France Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

As I watch this operation progress I am always thinking of the post script the effects on the french military afterwards. Lesson one looks to be logistics investment in heavy transport aircraft now looks likely in the future.

I wonder where that Mistral Class LHD is going to port at, because Mali is landlocked and Algeria the obvious choice is far too large to cross over to Mali

Also im wondering if that LHD will have an escort, most likely it will, but if someone has the correct information and the correct weapons just as the LHD is approaching the port it could be vulnerable to an anti-ship missile

If rebels can conceal and camouflage a truck or container with a battery of anti-ship missiles get in position and at the right time launch the missile at the Mistral Class LHD this would cause some serious trouble, it has not got its greatest assets the helos on it and it is not designed to military standard ship building, its large and bulky, it’s basically a commercial design, low flying supersonic anti-ship missile hitting it at the water line could be enough to disable it, considering the weight it is carrying would cause a serious issue for damage control

A highly unlikely event but one which could be pulled off if someone is really determined, for this reason I would think that France will be deploying some sort of air defence FFG with this ship

Jeff Head said:

IMHO, if there is a population center that is supporting the likes of Al Quida and allowing them to hide amongst them...then, as the US did in World War II, if you want military victory that is clear cut, you have to decimate those populations as well until they absolutely want no more and sue for unconditional surrender and give up the insurgents at every turn.

Since World War II the US and Western armies have not really fought this way and the results have been numerous stale mates and quagmires where US and western forces are bled dry until the populations in the west demand that the troops come home.

Click to expand...

Decimating populations in that way is definitely committing war crimes.
And it isn't true that Western armies didn't act that way after WWII. The Dutch did it in Indonesia, the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam ( wrt the last: Asia Times on line publish a review of a book about that war that describes exactly that. I referred to it in the History thread. ) The Falluja occupation was also conducted in that way after four mercenaries were killed near the city.

asif iqbal said:

I wonder where that Mistral Class LHD is going to port at, because Mali is landlocked and Algeria the obvious choice is far too large to cross over to Mali

Also im wondering if that LHD will have an escort, most likely it will, but if someone has the correct information and the correct weapons just as the LHD is approaching the port it could be vulnerable to an anti-ship missile

If rebels can conceal and camouflage a truck or container with a battery of anti-ship missiles get in position and at the right time launch the missile at the Mistral Class LHD this would cause some serious trouble, it has not got its greatest assets the helos on it and it is not designed to military standard ship building, its large and bulky, it’s basically a commercial design, low flying supersonic anti-ship missile hitting it at the water line could be enough to disable it, considering the weight it is carrying would cause a serious issue for damage control

A highly unlikely event but one which could be pulled off if someone is really determined, for this reason I would think that France will be deploying some sort of air defence FFG with this ship

Click to expand...

The obvious port of entry is Dakar.

delft said:

Decimating populations in that way is definitely committing war crimes.
And it isn't true that Western armies didn't act that way after WWII. The Dutch did it in Indonesia, the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam ( wrt the last: Asia Times on line publish a review of a book about that war that describes exactly that. I referred to it in the History thread. ) The Falluja occupation was also conducted in that way after four mercenaries were killed near the city.

Click to expand...

The atrocities in Vietnam were actions taken by front line soldiers and not sanctioned from the top. Whereas in WW2, all countries with a bomber force specifically aimed for population centres as well as military installations to literally bomb the fighting spirit out of the enemy. The B-52, to my knowledge, has never been sent to carpet-bomb a city. Occupation of a city is different from decimating it, only exception I know of is Nanjing, of which both was done to it; occupation AND decimation.

delft said:

Decimating populations in that way is definitely committing war crimes.
And it isn't true that Western armies didn't act that way after WWII. The Dutch did it in Indonesia, the French in Algeria, the US in Vietnam ( wrt the last: Asia Times on line publish a review of a book about that war that describes exactly that. I referred to it in the History thread. ) The Falluja occupation was also conducted in that way after four mercenaries were killed near the city.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not think so.

