Mil News Western Europe Military News

[muck]

The minority government in Germany has secured a commitment by parliament for the purchase of 4 U212 CD class AIP submarines, and for 4+4 F127 class air defence frigates (including 4 options). It is planned to finalise both orders before the year is out. (Source)

So that'll be 6 U212CD on order and 8 cruisers destroyers AAW frigates. Didn't see that coming. The last navy plan calculated with 5 F127's. They probably mean to get rid of all F125's in exchange.

And the U212A's will get a one-to-one replacement, which is the upper limit of what the small German Navy could handle. They've never had enough volunteers for the subs.

 

[Mike1976]

And the U212A's will get a one-to-one replacement, which is the upper limit of what the small German Navy could handle. They've never had enough volunteers for the subs.

No wonder.

In terms of human lives, 28,000 German U-boat crew of the total 40,900 men recruited into the service lost their lives

You'd have to be tired of living to voluntarily get into one of those metal coffins.

 

[Mike1976]

In addition to the previously announced extra Patriots and NASAMs for air defence in Europe the Netherlands is investing money in portable air defence systems and drone detection equipment for the Caribbean islands.

 

[Picanha]

I wonder what Scholz got out of the deal in return. Don't underestimate the gravity of that decision by German standards. The Typhoon is one of the world's most potent combat aircraft, and Berlin just sold 40 of them to a country whose president publicly muses about attacking Israel.

Don't know how far Erdogans purge reached but before that the Turkish Air Force was strictly Kemalist and would not attack Israel.

 

[TheKiwi]

500 million pound cut to British Armed Forces.

£500m defence cuts as ships, drones and helicopters scrapped

Critics said the move would leave UK defence weaker, at a time of growing international tensions and after over a decade of funding pressures on the armed forces.

www.bbc.com

Mostly expected stuff with retirement dates moved up slightly. Still going to be costs for the future to replace the cut ships/helicopters/etc.

 

[Mike1976]

500 million pound cut to British Armed Forces.

£500m defence cuts as ships, drones and helicopters scrapped

Critics said the move would leave UK defence weaker, at a time of growing international tensions and after over a decade of funding pressures on the armed forces.

www.bbc.com

Mostly expected stuff with retirement dates moved up slightly. Still going to be costs for the future to replace the cut ships/helicopters/etc.

My prediction based on Dutch defence destruction: This year they cut the assets, next year's cuts will be cancelling the replacements and stating the capability isn't needed anyway.

Living from year to year.

The "funny" thing here is that the Dutch navy was gutted thinking "we've got the RN to cover for us". Think again jackasses. The UK seems to be operating on the same principle with the USN.

 

[muck]

A new representative survey and study on German defence readiness was released today (source), here are the key points to take away:

• 60% think it would be good to reintroduce conscription
• 49% want the conscription moratorium to end, 23% are on the fence, 24% are opposed
• 42% of the overall population said they would defend their homeland in the event of an attack, 52% said they would not, 6% are unsure
  • however, amongst the most relevant demographic segment, 61% of males aged 16-50 said they would defend their homeland (as well as 21% of the women between 16-50)
• 29% of males aged 16-30 said they could see themselves enlisting (+10% compared to last year), as well as 8% of females aged 16-30
• 57% demand higher defence expenditures, 30% think current defence spending suffices, 8% think Germany spends too much on defence
• 82% have a "very positive" or "positive" perception of the German military, 14% a negative one, 4% are unsure

Not stellar, but way better than what some surveys in recent years suggested. I think it's mostly due to the wording. "Would you defend your country" is a wholly different matter than "would you fight for your country". My answer to the first would be 'yes', but 'no' to the second. Because I absolutely don't fancy being sent to Mali or some such place.

 

[Mike1976]

A new representative survey and study on German defence readiness was released today (source), here are the key points to take away:

• 60% think it would be good to reintroduce conscription
• 49% want the conscription moratorium to end, 23% are on the fence, 24% are opposed
• 42% of the overall population said they would defend their homeland in the event of an attack, 52% said they would not, 6% are unsure
  • however, amongst the most relevant demographic segment, 61% of males aged 16-50 said they would defend their homeland (as well as 21% of the women between 16-50)
• 29% of males aged 16-30 said they could see themselves enlisting (+10% compared to last year), as well as 8% of females aged 16-30
• 57% demand higher defence expenditures, 30% think current defence spending suffices, 8% think Germany spends too much on defence
• 82% have a "very positive" or "positive" perception of the German military, 14% a negative one, 4% are unsure

Not stellar, but way better than what some surveys in recent years suggested. I think it's mostly due to the wording. "Would you defend your country" is a wholly different matter than "would you fight for your country". My answer to the first would be 'yes', but 'no' to the second. Because I absolutely don't fancy being sent to Mali or some such place.

