- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,128
- Points
- 199
Europe not taking our defense seriously.
Mil News Western Europe Military News
- Thread starter John A Silkstone
- Start date
Europe not taking our defense seriously.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Messages
- 6,305
- Points
- 258
Sorry, but I based my knowledge on Wikipedia and common sense:
I have also read numerous times about how Germany struggled with getting more Leopards for the Bundeswehr. For example, SPDrasts introduced some harsh military budget cuts, many Leopards were sold abroad and somebody finally concluded it was actually too many. Then, there were numerous attempts for re-buying ex-German tanks abroad and and introducing them back to the Heer.
Following that logic, I had no idea that the production line is still open.
Surely, the common practice is, if a particular piece of equipment is not produced for a certain period of time, experienced workers leave the company, looking for jobs elsewhere, and quality suffers much when production is resumed.
We have experienced it (too) many times in Poland.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
No problemo.
As for Mr. Trump; whenever he decries America's tax payers (allegedly) defend Europe and Germany in particular without receiving, I'd like to ask him: defend against whom? According to him, Russia is not a danger to anyone. So, who is? For a man who's essentially subscribed to isolationism, he's remarkably reluctant to define America's strategic interests. NATO itself lacks clear-cut strategic interests, I daresay, hence it's not high up on the European agenda.
By the way, how does an infrastructure best described as a logistical hub for global power projection and to support military operations like the Iraq War truly serve Europe's defence?
The point is, America's in NATO because its membership has served her interests well. It extends her reach considerably, and most importantly, every military attack against the United States below the level of a nuclear holocaust is thus directed away from the American mainland.
Last but not least, it should be noted the reorganization of many European armies since the end of the Cold War never sprung only from the desire to enjoy what soon came to be called the "peace dividend". The defence of the continent doesn't require strategic transports, ambush-protected vehicles, or expensive infrastructure to lead troops on the other side of the globe. The reorganization was also undertaken to support and conform to America's policies of military interventionism, often to the profit of America's defence industries, an aspect which Mr. Trump is happy to ignore.
It seems pointless to compare Finland to Germany, or any other two nations with such divergent geography for that matter. Finland is neutral, and its geography renders stalling tactics possible. As a consequence, Finland has its very own set of strategical and tactical requirements.
Germany, on the other hand, is almost indefensible. Every strategy devised by NATO during the Cold War assumed West Germany would be overrun and become largely inhabitable in the event of all-out war. The addition of East Germany to her territory in 1990 didn't really improve her position in that regard; those lands are largely flat and without geographic barriers, save the lakelands in the far north.
In other words, it's indeed questionable whether or not Germany or NATO, for that matter, would gain a whole lot if Germany just raised a few armoured divisions out of the blue.
The only failure of Germany's defence policies that's actually a pressing issue for the time being, in my humble opinion, is her weak air force. A fully manned and stocked assembly line for Leopard 2 tanks, for example, can churn out one vehicle every 28 hours (that's actually true). The training of the crew takes three months under peace-time conditions.
But it takes years and years to build up a capable air arm.
There's no question in my mind Germany doesn't take Europe's defence seriously – owing to pacifist notions which, by the way, her presumed allies do spur on.
As for Mr. Trump; whenever he decries America's tax payers (allegedly) defend Europe and Germany in particular without receiving, I'd like to ask him: defend against whom? According to him, Russia is not a danger to anyone. So, who is? For a man who's essentially subscribed to isolationism, he's remarkably reluctant to define America's strategic interests. NATO itself lacks clear-cut strategic interests, I daresay, hence it's not high up on the European agenda.
By the way, how does an infrastructure best described as a logistical hub for global power projection and to support military operations like the Iraq War truly serve Europe's defence?
The point is, America's in NATO because its membership has served her interests well. It extends her reach considerably, and most importantly, every military attack against the United States below the level of a nuclear holocaust is thus directed away from the American mainland.
Last but not least, it should be noted the reorganization of many European armies since the end of the Cold War never sprung only from the desire to enjoy what soon came to be called the "peace dividend". The defence of the continent doesn't require strategic transports, ambush-protected vehicles, or expensive infrastructure to lead troops on the other side of the globe. The reorganization was also undertaken to support and conform to America's policies of military interventionism, often to the profit of America's defence industries, an aspect which Mr. Trump is happy to ignore.
