Jump to content


french tanks are they coming?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
173 replies to this topic

Jovisfulmina #141 Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19855 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:
    03-07-2011
Nice troll but France is spelled with an A, not an E. Is there no school in your lol-pown-awesome country ?

Hammerbolt #142 Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:14 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34813 battles
  • 1,367
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostAdanakebab, on 17 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

can't wait to pown the frence tanks. finaly remember guys frence are good with losin wars. at ww1 we powned all the those alies out of turkey. we did't have tanks, airplanes just the basic we manage to kill them out. italians, frence, briths, russians. so remmeber frence are good with losin wars. stop defending yea day did't have that and this day lost. day would had lost ww1 if the usa did't help them. cant wait to pown the frence tanks ^^

Anyone has a martian -> english translator?...

leofwine #143 Posted 17 May 2011 - 10:35 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1579 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostAdanakebab, on 17 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

finaly remember guys frence are good with losin wars.

The French have produced some of the most fantastically disciplined soldiers & warriors in the worlds history. Look at everything Napoleon was able to do thanks to how capable his soldiers were. Hundred Years War - French gave the English many bloody noses. Reason 'we' English 'hate', well I don't, the French is I think borne more out of a grudging respect that they are very capable when it comes to all things martial.

View PostAdanakebab, on 17 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

day would had lost ww1 if the usa did't help them.

Not really. The US troops in WW1 were untrained, poorly equipped, badly led, and refused to listen to, or co-ordinate with, the experienced French & British troops who had been holding the line for 3 years. Germany lost because Britain & France could keep up the 'attrition', with the addition of numbers of US troops, whereas Germany could not, leading to the armistice in November 1918. In contrast to the experienced French & British troops the US were appallingly bad in WW1.

View PostAdanakebab, on 17 May 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

cant wait to pown the frence tanks ^^

I think you'll be in for quite a surprise.

Domestic_Ginger #144 Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:39 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 54629 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View Postleofwine, on 17 May 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

Look at everything Napoleon was able to do thanks to how capable his soldiers were.

Disagree to that. swarms of poorly trained conscripts form what I know. Excellent artillery and highly aggressive tactics gave plenty of victories. they also suffered high losses. The concept of corps to operate on their own was advances.

Agree with everything else. Unfortunately we have to indulge US history; amusing as the French bankrupted their country supporting the Americans in their war of independence and now they only get juvenile abuse. This also lead to the French revolution.

leofwine #145 Posted 17 May 2011 - 11:51 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1579 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    07-10-2010

View PostDomestic_Ginger, on 17 May 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

Disagree to that. swarms of poorly trained conscripts form what I know. Excellent artillery and highly aggressive tactics gave plenty of victories. they also suffered high losses. The concept of corps to operate on their own was advances.

Early on, during the Revolution, and at the end, 1814 & 1815, the French army was mostly full of conscripts but from 1803-1813 the French armies were full of trained, disciplined veterans. Even with conscript forces Napoleon was still able to pull off victories early on & to the end of what we call 'the Napoleonics'. A lot of it was down to his superb timing, understanding of ground and ability to judge, ourmanouver, out think and hammer through opponents, but his infantry were not too bad, certainly comparable to most European infantry of the time, if not better.

Quote

Agree with everything else. Unfortunately we have to indulge US history; amusing as the French bankrupted their country supporting the Americans in their war of independence and now they only get juvenile abuse. This also lead to the French revolution.

It's one of those wonderfully ironic situations. US could have lost the War of Independance without French help yet they rewrite modern history to portray other Nations, including the country which helped them to achieve their independance, rather unfavorably. Worst of all is Hollywood & the US film industry...but we won't got there less I start ranting and waving my arms about.


Anyway!.. can we have French tanks now please?

SWAT5773 #146 Posted 18 May 2011 - 06:23 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11925 battles
  • 490
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Posturkerjantje, on 17 March 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

french tanks mostley crap so when are the coming?
French tanks were actually better than German tanks. The luftwaffe made a big hamburger of the French tanks because they had no air support. And they were VERY bad organisated.

