FutureTank
Banned Member
Are suggesting Soviet Union II?!
European Armour
- Thread starter .pt
- Start date
- Status
Well I don't think right now that NATO helps with security for example I'm Greek,the"opponent" for us is Turkey,and the "opponent" for them is Greece and we are both members of NATO,how can NATO provide security?My thought is not for the next 5 years....but in the next for example 20 years,so new platforms should be researched and put into production,If we want to have superiority we can't remain to present platforms....And as far as Soviet Union2 is concerned FutureTank I really have no comments to make because I'm Greek not Russian I just said that some things about politics seem good to some people and bad to others....
Mangusta CBT
New Member
Have you some source about this transformation ?
In english?
Could be a problem.
Most of the infos are from the Bundeswehr site which is no longer available in english since they changed the layout (And this is really a shame) and from other german sites, books, newspapers, as well as from what I and comrades (active and reserve) get and got to know in the Bundeswehr.
I try to sum it up a little bit.
The target of the transformation is to get away from a pure defense army and transform into a more mobile reaction forces. This transformation can be seen in organization and equipment.
So our forces will be divided into pure professional units and units which still include conscripts which cannot be send to oversea missions.
Due to their special requirements our Navy and Air Force are already made up mostly of professional soldiers.
In the Army our main reaction formations will be:
- 1. Panzerdivision (1st armored division)
- DLO -> Division Luftbewegliche Operationen (Division for airmobile operations- attack/transport helicopter, armobile infantry,...)
- DSO -> Division Spezielle Operationen (Division for special operations- airborn infantry, special forces,...)
- German-French Brigade
As well as huge parts of our light and mountain infantry.
All other units which still include conscripts will preserve professional sub units ready for deployment.
And all these plans are nice wouldn't there be a lack of political support, a ridicilous budget for a country of our sice and economical strength, too much bureucracy and "defense experts" in our government which only military knowledge seems to come from old comic strips.
Could be a problem.
Most of the infos are from the Bundeswehr site which is no longer available in english since they changed the layout (And this is really a shame) and from other german sites, books, newspapers, as well as from what I and comrades (active and reserve) get and got to know in the Bundeswehr.
I try to sum it up a little bit.
The target of the transformation is to get away from a pure defense army and transform into a more mobile reaction forces. This transformation can be seen in organization and equipment.
So our forces will be divided into pure professional units and units which still include conscripts which cannot be send to oversea missions.
Due to their special requirements our Navy and Air Force are already made up mostly of professional soldiers.
In the Army our main reaction formations will be:
- 1. Panzerdivision (1st armored division)
- DLO -> Division Luftbewegliche Operationen (Division for airmobile operations- attack/transport helicopter, armobile infantry,...)
- DSO -> Division Spezielle Operationen (Division for special operations- airborn infantry, special forces,...)
- German-French Brigade
As well as huge parts of our light and mountain infantry.
All other units which still include conscripts will preserve professional sub units ready for deployment.
And all these plans are nice wouldn't there be a lack of political support, a ridicilous budget for a country of our sice and economical strength, too much bureucracy and "defense experts" in our government which only military knowledge seems to come from old comic strips.
Who do you think would side with the old bear to counter all this great spectacular European armor.
I forgot to post about my country stats...If I am in something wrong please correct me...I think we'll have a big contribution to the combined European forces...
