Russian aircraft impounded in Nigeria, French weapons on board

[Reinhardt]

Nigeria detains Russian cargo plane with military shipment to Chad | Africa | Worldbulletin News (http://www.worldbulletin.net/africa/150056/nigeria-detains-russian-cargo-plane-with-military-shipment-to-chad)




Two Gazelle helicopters on board, an armored vehicle, spare parts, various stuff.


Russian crew, Russian aircraft Antonov 224, Russian company 224 Flight Unit operating for Russian MOD. Two French liaison officers on board.


As a very embarrassed French ambassador in Nigeria said "no weapons on board" Technically, yes.


Huge blanket of silence thrown on that by western european medias - how embarrassing ... but here is pprune for that.


Aircraft eventually released, because of no offence anywhere. It was part of regular airbride, moving French military hardware all over Africa, and also to and from France mainland.


Who was supposed to have cut all military ties recently ? now they can as well deliver to Sevastopol the assault carriers from St Nazaire ...

[Capetonian]

The French will sell anything to anyone, without scruples. They are only interested in themselves and their market share, one only has to look at the preponderance of French cars and companies all over the world.

Whilst it may show a lack of morals, it is in some ways quite admirable since they make no pretence about it.

[BBadanov]

The French will sell anything to anyone, without scruples.


OMG...they wouldn't sell their grandmother, would they?

[Walking Ballast]

Dunno about their grandmothers, but I am told that they have some great unused light tanks, 4 forward and 14 reverse gears.......never fired a shot.

[atakacs]

Was that THE AN224? If so I'm pretty sure it is not a Russian plane...

[AreOut]

AN124, mixed ownership of their MoD and private company, that's how state clerks there milk the money from the state, corruption and all of that.

[Wyler]

Because, of course, The UK and the US would never do anything so underhand when it comes to Arms deals now would it................??:rolleyes:

[Bladdered]

Haricot réellement vieux, nous vendrions nos grands-mères pour le bon prix

[recceguy]

and for the one making the super-fun comment about the reverse gear, of course the Brits and Aussies did never surrender at Singapore in 1942, it was just an administrative trick to confuse the enemy...
Same for the Royal Marines in the Falklands in 1982, all kneeling down and raising hands without firing a single shot

How easy to look smart and courageous from a distant country over the ocean, which nobody would invade, not because they would be afraid, but simply because it's too far away...

[RAFEngO74to09]

recceguy

Actually, during the battle defending Government House in the Falklands in 1982, despite being heavily outnumbered and facing overwhelming firepower, the Royal Marines fired over 6,000 rounds and destroyed a number of APCs with 84mm and 66mm anti-armour weapons before surrendering.

Did you ever serve in the Falklands during the immediate aftermath and go on any battlefield tours - no, I thought not.

Easy to make assumptions from a few photos when typing on a computer from a position of safety over 32 years after the event !

1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands)

[MadsDad]

RAFEng, you'll probably know but I also recall reading the marines made a bit of a mess on a warship (frigate?) that ventured a bit too close to shore, using sn anti-tank rocket.

[MPN11]

May we please get back to the topic of slagging off the French? It's a far more rewarding line of conversation :)

It also avoids side discussions about our big Ally/Master, which might get unpleasant.

[Archimedes]

There were several Argentine dead, at least one Puma destroyed and it was a Corvette which got an 84mm Carl Gustav round through the bow.

I suspect that Colour Sgt Muir would modify but slightly his famed quote were recceguy to repeat his allegation of not putting up a fight to his face...

[Reinhardt]

It seems some people enjoy making jokes about others, but don't like so much being targeted, especially if rightly.


So what about Singapore again ? Would some provide the same amount of details ? what about those Royal Marines who raised their hands pitifully in the Chott El Arab in 2004, and then sold their stories to tabloïds ?


And for some here, being from down South doen't prevent from enjoying French military harware, to change a little bit from US dominance as even some australians acknowledge : Tiger and NH90 helos, Navy tanker HMAS Success, Airbus 330 tanker, Mirage III in the past, NH 90, maybe submarines in the future ...

[pr00ne]

Reinhardt,

Airbus A330 tanker is far more British than French.

The British surrender in Singapore cannot be defended from any rational point of view.

Nor can the behaviour of a very large number of the Australian contingent.

"Raised their hands pitifully?"

Oh really, you are beyond a joke.

[Courtney Mil]

Recceguy and Reinhartd both make good points; fine to make poor taste jokes about France's defeat in 1940, but people quickly board the outrage bus when the tables are turned. We all know that the small Marine detachment put up a brave fight in 1982, but some seem happy to forget the reality of France's effort forty-two years earlier.

