Check out our supplemental video detailing the past 30 years of 🇫🇷 French Tank Regiments: th-cam.com/video/aKEBYcDj8Tw/w-d-xo.html Also, I recommend this article looking at the thoughts of French General Guy Hubin, who has been influential in French staff officer education: warontherocks.com/2021/02/kill-the-homothetic-army-gen-guy-hubins-vision-of-the-future-battlefield/ I don't agree with all of the points, given the relative linearity and attritional warfare we're seeing in Ukraine (and the persistent need for mass in both fires and maneuver forces). Shurkin (a RAND guy who wrote the article on Hubin) references Hubin was wrong about technology being able to get rid of the fog of war. But it is still an interesting perspective that ties into parts of this video. The strategic-level, talking about non-kinetic forms and political aims of war is something that are often only glossed over by tactically/operationally-minded doctrine publications the U.S. Army puts out. The author talks about technological advancements in the 90s enabling greater dispersion (through stuff like blue force tracker) and staying mobile more often (through fire-on-the-move capability on tanks). Because of the great dispersion and mobility Hubin expects on his modern battlefield, enemies and friendlies would inevitably get mixed together. This would present an even greater security challenge to maneuver units than the more conventional examples of dispersion I described. As I stated, the doctrinal reason for dispersion has to do with the threat of enemy fires, and the need to separate both to minimize damage of incoming indirect fire and to avoid detection altogether. To Hubin, forces should aim to stay dispersed while coaxing the enemy into concentrating by closing in, which allows friendly artillery to neutralize them. If anyone is familiar with the U.S.'s Pentomic Army concept in the 1950s, which called for big dispersion to avoid getting nuked, that concept at the time didn't solve the problems dispersion caused. Namely inability to concentrate, the enemy being able to slip through the cracks without a big risk of getting fires massed on them, bad command and control, and an inability to sustain the force. Hubin seems more keen on embracing the chaos and completely re-structuring how military units function. Hubin's max dispersal/decentralization reduces the size of units of action. France commonly employs task-organized company teams (SGTIAs) as its basic deployable unit (which can form battalion-sized GTIAs) and even employs task-organized combined arms platoons (DIAs) based on patrols. Hubin's call for all units to be fluid and the platoon to be the only predefined structure is sort of radical but is functionally close to how the currently French Army generates forces. There isn't really a "company" or "squadron" doctrine. There is an "SGTIA" doctrine that is based on platoons pulled together from different regiments for deployments. This has been fine for the relatively low-commitment conflicts France has fought recently and is likely to fight in the future. I question how well a force designed to fight as companies or battalion task forces, maybe brought together in a couple of ad-hoc brigades for very large deployments (by French standards) would do in a conventional conflict in Eastern Europe. The author goes on, "security [to Hubin] means not stopping and even mixing with the enemy... security now lies in initiative and in having the best understanding of the situation." Basically surprising the enemy is less about hiding completely (because advanced sensors notionally make that less practical) and more about having the best situational awareness, deciphering the most relevent information first, and coordinating ones' highly dispersed subunits first. Technology has, in-fact, not made fog of war go away as Hubin thought, but parts of the Ukraine war could be a case study for this idea. For example, although there is indication that the Russians could detect Ukrainian forces massing near Kharkiv for their September 2022 counteroffensive, the Ukrainians still achieved operational surprise. This reads as tacitly placing a heavy emphasis on heavily decentralized reconnaissance and security elements, as well as resources that make platoons more independent. This was the purpose of the various iterations of scouts and infantry/security that have been added to French armored platoons over the decades. It also places an emphasis on making quick decisions ("trusting one's gut") and staying mobile. The sci-fi answer to this problem seems to be technological (sensors and simulations); the more practical version is if you have a better appraisal of the situation than the enemy then the gamble you take isn't as bad.
Greetings from the First Foreign Cavalry regiment. I am a gunner on the AMX10. Your content is highly accurate and informative even to a professional like me. Keep it up!
@@maszk9743 Things like training and life there. I know what kind of jobs infantry, paras and engineers do but I don't know much about what cavalry units do. And I heard life is easier in 1rec compare to other regiments from other Legionnaires I've talk with.
Each time you speak about France and French Military, you are right. I really appreciate your content, wich is amazing. I can see your respect for our military tradition and tactics, and for that i thank you very much. I very like your video "Dompaire 44'" btw. Keep doing your stuff, you are very good in it. Greetings from France ! 🇫🇷
@@christiandauz3742 France had better infantry, but germany had mass produced beyond visual range artillery. But that wasn't the main issue: inner politics, and part of the politic and military high rank favouring a defeat for a regime change, like in 1940, was the main issue. Jeeps wouldn't change much in such a setting.
@@christiandauz3742 Right. Beyond visual range was 1914, my bad. But the imbalance was of the same order: 900 muzzle loaded french guns with 4km range facing 2200 rear loaded german guns with 6km range.
Man, the more I learn about the French forces and their doctrines the more I love their ways of warring lol. Honestly, I think that if you are a rich modern country but not a super power like the US, China or Russia. I think the best doctrine for you is following that of the French or Swedish doctrines. They are brilliantly set up and up to date tactics that, unlike their super power counterparts, they don't rely on out numbering or outspending their enemies.
As a French : thank you ! We are pretty proud of our ways of doing things and tactics is one of them. Glad to see great channels like Battle Order share more knowledge about us to the anglo-saxon world !
Not too sure Russia can be counted as a super power anymore. I mean, yes they have nukes but they don’t really shine currently in Ukraine. And given China still has strongly Russian-influenced equipment (their more recent ones have barely past prototype stage) am not too sure they neither count as power on par with US and NATO.
@@Ndriana I can get the Russian part. Their performance in Ukraine is abysmal. But for China wdym? Based on what I have seen, while China still field a good amount of equipment that is based on Russian designs (namely the flankers, tracked ifv’s, and some artillery platforms), everything else is domestic and they are definitely not in the prototype stage.
@@Stealingiscaring it stil relies extensivelly on Russian technology. Not to mention doctrine and orginization. PLA is still in many ways copy of Russian army.
@@Ndriana I do agree that Russia is no longer deserving of being considered a super power, but let's not forget that before the war ukraine also had some formidable forces too, iirc, Ukraine has more tanks than both France and Germany combined etc... Also regarding China, it is quite egregious to underestimate them, they've been massively upgrading their doctrines and Technologies since the 2000s, and their strengths was never about their tech but rather their industry. Imo, just because they are our countries rivals doesn't mean we should assume that they are inferior in war.
I actually like the French terms more than the American ones. And The Chieftain noted that having the scout vehicles also allows for the tanks to be fully crewed. He noted that in Iraq his Abrams platoon was often down to three crew per tank because of leave or sickness. So being able to pull one of the dismounts to help with maintenance or even crew replacement makes a huge amount of sense.
Absolutely loving the greater coverage of the French army. It would be cool to see a video on the new Scorpion programme vehicles such as the Jaguar, Serval, and Griffon, along with their usage and organization in French infantry units.
Yeah those are some of my favourite videos too. It really shows something alternative to the American school of thoughts while not being totally bonkers like the Russian one.
@@realityapostasy2158 I don't think Russian doctrine is that bad. Its mostly just poorly executed and in a incomplete transitory phase. It's also somewhat dated relative to their current military composition. Their original ideas dated to the 20s and 30s, mastered over WW2 and adapted for the cold war era. Russia doesn't have the size nor industrial capability that their doctrine is supposed to leverage. Another issue is that Russia tries to incorporate Western/'war on terror' methodology in its modernization to their pre-existing one resulting in stuff like their BTGs. Its ad hoc, and lower echelon nature make BTGs more suited for counter insurgency yet it is still very vehicle heavy and infantry light from its Soviet days, more suited for armored breakthroughs. The result is that its great at neither. -I guess you could argue that this aspect of it is kind of bonkers
@@neurofiedyamato8763 the BTG is aping something the US has been doing since the sixties, Brigading. Brigades are the smallest combined arms formations in the US Army. They have all the same capabilites, on a basic level, as a BTG when it comes to fires and, depending on the type, menuever. The advantage the brigade combat team has is that it has much more in the way of bayonet strength. BTGs have been a poorly executed method of applying cold war era lessons to conventional forces.
The French Navy lost much of its ships either in the invasion, Allied bombings or the Toulon scuttling. When time to reconquer France came, sailors volunteered to fight on land and were made into a tank destroyer regiment, because it was tought that tank to tank combat most ressembled naval warfare and sailors would be used to tight spaces, handling turrets and working in crews. That's why they named their tanks after their lost ships. Charles De Gaulle's own son Philippe, then a midshipman, fought in that regiment, including in the liberation of Paris. He's still alive to this day, now 100 and a retired admiral
Concerning the roots of France operating their armor that way: You can already find that in how they deployed their armored cars in World War 1. The American Army post-WW1 was a carbon copy of the French Army for quite some time after so it might be a case of the master learning from the student learning from the master.
The US Army certainly borrowed a lot from French armoured doctrine during WW1 but during the interwar years, the US Army was as unique and quirky as they come.
