European Armour

[.pt]

This is just an exercise, an idea, but any help and opinions will be wellcome.
if we could conceive an European Army, composed of the Armys of the nations now belonging to the European Union, and putting aside issues such as diferent procurement programs, bias toward national arms programs, different control& control structures, organization, etc etc, in terms of Armoured vehicles, such as MBT, APC , Self propelled guns, etc etc, what could we conclude on the strength of such combined forces and operationality, in 2006 and in the years to come (almost all UE nations are cuting defense expenditures), and is it even possible, even partially to compare with other Major Armys, such as, say the USArmy? Input from people who know armoured forces in these countries would be apreciated.
My idea, is that, currently, the Europeans could not hope to match the American armys, or probably the Russian Army, but they could give a serious headache to almost anyone else.Opinions?
.pt

[Waylander]

If you put all this aside you just have to count the numbers of vehicles, planes, ships and soldiers who are in active service + plus reserve forces.
Than you get the pure strength.
Should be the second most powerfull army in the world with the US being on top. (If you put away nukes)

Which countrys should be included? EU?

[Grand Danois]

Going by memory here. ;)

The EU-25 have defense expenditures of 185 billion €. Include Norway, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia as NATO members or EU prospects and you should get at least B190€. That's B241$ at an average expenditure of ~1.6% of GDP.

The US uses B445$ at 3.6% of GDP on defense.

EDIT: Oh, forgot Turkey, but don't know the numbers.

[.pt]

Thats what i want at first, waylander, pure force in numbers, but only regarding armour, i.e., number of MBT, APC, suporting units, etc. The base should be EU 25 plus the others Grand danois mentioned. Turkey should not be included at the moment due to uncertainties on their entrance process (No offense to anyone).
Good job on those figures for expenditure as % of GDP Great dane:cool: ,thanks.
After we get a good idea on pure strength, my point was to discuss, hipothetically, the efectiveness of those forces if used under a central command, to counter a credible threat (again, hipothetical) from another army.
.pt

[Waylander]

We have enough nationalities here, so we could start with everybody here posting the numbers of its own country. Should be much easier and faster than one guy trying to get the information on its own.

Germany (Target of our transformation for the near future):
- 350 Leopard II A5/A6(M) MBT, maybe some as PSO variant
- 410 Puma IFV, majority is for our mech inf but some are for FACs
- 185 PzH2000 self propelled artillery
- 206 Fennek scout/FAC vehicles
- 32 MARS (MLRS)
- 126 Gepard A2 AA-tanks
- round about 30 Luchs scout tanks, I really don't now definite numbers
- 343 Wiesel 20mm/TOW
- 200 Boxer APC/-40 command vehicle/ maybe 72 ambulances
- more than 800 Fuchs APCs in different versions (APC, EW, NBC,...)
- more than 1200 M113 in different versions, there are no infos how many will remain.
- 110 Dingo 2
- 350 Mungo
- there are no definite numbers for our Wiesel 2 variants which are going to serve as mortars, AA with stinger, scouts,...

(With thanks to TrangleC)

[TrangleC]

+ 110 Dingo 2
+ 350 Mungo
+ 192 Boxer

(source: LOYAL Magazine)

[Whiskyjack]

We have enough nationalities here, so we could start with everybody here posting the numbers of its own country. Should be much easier and faster than one guy trying to get the information on its own.

Germany (Target of our transformation for the near future):
- 350 Leopard II A5/A6(M) MBT, maybe some as PSO variant
- 410 Puma IFV, majority is for our mech inf but some are for FACs
- 185 PzH2000 self propelled artillery
- 206 Fennek scout/FAC vehicles
- 32 MARS (MLRS)
- 126 Gepard A2 AA-tanks
- round about 30 Luchs scout tanks, I really don't now definite numbers
- 343 Wiesel 20mm/TOW
- there are no definite numbers for our Wiesel 2 variants which are going to serve as mortars, AA with stinger, scouts,...

Out of interest, do you know how the Mech and armour will be structured? How many battalions will the German Army get out of 350 MTBs and 410 IFVs?

[Waylander]

6 tank btls and 8 mech.-inf. btls.
Not much for a country which fielded thousands of MBTs and IFVs in the '80s. :D

[Whiskyjack]

6 tank btls and 8 mech.-inf. btls.
Not much for a country which fielded thousands of MBTs and IFVs in the '80s. :D

How will the IFVs be issued? e.g. 13 per company?

Sorry to be a pain but I am interested on how armies structure their forces.

[Grand Danois]

Denmark!


51 Leopard 2A5.


45 CV 9035MkIII IFV, from 2007.


91 Piranha IIIC variants.


44 Piranha IIIH variants.


257 M113G3DK variants, recently refurbished & upgraded.


~300 M113/M113A1, wide variety of variants.


36 Eagle I. Recce.


85 Eagle IV, final delivery in 2007, will replace Eagle I.


30 HMMWV-TOW with TOW2.


76 M109A3 will be replaced with 36 FH77BD SPH from 2010.


Organized into two brigades with a Div HQ and Div units.

Don't ask about btls and regs, as I have completely lost track of it.

An excellent website on Danish armour in English!

http://www.armyvehicles.dk/daarmyveh.htm

Just realised during the search, that 1. Bde can surge up to 5,000 personnel for six months of international 'first in' duty. Yikes!

[Waylander]

Jap, 13 is right.

[Whiskyjack]

Jap, 13 is right.

Thanks, so that is 3 compaines with 13 IFVs, plus a support company?

[Waylander]

Jep.
Not long ago our Panzergrenadier companys also fielded an additional company of M113 120mm mortar vehicles and Jaguar II ATGM tank hunters but they have been phased out due to financial reasons.
I understand that we don't need special tank hunter like the Jaguars but the mortars...
Now everybody is calling for mortars in our army after they saw how usefull they still are in A-stan and Iraq. :rolleyes:

[TrangleC]

They certainly look useful here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4g0Z-lQ1_U&search=panzergrenadiere

[Whiskyjack]

Jep.
Not long ago our Panzergrenadier companys also fielded an additional company of M113 120mm mortar vehicles and Jaguar II ATGM tank hunters but they have been phased out due to financial reasons.
I understand that we don't need special tank hunter like the Jaguars but the mortars...
Now everybody is calling for mortars in our army after they saw how usefull they still are in A-stan and Iraq. :rolleyes:

So if I hear you correctly there are no mortars assigned at a battalion level either?

That would be counter to most western infantry structures IMO.

[Gladius]

The situation in Spain is very complicated with the new reform of the Armed Forces imposed by the Royal Decree 416/2006 that supposes a draconian reduction of the Army.

Estimations based on the contracts already signed and the plans still in course, but they may be submitted to changes with the new structure of the Army.

Def. Budget 2006: 7,416.5 Mill € (6,09% more than 2005)

Spain. (Est. Armor Force: 2006-2008)

· 219 Leopard 2E
· 108 Leopard 2A4 *(1)
· 60 M-60A3TTS [50-100 Placed in Reserve]
· 335 IFV Pizarro *(2)
· 500 M-113 TOA [813 M-113 Placed in Reserve]
· 19 AAV-7A
· 84 VRC-105 Centauro *(3)
· 208 VEC M1
· 566 BMR M1
· 18 Mowag Piranha IIIC *(4)
· 96 M-109A5E *(5)
· 32 M-110A2 [32 Placed in Reserve] *(5)
· 18 Teruel-3 RLS * (6)
· +200 Hummer TOW, URO VAMTACs TOW/Milan & Santana Anibal TOW/MILAN

Comments:
(1) Now on discussion: The modernization of all 108 A4 to 2E or the upgrade of 66 to 2E standard and the update and conversion of the remain 42 to 17 AVLB and 25 Buffell, in 2008.
(2) Aditional 88-130 units of many versions pending of negotiations over the third phase of VCI Pizarro Program.
(3) More units may be ordered with the changes made in the Cavalry Brigade Castillejos II.
(4) Phase I of spanish Piranha Program (Marine Infantry) is completed, Phase II & III will be ordered very soon (2006-2007).
(5) On discuss their replacement by PZH2000 or K-9.
(6) Planed to be replaced soon by 24 MLRS or HIMARS.

[swerve]

We have enough nationalities here, so we could start with everybody here posting the numbers of its own country. Should be much easier and faster than one guy trying to get the information on its own.

Germany (Target of our transformation for the near future):
- 350 Leopard II A5/A6(M) MBT, maybe some as PSO variant
- 410 Puma IFV, majority is for our mech inf but some are for FACs
- 185 PzH2000 self propelled artillery
- 206 Fennek scout/FAC vehicles
- 32 MARS (MLRS)
- 126 Gepard A2 AA-tanks
- round about 30 Luchs scout tanks, I really don't now definite numbers
- 343 Wiesel 20mm/TOW
- there are no definite numbers for our Wiesel 2 variants which are going to serve as mortars, AA with stinger, scouts,...