It seems pointless to compare Finland to Germany, or any other two nations with such divergent geography for that matter. Finland is neutral, and its geography renders stalling tactics possible. As a consequence, Finland has its very own set of strategical and tactical requirements.
Germany, on the other hand, is almost indefensible. Every strategy devised by NATO during the Cold War assumed West Germany would be overrun and become largely inhabitable in the event of all-out war. The addition of East Germany to her territory in 1990 didn't really improve her position in that regard; those lands are largely flat and without geographic barriers, save the lakelands in the far north.
In other words, it's indeed questionable whether or not Germany or NATO, for that matter, would gain a whole lot if Germany just raised a few armoured divisions out of the blue.
The only failure of Germany's defence policies that's actually a pressing issue for the time being, in my humble opinion, is her weak air force. A fully manned and stocked assembly line for Leopard 2 tanks, for example, can churn out one vehicle every 28 hours (that's actually true). The training of the crew takes three months under peace-time conditions.
But it takes years and years to build up a capable air arm.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,128
- Points
- 199
Well, I'm not going to defend Trump and American interest in Europe, my main concern are Europes own interests.
I might be too Finnish, but to me Russia has never stopped being a military threat for Europe. Especially now that the power seems to have centralized.
I like to think we have pretty much ripped the neutrality card (which didn't really exist during the cold war either) with EU defense clause and constant exercises with Nato (and the transfer of material from Nato countries for low prices).
You can somewhat compare nations when you understand major differences. In this case the situation becomes more worrysome when, like you said, you note that places like Finland are not very suitable for tank warfare, while Germany is. Large flat areas also mean you are going to need more troops for similar area. Like you said yourself:
However a lot happened and Eastern Europe is now in Nato.
Yes but then there is the need of churning up all the rest of the equipment and troops that the mechanized unit needs. It also takes a long time. I'm afraid the wars of today are too fast for such things. If you had the men and officer corps ready it would be more realistic. Do you have the men needed for such a training operation? I also wonder if the locations of such factories are known and mapped.
If Germany had those largely in reserves already, Germany could fight such war outside its own border in the east.
I might be too Finnish, but to me Russia has never stopped being a military threat for Europe. Especially now that the power seems to have centralized.
I like to think we have pretty much ripped the neutrality card (which didn't really exist during the cold war either) with EU defense clause and constant exercises with Nato (and the transfer of material from Nato countries for low prices).
You can somewhat compare nations when you understand major differences. In this case the situation becomes more worrysome when, like you said, you note that places like Finland are not very suitable for tank warfare, while Germany is. Large flat areas also mean you are going to need more troops for similar area. Like you said yourself:
However a lot happened and Eastern Europe is now in Nato.
Yes but then there is the need of churning up all the rest of the equipment and troops that the mechanized unit needs. It also takes a long time. I'm afraid the wars of today are too fast for such things. If you had the men and officer corps ready it would be more realistic. Do you have the men needed for such a training operation? I also wonder if the locations of such factories are known and mapped.
If Germany had those largely in reserves already, Germany could fight such war outside its own border in the east.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
I was only elaborating on what I consider flaws in Trump's arguments since you suggested vaguely he wasn't wrong. Just wanted to get this out of the way.
Russia is a political adversary of Europe, on that I agree. I don't think it's realistically a military threat. The Soviet Union was under the spell of a strong ideological stimulus to attack Europe; Russia doesn't have such an in-built motive though. It's economical necessities actually provide a strong counter-motive to the policies of the hawks.
The regime needs a foreign adversary to keep the reins firmly in its fists, but a "cold" war more than suffices to do the trick. Actually, it has the added benefit of stimulating the economy without the West standing by to jam spokes in its wheels. Many people hold the preconceived notion that wars are good for the economy; they're not. The preparation for war is.
…and because of it, the length of NATO's eastern border has been extended by many thousands of miles. NATO's conventional forces were deemed not strong enough to realistically defend the borders of 1989; it must be deemed entirely incapable of defending the borders of 2019.
As long as the NATO members don't decide where they'll be going, every discussion about more brigades here or there seems futile.
I don't think that's true, unless you believe an all-out attack by Russia to be imminent.
It's probably unreasonable to put faith in history repeating itself, but realistically, any armed confrontation between a NATO member and a foreign power would be preceeded by a lengthy deterioration of relations and a prolongued state of crisis. There would be warning signs of all sorts, both militarily and socially. This process would take many months, if not years.
