Bundeswehr

[Merlöwe]

How effective is the Bundeswehr compared to other militaries in the regions (French, British, Russian)?

Can it project its power beyond its borders?

Can it effectively deal with any foreign invasion?

WARNING: NOT A COUNTRY A vs. COUNTRY B CONVERSATION

 

[Feanor]

Effective at what? You're asking a very broad question. Please be more specific. Also please try to avoid turning this into a Country A vs Country B conversation, as that it against the rules. Thanks.

 

[11561]

I'd like to start out by saying that there is no nation on earth that can effectively counter ANY invasion. ANY nation on earth could theoreticlly be humbled by an invader with the technology, tactics, and numbers to accomplish the goal. There's no such thing as an unbeatable nation, no such thing as an unbeatable armed force.

That being said, I'd like to point out that Germany has a very long tradition of having a fine military, and a particularly fine army. This tradition continues today.

I don't believe that any other army in the would could best the Bundeswehr on German soil without the use of nukes. The US might give the Bundeswehr a run for it's money if they could come through France or the low countries, and maybe Russia could if it ever got back into steamroller mode ala WWII or cold war, but I believe both of those possibilities to be remote in the extreme.

As far as power projection goes, Germany isn't quite so strong. She doesn't have the navy or airfleet to deliver or sustain large numbers of troops abroad. If Germany had overseas possessions like Britian, there would be no successful Falklands in Germany's future, given current equipment. She can project power as far as her tanks can secure airstrips. France, Poland, Czechoslovakia? Still not a problem. South Africa, Peru, Bangladesh? Not happening anytime soon.

Cheers

 

[11561]

I'd like to start out by saying that there is no nation on earth that can effectively counter ANY invasion. ANY nation on earth could theoreticlly be humbled by an invader with the technology, tactics, and numbers to accomplish the goal. There's no such thing as an unbeatable nation, no such thing as an unbeatable armed force.

That being said, I'd like to point out that Germany has a very long tradition of having a fine military, and a particularly fine army. This tradition continues today.

I don't believe that any other army in the would could best the Bundeswehr on German soil without the use of nukes. The US might give the Bundeswehr a run for it's money if they could come through France or the low countries, and maybe Russia could if it ever got back into steamroller mode ala WWII or cold war, but I believe both of those possibilities to be remote in the extreme.

As far as power projection goes, Germany isn't quite so strong. She doesn't have the navy or airfleet to deliver or sustain large numbers of troops abroad. If Germany had overseas possessions like Britian, there would be no successful Falklands in Germany's future, given current equipment. She can project power as far as her tanks can secure airstrips. France, Poland, Czechoslovakia? Still not a problem. South Africa, Peru, Bangladesh? Not happening anytime soon.

Cheers

 

[kato]

As Feanor said, define effectiveness first.

And the answer is no on the other two questions.

 

[Waylander]

At least we could deal with an invasion of any of our direct neighbours... (unless the french want to test some nukes on our soil)

 

[kato]

Nah, Luxembourg will easily overrun us with their 40 HMMWVs and 50 Dingos.

 

[Waylander]

At least they have biggest fleet of AWACS outside of the US.
Not bad for a country of 500k people.

 

[Uhu]

Germany is in the NATO, if anybody invades Germany, he has to face the whole NATO forces (article 5). I think NATO can defend it quite well against the rest of the world combined.

As for power projection: The Bundeswehr is neither technically able to do significant power projection (nearly non-existent amphibious and very limited airborne capabilities) nor can it be used in agressive ways ("Grundgesetz" Article 26, Article 87a).

 

[kato]

if anybody invades Germany, he has to face the whole NATO forces (article 5).

Technically, no. First all NATO members have to agree that Article 5 is to be declared, and then there's a loooot of leeway in how to interpret Article 5 by "Allies".
However, the far stronger mutual defense clause formed by the WEU would come into effect immediately, which defines that all WEU members have to "engage all their military and other means" to defend an attacked member.

 

[Uhu]

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Sorry, I really don't see much room for discussion here. Ok, an unarmed invasion is not covered here, but that could be repelled quite easily by the Bundeswehr on its own (or police, or farmers with pichforks).

 

[kato]

"such action as it deems necessary"
This opens the possibility for any "ally" to deny support on the reasoning that protecting that territory is not necessary in their opinion.

There is a marked difference to the WEU proposition for the same case, which reads:

If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.

 

[Tavarisch]

"such action as it deems necessary"
This opens the possibility for any "ally" to deny support on the reasoning that protecting that territory is not necessary in their opinion.

There is a marked difference to the WEU proposition for the same case, which reads:

In any case, wouldn't it be more mutual for the other NATOers to help Germany in the even that Germany was attacked?