@@voiceinthewilderness7596 That's true and they also copied some stuff from the British during the 1920s and 1930s but because of the rivalry's within the US Army, they also developed some unusual doctrine and a uniquely American force structure. The vast territory of the US and the variety of environments that the Army operates in also drove this, particularly the southern mountainous canyon rich desert areas bordering Mexico. There was a belief in the US that they could avoid entanglement in expensive foreign wars and would not be drawn back into Europe, so the last relevant war (in terms of informing the development of doctrine) was argued by some to be the last war with the Mexico and that had some unique lessons when compared to the First World War.
@@maliceharding4668 Absolutly false. During WW1 US Army fully conformed to French military doctrine and had absolutly no interest in that of the British. I refer you on the presentation on this subject by Pr. Michael S.Neiberg of the Mississipi University about the 2.Battle of the Marne 1918 on youtube. th-cam.com/video/Aey6nVhZpcU/w-d-xo.html Follow that documentary from start to finish, including final questions, and you'll realize how wrong what you write is.
@@alex-ragnarson3482 There is a program called VBAE for it. Arquus has submitted a platform based on the Scarabe to replace the VBL and Thales, another one based on the Hawkei (which is in service in Australia). But a totally new platform in the context of the SCORPION and TITAN project is more likely. The animation videos about Scorpion vehicles featuring the VBAE don't hint to the Scarabee or Hawkei being chosen. They show a totally different vehicle we've never seen.
@@MrRAFALE1 Welll, no. The Griffon and Serval are succeeding the VAB and its many variants (so as the multirole APC platform). The VBL successor program is the VBAE. They are not APCs but light scout/recon cars.
4:00 This is pretty ironic, because the US army was based off of the French one for a long time even after the revolution. For example, as a Civil War reenactor, much of my uniform is based off of French styles. My hat, coat and trousers are all something that, recoloured, wouldn't be remiss in the French Army of the time. Also, the manual of arms was adapted from a French manual. I don't count the minie ball, since that was a technology, adopted by even the British (in fact, the Enfields of the time used the same caliber bullet as the Springfields). Heck, even the first muskets made by Springfield and used by the army were direct copies of the French Charleville, and the only changes (at first) were Springfield and Army marks.
Even before the Civil War, French Infantry doctrine (REGLEMENT CONCERNANT L'EXERCICE ET LES MANŒUVRES DE L’INFANTERIE. Du 1er. Août 1791) was used by the US Army in the war of 1812 for Line Infantry. General Scott's INFANTRY TACTICS OR RULES FOR THE EXERCISE AND MANOEUVERS OF THE UNITED STATES INFANTRY is very similar.
@@TheTrueAdept Thats straight up not true The american military was cored around the french military ever since the american war of independence. The uniforms, weapons, tactics and organisation were all copied and pasted from the french army, since France was the main ally of the american revolutionaries, same thing for the navy. Many french generals, and admirals were sent to train american troups and alot of french soldiers and even more french sailors fought during the war on american soil and maritime territory.
Very fascinating, I think I prefer France's manoeuvre approach rather than heavy armoured protection, favoured by the UK, US and Germany. There's something else you should know, armoured infantry regiments also have VBL scouts, that work in tandem with VBCI infantry, their role is similar to VBL scouts in armoured cavalry squadrons, as highlighted in the video. Overall, it's impressive France thinks outside of European theatres, their doctrine is more flexible than the traditional NATO style, of holding and defending against heavy threats, this works in Europe due to superb infrastructure, and solid terrain that will not hinder armoured deployment. Heavy armour meant to defend the Fulda Gap is not as practical in varied terrain, and limited infrastructure found in Africa or Asia, perhaps there is something all of NATO should take note, and form a more flexible, more current and more mobile doctrine like France.
I think it's a good system in the modern battlefield where situational awareness is so important with the abundance of drones and man portable anti tank
The French mix would be nearly perfect even today, say against a russian BTG. You kill the 10 or so tanks with ATGMs then unlease something like a modern version of the AMX30 to chase off the BMP/BTR/MTLBs. The key to Maneuvre Warfare is to set up ambushes for your enemy. You don't fight meeting enangagements, you don't attack strongpoints. So, what you need is info-supremacy and speedy movements (in order to get in front of your enemies in strength).
Once again an excellent video ! I'm 100% biased since I'm French but everything France related that you cover is always awesome. I would LOVE to see a video from you talking about the Scorpion Program and the vehicules (and doctrines) associated with it ! Keep up the good work ! 10/10
Always glad to see people give my country some good light and respect. Specially more so from american that many look down on us for some dark reasons. And this also shined some light for me since i never really looked up that stuff myself. I'm more fan of the FFL, as i'm son and step son to two french, french foreign legionaires, from the 2eme REP. (para troopers)
Okey sorry, I just had to pause the video to tell you, Mr BattleOrder, that I laughed crying hearing the cut-in French you didn't dare to pronounce. Thanks you, Sir, you made my day. And yes, I dare thank you in advance for yet another great video. I highly suspect this is as good as all the other content you brought us.
French military is a fascinating topic, always happy when you delve into it! For example, staying dispersed and then converging to attack is a very hot topic nowadays.
I like the french idea of Mobility over Protection as well as the Investigation Groups getting equiped with drones. I always thought maybe getting the auto-loader + a droner operator inside the tank would help too since you still got that extra hand but this seems a lot more reasonable
greetings from dompaire in france ! i 've done my military service in the 5 draagoon regiment (in 1994/1995) and i saw the very first tank leclerc near olds AMX 30B2 , at this time i was affected to the reconnaissance for the alpine division ( i was instructed like a alpine hunter to climb cliffs and so protect groups of tanks from attacks from behind ridges ) ...
Love this analysis. Respect the quality of the research. It is great that you recognise the specific contexts of France's missions over the last 60 years. I am tempted to say that the French predilection for light forces goes back further to Murat and Ney, to the spirit of "elan" but maybe that is pushing it.
The French army, more than others, has oscillated between an emphasis on defense and guerilla ops nd heavy protection once we got tanks (1870 / 1940) and an emphasis on maneuver warfare / light forces (1914 / the Cold War until the very end). You can say that modern days, with the Leclerc as a nod to the "heavy" side of things, are seeing a kind of equilibrium. It looks good on paper, our guys are properly trained and do have some combat experience - yet how that would work in the field is anybody's guess.
Since World War II, I really feel like the French have one of the best order of battle structures in the world. They've demonstrated themselves masterfully in Africa. I feel that they have more than redeemed themselves since the Great War.
I wonder how the french managed to conquer Vietnam in the first place. Maybe because of technological disparity. But nobody can beat beat Vietnam in Vietnam, just nobody....
@@andrewfischer8564 The French won the Algerian war of Independence. Militarily the rebel forces were gone, exterminated to the last or reincorporated into French forces at large against better living conditions and amnisties. Hell, most of the concepts of helicopter warfare were discovered and implemented in Algeria and then put to maturity by the Vietnam war. The defeat was political, not military.
I was an M1A1 abrams crewmember/driver and we had support from humvees all the time. They would scoot an poop around areas to find what could take us out before we got their
I love your videos about the french military. Theyre really interesting since France uses a very different way of fighting compared to other western militaries.
My time in the military started with enlisting into the Kansas ANG, my unit was E troop 114 Cav. The standard MTOE for a scout unit like that was similar to what you're talking about here, and an obvious throw back to the WW2 US Army TOE. I was a scout, 19D, the scout platoon used jeeps armed with M60 machine guns mounted on a pintle. The unit had M60a1 tanks (later M60a3s), a squad of infantry in a M113, a mortar platoon with the 4.2' mortars mounted in the back of a modified 113 (I forget the vehicle designation), a ground surveillance radar section, a Redeye section (older MANPADS, before the Stinger), a cook section, and mechanics. Later after a reorganization we scouted off of M113s, six to the platoon. The ITVs were later added (a horrible vehicle and idea for scouts), then much later another reorg resulted in a scout platoon using ten Humvees, mounting a mix of M2 .50BMGs and Mk19s
As a French people I have two things to say : the map 20:00 includes many different operations Chammal was limited to Special Ops, Support (air, navy, a few caesar), Somalia operations were Un Mandates or hostages rescue, Lybia only special forces and air support not like Afghanistan or Niger. It seems a bit mixing too many operations and i prefer when English people try to read French names, it's more funny
Yeah to the French a cavalry unit is a cavalry unit, unchanged in mission purpose since the days of the horse: It carrys out reconnaissance, with as much aggression as the situation allows and it exploits tactical opportunity.
There is never any information about the French military. I can't even recognize half of the vehicles. Given that they are the most agressive militaries in Europe it's nice to see more.
Truly great vid. This also helps to explain the doctrine behind the Scorpion program, which I find fascinating. The Griffon, Serval and Jaguar have had little attention from the anglo-saxon world, hope you can make a pass on this as well!
In general the American Obsession with loss mitigation and heavy armor is a weakness. We're very reliant on other kinds of scouting, but I think France is right. Going to look at a thing is still important.
This is something that I have been advocating for for the US Marine Corps for decades now. At the time I was in (late 80s to early 90s), the tank battalions consisted of 3 to 4 tank companies, a large anti-tank TOW company, and single Humvee scout platoon. Marine tank battalions rarely operated as a battalion, instead chopping companies and platoons to the infantry which was expected to provide their own scout and security assets. The problem is that those assets were optimized for infantry operations and were ill suited to high mobility armored warfare. This was not thought of as a problem because tanks were thought of as infantry support assets only. My concept would be to have tank battalions having 4 companies, with each company having 4 gun platoons of six tanks each and an organic scout/recon platoon with a mix of LAVs and Humvees. This would give the division regimental commanders much greater flexibility in a modern high mobility environment. I had hopes that the lessons from the Gulf War would be taken to heart. However, what they learned is that tanks (and by extension, tankers) are a pain in the ass to work with and they neatly solved that problem recently by disbanding the remaining tank units and retiring the MOS. I guess 100 years of proving our worth time and again in every major conflict just wasn't enough.
