Comparison Study: The Dutch Military and the German Intervention Forces

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
First off: This is not a vs thread in any way.

I'm gonna try to present and contrast two - at first glance - almost-identically designed military structures in this thread. A purely amateurish attempt at this. And brace yourself, it's a long one, and text-only. No orbat lists, no graphics. I will also attempt to not put too many comparisons in here, to prevent a "this-is-better-than-that" view; with regard to capability, occasionally that of course can't be avoided.

I have picked the Dutch Military (RDM) and the German Intervention Forces (GIF) in particular since both are active forces within NATO, with not too dissimilar terrain and role specializations (although there are definitive differences!). In addition, both use extremely similar equipment, making it easier to refrain from direct equipment comparison, especially down to the "my-radar-is-better-than-yours".

Another rather similar structure is formed by the active, non-territorial components of the Australian Military for example, but with local factors (coastline, no directly bordering states) playing into it a lot and modifying it considerably. Another very interesting comparison would - surprisingly - be the Bulgarian Military, with a rather similar structure when one discounts the units assigned to the territorial East and West Commands. Would in particular be an interesting comparison as this is a recently-transformed WARPAC military of course.

A short explanation: The Intervention Forces (Eingreifkräfte) are a strategic subset of the German Army, created with the current transformation. The "GIF" are intended to be capable of fighting a regional conflict by itself. The borders between GIF and the remaining Bundeswehr forces are somewhat fluent, but each unit in the Bundeswehr is technically assigned a fixed role in some way, declaring it part of the GIF or other strategic subsets. The below reflects those forces assigned to the GIF or as dual-role units for GIF and other subsets (this is mostly limited to e.g. engineers and other support assets).

I will start with a rough structural presentation. I am discounting the Dutch forward-deployed marine battalion in Aruba in this comparison. I am also going with the transformational future structure for each force. And as a third item, i'm lumping in the EK and EK/SK elements of JgRgt 1 with the German components (JgBtl 292) of D/F Brig.

In both forces, the following is present:
In land forces
  • two combined-arms brigades
  • one airmobile brigade
  • similar-sized combat support units for these
  • similar-sized aviation units to support the airmobile brigade
  • one logistics brigade
  • special forces, roughly one battalion
In naval forces
  • one frigate squadron
  • one patrol squadron
  • one MCM squadron
  • identically-sized submarine forces
  • similar support/supply units for the above
In air forces
  • three multirole squadrons (about 70 aircraft)
  • similar-sized large-scale tanker assets
  • force protection and support assets

There are two really major structural differences between both militaries:
  • GIF: two (airmobile) infantry battalions with relevant transport assets; considerably higher organic airlift assets
  • RDM: two marine battalions with relevant transport assets; considerably higher organic sealift assets
  • GIF: one ground-based air defense regiment (9 Patriot batteries) and one (non-organic) tactical air-defense regiment (6 Gepard batteries)
  • RDM: one airborne air defense squadron (about 20 aircraft), one ground-based air defense battalion (4 Patriot batteries), some medium-range air defense assets (NASAMS procurement)

Now, the whole thing does look rather similar, just with marine or airmobile forces respectively, and airborne vs ground-based air defence?
Current procurement seems to indicate both getting even closer, with Germany potentially procuring amphibious units (capable of landing the infantry units), and the Dutch military likely reducing aircraft numbers. However, the GIF will retain a large air mobility plus compared to the RDM (see below).

Now, we go and take apart the whole above structure, as far as the similar structures go. I won't start with the combat brigades, but with combat support.

-----

One very stark - but not obvious - difference is that Germany utilizes a rather huge amount of artillery in its Intervention Forces, unlike the Netherlands. The RDM has exactly two armoured artillery units in its whole structure - one in each combined-arms brigade, with two batteries of 8 PzH 2000 each. In contrast, the GIF supports each combined-arms brigade organically with three batteries of 8 PzH 2000, and adds another two such batteries and four batteries with 8 GMLRS each at the general staff level above that. The RDM Marines are supported by two 120mm mortar companies, while the GIF Infantry battalions are supported by an artillery battalion tailored as heavy initial-entry support with two PzH 2000 batteries and one GMLRS battery. In total this tailors out as 24 PzH 2000 as indirect fire support for the RDM, and 80 PzH 2000 and 40 GMLRS within the GIF - a rather extreme difference. In addition to this difference in numbers, the GIF has numerous RSTA assets in the form of UAVs deployed with all artillery units.