What about the Boxer?

Also, this ignores the Leopard 2 which are stored - about another 550 remaining, IIRC. Are they all for sale (in which case many are likely to end up in the hands of other European countries), or will some be kept in reserve?

[DoC_FouALieR]

Now the status of the French Army:

-~400 Leclercs MBT, and there is still a remaining company on AMX-30B2 Brenus who is used as Opfor (and 400 AMX-30B2 in reserve).
-320 AMX-10RC Light/Recon tank and 190 ERC-90 Sagaie recon tank. (all 6x6 and amphibous, but the major upgrade of these vehicles will delete this ability)
-900 VBL recon/multi purpose 4x4 vehicle.
-Some Bv206 for mountain troups.
- ~400 AMX-10P IFV (amphibious), all are going to be replaced by the VBCI 8x8
-3800 VAB 4x4 APC (amphibious), 125 are equipped with a launcher with 4 HOT ATGM
-about 30 ARV using the hull of the Leclerc (with crane and whinch), able to carry a mineclearing blade.
-71 EBG engineering vehicle, derivated from the AMX-30 and some AMX-30 with a modified turret to serve as mine field breaching vehicle (with blade, thermobaric charge launcher, etc etc...)

Unknow number of others vehicle like command post on VAB and AMX-10P, forward artillery observer on AMX-10P hull, 120mm mortar towed by VABs, Cobra artillery radar, etc etc...

-270 AUF-1 155mm self-propelled howitzer (39 cal.)
-Scheduled acquisition of 70 Caesar 155mm/52 cal self propelled gun. (5 already in trials)
-100 TRF-1 towed 155mm/52 cal gun.
- about 60 MLRS (m270)
- ~ 300 mistral launchers
- 69 I-Hawk system
- 95 Roland-2 anti air system on AMX-30 hull

The army accomodates a number of combat helicopters, lot are differents versions of the Gazelle. They can carry HOT ATGMs, 20 mm canon for close support and Mistral ATAM (air-to-air missile). But they are going to be replaced by the Tiger, a much more powerful machine. ~10 are already in service.

Our army thus represents a force of about 136 000 men, with 2 armored brigade and 2 light armored brigade, 2 mechanized infantry brigade and 1 mountain infantry brigade (considered as light but very well trained infantry, like special forces). 1 artillery brigade, 1 engineer brigade, 1 airborne and 1 helicopter brigade.
We are also involved in the Eurocorps, together with German forces.

[.pt]

Portugal:

- +- 100 M60A3
- 36 Leopard 2A5 (planned buy soon)
- 370 M113 (various versions)
- 4 M901 ITV tow launcher
- 38 Panhard M 11 light scout vehicle, some with MILAN
- 15 Cadillac gage V-150 with 90 mm gun
- 21 SPG M109 A2/A5
- +- 150 Pandur II IFV in various versions to start entering service 2007(260 total)
- Small number of Hummer and Uros vehicles
Lets see someone saying something about France, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium and all the other remaining countries.
.pt

[marcvs75]

Holland

110 leopard 2A6
184 CV9035
90 Patria (6x6 apc)
200 boxer (in near future)
410 Fennek
59 PZH 2000 houwitser

[Waylander]

No, there are no mortars attached to our mech.-inf..
Our light and mountain infantry fields 120mm mortars transported by Wolf (Or by foot in bad terrain, poor bastards :D ).

We are going to introduce 120mm mortars on Wiesel 2 but there are no definite numbers and facts how they are going to be implemented.

The Boxer is comming (Thanks to the netherlands).
200 as APC, 40 as command vehicle and we have an option for 72 as ambulances.
I put them together with our Fuchs into the list.

Some hundred Leo 2A4 will remain in stocks and some A4s will remain at the tank school and as OPFOR at our battle training center.

Our stocks are still full of vehicles of all kind.
But most of our inactive btls are now out of service.
But we are still a conscriptors army so we are able to field much more numbers in the case of war. Should be somewhere around 800.000 soldiers.

[rattmuff]

Swedish Armed Forces share of GDP 2005: 1,52%
Swedish Armed Forces budget 2006: 40 billion SEK (€4 billion)

The numbers of Swedish Army is really hard to find out. SAF is in the middle of a huge change.

MBTs
160 Leopard 2A4(the worst L2A4 in Europe)
120 Leopard 2A5S

IFVs/APCs/Troop transports
509 CV90(all versions, models, projects, experiments, demonstrators)
84 Patria XA-203
18 Patria XA-202
70 Patria XA-180
13 Piranha III 10x10 ASV/ACV
? All terrain cars from a South African company
? MT-LB
? BMP-1
? PE491 ARTHUR (artillery locating radar)



Self-propelled artillery
26 155mm self-propelled howitzer (http://www.artreg.mil.se/photo.php?id=382&aid=135)
2 Artillerysystem 08 ARCHER (demonstrators)
1 AS90 Bravehart (leased)

[Waylander]

Ok, who's left?

We have:
-Germany
-Denmark
-Sweden
-Spain
-Portugal
-France
-Netherlands
-Norway
-Finland
-Greece
-Ireland

We need:
-Poland
-UK
-Italy
-Belgium
-Czechia
-Austria
-Luxembourg :D

I think except from Austria we have active members here wo could give us the actual numbers.
I don't know how accurate these datas here are.

http://globaldefence.net/defence/projekt_streitkraefte_der_welt/

(Don't worry, it's partly in english)

[RA1911]

Norway:

* 52 Leopard 2 A4NO
* 62 Leopard 1 A5NO
* 104 CV 9030 N
* 500 M-113 (various)
* 74 SISU/PASI
* 36 M 109 A3GN
* 12 stk MLRS

[Gollevainen]

Yo, the defenders of the east borders of EU....

Finland:

254 MBTs of which 160 are T-72M1s and the rest is propaply Leo 2A4s:confused: I dont know how much there is any T-55s left but not much and certainly not in training any longer....

670 AIFVs of which some ~150 are BMP-1/2s and rest is mostly Sisu XA-180 and derivates plus few MT-Lbs and the new CV9030s entering service in the Karelian brigade. The Patria AMV is currently beeing evaluated, but not yet fielded. The total numbers of the later two are going to be rather small, as they (clewerly :tomato ) are only going to equip single brigade each....

Also, there is some 90 SP artillery systems of the USSR 122mm 2S1 and 152mm 2S5 as well as the new MRLS system bougth from Netherlands, but those arent yet on service (At least what i have heard...)

[KWSN-Men]

Greece:

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? :D

[.pt]

update,

So far we have the folowing numbers:

1 - MBT 1st line (leopard 2 A5/A6+Leclerc) - 1518 units (plus reserves)
MBT 2nd/3rd line various types - 2872 units(plus reserves)

2 - APC/IFV/Tow/AA/scouts/90mmgun, etc etc - 18431 units
One family stands out, the M113, with 5500 units in
diferent variants.

3 - Artillery - Self Propelled gun(howitzer) - 1317 units
MLRS - 300 units

We stiil need data for the remaining countries, specially UK and Italy, wich i believe are the most significant.
.pt

[Grand Danois]

Norway:

* 52 Leopard 2 A4NO
* 62 Leopard 1 A5NO
* 104 CV 9030 N
* 500 M-113 (various)
* 74 SISU/PASI
* 36 M 109 A3GN
* 12 stk MLRS

In the Danish context the Leo 1A5 was mothballed. Does Norway have similar plans?

[merocaine]

The regular army of the Republic of Ireland has 8,500 personnel (and a reserve army of 13,000), and consists of a single division sized element made up of three infantry brigades

40 Mowag Piranha 3(APC) Armament 1x12.7mm HMG machine gun, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 8x 66mm smoke discharger's.Role Armoured troop transport, Ambulance, Command vehicle.
? Panhard AML 90. Armament 1x90mm gun,co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4x66mm smoke discharger's. Role Cavalary/scout vehicle.
? Panhard AML 30. Armament 1x30mm cannon, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4x66mm smoke discharger's. Role Cavalary/scout vehicle.
? Scorpion 440 (CVRT, Light REECE Tank). Armament 1x76mm gun, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4 x66mm smoke discharger's.

# Mowag Durano (Bomb Disposal Unit Vehicles, Armoured + unarmoured).
# Accmad troop transport vehicle + gun tractor in limited role for 105mm and 120mm mortar artillery.
# Ford F50 REECE vehicle (special Forces).

Expeniture per year $700 million.

[Waylander]

Ok, I have even Luxembourg in my list but I just forgot Ireland.
But your army seems not much bigger than Luxembourgs. ;) :D

Sorry for that. :p:

[merocaine]

Hey! small but effective :nono

[ren0312]

The regular army of the Republic of Ireland has 8,500 personnel (and a reserve army of 13,000), and consists of a single division sized element made up of three infantry brigades

40 Mowag Piranha 3(APC) Armament 1x12.7mm HMG machine gun, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 8x 66mm smoke discharger's.Role Armoured troop transport, Ambulance, Command vehicle.
? Panhard AML 90. Armament 1x90mm gun,co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4x66mm smoke discharger's. Role Cavalary/scout vehicle.
? Panhard AML 30. Armament 1x30mm cannon, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4x66mm smoke discharger's. Role Cavalary/scout vehicle.
? Scorpion 440 (CVRT, Light REECE Tank). Armament 1x76mm gun, co-ax 7.62mm machine gun, 4 x66mm smoke discharger's.

