Gurkhas vs. French Foreign Legion

JayGoliath said:
This thread reminded me of the condemned mountain boy who chopped off a Taliban's head so he could shown it to his superior. It was in the middle of a bullet downpour and nothing such as DNA check. What he did was the only possible way and hell broke loose, he was discharged as what i heard. Messy stuff.

On using Kukri as SD or MA, a useful link made possible by a forumite who i called "the greatest Khuk Librarian ever", BlinkyBill :

http://www.jissenmag.com/documents/Jissen_Issue_7.pdf
"
Click to expand...

The only news agency to run that story was The Daily Mail and they didn't do a follow up on it. I absolutely believe that the event didn't happen. The Daily Fail has a long history of misrepresenting the truth and using outright lies for sensationalist purposes. Does anyone remember the "story" about UK scouts not been able to use knives? It was utter lies spread by TDM...
 
There are several versions of the story - one supported by a video. Search chopped head taliban Rated X
 
Thomas Linton said:
There are several versions of the story - one supported by a video. Search chopped head taliban Rated X
Click to expand...

Please post links of other news agencies, humanitarian groups, Ministry of Defence, that ran the story (not just repeating TDM story).

There are no videos of any British soldiers taking peoples heads.
 
Look, I have stake in this. Didn't vouch for ANY story. Just pointing out what I found. Google is available to everyone - free,
 
I want to argue a different point of view.. the show itself. I like it by the way, but to me, in some cases (and this can be one of them), there are some bias. I remember one, where they compared Waffen SS, of WWII, to Viet Cong guerrillas. In the end, the Waffen SS won, in the sense that a Waffen SS soldier was left alive after burning the last remaining Viet Cong with a flamethrower. They compare teams and or individual soldier/warriors in ways that seem un-realistic to me. I see that the selection of weapons is not historically accurate in many cases; for instance, they had the SS using the "Broomhandle" Mauser Pistol, when it would be more probable that they would be issued the P-35 Browning (Hi-Power, in the USA), and the StG 44 of the FG 42 rifles. So, while the show is very entertaining, I think is biased. Another instance: when they pitted the Soviet Spetnaz vs. the US Green Beret, guess who won? The Spetnaz. When you see the statistics, of 1,000 battles, one team wins 525 an the other wins 475. That is a 50-50 result or a draw. It would be more realistic (although maybe not as entertaining), to pit one soldier/warrior of one kind against another,
in a particular environment (jungle, urban terrain, etc.), with equivalent weapons and see what happens.
About Ghurkas and FFL: I'd rather have any of them on my side, not looking for mys scalp.
 
Last edited:
Cpl Punishment said:
Aye, and remember, a lot of the "indigenous fighters" touted as skilled were not even close. They did not win the war, they just hung in there until the other force left.

The VC did not win in Vietnam, in fact, the 1968 offensive effectively annihilated the VC as a guerrilla force. It was the NVA (regular army) that hung on from there. MILLIONS of them died as opposed to ~ 59,000 of our guys. That does not, a victory make. We weren't defeated, we picked up our toys and went home. There's a difference, although those that like to shout down America won't admit it.

Warrior vs Warrior, which is what Deadliest Warrior is about, has no such problems. Pit fight, you win or die, no hiding in caves until the other guy gets sick of being there. I think in my proposed matchup of Gurkha vs VC, the Gurkhas would wipe the battlefield with them because the Gurkha are better soldiers. Gurkha vs NVA may be a more even matchup, given that the NVA were trained soldiers. I still think the Gurkha would win. Reason being, I remember my uncle telling me that the ROKs (Army from the Republic of Korea -- South Korea) like to get in close and fight the Vietnamese in close quarters, including hand-to-hand, because the Viets were not skilled at that. They may get you with their AK, but in hand to hand they fell apart.

Now a question I'd have for the FFL vs Gurkha, is are they going to be a modern or historical matchup, since both have been around long enough to do either.
Click to expand...

I want to hug you right now for the comments about Vietnam. Very well said. Thank you. And yes, you are dead spot on correct.
 
just wanted to share a little about Gurkhas

A month ago
1 Gurkha vs 30 Taliban
[video=youtube;Y5kkSRcTNqs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5kkSRcTNqs&feature=related[/video]

yes they do training cutting heads and bodies
article-0-0045070900000258-960_468x286.jpg


and yes they have fought in Afghan before and have cut many people's head there ...that is why they fear the gurkhas till today. Hell, even a museum in Uk has a model of a a gurkha beheading an afghan.

here is a documentary about the gurkhas.
There are four parts
part 1:
[video=youtube;2ojK3e0CCVM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ojK3e0CCVM[/video]
 
Here is another documentary 6 parts
[video=youtube;FNCIyptoi04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNCIyptoi04&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
The Legion is twice as large as the British Gurkhas.
Both have an Esprit de Corps, and both have also suffered huge losses in war.

