NationStates Jolt Archive

Ten French soldiers serving in Afghanistan were killed in a Taliban ambush, and twenty-one others were wounded. Twenty-four French soldiers in total have died while serving in Afghanistan. France has 3,000 troops serving there. (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm))

Ten French soldiers serving in Afghanistan were killed in a Taliban ambush, and twenty-one others were wounded. Twenty-four French soldiers in total have died while serving in Afghanistan. France has 3,000 troops serving there. (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm))
Well that really sucks for their families. Is there an commentary to accompany this news flash?

looking at how the French did not suffer anymore losses in 24 hours fighting is amazing and I hope they gave far worse than they got

is it wrong to laugh at the graph?

about two-thirds of people say they are opposed to any French involvement in the conflict.

the French have changed since their cold war days :(

This seems to be part of a trend by the Taliban to intensify attacks. This produces casualties, which they probably believe will result in a NATO withdrawal. Note also the attack on the base at Khost (which was spotted before they could close on the base, and they were forced to blow themselves up).

Guardian is reporting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/19/afghanistan.nicolassarkozy

A three-hour gun battle broke out after the attack yesterday, 30 miles east of the capital, in the Surobi district, continuing sporadically overnight and picking up this morning, when the Nato soldiers were killed, Afghan military officials said today. A further 21 were injured.

One Afghan source claimed four of the soldiers had been kidnapped by the insurgents and killed.

French reinforcements in armoured vehicles joined the battle today, while other troops stopped civilian traffic from entering the area. Witnesses reported helicopters flying overhead.

The deaths of the men, from the 8th Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment, represent the biggest single loss of life for the French in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion of 2001 ousted the Taliban regime. Before yesterday's attack, the total French death toll was 14.

At April's Nato summit in Bucharest, Sarkozy pledged a further 700 soldiers to Afghanistan, and their arrival by the end of this month will take the French contingent, based mainly in Kapissa province, north-east of Kabul, to 2,600.

A Taliban spokesman said insurgents had used mines and rockets to inflict "heavy losses" including the destruction of five French vehicles. Retaliatory airstrikes killed five militants and 15 civilians, they claimed.

Surobi district chief Qazi Suliman put the Taliban death toll at 13.

The French ministry of defence in Paris would confirm only that a clash involving French troops, who are with Nato's International Security Assistance Force, was ongoing.

The attack is the deadliest upon foreign troops since 16 American soldiers were killed in June 2005 when a rocket-propelled grenade shot down their helicopter.

Meanwhile, in the town of Khost, a squad of six suicide bombers tried to storm the main US base in south-eastern Afghanistan, three of them detonating their bomb vests, just before midnight yesterday.

The Taliban launched several waves of attacks at the Camp Solerno base a few miles from the Pakistan border - the second largest US base in Afghanistan after the headquarters at Bagram. They were fought off and surrounded by ground forces, fighter aircraft and helicopters.

A total of 13 insurgents, including the six bombers, died in the attack, said the Afghan ministry of defence.

One US soldier was killed, four Afghan troops were wounded and there were a number of civilian casualties.

10 for 13 isn't good.

We need more Helicopters on the ground and such.

We need more Helicopters on the ground and such.

or rather more drone craft I guess

Sacrebleu! There are still French soldiers?

I will wait before knowing the exact number of Taliban loss.
I don't think that only 5 Taliban soldiers killed is the truth.

Only ten killed and 21 wounded with a 24 hours clash really impress me, I guess that the most of the lost were members of the recon team :/

Like Hotwife said, it's part of a plan of offensive on all the country.

A good thing the US have spotted and terminated the attackers on this base.

I hope this will not make French population wowing to get back of Afghanistan, I disagree on a lot of things with Sarkozy, but sending reinforcments there was the right thing to do, sad that others NATO members have not followed the decision.

If we leave the country, we offer a victory to Al-Qaida that we can't afford.

A présent, toutes mes pensées vont vers les familles de nos frères d'armes.

It should be noted that 9 of the 10 dead were killed in the initial part of the ambush, by far the most dangerous part of a firefight and the 10th was killed when his vehicle rolled over (a constant danger to armored vehicles). Also, in a video interview on France24 their colonel (I think he's their regimental commander) said that they'd only been in country for about a month.

Also, the rumor is that they lost 5 vehicles, my guess is that they're probably VAB (vehicule de l'avant blindé), which I'm told aren't really that heavily armored.

It should be noted that 9 of the 10 dead were killed in the initial part of the ambush, by far the most dangerous part of a firefight and the 10th was killed when his vehicle rolled over (a constant danger to armored vehicles). Also, in a video interview on France24 their colonel (I think he's their regimental commander) said that they'd only been in country for about a month.

Also, the rumor is that they lost 5 vehicles, my guess is that they're probably VAB (vehicule de l'avant blindé), which I'm told aren't really that heavily armored.

Mmmh...I don't think they were VAB.
Not because they are good or bad vehicle, but just because I don't think they are used for lightly armored recon, and for now I haven't found anything stating that vehicles of the Response Team were destroyed.

Plus, a VAB countain lots of soldiers, so if 5 were destroyed ( and not only damaged ) there would be far more than ten live lost to this insane fanatics.

For patrol, French Army use crappy vehicles, like our "Jeeps", the mehari.

Mmmh...I don't think they were VAB.
Not because they are good or bad vehicle, but just because I don't think they are used for lightly armored recon, and for now I haven't found anything stating that vehicles of the Response Team were destroyed.

Plus, a VAB countain lots of soldiers, so if 5 were destroyed ( and not only damaged ) there would be far more than ten live lost to this insane fanatics.

For patrol, French Army use crappy vehicles, like our "Jeeps", the mehari.

I know the 1re REC uses VABs in their reconnaissance platoons, but I'm not really up on their doctrine for using them, nor am I up on the French Army outside of the LE. Given the structure of the 1re REC I kinda assumed they use them the way a US armored battalion uses their scout HMMWVs (I was in a scout platoon several years ago).

Also, the VAB may be able to hold a lot of troops but they don't have to. Lots of infantrymen I know consider things like the M113 (which is probably more heavily armored than the VAB) to be just large bullet magnets and would prefer to be dismounted, using the M113 as an armored gun platform. I'd imagine the French do something similar.

Oh, and in military parlance "destroyed" can mean different things. A mobility kill, damaging it to the point where the vehicle can't move anymore, can be considered destroyed even if the crew compartment is untouched.

edit: Ah, I see my mistake. When I said VAB I meant PVP, silly me. The VAB is more like the M1117 Guardian than the HMMWV.

As an American. I thank the French for their support in Afghanistan and I mourn the loses of these brave French soldiers. May the world remember the noble sacrifice these Frenchmen made for their country and for the betterment of the world.

Sacrebleu! There are still French soldiers?
I think that you should get your ass over there right now and find out. :tongue:

Ten French soldiers serving in Afghanistan were killed in a Taliban ambush, and twenty-one others were wounded. Twenty-four French soldiers in total have died while serving in Afghanistan. France has 3,000 troops serving there. (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm))
A sad state of affairs indeed. I think all troops should be removed from the land of never ending wars.

I'm still trying to rationalize "French"&"soldier" in the same statement.

I'm still trying to rationalize "French"&"soldier" in the same statement.


According to Uncyclopedia, French soldiers are easily spotted due to their nation's distinctive flag, which is completely white and traditionally tied to a stick which they are waving around the air.

I just think that's funny, but in all seriousness I 'm actually surprised that France is associated with anything to do with the War On Terror. I hope they back out and save as much lives as possible.

I just think that's funny, but in all seriousness I 'm actually surprised that France is associated with anything to do with the War On Terror. I hope they back out and save as much lives as possible.

France has about 12.000 troops deployed in various places around the world, not including places like Réunion and Guyane.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e6/French_deployment_overseas.jpg/795px-French_deployment_overseas.jpg

I'm still trying to rationalize "French"&"soldier" in the same statement.

Ah yes, All French Are Cowards.

Brought to you by the same people who say All Muslims Are Terrorists.

:rolleyes:

It seems lots of people have forgotten that the French were the very first Western allies of the USA to go in Afghanistan, just after the 9/11...we are still there, those 10 soldiers aren't the first we loose in this war...our first killed were hit by a kamikaz bomb in Pakistan on the month of october 2001.

About the ambush, this morning the news said that the patrol team was deployed on foot, and that 9 mens were killed in the first seconds of the fighting.
Very good planning by the Talibans, who used lots of explosives ammos...but not any single dead during the 20 hours of fightings who followed.

Is it always like this, when Western armies fight this kind of guerillas ? I'm curious and ask those who know more than me about this.

Minister of Defense say that we have killed something like 30 Talibans during the operation.

And yeah yeah, French are cowards who don't know how to fight and blablabla...I'm even so tired that I won't answer for now.

And yeah yeah, French are cowards who don't know how to fight and blablabla...I'm even so tired that I won't answer for now.

from what i've ready the individual French are far from cowards. just at a few historic junctures the leadership has screwed the solider over.

Ah yes, All French Are Cowards.

Brought to you by the same people who say All Muslims Are Terrorists.

:rolleyes:
And don't forget, All Americans Are Fat and Stupid.

Wheee, obnoxious generalizations FTL.

Sacrebleu! There are still French soldiers?

I'm still trying to rationalize "French"&"soldier" in the same statement.
Ohoho. I am in stitches. Truly I am.

My thoughts are with the families of the soliders who died.

This does serve to reinforce what I've generally heard about the French, they are very good solidiers and they do get involved in a lot of peace keeping. They just don't tend to talk about it as much.

I find these deaths somewhat surprising since (and I could be wrong) I had understood that the French troops were deployed in some of the, relatively, more peaceful areas or at least further away from the traditional Taliban strongholds. Although it's possible that is changing as the Taliban are driven out of other areas and start using the border regions with Pakistan more.

I think it's a bit fucked up that some people came into a thread about brave French soldiers, giving their lives for an American war, to make fun of the French military...even in the face of these fallen soldiers.

As an American, I know we wouldn't have any of that if someone did that in a thread about fallen American soldiers. Let's show some respect, please.

My thoughts are with the families of the soliders who died.

This does serve to reinforce what I've generally heard about the French, they are very good solidiers and they do get involved in a lot of peace keeping. They just don't tend to talk about it as much.

I find these deaths somewhat surprising since (and I could be wrong) I had understood that the French troops were deployed in some of the, relatively, more peaceful areas or at least further away from the traditional Taliban strongholds. Although it's possible that is changing as the Taliban are driven out of other areas and start using the border regions with Pakistan more.

You were wrong. The French and other nations are patrolling some of the most dangerous areas along with US and Afghan forces.

The Australians, IMHO, are doing the hard work very well - they are killing Taliban and killing their leaders with a will.

You were wrong. The French and other nations are patrolling some of the most dangerous areas along with US and Afghan forces.

The Australians, IMHO, are doing the hard work very well - they are killing Taliban and killing their leaders with a will.
The Germans are the one taking the "safe" areas. Low-risk areas.

You were wrong. The French and other nations are patrolling some of the most dangerous areas along with US and Afghan forces.

The Australians, IMHO, are doing the hard work very well - they are killing Taliban and killing their leaders with a will.

Fair enough... I was going off a half remembered news story from a couple of years ago, so I'm happy to be corrected on this one.

In any case, I've always found it amazing that people claim the French aren't pulling their weight in international peacekeeping given the large range of deployments they are engaged in (as shown in the map someone posted higher up the thread).

The Germans are the one taking the "safe" areas. Low-risk areas.In addition to taking over the Rapid Reaction Force from the Norwegians and using the KSK in the danger zones.

French people suck. I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. The US is shouldering ALL of the weight on that side of the planet and then some. To even suggest that they have "paid" their dues in a conflict that (like it or not) involves the entire planet, is insulting. Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU. Terrorists are going to keep hitting civilian targets until they and the behavior they endorse is totally expunged from the earth. Make no mistake, someone will eventually hurt the French in a way that will make them as angry as the US (9/11), and on that day lets talk about "losses".

French people suck. I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. The US is shouldering ALL of the weight on that side of the planet and then some. To even suggest that they have "paid" their dues in a conflict that (like it or not) involves the entire planet, is insulting. Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU. Terrorists are going to keep hitting civilian targets until they and the behavior they endorse is totally expunged from the earth. Make no mistake, someone will eventually hurt the French in a way that will make them as angry as the US (9/11), and on that day lets talk about "losses".