Main battle tanks
170 Leopard 2A6HEL
182 Leopard 2A4
501 Leopard 1A5
165 M 48A5 MOLF
306 M 60A3 TTS (to be retired)
Armoured fighting vehicles
415 Marder 1A3
Armoured personnel carriers
501 Leonidas 2
1,589 M 113A1/A2/A3
243 VBL
280 M901A1/A2 ITV/TUA Armored TOW vehicle
256 M106A1/A2 AMC Armored mortar vehicle (120mm)
Self-propelled artillery
24 PzH 2000 (155/52 mm)
195 M109A1B/A2/A3GEA1/A5 (155/39 mm)
145 M110A2 (203/40 mm)
12 M107 (175/61 mm)
Rocket Artillery
36 M270 MLRS
116 RM70
36 MGM-140A ATACMS Block 1
Field Artillery
266 M114A1 (105mm)
427 M101 (105 mm)
18 Model 56 PACK (105 mm)
Air Defence Artillery
42 MIM-23 I.Hawk Phase III 7 batteries.
21 TOR-M1
38 OSA AK/AKM
54 ASRAD-HELLAS
1,350 FIM-92B/C Stinger
17 Artemis 30 (2x30mm)
506 ZU-23 (2x23mm)
243 RH-202 (2x20mm)
Anti-tank guided missiles
196 Kornet E
366 BGM-71 TOW 2
290 MILAN
262 9M111 Fagot
18,706 RPG-18
10,840 M72A2 LAW
135 ACL89 STRIM
1,988 Carl Gustaf M2
1,215 M40A1
Mortars
156 E-56 (120mm)
470 E-44E1 (81mm)
1,135 M1/M29 (81mm)
150 M6C-210 Commando]] (60mm)
Helicopters
15 CH-47DG Chinook
20 NHI NH90 24 more ordered
75 AB-205
14 AB-206B Jetranger III]]
17 NH-300C
Attack helicopters
20 AH-64A+
12 AH-64DHA
Unmanned aerial vehicles
2 Sperwer 2 systems
They are from wikipedia cause th efficial army site doesn't provide many clues.but if someone want I can give more updated stats about navy and airforce which are more easily to be found.
Main battle tanks
170 Leopard 2A6HEL
182 Leopard 2A4
501 Leopard 1A5
165 M 48A5 MOLF
306 M 60A3 TTS (to be retired)
Armoured fighting vehicles
415 Marder 1A3
Armoured personnel carriers
501 Leonidas 2
1,589 M 113A1/A2/A3
243 VBL
280 M901A1/A2 ITV/TUA Armored TOW vehicle
256 M106A1/A2 AMC Armored mortar vehicle (120mm)
Self-propelled artillery
24 PzH 2000 (155/52 mm)
195 M109A1B/A2/A3GEA1/A5 (155/39 mm)
145 M110A2 (203/40 mm)
12 M107 (175/61 mm)
Rocket Artillery
36 M270 MLRS
116 RM70
36 MGM-140A ATACMS Block 1
Field Artillery
266 M114A1 (105mm)
427 M101 (105 mm)
18 Model 56 PACK (105 mm)
Air Defence Artillery
42 MIM-23 I.Hawk Phase III 7 batteries.
21 TOR-M1
38 OSA AK/AKM
54 ASRAD-HELLAS
1,350 FIM-92B/C Stinger
17 Artemis 30 (2x30mm)
506 ZU-23 (2x23mm)
243 RH-202 (2x20mm)
Anti-tank guided missiles
196 Kornet E
366 BGM-71 TOW 2
290 MILAN
262 9M111 Fagot
18,706 RPG-18
10,840 M72A2 LAW
135 ACL89 STRIM
1,988 Carl Gustaf M2
1,215 M40A1
Mortars
156 E-56 (120mm)
470 E-44E1 (81mm)
1,135 M1/M29 (81mm)
150 M6C-210 Commando]] (60mm)
Helicopters
15 CH-47DG Chinook
20 NHI NH90 24 more ordered
75 AB-205
14 AB-206B Jetranger III]]
17 NH-300C
Attack helicopters
20 AH-64A+
12 AH-64DHA
Unmanned aerial vehicles
2 Sperwer 2 systems
They are from wikipedia cause th efficial army site doesn't provide many clues.but if someone want I can give more updated stats about navy and airforce which are more easily to be found.
