The Legion is the perfect example of the old maxim hard training combat easier not always true.
Never won any war.
Maybe because wars are usually won by armies, not single units. Even if you think of one of the shortest wars in history, the Anglo-Zanzibar War (1896) which lasted just 38 minutes, it required 5 warships and a contingent of Royal Marines and Zanzibaris on the winners side.
If you made such a statement, for instance, thinking the Indochina War was lost only by the FFL because the media often gives all the credit to the FFL for doing all the fighting then you would get it wrong. There were other units involved, North African regiments defending essential outposts such as those forming the De Lattre Line, the Colonial Paratroopers doing search and destroy missions, the GCMA wagging guerrilla warfare on the Viet Minh,... and no, you couldn't find only legionnaires in Dien Bien Phu (in fact they accounted 2,500 men out of 10,000 troops), there were also Moroccan Infantry, Algerian Artillery Battalions, Vietnamese Paratroopers, French Colonial Paratroopers,... to say nothing of the U.S. pilots and their almost 700 flight missions during the battle.
Regarding the "train hard, fight easy" motto, although marshal Suvorov, Generalissimo actually, is one of the very few generals in history who never lost a battle, the Russian saying he coined doesn't imply you will always win, but you sure will fight easier (as second nature) and more efectively. Sure that hard training helps a great deal to win and therefore it's vital (*) but it's not the same, victory depends on many factors, not just training.
All that said, you are obviously entitled to have an opinion but I think to despise the FFL is a mistake based on something else rather than history, facts or personal experience. There is no need to relate here all the battles which helped to built the epic and myth of the FFL, the information is at the reach of anybody's fingertips, but it sure proves their hard training has helped them a big deal to fight "easier" no matter the odds.
(*) The first half of Suvorov's
Science of Victory is devoted to "Drill Instructions". In an age when soldiers’ training was usually confined to parades in the capital and drills in the barracks, his methods were both original and daring. Suvorov's objective always was to make training conditions approach as close as possible the conditions of real combat.To do that, he started ordering forced marches in all kinds of lousy weather and terrain, and devised his renowned
skvoznaia ataka (“through attack†or “transparent attackâ€), a simulation of real battle often incorporating cavalry and artillery with a wide use of blank cannon fire, blank volleys and bayonet charges (to keep the momentum of the exercise, the soldiers would at the last moment step to the right, raise their weapons above their heads and squeeze through the openings in the opposing line, hence the name of the exercise). As one contemporary wrote,
“this attack was indeed a mess, reminiscent of real business of battle. It was conducted by both attacking sides head on...amidst infantry and cavalry fire, with screams of Hurrah! In the meantime, the officers on each side were cheering their men on, yelling “Cut them down lads! With the bayonets!†Needless to say this heavy dose of realism meant injuries and fatalities might and did happen but Suvorov was unconcerned, remarking that, at the expense of a few lives, he was able to teach and consequently save thousands.