The main reason imo for why the figure for military service is so low, regardless of wording, is that it polls both men and women, and women drag the average way down because their willingness to serve has always been negligible. Wasted emphasis placed on those of little value to the combat power of the armed forces and minor contributions to the sustainment.

The push for equality in any field ends wherever a personal cost has to be incurred.

 

[muck]

I get what you mean and it's not without merit, but I think you're being too harsh. It does make sense to include women in the polls because you'll need them for a lot of tasks in the event of all-out war. As the Ukraine War has shown (87,000 of Ukraine's frontline troops in all armed services are female), they're even a non-neglectable recruitment pool for traditional military roles.

And I wouldn't reduce the polled gender gap just on ideology either. Whilst feminists claim women to be equally as good or better than men in every way, there's at least one thing at which the average woman is actually better than the average man: Knowing one's own strengths and weaknesses. Which is a convoluted way of saying – the gap might also come from women being more realistic about their ability to fight than men. No obese COD players claiming they're ready for war, if you know what I mean.

I mean, if a woman that's 1.50 m and 48 kilos soaking wet tells you she's ready to defend her country, what would you tell her (other than "great spirit, but please be realistic about yourself")?

As far as the recruitment of women is concerned, I'd suggest the Ukrainians do the right thing. No sociologist had a hand in laying out the required skills and abilities of the AFU's recruitment. And they do require females to volunteer not just for the army but again for frontline service as well. Might seem like a double standard, but it ensures that only able and motivated individuals end up in the mud.

As for mentality, well, I can't speak for the situation in the Netherlands, but defence readiness in these parts was always influenced by the debate on overseas deployments. The whole Afghanistan debacle was massively unpopular around here. And the fact that the War in Ukraine actually had a positive impact on recruitment shows potential recruitments weren't scared of having to go to Afghanistan, they just saw no point.

Further drops of the graph reliably coincided with media reports about deficient equipment or controversial government policies on unrelated matters.

The latter has become a big problem no one is willing to address. During the original Cold War, it was the political left equating government with country and refusing to serve the country so they wouldn't have to serve the government. Now, the same attitude is gaining ground on the political right, a bigger reservoir of military recruitment.

By the way, one thing we Europeans have to start talking about in terms of preparedness for war is immigration.

Badly-integrated immigrants or those with ethnic, cultural or religious ties to a potential adversary are going to become a major headache.

Those 1.2 million Russo-Germans? Yeah, I wouldn't count on them right now. The loyalty of most Muslim immigrants is also a shame and a major problem (two notable exceptions in the polls: Muslims with Turkish or Bosnian roots).

 

[TheKiwi]

....

I mean, if a woman that's 1.50 m and 48 kilos soaking wet tells you she's ready to defend her country, what would you tell her (other than "great spirit, but please be realistic about yourself")?

...

"Welcome to the radar plotting table". Or ATC. Or cybersecurity. Or payroll. Or any one of dozens of other roles where the ability to benchpress 100kg is less relevent than mental ability.

 

[muck]

Fair point.

 

[Fluff]

"Welcome to the radar plotting table". Or ATC. Or cybersecurity. Or payroll. Or any one of dozens of other roles where the ability to benchpress 100kg is less relevent than mental ability.

There are hundreds of roles a willing woman(steady now) could do, freeing up a man to be in the trenches. To wilfully stop this, would be very dumb.

For the small % that pass the infantry tests, fine.

I’d add, I served with women 35 years ago, in skilled roles they were normally more skilled than the average man.

 

[Mike1976]

There are hundreds of roles a willing woman(steady now) could do, freeing up a man to be in the trenches. To wilfully stop this, would be very dumb.

For the small % that pass the infantry tests, fine.

I’d add, I served with women 35 years ago, in skilled roles they were normally more skilled than the average man.

My original point was: we can spend a whole lot of time and money getting only a comparative handful of women to sign up for frontline duties (or close support roles), but the cost far outweighs the gain and the same can be said for willingness to serve overall.

21% of women willing to serve if really needed, that's worrying in itself, but I'd put more focus on the 61% of men that are far more willing and physically capable of filling all roles. In a total war scenario the women are going to be conscripted anyway, whether it's auxiliary roles or labor. Getting any meaningful amount of women in the infantry until we start lowering standards for mass conscript armies is a useless investment solely for political purposes. The Dutch armed forces wants 30% of all jobs filled by women by 2030.

