at Pearl were. perhaps I did not give them sufficient credit and, I have not read much about japanese pilot training.
Mitch

Mitch, if you do any reading about the Japanese pilots, you will find it highly interesting. Their training was VERY demanding with only a small number of the applicants being accepted and a smaller number yet of the student flyers actually graduating to be pilots. This was especially true of the highy elite naval pilots. As a matter of fact, the pilot training was so elite and restricted, that once the war started to exact a toll (losses in the big carrier battles like Coral Sea, Midway, and the continuing attrition like at Guadalcanal), the Japanese could not relpace the losses in an efficient manner as expanding their training programs came too late to turn out pilots of the same caliber that had come out of the pre-war and early war programs. The early war Japanese pilots were the equal of any pilots in the world. -- Al

 

[theBaron]

Mitch, if you do any reading about the Japanese pilots, you will find it highly interesting. Their training was VERY demanding with only a small number of the applicants being accepted and a smaller number yet of the student flyers actually graduating to be pilots. This was especially true of the highy elite naval pilots. As a matter of fact, the pilot training was so elite and restricted, that once the war started to exact a toll (losses in the big carrier battles like Coral Sea, Midway, and the continuing attrition like at Guadalcanal), the Japanese could not relpace the losses in an efficient manner as expanding their training programs came too late to turn out pilots of the same caliber that had come out of the pre-war and early war programs. The early war Japanese pilots were the equal of any pilots in the world. -- Al

Very good point, Al! And not just formal training, but also, the Japanese fliers had months and in some cases, a couple of years' worth of combat experience.

 

[lancer]

Very good point, Al! And not just formal training, but also, the Japanese fliers had months and in some cases, a couple of years' worth of combat experience.

Equally good point. The Japanese Army and Navy pilots had been flying against the Chinese and Russians for a long while prior to December 7. -- Al

 

[marco55]

But can the French Fight?^&grin^&grin:salute::
Mark

 

[lancer]

But can the French Fight?^&grin^&grin:salute::
Mark

LOL. I guess I did get a little off subject.:redface2: I think the final answer is yes, they can fight. At least we know they did during the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, The Franco-Prussian War, WW1, inter-war against the Riff, WW2 (depending on POV), Indo-China, Algeria, and the FFL has always kept itself occupied. Can't answer for more current events. -- Al

 

[jules118]

f I watered down or even made the inference that US troops did not really perfom that well in say Normandy or the Pacific or Australians were not at their best at Gallipoli, you would all be down on me like a ton of bricks.

Rob

Maybe some, but not all... and not me. I try not to let my capacity for reason and analysis be clouded by any nationalistic or patriotic pride. :tongue:

 

[marco55]

Thank you Mitch, thats very kind of you.

Marco,Brett,Jules,Peter have all said that my remarks are over the top or I'm reading too much into things. They are all absolutely entitled to their view of me, thats the joy of freedom . However I suggest that to people in this country the Battle of Britain is something that runs very very deep indeed, we were the first to stand up and stop Hitler and it was a victory that would eventually free Europe and then the world . I'm not going into all the arguments again its not worth it.

Whatever you guys think of me and my defence of the RAF in the Battle of Britain I ask you to accept something. If I watered down or even made the inference that US troops did not really perfom that well in say Normandy or the Pacific or Australians were not at their best at Gallipoli, you would all be down on me like a ton of bricks.

Rob

Rob,
With the greatest respect we all admire the RAF and the job they did during the BOB.I think what most of us were trying to say is that if there was no RAF(and RN) and Hitler was able to land large forces in Britain would the British Army been able to stand up to them better than the French did.My answer now after this thread would have to be YES.I can see in this thread how stong willed you Brits are,you've always been known for your pluck and valor and if the rest of your countrymen are like yourself and Mitch they would never give up.GOD BLESS THE QUEEN.All the best.
Mark

 

[Rob]

Rob,
With the greatest respect we all admire the RAF and the job they did during the BOB.I think what most of us were trying to say is that if there was no RAF(and RN) and Hitler was able to land large forces in Britain would the British Army been able to stand up to them better than the French did.My answer now after this thread would have to be YES.I can see in this thread how stong willed you Brits are,you've always been known for your pluck and valor and if the rest of your countrymen are like yourself and Mitch they would never give up.GOD BLESS THE QUEEN.All the best.
Mark

Thank you Mark I do appreciate that.