# Mowag Durano (Bomb Disposal Unit Vehicles, Armoured + unarmoured).
# Accmad troop transport vehicle + gun tractor in limited role for 105mm and 120mm mortar artillery.
# Ford F50 REECE vehicle (special Forces).

Expeniture per year $700 million.

No offence, but your defence budget as a percentage of GDP is really very small, an amount of 3.8 billion for 2005 seems to be more appropriate.

[ren0312]

Hey! small but effective :nono

Yeah but that still does not change the fact that your country's defence budget is simply inadequate, below 2 per cent of GDP, but then that seems to be the case for most of Europe anyway, not just your country.:rolleyes:

[TrangleC]

Real democracies need their money for more important things - at least if they are that unlikely to be attacked by another army as european countries are.

Looking at the USA with their almost non existant social funding or public health care system and the stupendous military budget on the other hand that doesn't really leave enough to deal with catastrophies like the one in New Orleans, they rather fit in with other rougue states as North Korea and all those other ugly little dictatorships and military runned nations where the public is left to it's own (what often means starvation in the third world and needing 3 jobs and still not being able to live a decent life in the USA) to have enough money for weapons.

[ren0312]

Real democracies need their money for more important things - at least if they are that unlikely to be attacked by another army as european countries are.

Looking at the USA with their almost non existant social funding or public health care system and the stupendous military budget on the other hand that doesn't really leave enough to deal with catastrophies like the one in New Orleans, they rather fit in with other rougue states as North Korea and all those other ugly little dictatorships and military runned nations where the public is left to it's own (what often means starvation in the third world and needing 3 jobs and still not being able to live a decent life in the USA) to have enough money for weapons.

Relax, 2 to 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence won't cause an Ethiopia style famine in Germany.:rolleyes: Is that really too much to ask, considering it will still make up less then 7 per cent of your budget at 2 per cent?

[.pt]

Well, the down side of ever shrinking defence budgets in European countries, is that abilities, skills and profiency in the various weapons systems tend to decrease. Also the role of armys as deterrents and force/influence projectors depends on their credibility, and on that aspect, sooner than later, European countries are lacking right now, and will be worse off in the foreseeable future.
This trend started with the end of cold war, and the existence of absurdly high stocks of war material, and that was justifiable, but, right now, the way i see it, Politicians are just saving money to use on other spending requirements, and in some cases are leaving their countries armed forces seriously depleted in Hardware and in skilled personnel, and as the americans say, if the s*** hits the fan, these countries will be in dire conditions.There must be an equilibrium somewhere in order not to degrade so much military capabilities. On the other side, seeing Greek army armour existence, and despite the Turkish question, for a country that size and GDP/Development numbers seem a bit high.
Back to topic, where are those UK and Italian figures???:lam
As well of those other remining countries, no offence.
.pt

[merocaine]

Yeah I knew it's pretty miniscule but thats the product of many things, most Irish people are really anti-military, we had some problems with large countrys that had large miliary budgets, and it kind of put us off having big fancy militarys.

Also were nutural and dont have any military alliences(or quarrells) with our neighbours at the moment.

We,re an Island with in military terms is worth 5 devisions. So it doesent make much sense to have a large army.

We do punch above our weight in the UN peace keeping operations and about 15% of our troops are abroad at anytime.

That may change soon if the european battle groups take off as it will alter our nutrality and force budget rises.

On average though there quite well trained, and in engagements on peace keeping missions they have preformed well. About 12% of the infantry have had ranger training (based on us Rangers) and would make good counter insurgency troops.
I can't see us ever joining NATO or a US/British Collition, but a European Battlegroup, maybe with some of the smaller european countries, is a possiblity

[ren0312]

Well, the down side of ever shrinking defence budgets in European countries, is that abilities, skills and profiency in the various weapons systems tend to decrease. Also the role of armys as deterrents and force/influence projectors depends on their credibility, and on that aspect, sooner than later, European countries are lacking right now, and will be worse off in the foreseeable future.
This trend started with the end of cold war, and the existence of absurdly high stocks of war material, and that was justifiable, but, right now, the way i see it, Politicians are just saving money to use on other spending requirements, and in some cases are leaving their countries armed forces seriously depleted in Hardware and in skilled personnel, and as the americans say, if the s*** hits the fan, these countries will be in dire conditions.There must be an equilibrium somewhere in order not to degrade so much military capabilities. On the other side, seeing Greek army armour existence, and despite the Turkish question, for a country that size and GDP/Development numbers seem a bit high.
Back to topic, where are those UK and Italian figures???:lam
As well of those other remining countries, no offence.
.pt

I really do not see Greece's military spending as being too high, since it's about 4 per cent of GDP, well within the limit of 5.5 per cent of GDP, which is pretty much where I set the limit on spending in times of relative peace, which means situations such as the Cold War are not defined as being periods of relative peace, during the last year of President Kennedy's term, U.S. defence spending was around 9 per cent of GDP, and yet the U.S. economy seem to be taking this quite well still and was still booming during this time, this 5.5 per cent limit however excludes oil rich or resource rich countries like Oman and Saudi Arabia, since they can fund their military spending from oil revenues, and not by the usual method, which is from taxes, thus there really is nothing too wrong with Saudi Arabia having a military budget of 10 per cent of GDP, since they have sufficient oil revenues to fund their present military spending, and they still seem to have a lot of money left for other projects, such as infrastructure, despite this high level of defence spending.

[TrangleC]

U.S. defence spending was around 9 per cent of GDP, and yet the U.S. economy seem to be taking this quite well still and was still booming during this time
Of course it is because that money goes to the economy.
So it's rather a booming economy because of high military budgeds, not although.
The problem is that this (at least 4-5 of that 9 percent) is money that could be spend for social things.

It is different in 3rd world countries because they don't produce their weapons themselves, so the money spend for weapons goes to the economies of other countries.
In the USA where he weapons industry is pretty much the most important part of the whole economy, the economy would even boost more if the gouvernemnt would spend 15, 20 or 30 percent of the taxpayers money for weapons.
But that would be no use for the little man on the street. The situation is more than bad enough as it is now.

I know that i don't want to live in a state that doesn't do shit for me because he needs all the money for fancy new weapons and for invading other countries so the already ridiculously rich elites get even richer.

In my book paying taxes means to purchase the right to claim certain fundamental services from my state. And that does not only include the right to be arrested by the police if i'm driving too fast, what seems to be pretty much what it comes down to in those countries like the USA and increasingly the UK too, where they hail the freedom and self-responsibility of the individual so much. That is all bullshit. It just means that they don't have the intention to give the taxpayers what they pay for, nothing else.

[Waylander]

Oh shit, my little joke caused this off-topic discussion. :o

[merocaine]

its true weapons are unproductive capital goods, and money could be better spent, but your point about 3th world counties buying high priced weapon systems is only half thru, even brazil makes fighter jets and angola has a triving small arms industry, 3th world countrys have taken on western developement models in more ways than one. The logic of long production runs is inescapable, even for counties at peace. America is a grotesque example of a counties economy deformed by the arms trade but it is something that has taken place in nearly all western economies to a greater or lesser degree, even German.

[.pt]

Back to topic everyone!!!!!:sniper
Anyone that can enlighten us on Polish,Czech, British and Italian armor???

.pt

[merocaine]

Perhaps one of our british chums could enlighten us?
as far as i can see british heavy armoured forces are rapidly disapearing, they seem to be reverting to there tiny army large navy template (tiny for there size that is).

[Whiskyjack]

So who is going to tally all this up? (Bags not me!) And what criteria will be used to designate diferent bits of equipment, eg is a Leo2A4 a class 1 MTB or a Class 2 etc etc...?

Something I would be interested in is how much of this equipment is operated by conscripts and how much by regulars. I know the British are all regular, but unsure about the rest.

IMO equipment and units manned by conscripts are not likely to be deployed outside of Europe short of all out world war.

[Gladius]

Something I would be interested in is how much of this equipment is operated by conscripts and how much by regulars. I know the British are all regular, but unsure about the rest.

The Spanish Armed Forces are also formed only by professional troops. The conscription was revoked in 2001.

[Waylander]

Most of our air force and naval units together with one army tank division, one division for special operations (airborne/light Infantry, special forces, etc.) and one division for air operations are operational all the time. The rest of our army contains conscriptors but most brigades are able to field one mixed btl for duty in other countries.