Rollmops #147 Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:21 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9328 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
Damn, what was the name of this topic again?

I have read from a polish guy who is proud of his nation and is crying about that they had to fight for their own...
than a big discussion about "communsim talks" started! And now a Franzmann (sorry to everybody who felt insulted with this expression) who is proud about napoleon... a big strategist, of course... but also a man who sets a whole world in flames!

It will give a lot of informations about napoleon which doesn't fit in the romantic style of a common citizen who fighted against the monarchy and become one of the most powerfull man in history that won't be able to read in a history book. The same fits to russians talking about Stalina and even in Germany it will give still a lot of people who say: not everything has been bad in time! Autobahnen and family policy for example...
Autobahnen = fast transit routes for military; don't think that there were so much traffic for the need.
Family policy = birth machinery; controlled youth organistations and education only for the one achievment.

And what about chechens? Rebells or terrorists?
Are the news - coming from irak or afghanistan - filtered?
Are your politicians always talking the truth?

It will be the same discussion as with that polish guy: Every medal has its two sides!

Back to the topic:
It is fact, that the french tank-development has been the best in the world when the WWII breaks out... why they lost that part is obvious.
When i read about, french tanks are coming, i googled and wickied them/the most and all are well-designed.
i loved the 38H in game and would invest my money again for that little ironass.
I'm interrested about the canons and their implementation to wot. Armor and speed are comparable to the existing models.
When you can say the german-tanks are the snipers in game, the russians are melee-fighter, us-tanks are a mix-up... i'm interrested to see what attribute will get the french tanks... think of an rolling stronghold with an exceptable gun


sry, for that bad english

Hammerbolt #148 Posted 20 May 2011 - 03:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34813 battles
  • 1,367
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010
One thing I hope the devs get right before the french release is the whole "2 guns 1 tank" thing. Otherwise, the B1 will be as crippled as it is today. It will be a failure tbh...

And this would be great for the M3 as well, so players of that tank should help with asking for this!  :Smile_great:

Waroch #149 Posted 20 May 2011 - 04:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostShrektones, on 20 May 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

Damn, what was the name of this topic again?

I have read from a polish guy who is proud of his nation and is crying about that they had to fight for their own...
than a big discussion about "communsim talks" started! And now a Franzmann (sorry to everybody who felt insulted with this expression) who is proud about napoleon... a big strategist, of course... but also a man who sets a whole world in flames!

It will give a lot of informations about napoleon which doesn't fit in the romantic style of a common citizen who fighted against the monarchy and become one of the most powerfull man in history that won't be able to read in a history book. The same fits to russians talking about Stalina and even in Germany it will give still a lot of people who say: not everything has been bad in time! Autobahnen and family policy for example...
Autobahnen = fast transit routes for military; don't think that there were so much traffic for the need.
Family policy = birth machinery; controlled youth organistations and education only for the one achievment.

And what about chechens? Rebells or terrorists?
Are the news - coming from irak or afghanistan - filtered?
Are your politicians always talking the truth?

It will be the same discussion as with that polish guy: Every medal has its two sides!


i'm afraid I don't get your point here :Smile-hiding: what did you mean?

The part on Napoleon... well sorry but you couldn't be more wrong on the man :Smile-playing:
this is funny, because I am currently reading his biography by Jacques Bainville, a renown French historian of the early XXth, a book which is considered to be a reference on Napoleon. But, well in a few words nope he didn't set the world in flames, he had in fact much more to gain from peace. Austria-Hungary and (unsurprisingly :Smile_harp:) United Kingdom have much bigger responsibility in what is called "Napoleonic wars".
He didn't fight the monarchy either. While he was a son of the revolution, he raised quite late in fact, much later than his rivals like Hoche or Masséna. When he was finaly in power, he had much trouble with monarchists indeed (in particular the shameful assassination -there is no other word for it- of the duke d'Enghien), but he never stood against - or in favor of- the monarchy.

:Smile_honoring:

Rollmops #150 Posted 20 May 2011 - 05:31 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9328 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
My point is:
Frenchmen like Napoleon, he is one of them, so they glorify his good sides... the bad ones will be mentioned just as a footnote.

What do you think how much countries have been involved in napoleons war? And when he conquers a country do you mean everything is over and the troops marching on in friendship? His kind of peace is like this: i didnt fight you, but you have to give soldiers for military service, tolerate the occupation, feed my army and give payment of contribution! Verry peacefull.
These countries give a lot manpower for miltary services - but who is left for the harvest? Still enough for the population?
Do you think he was as great as logistician as tactician? How much men were under gun in his troops... a lot of breads to take with. The reason why his troop could march so fast: they had no slow baggage train to wait for! The landscape feeded the soldiers or better they feeded themselves by looting farms. Even his own soldiers were starving of hunger on his campaigns and the landscapes they left behind too.
Later while the campaign against russia he builded storehouses... but about 422.000-620.000 soldiers marched away and how many come back? 23.000 - 80.000
Im concident in my opinion: He has been a great military man, but he is everything else but an caring leader and a wretch of a ruler.

Dont read a book, when you cant read between the lines!

Waroch #151 Posted 20 May 2011 - 06:57 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010
Trust me, he's not nearly as popular in France as you seem to believe.

There's a bright an a dark legend of Napoleon, both of them usually filled up with stereotypes. The main one being that he was a blood thirsty tyrant responsible of all the wars of the XIXth century. This is plain wrong, in particular because Napoleon himself was on the battlefield and knew the price of victory (or defeat), while the emperor of Austria (what's his name in german? Francis?) or the English Pitt only to name those two didn't have that knowledge of the battlefield, where glory and horror coexisted.
And I say it again, going to war was actually going against Napoleon's plans and threatening his power! What really rised him to power was... peace. Napoleon wouldn't have been anyone if he had been only a tyrant. But he was the man of Campo Formio (among other things).

Quote

Dont read a book, when you cant read between the lines!

err... thanks. But FYI i'm really not a fan of Napoleon myself, i just try to have an objective opinion on this highly complex era. As for Bainville, his book is even today considered as a must-read if you're interested in the 1800s and Napoleon's First Empire. Mine is from 1931, so you see it's pretty old already. If it survived and remained popular it's particularly because it's far from the crap usually published on this topic. Bainville himself was a royalist, but his analysis is absolutely remarkable, and was forged from the few thousands documents and books he had gathered.

Rollmops #152 Posted 21 May 2011 - 04:23 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9328 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
OK Waroch, i will search and read about Bainville before i will write more comments about Napoleon... but u didnt answer the questions.
Saying he knows about the price of war and the fact that all countries in europe had to suffer are two different things.

But enough of that (for me)

Another question: are there any conflicts till the korean war, where the fench tank-contruction have been tested?

TrigerIII #153 Posted 21 May 2011 - 07:32 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 183
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010
Honestly i feel so sad when some "french" go out to insult "italians". I thought thay would understand tham perfectly well, but...

Waroch #154 Posted 21 May 2011 - 12:04 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 9689 battles
  • 3,332
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostShrektones, on 21 May 2011 - 04:23 AM, said:

Another question: are there any conflicts till the korean war, where the fench tank-contruction have been tested?

yes. AMX-13's have been engaged in several conflicts. I can think of the Israeli conflicts of the 1950s and the 1960s and of the India-Pakistan wars 1960s-1970s.
AMX-30s were engaged only in Gulf war I (Qatari and French AMX's)

talking only of tank vs tank action of course :)

iplayforfun2 #155 Posted 21 May 2011 - 11:22 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24381 battles
  • 1,615
  • [-BDF-] -BDF-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

View PostTrigerIII, on 21 May 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

Honestly i feel so sad when some "french" go out to insult "italians". I thought thay would understand tham perfectly well, but...

My Grandfather said of the Italians "It is only fair Germany had them on their side during the Second World War, as we had them on ours during the first."

France has a very impressive military history overall, although WW2, definitely, was not her finest hour. I cannot think of any major power without an unblemished military record.

raidenzero93 #156 Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:05 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 9602 battles
  • 10
  • Member since:
    11-15-2010
If any of you was still thinking, that for win a war,you need best organisation or best tank,or best army,or best anything else...You are in error.

It is just a theater play,with real dying people,wich denouement is decided by some "elites guy",who are hiding in shadow,who never go on a battlefield...

And finally,the official story is always writing by the winners...

All this post made me laughting.It is a nonsence.

Rollmops #157 Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:13 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9328 battles
  • 361
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
@seaeagle: Yes, thats right. No italians means no north-africa-campaigne; their atlantic submarines were verry good... but their crews had no idea what to do with it. Vessels and Airplanes, no idea if they were really good or bad.

Whatever, better to lose the war... i think i wont like this world if the Nationalschnauzer had have won.

@raidenzero: Another wiseman is appearing on the stage! *clapclapclap* Nice art of saying a lot and telling nothing.
             In 1939-1945 we had these in darkness covered superbrains too... but we did not win! War is little too complex for some strategians    
             alone. Morale/Resistance of the population (like in france)/Terraine (vietnam)/financial power/industrial development/spying...
             Strategies are usefull for funny games in a sandbox.

And of course it is nonsence... even the most posts are nonsence... but in this nonsence is a lot of truth hiding

TrigerIII #158 Posted 23 May 2011 - 01:24 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 183
  • Member since:
    11-24-2010

View Postseaeagle, on 21 May 2011 - 11:22 PM, said:

My Grandfather said of the Italians "It is only fair Germany had them on their side during the Second World War, as we had the on our during the first."
and what did he meaned by that?

View PostShrektones, on 22 May 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

@seaeagle: Yes, thats right. No italians means no north-africa-campaigne; their atlantic submarines were verry good... but their crews had no idea what to do with it. Vessels and Airplanes, no idea if they were really good or bad.

Whatever, better to lose the war... i think i wont like this world if the Nationalschnauzer had have won.

@raidenzero: Another wiseman is appearing on the stage! *clapclapclap*  Nice art of saying a lot and telling nothing.
             In 1939-1945 we had these in darkness covered superbrains too... but we did not win! War is little too complex for some strategians    
             alone. Morale/Resistance of the population (like in france)/Terraine (vietnam)/financial power/industrial development/spying...
             Strategies are usefull for funny games in a sandbox.

And of course it is nonsence... even the most posts are nonsence... but in this nonsence is a lot of truth hiding
Another wiseman is appearing on the stage! *clapclapclap*   :(

Brazilski #159 Posted 23 May 2011 - 04:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 7189 battles
  • 1,118
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011
I had previously posted in this topic a sarcastic summary of arguments about what is wrong with the classical stereotypes about the French, what is true about those stereotypes and why these stereotypes exist. I deleted that post as I thought people on this forum were mature enough not to need it. Some of the post on the last two pages or so made me realise I was wrong.

View PostDostayer, on 13 May 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Leave France, they were epic fail against the Greeks, Greeks! A nation without tanks and with the worst airplanes in the world (and much smaller)

Except the RAF was there too and devoted Partisans that know every mountain peak like their pocket can be real biatches. Besides, your tanks mean nothing in Greece save perhaps on the plains of Thessaly.

iplayforfun2 #160 Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:53 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24381 battles
  • 1,615
  • [-BDF-] -BDF-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
@Shrektones. I agree, the Italians had some great equipment. however their leadership seemed pretty horrid during WW2 and to a lesser extent WW1.

@Triger, nothing glorious.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users