Obvious Troll is Obvious

Angry troll is ANGRY!

French people suck. I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. The US is shouldering ALL of the weight on that side of the planet and then some. To even suggest that they have "paid" their dues in a conflict that (like it or not) involves the entire planet, is insulting. Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU. Terrorists are going to keep hitting civilian targets until they and the behavior they endorse is totally expunged from the earth. Make no mistake, someone will eventually hurt the French in a way that will make them as angry as the US (9/11), and on that day lets talk about "losses".

In other words, terrorism as a tactic or strategy is never going away.

Obvious fool is obvious. Read a news paper from time to time, k?

Angry troll is ANGRY!



In other words, terrorism as a tactic or strategy is never going away.

terrorism is just another evolution of guerrilla warfare. Its been around practically forever and will continue, as far as I can see, indefinitely.

Yep, its a way for "dirt farmers" to attack without fear of reprisal. It (terrorism) is going to be with us for a long long time.

French people suck. I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag. The US is shouldering ALL of the weight on that side of the planet and then some. To even suggest that they have "paid" their dues in a conflict that (like it or not) involves the entire planet, is insulting. Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU. Terrorists are going to keep hitting civilian targets until they and the behavior they endorse is totally expunged from the earth. Make no mistake, someone will eventually hurt the French in a way that will make them as angry as the US (9/11), and on that day lets talk about "losses".Oh dear. Perhaps you might want to do some research before making inane assumptions.

terrorism is just another evolution of guerrilla warfare. Its been around practically forever and will continue, as far as I can see, indefinitely.

I just wish most people would get the idea that you can't declare war on a tactic of war.

Obvious fool is obvious. Read a news paper from time to time, k?The New Frontiersman doesn't count as a newspaper.

Oh dear. Perhaps you might want to do some research before making inane assumptions.


Heh, right, assumptions... WWI? WWII? Vietnam (the French version). Trying to see your point... Oh wait! there it is! its on top of your head! Inane... Riiiiiiiight.

Heh, right, assumptions... WWI? WWII? Vietnam (the French version). Trying to see your point... Oh wait! there it is! its on top of your head! Inane... Riiiiiiiight.
You could try elaborating instead of tossing out examples that prove nothing on their own, but that might require effort.

Trying to see your point

Try harder. Because otherwise you might not see it coming until your brain raises the white flag.

The New Frontiersman doesn't count as a newspaper.

I'm sad to see that freedom of the press is frowned upon in your country, no matter who or what they have to say, ALL opinions are protected here in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Well, I would love to post a response but... I have been "censored". YAY!

Freedom Fries! Freedom Toast! England is our bestest friend and Frenchmen are all girly cowards and Democrats!
The Frogs have been there (Afghanistan) for years, and thanks to the neocon propaganda machine, this is the first many dim bulb Yankees have heard of them honoring their alliance with us. Good job Republicans, keep on slandering our allies, especially when they have fallen on our behalf. That's not just the way to make the world happy, it makes us look so much more honorable to crap on our friends as they die for us. We don't need fighting Frenchmen so long as we have chairborne warriors and chickenhawks.

We don't need fighting Frenchmen so long as we have chairborne warriors and chickenhawks.
Dammit I forgot Poland.

Well, I would love to post a response but... I have been "censored". YAY!Sure you have. It couldn't be forum safeguards that are meant to prevent spambots, it had to be censorship.

Well, I would love to post a response but... I have been "censored". YAY!

A common misconception. New users have to have some of their first few posts approved by mods to ensure they're not spamming. Rest assured, it's not the Worldwide Liberal Conspiracy ensuring your voice isn't heard.

Well, I would love to post a response but... I have been "censored". YAY!

Oh, too bad. Bye.

Look, the US, is without a doubt the strongest single nation on the planet. I have to make it clear that what the French and other nations are doing in this war on terror (that will never be over), is simply to keep their "hand in it" so to speak. To suggest that the French or any other nation is "hurting" is something that should be kept in focus. The US is and has been losing people for a long time, and as of yet, I really haven't seen anyone crying out on this board for our daily "losses". This is not up for debate, I really don't care what anyone says about me. I am one of the millions of tax paying Americans, who is ready, should the need arise to give my life to protect my country. I can't speak for the French or any of the other "saviors" of the universe, but I for one cannot condone the martyrdom of French soldiers when Americans are dying for my freedom.

talk about Trolls, name calling and censorship, thats the best you guys got? God bless America. :)

talk about Trolls, name calling and censorship, thats the best you guys got? God bless America. :)Haven't even gotten warmed up with you. =P

Name calling? What names have you been called, exactly? Why don't you just list them for those of us who can easily search the past few posts but have difficulties finding anything that supports anything you say.

Name calling? What names have you been called, exactly? Why don't you just list them for those of us who can easily search the past few posts but have difficulties finding anything that supports anything you say.Maybe he's referring to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13939844&postcount=32) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13939852&postcount=34).

This is not a forum, half of my posts aren't making it to the board, I am not cussing or causing a problem. I am however, being censored and as for names, I consider "troll" name calling.

talk about Trolls, name calling and censorship, thats the best you guys got? God bless America. :)

Again, there was no censorship, although I'm sure you'll continue to rant and rave about it for several pages.

The best we have? Why should we bother to argue with someone whose argument consists of "Hurr!! France sucks, we saved their asses in WWII!! AMERICA!! FUCK YEAH!!!"?

Censorship is inappropriate under any free speech forum rules, I have not used any profanity and refuse to be belittled by the likes of you. If you can find a place for free chat, I would be happy to discuss my opinions openly.

This is not a forum, half of my posts aren't making it to the board, I am not cussing or causing a problem. I am however, being censored and as for names, I consider "troll" name calling.You're not being censored. Go to the moderation forum and read the thread on "moderated posts" so we will be spared your victimization drivel. Troll can be namecalling, even in the context of referring to someone engaging in an act of trolling. However, considering your post, it's not namecalling, as it is quite inflammatory.

This is not a forum, half of my posts aren't making it to the board, I am not cussing or causing a problem. I am however, being censored and as for names, I consider "troll" name calling.