You know, another thing we can all be proud of is the way many pilots from many nations made there way over here to join the RAF and ensure victory in the Battle. It never fails to move me that people in other countries saw what was happening and left their normal lives and came over here to fight the evil that was the Nazi's, the bravery and sacrifice of those men will always be remembered here.

I guess in one battle summarised victory in the whole war, good nations of the world joining together to win.

Apologies if my pride got the better of me on this thread, I'm afraid it often does , no offence meant to anyone

Best wishes to all

Rob

 

[lancer]

Thank you Mark I do appreciate that.

You know, another thing we can all be proud of is the way many pilots from many nations made there way over here to join the RAF and ensure victory in the Battle. It never fails to move me that people in other countries saw what was happening and left their normal lives and came over here to fight the evil that was the Nazi's, the bravery and sacrifice of those men will always be remembered here.

I guess in one battle summarised victory in the whole war, good nations of the world joining together to win.

Apologies if my pride got the better of me on this thread, I'm afraid it often does , no offence meant to anyone

Best wishes to all

Rob

No need to apologize to me, Rob. I enjoy the heck out of these types of discussions. That you have passion for and pride in your nations accomplishments is natural and kind of refreshing. This forum is more than a place for collecting talk, it is also for learning and I have learnt quite a bit because of the spirited exchanges that go on amongst all the participants. I know my day would be far duller without the trade of ideas, thoughts and knowledge that takes place here. ^&grin:salute:: -- Al

 

[Rob]

No need to apologize to me, Rob. I enjoy the heck out of these types of discussions. That you have passion for and pride in your nations accomplishments is natural and kind of refreshing. This forum is more than a place for collecting talk, it is also for learning and I have learnt quite a bit because of the spirited exchanges that go on amongst all the participants. I know my day would be far duller without the trade of ideas, thoughts and knowledge that takes place here. ^&grin:salute:: -- Al

Thanks Al, I absolutely echo your words, whether we are talking BOB,Somme,Monty,Haig,Patton and all points west, its fascinating to get stuck into these debates and get varying opinions and views. I really enjoy this side of the forum and am often impressed with how much members know about their subject. Great stuff.:salute::

Cheers

Rob

 

[bromhead]

Some of the yank participants in ww2 hadnt the kindest remarks at the times or kept the opinion about it.The same said about the italians.Those of us who served In Vietnam havent the best opinion regarding 90 Plus percent of the S Viet military I would guess to say.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

One thing is fact concerning the French and Americans.If it were not for the vast help from the French during the Revolutionary war helping Americans to fight for the colonies and their Independence,We would have been in a tough situation !!!! I
think we paid back the favor during WW 1 & WW2.

 

[Blowtorch]

I always hear Americans snigger and joke about the ability of the French when it comes to fighting.

I have personal experience working with the French in various archives, museums & libraries in Paris & found them to be among the most polite, professional & respectful (and happy) people I have ever met. As for fighting, just the French partisans alone tells one that they could be lethal & fearless if given the chance.

You can't blame France for having a neighbor like pre-1945 Germany. Both Germany & Japan were warlike cultures that literally needed to be blasted back to the Stone Age to calm them the heck down & consider a new path.

I have to say that dissing the French and their fighting ability is a bit knuckle dragging neanderthal behavior, by people having concrete as the only grey matter between their ears.

Comparing the Battle of France to the Battle of Britain is apples & oranges. All the Western democracies were in dire straits in 1940. France, unlike Britain or the U.S., couldn't pick & choose their battles, and there was no room for error. Britain always had the luxury of American armaments & and America always had the benefit of two oceans.

