French unit sizes as an indication of casualites they have taken in the war

[pmulcahy11b]

I just seems that the more we go over GDW's material, the more flubs we find...

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

(Bolding mine) Going off on a slight tangent here, that suggests to me that the French Government is still located in Paris in 1998, which is after the first wave of nuclear exchanges.

That makes sense since France was technically and practically a neutral. Attacking the capital is IMO an outright and unmistakable declaration of WAR!! (as if nuking anything else wasn't...?)

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Perhaps some of the troops missing from the FAR were transferred from their parent units to reinforce units assigned to the Dead Zone?

That's pretty much what I was saying a few days back in another thread. The "missing" troops may either have never left France, or were withdrawn to the battered homeland to provide replacements/assistance on the borders and internal civil duties.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

It seems to me that the most likely areas for the French to have suffered significant casualties are either the invasion of West Germany / the Netherlands (and subsequent actions) where they were in combat against the Dutch and (presumably) German Armies (iirc published material is a little light on details of what German units might have been involved) or losses incurred as a result of the nuclear attacks on France (of which we know there were some, just not the details).

France may have lost a disproportionate number of troops from nukes due to them being stationed to defend vital facilities and infrastructure from saboteurs. It is possible the French believed that as they were neutral, they would not be targeted by nukes, and so were caught napping without their units being disbursed as were the actual belligerents.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually the FAR deployed to Africa starting in 1995 according to the RDF

In at least 2.x, France (and others) had at least some indications of the coming conflict.

1994
As Europe shows signs of increasing instability, Germany begins quietly increasing its force structure. In January of 1994, the nine understrength divisions which had been maintained as a token army are brought up to full strength and each is given a territorial (reserve) brigade.

It's quite possible the French would have also "quietly" responded, strengthening their borders, particularly that with Germany, a traditional enemy and the most likely direction the Pact would attack from if/when things spiralled completely out of control. This could also explain why the numbers in Africa don't quite add up to your expectations.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sept 1995

Not to be outdone, the French activated the Foreign Legion Operational Group (GOLE) and deployed them to Djibouti. The US government committed the rest of the 7th Special Forces Group and a ranger battalion for anti-terrorist duties.

That means all the French Legion units in the RDF are there in 1995 long before WWIII starts in Europe or any action against Germany.

True, this was before war actually broke out, but we already know tensions had increased dramatically. No competent government would ever even consider reducing security at home in those circumstances unless they felt what was left was sufficient.

Additionally, what I'm seeing is not the entire Foreign Legion being deployed, but rather one, unspecified component of it - GOLE.

As for the missing units in the vehicle books, the game was written by Americans and aimed at mainly American players. Great focus has been given to US units, dispositions and conditions at home with only enough attention to other nationalities to provide a little "flavour".

[Olefin]

Sorry Leg - but its obviouis to anyone who looks at the order of battle and the number of men that they have taken casualties and thats why their units are smaller.

Those units were deployed in 1995 prior to the war breaking out in Europe. And frankly whats in another version doesnt play here.

The RDF was written for V1 and thats what we have to use. It was never rewritten or brought up to date for that different timeline.

And if you read the actual history of French deployments in Africa they have taken casualties in every one of those deployments.

Plus the FAR was meant to be sent to hot spots, kick butt and take names. You usually dont do that without putting a lot of your own guys into body bags. This isnt a REMF unit - they are the tip of the spear.

And the tip of the spear usually gets pretty bloody doing its job.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry Leg - but its obviouis to anyone who looks at the order of battle and the number of men that they have taken casualties and thats why their units are smaller.

Anyone else want to speak up here?

Originally Posted by Olefin

The RDF was written for V1 and thats what we have to use.

If you look really close and spend five minutes reading the V1 and V2 vehicle guides, you can see the text is 99.99999999% cut and pasted. Unit histories are word for word the same. Therefore, the RDF Sourcebook didn't need to be updated - it's still the same damn thing.
Look a little more and you'll see that after about December 1996, the history in the BYB is also cut and pasted form V1 - http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3109

Originally Posted by Olefin

And frankly whats in another version doesnt play here.

