Does NATO need to be improved militarily?

[Waylander]

@Swerve
Or everything would be sunk by our bureaucracy.

@Fallstaff
I also like a conscripts army better than a full professional army.
But not with our current manpower and time of service.
9 month of service is too short with 12 month being the absolute minimum in my eyes.

And with an overall manpower of not even 250.000 soldiers we just need to concentrate on professionals to cover our needs for oversea deployments. But I have to agree that the steady flow of FWDLs is usefull for these missions.

 

[Falstaff]

The UK spend 2.41 % of their GDP or 52 886 700 000 $, France 2.19% or 45 billion $. For Germany it's 1.4% or 42 283 400 000 $. Could go on like this forever
A 2% rate would make Germany third largest defence spender after USA and China with 60 billion $.

Imagine what would happen to Eurofighter development with the Bundeswehr awash with cash? And UCAVs? All those unfunded EADS programmes waiting for money . . . Missiles . . . Ships . . . Aircraft . . . Communications . . .

I'm afraid that's very much beyond my horizon and I'm sure beyond that of our politicians too

 

[contedicavour]

I'm a bit surprised by your enthousiasm for conscript forces
Sure, they don't cost a lot, but they cannot be used for any overseas missions and, unless you only conscript only specialized technicians and engineers, are useless for manning today's military technology.
My nightmare is that when you stop conscripting you end up with a lot of professional senior NCOs and high ranking officers who have no job anymore though you still need to keep them and pay them. In Italy we have a lot of trouble re-equilibrating the army retiring the old NCOs and recruiting more young professional soldiers who can be deployed to Afghanistan, the Balkans, Lebanon, etc. Though eventually we'll make it...

Regarding the German armed forces' role in today's Europe and world environment, they are the best equipped in heavy weapons (from Pzh2000 to the Leo2A6) so they should be preserved as the core of heavy armoured interventions. More agile/lighter French, British and Italian troops complement well with the German forces in longer and more dangerous environments, where German MBTs would better protect parachutists and aero-mobile regiments.

cheers

 

[Falstaff]

A conscript army has one decisive advantage: The army is mixed up with young people from different classes of population with more civilian thinking on a regular basis. Makes sure the armed forces don't lose contact to the civilian society and enables a strong connection between the armed forces and the rest of the society. Plus there is the problem that becoming a soldier isn't exactly the dream of many young people until they do their duty and change their minds. Makes recruiting a lot easier and attracts different kinds of people than a pure professional army.
And one thing is for sure, young people can learn a lot during their service.
I do however think that the share of professionals must be increased. And, as Waylander said, service should be extended to 12 months.

 

[Waylander]

In the end we are not really heavier than for example british, Italian or French forces. As for paras and airmobile elements. It is not as if there are no such units here. Two para brigades (With two combat bns each) and an airmobile regiment (currently "under construction") are our assets in this area.
But I agree that our industry currently has the ability to offer nearly the whole range of land equipment which is state of the art (If you are able to pay for it).


As for conscripts being not able to use current military technology. For sure you cannot make an UAV operator out of a conscript but there are enough roles were a conscript can serve with success aka tanks, infantry units, logistics, combar engineers, navy and air force light infantry, maintenance units, etc...
But you need a longer serving time than the current 9 month.
My idea would be a full professional Bundeswehr with a nearly seperate conscript system which works like the swiss militia system. Maybe also something like additional national guard units.

This would give us a fully deployable professional army without compromising the ability to grow significantly if needed. Many of our current professionals decided top stay in the Bundeswehr during their conscript time. This would also remain when using my preferred system as conscripts would change to the professional Bundeswehr when deciding to become a pro.

 

[swerve]

...My idea would be a full professional Bundeswehr with a nearly seperate conscript system which works like the swiss militia system. Maybe also something like additional national guard units.

This would give us a fully deployable professional army without compromising the ability to grow significantly if needed. Many of our current professionals decided top stay in the Bundeswehr during their conscript time. This would also remain when using my preferred system as conscripts would change to the professional Bundeswehr when deciding to become a pro.