It seems to me the dictate of the hour is to create abilities to respond swiftly to such a deterioration if need be. In that regard, land forces are probably better positioned than the air force. Or the navy, for that matter, but Germany's navy has never been strong.
We actually do, and it's the primary reason for the ineffectiveness of the German military right now – as well as a stark reminder of this government's utter incompetence. Germany maintained a system of conscription until 2010, and its standing military was geared towards serving as the backbone of an army of conscripts. Its professional soldiers were officers, specialists, instructors.
Conscription was discontinued while formally remaining in effect, but the government's policies to replace the now non-existing conscripts with volunteers were insufficient. Some 76% of the manpower of the current German armed forces consist of non-commissioned officers or officers, who cost a lot of money. Which is why the German personnel expenses are much higher than those of most armies, even though her soldiers aren't actually that well-paid.
The flip-side of that coin is that the infrastructure to train large numbers of recruits is still there.
Actually, they were listed in the yellow pages throughout the entirety of the Cold War.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
As napoleon said, are you collecting taxes at the border?
Poland seems to have the right idea, tanks, plus anti tank missiles, they know who they will be up against, if the a10 was still produced I think Poland would take a couple of sqn.
Simply saying you can’t win, so why fight, is going to get you eaten.
Saying we will fight for time, or our allies to arrive, or to hurt the enemy are sensible approaches, and reminds the potential enemy that they must consider man6 variables.
Germany should focus on its army, and Air Force, it’s unlikely to be invaded from the sea. Don’t you have anyone with some military mindset?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,128
- Points
- 199
This is true. However starting to pump out machines and men could be seen as an escalation in such situation and would be politically difficult. I find it very unlikely that people with pacifist mindset are going to grow tensions by fast buildup. There can be signs but it's really difficult to say exactly when they are significant enough to start building up. And when it's clear, it's probably also too late. And you have to remember that Russia doesn't need years to build up, we should be able to respond in similar time frames.
WWII Had over a decade of such signs and the western world wasn't ready. It's much easier economically and politically to get those troops ready slowly during peace time.
In case of Finland; In 1939 we had a field army on the front, soviets were building up their troops and negotiations had been cut off. Despite that, politicians still believed that there wouldn't be war. And then the first shells dropped. The buildup to that war (from negotiations to offset) took from 5th of October to 30th of November. No time to train new troops, just enough time for mobilization. There weren't any special escalation of bad relations, just a decades of general mistrust between the countries. Relations in 1939 werent especially worse than in 1930.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,128
- Points
- 199
Speaking of economic capabilities. Europe is completely dependent on Russian energy but Russia could survive a year or two without European money. I think it's fair to say that in that regard Europe is on the losing end which is a positive motive for the hawks.
Currently we have a stable situation. But no one knows what will happens when the current leaders change or what ism's are going strong in ten years.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
UK clearly recognised the threat from Germany in 36, and one of the reasons we gave away Czechoslovakia was to gain more time to rearm.
Given the length of time nowadays to produce a bit of kit, I cant see this as a viable plan.
If you were going to keep all your early Leo 2 and Marders, in reserve, and buy new replacements, then this is a real plan.
As Pemm said, suddenly ramping up Leo 2 production, or calling up a million men and women, is only going to stoke up the flames.
Effectively landlocked, a country needs a strong army. Sure 50% can be reserves, but they better be out every year etc.
UK has a slightly different situation, the Channel still provides a buffer of sorts, and our good friends in EU also buffer us.
Nukes, and the 2nd best CV force in the world, should give us time, to restart the STEN gun line.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,304
- Points
- 348
I'm sorry, I don't understand Western Europe vs. Eastern Europe division since pretty much all European Nations are part of NATO and unless there is talk of disbanding NATO, Article 5 is still in effect. So, you all guys should be in the same boat. I'm heavily invested in Ukraine, and, yes, I'm biased, but pretty much daily through unofficial (i.e. Russia's TV bat S**t crazy political talk shows) and official (Russia's foreign ministry press briefings) channels, Russia is threatening Baltic States, with Latvia being the main target. The "hybrid provocations" are going on non-stop. So is Western Europe prepared to defend Baltic states or not with or without Article 5 and how?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
That's not what I said though, did I? (Continued below.)