On the other side we are able to field nearly 800.000 to 1 million soldiers if the red army wakes up again. ;)

[swerve]

So who is going to tally all this up? (Bags not me!) And what criteria will be used to designate diferent bits of equipment, eg is a Leo2A4 a class 1 MTB or a Class 2 etc etc...?

Something I would be interested in is how much of this equipment is operated by conscripts and how much by regulars. I know the British are all regular, but unsure about the rest.

IMO equipment and units manned by conscripts are not likely to be deployed outside of Europe short of all out world war.

IIRC UK, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria & Romania are either professional or soon will be. Germany, Austria, Greece, Turkey, Poland, & all of Scandinavia are keeping conscription, though reducing numbers & increasing exceptions to the point where some are, in effect, getting volunteers. Note that some of these countries retain the conscription law & system (like the USA), in case of emergency.

Scandinavian countries don't have any difficulty manning peacekeeping units with conscripts. They ask for volunteers, & get plenty. Germany has had a problem deploying troops abroad, because (as with many other countries) there are legal limits on the use of conscripts: they can't be ordered outside the NATO area*. But again, they have enough conscripts who volunteer for such service. What was needed (& has now been done) was to reorganise units to form some manned entirely by regulars & willing conscripts, so they are deployable anywhere, on the model of the intervention force the French maintained before they gave up conscription.

*This limited the French commitment to ODS. The French intervention force was mostly light, intended for, e.g., African service. Still, a light armoured division proved very useful in ODS for covering the left flank.

[Waylander]

We have enough volunteers for oversea missions but not enough units.
It is getting too much I think. Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Kongo. And in most of them we have the biggest force.
And now they are talking of Lebanon... :rolleyes: :hitwall

What are we talking about. How effective the EU/NATO is without the support of the US in case of a full scale attack on europe or how effective we are in oversea missions (peacekeeping and full scale battles)?

[ren0312]

Of course it is because that money goes to the economy.
So it's rather a booming economy because of high military budgeds, not although.
The problem is that this (at least 4-5 of that 9 percent) is money that could be spend for social things.

It is different in 3rd world countries because they don't produce their weapons themselves, so the money spend for weapons goes to the economies of other countries.
In the USA where he weapons industry is pretty much the most important part of the whole economy, the economy would even boost more if the gouvernemnt would spend 15, 20 or 30 percent of the taxpayers money for weapons.
But that would be no use for the little man on the street. The situation is more than bad enough as it is now.

I know that i don't want to live in a state that doesn't do shit for me because he needs all the money for fancy new weapons and for invading other countries so the already ridiculously rich elites get even richer.

In my book paying taxes means to purchase the right to claim certain fundamental services from my state. And that does not only include the right to be arrested by the police if i'm driving too fast, what seems to be pretty much what it comes down to in those countries like the USA and increasingly the UK too, where they hail the freedom and self-responsibility of the individual so much. That is all bullshit. It just means that they don't have the intention to give the taxpayers what they pay for, nothing else.

Well think of it this way, if Germany has no social welfare system, and a military budget of 3 to 3.5 per cent of GDP, then you will actually not have to pay a lot less, since there is no more need to fund social services, so instead of having a 50 per cent income tax top rate, Germans will just have to pay a 30 per cent flat tax, which will boost consumer spending and business investment, thus leading to an economic boom in Germany. And your examples are for third world countries, Germany and Ireland are first world countries, not third, for your information, Singapore, a country which spends 6 per cent of its GDP on the military, and whose military budget comprises about 30+ per cent of its budget, actually has an income tax rate that is a lot lower than Germany, which spends only 1.5 per cent of its GDP on the military. By the way, do you know how much as a percentage of its budget or GDP Germany spends to service its debt?

[Grand Danois]

IIRC UK, France, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria & Romania are either professional or soon will be. Germany, Austria, Greece, Turkey, Poland, & all of Scandinavia are keeping conscription, though reducing numbers & increasing exceptions to the point where some are, in effect, getting volunteers. Note that some of these countries retain the conscription law & system (like the USA), in case of emergency.

Scandinavian countries don't have any difficulty manning peacekeeping units with conscripts. They ask for volunteers, & get plenty.

Conscription isn't that big a thing in the Danish Army.


Permanent professional personnel - 9,150.


Reaction Force Contracts - 4,070 (4 months as conscripts + 8 months Army Reaction Force training + ? months of mission specific training/workup is minimum. Then 3 deployments of 6 months, each with its own workup. Civilian life in between with brushup on training.


Conscripts - 2,150 (6,450 with 4 months each) - This is where the recruiting for Reaction Force contracts is done.

So, conscripts are not what makes up the Danish Army.

Also, the two brigades and the divisional units are drawn from the permanent or rapid reaction force btls of the regiments, which each also have a training btl each. 1. Bde and Div units are made up of professionals on permanent contracts and 2, Bde is mostly up of made of reaction force personnel. MBT's and IFV's ie all the best stuff is assigned to these units. Whilst conscripts will have kit on the M113 level.

It is not that easy to recruit personnel right now, with a current shortfall of 1,100 over all three services.

As for European defense capabilities try Headline Goal 2010 (http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/2010%20Headline%20Goal.pdf), ECAP (http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/MILITARY%20CAPABILITY%20COMMITMENT%20CONFERENCE%20 22.11.04.pdf), ESDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy)and keep in mind that most expeditionary capability in Europe is tied up in the NATO NRF structure. It is far easier way of measurement than a tally of European armour.

Edit: DefenceTalk - Afghan NATO Mission Will Test European Resolve: Analysts (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_007063.php)

[merocaine]

Well think of it this way, if Germany has no social welfare system, and a military budget of 3 to 3.5 per cent of GDP, then you will actually not have to pay a lot less, since there is no more need to fund social services, so instead of having a 50 per cent income tax top rate, Germans will just have to pay a 30 per cent flat tax, which will boost consumer spending and business investment, thus leading to an economic boom in Germany. And your examples are for third world countries, Germany and Ireland are first world countries, not third, for your information, Singapore, a country which spends 6 per cent of its GDP on the military, and whose military budget comprises about 30+ per cent of its budget, actually has an income tax rate that is a lot lower than Germany, which spends only 1.5 per cent of its GDP on the military. By the way, do you know how much as a percentage of its budget or GDP Germany spends to service its debt?

Dude are you seriously avocating european countries to become dependent on arms sales to spur economic growth? Before the 1960's the US had a normal economy, this was the golden age for american industry, now the only thing you make that is top of the range are weapon systems, almost every other industry has been eaten into by forigen compeditors.

Less than 40 years ago america was the undisputed world leader in everything. Now at least 30% of your industry is devoted to the military production which you sell to the highest bidder as long as they dont threaten you. And you want other countries to follow that path? What do you think would happen if germany and Japan went in to the arms market in the same way as the US? your profits would be destroyed! Everything else the Japanese went into they dominated, and the Germans arent far behind.

Singapore has to spend that kind of cash it lives in a very dangerous neighbourhood, they dont want to spend that money they have to.

Anyway europe is not america, goverments and people work differently here,
social cohesion and a more equal socity are much more important than booming profits and a lack of a social net. What seems to work for you does not work for other countries, just imagine where america would be if for the last 40 years half of what you spent on militaty R and D was spent on pure industral R and D. Maybe you would still be the top industrial dog.

[.pt]

Well, when i started this post my idea was to focus only in armor/mechanized forces capabilities of the countries in the EU. That was the scope intended, not an all out European defence capabilities assesment wich would have to include Aerial and naval assets, industrial capabilities, forces integration, and so on. That would be an enormous task, and not possible in this forum i think.
Also i´m not even leaning too much on operationality of these assets, since those vary a lot. My Idea is to get a general grasp on figures and types of Tanks, APC/IFV, SPG, etc etc that make the armor currently available in these countries, so that we can discuss their relative value as compared with armys wich also have great numbers of armored forces, such as the US, China, Russia, etc. Nothing to do with Nato, its just an [B]European[B] evaluation.
As for the tallying, i´ll do it, altough probably in a very crude manner, in order to keep things simple.
.pt

[merocaine]

Well, when i started this post my idea was to focus only in armor/mechanized forces capabilities of the countries in the EU. That was the scope intended, not an all out European defence capabilities assesment wich would have to include Aerial and naval assets, industrial capabilities, forces integration, and so on. That would be an enormous task, and not possible in this forum i think.
Also i´m not even leaning too much on operationality of these assets, since those vary a lot. My Idea is to get a general grasp on figures and types of Tanks, APC/IFV, SPG, etc etc that make the armor currently available in these countries, so that we can discuss their relative value as compared with armys wich also have great numbers of armored forces, such as the US, China, Russia, etc. Nothing to do with Nato, its just an [b]European[b] evaluation.
As for the tallying, i´ll do it, altough probably in a very crude manner, in order to keep things simple.
.pt


I'm not sure raw figures will give you that much insight in to real depoloable military power. It would just be a long list. I'm sure if the russian counted up all there tanks the total would be frightening, but undepolable in any meaningfull capability. The fact that most (all) european counries rely on the
US airlift capabilitys makes such totals kind of meaningless. Its a nice idea dont get me wrong, but maybe it would be better to look at european rapid reaction forces or the nasent Battle groups system.