Captain here. The truth is that the Jeep in its natural habitat is a quite shy car since it has many predators to fear. The tank however needs to be cleaned from time to time from parasies. In a spectacular symbiosis nature evolved those totally different vehicles to live together. I love Nature.
not gonna lie this intrigued me on how the french army doctrine works especially when came to armored cars (or wheeled "tanks") like the Amx-10RC and AML-90 later the EBRC jaguar, VBLs designs to be Light armored but heavily Armed.
I can partially answer that. Wheeled AFVs were mostly supposed to conduct shoot and scoot ambushes (à friend was an ERC90 commander and they trained for that). They could also be used for maneuver warfare, especially in Africa - in Chad, French AML90's took part in highly mobile ops against Libyan proxies armed with Soviet equipment in the late 70's / mid 80's. Keep in mind as well that the AMX30 and 30B2 were very lightly armored (only marginally better than the 10RC), so, until the Leclerc entered service, even French tank units could not afford a head on attack against Soviet tanks.
France chose the wheel for most of its IFV, APC and other kinds of armored vehicles because they don't have the same logistical power the US enjoy. It is far easier to repair a broken wheel than try to find one specific piece's replacement in a broken track. Plus, with large enough wheels and tires the cross-country capacities and the mobility of the vehicle aren't that much lower than the track. So for a French army always low on funds it was a no-brainer. Right now, there has been several ground breaking innovations in wheel operability, for example the possibility to lower or increase the pression in the tire from the inside of the vehicle, which basically makes its crossing capacities on par with mid-line track, for a fraction of the price.
The VBL replacement, Arquus Scarabée and Panhard CRAB, can't come soon enough. Hybrid vehicle with an electric battery for silent, stealthy scouting near enemy lines will be a game changer. It's the jeep they just added ti Battlefield 2042 BTW. And an ERBC Jaguar inspired IFV is also on that game (shame the game is bad apparently). The new Abrams is hybrid for a reason, stealth, I guess the next French MBT will also be hybrid, making a silent and deadly combo with the Scarabee Jeep when running on the electric battery!
Before retirement I worked on production of the Leclerc Tank. When I was on a scuba diving holiday I was paired up with a real life French tanker he explained it to me. You get a group of battle tanks moving up the road they make a LOT of noise. You hear them coming miles away. So what you do is send out the "jeeps" to sniff around and find targets. They will light up the target with a lazer and call in a round from the tanks who fire from over the horizon. Bang, enemy dead. You heared them coming, never saw them.
At 13:45 the voice said éclairage and the image show the word éclairer both of those word basically mean lighting and the word that we use is éclaireur or basically reconnaissance. In any case really cool video can't wait for more
Fun facts Jeeps were made by Amc then owned by Renault which was owned by the french government. Chrysler bought Amc and Jeep because the Us government was salty to be tributary from the french government for some of their military vehicles
The music mix in this video was quite enjoyable (reminds me a bit of deus ex tense themes). There was one part where it kind of took away from the historical account with how loud it was. But overall another wonderful video with beautiful illustration.
If you would know my great grandparent is a creator of the french jeep but the project was abandoned for the américain jeep for say thanks at there. And he had this french jeep in this garage durring my childhoods. It's amazing the magi of internet
I want firstly to thank the poster and the maker of this video, a very great and accurate information. Then I saw many which are surprised French gave name to the Tank Destroyer M10 or to their jeeps of a navy regiment... It's an old tradition in french army and that doesn't only concern french Navy (called "La Royale" by tradition) ... In fact, french M4 of land army were equally named. and the tradition continued with AMX13 then AMX 30. Former AMX30B leader then 2nd to platoon leader on AMX30B in mechanised infantry regiment (5° RI (created in 1494 and called "Navarre"-dismantled in 1997) -based in Beynes near Paris then in 16° BCP based in Saarburg in the french zone of Germany). We had 3 infantry mechanised companies mounted on AMX10P (track+20 mm gun in turret+ a group of heavy infantry (AT infantry) ) and one MBT company mounted on AMX 30B (17 MBT+ 1 AMX10 P HQ multi-radios) in 4 combat platoons of 4 AMX 30B + a command platoon with 1 AMX 30B/1 AMX10P and many wheeled truck (GBC 8KT). In the 5° RI, my MBT name was " Monheurt 1621 ", name of a battle where french (catholics) troops of the Navarre Regiment defeated the coalised european protestants. In fact, depending on the style of combat we needed. The MBT Company may have been shared in 3 platoons of 4 AMX 30B directly integrated in the 3 AT infantry companies to bring heavy fire support. And the sharing may have gone further even, each of the 4 infantry platoons may have received 1 MBT each. The last 5 MBT were placed under direct command of the Colonel commanding the regiment as reserve. The 5th Infantry regiment was part of the 2nd armoured division (Leclerc division, the one the commentator spoke about in the video), and he had also an AT company on VAB equipped with HOT missile and a big reco platoon on VBL and also a light artillery platoon with 4 VAB tracting 120 mm mortars. the VBL, the mortars and the VAB HOT were included in the CEA (Compagnie d'Eclairage et d'Appui - Scouting and Support company). In fine, There were a CDI (Compagnie de Défense et d'Instruction - Defense and Instruction Company) and a CCL (compagnie de Commandement et de Logistique - Command and Logistics Company ). The combat organization chart could even evolve according to the circumstances. French army units made modularity a rule. The terrain, the enemy in front, his strength, his attitude (offensive or defensive), the result of our own maneuvers, everything was subject to a change of organization and use. there is a French military proverb that says " Le Terrain commande"... Literrally "Field commands", that means that we may have organised and planned an offensive or a defense days or hours before, but what counts is reactivity, all things can work bad even with the best preparation. it's up to commanders on the field to react. I remember many manoeuvers on the training field, and we may change the organisation of the regiment or the companies or even of the platoons, and this 3 or even 4 times a day. the interoperability between every type of soldiers and weaponry were very very important. I left army early in the 21st century to join gendarmerie and few things have changed, but interoperability in french army is even stronger now. The commentator spoke about serval operation... he may have precised that the interoperability was done that soldiers of many different regiments were put on the ground to form a tactical group at batalion or even company level. Most of the soldiers of the company had NEVER fought together. Anyway, Serval was an incredible success. US Army has shown true and sincere interests for the french way of GTIA (batalion level) and SGTIA (Company). We are far from the lazy French and the CESM meme. After WWII, french army is surely in the top 2 or top 3 involved in the most numerous conflicts.
Say what you like about the French, but the modern wars actually proves that French doctrines are probably the most suited for modern warfare. Had the Ukrainians adopted this kind of light vehicule + tank mix, they would have spare hundreds of unecessary losses both human and material while addressing the ATGM menace. Moreover this doctrine can also be adapted to improve drone awareness to save more tanks from loitering munitions and FPV drones.
At 17:30 I feel like this statement "Second, During a conventional war a big emphasis is placed on maximal dispersion before rapidly concentrating" is a doctrine ingrained the French for several centuries now since Napoleon. To quote from another great you tube channel "...allowing Napoleon to break with the old doctrine of keeping his army concentrated, and advance with his corps widely dispersed... This helped disguise his real objective and increased movement speed, because the army could advance along multiple roads... When the enemy's main force was located, the army could quickly concentrate for battle." - Epic History TV, Napoleon's Masterpiece: Austerlitz 1805
Nice, France's Military as a whole is very interesting/ unique for major Wester European forces. Also-- very much looking forward to more Polish Military videos (and TBH they do very well in the YT algorithm... so something for you to keep in mind, B.O.... well all crave more Wojsko Polskie)
I was in the US army and the thought of jeeps working with tanks was an insta-click as I've advocated such things when I was in the military. Not everything needs to be armored or should be armored.
The French are more smart than they get credit for when it comes to tactics. Mixing heavily armed and armored main battle tanks with light swift moving vehicles makes total sense from a strategic standpoint. You get the benefit of having accurate and up to date reconnaissance wherever your armored column goes and it gives you an added benefit when going up against light infantry. Plus they can be used to uncover ambushes and if something goes wrong you are only losing some light easily replaced and affordable reconnaissance vehicles instead of your main battle tanks.
My grandpa was in a recon unit driving a motorcycle with a side car in 1940, I think he was in something called "troupes de couverture". I heard that once he was sleeping under a tank and some nearby explosion caused him to suddenly sit up and almost knock himself out. Watching this video it all makes sense, his recon unit was probably attached to a Renault tank unit. Unfortunately he was later captured during the phony war, spent 5 years in prisoners camps in Silesia, escaped twice and came back having lost his teeth, weighing 45 kg for 1.9 m, but at least he was alive.
Very good video, which is interesting for the French, and, I hope, for others interested in other countries' doctrines. I am glad you made use of the French tactical handbook I pointed out earlier.
You can go even further than the 1950s. The Gens d'armes, (=gendarmes), at their inception, were small groups composed of one heavy cavalryman, two light cavarlymen, two bowmen and two infantry/spearmen ( eventually also on horse depending on the period ).
