Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Current Naval Power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Kfor?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • #17
      Guess who the first UNMIK head was.

      Comment


      • #18
        KFOR is NATO, right?

        http://www.nato.int/kfor/structur/na...r_placemat.pdf

        Even at the moment they have troops there, along with your guys the Americans and the Italians.

        But we are going totally OT.

        I think the question was can France send troops with all needed and defeat India, without nuking her (my add)
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #19
          Right - I can understand France projecting force in IOR - probably for smaller countries like Somalia or Mozambique they can invade and take over a part. They can definitely do it to smaller ones like Maldives or Mauritius or Sri Lanka. Maybe for a country like Burma too. But for regional powers like India or even Indonesia - can France ALONE do it?
          Not NATO - not with US backing.
          AFAIK, France was kicked out of Vietnam long before USA became involved there.
          Last edited by ace009; 14 Aug 11,, 00:13.
          Ace o Spades in Ninth Hell

          Comment


          • #20
            ace009,

            If I understand well, the Frenchman said France can occupy and hold (for how long?) Andaman Islands, not mainland India, which is totally different thing.

            Are you having doubts that if needed and if both navies are fully operational French wont be able to defeat IN?
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • #21
              Are you having doubts that if needed and if both navies are fully operational French wont be able to defeat IN?
              I doubt France could defeat India - without commiting nukes and political suicide. Perhaps they could seize a few islands without nukes - but the political self destruction of their leadership would be a price - along with the embargos and other world reactions...
              Last edited by USSWisconsin; 14 Aug 11,, 01:36.
              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

              Comment


              • #22
                I think it's pure can or can't. No alliances and other political implications, purely military.

                As for the considered islands my civil brain thinks French Navy has a chance to storm them, but nothing more then that. Dunno how good is Indian base there, but after that French will be sitting ducks as I see Indians have missiles capable to hit Andaman from the mainland.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The strength of the Indian Navy is mostly in its very large, if in comparison a bit outdated, SSK fleet, with a second strongpoint in ASuW (although concentrated on relatively few units, and therefore easily destructible). And the IAF has to be considered - that's considerable strike force at sea even if we only consider less short-legged aircraft (ie. only Su-30 and Mirage 2000).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think it was Schwarzkopf who said that going into battle without the French was like going to a duck shoot without an accordion.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      And he was wrong.The French did very well in Op. Daguet.American stupid jokes aside,the French punch above their weight.They can project more power than you or the Germans.They are also not squeamish when it comes to influence their area of interest in Africa,unlike any other Euro country.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I honestly do not like d1ck measurements - and I have very little idea about modern naval capabilities, so my response had been more to do with political and strategic reactions etc.
                        But purely in terms of military capabilities, I can imagine French navy, with it's CDG + Rafale, Foudres and Mistral being able to invade AnN and dislodge the 2000-3000 strong garrison there. Yet, with Island based Su-30 MKIs and a possible air-defence ship of it's own with Mig-29Ks, can't India dislodge the invading forces in a fortnight or so?
                        I guess I was just pissed with the French guys blase claims of being the "second strongest navy" with awesome force projection powers ... :D
                        Ace o Spades in Ninth Hell

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by kato View Post
                          Last March. Before that probably Operation Daguet in '91.


                          French Forces have not operated as part of NATO since 1966. Unlike those guys on the islands that always tend to back down when big brother is involved De Gaulle really took exception to the USA almost declaring war on them over sending some carriers and battleships to invade someone and gradually removed France from NATO structures over the next ten years.
                          *De Gaulle stood on one of those "islands" after fleeing France and wanted to call all the shots when France was invaded. Declaring war on the US would have been his final mistake. We would have wiped the oceans with him and his navy. Big talk, little action. He also seemed to try and take credit for Frances liberation which we all know was nothing but Bravado because he surely didnt do it and certainly didnt spend the amount of Allied service men then one fraction of what the rest did. And then turned his back on the US in return. He helped create the Vichy Fench to help safe face and pride. They did their job but his means were more or less his own IMO. He certainly was not the liberator of France although attempted to put his face upon it.

                          And yes they chose to leave NATO in 1966 but have wanted to rejoin NATO under their conditions which are not acceptable to NATO.

                          Why France Wants to Rejoin NATO | The Brussels Journal

                          I also wouldnt state that France invaded Iraq in Operation Daguet in '91 considering she was a very small part of the Main Coalition Forces.

                          This is not to brow beat France or her Military but just look at the numbers in support.

                          The main coalition nations were:

                          United States: 550,000 troops
                          Saudi Arabia: 118,000 troops
                          United Kingdom: 43,000 troops
                          Egypt: 40,000 troops
                          United Arab Emirates: 40,000 troops
                          Oman: 25,500 troops
                          France: 18,000 troops
                          Syria: 17,000 troops
                          Kuwait: 11,000 troops
                          Canada: 4,500 troops
                          Philippines: 200 troops (mainly medics)

                          Now consider the amount of money spent by these nations during this operation. France came in just over Syria.