Other combat-support units and the logistics brigades are near-identical, even if structured somewhat differently. Each force draws from these dedicated medical units, supply/transport, signals, maintenance and non-organic engineer forces at very similar force levels. Both forces also have a reconnaissance/observation/ISTAR battalion with considerable UAV and ground-based recon capacity at this level. The GIF has some (mostly numerical) advantages in some fields; for example, considerably higher electronic warfare capacities in the form of a full battalion, while the RDM only employs a single company for this purpose.

The airmobile brigades and their aviation support units actually don't differ too much. In both cases the airmobile brigade, within the overall framework, is primarily tasked as special forces of sorts, intended for evacuation ops and similar non-standard military undertakings. The aviation support for the RDM is formed by 29 AH-64D Apache Longbow, 17 CH-47F and 17 AS532U2 Cougar Mk2. The GIF in comparison will employ between 30 and 40 Tiger, 20 CH-53G in various versions and some 30 to 40 NH-90; potentially up to around a dozen Bo-105 as unarmed recon and liaison assets. The latter does look like somewhat higher numbers, however these helos also support one of the two light infantry battalions in addition to the airmobile brigade; for the RDM, we would definitely have to add the 8 naval NH-90 TTH for a good comparison of numbers, as these could be utilized with the marines. In either case, CSAR assets would also come out of these units.
The airmobile brigades themselves each retain three maneuver battalions, with an organic light fire support and air defence capability at brigade level. There are obviously equipment differences, but structurally - and capability-wise - they're rather close, with a similar disposition of infantry and organic AT platoons.

If we look at the combined-arms brigades, there are already structural differences at brigade level, indicating local preferences of sorts. In the RDM, both brigades are mechanized brigades with one tank and two mechanized infantry battalions; in the GIF, the "core" brigade is an armour brigade with two tank and one mechanized infantry battalion, while the other brigade retains one tank and one mechanized infantry battalion. Equipment-wise they'll be near-identical, with both forces utilizing Leopard 2 and the Puma not having some miracle-like advantage over the CV9035NL.
The higher amount of infantry would of course give the RDM a clear advantage in any medium-term "clear - hold - build" strategy, while the GIF as initial-entry forces for a larger military with dedicated "hold - build" forces concentrates on the breakthrough, the "clear" part. The higher level of artillery fire-support (above) indicates similar intentions.

As for the infantry units outside the combined-arms brigades - the marines for the RDM, the light infantry for the GIF - these of course represent somewhat differing roles in some regard. The RDM needs marines and the relevant transport assets to reinforce its overseas presence if needed; the GIF has two units with a rather similar internal layout of light and medium forces to have an airlifted similar initial-entry capacity for various purposes. Both forces have these units at least partially embedded into international units intended for their purposes, the D/F Brigade and the Royal 3rd Commando Brigade respectively.
The transport assets assigned to these units are in both cases rather "oversized", in order to be capable of lifting additional units in the same way. For the difference in assets, see below.

-----

Now for the navy. I will discount the Dutch LPDs in that regard, as i'd claim them primarily as transport assets for the marines, even if of course there are considerable multi-role possibilities.

The frigate squadrons consist of 7 ships for the GIF - three AAW, four ASW/GP - whereas the RDM employs 6 units - four AAW, two ASW/GP. The GIF ASW units are considerably larger and more capable, employing two helos instead of one in the RDM units, and prepared to deploy towed array sonar. In contrast, i'd rate the Dutch AAW units slightly more capable, as they embark a higher amount of missiles for their purpose (32 ESSM, 32 SM-2 vs 32 ESSM, 24 SM-2). Again, the GIF AAW units are somewhat more capable as multi-role vessels, with two helos embarked. Neither navy has any kind of notable range or speed advantage in deploying, and both use near-identical sensor and effector systems.

The patrol squadrons probably show the most considerable difference. In the RDM, this will consist of the 4 Holland-class OPVs, open-ocean patrollers with an extensive sensor outfit. The GIF in contrast uses the 5 K130-class "light frigates", which have somewhat less high-sea endurance, but actually contribute considerable effectors to the framework in the form of a total of 20 land-attack cruise missiles. Their organic self-defense weapons outfit similarly is somewhat more extensive and capable. Another notable difference is the Holland embarking a NH-90 helo, while the K130 does not have the facilities to permanently support a helicopter, and instead will employ two VTOL UAVs to extend its sensor space. Neither squadron supplies any ASW capability to the framework, although the RDM vessels could likely embark and support a suitably equipped NH-90 for this purpose.