@@delphinelherondelle5693 Pas de problème. Au passage, encore avant, les Gens d'Armes étaient le plus souvent la suite d'un aristocrate en titre, membre de sa famille ( donc nobles ), et qui l'accompagnaient au combat; Donc relativement bien équipés et entraînés.
I've also read somewhere that during France's long history in Africa during colonization, it learned that wheeled vehicles were much better for this environment.
The Greek army also combines tanks with light vehicles Actually my specialty during my national service was " 1/4 ton scouting vehicle driver" that is a way to say jeep-like vehicles driver 😊
A solid solution would be Drones, a "light" tank with the mobility of a MBT something like a robotic tank or M5 Ripsaw Mobility stays high, high risk situations the troops can dismount and use the remote capabilities or maybe another robotic vehicle to probe a minefield or enemy position. The M5's (or the like) also deploy AT missile troops and "heavy infantry" to deal with obstacles or troops. The MBTs follow up with long-range support or direct tank-on-tank combat. The final pieces of the puzzle would be indirect fire and AA assets.
I don't know who you are but we have the same ideas, I am working to virtually design an unmanned armored combat vehicle. I named it “RCT Goliath”, it weighs 5 tonnes and measures 1.4 meters by 2, but I really see it as a heavily armed miniature tank.
Une vidéo très interressante , je suis impatient de voir une vidéo sur le nouveau programme d'armement GRIFFON , LYNX , JAGUAR etc... Merci encore pour cette vidéo de qualité 🇨🇵❤️
in the french point of having local security dispersed through the army could also be informed by the early stages of WWII many units rode to the front in platoon or company-sized columns to try and evade German air superiority, which posed issues in the high tempo of the Battle of France when you didn't know if your destination was still in allied hands, or if the supply platoon was lost (either to enemy action or literally no one know where it is) and thus officers had to send riders all around just to keep an eye on their unit, riders which had to be taken from the working elements of the column thus reducing combat effectiveness if they were surprised by enemy advances having organic security on high mobility scout platforms allows to retain the mobility and flexibility of small manoeuvre elements without losing an eye of the bigger plan or the happenings of the rest of the unit
Excellent video on French cavalry, as always. I just want to point out a misconception about French cavalry in Indochina. There is indeed a great time of austerity and inadaptation to the fight in the first time. Example, France will use abandoned Japanese tanks (yes !) because it was lacking of everything at the beginning. And when General Leclerc land he discover how its Sherman are poorly adapted to the terrain. The use of Humber and Brenn carrier on one hand and especially amphibious armoured crocodile and M29 weasel on another is the complete opposite of the first time. Theses vehicles have been CHOOSEN for their capability. Meaning for the non amphibious one, for their lightweight, able to pass on typical Vietnamese small road and for the amphibious one (especially the crocodile) for their hability to pass from a swamp to a road, to a bog, to a river to a rice field while carrying an infantry platoon, protecting it with its armor from all small arms and packing 4 machine gun to fire in all directions at the same time. And of course avoiding the ambush and the mine that are certainly waiting you on the road, this tactic have a name : Dinassaut. The use of all type water canal as the main artery for operation was the core of French Indochina war. And it is commonly accepted that the reason of the Dien Bien phu defeat, more than the inability to supply it by the air, was the fact that Dien Bien Phu was not connected to a large enough to allow small boat and amphibious vehicle to connect with it. On precedent entrenched camp it was realised (too late) that when everything goes wrong, the canal stay the only reliable way. In conclusion I would say that french army is a master of accomplishing the mission when you don't have the ressource for it BUT you have the liberty to improvise.
absolutely right. Among the fact that the manpower from the viet ming was colossal, I would had by this time French army was short in every thing, specialty air transport.They ask the American to provide air lift which was denied, to happy to see the French out of Indochina. Will know what happen few years latter...
I think the reason the French persist with this kind of formation is that after ww1 and ww2 are determined not to lose the ability to manoeuvre in a war ever again
in ww1 France was the most mobile army by the end. France truly birthed the wars of mechanized movement, which is why Germany copied it in WW2, while the French failed to further prioritize on it. They are now going the opposite side of the pendulum
@@johansmifthelry9307 I mostly agree with you. But in WWII, we France had some DLMs (3 of them) which were very similar in composition and use to the German Panzerdivisions. At the battle of Hannut in Belgium, the largest tank battle of the Campaign of the West 1940, the 2nd and 3rd DLMs proved to be more than a match for the 3rd and 4th Panzerdivisions so conceptually France armor mobility did not lag that much behind Germany. Where the Germans were really better in term of armor mobility was to combine the offensives of their Pzdv with air superiority and close air support something that the French units benefitted little from. Plus significant effort from the Germans to efficiently use radio communications when France was still mostly using flags and messengers in sidecars.
Hey I would adore a video on the Canadian army. Infantry, armour, aviation, navy even, anything, I just want someone who knows what they're talking about to cover Canada
Not a critique because I think you avoided this pitfall, but just wanted to remind non french viewer that the "RC" in "AMX 10RC" does NOT stand for "recon", but for "roues-cannon" (Cannon on wheels). This was necessary to differentiate it from from the "AMX 10P" (P= "personnel") which is... a tracked APC from the 60s (more or less similar to the US m113). Yes, it's highly confusing, even french people tend to mix these up.
Check out our supplemental video detailing the past 30 years of 🇫🇷 French Tank Regiments: th-cam.com/video/aKEBYcDj8Tw/w-d-xo.html
Also, I recommend this article looking at the thoughts of French General Guy Hubin, who has been influential in French staff officer education: warontherocks.com/2021/02/kill-the-homothetic-army-gen-guy-hubins-vision-of-the-future-battlefield/
I don't agree with all of the points, given the relative linearity and attritional warfare we're seeing in Ukraine (and the persistent need for mass in both fires and maneuver forces). Shurkin (a RAND guy who wrote the article on Hubin) references Hubin was wrong about technology being able to get rid of the fog of war. But it is still an interesting perspective that ties into parts of this video. The strategic-level, talking about non-kinetic forms and political aims of war is something that are often only glossed over by tactically/operationally-minded doctrine publications the U.S. Army puts out.
The author talks about technological advancements in the 90s enabling greater dispersion (through stuff like blue force tracker) and staying mobile more often (through fire-on-the-move capability on tanks). Because of the great dispersion and mobility Hubin expects on his modern battlefield, enemies and friendlies would inevitably get mixed together. This would present an even greater security challenge to maneuver units than the more conventional examples of dispersion I described. As I stated, the doctrinal reason for dispersion has to do with the threat of enemy fires, and the need to separate both to minimize damage of incoming indirect fire and to avoid detection altogether. To Hubin, forces should aim to stay dispersed while coaxing the enemy into concentrating by closing in, which allows friendly artillery to neutralize them.
If anyone is familiar with the U.S.'s Pentomic Army concept in the 1950s, which called for big dispersion to avoid getting nuked, that concept at the time didn't solve the problems dispersion caused. Namely inability to concentrate, the enemy being able to slip through the cracks without a big risk of getting fires massed on them, bad command and control, and an inability to sustain the force. Hubin seems more keen on embracing the chaos and completely re-structuring how military units function.
Hubin's max dispersal/decentralization reduces the size of units of action. France commonly employs task-organized company teams (SGTIAs) as its basic deployable unit (which can form battalion-sized GTIAs) and even employs task-organized combined arms platoons (DIAs) based on patrols. Hubin's call for all units to be fluid and the platoon to be the only predefined structure is sort of radical but is functionally close to how the currently French Army generates forces. There isn't really a "company" or "squadron" doctrine. There is an "SGTIA" doctrine that is based on platoons pulled together from different regiments for deployments. This has been fine for the relatively low-commitment conflicts France has fought recently and is likely to fight in the future. I question how well a force designed to fight as companies or battalion task forces, maybe brought together in a couple of ad-hoc brigades for very large deployments (by French standards) would do in a conventional conflict in Eastern Europe.
The author goes on, "security [to Hubin] means not stopping and even mixing with the enemy... security now lies in initiative and in having the best understanding of the situation." Basically surprising the enemy is less about hiding completely (because advanced sensors notionally make that less practical) and more about having the best situational awareness, deciphering the most relevent information first, and coordinating ones' highly dispersed subunits first.
Technology has, in-fact, not made fog of war go away as Hubin thought, but parts of the Ukraine war could be a case study for this idea. For example, although there is indication that the Russians could detect Ukrainian forces massing near Kharkiv for their September 2022 counteroffensive, the Ukrainians still achieved operational surprise.
This reads as tacitly placing a heavy emphasis on heavily decentralized reconnaissance and security elements, as well as resources that make platoons more independent. This was the purpose of the various iterations of scouts and infantry/security that have been added to French armored platoons over the decades. It also places an emphasis on making quick decisions ("trusting one's gut") and staying mobile. The sci-fi answer to this problem seems to be technological (sensors and simulations); the more practical version is if you have a better appraisal of the situation than the enemy then the gamble you take isn't as bad.
Hon Hon 😂
Great vid
Established titles is a scam btw
Always thought it was so they could run while being bulletproof
can you do a video on Italy?
Greetings from the First Foreign Cavalry regiment. I am a gunner on the AMX10. Your content is highly accurate and informative even to a professional like me. Keep it up!