[Gollevainen]

Conscription isn't that big a thing in the Danish Army.


Permanent professional personnel - 9,150.


Reaction Force Contracts - 4,070 (4 months as conscripts + 8 months Army Reaction Force training + ? months of mission specific training/workup is minimum. Then 3 deployments of 6 months, each with its own workup. Civilian life in between with brushup on training.


Conscripts - 2,150 (6,450 with 4 months each) - This is where the recruiting for Reaction Force contracts are done.

So, conscripts are not what makes up the Danish Army.

Also, the two brigades and the divisional units are drawn from the permanent or rapid reaction force btls of the regiments, which each also have a training btl each. 1. Bde and Div units are made up of professionals on permanent contracts and 2, Bde is mostly up of made of reaction force personnel. MBT's and IFV's ie all the best stuff is assigned to these units. Whilst conscripts will have kit on the M113 level.

It is not that easy to recruit personnel right now, with a current shortfall of 1,100 over all three services.

As for European defense capabilities try Headline Goal 2010 (http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/2010%20Headline%20Goal.pdf), ECAP (http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/MILITARY%20CAPABILITY%20COMMITMENT%20CONFERENCE%20 22.11.04.pdf), ESDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Policy)and keep in mind that most expeditionary capability in Europe is tied up in the NATO NRF structure. It is far easier way of measurement than a tally of European armour.

Edit: DefenceTalk - Afghan NATO Mission Will Test European Resolve: Analysts (http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_007063.php)



It seems that we finns are the sole EU country to left with "real" conscription system (over 80% of finnish mens go to army). There have been very cauntionly talks over proffesional army but mainly among some political minority groups. The general support among the public and in the biggest parties still supports our current system. Due our unique history and relatively small size as a nation have curved the coscription system deep into our society and tearing it dwon might have strong consequenses. Also at least us just served there seems to be this united wiev that if we had to do it, then shall the others:soldier :ar15 ;)


But anyway If we should speculate over theoretical "european army" we should just focus on the MBt force...artillery (other than fancy SP systems too) and infantry is still the key elements of any military power and shoudln't be negledged...

[merocaine]

It seems that we finns are the sole EU country to left with "real" conscription system

Personally I think consription is a great idea, in that it gives everyone a taste of what the army is, when armys go professional i think they lose that link with the people. Its not your son its some other son who goes off to fight.
In someways it becomes a mersonery force, deployed by the goverment at its whim. If you look at the UK, its deployed in Iraq and Afganistan, but there is no sense the country is at war, no solidarity, and very little questioning amoung the public about why its there, its just not a topic of conversation. If that was a conscripted force there would be a lot more interest in the military the war and the way its run. A Professional force has the effect of exculding the citizen, a bad thing in my book. I'm not saying that the Pro's dont do a good job, its just that they become isolated from socity at large.
Go the Finn's!!:D

[Gollevainen]

Well in purely defencive forces like our army, the conscription is the ideal system. We still (thank god) have the policy to defend all of our rather wide area and that calls for area-defence doctrines. It means that the defence is layered very deep and fighting in a way some big countries may call a "gureallian warfare". That cannot be achived with small proffesional army (as country of our size cannot afford to have a huge proffesional army) so the coscription system comes in hand.

[merocaine]

How much does the Russo-Finnish (the one in 1939 that is) war effect your thinking about the future you guys still see the Russians as your big threat?

On another note
Heading to Helsinki for a wedding next month do you know any good Nightclubs?
Metal/Rock!

[Gladius]

Sorry for continuing the oftopic but... That functions [the Conscription System] whenever the society and particularly the youths be socially aware of their country defence and a massive conscience objection phenomena not be produced.

This exactly happened in Spain with a conscription system of nine months, where in the last 90s, 85000 of the 90000 called in every replacement declared conscience objections (allowed by law), refusing to be join with the Armed Forces. Obviously creating gigantic holes in the number of troops of the units.

[rattmuff]

It seems that we finns are the sole EU country to left with "real" conscription system (over 80% of finnish mens go to army). There have been very cauntionly talks over proffesional army but mainly among some political minority groups. The general support among the public and in the biggest parties still supports our current system. Due our unique history and relatively small size as a nation have curved the coscription system deep into our society and tearing it dwon might have strong consequenses. Also at least us just served there seems to be this united wiev that if we had to do it, then shall the others:soldier :ar15 ;)


But anyway If we should speculate over theoretical "european army" we should just focus on the MBt force...artillery (other than fancy SP systems too) and infantry is still the key elements of any military power and shoudln't be negledged...


The swedish system has recently been changed (again). 11 or 15 months obligatory + 5 months optional. The obligatory is for defending the country and the optional is more international. This year 8000(15% of thoose who got enlisted) has been called to "serve the country" (i'm one of them). I think 1500 conscripts is placed in "fighting units" and the rest as maintainance, engineeres, staff, guards, royal guards ect. ect.

The goal is that at least 4000 youths is called each year and that 90% choose to participate international, join the Home Guard or become a officer. The problem is that in the near future there wont be 4000 youths available to SAF, the youngsters don't want too go through 2 weeks of "hell in the dark, cold and dangerous swedish pine forrest". So they have to take thoose who don't want this and the result is poorly motivated conscript soldiers. So SAF is planning to start training "tech-officers", keep informing the public, start training proffesional soldiers, make SSG(Särkilda Skydds Gruppen, swedens "top secret elite unit") available for conscripts and train conscripts.

Tearing a down a big conscript system really fast is not good!!!
Sorry for going a little off topic!

[merocaine]

The swedish system has recently been changed (again). 11 or 15 months obligatory + 5 months optional. The obligatory is for defending the country and the optional is more international. This year 8000(15% of thoose who got enlisted) has been called to "serve the country" (i'm one of them). I think 1500 conscripts is placed in "fighting units" and the rest as maintainance, engineeres, staff, guards, royal guards ect. ect.

The goal is that at least 4000 youths is called each year and that 90% choose to participate international, join the Home Guard or become a officer. The problem is that in the near future there wont be 4000 youths available to SAF, the youngsters don't want too go through 2 weeks of "hell in the dark, cold and dangerous swedish pine forrest". So they have to take thoose who don't want this and the result is poorly motivated conscript soldiers. So SAF is planning to start training "tech-officers", keep informing the public, start training proffesional soldiers, make SSG(Särkilda Skydds Gruppen, swedens "top secret elite unit") available for conscripts and train conscripts.


True its hard to get 18 19 year old kids to put themselfs true that kind of thing when they would rather be chasing women and getting drunk!
Maybe the best thing is half and half, conscript reserves with a professional standing army. The swedes are quite good in that they give a good level of techincail training to the support troops, which will be useful when they get out of the army.

But the most important thing about a conscript army is to give them a sense of mission, you know like the NYPD "To Protect and Serve"
The Israeli IDF are an example of a good conscript army where everyone serves, and most want to serve. Obviously they live in a tough neighbourhood, so its a bit easier to motivate the kids. Sweden, spain, finnland dont have the same problems of course, but I still think you can motivate people to join in other ways, give them basic university education/ technical/engineering training/ civil defence/ paramedic training.

[ren0312]

Dude are you seriously avocating european countries to become dependent on arms sales to spur economic growth? Before the 1960's the US had a normal economy, this was the golden age for american industry, now the only thing you make that is top of the range are weapon systems, almost every other industry has been eaten into by forigen compeditors.

Less than 40 years ago america was the undisputed world leader in everything. Now at least 30% of your industry is devoted to the military production which you sell to the highest bidder as long as they dont threaten you. And you want other countries to follow that path? What do you think would happen if germany and Japan went in to the arms market in the same way as the US? your profits would be destroyed! Everything else the Japanese went into they dominated, and the Germans arent far behind.

Singapore has to spend that kind of cash it lives in a very dangerous neighbourhood, they dont want to spend that money they have to.

Anyway europe is not america, goverments and people work differently here,
social cohesion and a more equal socity are much more important than booming profits and a lack of a social net. What seems to work for you does not work for other countries, just imagine where america would be if for the last 40 years half of what you spent on militaty R and D was spent on pure industral R and D. Maybe you would still be the top industrial dog.

Well if you would look at Germany, its industries are also going to China due to very high wages there, that is also the reason for its high level of unemployment, plus it is very hard to fire workers there, this makes employers hesitant to hire more labour when the economy recovers, thus leading to a high natural rate of unemployment even when the economy is expanding at 3 per cent, the reason why Denmark has a lower unmemployment rate is because of its flexible labor laws, and also because at 28 per cent, its corporate tax rate is lower than Germany, this despite it being a welfare state. As for the decline of American industries, it is simply because of the fact that wages are cheaper in China that American industry is migrating there, hopwever when it comes to the services sector, for example Silicon Valley and Wall Street, there is still a very strong presence in America, plus the fact the China's currency is undervalued and it keeps its wages artificially low by suppressing unions does not help much either in keepiung manufacturing jobs in America, it is mainly the unionized labor in factories that are losing jobs, factories that do not have a unionized workforce are actually doing very well, such as the Toyota and Honda plants in the South, plus it is actually a good idea to depend on your own country's companies when buying weapons, and to encourage having your own domestic arms industries, so that your supply of armaments will still not be cut off if war starts, for example, it will not be a good idea for the UK to relocate its weapons factories to China just because labor is cheaper there, since if a war between the UK occurs, then the UK will have its supply of weapons disrupted because its supply of weapons comes not from its own factories but from China, plus it cannot discount the possibility that China may be able to blackmail its trading partners, like Germany or France, into not supplying it the weapons it needs that are being manufactured in Germany or France, by threatening to deny German and French companies access to the lucrative Chinese market of its factories continue to supply weapons to the UK if war breaks out between the UK and China.

[Waylander]

In germany we have not a problem of getting enough coscriptors (Law also allows a social siervice instead of joining the army).
The problem is that there are not enough young men starting to serve every quarter year.
And some who don't want to do anything have to and some want are not allowed to.
So the situation is not fair here and this is a big problem.

There are still no UKs or italians here. Arrrgh. :lul

[Waylander]

I think we have enough weapons factories in europe to support us with everything we need.
Why should some part of our defense industry go to china. :confused:
This will never happen.

And now back to topic!!!!!!

[ren0312]

I'm not sure raw figures will give you that much insight in to real depoloable military power. It would just be a long list. I'm sure if the russian counted up all there tanks the total would be frightening, but undepolable in any meaningfull capability. The fact that most (all) european counries rely on the
US airlift capabilitys makes such totals kind of meaningless. Its a nice idea dont get me wrong, but maybe it would be better to look at european rapid reaction forces or the nasent Battle groups system.

I think if ever the European countries decide to increase their budgets, they should consider buying lift capabilities, so they do not have to rely on the Americans anymore for air or sealift.

[ren0312]

In germany we have not a problem of getting enough coscriptors (Law also allows a social siervice instead of joining the army).
The problem is that there are not enough young men starting to serve every quarter year.
And some who don't want to do anything have to and some want are not allowed to.
So the situation is not fair here and this is a big problem.

There are still no UKs or italians here. Arrrgh. :lul

I think I heard from a Discovery Channel program that the UK has about 400+ Challenger 2s.

[Waylander]

As long as I know they want to keep 250+ in active service. This is not much. I don't even know if they produced so many Challi 2.

And by now we are more relying on ukrainian AN-225 for which we have long time contracts.
That's for sure not the best solution.

[swerve]

I think I heard from a Discovery Channel program that the UK has about 400+ Challenger 2s.

Tut-tut. I don't think that comment was really worth making.

Here are some official UK numbers -

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c3/table311.html
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c3/table312.html

Note: these are not quite total holdings. They are those in the CFE area.

Google is your friend. :)

[ren0312]

The swedish system has recently been changed (again). 11 or 15 months obligatory + 5 months optional. The obligatory is for defending the country and the optional is more international. This year 8000(15% of thoose who got enlisted) has been called to "serve the country" (i'm one of them). I think 1500 conscripts is placed in "fighting units" and the rest as maintainance, engineeres, staff, guards, royal guards ect. ect.

The goal is that at least 4000 youths is called each year and that 90% choose to participate international, join the Home Guard or become a officer. The problem is that in the near future there wont be 4000 youths available to SAF, the youngsters don't want too go through 2 weeks of "hell in the dark, cold and dangerous swedish pine forrest". So they have to take thoose who don't want this and the result is poorly motivated conscript soldiers. So SAF is planning to start training "tech-officers", keep informing the public, start training proffesional soldiers, make SSG(Särkilda Skydds Gruppen, swedens "top secret elite unit") available for conscripts and train conscripts.

Tearing a down a big conscript system really fast is not good!!!
Sorry for going a little off topic!

With that in mind maybe conscription is more suited for socially conservative societies, or societies that are more roght of center, since they are also more likely to have a stronger emphasis on patriotism, which will make young people more likely to join the armed forces, I do not know, but I do think that your government should be paying attention to the parts of the Sweden who traditionally vote for more right of center parties, and then concentrate their recruitment efforts there, since those people may be more likely to join the armed forces than those that come from areas that traditionally vote for left of center or socialist oriented parties.

[merocaine]

Well if you would look at Germany, its industries are also going to China due to very high wages there, that is also the reason for its high level of unemployment, plus it is very hard to fire workers there, this makes employers hesitant to hire more labour when the economy recovers, thus leading to a high natural rate of unemployment even when the economy is expanding at 3 per cent, the reason why Denmark has a lower unmemployment rate is because of its flexible labor laws, and also because at 28 per cent, its corporate tax rate is lower than Germany, this despite it being a welfare state. As for the decline of American industries, it is simply because of the fact that wages are cheaper in China that American industry is migrating there, hopwever when it comes to the services sector, for example Silicon Valley and Wall Street, there is still a very strong presence in America, plus the fact the China's currency is undervalued and it keeps its wages artificially low by suppressing unions does not help much either in keepiung manufacturing jobs in America, it is mainly the unionized labor in factories that are losing jobs, factories that do not have a unionized workforce are actually doing very well, such as the Toyota and Honda plants in the South, plus it is actually a good idea to depend on your own country's companies when buying weapons, and to encourage having your own domestic arms industries, so that your supply of armaments will still not be cut off if war starts, for example, it will not be a good idea for the UK to relocate its weapons factories to China just because labor is cheaper there, since if a war between the UK occurs, then the UK will have its supply of weapons disrupted because its supply of weapons comes not from its own factories but from China, plus it cannot discount the possibility that China may be able to blackmail its trading partners, like Germany or France, into not supplying it the weapons it needs that are being manufactured in Germany or France, by threatening to deny German and French companies access to the lucrative Chinese market of its factories continue to supply weapons to the UK if war breaks out between the UK and China.


are we talking about employment law or weapons manafacturing?

Of course its a good idea to depend on your own companies for weapons, I just dont think jacking up your Defence Budget is a good way to boost your economy. At the end of the day those companys are making there living off the taxpayers back. They are non productive capital goods and are usually stored away and never used, and when they are sold its very hard to control how there used by 3th party's. I'm no peacenick but I can only feel disgust when I look at the arms industry and arms trade. Morally it has no justifaction, economly it is counter productive. War is something that has to be engaged in as a last resort, not something to be used to make a few bucks.

Ok the german economy is'ent in the best shape as regards employment levels, but most of those jobs are highly productive, and highly skilled. The work force is probobly the most educated in the world. The german economy has shaken out a lot of ineffiencys in the last 10 years, and german middle size engineering firms (back bone of the german economy) have weathersed the storm, firms with 80 to 400 employees were never in a possition to out source. I wish we had something like that in Ireland, we're multinational heaven, and they could all do a runner when the economic conditions change:(

Toyota and Honda are staying in america (in the south) cause wages are low
and they pay f**K all in corporate taxes, so ok theres jobs but if the workers ever try to join a union to bargain Or the state needs to raise revenue those jobs could end up in mexico.

Anyway were arguing about general economic theory.

This is ment to be about european armour.

[Waylander]

I think germany is one of the less patriotic countries in the world and one where left wing politics are much more accepted than right wing politics. ;)

If you go fore patriotism the US would have a pure conscripts army.

[TrangleC]

Well if you would look at Germany, its industries are also going to China due to very high wages there, that is also the reason for its high level of unemployment, plus it is very hard to fire workers there, this makes employers hesitant to hire more labour when the economy recovers, thus leading to a high natural rate of unemployment even when the economy is expanding at 3 per cent, the reason why Denmark has a lower unmemployment rate is because of its flexible labor laws, and also because at 28 per cent, its corporate tax rate is lower than Germany, this despite it being a welfare state.
He he he, always funny to read this "germany is almost part of the third world by now"-stuff in foreign news and hearing it from foreigners. If i would believe what they say about Germany on CNN and all those other american or british news stations, i'd have to wonder how well everything here is still going.
German economy is still pretty much doing ok. The unemployment rates virtually only apply on the very low qualification sector. With a decent diploma in your poket you still get a good job in a german company, working in Germany, not in China or anywhere else.
The companies are even complaining that they can't find enough engineers to hire here. The demand is hughe. No wonder with the german companies still being world leaders in export since a long time and the machine building industry still growing about 8 % every year.
They did even send headhunters to my university to hire students that haven't even graduated yet. I was offered 2 jobs as an engineer when i just was in my second year of university.