The MCM squadrons primarily differ in size, however the GIF in this case can take advantage of the modular pool in its overall forces in that regard. The RDM employs 7 Tripartite minehunters plus 3 vessels modified to control drones. The GIF employs 6 units of similar capability at any time, in a mix of minehunters and drone control vessels as needed. Unlike the RDM squadron, the GIF squadron is supported by a frigate-sized tender as a 7th ship, utilized as squadron command and supply vessel; obviously extending the squadrons endurance in-theater.

The submarine squadrons are rather straight: Both forces can rely on four SSKs for this purpose, with the RDM Walrus' somewhat larger than the GIF Type 212A. The RDM subs are tailored more towards longer patrols with high range and a larger weapons capacity, while the GIF subs with AIP are somewhat better suited to certain operations with a high necessity for stealth. The Walrus also employ Sub-Harpoon AShM, which is somewhat balanced out by the GIF subs capability for embarking long-range DM2A4 guided torpedoes. The GIF subs currently employ somewhat more modern sensors and electronics, however the future upgrade of the Walrus might cancel that.

The support units in either case consist of another two ships, in either force one of them being a medium-sized AOR. The RDM will in addition employ a dual-purpose ship with replenishment capability (JSS) configured depending on need, while the GIF can assign a second tender to either the patrol squadron or the submarines, giving either unit certain considerable advantages.
The GIF might receive two ships with a similar multi-role capability for potential replenishment to the Dutch JSS.

As aviation assets employed aboard these ships go, the GIF with somewhat higher ASW focus of course also employs some more helos; in a maximized modular approach, the ships in the frigate squadron can employ 14 ASW helicopters, currently upgraded Lynx. The RDM can embark 6 ASW helos in the frigate squadron, and another 4 with the patrol squadron. The GIF and RDM AORs can employ 2 and 3 VERTREP helicopters respectively, with the current Sea Kings in both cases likely to be replaced by NH-90 transport helicopters; the RDM JSS in a replenishment role will likely embark similar numbers. The two German tenders (without a hangar) can embark and sustain a helicopter for a limited time, typically also a medium VERTREP helo each. The Dutch LPDs and JSS can add considerable helicopter capacity to this of course, although depending on the type of JSS to be procured for the GIF, this would likely be matched in the future.

Both forces can draw sealift assets from MCCE MSSC. This gives either force access to up to 15 standard commercial sealift ships within a 30-day timeframe - in the case of the higher-reaction GIF the usual run-up time to a deployment, i.e. a full mobilization. MCCE can also organize additional sealift and cargo transport assets for its members through commercial charter.
Without using MCCE, the GIF has access to up to 5 sealift ships through the ARK project, a joint initiative with Denmark; these ships are normally contributed to MCCE, but are primarily intended for German and Danish support. The GIF can also draw on a rather limited number of smaller supply ships from the Bundeswehr's Support Forces.

-----

As Air Forces go, the RDM has a numerical advantage, but - for the short- to medium-term - no real capacities advantage. The RDM currently employs around 100 F-16AM/BM, distributed in three multirole and one fighter/QRA squadron. This is to be replaced by some 85 F-35A - or other 4.5th/5th-gen aircraft - likely in similar distribution. The GIF takes a modular approach, able to rely on a certain percentage from each Luftwaffe combat wing; by current percentage numbers, the GIF can assign some 70 aircraft, mostly Eurofighter Typhoon, distributed into one fighter and two squadron-sized strike modules, with a number of Tornados and Eurohawk UAVs for Recce and SEAD tasks where necessary. By next decade, both forces will have fully introduced and will be able to utilize air-launched cruise missiles in strategic strike missions. The approach of the GIF, assigning a percentage from all Luftwaffe wings, ensures that the GIF will in theory literally always be able to rely on all these aircraft being combat-capable, with instant replacement of attrition - this mitigates the numerical advantage of the RDM of course.