Many reasons contribute to who wins wars.

After WW1 Britain hitched her wagon to the American train, and France never did & preferred to go their own way. Americans feeling #1, resent this.

Britain went to war with the Kaiser because of his Navy. Right after WW1 Britain found a new challenger, the American Navy, whom dearly had a score to settle with the British & drooled at the chance. Did the British maintain their stance of supremacy? No, they backed down & signed on to the Washington Naval treaty. They knew that if you can't beat them, join them.

 

[The General]

I was just watching Wacked Out Sports on cable. There was a soccer match in Colombia where the referee gave the goalie a yellow card. The goalie went ballistic attacking the referee who beat a hasty retreat before security and riot police managed to intervene.

I know it's only a comedy style sports show but when the referee was running away the American voice over said "Hmm he must be Fench." ^&grin

 

[jules118]

One thing that I have observed over the past couple of decades. If the French feel that a situation warrants the use of force they won't pontificate or muck around like some of their detractors do. I don't think that they take the decision lightly, but when they do decide to act, there's no fuffing around.

 

[Mitch]

Interesting post though to avoid concrete for brians and neandethal responses I will limit response to a few of your points. I don't recal the US aid for the battle of britain what was that????? the spit and Hurri were not US all English inventions and won hands down with english bullets made in english factories so, thanks for the assist. From the imports from the US up until and shortly after the BOB I have seen we were as a country pretty much on our own in terms of what did start arriving later on. And, are you suggesting a battle between the US and UK navy and we bawked because we signed the treaty???? that my friend is a debate I would dearly like to have on here.

Just some points about the treaty: The basis was to avoid a war again as it was seen as a contributory factor between germany and the UK and, importantly, a worry on the US side about the anglo japanese alliances dating back to 1902 and other internal US issues.

The fact that the french went their own way is not IMO a positive at all what was their way?? build a defence line that was flawed and pants. Then failure from top to bottom eased germany to victory in WWII.

These are historical facts that are often embellished with terminology as surrender monkies and the like which, causes the problem of having a sensible debate about the french and their record in WWII. Its got nothing to do with how polite these people are for, as many are polite there is as many who are rude as in any country. That does not mean they are good or bad at fighting in the War that is being addressed.

Iam struggling to see when the french turn to combat when they do it properly?? The largest army on the continent was whofull in WWII and thats a fact I have not seen disproven by historians and military personal.
Mitch

I have personal experience working with the French in various archives, museums & libraries in Paris & found them to be among the most polite, professional & respectful (and happy) people I have ever met. As for fighting, just the French partisans alone tells one that they could be lethal & fearless if given the chance.

You can't blame France for having a neighbor like pre-1945 Germany. Both Germany & Japan were warlike cultures that literally needed to be blasted back to the Stone Age to calm them the heck down & consider a new path.

I have to say that dissing the French and their fighting ability is a bit knuckle dragging neanderthal behavior, by people having concrete as the only grey matter between their ears.

Comparing the Battle of France to the Battle of Britain is apples & oranges. All the Western democracies were in dire straits in 1940. France, unlike Britain or the U.S., couldn't pick & choose their battles, and there was no room for error. Britain always had the luxury of American armaments & and America always had the benefit of two oceans.

Many reasons contribute to who wins wars.

After WW1 Britain hitched her wagon to the American train, and France never did & preferred to go their own way. Americans feeling #1, resent this.

Britain went to war with the Kaiser because of his Navy. Right after WW1 Britain found a new challenger, the American Navy, whom dearly had a score to settle with the British & drooled at the chance. Did the British maintain their stance of supremacy? No, they backed down & signed on to the Washington Naval treaty. They knew that if you can't beat them, join them.

 

[lancer]

Hi Mitch. Just a note about American contribution to British victory in the BoB, and just about every other air battle flown by the British. It is called the Colt Machine Gun. In 1933, Colt won out in a British test to arm the new eight gun fighters, the Hurricane and Spitfire. Britain made a deal to build the Colt guns under licence, in Britain, by BSA. I believe that these American MG's may have had a small part in winning the BoB, even if they fired the light .303 caliber bullet. The MG competition was held because British designers knew the the British Vickers gun which had always armed British fighters, was too unreliable to arm the new generation fighters. The Vickers made an outstanding infantry support weapon but was much less reliable as aircraft armament. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Hi Mitch. Just a note about American contribution to British victory in the BoB, and just about every other air battle flown by the British. It is called the Colt Machine Gun. In 1933, Colt won out in a British test to arm the new eight gun fighters, the Hurricane and Spitfire. Britain made a deal to build the Colt guns under licence, in Britain, by BSA. I believe that these American MG's may have had a small part in winning the BoB, even if they fired the light .303 caliber bullet. The MG competition was held because British designers knew the the British Vickers gun which had always armed British fighters, was too unreliable to arm the new generation fighters. The Vickers made an outstanding infantry support weapon but was much less reliable as aircraft armament. -- Al

Very interesting Al. Was recently reading about how RAF pilots were complaining of the stopping power of the 303 and how they had to fire many more rounds than the Germans had to to bring down an aircraft. However it still got the job done, and lets be honest, put any weapon in a Spitfire and you're still going to win!:wink2:

Rob

 

[lancer]

Very interesting Al. Was recently reading about how RAF pilots were complaining of the stopping power of the 303 and how they had to fire many more rounds than the Germans had to to bring down an aircraft. However it still got the job done, and lets be honest, put any weapon in a Spitfire and you're still going to win!:wink2:

Rob

Apologies to the thread, I know this is off course. Rob, the Hurri and Spit were both under design when two guns through the prop was standard armament for fighters. The concept of the eight guns in the wings was radical design thought for the period and the designers knew that the old armament, the two Vickers, was not going to work. The Vickers were famous for stoppages that made necessary the placement of the guns near the pilot so he could attempt to clear them. With the new thought of guns in the wings came the necessity of reliability, thus the MG competition to arm the new fighters. This was also at a time when .30 caliber was still thought adequate for air-to-air combat. The British fighters were fortunate to have the eight guns because, as you pointed out, they had to fire a lot more ammo to get adequate weight on target. Up gunning to cannon and .50 caliber was a natural progression. The US had been mixing .30 and .50 on their two gun fighters, but with very limited ammo capacity for the .50's. Even when the multi-gun wing armament was adopted, the US still used .30 caliber guns with one or two .50's in the nose. This was until, like Britain, experience proved heavy caliber guns were the future. Aircraft armament development is a really interesting subject. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Apologies to the thread, I know this is off course. Rob, the Hurri and Spit were both under design when two guns through the prop was standard armament for fighters. The concept of the eight guns in the wings was radical design thought for the period and the designers knew that the old armament, the two Vickers, was not going to work. The Vickers were famous for stoppages that made necessary the placement of the guns near the pilot so he could attempt to clear them. With the new thought of guns in the wings came the necessity of reliability, thus the MG competition to arm the new fighters. This was also at a time when .30 caliber was still thought adequate for air-to-air combat. The British fighters were fortunate to have the eight guns because, as you pointed out, they had to fire a lot more ammo to get adequate weight on target. Up gunning to cannon and .50 caliber was a natural progression. The US had been mixing .30 and .50 on their two gun fighters, but with very limited ammo capacity for the .50's. Even when the multi-gun wing armament was adopted, the US still used .30 caliber guns with one or two .50's in the nose. This was until, like Britain, experience proved heavy caliber guns were the future. Aircraft armament development is a really interesting subject. -- Al

Thanks Al, again very interesting. I always find WW2 Aircraft/armament evolution as fascinating as WW2 Tank evolution. There is a well known picture of a downed HE111 during the Battle of Britain and it is absolutely riddled with bullet holes, a testament to what was needed to bring one of these birds down.

Rob