Since your post was trolling, calling you a troll isn't "name calling" but simply a statement of fact. Your first post and you chose to blurt out inanities like

"French people suck."

"I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag."

"Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU."

So you can say all these things, insulting off-handed the French, Europe, and anyone with intelligence, but you whine about "name calling" when someone (appropriately) assigns the title "trolling" to it.

I guess you can give but not take, eh?

As for censorship, I'm just going to laugh at you for not reading. Not reading seems to a major obstacle to your development.

Censorship is inappropriate under any free speech forum rules, I have not used any profanity and refuse to be belittled by the likes of you. If you can find a place for free chat, I would be happy to discuss my opinions openly.

I already explained to you what is happening. Those posts have to be approved by a mod as protection against spambots. Once you have a certain amount of posts it will stop doing that.

As for censorship, I'm just going to laugh at you for not reading. Not reading seems to a major obstacle to your development.

No Child Left Behind works wonders.

Again, there was no censorship, although I'm sure you'll continue to rant and rave about it for several pages.

The best we have? Why should we bother to argue with someone whose argument consists of "Hurr!! France sucks, we saved their asses in WWII!! AMERICA!! FUCK YEAH!!!"?

you guys must be 12, you are either too young or too ignorant to understand what I posted. Those are wars that the French needed to be bailed out of, to understand that you would have to be able to comprehend the "big picture". No worries though, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that btw. :)

I already explained to you what is happening. Those posts have to be approved by a mod as protection against spambots. Once you have a certain amount of posts it will stop doing that.

no sweat, thanks for the FYI.

you guys must be 12, you are either too young or too ignorant to understand what I posted. Those are wars that the French needed to be bailed out of, to understand that you would have to be able to comprehend the "big picture". No worries though, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that btw. :)

And sharing the same behavioral pattern as people who refuse to see Muslims as anything other than barbarian terrorists, you seem unable to perceive the French as anything other than whining, militarily impotent cowards despite any proof to the contrary.

those are wars that the french needed to be bailed out of, to understand that you would have to be able to comprehend the "big picture". No worries though, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that btw. :)

yorktown.

At least the French of today aren't the faggot hypocrites of the 1940's like DeGaulle. He has to be the most ungrateful **** ever. After all the UK did for him and then he turned round and blocked us coming into the EEC not once but THREE times. He was always running away whether it was the war, 1968 or Algeria.

Should have handed him over to the Nazi's.

you guys must be 12, you are either too young or too ignorant to understand what I posted.

It doesn't exactly take wisdom of the ages to get the gist of an angry, France-bashing rant.

At least the French of today aren't the faggot hypocrites of the 1940's like DeGaulle. He has to be the most ungrateful **** ever. After all the UK did for him and then he turned round and blocked us coming into the EEC not once but THREE times. He was always running away whether it was the war, 1968 or Algeria.

Should have handed him over to the Nazi's.

And yet even today the Armchair Patriots of Operation Yellow Elephant refuse to see the French as anything but a collection of douchebag DeGaulle clones.

Since your post was trolling, calling you a troll isn't "name calling" but simply a statement of fact. Your first post and you chose to blurt out inanities like

"French people suck."

"I'm very tired about hearing them bitch and complain about everything, no body gives a rat's ass. Those chumps couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag."

"Piss on them and piss on the other pansies in the EU."

So you can say all these things, insulting off-handed the French, Europe, and anyone with intelligence, but you whine about "name calling" when someone (appropriately) assigns the title "trolling" to it.

I guess you can give but not take, eh?

As for censorship, I'm just going to laugh at you for not reading. Not reading seems to a major obstacle to your development.

Tell you what, show me one example of how I am wrong. You heard my side, don't try to explain why those guys call names. Present a counter statement and I would be happy to debate you.

I used remarks of that nature because I see things in a passionate way, people who act as though other nations can do no wrong and deserve my sympathy need to look at the big picture. I am not at all swayed by anything they say, Americans are dying over there. Americans have saved this planet from evil more than once and right or wrong, I find the remarks at the top of this post best saved for the local pub, not open to debate. If you want sympathy for the French do it privately if you don't want a reply.

Tell you what, show me one example of how I am wrong. You heard my side, don't try to explain why those guys call names. Present a counter statement and I would be happy to debate you.

Yorktown.

I used remarks of that nature because I see things in a passionate way, people who act as though other nations can do no wrong and deserve my sympathy need to look at the big picture.
And the Americans can only do right, eh?

God, but the whole anti-French thing got old five years ago, but I suppose you've been repeating so often you've convinced yourself, if no-one else.

Rest assured, it's not the Worldwide Liberal Conspiracy ensuring your voice isn't heard.

The Worldwide Liberal Conspiracy? Is that a new one, I thought we only controlled the media. Have we got the internets too?

you guys must be 12, you are either too young or too ignorant to understand what I posted. Those are wars that the French needed to be bailed out of, to understand that you would have to be able to comprehend the "big picture". No worries though, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that btw. :)

And of course if you go back even further, without the French the United States wouldn't even exist since they, and in particular their navy, bailed you out during the War of Independance.

World War One: the French (along with the Belgians and of course the British) held the German advance pretty solidly in the trenches for a number of years before the americans entered the war. Sure, the war would have probably remained a stalemate without a certain level of outside intervention, but one can hardly call them cowards from that war.

World War Two: the french government, against the wishes of it's people, surrendered. The french people fought on as the resistance, as did the populations of pretty much all the occupied countries, caused untold damage to the occupying forces and lost countless lives defending their homeland. Not to mention the Free French forces who continued to fight alongside the allies. Another reason I wouldn't call them cowards.

Vietnam: seriously, does the US have any real right to start throwing stones about that country, seeing how well you guys did in it.

They may have chosen (quite rightly) not to follow you into Iraq but they have been involved in pretty much every other UN or NATO peacekeeping intervention going, including Afganistan, and they are suffering casualities, just like every other nation involved in that conflict, so I suggest that insulting the allies which are helping you fight a war in a thread about their losses will generally gain an accusation of trolling. To be honest I have yet to see anything to refute the statement.

And again, if you ask us to know our history, I'd like to remind you that without the French, you'd still be saluting the Queen.

Tell you what, show me one example of how I am wrong.