As tanker/transport assets go, the ball is clearly with the GIF. Either force will employ 2 larger multirole tanker/transport aircraft; KDC-10 for the RDM, A310 MRTT for the GIF. The GIF, in addition to that, would typically be able to rely on at least 5 A400M configured as tankers. As transport assets go, the GIF adds at least another 15 A400M in pure transport role to that, while the RDM will only have 4 C-130H. Again the GIF can rely on attrition replacement and support from the respective Luftwaffe wings.
Both nations are part of international initiatives intended to provide further airlift capacity; in the case of the GIF, this would be SALIS, in the case of the RDM, both SALIS and NATO SAC. SALIS could provide either force with up to 6 An-124-100, NATO SAC could provide the RDM with 3 C-17 in addition to that; in both cases, the number of flight hours available to the RDM and GIF as part of these initiatives would be limited.
Both forces have access to a limited number of ex-commercial passenger/cargo aircraft to move troops.

One untouched subjects are aviation support assets, something i'm not firm with either. One notable difference in that regard would be for example that the RDM only operates a single NATO Deployable Air Control Center, while the GIF will have two units of a similar role. Both forces of course have the necessary maintenance, support and force protection assets to support their air assets and air bases. Both forces currently have access to NATO Nuclear Sharing, with a USAFE MUNSS assigned for this purpose; both contingents are stationed in Germany (Büchel and Spangdahlem respectively), and rather unlikely to be retained for the medium-term future. Both forces have access to AEW&C assets in the form of NATO's joint E-3 AWACS squadron.

-----

So... i think i'll finish this here. Nope, no summary, no conclusions drawn by me. Take it for what it is, a pure write-up. Perhaps a source for some of your own thoughts about either structure, or their contrast?

Comments and especially corrections of course very welcome. :D

edit: MCCE, AWACS and some minor points added.
edit2: a few details modified.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You discouraged me when you said no OrBat, but that's exactly what you gave us. An excellent, highly detailed, and well written OrBat. Has either one of the forces been deployed as a whole? What kind of deployments could we expect? It seems like both are essentialy expeditionary corps. Does either one have the Navy or airlift to support a full force combat deployment of the entire interventionary force; logistics wise?

EDIT: My last question refers to additional assets available from their respective navies. I'm not familiar with German or Dutch Navies which is why I ask.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Neither have deployed in full so far. Both forces, as a whole, can combine large parts of their land forces under the command of either Eurocorps and NATO's 1 GE/NL Corps.

One somewhat interesting item is that either forces' command assets are capable of integrating additional multinational assets; with the GIF, in particular assets of the French Army, such as bringing D/F Brigade to its full strength. The relatively close structure of both units is of course an enabler to forming a joint corps out of both units.

Either force is sized appropriately to assume the role of a full NATO NRF, i.e. a rapid-response force intended for peace-enforcing in a medium regional conflict, with organic assets to sustain autonomous combat operations for at least 30 days. An NRF, and also these forces here, can also perform embargo operations, evacuation operations in hostile environments and similar operations. What either force is lacking in a typical NRF context is an aircraft carrier group.

The GIF is in essence a "expeditionary corps" in some respect, unlike the RDM; this is primarily due to the Bundeswehr having considerable other assets to protect the homebase. The RDM could only project a fraction of these forces. Either force would be the primary battleforce in any high-intensity regional conflict either nation gets involved in.

As far as potential deployments go - nothing below a "real" war. For example, within the Bundeswehr, the GIF does not handle the Afghanistan deployment, as it's considered too low intensity; same goes for OEF or UNIFIL. The GIF does supply some units to all of these though, in order to provide additional capabilities to the respective deployed forces; for example the Afghanistan RC(N) QRF would typically rather consist of GIF forces. A unit of the GIF deployed to DR Congo for a limited time to protect the presidential election there a while ago, as this was considered a high-risk deployment.

---

edit: information about MCCE transferred to initial post

---

The above RDM represent the full Dutch defence forces, save for their (considerable) military police / gendarmerie assets, and a certain number of "fixed" home-based personnel, in particular staff for fixed sites and bases at home. In the GIF, such assets and personnel are provided by a separate subset of the Bundeswehr, the "Support Forces" (Unterstützungskräfte), hence while i'm excluding them.

The GIF represents one of the two "combat subsets" of the German Bundeswehr, the other being the "Stabilization Forces", which are roughly twice the size of the GIF, but are rather infantry-centric, and in a lot of fire support and destruction capacity rely a lot on air power.
 
Last edited:

gvg

New Member
Some extra info and some questions.

The RDM also has a DC-10 for the transport role (besides the the 2 KDC-10 tankers). And they have 87 F-16's active and another 18 for sale.