I like that idea. You'd probably also need a regular reserve (ex-regulars), to back up the regulars in foreign deployments, assuming the militia is for home defence only. You could officer your conscript militia with ex-professionals (give 'em a choice when they leave the regulars: regular reserve, or militia - I expect plenty would choose the stay-at-home option), leavened with conscripts who choose to do extra training.

 

[Waylander]

We already have a reserve system but it suffered even more from the cuts after the end of cold war than the regular forces.
Many reserve formations have been disbanded. For example only six (I hope I remember right) reserve bns will remain in the army.

As you said the mentioned system would offer soldiers (ex professionals and conscripts) additional reserve positions. Today it is not that easy to find an active reserve slot.

 

[kato]

Two para brigades (With two combat bns each) and an airmobile regiment (currently "under construction") are our assets in this area.

The airmobile brigade under construction is actually just a hollow thing. It provides the helicopter regiments, but no forces to be transported in the same division (the other brigade in the same division is more like "combat support forces"). It would serve more as a mobility factor for other divisions (in particular the two light infantry brigades). At least if we're both talking about the airmobile elements of the DLO.

Many of our current professionals decided top stay in the Bundeswehr during their conscript time.

Hmmm, not in my unit. We had (iirc) about 7 or 8 people who signed up before their conscription service, all for officer and NCO positions. Another 2 or 3 signed up like that, but jumped off the bandwagon within the first 6 months.
FWDL (conscripts voluntarily serving up to 2 years) were very scarce due to Kosovo at the time (2 signed up). Another 2 conscripts signed up as reserve NCOs after their conscription was over (which involves a one-month training course and the occasional reserve service).
We also had one guy in the company during basic who had enlisted a few years after his conscript service, and one other who signed up during conscription (for 6 years as enlisted, after they offered him a 2-year professional apprenticeship for the price of 4 years service afterwards).

 

[Waylander]

Thats just one example. The BW says that they recruite a countable number of their longer serving soldiers from the conscripts. I didn't say the majority.

And we are not talking about the same airmobile units. It is right that till now the DLO had no organic combat troops (aka air assault infantry).
But since some time the Luftbewegliches Jägerregiment 1 is under construction.
It consists of:
1st company - staff/logistics
2nd, 3rd and 4th: light infantry (Jäger)
5th and 6th: heavy weapons infantry (schwere Jäger)
7th: combat engineers (Pioniere)
8th: light AAM (leichte Raketenabwehrbatterie)
9th: support (Versorgungskompanie)
10th: operational support, don't ask kme for the right english term (Einsatz- und Unterstützung)

 

[contedicavour]

Then it must be just a perception, but :
- whenever one thinks of French forces one sees cavalry (often Legion Etrangere) with AMX-10RC
- for the UK it's highly mobile paratroopers and elite regiments winding their way in dangerous urban areas
- for Italy it's our infantry units covered by Centauro 8x8 105mm (by now Centauro has been operating in Somalia, Egypt in exercises, all over Eastern Europe, Spain, Iraq, Lebanon...)
- for Germany I still see columns of shining Leo2s

How are the German troops deployed overseas equipped ?

cheers

 

[kato]

How are the German troops deployed overseas equipped ?

Kosovo: Comparably heavy equipment deployed, including Marder IFV and Leo 2s (as "backup"), but the actually active units there mostly use Fuchs, Dingo and trucks these days. Similar equipment in Macedonia, and Leos and such were actually deployed on missions occasionally in both countries.
Afghanistan: Light equipment, mostly Dingo, Fennek, Wiesel, Fuchs. A few Luchs for convoy protection, and one over-strength Marder platoon deployed (though i doubt those have ever been outside their camp).
Bosnia: Inbetween, leaning towards unarmored these days, with Fuchs and Luchs providing some armor where it's seen as needed.
Somalia: Was the first real out-of-area mission (except for Cambodia); used trucks and Fuchs for movement and Wiesel for backup mostly.
Kongo: Paratrooper unit, mostly Wolf seen in public, but also Mungo and Wiesel deployed.