First, the Fulejah campaign was not conducted in that manner at all. IMHO, the US should have encircled the City and given a 96 hour deadline for all inhabatants to leave, and for the fighters to surrender or the US would simply have bombed the place and leave no brick standing. We had the power and the ability to do that. If the terrorists would not let people leave, the blood is on their hands. If the people willingly chose to stay, then it on them.

But we did not do that. First we tried to go in too lightly and were held up and had to back out and regroup and go in with larger numbers and more force later...and then it was a bloody, drawn out, house to house urban war that played to the enemy's strengths. Many Americans were killed and a whole lot more injured. We could have and, IMHO, should have, avoided all of that and warned the people to come out, and then leveled the place as an example.

There was no carpet bombing of populations centers in Vietnam. There were, statictically, relativelty few on the field examples of retaliation and retribution that were not ordered or the policy of the command. When we did bomb the North relentlessly...albeit not the population centers, but all of their factories and harbors, and military sites of all kinds, North Vietnam came to the negotiating table and a a very decent cease fire and peace was established for the South. At that point the VC had almost ceased to exiost as any fighting unit (1972), and the US began to a rapid and large draw down. Then, two years later the North violated that agreement and invaded the South...and the US chose to continue withdrawing and the South was defeated.

If a population is actively and willfully involved in aiding, abetting and supporting a fighting force arrayed against you, then halting that abetting, supporting and aiding becomes a military initiative.

The outcomes, when conducted appropriately, and when showing that same poplulation, after its defeat, that your interest is not taking their land or decimating them personally, is clear. Look at the people the US and its allies defeated in World war II and what has become of them. The US poured trillions of dollars of aid and support into those nations after the war, and then more trillions in trade since...and they are among our strongest allies now, and free and prosperous free nations who themselves now are very well armed.

OTOH, when we have not fought wars to win in this manner, the outcomes over the decades is desidedly less positive, IMHO, to all involved.

As General Sherman noted, "War is hell. Best to end it quickly," and decisively.

Now, if a nation takes the land and then slaughters the inhabitants after winning te war, then that is something altogether different and is genocide and is what we fight against, and put down...and punish.

Jeff Head said:

If a population is actively and willfully involved in aiding, abetting and supporting a fighting force arrayed against you, then halting that abetting, supporting and aiding becomes a military initiative.

Click to expand...

Hence, I believe the politically correct segments of the population are dead wrong regarding the illegality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe the US (along with every country) had (and still has, should the occasion rise) the right to flatten an area full of a population that was perfectly willing to take up arms against an occupying force. Under these circumstances, the "civilian" population should no longer be treated as "non-combatants" and instead should be considered "hostile militia". From this viewpoint, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barracks housing large numbers of enemy combatants and thus their elimination, necessary or not, was justified. And to be honest, the US flattened two cities to save the civilian population of an ENTIRE country the pain of war right outside their homes and also avoided additional US casualties.

jobjed said:

Hence, I believe the politically correct segments of the population are dead wrong regarding the illegality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe the US (along with every country) had (and still has, should the occasion rise) the right to flatten an area full of a population that was perfectly willing to take up arms against an occupying force. Under these circumstances, the "civilian" population should no longer be treated as "non-combatants" and instead should be considered "hostile militia". From this viewpoint, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barracks housing large numbers of enemy combatants and thus their elimination, necessary or not, was justified. And to be honest, the US flattened two cities to save the civilian population of an ENTIRE country the pain of war right outside their homes and also avoided additional US casualties.

Click to expand...

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not have a lot to do with worries about Japanese militia. The Japanese Army was very strong on the islands, and very well bunkered and provisioned.

In addition, what the US experienced in Okinawa, where thousands and thousands of Japanese citizens committed suicide by jumping off cliffs would have been multiplied many, many times over on the main islands.