I don't need to. You didn't make an argument, you just posted bullshit about how France sucks and the EU is a bunch of "pansies."

No rebuttal necessary.


I used remarks of that nature because I see things in a passionate way, people who act as though other nations can do no wrong and deserve my sympathy need to look at the big picture. I am not at all swayed by anything they say, Americans are dying over there. Americans have saved this planet from evil more than once and right or wrong, I find the remarks at the top of this post best saved for the local pub, not open to debate. If you want sympathy for the French do it privately if you don't want a reply.

Americans are dying over there. French are dying over there too. Your "piss on the French" speech was every bit as insulting as pissing on the flag at a soldier's funeral.

Instead of acknowledging that, yes indeed, French are participating in the US's war of occupation and conquest and taking losses just like Americans are, you choose to thump your chest about how "Americans have saved this planet from evil."

So you want a rebuttal? OK. Stop disrespecting the troops. French or American. It's shitty, immature, stupid, hypocritical and a lot of other 'names' I won't call yet.

The Worldwide Liberal Conspiracy? Is that a new one, I thought we only controlled the media. Have we got the internets too?



And of course if you go back even further, without the French the United States wouldn't even exist since they, and in particular their navy, bailed you out during the War of Independance.

World War One: the French (along with the Belgians and of course the British) held the German advance pretty solidly in the trenches for a number of years before the americans entered the war. Sure, the war would have probably remained a stalemate without a certain level of outside intervention, but one can hardly call them cowards from that war.

World War Two: the french government, against the wishes of it's people, surrendered. The french people fought on as the resistance, as did the populations of pretty much all the occupied countries, caused untold damage to the occupying forces and lost countless lives defending their homeland. Not to mention the Free French forces who continued to fight alongside the allies. Another reason I wouldn't call them cowards.

Vietnam: seriously, does the US have any real right to start throwing stones about that country, seeing how well you guys did in it.

They may have chosen (quite rightly) not to follow you into Iraq but they have been involved in pretty much every other UN or NATO peacekeeping intervention going, including Afganistan, and they are suffering casualities, just like every other nation involved in that conflict, so I suggest that insulting the allies which are helping you fight a war in a thread about their losses will generally gain an accusation of trolling. To be honest I have yet to see anything to refute the statement.

And again, if you ask us to know our history, I'd like to remind you that without the French, you'd still be saluting the Queen.

Sure thing, the French helped us out in the war of independence, now let me ask you this, do you honestly think things would have gone the way they did had the French not helped? They helped, sure, but they didn't win the war for us. Get over yourself, you need to do some serious research on that one, no way would that war have ended the way it did had they not gotten involved. (French effort < American effort).

The Worldwide Liberal Conspiracy? Is that a new one, I thought we only controlled the media. Have we got the internets too?

Of course we do, didn't you get the current newsletter?

They may have chosen (quite rightly) not to follow you into Iraq but they have been involved in pretty much every other UN or NATO peacekeeping intervention going, including Afganistan

Not to mention numerous other things like the Ivory Coast, Chad, the Congo, etc.

Sure thing, the French helped us out in the war of independence, now let me ask you this, do you honestly think things would have gone the way they did had the French not helped? They helped, sure, but they didn't win the war for us. Get over yourself, you need to do some serious research on that one, no way would that war have ended the way it did had they not gotten involved. (French effort < American effort).

Get over thyself. Without French military and financial assistance (The Continental Congress was dead broke officially and their currency was in reality worthless at the time) at best the Revolution would have been a long, drawn out insurgency. At worst, Benjamin Franklin and company would have all hung separately and we'd still be saluting the Queen. On the other hand, free BBC does have its benefits.

I don't need to. You didn't make an argument, you just posted bullshit about how France sucks and the EU is a bunch of "pansies."

No rebuttal necessary.



Americans are dying over there. French are dying over there too. Your "piss on the French" speech was every bit as insulting as pissing on the flag at a soldier's funeral.

Instead of acknowledging that, yes indeed, French are participating in the US's war of occupation and conquest and taking losses just like Americans are, you choose to thump your chest about how "Americans have saved this planet from evil."

So you want a rebuttal? OK. Stop disrespecting the troops. French or American. It's shitty, immature, stupid, hypocritical and a lot of other 'names' I won't call yet.

Death is a part of war man, get over it. My point is where should the true sympathy be going? The French complain a lot, to hear someone say "oh hey, the French lost some guys, we should feel sorry for them..." is lame. I defend what I said, the French owe us a debt of measure, and they have done nothing but bitch and complain about everything we do. Don't call names, tell me how you mean to back your argument.

over yourself, you need to do some serious research on that one, no way would that war have ended the way it did had they not gotten involved. (French effort < American effort).
It seems that you yourself need to do the research. Nice to see you've ignored the comments about the First and Second World Wars respectively.

Get over thyself. Without French military and financial assistance (The Continental Congress was dead broke officially and their currency was in reality worthless at the time) at best the Revolution would have been a long, drawn out insurgency. At worst, Benjamin Franklin and company would have all hung separately and we'd still be saluting the Queen. On the other hand, free BBC does have its benefits.

If you honestly think that we would still be a colony of the UK at this point, you need therapy.

It seems that you yourself need to do the research. Nice to see you've ignored the comments about the First and Second World Wars respectively.

see the straws? watch as Tag grabs for them... weeeee!

Death is a part of war man, get over it.

So what, "death is a part of war" gives you the right to go insulting soldiers?

My point is where should the true sympathy be going? The French complain a lot, to hear someone say "oh hey, the French lost some guys, we should feel sorry for them..." is lame.

This isn't about sympathy, it's about respect. Show some respect to the troops.

Especially since you yourself don't fight for your country. Oh, you're quick to take credit for what America has done in history, but we both know you yourself don't serve.

I defend what I said, the French owe us a debt of measure, and they have done nothing but bitch and complain

...did you not actually READ the article?

They are doing something other than bitching and complaining - they're fighting and dying.

What are you doing? Oh, that's right. You're NOT fighting. You're bitching and complaining. Shit, that's impressive.

about everything we do. Don't call names, tell me how you mean to back your argument.

You don't want to get called names, but you want to call the French and Europeans names. Convenient, that.