How is 1 REC compared to other engineer or infantry regiments?
Gloire à notre Légion
@@phyo1716 In what aspects?
@@maszk9743 Things like training and life there. I know what kind of jobs infantry, paras and engineers do but I don't know much about what cavalry units do. And I heard life is easier in 1rec compare to other regiments from other Legionnaires I've talk with.
What's your opinion on Tomas Gast's Legionaire channel?
Each time you speak about France and French Military, you are right. I really appreciate your content, wich is amazing. I can see your respect for our military tradition and tactics, and for that i thank you very much. I very like your video "Dompaire 44'" btw. Keep doing your stuff, you are very good in it. Greetings from France ! 🇫🇷
Would Jeeps have been enough for France to win the Franco-Prussian War?
@@christiandauz3742 France had better infantry, but germany had mass produced beyond visual range artillery. But that wasn't the main issue: inner politics, and part of the politic and military high rank favouring a defeat for a regime change, like in 1940, was the main issue. Jeeps wouldn't change much in such a setting.
Surrender baguette
@@canicheenrage
Franco-Prussian War of 1871
@@christiandauz3742 Right. Beyond visual range was 1914, my bad. But the imbalance was of the same order: 900 muzzle loaded french guns with 4km range facing 2200 rear loaded german guns with 6km range.
Man, the more I learn about the French forces and their doctrines the more I love their ways of warring lol. Honestly, I think that if you are a rich modern country but not a super power like the US, China or Russia. I think the best doctrine for you is following that of the French or Swedish doctrines. They are brilliantly set up and up to date tactics that, unlike their super power counterparts, they don't rely on out numbering or outspending their enemies.
As a French : thank you ! We are pretty proud of our ways of doing things and tactics is one of them. Glad to see great channels like Battle Order share more knowledge about us to the anglo-saxon world !
Not too sure Russia can be counted as a super power anymore. I mean, yes they have nukes but they don’t really shine currently in Ukraine. And given China still has strongly Russian-influenced equipment (their more recent ones have barely past prototype stage) am not too sure they neither count as power on par with US and NATO.
@@Ndriana I can get the Russian part. Their performance in Ukraine is abysmal. But for China wdym? Based on what I have seen, while China still field a good amount of equipment that is based on Russian designs (namely the flankers, tracked ifv’s, and some artillery platforms), everything else is domestic and they are definitely not in the prototype stage.
@@Stealingiscaring it stil relies extensivelly on Russian technology. Not to mention doctrine and orginization. PLA is still in many ways copy of Russian army.
@@Ndriana I do agree that Russia is no longer deserving of being considered a super power, but let's not forget that before the war ukraine also had some formidable forces too, iirc, Ukraine has more tanks than both France and Germany combined etc... Also regarding China, it is quite egregious to underestimate them, they've been massively upgrading their doctrines and Technologies since the 2000s, and their strengths was never about their tech but rather their industry. Imo, just because they are our countries rivals doesn't mean we should assume that they are inferior in war.
I actually like the French terms more than the American ones. And The Chieftain noted that having the scout vehicles also allows for the tanks to be fully crewed. He noted that in Iraq his Abrams platoon was often down to three crew per tank because of leave or sickness. So being able to pull one of the dismounts to help with maintenance or even crew replacement makes a huge amount of sense.
Remember that the USA is literally named United States of America
That's a clear sign of their masterful naming abilities
@@tuluppampam😂🤣
Absolutely loving the greater coverage of the French army.
It would be cool to see a video on the new Scorpion programme vehicles such as the Jaguar, Serval, and Griffon, along with their usage and organization in French infantry units.
Man whenever you cover French small-formation combat tactics I get the happy vibes
Yeah those are some of my favourite videos too. It really shows something alternative to the American school of thoughts while not being totally bonkers like the Russian one.
@@realityapostasy2158 I don't think Russian doctrine is that bad. Its mostly just poorly executed and in a incomplete transitory phase. It's also somewhat dated relative to their current military composition. Their original ideas dated to the 20s and 30s, mastered over WW2 and adapted for the cold war era. Russia doesn't have the size nor industrial capability that their doctrine is supposed to leverage. Another issue is that Russia tries to incorporate Western/'war on terror' methodology in its modernization to their pre-existing one resulting in stuff like their BTGs. Its ad hoc, and lower echelon nature make BTGs more suited for counter insurgency yet it is still very vehicle heavy and infantry light from its Soviet days, more suited for armored breakthroughs. The result is that its great at neither. -I guess you could argue that this aspect of it is kind of bonkers
@@neurofiedyamato8763 the BTG is aping something the US has been doing since the sixties, Brigading. Brigades are the smallest combined arms formations in the US Army. They have all the same capabilites, on a basic level, as a BTG when it comes to fires and, depending on the type, menuever. The advantage the brigade combat team has is that it has much more in the way of bayonet strength.
BTGs have been a poorly executed method of applying cold war era lessons to conventional forces.
the french doing small formation tactics do really give off happy vibes
The most surprising thing was that the French named their jeeps as if they were battleships.
Well in the case of the tank destroyers, they were in the navy lol
Tank naming or even jeep naming should be mandatory!
The French Jeep- USS Idaho
The French Navy lost much of its ships either in the invasion, Allied bombings or the Toulon scuttling. When time to reconquer France came, sailors volunteered to fight on land and were made into a tank destroyer regiment, because it was tought that tank to tank combat most ressembled naval warfare and sailors would be used to tight spaces, handling turrets and working in crews. That's why they named their tanks after their lost ships.
Charles De Gaulle's own son Philippe, then a midshipman, fought in that regiment, including in the liberation of Paris. He's still alive to this day, now 100 and a retired admiral
The French have named their tanks since the beginning. You can see names painted on the turrets of French tanks destroyed in 1940.
The integration of recon and protection into US TD platoons is something that really didn’t get enough documentation. I’m glad you highlighted it.
Concerning the roots of France operating their armor that way:
You can already find that in how they deployed their armored cars in World War 1.
The American Army post-WW1 was a carbon copy of the French Army for quite some time after so it might be a case of the master learning from the student learning from the master.
the American army has always been different if anything we copied the British more
The US Army certainly borrowed a lot from French armoured doctrine during WW1 but during the interwar years, the US Army was as unique and quirky as they come.
@@aymonfoxc1442 Well, they certainly translated a lot of French manuals for use and their artillery doctrine, even in WW2, is distinctly French.
@@voiceinthewilderness7596 That's true and they also copied some stuff from the British during the 1920s and 1930s but because of the rivalry's within the US Army, they also developed some unusual doctrine and a uniquely American force structure. The vast territory of the US and the variety of environments that the Army operates in also drove this, particularly the southern mountainous canyon rich desert areas bordering Mexico.
There was a belief in the US that they could avoid entanglement in expensive foreign wars and would not be drawn back into Europe, so the last relevant war (in terms of informing the development of doctrine) was argued by some to be the last war with the Mexico and that had some unique lessons when compared to the First World War.
@@maliceharding4668 Absolutly false. During WW1 US Army fully conformed to French military doctrine and had absolutly no interest in that of the British. I refer you on the presentation on this subject by Pr. Michael S.Neiberg of the Mississipi University about the 2.Battle of the Marne 1918 on youtube. th-cam.com/video/Aey6nVhZpcU/w-d-xo.html Follow that documentary from start to finish, including final questions, and you'll realize how wrong what you write is.
That little VBL is gorgeous, such a retro-futuristic kind of vibe. Very good looking!
Yep it's good but old now...
It's being modernized but we wait for the new replacement 👍
@@alex-ragnarson3482 There is a program called VBAE for it. Arquus has submitted a platform based on the Scarabe to replace the VBL and Thales, another one based on the Hawkei (which is in service in Australia). But a totally new platform in the context of the SCORPION and TITAN project is more likely. The animation videos about Scorpion vehicles featuring the VBAE don't hint to the Scarabee or Hawkei being chosen. They show a totally different vehicle we've never seen.
@@Itachi951000 Yeah, i know about that ;) They say VBAE will be in service for 2025, not for now...
@@Itachi951000 The successor of the VBL is the Serval
@@MrRAFALE1 Welll, no. The Griffon and Serval are succeeding the VAB and its many variants (so as the multirole APC platform). The VBL successor program is the VBAE. They are not APCs but light scout/recon cars.
This guy just continues to not miss. I'm happy to be a patreon for this channel, content is top notch.
Ditto!
4:00 This is pretty ironic, because the US army was based off of the French one for a long time even after the revolution. For example, as a Civil War reenactor, much of my uniform is based off of French styles. My hat, coat and trousers are all something that, recoloured, wouldn't be remiss in the French Army of the time. Also, the manual of arms was adapted from a French manual.
I don't count the minie ball, since that was a technology, adopted by even the British (in fact, the Enfields of the time used the same caliber bullet as the Springfields).
Heck, even the first muskets made by Springfield and used by the army were direct copies of the French Charleville, and the only changes (at first) were Springfield and Army marks.
Even before the Civil War, French Infantry doctrine (REGLEMENT CONCERNANT L'EXERCICE ET LES MANŒUVRES DE L’INFANTERIE. Du 1er. Août 1791) was used by the US Army in the war of 1812 for Line Infantry. General Scott's INFANTRY TACTICS OR RULES FOR THE EXERCISE AND MANOEUVERS
OF THE UNITED STATES INFANTRY is very similar.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008 Indeed, I just chose the civil war since that's what I'm most familiar with.