The regimental history of the Gurkhas (like the Legion's) is littered with victories and tales of self sacrifice and bravery.

Both units are steeped in folklore and "untruths" are snapped up by the ever hungry hero worshipers.

If British Gurkhas were to ever fight the Legion, then France and the UK would be at war.
So pick your winner from these two nuclear armed countries.

Given that Britain also has other world elite forces such as the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marine Commandos, what does France have to match the Legion?
 
Yorkshire: this thread, and the matchup isn't about France and Britain, it's a hypothetical about a warrior vs warrior pit fight.

If it stayed non-nuclear (and both being nuclear powers it probably would), a France vs Britain war would probably end in France losing. I think there's still enough warrior mentality in the rest of the Brit military, not just the Paras, SAS, SBS, RMCs, etc. As far as I know, there's nothing else like the Legion in France's military.
 
I have a story about a friend of mine who trained with Gurkhas. This friend was a member of the P.P.C.L.I (Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry). He told me they are hands down the greatest warriors on the planet. He said he was on watch one night. He was told to stay awake and not "mess" up because who ever was commanding him wanted to prove something to the Gurkhas. Anyway, he said he was alert all night and he never did anything to attract attention to him self. He decided to to sit on a fallen log to have a quick smoke. He sat there waiting and listening, he finished his smoke and got up and began walking. As soon as he started walking away he said his boots felt like they were untied. He bent over to do the laces up and he realized his boot were not untied, every lace on both boots were cut clean off....he looked back at the log and there was nobody anywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cpl Punishment said:
Yorkshire: this thread, and the matchup isn't about France and Britain, it's a hypothetical about a warrior vs warrior pit fight.

If it stayed non-nuclear (and both being nuclear powers it probably would), a France vs Britain war would probably end in France losing. I think there's still enough warrior mentality in the rest of the Brit military, not just the Paras, SAS, SBS, RMCs, etc. As far as I know, there's nothing else like the Legion in France's military.
Click to expand...

True enough, but given that the Legion have light tanks and British Gurkhas don't, I don't think it would be pretty.

Also, the OP described the Gurkhas as something other than human i.e. "superhuman".
This is plain silly and I think it detracts from who these soldiers actually are.

Higher child mortality rates, harsh living standards, living at altitude and thus having more red blood cells to carry oxygen, respect for elders and people of authority, martial history, a fatalistic religious belief etc.... all means that they are "toughened" by the time of early manhood.

But are all Gurkhas the same? Is there any difference in operational effectiveness between British and Indian army ones?
Does training and leadership make any difference?
 
Yorkshire Boy said:
True enough, but given that the Legion have light tanks and British Gurkhas don't, I don't think it would be pretty.
Click to expand...
Yes, but light tanks can be easily taken out with light anti tank weapons, like the LAW, AT-4, RPG-7, etc.
When I was in the 82nd, we still had the M551 light tank, and their performance and survivability were less than stellar, though they made nice mobile artillery for use in primarily infantry engagements or against bunkers. A good anti-tank crew woudl take them out with little trouble if not for the infantry screen.

Yorkshire Boy said:
Also, the OP described the Gurkhas as something other than human i.e. "superhuman".
This is plain silly and I think it detracts from who these soldiers actually are.
Click to expand...
Agreed, they are just tough men.

Yorkshire Boy said:
Higher child mortality rates, harsh living standards, living at altitude and thus having more red blood cells to carry oxygen, respect for elders and people of authority, martial history, a fatalistic religious belief etc.... all means that they are "toughened" by the time of early manhood.
Click to expand...
Yes, living a harder life means they are tougher from the get-go.

Yorkshire Boy said:
But are all Gurkhas the same? Is there any difference in operational effectiveness between British and Indian army ones?
Click to expand...
No, they aren't the same. They all have the same foundation of being used to a tough life, but:

Yorkshire Boy said:
Does training and leadership make any difference?
Click to expand...
It makes all the difference, but it helps to have something to work with.
 
Past all the nations at war talks, I agree with an earlier post that we would have to define the era that the Gurkha and FFL was taken from.

IMHO Modern Gurkha are not much different from original Gurkha except possibly better trained and equipped now. Where FFL members used to quite often be hardened men, before they even joined the FFL, often as a criminal sentence to avoid prison proper.

If you say Historical Gurkha vs Historical FFL, that's a hell of a fight I think.

Now if you say Historical or Modern Gurkha vs Modern FFL I would have to say Gurkha, just based on the difference in my perception of the dangerousness of the recruits to the modern FFL.

Notice, I say my Perception of how dangerous, not in any way reality..lol

Also I would like to state for the record, that while the French government has not shown much back bone in more recent history, their soldiers have comported themselves with courage and honor on many a battlefield.

Just sayin..:)
 
I've met a few (albeit retired) modern Legionnaires, and I don't think they give up much to the older boys in terms of courage, if anything, like their Gurkha counterparts, they are better trained and equipped these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top