You prattle on about "saving" France, something you weren't even ALIVE to do and even if you WERE, you are a CIVILIAN. Just another typical civilian, insulting the troops. I bet you're a longhair. When was the last time you bathed?

Like most others here, I'd like to honor the French for their commitment to the war in Afghanistan. If they didn't go into Iraq, that just proves that the French are SMART, not cowards.

While I am sad for their losses, I am glad to see that they have given better than they got.

(Also, while the involvement of France in the American Revolution may not have turned the tide, the involvement of certain French Americans, primarily Huguenots, certainly did.)

Yorktown.

Yorktown? Come on man, thats the best you got? I told that other guy that we would have kept fighting regardless. The French in all fairness were doing the same, they had the resistance going and would have fought the nazis all the way. I come back to what I said originally, the point of this thread, I don't think that someone should post something they don't want responded to. I think that the American families deserve as much sympathy if not more, than the French. I am American, its my point of view. All you other people who think you are better educated than myself need to back off. You have presented nothing to change the flow of the argument.

Yorktown. Right, we had him on the ropes by then.

So what, "death is a part of war" gives you the right to go insulting soldiers?



This isn't about sympathy, it's about respect. Show some respect to the troops.

Especially since you yourself don't fight for your country. Oh, you're quick to take credit for what America has done in history, but we both know you yourself don't serve.



...did you not actually READ the article?

They are doing something other than bitching and complaining - they're fighting and dying.

What are you doing? Oh, that's right. You're NOT fighting. You're bitching and complaining. Shit, that's impressive.



You don't want to get called names, but you want to call the French and Europeans names. Convenient, that.

You prattle on about "saving" France, something you weren't even ALIVE to do and even if you WERE, you are a CIVILIAN. Just another typical civilian, insulting the troops. I bet you're a longhair. When was the last time you bathed?

Easy does it darlin, no one is insulting anyone here, atleast I hope not. You can express your opinion, I think thats great, just keep it above the belt, k sweety?

I think that the American families deserve as much sympathy if not more, than the French. I am American, its my point of view.
And this is an international forum, so you're bound to find people with differing opinions on whether American soldiers deserve more sympathy than soldiers from their own nations.

I probably have the same level of sympathy with all these soldiers' families, as they've all lost relatives, but I don't think anyone "deserve" more sympathy than others.

Lol thread hijacked.

Anyway back to the subject at hand, while it is to bad that those soldiers died, we need more support over there. Not to belittle the french's commitment but I feel that they need to send more than 3000 troops, though I understand it is not really their war I'm sure that a few more of them would not hurt. Same goes for every nation there including the US. I bet if we commited as many troops to afganistan as we have to Iraq we could have this war over in a year, I mean there cant be more than 50,000 western troops there. Everyone needs to step up their commitment to afganistan and stop worrying so much about Iraq.

And this is an international forum, so you're bound to find people with differing opinions on whether American soldiers deserve more sympathy than soldiers from their own nations.

I probably have the same level of sympathy with all these soldiers' families, as they've all lost relatives, but I don't think anyone "deserve" more sympathy than others.

Fair enough, I retract that statement, loss is loss. War is awful, agreed, I feel badly for people who die needlessly in Africa. That happens roughly once a minute one way or another, but I cannot cloud my thoughts with emotion. To "suggest" as that post did (in my opinion), that the French "lost some guys" and we all need to mourn is irritating.

I just looked at the frech recon vehicle the mehari, and I must say that I would be afraid to go into a combat zone in one of those. I can see why they were destroyed, and I cant say it was much of a accomplishment for the taliban, I could kick that thing and it would be, "destroyed". But anyway that is slightly off topic. But I have to point out the fact that the french were able to kill at least 30 of the bastards, good for them. I have noticed in this war and the one in Iraq, that everytime we fight the terrorists they always lose far more than us, their only really effective weapon is the ied. Also from the vets coming back from Iraq that I have talked to, the majority of the terrorists cant shoot to save their lives, which I find to be comforting.

I just looked at the frech recon vehicle the mehari, and I must say that I would be afraid to go into a combat zone in one of those. I can see why they were destroyed, and I cant say it was much of a accomplishment for the taliban, I could kick that thing and it would be, "destroyed". But anyway that is slightly off topic. But I have to point out the fact that the french were able to kill at least 30 of the bastards, good for them. I have noticed in this war and the one in Iraq, that everytime we fight the terrorists they always lose far more than us, their only really effective weapon is the ied. Also from the vets coming back from Iraq that I have talked to, the majority of the terrorists cant shoot to save their lives, which I find to be comforting.


Bodycount isn't always the best way to determine victory. Take Jutland. Germany destroyed far more British ships, yet in the end, the German fleet never sallied forth in force again during WWI and by 1919 was rusting at the bottom of Scapa Flow.

Bit different I know, as most people would class Jutland as some kind of draw but you get what I mean.

Easy does it darlin, no one is insulting anyone here, atleast I hope not. You can express your opinion, I think thats great, just keep it above the belt, k sweety?

I'd refrain from hitting below the belt if you had, you know, balls.

Like for example, the balls to go out and fight and actually "save the world from evil" yourself, instead of trolling on an internet forum.

see the straws? watch as Tag grabs for them... weeeee!

So I take it you're not going to comment on them?

As for French involvement in the Revolution I think you're the one missing the big picture. Without French, Spanish and Dutch involvement around the world there's no way we would have beaten the British.

French naval actions in the Atlantic kept the British Navy tied up as well as the threat of invasion from France (the French landed troops in Jersey near the end of the war)

Spanish involvement in Florida, the Caribbean, Gibraltar, the American Midwest (they launched operations from then Louisiana, going as far as Michigan) and Minorca kept the British Navy and Army occupied

The Kingdom of Mysore (a French ally) fought against the British in India at the time.

Dutch and Britain fought the 4th Anglo-Dutch War at the time.


As for the amount of effort put in, the French and Dutch suffered from their involvement. The French war effort cost a great deal of money, causing economic difficulties that would later be a major cause of the French Revolution.

The Dutch were thrashed so hard in the Anglo-Dutch War they became a puppet state of Prussia in order to survive and lost their status as a world power.

Bodycount isn't always the best way to determine victory. Take Jutland. Germany destroyed far more British ships, yet in the end, the German fleet never sallied forth in force again during WWI and by 1919 was rusting at the bottom of Scapa Flow.