And I do not understand what you mean with "...in a maximized modular approach..." with the naval aviation assets.
Both the LCF's and the Holland-class have hangars for 2 helicopters. So the maximum would be 10 in the frigate and 8 in the patrol squadron.

And if you take the entire Dutch Military, it has 31 PZH's (+26 for sale).

And with regards to the LPD's, I think you are correct to regard the Rotterdam (with it's 6 possible helicopters) as a marine transport asset. The Johan de Witt (6 medium or 4 heavy helicopters), however, also has command facilities to lead a division. I don't know if the GIF has such a ship, but in an all out war it's unlikely the Johan de Witt will not have a command role.

And the Dutch are buying 6 NASAMS II.

And I suspect the GIF will have more UAV recon facilities, but I don't know for sure (the Dutch only have 4x8 Sperwers and the small RQ-11 Ravens are underway, but I don't know how many.) So how many UAV assets does the GIF have?

How many Leopards for the GIF (the RDM has 91 and 28 for sale)?

Oh...and you mention GIF when you mean RDM, when talking about the AH-64s.

@Feanor.
In my opinion the Dutch don't have enough lift for a full force combat deployment, except on home soil.
The army had always been focused on a mechanized fight in lowland Germany and therefore lacked both strategic and tactical air transport. Only since the '90s have the Netherlands invested money in transport and tanker assets.
The navy is a little bit better off, because the focus of the Dutch has always been more on the navy than on the army. But the navy was geared towards defending NATO against a northern invasion. It was supposed to reinforce Norway, together with the UK. It's only 10 years ago they acquired their first LPD. Before that they relied on the UK for amphibious transport.

@Kato.
If you are interested, I do have an (excel) list of all strategic (and non-strategic) material (>€25mln) the Dutch have (1-1-2008). It is in Dutch though.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
The RDM also has a DC-10 for the transport role (besides the the 2 KDC-10 tankers).
Added a line about additional passenger airlift assets earlier. Germany has a A310 and two A340s in standard passenger liner version for the same mission, GIF can requisition that from the Support Forces.
And they have 87 F-16's active and another 18 for sale.
Ah, thanks... that brings the offensive air assets even closer.
And I do not understand what you mean with "...in a maximized modular approach..." with the naval aviation assets.
German frigates often deploy with only one helo. Two helos are embarked when needed for the primary ASW role. On all frigates. 14 out of a pool of 22 (which, with current max 8x2 helos on F122 in Stabilization Forces, is not enough for all frigates; with F125 in Stabilization Forces, 22 would be enough).
Both the LCF's and the Holland-class have hangars for 2 helicopters. So the maximum would be 10 in the frigate and 8 in the patrol squadron.
However, the RDM will only get 12 NH-90 NFH (and 8 "naval TTH", but those would be for SAR etc primarily iirc). And the LPDs and AOR/JSS will also need some helos from somewhere, can't use those precious Chinooks for everything.
And if you take the entire Dutch Military, it has 31 PZH's (+26 for sale).
Do you know where the other 7 are hooked up? I could only find the two artillery btls with 2x6 PzH each in the mechanized brigades.
The Johan de Witt (6 medium or 4 heavy helicopters), however, also has command facilities to lead a division. I don't know if the GIF has such a ship, but in an all out war it's unlikely the Johan de Witt will not have a command role.
Johan de Witt would be the command unit for the marines primarily, i'd think. All frigates in the GIF will in the near future receive a limited capability to lead land units (at least company-sized), currently in trials; for larger units, the JSS - if procured - will definitely be responsible.
And I suspect the GIF will have more UAV recon facilities, but I don't know for sure (the Dutch only have 4x8 Sperwers and the small RQ-11 Ravens are underway, but I don't know how many.) So how many UAV assets does the GIF have?
Offhand summary for the target structure, from memory:
- airforce recon squadron: 2-3 Eurohawk (HALE) assigned to GIF*
- airforce recon squadron: 3-4 Heron TP (MALE) assigned to GIF*
- navy: 10 SeaCopter S100 VTOL UAVs*
- artillery units: 20 (4x5) KZO tactical medium UAVs (slightly smaller than Sperwer)
- recon units: 30 (6x5) Luna tactical medium UAVs (comparable to Sperwer)
- recon units: 50+ Aladin handlaunched UAVs (comparable to RQ-11)

* under procurement; until then, more Tornados assigned for recon role

Plus, on a strategic level, access to recon from the SAR-Lupe and Helios II satellite networks (or their likely joint successor post-2015).

