Incognito, have you ever typed “blonde + intelligent” on Google? Have you ever typed “Bush” etc. You will find amazing things, and these have to do with the way Google works (and also sometimes because of the way some people know how to put some results ahead of the others.) Anyway do you think no result on Google means it is accurate historically speaking?
you are really a retarded moron

and now a bit of history

The battle of France was full of harsh combats for both sides. About 100 000 French soldiers died in less than 3 months, which can prove how they were harsh combats. And without the french air Force (which, with a lot of poor old planes and only a few competitive planes, and old tactics etc. did rather great) Hitler would have had enough aircraft to allow him to attack England faster and maybe to win the battle of Britain. Not to mention the french army was nearly equal in numbers with the Germans.
So yes they fought, and they fought bravely, and every historian (I am not speaking only about French ones, just borrow a serious book from an English or american one…. you know ? a book?) could tell you that, if only you read them….

But yes, the commanders were old, stupid, uncapable etc. and they applied old tactics, they thought they would fight a position war like in WW1, and also they avoided comments from younger commanders (De gaulle and Guderian shared the same view about the use of tanks and were precursors for example, but only the Germans applied these tactics) and nobody was morally ready to fight in another big war. So France losed the early war, and it was a tragedy and a shock worlwide, the army supposed to be the first of the world defeated this way by a much more smarter and aggressive German army. Yes this isn’t a period of glory for France but anyway things aren’t like you describe them at all.

Also the comments made before are true, France could have won at the beginning, for example if France (and in a certain extent Britain, but they hadn’t as much forces on the continent) would have attacked while Hitler was in Poland, the war may have been stopped, Hitler wasn’t ready for a big scale fight at this moment, and his troops weren’t in the good place to stop a possible French attack. But the real war began later, almost a year later. Also when Germans attacked they made lots , lots of mistakes – for example once they had an awfully big column of vehicles etc, for days, but nobody ever bombed them which could have stopped them dramatically etc. But nobody can rewrite history, and my point here isn’t to say France should have win, but it is to say that the German army also had weaknesses and that the French army wans’t that bad, it lacked many things but nobody can say they losed without fighting etc.
France essentially losed because of its commanders, tactics used, and stupid mistakes.

You said before there was “100% collaborators” even someone who isn’t very good at history knows this comment is a heresia.

There was the resistance and then the free French forces. Thousands of soldiers who stil fought. And even if most of the civilians were just waiting without doing anything, there weren’t so many collaborators.
Of course there were the State in Vichy, the militia, and even a few idiots who formed the SS Charlemagne division (who even fought to defend Berlin at the end of the war) but there’s nothing like these “100% collaborators”, these are insane comments from someone who doesn’t know a lot about history apart from what he likes to retain from the few he has seen (and also from many things he has completely made up.)

I DONT NEED ANY BOOK OR ANYTHING to write all what I’ve just written, because I know history, and especially the one of my country, unlike you, who don’t know european history even if you think so, you just spread bull****s.

(by the ways as I writed that “live” without the help of sources, my text may contain some little mistakes)

and to finish, I’d like to apologize because I’m far from the topic, but sometimes some things have to be said.

gui that is a cracking read. Thats a compliment by the way. May I add that the French forces fought just as hard throughout WW2 as any of the other of the allies. When they celebrate D Day they are not only honouring the American, British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand dead (and living). They are also honouring the dead of the countries who simply do not get credit for the defeat of Hitler and his Nazis. Amongst these are………………….well you name it mate if a country during this period wasn’t neutral they were fighting each other and most were on France’s side. It would be inaccurate and incomplete if I tried to list them all. Go and do a bit of geography reading and see for yourself just how many political entities there are on this planet. Be prepared for a shock though because when you buy a globe, a proper one mind, not the crappy ones they issue to American primary schools, I mean a real one, You will find that the words United States of America do not constitute the sum total of this planets nation(s).

De Gaul’s (please excuse my spelling it is not all it could be) forces in Britian in 1940 were in the region of 100,000 to 200,000. Sorry there is a lot of room for error in those figures but trying to quantify things in the context of 1940 sometimes baffles me. By 1944 he had nearly half a million (I am open to positive or negative correction). Now if I am correct about that then between 1940 and 1944 French men and women were joining the French forces (I am dropping the ‘Free’ prefix from ‘French forces’ deliberately) at a rate of perhaps 6250 per month! Round it up or down as much as you like that is still a lot of people joining a military force that under the rules of the Geneva Convention, doesn’t even exist. Add to this the hundreds of thousands in France who risk life of both self and family on a daily basis to make the German occupation a dangerous one for the German soldiers and prepare the ground for D Day.