Bit different I know, as most people would class Jutland as some kind of draw but you get what I mean.

I understand, I just pointed that out because it was heartening ya know, at least we are getting more of them than they are of us. Though another example of this would be Somolia or the whole of the Vietnam conflict.

I just looked at the frech recon vehicle the mehari, and I must say that I would be afraid to go into a combat zone in one of those. I can see why they were destroyed, and I cant say it was much of a accomplishment for the taliban, I could kick that thing and it would be, "destroyed". But anyway that is slightly off topic. But I have to point out the fact that the french were able to kill at least 30 of the bastards, good for them. I have noticed in this war and the one in Iraq, that everytime we fight the terrorists they always lose far more than us, their only really effective weapon is the ied. Also from the vets coming back from Iraq that I have talked to, the majority of the terrorists cant shoot to save their lives, which I find to be comforting.

The Méhari is no worse than the M998s and M1025s US troops were tooling around in during OIF I and II.

It's true that most of the insurgents in Iraq can't shoot, but from what I've heard (I've never been to Afghanistan) the Afghans are much, much better shots than the retards in Iraq.

The Méhari is no worse than the M998s and M1025s US troops were tooling around in during OIF I and II.

It's true that most of the insurgents in Iraq can't shoot, but from what I've heard (I've never been to Afghanistan) the Afghans are much, much better shots than the retards in Iraq.

No your right, I wouldnt want to go to war in one of those either. Well the uncovered ones, at least I think I would feel slightly safer in a HMMWV with a roof I guess, or any vehicle for that matter. But honestly Iwould much rather go to war in a Stryker or one of its equivelents.

Thing with the Afghan fighters is they are the hardened core of the Islamist extremist forces. They have been at this sort of thing for a long time.

Thing with the Afghan fighters is they are the hardened core of the Islamist extremist forces. They have been at this sort of thing for a long time.

So what your saying is that the terrorists in Iraq are essential conscripts. Well that would explain a lot.

The French complain a lot,

In comparison to the American right? Between the complaining and the "You owe us for...." and the "Without us you..." ...not to mention the whole thing about Europe being turned into some muslim area. My Imam sez its shite talk, the lot of it.

The American Left is just as bad.

In comparison to the American right? Between the complaining and the "You owe us for...." and the "Without us you..." ...not to mention the whole thing about Europe being turned into some muslim area. My Imam sez its shite talk, the lot of it.
Hey! That weird part of my head, the... uhh... Brain!
That's it, the brain, said the same thing!:D

Ten French soldiers serving in Afghanistan were killed in a Taliban ambush, and twenty-one others were wounded. Twenty-four French soldiers in total have died while serving in Afghanistan. France has 3,000 troops serving there. (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm))

Hooray, someone other than the UK or the US is actually fighting!

Biggest single loss of French military personal in 25 years, it is a shame.

President has taken blame, and still endorses the cause.


*
Afghanistan just got an Olympic medal, grats.

The Méhari is no worse than the M998s and M1025s US troops were tooling around in during OIF I and II.

It's true that most of the insurgents in Iraq can't shoot, but from what I've heard (I've never been to Afghanistan) the Afghans are much, much better shots than the retards in Iraq.

Land Rover ftw. Can carry 12 men at a push, Combat variants tend to be well armed, speedy, and reasonably well armoured.

It doesn't matter if the insurgents can shoot straight or not, fact is they can jump us, anywhere, in large numbers, put thousands of rounds into us, and inflict casualties.

The problem is for them, we can retaliate, with far greater fire-power, and with a certain degree of accuracy. They know full well if they fought us in a pitched battle they would lose, so they resort to dirty tactics. Do you know, alot of them go into battle high/stoned. So if they get hit, they just carry on fighting, so you actually have to kill them to stop them. And if your smashed on drugs, how can you shoot straight?

But Modified Apaches with RAF Pilots seem to solve the ambush issue. Any one read that article in the Mail?

The problem is for them, we can retaliate, with far greater fire-power, and with a certain degree of accuracy. They know full well if they fought us in a pitched battle they would lose, so they resort to dirty tactics. Do you know, alot of them go into battle high/stoned. So if they get hit, they just carry on fighting, so you actually have to kill them to stop them. And if your smashed on drugs, how can you shoot straight?
You can't, but that ain't the point. The more they kill of the soldiers, the more they damage public morale/support for the war and the more supporters flock to them, as it looks like they're winning, or at least bogging the enemy down. Hell, soldiers may even be winning themselves, but that sort of thing isn't reported as much as the numbers of soldiers killed.
But Modified Apaches with RAF Pilots seem to solve the ambush issue. Any one read that article in the Mail?
Nope, as it's the Mail.

Thing with the Afghan fighters is they are the hardened core of the Islamist extremist forces. They have been at this sort of thing for a long time.
Not necessarily. Afghanistan is just as complicated a place as Iraq, maybe moreso.

There's Pushtun tribal chiefs fighting for their local communities against other chiefs, there are Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban (they're actually different), Al-Qaeda elements, drug lords and combinations of the above. Depending on which faction actually attacked the French here, you're likely to have a few veterans, experienced fighters from before the Taliban ruled Kabul and a bunch of poor Pushtuns who are fighting for money or because their families sent them in return for protection from Taliban reprisals.

All that being said, the people trained in AQ camps in particular are apparently excellent soldiers who gave US troops a good fight during Tora-Bora and so on.

Land Rover ftw. Can carry 12 men at a push, Combat variants tend to be well armed, speedy, and reasonably well armoured.

The current HMMWVs are quite sufficiently armored (M1114 and M1151), as well as the M1117 Guardian, one of which I currently ride around in. They don't hold many dismounts, but they're not designed to and don't really need to for what my current mission is (convoy security).

It doesn't matter if the insurgents can shoot straight or not, fact is they can jump us, anywhere, in large numbers, put thousands of rounds into us, and inflict casualties.

I'm certainly well aware of this. It's more of a problem in Afghanistan (again, I've never been there) from what I've heard, but it happens occasionally in Iraq as well. When I was here in 2003 I was in Ar Ramadi where we'd get jumped occasionally in just such a fashion.