From post #26Greece:
MBT's
170 Leopard 2A6 HEL (ordered, deleveries start soon)
184 Leopard 2A4 (under delievery from German surplus, will be probably later upgraded to A6 HEL standards)
501 Leo 1A5 (including 232 under delievery from German surplus)
103 Leo 1A3GR
115 Leo 1V
307 M-60TTS
273 M-60 RISE/RISE PASSIVE (being slowly withdrawn)
396 M-48A5 MOLF
259 M-48A5 (being withdrwan)
ARMOURED VEHICLES
415 Marder 1A3 (Will be delivered from German surplus)
501 BMP-1 (Will be withdrawn)
100 Leonidas 1 (Will be upgraded to Leonidas 2 standards, Austrian 4K4FA variant)
392 Leonidas 2
1679 M113A1/A2 (About 2400 seem to exist in different versions)
54 M113A1 medics
200+ M125A1/A2 (with M29 81 mm mortar)
291 M901A1/A2 ITV (With TOW's)
256 M106A1/A2 (107mm mortar M30, 120 will be equipped with an E-56 120 mm mortar)
200- M125A1 (with 81mm M29 mortar)
12 M113 TOW
56 M577A2
Artillery
36 Pzh 2000 (12 on order, additional 48 will be purchased from Dutch and German surplus)
12 M-109A5
146 M-109A3 (96 on order from German surplus)
82 M-109A2 (plans for upgrading)
51 M-109A1 (plans for upgrading)
145 M-110A2
36 M270 MLRS
116 RM-70
Should I mention the A/A stuff too or is this enough for a good addition to the European force?
I am sorry I din't see it when I was reading the posts Ratmuf.Anyway the importance is that we'll contribute with a large force to this ''European army''.Something also interesting is that if someone combines all the forces together he will see that there isn't an army equal of this one(European I mean) all over the world.The only point I think Europe should try to invest more is naval and air superiority.
Besides the sheer volume of manpower there are enough fields where the US are still superior to the combined european armys.
If I just look at the US ability for combined land/naval/air warfare and their C3i assets I beging to cry if I look at our capabilities.
If I just look at the US ability for combined land/naval/air warfare and their C3i assets I beging to cry if I look at our capabilities.
Well maybe you are right,but if you look at the military spending,Europe spends 1.83% of GDP and US 4.06%,what does that mean?If Europe decides it,it could double its military spending,you could easily then see the needed superiority,altohugh I believe that even now Europe has adequate military resources.Something also interesting I saw in the site of the European council,is that from 1st January 2007 starts the comission of European battlegroups(1500 men each),I haven't heard anything on local news but I'm looking forward to see how it willl go.
Obviously if the EU countries doubled their defense spending, they could field equipment and manpower on par with the US. But there are two (off the top of my head) very good reasons why this is unlikely to happen. First, current spending levels are seen as more or less adequate (as opposed to desirable) for Europe's needs. That is to say, Europe doesn't have the same view toward global military involvement that the US does, and since there are no realistic military threats to the security of European countries, it's tough to convince individual taxpayers that they need to pay more or accept fewer social benefits to build up their militaries.
Second, Europe is not (yet, anyway, and maybe never) as integrated as the US. It will always be easier for the US to spend a lot of money on national defense because it's all one country, and the states don't have hundreds of years of separate identities to overcome. As much progress as has been done toward feilding a common European response force, I just don't see the several European countries doing away with their national armies in favor of a pan-European army, and as long as that's the case there will be redundancy of capabilities with resultant waste of resources.
But as has been pointed out, why should Europe bother spending the money to develop armed forces to rival the US? There are areas where it would benefit the EU to improve (e.g. airborne command and control, airborne reconnaissance, air transport), and they're making great progress in those areas since the Yugoslav conflicts highlighted the needs, but beyond that, why should they get much bigger?
Second, Europe is not (yet, anyway, and maybe never) as integrated as the US. It will always be easier for the US to spend a lot of money on national defense because it's all one country, and the states don't have hundreds of years of separate identities to overcome. As much progress as has been done toward feilding a common European response force, I just don't see the several European countries doing away with their national armies in favor of a pan-European army, and as long as that's the case there will be redundancy of capabilities with resultant waste of resources.
But as has been pointed out, why should Europe bother spending the money to develop armed forces to rival the US? There are areas where it would benefit the EU to improve (e.g. airborne command and control, airborne reconnaissance, air transport), and they're making great progress in those areas since the Yugoslav conflicts highlighted the needs, but beyond that, why should they get much bigger?
I agree that we do not need to raise our budget equal to the US but a little bit for some countries would be fine.