The deployment to Macedonia and subsequent invasion into Kosovo in 1999 was a "classic" operation as one might imagine with mechanized forces: CH-53G airlifting Wiesel and Wolf forward to perform recon and occupy strategic points, Luchs performing road recon along the selected inroads, columns of heavy armour (Leo 2, Marder, Fuchs) rolling along the roads, strategic roadblocks manned with heavy armour and infantry.
But that's about it. All other deployments lean towards the light forces, with some medium, fast backup, and the Bundeswehr sees this for future deployments as well apparently (and has adjusted its buying policy in that direction).

 

[contedicavour]

Very interesting Kato, thanks.

Seeing how the British and Dutch are equipped in Afghanistan (MBTs and even Dutch 155mm artillery) I was under the impression that the Italian contingent so far was underequipped (only Puma 6x6 AIFV and Lince Hummvee type vehicle). I now realize that we aren't the exception.
However under heavy enemy fire we are at long last reinforcing with what comes closest to the Marder AIFV (Dardo) plus a few Mangusta attack helo.

If the Germans rarely deploy their wonderful Leo2A6 abroad is it more because of politicians' unease with this, or because of operational logic ? (In our case it's the politicians, both of the right and of the left).

cheers

 

[Waylander]

There are no British or Dutch MBTs in A-stan. The only ones with MBTs is Canada (Not even the US) with their Leopard 1C2 (Soon to be replaced by leased Leopard 2A6M). The Danes have some of their Leopard 2A5DK with minor modifications ready for deployment if needed.

Not sending MBTs is partly because of political and also because of practical reasons.
The landscape in northern A-stan favors heavy tracked vehicles less than the more flat south.
Our government also makes a politcal problem of it because it is so eager to make the mission a pure peace mission. Sending MBTs would look too agressive (IMHO the public opinion doesn't really care if we operate a platoon of Leos as QRF in the north).

We also replaced the Leopard 2A5 we sended to Kosovo with A4s later due to better bridge crossing performance.
After the hot phase of the beginning the A4s were good enough and had the ability to cross more bridges.

IMHO operational Tiger helicopters would be of more use in the north but I am not sure if they are able to operate effectively in the northern mountains.

 

[metro]

-Since this thread started out asking about NATO/charter--I do have a question relating to internatioal law, posed mostly to Europeans here as it would pretty much rely upon you--and then sort of went in another direction (wow, do I wish we didn't have dumb and dumber as the two parties running our gov't... the Dem's can't stop talking about getting out of this war because, "we're wasting money... oh, and lives too..." then they want to go ahead and pass an "Illegal Immigration" Blll that will cost us between $1-$2 Trillion. That is, they want to pass a bill that contains more laws, for people to follow who have already broken the laws?!?! No sealing the boarder either, it costs too muchnfloorl: After hearing those numbers, this war sounds cheap!

Anyway, the qestion is regarding the Genocide Convention, the Iternational Criminal Court Treaty (ICC) and Mr. Ahmadinejad (even his friend Rafsanjai).

When Ahmadinejad has lead, "Death to America," "Death to Israel," "Death to Britain" chants among his people and military, doesn't that violate Article 3c (I know, you all have it memorized ), which makes punishable the "direct and pblic incitmet to commit genocide"? Genocide is defined in part as, "kiling, in whole or in part, members of a national group."

If that doesn't than the statement he made about "Wiping Israel off the face of the map/earth" (some say we can't translate, and what he really said was, "Erase Israel from the pages of History." Fine, big difference--perhaps it's worse in that Israel can't erase itself from books all around the world, but nukes could. Regardless, he's also theatened to "uproot" Israel and on and on. He also said, "He wants a world without America." This was done in front of thousands of people and he used Posters/Props in eglish that have those pictures of "Hour glasses with a ball with the Israeli Flag falling down through the middle of it, while at the bottom, there is only a ball with an Amercan Flag on it that has it top cracked off."

Rafsanjani, who I believe has an Interpol warrant out for his arrest, said (while President in 2001): If one day, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession-on that day this method of global arrogance would come to an end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing left on the ground, whereas it will ony slightly damage the world of Islam." The Genocide Convention has an additional defintion, "deliberately inflicting on the national group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction." I'm no lawyer, but the former Iranian President saying that using a nke in Israel, would inflict upon Israel a condition of life that would bring about the physical destruction of a national group... not to mention a "lesser" destruction of Arabs!

