[Beck_isright]

"Verdun was probably the longest, bloodiest battle in history, including Stalingrad."

As were most WWI battles because the morons that ran the French military were clueless beyond digging trenches and building big guns. The only thing that saved the Frogs in WWI was the entry of the US and the fact that the Brits decided to save their butts. Militarily speaking since the 1850's, they've sucked. You left out 1954, 1962, and many many many other examples. Refer to the long running thread on FR about the military history of France.

[stinkypew]

I beg to differ. The French came up with the infiltration/assault-in-depth tactics later used so effectively by the German stormtroops in the Spring of 1918. They also developed the layered defensive tactics - leaving the front line thinned out - which the Germans later adopted on a much wider scale.

That said, the Neville offensive was a rotten idea, but who's to say U.S. troops would not also have mutinied after such a debacle.

In sum, an honest review of history indicates to me that we do not necessarily have a better record in battle than the British or French.

[stinkypew]

No need to resort to threats. Stick to the facts. I stand by my statement. Aside from defeatist, Popular-Front France getting whupped in 1940, I say they've done well. Even in 1870, Paris held out throughout the winter, and fresh armies were being raised in the provinces.

They were grossly outnumbered in Vietnam.

I'm weak on the history of the Algerian war, but I don't recall reading anything about the French regularly getting beat in the field. Were there even any pitched battles?