The most a woman has every lasted in Marine Corps training was a few weeks with intermittent breaks due to physical strain, in the SF pre-selection a few hours. In 30 years less than 100 women have earned the red beret (reduced training standards IIRC which the previous two units both refused to do hence the results). Even in the regular infantry the number is very low and the failure rate is higher than among male recruits. The basic training bit and then off to a support role that doesn't involve physical labor they can do.

So yeah good luck with that, another target they won't reach

 

[Mike1976]

As for mentality, well, I can't speak for the situation in the Netherlands, but defence readiness in these parts was always influenced by the debate on overseas deployments. The whole Afghanistan debacle was massively unpopular around here. And the fact that the War in Ukraine actually had a positive impact on recruitment shows potential recruitments weren't scared of having to go to Afghanistan, they just saw no point.

Just another deployment, no feelings about it here other than it being called a "reconstruction mission" for PR purposes when it was clearly counter-insurgency warfare and the cost (this was at the time of eternal peace so the only thing people on the streets could come up with when asked what government spending should be cut was "defense"). The armed forces were cannibalizing themselves to pay for the mission.

Few nations are as skittish about the use of force as Germans.

 

[Fluff]

Just another deployment, no feelings about it here other than it being called a "reconstruction mission" for PR purposes when it was clearly counter-insurgency warfare and the cost (this was at the time of eternal peace so the only thing people on the streets could come up with when asked what government spending should be cut was "defense"). The armed forces were cannibalizing themselves to pay for the mission.

Few nations are as skittish about the use of force as Germans.

It’s noted that current adverts for the British army, feature white men in combat, rather than DEI hires having fun.

I’d say all nato countries will follow suit.

 

[NebrHogger]

Ignorant question time - (I sincerely don't know) Are "recent arrivals" welcome in German or other Euro armed forces?

 

[Mike1976]

Ignorant question time - (I sincerely don't know) Are "recent arrivals" welcome in German or other Euro armed forces?

Everyone with citizenship.

 

[muck]

Ignorant question time - (I sincerely don't know) Are "recent arrivals" welcome in German or other Euro armed forces?

My comment was more about the prospect of conscription in a hypothetical war.

The (usually self-restricting) German constitution is surprisingly authoritarian on that matter, giving the government the power to conscript all males after a state of war has been declared. Article 12a states just that: "all men".

Obviously, this article has never been invoked before and no one really knows how to use it, but the general consensus amongst scholars is that if you're a man above 18 years of age and you have your main residence in Germany, Berlin could compell you to serve in the German armed forces (or an alternative service organisation for conscientous objectors).

Just another deployment, no feelings about it here other than it being called a "reconstruction mission" for PR purposes when it was clearly counter-insurgency warfare and the cost (this was at the time of eternal peace so the only thing people on the streets could come up with when asked what government spending should be cut was "defense"). The armed forces were cannibalizing themselves to pay for the mission.

Few nations are as skittish about the use of force as Germans.

Oh, over here it was Iraq what killed the mood.

The population was actually quite supportive of the Afghanistan deployment initially.

But the Iraq War was indescribably unpopular around here and generally seen as one endless war crime. That gave a massive popularity boost not just to the pacifists, but also to all stripes of anti-Americanism (which had been fairly silent since the end of the Cold War).

"Overseas deployment" became interchangeable with "risking your life for the American oil industry". The fact that Afghanistan doesn't have oil mattered very little, as one might imagine.

The caveats placed on the German contingent in Afghanistan for the longest time (no such restrictions in Kosovo) came from that very same mindset. No government dared risking casualties in a deployment of which the majority of the population disapproved.

 

[PEMM]

Those 1.2 million Russo-Germans? Yeah, I wouldn't count on them right now. The loyalty of most Muslim immigrants is also a shame and a major problem (two notable exceptions in the polls: Muslims with Turkish or Bosnian roots).

Just makes you wonder, how many of russian dual citizens are ready for sabotage simply for patriotism? And how many of the rest would be ready for it for money? What happens to the morale, when instead of fearing your enemy, you have to be weary of your mate in the foxhole?

Our "shared values" definitely makes us vulnerable for this.

In Finland we conscript these people and have conscripts doing most of the works.

In fantasy world this makes them patriotic Finns. In reality...

 

[PEMM]

One fifth of Finnish men born in 2005 was relieved, either completely or their service was postponed. And the reasons were:

56.5% - mental issues, alcohol, drugs, behavioral issues
14.5% overweight, underweight or diabetes
Other smaller reasons were eyesight and hearing, knee and back problems, and "other".

So while we have been spending most of our time talking about decreasing fitness (which is a real issue), elephant in the room has been ignored: mental issues and drugs.

Source (in Finnish, not much interest to you).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies