The Gun Counter

http://www.warriorlodge.com/blogs/news/ ... fghanistan

Interesting view of the U.S. Army of another perspective.

Thanks for sharing that. It kind of gave me goosebumps.

Nice of him to say so, but he's just restating the obvious.

Not that I'm complaining! I just wish some of the elected dipsticks in Washington could spend a little time at one of these outposts. They might save up enough money to buy a clue.

That's stirring.

Anyone know where to find the various training standards for previous wars? That comment on today's average Joe being in better shape than a WWII Ranger or Vietnam Spec Ops was interesting. I know I sure as hell was never a real PT stud.

I read that a day or so ago, via arfcom. Some of the mouthbreathers there started the usual "surrender monkey" talk, I pointed out that France was among the most martial of cultures in Europe before they lost the cream of their manhood in WWI and WWII. I gather the French military still does the job.

French didn't have to fight too many wars twice.

The military problem with the french has always been poor leadership. The reason is they spent all thier national military keadership talent on one man, Charles Martel. They havent had a french general that was superlative since(Napolean was corsican).
Charles Martel(the hammer) Is likely one of the best military commanders ever, and was a political genius as well.

Damn but we could really use another Charles Martel right now, but I dont think there will ever be anyone like him again.

slowpoke wrote:The military problem with the french has always been poor leadership. The reason is they spent all thier national military keadership talent on one man, Charles Martel. They havent had a french general that was superlative since(Napolean was corsican).
Charles Martel(the hammer) Is likely one of the best military commanders ever, and was a political genius as well.

Damn but we could really use another Charles Martel right now, but I dont think there will ever be anyone like him again.

If limitIng your statement to since the early 1800's, I might agree with you. But there have been stretches where the French Army (and leadership) was the best in the world. Under Louis 14 in particular (Condé especially but all of his Marshals) the French Military was the best in the world. Actually one of his best opponents was French too, Louis rejected Prince Eugene of Savoy for service and then he went on to Austrian service and ended up being the key leader to halt Louis' advances. Napolean's Marshals were mostly pretty good too.

Additionally, Charles Martel was a Frank who spoke Frankish, not Gallic. Both Charlemagne and Otto the Great were decendent from him.

Vonz90 wrote:
If limitIng your statement to since the early 1800's, I might agree with you. But there have been stretches where the French Army (and leadership) was the best in the world. Under Louis 14 in particular (Condé especially but all of his Marshals) the French Military was the best in the world. Actually one of his best opponents was French too, Louis rejected Prince Eugene of Savoy for service and then he went on to Austrian service and ended up being the key leader to halt Louis' advances. Napolean's Marshals were mostly pretty good too.

This. De Saxe, Turenne, Vauban...the French had first-rate commanders. The Napoleonic Marshalate had low points...but Massena was quite good, Davout great.