It is also worth noting that the new International Criminal Court (ICC) also has some very specific provisions relating to genocide. Article 25(3)(e) of the Rome Statue of the ICC provides individual criminal responsibility for any individual who directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide.

Again, the President of Iran made his statements in public – before thousans of people and posters/props that were in English. He made no attempt to hide his remarks. The Iranian foreign minister explicitly and publicly endorsed the remarks as the policy of the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad quite clearly made public incitements to commit genocide against the nation of Israel if not the US and GB or other Europea countries he's threatened.

Article 27 of the Rome Statue also makes clear that its provisions for individual criminal responsibility apply “equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity” such as a head of state or government.

Article 77 of the Statue authorizes the ICC to imprison individuals for committing
crimes defined by the Statue.

[Reason for European Help]
Iran has signed but not ratified the Rome Statue and is therefore not a State Party to the ICC. Therefore, the only mechanism by which to provide the ICC with jurisdiction in the case of President Ahmadinejad’s public incitement to genocide against Israel/US/GB/Others is to have the U.N. Security Council refer the matter to the ICC.
Because the United States is not a State Party to the ICC treaty and may therefore not consider itself the appropriate country to bring this matter up in the Security Council, so it would need to be brought by European member to the Security Council to the ICC.
IMO, the referral of this matter to the Security Council by a
European country will make a strong statement that State Parties to the ICC treaty take the ICC seriously and intend to enforce its provisions designed to deter genocide.

Do any of you have an opinion if this--which I've heard suggested-- is something Europe would do (ask France or the UK-- I don't know every other country rotating around the Security Council today, off of the top of my head) to bring this case forward? Again, since we arn't a State Party to the ICC we can't really bring this to the ICC.:unknown I believe this is seperate from the Genocide Convention (again, not a lawyer).

 

[kato]

Dutch 155mm artillery

As a side note, there's exactly 3 (three) Dutch PzH 2000 in Afghanistan. The "next-heaviest" European artillery in Afghanistan are 4 (four) British (?) M777 155mm towed artillery guns.

 

[Grand Danois]

The "next-heaviest" European artillery in Afghanistan are 4 (four) British (?) M777 155mm towed artillery guns.

BAE (British, but some US, IIRC) design. Deployed in Afghanistan with the Canadians.

Re the danish Leopards. They were suggested as extra forces this fall, but govt decided to leave them home. Apparently still on standby.

 

[riksavage]

According to the below MOD web-site the UK forces in Afghanistan comprises 6,000, increasing to around 7,700 service personnel over the course of 2007.

The UK have deployed MLRS, 105mm light-guns (not 155mm), CVR(T) tracked recon vehicles (light tanks) and armored Vikings crewed by RM personnel, in addition to wheeled Vectors, Mastiffs, Landrovers etc. No MBT’s as yet. However, should the UK draw-down it’s forces in Basra next year as planned the intention I understand is to ramp up the presence in Afghanistan, which could result in the deployment of MBT’s, Warriors etc.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F...eets/OperationsInAfghanistanBritishForces.htm

 

[augreich]

Hello,

I'm new to this forum as well.

NATO, as a force, is relatively worthless. Remember in the 90's when they were deployed to Africa? An untold number of people were massacred right under thier noses. The leader of Sierra Leon had to hire Executive Outcomes, a mercenary group based in South Africa(disbanded), to come in and rid the area of the threat. They accomplished the task very quickly; but for political reasons, were forced to leave. Chaos and mass murder returned almost immediately upon E.O.'s departure. My point is, why do they exist if they can't even engage a threat and prevent massacres like the ones in Africa.

 

[riksavage]

Augreich - NATO has not been deployed to Africa, I think you are confusing this organisation with the UN.

In the case of Sierra Leone, the UK/UN went in and restored a democratic Government. Check out Wikipedia for detailed information.

 

[augreich]

I checked it out and you are right.
I stand corrected. Thanks.