European Army Options

[user23]

Given our Armed Forces are going to be working much more closely with the French why not do what no doubt will eventually happen and form a European Army, Navy and Air Force?

[Iommi]

Isn't that what NATO's for?

[On the edge]

Having an EU force would be a great idea. We are no longer a World power - so should discharge military obligations via Europe. That is, we will do what ever our peer nation states do, on an exactly equal basis. Oh - we've solved the credit crisis at a stroke!

[GMR]

Given our Armed Forces are going to be working much more closely with the French why not do what no doubt will eventually happen and form a European Army, Navy and Air Force?

You mean surrender totally to Europe? Hitler would have been proud.

[Iommi]

Don't stop there; world army?

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

Given our Armed Forces are going to be working much more closely with the French why not do what no doubt will eventually happen and form a European Army, Navy and Air Force?

'1984' was a novel, not a textbook........

[Bloggo]

It seems to me to be the next step on the road to a unified Europe. I guess the financial pressures on both countries make the idea attractive but I think it will lead ( eventually) to the loss of our sovereignty and maybe our security.
Who knows where it will lead?

[Bloggo]

I heard an amusing comment last night on the TV. It was reputed to have been a quote from Maggie Thatcher. Apparently she was asked what the French would do in the event of an invasion to protect Paris and she said "No one knows as they haven't done it yet"
Something to think about eh!

[Iommi]

According to the gospel of QI, France have the most successful army in Europe, in terms of battle and wars fought and won.

[Bloggo]

According to the gospel of QI, France have the most successful army in Europe, in terms of battle and wars fought and won.

Well I guess their researchers know their stuff but I am struggling to recall any recent wars won by the French in the last 200 years. I know they connolised a great deal of South East Asia in the 18th and 19th century.
Does anyone have a list of "victories"???

[Iommi]

"La guerre

Despite their reputation, the French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. The British may pride themselves on superiority at sea, but it was driven by the realisation that they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French Army has usually been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, under Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

Perhaps this dominance helps explains another French victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in French. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/7930...out-France.html


If England occupied what is now France, do you think we would have repelled the German army in WWII?

[dannyboy]

"La guerre

Despite their reputation, the French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. The British may pride themselves on superiority at sea, but it was driven by the realisation that they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French Army has usually been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, under Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

Perhaps this dominance helps explains another French victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in French. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/7930...out-France.html


If England occupied what is now France, do you think we would have repelled the German army in WWII?

Not only that but the other European countries didn't come into being until relatively late, giving France & England an unfair advantage in terms of battles fought & won.

[Bloggo]

"La guerre

Despite their reputation, the French have fought more military campaigns than any other European nation and won twice as many battles as they have lost. The British may pride themselves on superiority at sea, but it was driven by the realisation that they could never win a land war on the Continent. The French Army has usually been the largest, best equipped and most strategically innovative in Europe. At its best, under Napoleon in 1812, it achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: it entered Moscow.

Perhaps this dominance helps explains another French victory. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is written in French. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/7930...out-France.html


If England occupied what is now France, do you think we would have repelled the German army in WWII?

No, highly unlikely as Britain was terribly ill-equiped in 1940. Also I don't think we would have won the war at all if not for the USA.

[Blake]

The idea of a European military is simplistic and part the typical cosmopolitan, internationalist and deluded mindset.

The truth is, European countries post war have mostly failed to invest in the best equipment and in sufficient quantities. Where is the European B-2 squadron I ask???

Also, a lot of European countries are explicitly anti-British. I cannot see them coming to our assistance if one of our sovereign territories was attacked or threatened.

Our true friend is still the US, a partner who has been on our side when we have needed it.

[dannyboy]

The idea of a European military is simplistic and part the typical cosmopolitan, internationalist and deluded mindset.

The truth is, European countries post war have mostly failed to invest in the best equipment and in sufficient quantities. Where is the European B-2 squadron I ask???

Also, a lot of European countries are explicitly anti-British. I cannot see them coming to our assistance if one of our sovereign territories was attacked or threatened.

Our true friend is still the US, a partner who has been on our side when we have needed it.

Do we need a B2 squadron? Who is paying for it?

[Blake]

If we want to win conflicts in future, yes, we need the best science and engineering can offer.

It will be supported the same ways as current projects are. Overall a good investment as fewer platforms are needed as such assets are deployed in fewer number due to their precision.

[Bloggo]

The idea of a European military is simplistic and part the typical cosmopolitan, internationalist and deluded mindset.

The truth is, European countries post war have mostly failed to invest in the best equipment and in sufficient quantities. Where is the European B-2 squadron I ask???

Also, a lot of European countries are explicitly anti-British. I cannot see them coming to our assistance if one of our sovereign territories was attacked or threatened.

Our true friend is still the US, a partner who has been on our side when we have needed it.

I am a little sceptical about the level of support we would get from any of our "partners". I would be happier if we could maintian our our armed forces with the ability to act independently should the occasion arise.
Dependence on others will work against us in the long term taking away our right and ability to make decisions about the protection of our country and citizens.
.

[Gumbo]

Our true friend is still the US, a partner who has been on our side when we have needed it.

I am no historian but I am not entirely sure that statement is 100% accurate. As I understand it the Americans didn't want to get involved with the second world war as they saw it as a European war and rejected a lot of pleas from Churchill. It wasn't until the attack on Pearl Harbour that they decided to join in a bit more.

[Blake]

Erroneous; what about Clare Chennault and the Eagle Squadron.

[Gumbo]

Erroneous; what about Clare Chennault and the Eagle Squadron.

In what way? taken from wikipedia about Eagle Squadron: "The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time). "