German Army Development

[kato]

European Security & Defense Magazine has an article titled "Protected Ground Vehicles" in its current online issue, which recaps the GFF and GTF concept in English language, and also spends a page on other German combat vehicle developments. Some minor factual errors in there, but not bad overall.

There is also a recapping article on the Future Heavy Transport Helicopter in the same issue, and an article on "Networked Security" authored by German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung.

And the remaining articles not available online (and the ones planned for the next two issues) really tempt me to spend the €5.90 for the print issue

If i read that right, the "KPz UrbOps" is now going to be an optional module for the A6M, which can be switched for the standard "duel module" in-theater.

By current rumours, 50 A6M will have their chassis modified (but retain the A6 turret as "duel module"), while 50 old A4 turrets will be upgraded to PSO/UrbOps standards, and the resulting turret will serve as an in-theater replacement for the standard A6 turrets on those tanks.

 

[Firn]

By current rumours, 50 A6M will have their chassis modified (but retain the A6 turret as "duel module"), while 50 old A4 turrets will be upgraded to PSO/UrbOps standards, and the resulting turret will serve as an in-theater replacement for the standard A6 turrets on those tanks.

Seems to be good news. I for one would be interested to see a 120mm mortar fitted on some turrets and serve as "triple module"

MrsKpSys (Mortar Combat System)

Definite Number: 38 weapons carriers plus unnamed number of command vehicles to be procured as initial capability until 2014. That would be enough to build 9 mortar platoons (of 4 units, as has been published before), and retain 2 weapon carriers for schooling.
The initial capacity will at least cover the Intervention Forces component of the Army. These currently have six infantry battalions, of which three are airborne. A imho not unlikely mix would give each airborne heavy company a single mortar platoon, and each of the three mechanized/motorized heavy companies two mortar platoons, for 9 platoons total.

Seems to be a very sensible addition. Lighy and mobile and a heavy punch. Ideal to support units in difficult terrain.

 

[Waylander]

Ok, after long discussions and lots of rumours it looks like the government settled for a new structure in order to save money. Ok, they also talk about streamlining them for future tasks and some of the measures may even really be good for our armed forces.

One of the most important measures taken is the abolishment of conscription.
Right now the Bundeswehr consists of roughly 250,000 soldiers including conscripts.

The new structure will consist of 156,000 professionals and 7,500 voluntary extended conscripts serving a max. of 2 years. Normal conscripts won't serve anymore.

Future numbers will as followed:
Army - 54,500
Air Force - 20,500
Navy - 11,500
Armed Force Basic Support - 34,500 (Basically a service which includes many support units for all other services)
Medical Service - 12,500 (Serves all three services and may be merged with the Basic Support)

I will write about actual units and equipment as soon as news emerge. Some things look relatively certain.

The army looses 2 of it's 8 mech inf bns as well as all of it's AA units. The two airborn brigades may be merged into one big Regiment. They also aim for 6 new light infantry bns. The 6 armour bns remain intact.
All this will be merged in 6 brigades all witth the equivalent of 2 light inf bns, 1 armour, 1 mech inf. I am not sure if the artillery (Which will also get reduced) is pooled in a support brigade with other assets.

The Air Force doesn't get EF Tranche 3b. So 140 EFs for them. The downsizing to 85 remaining Tornados is accelerated. A Heron based UAV will become a permanent solution. Global Hawk comes, too.

The Navy looses all FACs and all U209s (So the sub force will consist of 6 U212As). The F122s frigates may be replaced by only 3 F125s.

That's it for now.

I welcome that we finally get a fully professional Bundeswehr. Having a 6 month conscription is useless. The idea of 6 identical brigades is good, especially if the infantry really gets 6 additional bns. I am also ok with reducing the Paras. One regiment of airborn infantry should be enough for us.

The sinking of the remaining FACs is also ok. But I would like to see 2 additional U212A for a total number of 8.

I would also like to see Tranche 3b of the EF, especially as the Tornado ends it's service life. Hopefully they upgrade the EF consequently...

At least we are not alone in Europe. I expect the Brits to suffer even more and France is also not going to get away lightly.

 

[Navor86]

If we really downsize the Paras and the Armoured Infantry by 2 Bns each the proposed structure would only lead to 2 add. Infantry Bn in contrast to today.
For those who are not familiar with todays German army.
We have
8 Armoured Bn
3 Light Infantry (Jäger Bn) 292,Jägerregiment 1( which has just 3 Inf companies)+291 Bn forming with 2 Inf companies
4 Para Bn
3 Mountain Bn
=18 Bns

After todays news this would be
6 Armoured Inf Bn
3+6 Jäger Bn
2 Para Bn
3 Mountain Bn
=20 Bn

 

[Waylander]

I know but I have always been an advocat of reroling some of our specialized regiments to good and simple Jäger battalions.