100% collaboration in WW2? You are just ****ed at the French because they stood up to George Bush. Or did they do something to you personally? Why not learn a bit of respect for people? Afterall you want people to respect your privacy. ‘Incognito’. Is that a French word?

Incognito said:
“You want British foreign and defense policy to be run by Chirac?”

Don’t put words in my mouth if the European Union wanted to force the issue of British independance I’d be the first back in the recruiting office. Added to that I am at the very least a Eurosceptic, I genuinely think the UK would be better off outside the EU. In short, no, I do not want British policy and defence policy run by Chirac or Schroder or for that matter George Bush.

I should think that would adequately answer your question. Yes?

Dis and KKK? I must have missed something.. What was it?

Mate I can’t rmember what thread it was but Dis sounded really quite rabid at one point. Started banging on about some threat to ‘White Anglo Saxon’ society. If you’d seen it beleive me it was shocking, everybody laid into him.

Its not Distiller is it? Going incognito after we discovered his KKK leanings?

>Ah yes wars that were fought over a century ago indeed have much to say about the current state of the French AF…

Well, they didn’t do so well in the 20th century either.

>This has more to do with political reasons than anything else. It doesn’t say much about France’s actual capabilities in a war.

It so happened, France simply didn’t have any more combat-ready troops than what it sent–the roughly 15000 was pretty much it. I don’t have the numbers at hand, but, aside from UK, most of Europe’s militaries are next to impotent. And old, very old–the average age of a person in the military is something like 38. In other words, French “soldiers” are mostly beaurocrats in uniform.

>Especially not if it was a war that really mattered to the French. If they would fight against the UK, which is the main competitor for France in this topic, I doubt they would consider missions to attack the UK ‘too dangerous’.

Well, they were too scared to fly over the Euphrates Valley–where the US Air Force already bombed the crap out of Iraqis, where it was probably as safe as it was going to be anywhere, for bombing missions. And still they were scared. You really think they’ll do better against a modern adversary, when they wet their pants just thinking about Iraqis?

Come on mate blatant insults are not going to answer any questions and in any case what you say about the French armed forces simply isn’t true. Given the political leadership, which is all they lacked in 1940 they would have kicked the German army up the arse, the French 1st Army was as good as any, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and that was no fault of theirs. If I put my Union Flag spectacles to one side I would say the French and the British are equal at the very least. 🙂

The ineptitude alone is enough to be called ‘strong word’, mainly if I still got no idea what was your goal, even after your second post.

Operational accomplishments (you probably mean Tornadoes) do not strictly mean that the specific aircraft involved is without drawbacks.

Tornado ADV has zero real combat kills, anyway, so there are no accomplishments to consider..

Regarding the IDS version, please, find and read a statement of Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., USN (Ret.), Director, Center for Defense Information, 17 June 1994 about low-level flights during the DS1, where (quoting) *British Tornado aircraft attacking Iraqi airfields suffered disproportionate losses at low level*.

Tornado features high wing loading which minimizes low-altitude gust response but also features a serious drawback for agility and maneuvrability which makes it hard to evade incoming SAMs or triple A salvos. Following figures prove this.

Tornado GR4 1050.75 kg/m2
—————————
F-15E 650.30 kg/m2
Mirage F1CT 648.00 kg/m2
MiG-25 671.0 kg/m2
MiG-29 486.8 kg/m2
Su-27 491.9 kg/m2
F-16C 688.12 kg/m2
F-4E 569.2 kg/m2
F-15C 546.1 kg/m2
MiG-21MF 426.0 kg/m2
F/A-18E 644.50 kg/m2
F/A-22A 348.92 kg/m2
F-14D 642.5 kg/m2
Su-24M 945.2 kg/m2
F-111E 850.4 kg/m2
Jaguar 648.76 kg/m2
Mirage 2000-5 414.63 kg/m2

To get an image of the overall agility we would have to include max thrust-to-weight ratios for each aircraft but first I don’t have that much time to waste and second, we all know that Tornadoes are a bit underpowered. 2x 71.5 kN (reheat) for more than 25 tons of metal ain’t finally that much.