So you're the spokesperson for absolutely everyone then? How'd that happen? I didn't see a vote on it...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Actually the FAR deployed to Africa starting in 1995 according to the RDF

Actually, part of the FAR deployed to Africa starting in 1995. As far as I can tell, two Divisions of the FAR never left Metropolitan France and a third Division has only went as far (no pun intended) as Belgium.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That makes sense since France was technically and practically a neutral. Attacking the capital is IMO an outright and unmistakable declaration of WAR!! (as if nuking anything else wasn't...?)

I agree. It makes sense to me as well, but it is one of the things that comes up from time to time in discussions of how heavily France was attacked in 1997. The Big Yellow Book does state that Marseille is the largest undamaged City in France, but as mentioned before, Marseille is the second largest City in France anyway (after Paris) so that doesn't really help clear things up. Nevertheless, it's useful to find confirmation that whilst Paris appears to have suffered some damage (somehow) during 1997 it appears to be still able to function as the French Capital / Seat of Government in 1998.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That's pretty much what I was saying a few days back in another thread. The "missing" troops may either have never left France, or were withdrawn to the battered homeland to provide replacements/assistance on the borders and internal civil duties.

Sorry, was offline for a couple of days earlier in the week, so must have missed that. In any event, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Olefin

Sorry Leg - but its obviouis to anyone who looks at the order of battle and the number of men that they have taken casualties and thats why their units are smaller.

I think it's obvious that French units are operating with less than their normal peacetime complements. No doubt some of these losses are down to casualties suffered in combat, but as has been stated, there may be other reasons why units might be missing troops. Sickness and desertion are two that spring immediately to mind - there are probably others. In addition to that it appears that the French Army order of battle includes several units that don't exist IRL, so perhaps some of the missing troops were used as cadres for War raised Divisions.

[Olefin]

I agree completely with sickness and desertion having taken its toll. After all Africa is not exactly the healthiest place to be even when there is widespread medical aid and assistance.

And use what happened to the 13th Demi Brigade as the real indication - that unit started the war in Africa as it was in Djibouti since the early 60's. If they are down that many men (300 out of 800) then clearly there has been some serious fighting with the French in Africa.

And since the RDF does clearly mention fighting with anti-Soviet guerrilas in two countries then they did take casualties.

And the FAR, at least the components as mentioned in the game, have been in Africa for quite some time.

More than enough for the French to take the losses and reduction in forces seen here.

As for transferring men - the Legionaires would stay with the Legion regiments. The airborne and marines could be transferred elsewhere but the Legion stays in their own units. Thats a very long standing tradition.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

There's another reason why French units outside Metropolitan France may have less armoured vehicles - they were never issued the full complement in the first place. Despite what real world TOE's state, a number of French units deployed outside France never had the number of armoured vehicles that they should have had.

My source? An old friend who was an Infantry Corporal in the French Foreign Legion in the late 1980s-early 1990s who had been stationed in Djibouti for a few years plus spent time in French Guiana.

One particular thing I remember him saying was that one of the infantry units in Djibouti didn't have the full number of APCs allocated and the base they were stationed at was still operating two SdKfz251 halftracks (that had been refurbished in France after WW2 and sent to French units in Djibouti in the 1950s).

Yes this is anecdotal but it's not atypical of overseas deployments for some militaries and could be used to help explain the lower number of armoured vehicles compared to what the official lists state it should be.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I agree completely with sickness and desertion having taken its toll.

Ok, so sounds like we're agreed that if you look at the order of battle and the number of men it's obvious that they have taken casualties in combat, and suffered losses due to desertion, sickness, and possibly a host of other reasons and thats why their units are smaller. Maybe one of their ships sunk en route (I think someone mentioned the possibility of the Soviets torpedoing one in one of the threads about this, but a ship could go down for a number of reasons other than enemy action)

(It also occurred to me last night that one of those unidentified reasons could be that the French troops in Quebec could have come from units assigned to the FAR).

Originally Posted by Olefin

After all Africa is not exactly the healthiest place to be even when there is widespread medical aid and assistance.

To be fair, my comments about sickness were intended to refer to French forces in general, not Africa specifically, but you make a good point.