John Davy Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 When the french go to war, they are not overly concerned about preventing "collateral damage"; they do not take a potentially hostile press corps with them, and they do not have television channels banging on and on about 'exit strategies" or "root causes", or such like.Nor did they suffer the illusion that the people of Mali (even the Muslims) might actually have enjoyed being pushed around by a bunch of self-righteous and extremist kids bent on imposing their own warped version of Sharia - a version which has as much in common with normal muslims as had the 'christianity" of Cromwell's puritans with ordinary christians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rump Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 From Wireds Danger Room:‘Now What?’: As France Leaves Mali, the West’s New War Strategy Shows Peril 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Davy Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Their intervention was intended to boost Hollande's image and further French interests, but something tells me they;re planning games on us. Now, they say they are pulling their troops out of Mali next month, handing over to an African force..really? which one would that be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) A useful update on the situation in Mali: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-mali-rebels-idUSBRE92614620130307It looks like the intervention is entering its final stages and the French are talking about potentially drawing down their forces from April. Edited March 7, 2013 by Panzer_Leader Corrected typo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted May 20, 2016 Author Share Posted May 20, 2016 I'm resurrecting a dead thread but I thought some may find this RAND report on Fance's intervention in Mali of interest, particularly because of the mission's success and combined arms forces employed by France, including AFVs: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR770/RAND_RR770.pdf I haven't read it yet but have saved a copy for future reference and the depth of analysis provided by RAND is usually excellent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koen Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 Thx ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted May 21, 2016 Share Posted May 21, 2016 Seems like the French got this right , now the sensitive people are going to loose their minds......wait for it............................ Jk'ing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 (edited) I finished reading this study after seeing it referred to by both U.S. and Australian Army officers recently in the context of expeditionary operations and found it very interesting. My key take-outs were: - The French deployed with the high-readiness units they had to hand or pre-positioned - They deployed with a very light logistical footprint with soldiers using the material and rations they deployed with without resupply in the initial period - They were prepared to conduct aggressive, maneuver warfare - The battlegroup / task force, combat team / company team task organisation employed worked well - They relied very heavily on allies for strategic airlift and sustainment - Some of their (pre-positioned?) VABs and AMX-10RCs were difficult to maintain due to age and wear - They were lucky they didn't confront more resistance as it didn't seem they had in-theatre support to sustain significant vehicular or personnel casualties - Their boots fell apart! Overall, the balance between risk and reward seemed "about right", with a decent splash of luck that things worked out as well as they did. I was impressed with the impression of some old school soldiering being done by the French. Overall a great read and interesting contrast on the contemporary Western way of low-intensity warfare versus the contemporary higher-intensity, peer-on-peer examples coming out of the conflict in Ukraine. Edited September 23, 2016 by Panzer_Leader 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Had the opportunity to talk to a French officer who was over there while both of us were teaching on a international course a few years back at length. Your assessment is in line with his. He also stated that some of the troops had prior history in the region and that helped to overcome some of the issues. Unaware to me at the time the area was a hub or trafficking in just about everything for a price controlled by various factions/tribes, which he said contributed to the issues on the ground as turf was a concern to all deployed on the Op. Great guy and great talk over a fre pops 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted September 23, 2016 Author Share Posted September 23, 2016 Thanks 12Alfa, nice to know I'm not completely wide of the mark! Sounds like a good chat to have over a drink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Centauro for AMX-10, Fuchs for VAB (VBL whichever). Lots of african soldiers and rebels to choose from... Seems tailor made for your next scenario Panzer!!. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.