                          *In addition in this post I am not regarding Canada's contribution as "France". But as Canada's IMO different country, different views.

                          If OOE states other then I would readily concede that above (*) statement as his experience and knowledge far surpasses my own on this topic.
                          Last edited by Dreadnought; 14 Aug 11,, 21:41.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            AFAIK, France withdraw from NATO only militarily, but not politically. Their membership was never frozen or diminished, for 30 years they were in the political structures, just didn't send troops and personal for NATO ops. Only French can get away with that if you ask me.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              Declaring war on the US would have been his final mistake.
                              I'm talking '56. Suez. When the US threatened to intervene against France and the UK.

                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              He helped create the Vichy Fench to help safe face and pride.
                              Free French. Vichy was Petain, who suffered Napoleon's fate for that.

                              Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                              Now consider the amount of money spent by these nations during this operation. France came in just over Syria.
                              "Amounts of money spent" had nothing to do with the number of deployed soldiers. The whole war was financed by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and the UAE (in that order). Neither France nor the UK nor the US paid any significant sums (US roughly on par with the UAE), they just provided the warm bodies so to say.

                              I recommend this for literature regarding Operation Daguet and performance of the French forces there: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...2007/MR629.pdf
                              (has a bit too much of an euro-bashing angle, but not bad otherwise)
                              Last edited by kato; 14 Aug 11,, 22:11.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by kato View Post
                                I'm talking '56. Suez. When the US threatened to intervene against France and the UK.


                                Free French. Vichy was Petain, who suffered Napoleon's fate for that.


                                "Amounts of money spent" had nothing to do with the number of deployed soldiers. The whole war was financed by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany and the UAE (in that order). Neither France nor the UK nor the US paid any significant sums (US roughly on par with the UAE), they just provided the warm bodies so to say.

                                I recommend this for literature regarding Operation Daguet and performance of the French forces there: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...2007/MR629.pdf
                                (has a bit too much of an euro-bashing angle, but not bad otherwise)

                                Yes, the US did because Britain and France's interest were "Colonial" interests. This would have stopped all free passage from all nations shipping (especially oil) not just the US since both the Brits and France wanted control of it because of their "Colonial" interests. The Brits and the French backed the Isreali's since their "Colonial" interests laid in the North African continent (these were not war repreations) to the point where the UN had to step in. Both France and Britain were both members of the UN at the time and playing their politics, the US had just emerged from the Korean War and needed their economy to move particulary in oil and goods. They were not going to permit these two (using Israel as a front for their interests) to cease the Canal and perhaps disrupt an economy they were trying to rebuild after the Korean War not to mention all other nations trying to recover. Neither France nor the Brits were involved in the Korean War but Russia and China were.

                                Russia being one of the big three at the close of WWII and China emerging but communist not the less. The Brits nor French gave a dam about the spread of Communism at the time and more or less didnt care for the Korean Penninsula. Both were still recovering their economies from the close of WWII but still wanted all they could grab if nobody noticed. Ceasing the Canal made many notice and being a member of the UN at the time made it even more noticable and the US having the larger military at the time was having none of it.

                                As far as France declaring war, the US had more ships in reserve alone (not to mention the ubber naval force they already had in service) at the time then France could possibly sail or build or borrow and nowhere near on par with the USN. Once again, all bark no bite. France would have been slaughtered on land, sea and air beyond doubt by a military fresh from fighting and pissed it ended the way it did for "political reasons". They would not have stood a chance on any topic or subject of warfare.

                                France would have been a one legged man in an ass kicking contest and would have been handed their ass with minimum effort from the US forces at the time. There is no "pride" that would have protected them from exactly that beyond question.

                                On soldiers deployed, I very much disagree, For the amount of money it takes to train, mobilize, and care for them it matters greatly when you look the bottom line. This means the US had not only to send them further over seas but also logistically supply them over that distance. Billions for over a half a million troops, gear, weapons, tanks, ships, planes and supplies at the minimum..

                                France didnt spend one fraction of that cost and I challenge anyone on any board to show proof of different.

                                If the US didnt foot the cost then tell it taxpayers they didnt foot the bill. I think they would strongly disagree not in as much the money spent (they no doubt did) but their sons and daughters that have been killed in the process. As much to the point that we are still footing the bill in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day for our troops. Congress must pay them, that money comes from the US taxpayer and no one else.

                                I never said the French didnt contribute just not near as much as other nations did and IMO, De Gaulle was a fool with his head up his ass instead of a team player like the rest of the Allies were including the French Canadians. Pride over Reality has a limit. De Gaulle had no limit to his mouth but beyond question did in his capabilities and forces.
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 15 Aug 11,, 02:01.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X