We may add the first mass produced tank in the US (M1917 light tank) was a direct copy of the French tank Renault FT.
... the US was cored around _Prussian_ military doctrine, not French. The French came in later.
@@TheTrueAdept Thats straight up not true
The american military was cored around the french military ever since the american war of independence. The uniforms, weapons, tactics and organisation were all copied and pasted from the french army, since France was the main ally of the american revolutionaries, same thing for the navy. Many french generals, and admirals were sent to train american troups and alot of french soldiers and even more french sailors fought during the war on american soil and maritime territory.
Big thumbs up for covering non English Speaking countries. Anglosphere militaries already have loads of videos and info on them on TH-cam.
Your knowledge about French army is just exceptional, I'm surprised
Also the quality of production is great,
Fantastic video, so enjoyable !
Very fascinating, I think I prefer France's manoeuvre approach rather than heavy armoured protection, favoured by the UK, US and Germany. There's something else you should know, armoured infantry regiments also have VBL scouts, that work in tandem with VBCI infantry, their role is similar to VBL scouts in armoured cavalry squadrons, as highlighted in the video. Overall, it's impressive France thinks outside of European theatres, their doctrine is more flexible than the traditional NATO style, of holding and defending against heavy threats, this works in Europe due to superb infrastructure, and solid terrain that will not hinder armoured deployment. Heavy armour meant to defend the Fulda Gap is not as practical in varied terrain, and limited infrastructure found in Africa or Asia, perhaps there is something all of NATO should take note, and form a more flexible, more current and more mobile doctrine like France.
France and Italy have kept their land forces focused on mobility
I think it's a good system in the modern battlefield where situational awareness is so important with the abundance of drones and man portable anti tank
The French mix would be nearly perfect even today, say against a russian BTG. You kill the 10 or so tanks with ATGMs then unlease something like a modern version of the AMX30 to chase off the BMP/BTR/MTLBs. The key to Maneuvre Warfare is to set up ambushes for your enemy. You don't fight meeting enangagements, you don't attack strongpoints. So, what you need is info-supremacy and speedy movements (in order to get in front of your enemies in strength).
Why killing Russian tanks, just let them run out of fuel in transit and raid the soldiers trying to loot some food and supplies.
@@Vaasref I fully agree with you. That's the "cost-effective" defense, a very advanced strategy.
Indy 500 with tanks.
Good clear explanation of French doctrine. Well done! Chapeau!
French have a godly battle record since mediaeval ages,no wonder they are good at tactics. I'm much impressed by this doctrine
Once again an excellent video ! I'm 100% biased since I'm French but everything France related that you cover is always awesome. I would LOVE to see a video from you talking about the Scorpion Program and the vehicules (and doctrines) associated with it ! Keep up the good work ! 10/10
Un grand merci pour votre vidéo d'une qualité irréprochable comme à votre habitude ! :)
Always glad to see people give my country some good light and respect. Specially more so from american that many look down on us for some dark reasons.
And this also shined some light for me since i never really looked up that stuff myself. I'm more fan of the FFL, as i'm son and step son to two french, french foreign legionaires, from the 2eme REP. (para troopers)
Okey sorry, I just had to pause the video to tell you, Mr BattleOrder, that I laughed crying hearing the cut-in French you didn't dare to pronounce. Thanks you, Sir, you made my day.
And yes, I dare thank you in advance for yet another great video. I highly suspect this is as good as all the other content you brought us.
French military is a fascinating topic, always happy when you delve into it!
For example, staying dispersed and then converging to attack is a very hot topic nowadays.
that's basically what made Napoleon
It's interesting that this concept is very modern and very old at the same time.
I like the french idea of Mobility over Protection as well as the Investigation Groups getting equiped with drones. I always thought maybe getting the auto-loader + a droner operator inside the tank would help too since you still got that extra hand but this seems a lot more reasonable
french-german KNDS presented a very futuristic MBT concept called EMBT with this exact configuration.
@@alliotteraphael1073
Interesting. If that is so that explains a lot of design choices for the Panther MBT.
Leclerc has autoloader
greetings from dompaire in france ! i 've done my military service in the 5 draagoon regiment (in 1994/1995) and i saw the very first tank leclerc near olds AMX 30B2 , at this time i was affected to the reconnaissance for the alpine division ( i was instructed like a alpine hunter to climb cliffs and so protect groups of tanks from attacks from behind ridges ) ...
Love this analysis. Respect the quality of the research. It is great that you recognise the specific contexts of France's missions over the last 60 years. I am tempted to say that the French predilection for light forces goes back further to Murat and Ney, to the spirit of "elan" but maybe that is pushing it.
The French army, more than others, has oscillated between an emphasis on defense and guerilla ops nd heavy protection once we got tanks (1870 / 1940) and an emphasis on maneuver warfare / light forces (1914 / the Cold War until the very end). You can say that modern days, with the Leclerc as a nod to the "heavy" side of things, are seeing a kind of equilibrium. It looks good on paper, our guys are properly trained and do have some combat experience - yet how that would work in the field is anybody's guess.
Since World War II, I really feel like the French have one of the best order of battle structures in the world. They've demonstrated themselves masterfully in Africa. I feel that they have more than redeemed themselves since the Great War.
forgetting algeria and vietnam. may be since the 70's
I wonder how the french managed to conquer Vietnam in the first place. Maybe because of technological disparity. But nobody can beat beat Vietnam in Vietnam, just nobody....
@@andrewfischer8564 No, that wasn't forgotten in my statement.
Those wars were disasters.
@@andrewfischer8564 The French won the Algerian war of Independence. Militarily the rebel forces were gone, exterminated to the last or reincorporated into French forces at large against better living conditions and amnisties.
Hell, most of the concepts of helicopter warfare were discovered and implemented in Algeria and then put to maturity by the Vietnam war.
The defeat was political, not military.
same can be said about the us involvment
I was an M1A1 abrams crewmember/driver and we had support from humvees all the time. They would scoot an poop around areas to find what could take us out before we got their
I love your videos about the french military. Theyre really interesting since France uses a very different way of fighting compared to other western militaries.
My time in the military started with enlisting into the Kansas ANG, my unit was E troop 114 Cav. The standard MTOE for a scout unit like that was similar to what you're talking about here, and an obvious throw back to the WW2 US Army TOE.
I was a scout, 19D, the scout platoon used jeeps armed with M60 machine guns mounted on a pintle. The unit had M60a1 tanks (later M60a3s), a squad of infantry in a M113, a mortar platoon with the 4.2' mortars mounted in the back of a modified 113 (I forget the vehicle designation), a ground surveillance radar section, a Redeye section (older MANPADS, before the Stinger), a cook section, and mechanics.
Later after a reorganization we scouted off of M113s, six to the platoon. The ITVs were later added (a horrible vehicle and idea for scouts), then much later another reorg resulted in a scout platoon using ten Humvees, mounting a mix of M2 .50BMGs and Mk19s
As a French people I have two things to say :
the map 20:00 includes many different operations Chammal was limited to Special Ops, Support (air, navy, a few caesar), Somalia operations were Un Mandates or hostages rescue, Lybia only special forces and air support not like Afghanistan or Niger. It seems a bit mixing too many operations
and i prefer when English people try to read French names, it's more funny
the fact that you mentioned also the Italian Army makes me suppose that you're going to talk about that soon (😍). can't wait
I love French armored cars. Great video!
French armored cars, as a french, are just my biggest love.
Yeah to the French a cavalry unit is a cavalry unit, unchanged in mission purpose since the days of the horse: It carrys out reconnaissance, with as much aggression as the situation allows and it exploits tactical opportunity.
Using the Jeeps to spot for the Tanks is an very effective tactic. The first tank to spot the enemy and fire first generally wins.
There is never any information about the French military. I can't even recognize half of the vehicles. Given that they are the most agressive militaries in Europe it's nice to see more.
Try searching for it in French 😉
There's a lot of it, it's just hidden on the French side of the internet
For a long time the English world didn’t care about us
Truly great vid. This also helps to explain the doctrine behind the Scorpion program, which I find fascinating. The Griffon, Serval and Jaguar have had little attention from the anglo-saxon world, hope you can make a pass on this as well!
In general the American Obsession with loss mitigation and heavy armor is a weakness. We're very reliant on other kinds of scouting, but I think France is right. Going to look at a thing is still important.
This is something that I have been advocating for for the US Marine Corps for decades now. At the time I was in (late 80s to early 90s), the tank battalions consisted of 3 to 4 tank companies, a large anti-tank TOW company, and single Humvee scout platoon. Marine tank battalions rarely operated as a battalion, instead chopping companies and platoons to the infantry which was expected to provide their own scout and security assets. The problem is that those assets were optimized for infantry operations and were ill suited to high mobility armored warfare. This was not thought of as a problem because tanks were thought of as infantry support assets only.
My concept would be to have tank battalions having 4 companies, with each company having 4 gun platoons of six tanks each and an organic scout/recon platoon with a mix of LAVs and Humvees. This would give the division regimental commanders much greater flexibility in a modern high mobility environment.
I had hopes that the lessons from the Gulf War would be taken to heart. However, what they learned is that tanks (and by extension, tankers) are a pain in the ass to work with and they neatly solved that problem recently by disbanding the remaining tank units and retiring the MOS. I guess 100 years of proving our worth time and again in every major conflict just wasn't enough.