Now show me your arguments to the contrary. At best those which prove that the overal conception of the bird is absolutely flawless and outstanding even with current gen of fighter aircraft. Or are you going to accuse the laws of physics of ineptitude now, brother? 🙂

Nobody said any aircraft was without its drawbacks and certainly the Tornado F3 has many. The RAF recognises this and tailors their operations to make the best of what little they have. As for kills in combat, not the Rafale, the Typhoon, the Raptor, the Gripen, J10 have any combat kills to their credit does that mean they should not be procured? For that matter how many kills has the M2000 got to its credit? Your example is a little moot.

Now brother you tell me where in my post I said that the Tornado was flawless. As for large losses of the IDS fleet at low level, we call it operational experience and most of our strike missions are carried out at medium to high altitude utilising precision standoff weapons these days or did you not read about that? However it must be understood that most RAF training is still carried out at extreme low level for two very important reasons. One that you or I can quantify and another that you can’t. 1) There may always be a requirement, however limited, for extreme low altitute strike capabilities and the RAF are still masters of it. 2) The theory goes (and I agree with it) that if you can ‘do it’ at low level, you can ‘do it’ at any altitude. It keeps your mind focused.

Furthermore, plenty have gone up against the Tornado F3 and got their fingers burnt because like you, they underestimated it. Unlike you (perhaps) they were professional aviators and should have known better. At Red Flag excersises USAF controllers limit Tornado F3 ops to above 20000ft. I do not know the reason for this but I do know that below 20000ft the Tornado F3 is far more agile than any of its detractors give it any credit for and don’t forget it is still possibly the fastest or at least one of the fastest aircraft in the world ‘off the deck’ and within the flight envelope upto ~18000ft, both in accelleration and ‘top speed’. On top of this its BVR A2A capabilities are as good as anything currently out there barring the latest generation of fighters and if those are the ones you are comparing it against you are missing the point because it is about to be replaced by the Typhoon anyway and your numbers game is meaningless.

You think that the Tornado cannot avoid incoming surface to air missiles? Have you read any recent combat reports? There was a very memorable one whereby two Tornado GR4s flew through a wall of SAMs and high altitude flak dodging bullets and missiles for about 2 minutes. A combination of agility and electronic warfare seemed to stand them in good stead because they not only survived but succeeded in carrying out their mission which was a long range, deep penetration strike mission using Storm Shadow cruise missiles and that brings me to my final point. Until the latest generation of strike attack/multi role combat aircraft come on line in large numbers its not so much the aircraft that make an effective airforce these days it is the weapons, tactics and pilots but I suppose you think that British pilots are backward like you think their country is and can in no way be anywhere near as capable as I say they are. Yet you call me arrogant.

BTW Gary. Thanks. I knew you were slightly odd thats why I like you. 😀 :p

Steve, there also is some truth in his words. Brits might be doing neatly against many air forces but their A-A capability is a weak link. IMHO, AI-24 Foxhunter can hardly stand up against upgraded APG-66 of a typical European F-16MLU fleet or against German or Hellenic APG-65s mounted on F-4s. That would be AMRAAM against AMRAAM, I don’t really see the edge here and being a Cassegrain concept the simultaneous attack capability is no way one of Foxhunter’s advantages.

I also would not bet too much on RAF against Ukrainian Flankers linked with AWACS.

The RAF F.3 are good BVR assets but are lacking overall capabilities necessary for maintaing the air superiority. Those interceptors are more like sitting ducks against the maneuvrable enemies who would have survived the first wave of AMRAAMs. Believe me, they still would be many of them getting thru the firewall and I am sure you wouldn’t fill the gap with Hawk Mk.1A and AIM-9L.. Not to mention, that the RAF F.3s have one of the worst results on various European exercises. It is also a good point that Italians refused to continue the use of their 24 loaned F.3s and rather changed to F-16ADF.

Tornados in general are oversophisticated which leads to increased weights and high wing loading. DS1 showed pretty clearly that full-loaded Tornadoes roaring with 900 km/h at 60m level are vulnerable even to ancient type SAM such as SA-2 and SA-3 because (unlike Jags or Mirages) they have very little energy left for evasive maneuvers. Not that I don’t recognize the bird as an important strike platform but it is also good to mention itys drawbacks.

BTW, any info about whether the AI24 of Italian F.3s were up to Z standard or still the earlier W type?

IMHO, the best A-A asset that UK has are the Harrier FA2s. Funnily enough you are getting rid of them for some unknown reason..

Source? Jack and Gill join the RAF? The Ladybird Book of All the world’s airforces? The Dandy? The Beano?

You have strong opinions seemingly based on cultural stereotype and a singular distaste for reality. When it appears you have actually done some reading I shall start to worry about these opinions of yours. In the meantime I shall simply snigger at your ineptitude.