European Union Battlegroups

BuSOF

New Member
Hello, guys! Do you have some information about future deployments of the EU Battlegroups? I am curious, because the Balkan Battlegroup was declared operational not more than a month ago and I was wondering if there are some plans for it.
 

regstrup

Member
The EU Battlegroups are to be the Quick Reaction Forces of the EU. They have to be able to deploy to hotspots up to 6.000 km. from Brussels within 10 days from the time, that the decision is made by the EU.

The plan is, that they are to be in the hotspot to establish peace and security for the population or until a permanent force can be deployed for up to 30 days. The period of deployment can be extended up to 120 days.
 

Sgt.Banes

New Member
The EU Battlegroups are to be the Quick Reaction Forces of the EU. They have to be able to deploy to hotspots up to 6.000 km. from Brussels within 10 days from the time, that the decision is made by the EU.

The plan is, that they are to be in the hotspot to establish peace and security for the population or until a permanent force can be deployed for up to 30 days. The period of deployment can be extended up to 120 days.
It seems as though they would have a more larger military entity within EU control. I mean if the EU were to draft a mandate that allowed for Parliament and Commission to create a European Union Army, it would be one of the top five largest armies easily surpassing the United States, Russia, and India.
 

Jezza

Member
good in theory

2 much infighting and POLITICS of whos in charge of deployment
if i were a rouge country id be scared of nato,USA,china or russia

NOT the EU:eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl:
 

Sgt.Banes

New Member
good in theory

2 much infighting and POLITICS of whos in charge of deployment
if i were a rouge country id be scared of nato,USA,china or russia

NOT the EU:eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl:
Well, in my theory of an EU army Germany and France should have joint responsibility over the deployment and overhaul of a EU army. The British though they are a member, will more than likely not join because in the past have had other conflicts that they want to work out side of a alliance. So I think its more suitable to have the other two European power houses tackle that issue.
 

DavidDCM

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
good in theory

2 much infighting and POLITICS of whos in charge of deployment
if i were a rouge country id be scared of nato,USA,china or russia

NOT the EU:eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl: :eek:nfloorl:
A EU battlegroups will not be for invading any kind of "axis of evil" - countries. They'll be for rapid deployment if a peace support operation is turning bad, for immidiate help if a humanitarian crisis happens somewhere and stuff like that. No invasion ever planned.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
In the end enforcing UN backed solutions and keeping the peace by force (3 block war) doesn't look like they rule out offensive operations.
All the high intensity warfare training they get is not just for forceless peacekeeping.
 

DavidDCM

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No, they are not for peacekeeping. They join in if a Peace support operation turns "hot", for example. If Taliban decides to kick out european soldiers of A'stan by force, and the soldiers there can't make their own stand due to their Peacemission equipment, then EU battlegroups comes in and helps out.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
No, they are not for peacekeeping. They join in if a Peace support operation turns "hot", for example. If Taliban decides to kick out european soldiers of A'stan by force, and the soldiers there can't make their own stand due to their Peacemission equipment, then EU battlegroups comes in and helps out.
We use peace mission equipment in A-stan?

CV90, PZH2000, M113, Wiesel, Piranha, Eagle, various other armoured vehicles, L118 105mm guns, F-16, Harrier Gr.7, Rafale, Super Etendard. All are bringers of peace.

A-stan is basically a light infantry mission backed up with air power.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And they are not just going to join an already established peacekeeping mission.
If for example somewhere on the balcan the need for an intervention erupts the EU and NATO intends to send the battlegroups.

A good aim. But as always the problem I see is not the status of the battlegroups. They may be ready within a short time but how many here believe that there is a united political will in europe to send them into a hot mission so fast (Especially in the biggest EU-member...;) )?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They may be ready within a short time but how many here believe that there is a united political will in europe to send them into a hot mission so fast (Especially in the biggest EU-member...;) )?
Well, the one most likely mission - Kosovo turning hot when Albanians unilaterally declare independance later this year - is one that pretty much everyone in the EU can agree on.

I think Kosovo is really one of the big thing they're eyeing with the battlegroups. And ERRF. And NATO NRF as well.

@ Grand Danois:

For most european nations, what they have in Afghanistan barely rates for anything in light infantry support. At least in the North. The UK, Canada and such in the South are of course adequately backed up for a light infantry deployment.
If the North goes South (sic), all the forces currently placed there would barely rate a single infantry regiment by fire support, general firepower, or mobility.
I've never seen more than four or five different Wiesels at any time in Afghanistan btw. Maybe they have more somewhere, but those 4-5 would rate about what a single light infantry company gets for close support in the Bundeswehr - completely disregarding the indirect fire support they'd also get, but don't have in Afghanistan.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Well, the one most likely mission - Kosovo turning hot when Albanians unilaterally declare independance later this year - is one that pretty much everyone in the EU can agree on.

I think Kosovo is really one of the big thing they're eyeing with the battlegroups. And ERRF. And NATO NRF as well.

@ Grand Danois:

For most european nations, what they have in Afghanistan barely rates for anything in light infantry support. At least in the North. The UK, Canada and such in the South are of course adequately backed up for a light infantry deployment.
If the North goes South (sic), all the forces currently placed there would barely rate a single infantry regiment by fire support, general firepower, or mobility.
I've never seen more than four or five different Wiesels at any time in Afghanistan btw. Maybe they have more somewhere, but those 4-5 would rate about what a single light infantry company gets for close support in the Bundeswehr - completely disregarding the indirect fire support they'd also get, but don't have in Afghanistan.
Duly noted. I ended my post with the main point - Afghanistan is a light inf mission with heavy air support. E.g. the main Danish combat element in Helmand is recce units establishing contact with the Talibs, then blasting them away with air power.

The Danish PRTs have dealt with superior numbers the same way when getting ambushed in the north.

Heavy armor is not essential. I'd say the deployed units are more competent than the lack of armour suggests. When few in numbers, mobility counts - together with the rapid displacement of supporting firepower.

Btw, forgot the British Scimitars.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And don't forget the 5 Marder A5s. I think they may have never left the camp since they arrived...

Kato is defenitely right that there are barely enough light infantry formations in the north for more than an adequate security around the bases not to talk of something like a more offensive operation.
But the Fenneks seem to work very well in their recce role and the OMFs seem to especially hate the increased night recce capabilities provided by the Fenneks.
 
Top