I recon 60+ tonne Abrams isn't well suited for island hopping. Not to mention traditional problems with budget. Besides USMC can afford to lose tanks.
Ne serait-il pas plus logique pour l’USMC d’avoir des chars légers ?
Bonjour de France 😊
@@SOFA858 it does
@@norbi1411 US has plenty of equally superb fast light armoured vehicles like those seen in the video & manned by superb US troops
Isn't the M10 Booker going to be fielded for the USMC ? I think this new light tank (call it whatever you like) would be a good choice.
Fresh and accurate information is a great force multiplier.
Love your coverage of French army. Most instructive...
Captain here. The truth is that the Jeep in its natural habitat is a quite shy car since it has many predators to fear. The tank however needs to be cleaned from time to time from parasies. In a spectacular symbiosis nature evolved those totally different vehicles to live together. I love Nature.
not gonna lie this intrigued me on how the french army doctrine works especially when came to armored cars (or wheeled "tanks") like the Amx-10RC and AML-90 later the EBRC jaguar, VBLs designs to be Light armored but heavily Armed.
I can partially answer that. Wheeled AFVs were mostly supposed to conduct shoot and scoot ambushes (à friend was an ERC90 commander and they trained for that). They could also be used for maneuver warfare, especially in Africa - in Chad, French AML90's took part in highly mobile ops against Libyan proxies armed with Soviet equipment in the late 70's / mid 80's. Keep in mind as well that the AMX30 and 30B2 were very lightly armored (only marginally better than the 10RC), so, until the Leclerc entered service, even French tank units could not afford a head on attack against Soviet tanks.
France chose the wheel for most of its IFV, APC and other kinds of armored vehicles because they don't have the same logistical power the US enjoy. It is far easier to repair a broken wheel than try to find one specific piece's replacement in a broken track. Plus, with large enough wheels and tires the cross-country capacities and the mobility of the vehicle aren't that much lower than the track. So for a French army always low on funds it was a no-brainer.
Right now, there has been several ground breaking innovations in wheel operability, for example the possibility to lower or increase the pression in the tire from the inside of the vehicle, which basically makes its crossing capacities on par with mid-line track, for a fraction of the price.
@@rollolol6053 right on target.
The VBL replacement, Arquus Scarabée and Panhard CRAB, can't come soon enough. Hybrid vehicle with an electric battery for silent, stealthy scouting near enemy lines will be a game changer. It's the jeep they just added ti Battlefield 2042 BTW. And an ERBC Jaguar inspired IFV is also on that game (shame the game is bad apparently). The new Abrams is hybrid for a reason, stealth, I guess the next French MBT will also be hybrid, making a silent and deadly combo with the Scarabee Jeep when running on the electric battery!
Before retirement I worked on production of the Leclerc Tank. When I was on a scuba diving holiday I was paired up with a real life French tanker he explained it to me. You get a group of battle tanks moving up the road they make a LOT of noise. You hear them coming miles away. So what you do is send out the "jeeps" to sniff around and find targets. They will light up the target with a lazer and call in a round from the tanks who fire from over the horizon. Bang, enemy dead. You heared them coming, never saw them.
At 13:45 the voice said éclairage and the image show the word éclairer both of those word basically mean lighting and the word that we use is éclaireur or basically reconnaissance. In any case really cool video can't wait for more
This is Brilliant !!! Having a VBL is great for the fact of its amphibious capablity!
Fun facts Jeeps were made by Amc then owned by Renault which was owned by the french government.
Chrysler bought Amc and Jeep because the Us government was salty to be tributary from the french government for some of their military vehicles
and now, chrysler and jeep are owned by stellantis, a franco-italian group.
Watching this after the French supplying the AMX-10RC and watching Perun's video with the French putting wheels on everything.
The Baguette is agile and aggressive 😎
The music mix in this video was quite enjoyable (reminds me a bit of deus ex tense themes). There was one part where it kind of took away from the historical account with how loud it was. But overall another wonderful video with beautiful illustration.
On one hand, I'm tired of the ET ads already but on the other hand I watched yours only because you included a time bar for it. Props.
Thanks!
2:34 Thank you for arranging a good pronunciation 👍
Are computers that good??
@@schnelma605 computers yes
If you would know my great grandparent is a creator of the french jeep but the project was abandoned for the américain jeep for say thanks at there. And he had this french jeep in this garage durring my childhoods. It's amazing the magi of internet
He have life 97years if you would know R.I.P.
I want firstly to thank the poster and the maker of this video, a very great and accurate information.
Then I saw many which are surprised French gave name to the Tank Destroyer M10 or to their jeeps of a navy regiment... It's an old tradition in french army and that doesn't only concern french Navy (called "La Royale" by tradition) ... In fact, french M4 of land army were equally named. and the tradition continued with AMX13 then AMX 30.
Former AMX30B leader then 2nd to platoon leader on AMX30B in mechanised infantry regiment (5° RI (created in 1494 and called "Navarre"-dismantled in 1997) -based in Beynes near Paris then in 16° BCP based in Saarburg in the french zone of Germany). We had 3 infantry mechanised companies mounted on AMX10P (track+20 mm gun in turret+ a group of heavy infantry (AT infantry) ) and one MBT company mounted on AMX 30B (17 MBT+ 1 AMX10 P HQ multi-radios) in 4 combat platoons of 4 AMX 30B + a command platoon with 1 AMX 30B/1 AMX10P and many wheeled truck (GBC 8KT).
In the 5° RI, my MBT name was " Monheurt 1621 ", name of a battle where french (catholics) troops of the Navarre Regiment defeated the coalised european protestants.
In fact, depending on the style of combat we needed. The MBT Company may have been shared in 3 platoons of 4 AMX 30B directly integrated in the 3 AT infantry companies to bring heavy fire support. And the sharing may have gone further even, each of the 4 infantry platoons may have received 1 MBT each. The last 5 MBT were placed under direct command of the Colonel commanding the regiment as reserve.
The 5th Infantry regiment was part of the 2nd armoured division (Leclerc division, the one the commentator spoke about in the video), and he had also an AT company on VAB equipped with HOT missile and a big reco platoon on VBL and also a light artillery platoon with 4 VAB tracting 120 mm mortars. the VBL, the mortars and the VAB HOT were included in the CEA (Compagnie d'Eclairage et d'Appui - Scouting and Support company). In fine, There were a CDI (Compagnie de Défense et d'Instruction - Defense and Instruction Company) and a CCL (compagnie de Commandement et de Logistique - Command and Logistics Company ).
The combat organization chart could even evolve according to the circumstances. French army units made modularity a rule. The terrain, the enemy in front, his strength, his attitude (offensive or defensive), the result of our own maneuvers, everything was subject to a change of organization and use. there is a French military proverb that says " Le Terrain commande"... Literrally "Field commands", that means that we may have organised and planned an offensive or a defense days or hours before, but what counts is reactivity, all things can work bad even with the best preparation. it's up to commanders on the field to react.
I remember many manoeuvers on the training field, and we may change the organisation of the regiment or the companies or even of the platoons, and this 3 or even 4 times a day. the interoperability between every type of soldiers and weaponry were very very important. I left army early in the 21st century to join gendarmerie and few things have changed, but interoperability in french army is even stronger now.
The commentator spoke about serval operation... he may have precised that the interoperability was done that soldiers of many different regiments were put on the ground to form a tactical group at batalion or even company level. Most of the soldiers of the company had NEVER fought together. Anyway, Serval was an incredible success. US Army has shown true and sincere interests for the french way of GTIA (batalion level) and SGTIA (Company).
We are far from the lazy French and the CESM meme. After WWII, french army is surely in the top 2 or top 3 involved in the most numerous conflicts.
doesn't Japan also do this? Combining their tank force with Komatsu LAV because there are not enough Type 89 IFV or Type 96 APC for that matter.
I've seen the Chieftain talk about it but I do not know the details myself
I really love learning about how other countries' military doctrines work
It's so fascinating just knowing how it all works and what for
I’ve noticed this when training with the French military and seeing it in action first hand confirmed it’s effectiveness for me.
Say what you like about the French, but the modern wars actually proves that French doctrines are probably the most suited for modern warfare. Had the Ukrainians adopted this kind of light vehicule + tank mix, they would have spare hundreds of unecessary losses both human and material while addressing the ATGM menace.
Moreover this doctrine can also be adapted to improve drone awareness to save more tanks from loitering munitions and FPV drones.
At 17:30 I feel like this statement "Second, During a conventional war a big emphasis is placed on maximal dispersion before rapidly concentrating" is a doctrine ingrained the French for several centuries now since Napoleon.
To quote from another great you tube channel "...allowing Napoleon to break with the old doctrine of keeping his army concentrated, and advance with his corps widely dispersed... This helped disguise his real objective and increased movement speed, because the army could advance along multiple roads... When the enemy's main force was located, the army could quickly concentrate for battle." - Epic History TV, Napoleon's Masterpiece: Austerlitz 1805
Battle Order your videos are so polished and neat
Nice, France's Military as a whole is very interesting/ unique for major Wester European forces. Also-- very much looking forward to more Polish Military videos (and TBH they do very well in the YT algorithm... so something for you to keep in mind, B.O.... well all crave more Wojsko Polskie)
That Jaguar armored vehicle looks pretty awesome.
