French block airlift of British troops to Basra

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:48:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.

Yes, that was mentioned in the CBS video. I didn't realize that they'd
come from North Africa--thought maybe they'd been sea-lifted from
Dunkirk and then moved around the Horn to Egypt.

The video also mentioned Free Polish troops in the 8th Army. How did
they get to Egypt?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

4 July 1940 near Gibraltar 3 French Hawks attacked a Sunderland of coastal
command. 1 Hawk downed, 1 damaged.

The French in North Africa also flew the Hawk H-75s (P-36 types)
against U.S. Navy Wildcats during Operation Torch. I think some DB-9?
(A-20 type) light bombers were also used. I don't remember the exact
outcome, but the French got the worst of it.

I believe that was the only instance in WWII where American pilots had
to fight against American-built planes, though of course the
Russo-Finnish Continuation War saw instances of Brewster Buffaloes in
combat against Lend-Lease P-40s and perhaps P-39s.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in
m:

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.


Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Brooks

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
appropriate.

--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."

-- Winston Churchill

(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in
m:

US troops always grumble; part of what makes US troops unique, I
guess.


Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Brooks

Ah how disappointing. I thought you were quipping. Damn.

Grantland

In message , Kevin
Brooks writes
Drewe Manton wrote in message
. 1.4...
Hardly! It's a characteristic of soldiers the world over, and led one
British CO to say "if the men are moaning, things are okay, when they STOP
moaning I'll start worrying because something is seriously wrong"

That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
officers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

Depends when it happened. We're seriously into "Commander's Intent" here
now and have been for some time; which means that subordinates need to
not only know the task but what it's supposed to achieve. (Of course, it
was not always thus...)

This allows them a chance to ask and answer "What would my CO want me to
do if he could see these altered circumstances?" more effectively than
dogmatically obeying the letter of their orders.


Also depends at what level the question is asked: you don't expect to
have to explain why "stand sentry over these arcs until relieved" is
necessary and where that action will fit into the Joint Campaign Plan
when a corporal tasks a soldier to do so. You _certainly_ don't want to
get into debate when you call for supporting fire...

Finally, depends on the unit. Some regiments _do_ seem to prefer "shut
up, salute, smile, obey" and reluctantly accept CI, while others
strongly encourage "make sure the purpose is understood".


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:10:58 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:


I wasn't thinking the anger of the French people would be directed at the
UK.

Why ever not, it has been for the last thousand years or so.

I've been watching the CBS Video History of WWII. Last night was
Torch, the invasion of North Africa. The U.S. troops landed first
because the Allies believed that the French would be less likely to
fire on them than the British, because of the "hatred" (Walter
Cronkite's word) they bore for the Brits.

To be sure, the lower the rank, the less this attitude prevailed. And
in the end, when the Allies moved east to Tunisia, French colonial
forces joined them.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

But not before firing on US and UK ships and troops. The French, in a
typically French action, changed sides as soon as they saw that they
were on the losing end.

France is an enemy country.

Al Minyard

formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it), thru
iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:48:52 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

To be fair some French colonial forces joined the British
fighting the Germans and Italians long before Torch.

Yes, that was mentioned in the CBS video. I didn't realize that they'd
come from North Africa--thought maybe they'd been sea-lifted from
Dunkirk and then moved around the Horn to Egypt.

The video also mentioned Free Polish troops in the 8th Army. How did
they get to Egypt?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

:That would appear to be a restatement of an old maxim. True enough
:that troops the world over do grumble; my mistake for using the word
:"unique", as opposed to maybe "typical of". ISTR it was one of your
fficers who was somewhat amazed that US troops tended to have to be
:told the "why" of their orders, as opposed to the quaint "yes, sir,
:three bags full, sir" type of response to which he was accustomed...

US troops are trained to expect and get explanations of what they're
doing and why. It's the only way they can intelligently fulfill their
orders and know when initiative in the field is and is not
appropriate.

"Are trained"? No, Fred, this tendancy was established long before the
more recent concentration on "auftragstactik" (or however the hell it
is spelled in the original German). Comments on this date back to at
least the First World War, and it was more a result of the US practice
of depending upon citizen soldiers, along with the rather independent
streak to be found in Americans who deplored the idea of being placed
below anyone on a social, or for that matter military, ladder. ISTR
reading that it is a trait shared with Aussie troops who frequently
displayed it to their British superiors.

Brooks

Speaking of the Free Polish units fighting in North Africa:

formed from prisoners in the USSR (following hitler's attack on it), thru
iran, iraq, palestine to egypt.


Thanks for that. I once knew a Polish woman in England who had
traveled the same route as a girl: from Lvov to Siberia to Persia (I
think that's Iran) to Egypt, thence to England where she had
relatives.

The story she told was this: that President Roosevelt swapped M-1
rifles for Poles, one rifle = one Pole. This could of course have been
a wild tale based on her knowledge of Lend Lease, but it's interesting
that she believed it.

It never occurred to me that Stalin was in the business of swapping
perfectly good soldiers to the west, even if there was a rifle in it!

(Lvov I believe is now in Ukraine. Poland emerged from the war a bit
smaller and shifted to the westward. At the time it was called "The
Country on Rollerskates.")

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com