The problem is for them, we can retaliate, with far greater fire-power, and with a certain degree of accuracy. They know full well if they fought us in a pitched battle they would lose, so they resort to dirty tactics. Do you know, alot of them go into battle high/stoned. So if they get hit, they just carry on fighting, so you actually have to kill them to stop them. And if your smashed on drugs, how can you shoot straight?

I've heard reports of them stealing our atropine injectors and using them before a firefight. I've never seen that but when I was here in 2003 I saw several take injuries that should have put them down and keep going, due to whatever it was they were on.

But Modified Apaches with RAF Pilots seem to solve the ambush issue.

Where I'm at there's relatively heavy UAV coverage, so ambushes tend to be rather small and in built up areas. I was near Camp Taji a couple of months ago and we were in a very light ambush. About 7 dismounts with small arms firing over a low wall, they fired a couple of hundred rounds between them on full auto but only managed to ping rounds off the armor of one Army cargo truck and put holes in the backs of two of our civilian trucks. They fired at the gunners on our guntrucks but it's hard to hit something moving at 80kph, especially when you're doing the "Iraqi offhand" over a wall. Of course, they did have the sense to fire at us from a housing area, leaving us unable to engage them with anything larger than our M4s as all our vehicles have the M2 mounted on them (stupid unit of mine).

No your right, I wouldnt want to go to war in one of those either. Well the uncovered ones, at least I think I would feel slightly safer in a HMMWV with a roof I guess, or any vehicle for that matter. But honestly Iwould much rather go to war in a Stryker or one of its equivelents.

When I was here in 2003 I rode around in an M998 most of the time with the tarps and doors removed, largely because they didn't do anything to help. Fiberglass doors don't really stop much, you know. This time I'm riding around in one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1117) which is much nicer in every regard.

It isn't good to see any soldiers [on our side of course] die in combat. Hopefully they dealt a much harder blow to the Taliban than they took.

you guys must be 12, you are either too young or too ignorant to understand what I posted. Those are wars that the French needed to be bailed out of, to understand that you would have to be able to comprehend the "big picture". No worries though, you either learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it. Good luck with that btw. :)I'm afraid you've got a crass misunderstanding of history here. In WWI the French did indeed need a bailout. Came from being at war with what was quite possibly the world's strongest army at the time. That they managed to hold their ground for the greatest part is quite an achievement. To ignore the differences in population between France and Germany at the time reeks of ignorance. Also, if the French were so bad, why did they lead the Allies and Americans? Foch was the supreme Allied commander, don't forget that.

As for WWII, let's not forget about WWI, shall we? No other Western power had to endure what the French endured at Verdun, not even the Germans (paradoxically despite having had higher losses). This is explained by the differences in rotation that the French and Germans used during the "bone mill". A vast majority of the French infantry were at some point exposed to hell on earth, whereas German rotation systems kept the amount of traumatized servicemen comparatively low. Also, France may have lost less men during the war than Germany, but France also had a lot less men to spare. Travel through France and take a look at the markers that denote how many men from the village died during the various wars of French history and you'll notice just how unprecedentedly high the casaulty rate in WWI was. Britain didn't go through this, because they weren't involved in Verdun. Hence, when the Germans came back, many French soldiers weren't interested in being used as cannon fodder again, having had to endure that from the very beginning of the previous war, unlike American doughboys.

It's also important not to forget that a country that came late to both wars really has no right to accuse those adjoining the aggressor nation of cowardice. Though at least Poland, the Czech Republic, and Greece get spared this treatment.

Easy does it darlin, no one is insulting anyone here, atleast I hope not. You can express your opinion, I think thats great, just keep it above the belt, k sweety?You've been insulting the French and the Arabs. Guess that makes you no one.

I'm afraid you've got a crass misunderstanding of history here. In WWI the French did indeed need a bailout. Came from being at war with what was quite possibly the world's strongest army at the time. That they managed to hold their ground for the greatest part is quite an achievement. To ignore the differences in population between France and Germany at the time reeks of ignorance. Also, if the French were so bad, why did they lead the Allies and Americans? Foch was the supreme Allied commander, don't forget that.

As for WWII, let's not forget about WWI, shall we? No other Western power had to endure what the French endured at Verdun, not even the Germans (paradoxically despite having had higher losses). This is explained by the differences in rotation that the French and Germans used during the "bone mill". A vast majority of the French infantry were at some point exposed to hell on earth, whereas German rotation systems kept the amount of traumatized servicemen comparatively low. Also, France may have lost less men during the war than Germany, but France also had a lot less men to spare. Travel through France and take a look at the markers that denote how many men from the village died during the various wars of French history and you'll notice just how unprecedentedly high the casaulty rate in WWI was. Britain didn't go through this, because they weren't involved in Verdun. Hence, when the Germans came back, many French soldiers weren't interested in being used as cannon fodder again, having had to endure that from the very beginning of the previous war, unlike American doughboys.

It's also important not to forget that a country that came late to both wars really has no right to accuse those adjoining the aggressor nation of cowardice. Though at least Poland, the Czech Republic, and Greece get spared this treatment.

You've been insulting the French and the Arabs. Guess that makes you no one.

We can't forget that during WW I, everyone (and I include the Americans) engaged in idiotic strategy and tactics that resulted in massive casualties and massive numbers of shellshocked men.

Even Americans were sent into what were essentially human wave assaults into machinegun and artillery fire.

When you realize that millions fell in a relatively short period of time, it's no wonder that nations were exhausted by this stupidity - not only in terms of men lost, but equipment used up and industrial output diverted to what is essentially a money pit.

This time I'm riding around in one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1117) which is much nicer in every regard.



Looks like a BRDM, in a way.

We can't forget that during WW I, everyone (and I include the Americans) engaged in idiotic strategy and tactics that resulted in massive casualties and massive numbers of shellshocked men.

Even Americans were sent into what were essentially human wave assaults into machinegun and artillery fire.

When you realize that millions fell in a relatively short period of time, it's no wonder that nations were exhausted by this stupidity - not only in terms of men lost, but equipment used up and industrial output diverted to what is essentially a money pit.Oh indeed. The Americans in particular were using the same tactics that the British, French, and Germans finally realized were a waste of manpower when they began. I still maintain Verdun was an escalation of that.