It is totally weird that we have more specialized infantry (Airborn and Mountain) than plain normal light ones while our infantry serves as normal Jäger for 90% of the time.

 

[Navor86]

Makes sense
but I would like to see 1 additional Bn for the Jägerregiment+ maybe re-roling of one of the Para Bn to a unit similiar to UK SFSG or Aus 2nd Cdo Regiment while retaining the other 3 Bns in either a Regiment or Brigade. Regiments used to have 3 Bn anyway. So basically 22+1 Bns.

 

[Waylander]

As support of Tier 1 special forces has been in their portfolie for some time now I expect the Regiment to be relatively similar to the British Paras.

I agree that having one dedicated bn for the SF support role would be ideal but I also wouldn't be surprised if they try to make multirole coys out of them again.

As for Regiments tending to have 3 bns. Our latest new regiments (Panzerartillerieregiment 345 and Jägerregiment 1) are glorified battalions and not multi-bn Regiments.

 

[kato]

(Panzerartillerieregiment 345 and Jägerregiment 1)

There's a bit more than those two - and it varies quite a lot. Regiments in the current structure, sorted by size:

Army
Pionierregiment 100 : Staff Coy + 3 Eng Bn (2 active, 1 reserve) ; 19 coys total
Artillerieregiment 100 : Staff Coy + 2 Art Bn ; 13 coys total
Mittleres Transporthubschrauberregiment 20 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 4 Coys ; 12 coys total
Mittleres Transporthubschrauberregiment15 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 2 Coy ; 10 coys total
Transporthubschrauberregiment 30 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 2 Coy ; 10 coys total
Transporthubschrauberregiment 10 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 2 Coy ; 10 coys total
Kampfhubschrauberregiment 26 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 2 Coy ; 10 coys total
Kampfhubschrauberregiment 36 : Staff Coy + 2 Bn + 2 Coy ; 10 coys total
Jägerregiment 1 : 10 coys
Flugabwehrlehrregiment 6 : 9 coys + 2x staff
Fernmelderegiment 1 : 8 coys
ABC-Abwehrregiment 750 : 7 coys + staff
Artillerielehrregiment 345 : 7 coys + staff

SKB
Führungsunterstützungsregiment 28 : ~20 coys
Führungsunterstützungsregiment 29 : ~20 coys
Führungsunterstützungsregiment 38 : ~20 coys
Logistikregiment 17 : ~13 coys
Logistikregiment 46 : ~24 coys
Logistikregiment 47 : ~22 coys

Luftwaffe
Luftwaffeninstandhaltungsregiment 1 : ~12 coys
Luftwaffeninstandhaltungsregiment 2 : ~12 coys

 

[Waylander]

Ok, I forgot 100 and the Pios but I deliberately left out helicopters, support and other services.

My point was that I wouldn't be sure about a new Pararegiment having 2 bns at all. My examples were meant for showing that I could also imagine something similar to the Jägerregiment 1.

 

[kato]

Regarding the changes, we'll see. The above isn't even remotely consensus, it's just the opinion of that Lackaff' that's our defense minister. And no one except the FDP ans some of his CSU cronies really agrees with him. Right now those two parties together poll about 10% (and Forsa is seeing FDP out of parliament).

 

[Waylander]

I understand the media reports as this being something most in the CDU/CSU and FDP can agree on with most of the pro-conscription crowd being ok with it.

Nevertheless you are right that this is not the finalized structure.

 

[kato]

CDU Baden-Württemberg for example is pretty solidly against it, as is - important - the DBwV leadership.

In Bavaria itself the CSU might be in favour, but they're getting problems with their coalition partner FWU over the issue.

 

[Falstaff]

The above isn't even remotely consensus, it's just the opinion of that Lackaff' that's our defense minister.

Not even that. It's more or less a collection of ideas, nowhere near a decision. You should know how the press works these days.

And no one except the FDP ans some of his CSU cronies really agrees with him. Right now those two parties together poll about 10% (and Forsa is seeing FDP out of parliament).

The only thing that is official opinion of the FDP is the end of the conscription army, but even that and everything else is being discussed thourougly, as is in the CDU and the CSU.

In Bavaria, Mr. Seehofer has stated repeatedly within the coalition that he doesn't care about federal politics, he wants to win the next bavarian election, that's all he cares about. He'll support whatever he feels the bavarian population wants.

 

[Waylander]

I wasn't sure if I should post it or not.

Unlike with all the rumours before this version reported by the media sounded like it was favoured by much more factions than the ones before and as if it could be the base of the structure to come.

Nevertheless I am aware of the fact that our government is as much likely to do a 180 degree turn...

BTW, @Kato
I find your words about KTzG being a Lackaffe a little bit strong. He is far from being perfect but IMO a huge improvement over his predecessor (which isn't all that hard...) and is also relatively good secretary of defense compared to others who filled this role during my lifetime.

 

[kato]

I find your words about KTzG being a Lackaffe a little bit strong.