US planners estimated that it would cost close to 200,000 US KIAs to take those islands, and upwards of 800,000 wounded. The estimated that well over a million Japanese soldiers would die, and perhaps 3-4 million citizens. If, by bombing two cities and killing 120,000 or so would stop that carnage, the US leadership decided it was more than well worth it, and they were absolutely right. Those two A bombs literally saved millions of lives...and kept many more millions from injury.

Another instance where Sherman's axiom "War is hell, end it quickly," holds. And he believed if you had to exercise abject brutality in your war fighting to accomplish that quick end...then so be it. In the end it serves everyone, the victor and the defeated. That was what Sherman's march to the sea was all about. He wanted to show the supporting southern population, particularly the plantation owners what it was they were really involved with and what the consequences for supporting the southern armies would be...and he did.

Now, I do not enjoy that calculus...or look forward to it...I do understand from history that it is the best way to conduct war...again, as long as the aim is not the whole sale taking of lands from another people, or their slaughter...just their abject, unconditional defeat so something better can come out the other side from a humbled people who will never want to repeat the mistakes or the horrors of a Hitler or Mussolini, or Tojo.

But...with that, I will stop. We are far off the mark here with this discussion and I will return now to the French military news and not touch on this again here. I have said my piece regarding it.

RIA Novosti said:

MOSCOW, February 1 (RIA Novosti) – The Commander of the Russian Navy, Admiral Viktor Chirkov, will attend an official keel laying ceremony on Friday for the first Mistral-class amphibious assault ship being built at a French shipyard for Russia.

Construction of the warship, named Vladivostok, began last year at the STX shipyard in St. Nazaire, after Russia made an advance payment as part of the 1.2-billion euro deal for two French-built Mistral vessels, which was signed in June 2011.

The ceremony on Friday involves the placement of the first bow section into a dry dock. The Russian Embassy in France has confirmed the event is taking place but said it would be off-limits to the press.

The Vladivostok is due for delivery in 2014, while the second Mistral for Russia, the Sevastopol, is expected to enter service with the Russian Navy in 2015.

Meanwhile, Russia has put back plans to build two additional Mistral class ships under French license to 2016, citing the need to assess the ships’ performance, role and status as part of the Russian Navy.

Click to expand...

You know sometimes I think to myself did the Russians really buy those LHD from France?? Sometimes I can't believe it

That is a first for Russia to buy from other countrys such a large vessel

Russian helo industry is in over drive to build more than 100 helos of all type for these LHD

They will be a good Addition and I'm sure Russia will be satisfied with these ships, for France well they just banged a serious order right there must be very happy to get export orders on this

jobjed said:

Hence, I believe the politically correct segments of the population are dead wrong regarding the illegality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe the US (along with every country) had (and still has, should the occasion rise) the right to flatten an area full of a population that was perfectly willing to take up arms against an occupying force. Under these circumstances, the "civilian" population should no longer be treated as "non-combatants" and instead should be considered "hostile militia". From this viewpoint, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were barracks housing large numbers of enemy combatants and thus their elimination, necessary or not, was justified. And to be honest, the US flattened two cities to save the civilian population of an ENTIRE country the pain of war right outside their homes and also avoided additional US casualties.

Click to expand...

Although I am not for nuclear weapons and thier use I always would make a exception with regards to the Imperial Japanese

Those 2 nukes saved millions of Japanese and probably millions of Americans, because if Operation Olympic took place which was invasion of mainland Japan in October 1945 it will be like hell on earth

Plus the Soviets as per Yalta agreemnt would have landed in the north taking Japanese mainland and that would have caused more trouble during the Cold War, can you imagine a north and south Japan??? Splitting Korea was bad enough splitting Japan would be a nightmare

I always say, if D-Day was earlier Europe map would been different during Cold War, infact D-Day in some respects was so significant for events after WWII than during

WWII and the people who live through it are a whole different generation, a generation we might never see again, they are the veterans


Tragedy is that the Cold War that followed killed so many more, it cost US alone $16 trillion, over 100,000 dead and a over a million injured for a war that lasted best part of 40 years