It is. 40mm cannon with APFSDS, and MMP long range top-attack ATGMs (basically à Javelin with longer range and .... indirect fire capability)
@@nicolasmichon4344 so it's not basically a javelin
i'm not sure about the 40 mm cannon. also there's no coaxial!
@@norbi1411 it's better. Longer range, and more features (look up the demo vidéos on TH-cam).
@@norbi1411 why? It has both anti armor and antipersonnel ammo, and there is a GPMG on the turret.
I loved this episode!! I'm especially interested in Western European army structures
Okay. I misread the title, and am now disappointed the French didn't put tank treads, armor, and a turret on a Jeep.
www.ewillys.com/2014/07/18/olaughlin-tracked-vehicles/
The VBL is just plain sexy. No explanation needed
They invented the tank, and jeeps are just so cute!
Well, not quite invented a tank, but they were the ones to come up with the contemporary layout with the Renault Ft.
They didn't invent tanks, they pioneered the modern battle tanks that we have nowadays.
Love your vids as Always Battle Order ❤️
I like the idea of the extra personnel for maintenance, particularly with autoloader based vehicles.
I was in the US army and the thought of jeeps working with tanks was an insta-click as I've advocated such things when I was in the military. Not everything needs to be armored or should be armored.
The French are more smart than they get credit for when it comes to tactics. Mixing heavily armed and armored main battle tanks with light swift moving vehicles makes total sense from a strategic standpoint. You get the benefit of having accurate and up to date reconnaissance wherever your armored column goes and it gives you an added benefit when going up against light infantry. Plus they can be used to uncover ambushes and if something goes wrong you are only losing some light easily replaced and affordable reconnaissance vehicles instead of your main battle tanks.
I think that's cool and it's a great idea to name your Jeep and transport vehicles.
The new French looks Badass.
My grandpa was in a recon unit driving a motorcycle with a side car in 1940, I think he was in something called "troupes de couverture". I heard that once he was sleeping under a tank and some nearby explosion caused him to suddenly sit up and almost knock himself out. Watching this video it all makes sense, his recon unit was probably attached to a Renault tank unit. Unfortunately he was later captured during the phony war, spent 5 years in prisoners camps in Silesia, escaped twice and came back having lost his teeth, weighing 45 kg for 1.9 m, but at least he was alive.
Very great video :) from a former 2nd to platton leader on AMX30B (5th RI near Paris then 16th BCP near Trier in Germany).
Very good video, which is interesting for the French, and, I hope, for others interested in other countries' doctrines. I am glad you made use of the French tactical handbook I pointed out earlier.
You can go even further than the 1950s. The Gens d'armes, (=gendarmes), at their inception, were small groups composed of one heavy cavalryman, two light cavarlymen, two bowmen and two infantry/spearmen ( eventually also on horse depending on the period ).
Ooooh c'est de là que vient le nom, c'est fascinant 😮
(Sorry for french, i'm very bad speak english)
@@delphinelherondelle5693 Pas de problème.
Au passage, encore avant, les Gens d'Armes étaient le plus souvent la suite d'un aristocrate en titre, membre de sa famille ( donc nobles ), et qui l'accompagnaient au combat; Donc relativement bien équipés et entraînés.
@@canicheenrage woooah, ça bien changé depuis, ça a toujours été une branche de l'armée comme aujourd'hui ?
Great vid as always, I’m very interested in the Japanese modern vehicle configuration, feel as if they’re similar to the US/ French as well.
Japanese stuff below the regimental level is unknown to me
The quality of the visuals in this video is excellent!
Turns out this is my favorite army to play in Warno, agile and biting
I've also read somewhere that during France's long history in Africa during colonization, it learned that wheeled vehicles were much better for this environment.
The Greek army also combines tanks with light vehicles
Actually my specialty during my national service was " 1/4 ton scouting vehicle driver" that is a way to say jeep-like vehicles driver 😊
A solid solution would be Drones, a "light" tank with the mobility of a MBT something like a robotic tank or M5 Ripsaw Mobility stays high, high risk situations the troops can dismount and use the remote capabilities or maybe another robotic vehicle to probe a minefield or enemy position. The M5's (or the like) also deploy AT missile troops and "heavy infantry" to deal with obstacles or troops. The MBTs follow up with long-range support or direct tank-on-tank combat. The final pieces of the puzzle would be indirect fire and AA assets.
I don't know who you are but we have the same ideas, I am working to virtually design an unmanned armored combat vehicle. I named it “RCT Goliath”, it weighs 5 tonnes and measures 1.4 meters by 2, but I really see it as a heavily armed miniature tank.
That kitted up little Peugeot is a nifty looking vehicle!
Une vidéo très interressante , je suis impatient de voir une vidéo sur le nouveau programme d'armement GRIFFON , LYNX , JAGUAR etc...
Merci encore pour cette vidéo de qualité 🇨🇵❤️
in the french point of having local security dispersed through the army could also be informed by the early stages of WWII
many units rode to the front in platoon or company-sized columns to try and evade German air superiority, which posed issues in the high tempo of the Battle of France when you didn't know if your destination was still in allied hands, or if the supply platoon was lost (either to enemy action or literally no one know where it is) and thus officers had to send riders all around just to keep an eye on their unit, riders which had to be taken from the working elements of the column thus reducing combat effectiveness if they were surprised by enemy advances
having organic security on high mobility scout platforms allows to retain the mobility and flexibility of small manoeuvre elements without losing an eye of the bigger plan or the happenings of the rest of the unit
I love the French and all their quirkyness👍🇫🇷
CAAT used to work with tanks when they were a thing in the USMC. Similar concept, works really well
Believe they still do & Very well both in USMC (0352s) & US Army
Excellent video on French cavalry, as always. I just want to point out a misconception about French cavalry in Indochina. There is indeed a great time of austerity and inadaptation to the fight in the first time. Example, France will use abandoned Japanese tanks (yes !) because it was lacking of everything at the beginning. And when General Leclerc land he discover how its Sherman are poorly adapted to the terrain. The use of Humber and Brenn carrier on one hand and especially amphibious armoured crocodile and M29 weasel on another is the complete opposite of the first time. Theses vehicles have been CHOOSEN for their capability. Meaning for the non amphibious one, for their lightweight, able to pass on typical Vietnamese small road and for the amphibious one (especially the crocodile) for their hability to pass from a swamp to a road, to a bog, to a river to a rice field while carrying an infantry platoon, protecting it with its armor from all small arms and packing 4 machine gun to fire in all directions at the same time. And of course avoiding the ambush and the mine that are certainly waiting you on the road, this tactic have a name : Dinassaut. The use of all type water canal as the main artery for operation was the core of French Indochina war.
And it is commonly accepted that the reason of the Dien Bien phu defeat, more than the inability to supply it by the air, was the fact that Dien Bien Phu was not connected to a large enough to allow small boat and amphibious vehicle to connect with it. On precedent entrenched camp it was realised (too late) that when everything goes wrong, the canal stay the only reliable way.
In conclusion I would say that french army is a master of accomplishing the mission when you don't have the ressource for it BUT you have the liberty to improvise.
absolutely right.
Among the fact that the manpower from the viet ming was colossal, I would had by this time French army was short in every thing, specialty air transport.They ask the American to provide air lift which was denied, to happy to see the French out of Indochina. Will know what happen few years latter...
the "fighting for information" part is interesting because I think we saw Ukrainians using exactly that but with Humvees instead.
Excellent and Outstanding Analysis!!!
I think the reason the French persist with this kind of formation is that after ww1 and ww2 are determined not to lose the ability to manoeuvre in a war ever again
in ww1 France was the most mobile army by the end. France truly birthed the wars of mechanized movement, which is why Germany copied it in WW2, while the French failed to further prioritize on it. They are now going the opposite side of the pendulum
@@johansmifthelry9307 I mostly agree with you. But in WWII, we France had some DLMs (3 of them) which were very similar in composition and use to the German Panzerdivisions. At the battle of Hannut in Belgium, the largest tank battle of the Campaign of the West 1940, the 2nd and 3rd DLMs proved to be more than a match for the 3rd and 4th Panzerdivisions so conceptually France armor mobility did not lag that much behind Germany. Where the Germans were really better in term of armor mobility was to combine the offensives of their Pzdv with air superiority and close air support something that the French units benefitted little from. Plus significant effort from the Germans to efficiently use radio communications when France was still mostly using flags and messengers in sidecars.
Hey I would adore a video on the Canadian army. Infantry, armour, aviation, navy even, anything, I just want someone who knows what they're talking about to cover Canada
4:25 Spah creepin around here is what I immediately thought, lol.
Hope to see on organization of French infantry eventually
This video covers it from the squad to platoon level: th-cam.com/video/2s_rowtboNI/w-d-xo.html
@@BattleOrder thanks
Your best yet. Loved it.
Not a critique because I think you avoided this pitfall, but just wanted to remind non french viewer that the "RC" in "AMX 10RC" does NOT stand for "recon", but for "roues-cannon" (Cannon on wheels). This was necessary to differentiate it from from the "AMX 10P" (P= "personnel") which is... a tracked APC from the 60s (more or less similar to the US m113). Yes, it's highly confusing, even french people tend to mix these up.
I put roues-canon on screen at 9:58
@@BattleOrder yep noticed it at the second viewing (concentrated more on the audio as a non english native speaker)
very nice explanation ^^ we recently replace P4 by VT4.