Also there are massing news and reports in the last years about companies moving their production facilities from eastern Europe, the USA and Asia back to Germany because they missed either the german infrastructure or the availability of well educated working force.
It was like this with the company my father works in. They invested in the USA for more than a decade but disappointed retreated from there because the american hire and fire system virtually only produces badly motivated clerks. They had to move german workers there the whole time to train the americans or to simply do the work themselves and that became way more expensive after a while than just expanding production facilities here in Germany.
And you hear such things from the bigger companies and corporations too.

And the thing with the high taxes is not so easy too.
The rates on the paper may be higher in Germany, but at the same time there are so many possibilities to avoid paying taxes alltogether for big corporations that they didn't pay taxes at all during the last decades.
That is a big scandal and annoys the normal people here very much.
For example i once read that the whole BMW corporation did pay only 14 euros (not 14 millions, not 140000, no just 14.0 euros) in a year, because they were able to use all the little tricks like selling property to itself and stuff like that, to avoid taxes.
Virtually only the little people and the little and middlesized companies are paying taxes here and they still don't leave the country.

But enough being off topic.


I don't see why conscriptors should be worse that professional soldiers. The concept of the "citizen in uniform" that is still applied in Germany makes sense in my opinion.
It is better to have a clever conscript sitting in a tank than a stupid fuckup who only chose a military career because he's afraid of the civil economy or can't make it out there.
In a small army like the german, there is no room for hardly alphabetical cannonfodder like the US forces hire often.

[Grand Danois]

Tut-tut. I don't think that comment was really worth making.

Here are some official UK numbers -

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c3/table311.html
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/c3/table312.html

Note: these are not quite total holdings. They are those in the CFE area.

Google is your friend. :)

Where are the Scimitars on this list? Or are they perhaps registered as Scorpions?

[rattmuff]

There are no military threat against Sweden.
The public don't know what SAF is doing.
Today you can say you don't want to do military service.
Due to fewer conscripts, you have to score high on all tests.
And even if you do score high on everything they might not need you.
Swedish media overwhelms us with unreported/classified reports about swedish soldiers being attacked by stones, small arms, grenades dispite it happened months ago or even years ago.
Last year two SSG soldiers died by a IED.
Gripen project cost too much.
Going from a big national invasion defence to a small higly efficient armed force.

[swerve]

Where are the Scimitars on this list? Or are they perhaps registered as Scorpions?

No, MoD wouldn't do that. But they might accidentally miss a line off a table. Ooops! :D

Must be a mistake. I can't believe they're all in Iraq.

BTW, table 3.14 is worth a look. It gives a summary of holdings of all countries within the CFE area 0n 01-01-2004. Not broken down by type, unfortunately, but still . . . Germany declared 2171 tanks.

The whole thing's available as a pdf file (free) at http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/pdf/UKDS2005.pdf

Earlier years are also online.

[ren0312]

are we talking about employment law or weapons manafacturing?

Of course its a good idea to depend on your own companies for weapons, I just dont think jacking up your Defence Budget is a good way to boost your economy. At the end of the day those companys are making there living off the taxpayers back. They are non productive capital goods and are usually stored away and never used, and when they are sold its very hard to control how there used by 3th party's. I'm no peacenick but I can only feel disgust when I look at the arms industry and arms trade. Morally it has no justifaction, economly it is counter productive. War is something that has to be engaged in as a last resort, not something to be used to make a few bucks.

Ok the german economy is'ent in the best shape as regards employment levels, but most of those jobs are highly productive, and highly skilled. The work force is probobly the most educated in the world. The german economy has shaken out a lot of ineffiencys in the last 10 years, and german middle size engineering firms (back bone of the german economy) have weathersed the storm, firms with 80 to 400 employees were never in a possition to out source. I wish we had something like that in Ireland, we're multinational heaven, and they could all do a runner when the economic conditions change:(

Toyota and Honda are staying in america (in the south) cause wages are low
and they pay f**K all in corporate taxes, so ok theres jobs but if the workers ever try to join a union to bargain Or the state needs to raise revenue those jobs could end up in mexico.

Anyway were arguing about general economic theory.

This is ment to be about european armour.

I am not advocating raising your defence budget in order to lift your economy out of a recession, for example, France has an adequate defence budget at 2.6 per cent of GDP, and its economy is still growing very slowly, what is needed is an environment that is conducive to business, that is low corporate taxes and a friendly regulatory environment, an adequate defence budget, i.e. 2 per cent of GDP is needed in order to make sure that your armed forces are not underinvested, you can have a very high defence budget and yet still have a collapsing economy, like the USSR for example.

[rattmuff]

This thread is getting wierd now! Economy, conscripts.... The title do say "European armor" .... i am sorry for making off topic posts. Please let us go back to the topic now. :offtopic

[Waylander]

I agree and apologize for making off-topic posts by myself.
Lets just wait for the rest.

[TrangleC]

I am not advocating raising your defence budget in order to lift your economy out of a recession, for example, France has an adequate defence budget at 2.6 per cent of GDP, and its economy is still growing very slowly, what is needed is an environment that is conducive to business, that is low corporate taxes and a friendly regulatory environment, an adequate defence budget, i.e. 2 per cent of GDP is needed in order to make sure that your armed forces are not underinvested, you can have a very high defence budget and yet still have a collapsing economy, like the USSR for example.
I agree with what you said, with the one exeption about the USSR.
I think the problem there was that due to the communistic system, the companies that build the weapons were somewhat part of the state instead of real companies and free buiseness ventures. That means that all the money spend for weapons was just gobbled up by the production instead of being re-invested into the economy.
In some way the state itself was the customer and the supplier in one, which meant it was a supplier that only financed itself and didn't really have a customer.
It is different when there just is a politician telling a bunch of engineers "build me this" or "build me that" and gives them the money they needed for it, or if you have a gouvernment that pays a functional free venture for it's service and that supplier re-invests that money into the economy and pays taxes.

But that is rather a theory of mine than rock solid knowlege.

[TrangleC]

This thread is getting wierd now! Economy, conscripts.... The title do say "European armor" .... i am sorry for making off topic posts. Please let us go back to the topic now. :offtopic
Well, that just shows that military issues always are economically issues too. It is closely linked and that is why a little off topic talk in this direction isn't that much off topic actually.

[Gladius]

United Kingdom.

At 21 April 2006, this were the numbers of disponibility of MBTs & IFVs said by Adam Ingram [Minister of State (Armed Forces)] in the House of Commons:

Name: Operationally deployable/Total Fleet size

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2 MET): 327/385
Saxon: 579/622
Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (all variants): 735/794
Spartan: 452/478
Scimitar: 303/328
Striker: 47/48
Samson: 48/50
Samaritan: 46/50
Sultan: 196/205

Edit: Added link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060704/text/60704w1411.htm)

[merocaine]

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2 MET): 327/385
Saxon: 579/622
Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (all variants): 735/794
Spartan: 452/478
Scimitar: 303/328
Striker: 47/48
Samson: 48/50
Samaritan: 46/50
Sultan: 196/205

Thats still pretty impressive for an Island. I heard there's cuts in the pipe line does anyone know what they are?

[.pt]

Enough of that employment and economical stuuf, it makes me depressed:(
Back to topic, and to answer Merocaine, wich makes a good point, i would say that of course we cannot only look at numbers, but we have to start somewhere, yes?
If we dont know whats available how can we then proceed to distinguish what has real military worth. For example, take Greece with those huge numbers of tanks, how many of them are really serviceable, and of those how many can we consider to be 1st line, updated and capable tanks? And also what to say about the units that operate them? Do they train properly, is their doctrine any good, etc etc.
As for those European forces, what is your opinion, will they really work? and even if the concept proves to be good, will they ever be used in a real life situation? Its just that in EU, theres a lot of diferences in foreign policy in several countries, i wonder if politically these things will take off.
As for the airlift question and other means of transport and force projection, that really is a relevant question, so what can anyone say about that A400 military transport thing? Will that be some kind of Solution?
And i´m still waiting for the data on some countries, so that we can have a complete picture.
thanks to everyone.
.pt

[Whiskyjack]

United Kingdom.

At 21 April 2006, this were the numbers of disponibility of MBTs & IFVs said by Adam Ingram [Minister of State (Armed Forces)] in the House of Commons:

Name: Operationally deployable/Total Fleet size

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2 MET): 327/385
Saxon: 579/622
Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle (all variants): 735/794
Spartan: 452/478
Scimitar: 303/328
Striker: 47/48
Samson: 48/50
Samaritan: 46/50
Sultan: 196/205

Edit: Added link (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060704/text/60704w1411.htm)

I know that the UK is going to 5 armoured regiments of 44 tanks each, with 5 recon regiments and I believe that there are 8? warrior battalions.

[Waylander]

A400M is no strategic airlift solution.
Not enough range and the biggest which fits into it is a Puma IFV without extra armor.

[Grand Danois]

A400M is no strategic airlift solution.
Not enough range and the biggest which fits into it is a Puma IFV without extra armor.