For those who have conveniently forgotten or were too disinterested to find out, here are a few excerpts from history:

Remember that France had taken a beating in WW1 and had decided to fight a defensive war behind their line of fortifications, the Maginot Line instead of trenches. The line did not extend into Belgium or the Netherlands; they were expected to hold their part of the front.

The Germans seized the initiative, capturing the key Belgian fort of Eban Emael with a daring airborne operation. The speed of the German advance and the brutality of the air raids gave them a huge psychological advantage, and on 14 May the Dutch surrendered.

The British and French responded by putting into operation a plan to advance to the River Dyle, in Belgium... ...It soon became clear that by advancing into the Low Countries the Allies were dancing to Hitler's tune. On 13 May, the first German forces emerged from the Ardennes near Sedan. In a two-day battle, the Panzers crossed the River Meuse, despite some surprisingly stiff resistance from the second-class French defenders.

With the bulk of the Allied forces fighting in Belgium, there was little to stop the German forces as they sliced across the Allied supply-lines. The German spearheads reached the English Channel on 20 May.

Lacking a centrally placed strategic reserve, the Allies tried to pull their armies out of Belgium to respond to the new threat emerging in their rear. And the Germans did not have it all their own way, as French forces under Charles de Gaulle showed how vulnerable the flanks of the German forces were to bold counterattacks.

With German forces pushing through Belgium and the Panzers looping up from the south and west, the Allies were encircled. The Belgian army surrendered on 28 May, leaving a gaping hole on the British flank of the Allied forces... ...Allied high command seemed paralysed.

Then General Lord Gort, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force took the morally courageous decision to abandon his role in a projected Anglo-French counterattack, and fell back on the Channel ports... ...The French, not surprisingly, regarded this as a betrayal, but Gort's decision saved the BEF... ...hastily organised evacuation by sea, code-named Operation Dynamo, lifted 338,000 Allied troops from Dunkirk.

5 June... ...the Germans striking southwards from the River Somme. Despite the fact that the French in many areas fought well, the Germans destroyed the Allied forces in the field in short order. The 51st Highland Division was forced to surrender on 12 June.

Following the surrender of the Netherlands and Belgium and the retreat or surrender of British troops, France was isolated and out-gunned.

A fresh British force was sent to Normandy, only to be evacuated almost immediately. Meanwhile, the victorious Panzers raced in different directions across France, finishing off pockets of resistance, crossing the River Loire in the west on 17 June, and reaching the Swiss frontier a few days later. The end came with the surrender of France on 22 June.

France fought and lost.

[Reinhardt]

Thanks Courtney, nice recap - a lot of people are discussing whithout knowledge of events.

Then General Lord Gort, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force took the morally courageous decision to abandon his role in a projected Anglo-French counterattack, and fell back on the Channel ports... ...The French, not surprisingly, regarded this as a betrayal


In clear English, they ran away ( otherwise, they would have been surrendering like the others, like for exemple the Soviets one year later who had to drop their weapons, by hundred of thousands, after being surrounded in huge battles )

And the French Army had to protect the reimbarkment of British Forces at Dunkirk, without being able to take advantage of the escape route...


No wonder the Battle of Dunkirk is conveniently forgotten North of the Channel....

[rh200]

Frog bashing is a time honored tradition that isn't supposed to shrouded in historical fact. Bit like Tasmanians and two heads, Kiwi's and sheep (okay maybe that one has some truth:p) and what ever other bit of favorite country bashing we can come up with.:ok:

[Wander00]

Just reading (again) Richard Holmes' book "Fatal Avenue". According to him (and he is pretty good on such things) a third of those rescued at Dunkirk were French

[Courtney Mil]

I didn't know that, Wander. perhaps good thing that there was space for some instead of being abandoned to the Nazis. Still lots left behind and it doesn't change the (seemingly) illusive fact that France fought before defeat (alone) rather than the more convenient version.

Yes, of course national banter is always a good pastime, rh200. Certain subjects are just unusual choices for comedy routines. In this case one that still carries scars to this day. And as some have demonstrated here, can provoke strong reactions when the tables are turned.

:)

[Archimedes]

Thanks Courtney, nice recap - a lot of people are discussing whithout knowledge of events.