Agreed. Hence my comment the air force is where Germany needs to get its act together before anything else. Even a numerically inferior force wins the day if it's got air support. There's not a whole lot of catching-up to do in the land department, though.
You've mentioned Poland; well, if the numbers I've seen are still up to date, they plan to field about 500 modern main battle tanks in the future. That too is far removed from 1989 levels, simply on the account it'd more than suffice given the replacement's technical superiority.
Germany's territory is not threatened under any conceivable scenario. As a consequence, I think Germany should focus on building up the means to stabilise NATO's flanks. I say, "stabilise", as the Two Plus Four Agreement prevents German forces from crossing the river Oder permanently. The Russians tolerate exercises and temporary deployments of between four to six months; but a permanent presence would violate the treaty.
Realistically, the strengthening of NATO's flanks could require Germany to strengthen its Navy. That's why they're in talks to raise the number of frigates from 12 to 18 and the number of corvettes from 5 to 15.
By the way, the Soviets did indeed always plan a naval invasion of Holstein in order to cut off Denmark from Germany, wheel around and bypass the Central German Uplands. It's a sound strategy, and realistic enough that LANDJUT (the Danish-German command defending those coastlines) stood down only fairly recently (relative to NATO's remaining cold war structure).
You guys made sure to cast out those demons, remember?
I've championed that argument myself in the past, and caution makes me inclined to agree, but reason doesn't.
1939 or even 1989 isn't 2019.
I wouldn't be surprised if there'd been days in 1939 where not a single Finnish citizen crossed a Soviet border. I wouldn't be surprised if there'd been days in 1939 where not a single Finnish journalist cabled a report home.
Compare that to 2019's 300,000 Russians and Europeans each crossing the mutual borders every single day. Compare it to the god-knows-how-many terabytes of information leaving Russia every single day. In addition, we watch each other through satellites. We listen in on each other's communication. These are all sources of information Finland's government wasn't privy to in 1939. Many of them are now open to ordinary citizens.
The point is, in this globalised and electronically connected world, the relevant information is bound to be picked up by somebody. If it's not picked up by the government, which is impossible, it'd be picked up by a news broadcaster or by concerned citizens on Facebook.
Heck, not a long time ago a hell of a lot of countries – including Russia – accidentally revealed their clandestine operations because their special forces members were smart enough to work out logged in to a fitness app that located their position.
I genuinely don't see how war preparations amongst developed nations could go unnoticed in this day and age.
Completely? No. The Eastern European countries are relatively reliant on Russian gas due to infrastructural reasons; Germany imports Russian gas mainly because her people are stupid enough to nourish an unwarranted fear of nuclear energy. All in all, though, Russia supplies only 6% of Europe's energy use in total. That's not a share that can't be replaced.
On the other hand, Russia's oil-and-gas sector accounts for a fifth of her GDP, more than fifty percent of the federal government's revenues and almost three quarters of all her exports. No, they need us more than we need them.
The Soviets continued to sell gas to the West even at the very height of the Cold War, and the reason then was the same as it is now: The Kremlin uses its fuel revenues to indirectly subsidise and stabilise an otherwise deficient industrial complex. Should that spring ever run dry, a frightening number of Russian companies would be left without solvency.
It'd be as though a bank that controls all the debts of an entire country collapsed.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 1,128
- Points
- 199
They didn't go unnoticed in 1939, like I said the army had mobilized. However there was only few months to prepare. Main number of soviet troops were moved on September and the final plan decided on October. At that point Poland had already fallen and baltics had given up military bases for the Soviets. Finnish politicians knew about the soviet military buildup on the border. My point is about how difficult it was for politicians to accept this reality. Second point is the time it takes from negotiations to planning to operation, you don't have those years you need to manufacture because it doesn't take years. Just look at current wars and how long it took from signs to operation.
PS: Finnish mobilization was just an additional military exercise.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
I would suggest the air policing, and what seems to me to be a lot of photos of exercises in the Baltics, is intended to support the Baltic states, and warn Russia that Nato will defend them. I have to add, that's why we have US/UK etc troops there, so if Russia does come in, there will be US/UK etc casualties. The intent is, that unlike Ukraine, Russia wont risk US troops deaths, so wont attack.....
Bit of a circular argument I admit.