I'm thinking here of my own country first for example. We spend the absolute minimum required by NATO with both UK and France spending more than we do despite we have a bigger population and a bigger economy (In fact the biggest in europe).
The shame that we weren't able to fullfill the Kosovo campaign on our own and in our own backyard should not happen again.
I'm thinking here of my own country first for example. We spend the absolute minimum required by NATO with both UK and France spending more than we do despite we have a bigger population and a bigger economy (In fact the biggest in europe).
The shame that we weren't able to fullfill the Kosovo campaign on our own and in our own backyard should not happen again.
You are right in some points.But if we want to be called Europeans,we should act like Europeans.I can't understand why Europe shouldn't take up a more active role in global activities.By creating such an army,we won't be rivals to U.S,but we will say "We are here too",you can't act alone,as you want".For me this army is one step to the creation of a European Federation.I believe to that idea and I think that it will help all european countries in the competitive future that comes
I agree that some countries in Europe should increase their defense spending, and I'm all for a Europe that can take care of contingencies in its sphere of influence (which is potentially really big). I just don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. Hopefully I'm wrong; European defense companies have come up with many of my favorite platforms, both on land and in the air.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Europeans may find themselves siding with Russia yet...maybe to their surprise
I don't believe that at all.For me the near future will have 4 major powers ,US,Russian Federation,China and the European Union.Russia and European Uion have a lot of differences in the way they think although they could have excellent relations between them.
Why would Russia want to side with Europe, she slightly holds some of the upper cards now as far as oil and natural gas exports. What would be the viable threat that would make Russia want to be part of this, America or a future China.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Belief is the province of faith which is rarely accepted as proof to support arguments.
My thinking is that Russia is on a path to return to its role in Europe it played before the 1917 Revolution. The differences that existed in 1917 are not so pronounced anymore. USA has more difference with EU then Russia because the European social policies are far more 'socialist' then US could accept now (and is criticised for). On the other hand Russians accept market economy as a neccessary evil of higher standard of living.
Above all, Russians have always been a part of Europe culturally, and hundreds of thousands either migrated, or work temporarily in Europe now, not much considering the size of RF population, but significant considering pre-1917 figures.
US too will find its 'way' back to EU eventually if its population manages to resolve its socio-cultural issues.
China however is another world alltogether, and a rapidly growing one, a 'Frnakenstein' Europeans made.
There are still much more similarities between the people in western europe and the US than between western europe and Russia.
And the outcry about some US actions is just bigger because we are much closer related to the US than to Russia.
The normal opinion about Russia is more the one about a country in which the political freedom goes down, criminality rises and rules and capitalism is a little bit perverted.
And I don't see this to change when Russia is going to go on with its mix of nationalistic, less democratic way without solving all the other big problems of this country.
And the outcry about some US actions is just bigger because we are much closer related to the US than to Russia.
The normal opinion about Russia is more the one about a country in which the political freedom goes down, criminality rises and rules and capitalism is a little bit perverted.
And I don't see this to change when Russia is going to go on with its mix of nationalistic, less democratic way without solving all the other big problems of this country.
Networked First
I believe that if Europe wants to create a combined arms force it needs to network itself first, in that the combined arms force can communicate freely as if they were one country and eliminate and previous disputes. This aslo means developing a unified communications system for Europe, but this would leave Europe cut of from the rest of the World because they would only allow the communicatios system into European countries distancing themselves from America and its alies so Europe has to make a desision be the kid everyone all of a sudden hates or be the popular kid in the middle of the group with the girls.
Oh might I add that 0.5% of Americas total defence spending ould put ever kid through school, I hope you realise now how much money America is spending on Defence
I believe that if Europe wants to create a combined arms force it needs to network itself first, in that the combined arms force can communicate freely as if they were one country and eliminate and previous disputes. This aslo means developing a unified communications system for Europe, but this would leave Europe cut of from the rest of the World because they would only allow the communicatios system into European countries distancing themselves from America and its alies so Europe has to make a desision be the kid everyone all of a sudden hates or be the popular kid in the middle of the group with the girls.
Oh might I add that 0.5% of Americas total defence spending ould put ever kid through school, I hope you realise now how much money America is spending on Defence
- Status