Then General Lord Gort, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force took the morally courageous decision to abandon his role in a projected Anglo-French counterattack, and fell back on the Channel ports... ...The French, not surprisingly, regarded this as a betrayal


In clear English, they ran away ( otherwise, they would have been surrendering like the others, like for exemple the Soviets one year later who had to drop their weapons, by hundred of thousands, after being surrounded in huge battles )

And the French Army had to protect the reimbarkment of British Forces at Dunkirk, without being able to take advantage of the escape route...


No wonder the Battle of Dunkirk is conveniently forgotten North of the Channel....

If we're (quite fairly) complaining about historical accuracy, then:

1. More than 100,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, just over 26,000 coming across on the final day of the evacuation.

The French government - not unreasonably - wanted them back to continue the fight, which meant that many of the men were in Britain for only a matter of days before going back across the Channel to continue the defence of France.

2. The majority of 51st (Highland) Division was captured after Op Dynamo had ended. There is something of a myth that all British troops departed France as part of Dynamo. They did not.

3. Operation Cycle (10-13 Jun 40) saw the evacuation of some 11,000 troops from Le Harve, 9,000 of whom went to Cherbourg so as to be able to carry on fighting. 51st (Highland) Dvn had been cut off, and although some of them were rescued, over 6,000 were taken prisoner.

4. Operation Ariel (15-25 Jun 40), from Cherbourg, St Malo, Brest, St Nazaire, La Pallice, Bordeaux, Le Verdon, Bayonne and St Jean-de-Luz evacuated over 190,000 British (including Canadian 1st Dvn) and Allied troops. About 24,000 of these were Polish and just over 18,000 French. The evacuation finished after the Armistice between France and Germany came into effect on 25 June.

5. After Dynamo had ended, the plan was to create what was known as 'the Second BEF', which was to be under Alan Brooke's command. 3rd Dvn (under Monty) was to be given sufficient time to rest and re-equip after Dunkirk before being sent back to France. When Brooke arrived to take command of the formation (13 June), he concluded that there was nothing that could be done to stabilise the situation and that the time had come to evacuate, hence Op Ariel. This was not a sneaky decision based upon selling out the French, but upon the fact that Weygand had told him that the French army was incapable of further organised resistance and that the plan to defend Brittany as some sort of redoubt was fanciful.

6. The Battle for Dunkirk may not be publicised, but it is remembered, forming part of the studies of both the Higher Command and Staff Course and the ICSC (Air), for example.

[rh200]

The important thing is to win the war, not the battle and then lose the war. Sometimes that takes unsavory strategic decisions.

For example I use the fact that we pulled back troops to "protect Australia". Now I don't know all the behind the scenes facts, but would like to think it was with the knowledge it wouldn't affect the war outcome.

The simple fact is, we could survive being occupied and freed, it wouldn't have gone so well if the Japs and Kruats won because of it.

At the end of the day, everyone has an opinion on "if we did this etc" scenario, the situation was to complex to be able to successfully model other outcomes. We won, basically that means we did more things right than the other side did.

[MAINJAFAD]

what about those Royal Marines who raised their hands pitifully in the Chott El Arab in 2004, and then sold their stories to tabloïds ?


You'r getting your stories mixed up Reinhardt, the Story telling to the Tabloids was the HMS Cornwall incident in 2007. 2SL dropped the ball massive on that one (and it was two Sailors who sold their stories, none of the Bootnecks). The 2004 incident happened because the bootnecks could have been in Iranian waters. The two incidents have something in common, The British were not fighting Iran at the time and had no intention of starting a shooting war.

[Reinhardt]

Thanks Archimedes for the accurate facts (yes, a lot of boats left the French Atlantic harbours, there was much fog of war during the second half of June 1940) PM Winston Churchill took the right decision to call all of them back, otherwise they would all have been captured - so as a leader he had to save the Army for the future, which might have been very different with 100 or 200,000 soldiers less (I read all his War Memories year ago, 14 books, who did here ?)
Sadly both sides have quite often the wrong perception of the other one, the French considering that the Brits ran away, and the Brits scorning the surrender of the French...
In fact a lot of French evacuated from Dunkirk, or back from Norway, did form in England the nucleus of the Free French Forces, to be reinforced later by men from the Colonies or having escaped through Spain (or the Channel !) Some joined directly the RAF squadrons, like South Africans for example, and others fought in dedicated French units.


As rh200 rightly said, at the end Victory was there.


Some people start those stupid jokes with me being present - CRM apart, it's usually not a good starting point. Have they been at war by the way ? I happened to be.


And remember, without the Channel...

[wiggy]

And remember, without the Channel...

Reinhardt

Please, don't set that one running, it'll be never ending...( though I rather suspect I agree with your sentiments)....