He's Bavarian, he's gotta be able to take it, or he's not cut out for politics. And that he can take it he proved earlier this year in front of Brother Barnabas, where der kleine atlantische Gebirgsjäger-Unteroffizier could choose between being called the "War Minister" or the "War Prevention Minister".

relatively good secretary of defense compared to others who filled this role during my lifetime.

Mmm, meaning compared to Apel, Wörner, Scholz, Stoltenberg, Rühe, Scharping, Struck and Jung? I'll take Struck and Scharping, hell even Wörner and Rühe over Gutti any day.

The only thing that is official opinion of the FDP is the end of the conscription army, but even that and everything else is being discussed thourougly, as is in the CDU and the CSU.

There is an official FDP proposal stemming from 2005, and still being upheld by the FDP. That one called for 220,000 soldiers plus 55,000 reserve, cutting the support forces down to next to nothing and abolishing conscription.

 

[Waylander]

I could probably live with Struck having been somewhat of a good minister, too. But Rühe and Scharping? I don't think so but in the end it comes down to personal preference. I wouldn't have thought that I am favourable of a CSU politician.

But let's not derail that thread any further. Other rumours I read are talking about abolishing the Brigade. That would be really strange in the light of compatibility with our allies and command ability on missions.

 

[riksavage]

Future numbers will as followed:
Army - 54,500
Air Force - 20,500
Navy - 11,500
Armed Force Basic Support - 34,500 (Basically a service which includes many support units for all other services)
Medical Service - 12,500 (Serves all three services and may be merged with the Basic Support)

With most of Europe cutting back, this revised standing military looks pretty damned small to me. The UK will IMHO withdraw from Germany either now (following the SDR) or over the next decade (assuming Russia doesn't start sabre rattling); the US will likely do the same and redeploy an increasing number of resources outside Europe to deal with a rising and more aggresive China.This means the German army will have to fill the void. 54,000 men is way too small to defend a largely land-locked country the size of Germany and contribute to NATO/UN overseas missions, which are likely to increase, not decease as competition for dwindling resources (oil, gas, grain and water etc.) becomes even more acute.

I'm not a fan of conscription for quality and limited deployment opportunity reasons, but considering Germany has the strongest economy in Europe one would have thought they would invest more in defence and try and maintain a larger volunteer army than currently planned.

 

[kato]

With most of Europe cutting back, this revised standing military looks pretty damned small to me. The UK will IMHO withdraw from Germany either now (following the SDR) or over the next decade (assuming Russia doesn't start sabre rattling); the US will likely do the same and redeploy an increasing number of resources outside Europe to deal with a rising and more aggresive China.

The USA only retains 4 or 5 combat battalions in Germany right now anyway. And those are the ones on rotation out of Iraq or Afghanistan. The BFG nominally has two brigades in Germany, but those are assigned to the ARRC and are per se not part of German territorial defense planning.

54,000 men is way too small to defend a largely land-locked country the size of Germany and contribute to NATO/UN overseas missions

The current German government has long since kissed territorial defense goodbye. Deployability within NATO context is all that counts, and in that regard 54,000 isn't a bad number.

one would have thought they would invest more in defence and try and maintain a larger volunteer army than currently planned.

Germany has a far smaller government - percentage-wise. And the Military gets 10% of the budget (second-biggest item), which isn't that bad.
Regarding "big government" for example the US federal intake is 16.7% of GDP, while spending is 24.9% - the German federal intake is 7.5% of GDP, while spending is 9.0% of GDP.

 

[Waylander]

I also think that right now defence of Germany in a NATO context is no problem. And such a structure with an all professional army is not that bad when your focus is on high and low intensity deployments.

One cannot justify to conscript only a limited (unfair) number of young males which cannot contribute to oversea deployments just for the sake of tradition. We are not really more or less defendable with some thousand short time conscripts.

Either you have a real threat which forces you to use conscription like the FDR or GDR had before reunification or you don't. Something in the middle with no real threat and just short time conscription without rehearsals or a functioning reserve system is just a waste of time and ressources.

What might be a problem is the loss of institutional knowledge. High intensity combined arms combat is not easy to learn if you lost your experience.

 

[Falstaff]

There is an official FDP proposal stemming from 2005, and still being upheld by the FDP. That one called for 220,000 soldiers plus 55,000 reserve, cutting the support forces down to next to nothing and abolishing conscription.

You don't honestly think that a 2005 paper has anything to do with the current discussion within the FDP? Times have changed and the discussion is on. Big time. Just yesterday I spoke to a member of the Bundestag for the FDP who stems from Iran and he very convincingly assured that there is a serious and very honest debate going on. That is.. with exception of the CSU, reason for which I presented in my last posting. Nevertheless, he belongs to the part of the FDP that is not comfortable with massive cuts and rather thinks that reasonably funded transformation is the way to go.