On the other hand, not even the US deploys MBT's by air. Not in significant numbers...

[Whiskyjack]

A400M is no strategic airlift solution.
Not enough range and the biggest which fits into it is a Puma IFV without extra armor.

Realistically, when moving the heavy stuff the EU needs Ro-Ro Ships. I know the UK has 6, in a commercial lease deal I think. How about the rest of Europe? Then or course there is rail as well.

I'm not sure if this is off topic, as moving armour would seem to be important?

[Waylander]

For sure deploying MBTs by plane is not very economical.
The Puma was just an example to show how much material fits into an A400M.
The range is another thing which makes the A400m more a tactical transporter than a strategic one.
The railway system in europe is one of the best in the world and I think germany alone would have enough transportation capabilities by train to transport nearly all ground forces left in europe.

[Grand Danois]

Realistically, when moving the heavy stuff the EU needs Ro-Ro Ships. I know the UK has 6, in a commercial lease deal I think. How about the rest of Europe? Then or course there is rail as well.

I'm not sure if this is off topic, as moving armour would seem to be important?

No, no! Not off topic - we're just treading water until somone coughs up the numbers for Italy :)

Well, Denmark has two RORO's on permanent lease and also has the two Absalons plus a stake in the SALIS An-124's.

In the EU/NATO context there are logistics coordination centres.

CO-ORDINATION CELLS/CENTRES
5. In order to enhance co-ordination, as a starting point, an overview is needed of all existing and planned co-ordination cells/centres and possible initiatives, including reference to their responsibilities and tasks. These are both multinational and national organisations:

Multinational
• The European Airlift Centre (EAC) at Air Base Eindhoven has declared its services to the EU. Its primary function is to maximise the utilisation of airlift capability.

• The Sealift Co-ordination Centre, co-located with EAC, has declared its services to the EU. Its primary function is to maximise the utilisation of sealift capability.

• A Strategic Air Lift Co-ordination Cell (SALCC) is planned to operate by mid 2005. It will be co-located and embedded with the EAC. The SALCC will be the tasking authority for the use of the Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS) contract.

National
• The Greek Sealift Co-ordination Centre in Athens has declared its services and available assets to the EU. Its function is to “co-ordinate, charter and monitor” sealift capability.

It should be noted that all these organisations have also been made available to NATO.

In the field of land transport there are no multinational centres. Further study is needed to assess whether a strategic multinational land transport co-ordination centre is required.

http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/MILITARY%20CAPABILITY%20COMMITMENT%20CONFERENCE%20 22.11.04.pdf

Except for SALIS I don't know the status of these centres, though.

[Grand Danois]

For sure deploying MBTs by plane is not very economical.
The Puma was just an example to show how much material fits into an A400M.
The range is another thing which makes the A400m more a tactical transporter than a strategic one.
The railway system in europe is one of the best in the world and I think germany alone would have enough transportation capabilities by train to transport nearly all ground forces left in europe.


Range is a much better argument. But I do think that the A400M is a HUGE improvement over the current, almost nonexisting, capability.

[KWSN-Men]

For example, take Greece with those huge numbers of tanks, how many of them are really serviceable, and of those how many can we consider to be 1st line, updated and capable tanks? And also what to say about the units that operate them? Do they train properly, is their doctrine any good, etc etc.


Can't talk about other countries, but I can talk about Greece. The M-48A5 MOLF and the Leo 1A5 are quite capable. The M-48's have had work done on them and the optics are up to level to the Leo 1A5, so I would say both maybe not 1st line tanks, both surely capable. The M-60's, have good armor but are slow and not so effective. So they are meant to be the first to suffer the attack and hold until the better ones come swarming from the second lines. Avalability on the Leo 1's is very good, on the M-48's quite good and the M-60's average I would say.

The whole training and defense is based on the fact that on the Greek-Turkish borders, the Greek side is mountainous, deep and narrow and the Turkish side is the exact opposite. In fact, even if you gave us tanks for free, we would not have where to put them on that front, the firepower gathered is enormous.

[Gladius]

I know that the UK is going to 5 armoured regiments of 44 tanks each,

AFAIK the Royal Armoured Corps is organized with the Regiment/Squadron system right?
Well, in spain we have two system in use, the Cavalry Regiments (with M-60A3TTS & VRC-105 Centauro) are organized with the Regiment/Squadron scheme (3 Armored Cavalry Regiments, 3 Light Armored Cavalry Regiments & 1 Light Cavalry Regiment), but the Armored and Mechanized Regiments (Leopard 2) use the Regiment/Battalion/Company system (1 Armored Regiment [2 Tank Bons 44 Leo 2 each] & 4 Mech Regiments [only one of them with a Tank Bon 44 Leo 2] plus two independent Tank Battalion [50 M-60A3TTS] asigned to the Brigades: San Marcial V and Urgel IV).

Now, with the Army reform established by the Royal Decree 416/2006, the situation will change to the following one:

2 Armored Regiments
2 Mech Regiments
3 Independent Mech Bon
2 Armored Cavalry Regiments
3 Light Armored Cavalry Regiment
1 Independent Tank Battalion

Realistically, when moving the heavy stuff the EU needs Ro-Ro Ships. I know the UK has 6, in a commercial lease deal I think. How about the rest of Europe?

The Spanish Army owns two Ro-Ro ships permanently lended to the Navy. The Navy have also the two Newports (to be replaced by the SPS/BPE) and the two Galicias LPDs for this tasks. However like on many other countries the Ministry of "Fomento" have the competences to mobilize any civilian ship of any civilian maritime company in Spain, to complete the needs of maritime transport of the Spanish Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence.

[swerve]

No, no! Not off topic - we're just treading water until somone coughs up the numbers for Italy :)

Well, latest figures I have, from 2003 -
186 Ariete
378 Centauro
There were still 619 Leopard 1 listed then, but I know that number has reduced greatly. The Italian army must now have the smallest heavy armour component in proportion to its size in Europe.

Dardo - only 27 in 2003, but were being delivered at a good pace. 200 now? How many on order?
PzH 2000 - how many?

As for armour-capable transport & amphibious ships, here's an incomplete list.
UK:
1 Ocean LPH (not capable of landing heavy vehicles, e.g. tanks. Can carry light armour) (ca 20000 tons)
2 Albion-class LPD (ca 18000)
4 Bay-class LSD entering service (16000)
6 Point-class ro-ro ships (13000)

France:
2 Mistral-class LHD (20000)
2 Foudre-class LSD (12000)

Italy:
1 Cavour light carrier with secondary amphibious capability building (27000). Light armour only?
3 San Giorgio small LPD (8000)

Spain:
1 LHD building (27000)
2 Galicia/Rotterdam LPD (14000)
2 ex-US Newport LST (8500) (to retire)

Netherlands:
1 Johan de Witt (enlarged Rotterdam) LPD (17000)
1 Rotterdam/Galicia LPD (14000)

[Gollevainen]

Realistically, when moving the heavy stuff the EU needs Ro-Ro Ships. I know the UK has 6, in a commercial lease deal I think. How about the rest of Europe? Then or course there is rail as well.


In the baltic (mostly between finland and sweden and finland and estonia) there are nearly 20 commersial carferrys which are in fact a RO-RO ships...

[swerve]

In the baltic (mostly between finland and sweden and finland and estonia) there are nearly 20 commersial carferrys which are in fact a RO-RO ships...

And a lot more elsewhere (North Sea, Aegean, English Channel, Irish Sea, etc). They might need some deck strengthening to carry Leopard 2, Challenger, PzH2000, etc, (anyone know for sure?), but could carry any other military vehicle with no problems.

[merocaine]

Originally Posted by Gollevainen
In the baltic (mostly between finland and sweden and finland and estonia) there are nearly 20 commersial carferrys which are in fact a RO-RO ships...

And a lot more elsewhere (North Sea, Aegean, English Channel, Irish Sea, etc). They might need some deck strengthening to carry Leopard 2, Challenger, PzH2000, etc, (anyone know for sure?), but could carry any other military vehicle with no problems.

This is starting to come together! lets invade someone!!:drunk1

[Waylander]

I think we should start wih some noce little Islands. Maybe Cuba.... :D

[merocaine]

I think we should start wih some noce little Islands. Maybe Cuba....


beautiful at this time of year I hear :)

[swerve]

I think we should start wih some noce little Islands. Maybe Cuba.... :D

Cape Verde first, for practice. And they'll probably be very happy to be conquered, because they'll immediately qualify for regional aid, starting with a new airport & lots of hotels. Well, the Canaries are getting crowded - we need more winter beaches. :cool: :fly

[Grand Danois]

Naw, Cap verde has already been done.

Exercise Steadfast Jaguar 06: the NRF concept test (http://www.nato.int/shape/issues/shape_nrf/steadfast_jaguar.htm)

I vote for cuba! They have more beaches and rum! :cool:

[Waylander]

Not to mention the beautifull girls. :D
And we are also able to show the US how to do this right. ;)