Will Nato mount a 'D-Day' operation to free the Baltics should Russia invade..........I have an opinion.
Interestingly, anyone know the country with second highest % of GDP spent on defence(in NATO)??
Estonia.
The member states of NATO are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
Decision imminent on upcoming F126 frigates for German Navy (
)
At least four F126 class multi-role frigates are scheduled to replace the four F123 class anti-submarine warfare frigates in the latter half of the 2020s.
The remaining contenders are German Naval Yards Holdings of Kiel, Germany and Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding of Vlissingen, the Netherlands. The tender includes four firm orders and two options.
Parameters of the specification book:
Length
)At least four F126 class multi-role frigates are scheduled to replace the four F123 class anti-submarine warfare frigates in the latter half of the 2020s.
The remaining contenders are German Naval Yards Holdings of Kiel, Germany and Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding of Vlissingen, the Netherlands. The tender includes four firm orders and two options.
Parameters of the specification book:
Length
- 155 m
- 9,000 tn
- 110 + 70
- 24 months
- active electronically scanned array radar
- anti-submarine warfare sonar, diver detection sonar
- towed-array sonar
- electronic counter-measures suite
- 127/64 main gun
- short-range surface to air missiles (apparently 2× RAM Block 2)
- mid-range surface-to-air missiles (apparently ESSM in 32 quad-packs)
- long-range anti-ship missiles (apparently Kongsberg NSM, apparently 4 twin-starters)
- 2-4× 27mm auto cannons
- 4× 12,7mm machine guns
- 2× anti-submarine warfare helicopters
- 2× 11m (36 ft) rigid-hulled inflatable boats
- Unmanned aerial vehicles (apparently Skeldar V-200), unmanned surface vehicles, unmanned underwater vehicles
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,304
- Points
- 348
There was an excellent BBC2 production on this subject back in 2016: World War Three: Inside the War Room.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
I would also add, and have said this before, that I don't see an all out war involving US/Nato, Russia or China.
There are just too many variables, and like two lions fighting, you could both lose, be injured, to the extent you both die. (or lose political control of your country).
Local, proxy wars, yes, Middle East, both including and excluding Israel, yes. Africa yes, Random internal revolts, revolutions, involving politics, religion, yes.
Major ground wars, no not really, but I still want UK and our Nato partners to have MBT, Stealth aircraft, and good ships, because you need a ship to stop pirates, so may as well have one good ship, instead of one good ship tied up, and a cheap ship shooting pirates.
There are just too many variables, and like two lions fighting, you could both lose, be injured, to the extent you both die. (or lose political control of your country).
Local, proxy wars, yes, Middle East, both including and excluding Israel, yes. Africa yes, Random internal revolts, revolutions, involving politics, religion, yes.
Major ground wars, no not really, but I still want UK and our Nato partners to have MBT, Stealth aircraft, and good ships, because you need a ship to stop pirates, so may as well have one good ship, instead of one good ship tied up, and a cheap ship shooting pirates.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
There's not really a West vs. East divide, unless maybe politically within the confines of the European Union. @Fluff rightfully pointed out the Western nations have been demonstrating their commitment to NATO's newer members for many years.
No one calls Article V into question – except (ironically) the government of the United States, whose president publicly voiced doubts last year that small states like Montenegro were worth going to war over.
Some Western European nations have let things slide in terms of military spending, though. Germany – and, to a lesser degree, Belgium, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands – haven't always maintained their armed forces in the best of shape, potentially slowing down their reaction time to a possible crisis.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,304
- Points
- 348
There are always miscalculations. Don't know about China, but in Russia the issue of gargantuan economic disparity and broken social elevators is definitely in the center, and the populace has to be distracted.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 6,875
- Points
- 398
If we take West as the original members, and East as the new, both parties get what they need. The West gets a buffer, so Germany is no longer the front line.(lets face it, everyone else also thought it was a good idea, to fight next war in Germany) The 'East' gets support, training, and a commitment to support in the event of an attack. The aim of course is to deter said attack, and so far so good.....
I hope/suggest that Germany is/could 'spend' more by helping the newer countries, better that Poland or Estonia has 24 Leo, than Germany has them, in bits, without tracks or ammo, sitting in Hamburg.
Trump just wanted to get everyone going, and he has had a result, defense spending is on the up, and it needed to be.
Similar threads