How many Leopards for the GIF (the RDM has 91 and 28 for sale)?
3 battalions of 44 -> 132 total
If you are interested, I do have an (excel) list of all strategic (and non-strategic) material (>€25mln) the Dutch have (1-1-2008). It is in Dutch though.
Sure, no prob. I can handle Dutch... somewhat... slightly... with some guessing. :cool:
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
apols if I missed it, but I can't see any reference to the combined Marine Exped force that the Dutch and the British operate together.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
In my opinion the Dutch don't have enough lift for a full force combat deployment, except on home soil.
The army had always been focused on a mechanized fight in lowland Germany and therefore lacked both strategic and tactical air transport. Only since the '90s have the Netherlands invested money in transport and tanker assets.
The navy is a little bit better off, because the focus of the Dutch has always been more on the navy than on the army. But the navy was geared towards defending NATO against a northern invasion. It was supposed to reinforce Norway, together with the UK. It's only 10 years ago they acquired their first LPD. Before that they relied on the UK for amphibious transport.
Can the Germans? Because if the answer is yes, then that makes all the difference. Germany has a capable independent rapid response force, which it can effectively deploy, while the Dutch have an effective force that requires major help to deploy anywhere.
 

gvg

New Member
Do you know where the other 7 are hooked up? I could only find the two artillery btls with 2x6 PzH each in the mechanized brigades.
No idea.

Johan de Witt would be the command unit for the marines primarily, i'd think.
That would be severe overkill, since the Dutch don't have nearly enough marines to even fill half a small division.

Can the Germans? Because if the answer is yes, then that makes all the difference. Germany has a capable independent rapid response force, which it can effectively deploy, while the Dutch have an effective force that requires major help to deploy anywhere.
I think that the difficulty with comparing them is that the GIF has a huge pool of resources they can use, which gives them access to assets the Dutch will never have.
That's also why Kato didn't compare the German army with the Dutch, but the GIF. Because the German army is so much bigger they (will) have enough air-transport to deploy, which the Dutch don't.

Oh...forgot to mention in my previous post that the Walrus can employ sub-harpoons, but they have never actually been bought.

Link to inventarisation: http://www.mindef.nl/binaries/Inventarisatie_Defensie_materieel_6-5-08_tcm15-82252.xls
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
apols if I missed it, but I can't see any reference to the combined Marine Exped force that the Dutch and the British operate together.
There's a line in there somewhere that one unit of the Dutch Marine Corps is integrated with the British 3rd Commando Brigade (and one of the German Inf Btls with the D/F Brigade with the French).

Of course, one could haul the whole 3rd Commando Brigade on one side, and the whole D/F Brigade on the other side in there, but that would make it "somewhat" more complicated.

Can the Germans? Because if the answer is yes, then that makes all the difference.
Complicated question. There is a calculation done in about 2000 for sealifting a force of roughly this size - would require the full MCCE force, plus 15 to 20 commercial sealift ships from the spot market. So yes, would likely be doable - for both sides. Airlifting, in particular forward troops, could take the edge off of that somewhat, for which Germany has better assets. Full redeployment into a theater should be possible within 6-8 weeks after mobilization under the above calculation.
One of the two combined-arms brigades in the GIF (the one with only two maneuver units) is nominally supposed to be capable of being airlifted in full. This should be doable in around 15 transfer runs of the entire assigned air fleet including the An-124s of SALIS and the PAX aircraft of the Support Forces (read: around 400 sorties total).
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
That's also why Kato didn't compare the German army with the Dutch, but the GIF. Because the German army is so much bigger they (will) have enough air-transport to deploy, which the Dutch don't.
Actually, i probably gave the GIF a bit too few air assets even. I mostly transferred the number of "modules" in the official "Concept of the Bundeswehr" to percentages for the air force. The Intervention Forces, in that document, receive "one module tanker/transport", while the Stabilization Forces "shall have a module each for tankers and transports planned". As there are no single-role tankers, i simply went with "one-third IF, two-thirds SF". It'd be likely that even more would be assigned - and of course, operationally, the borders between IF and SF would be somewhat fluent.
The Stabilization Forces are - generally - twice the size of the Intervention Forces in most aspects, but laid out somewhat differently.

Thanks for the link.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
As always a very good post.

Gave me some new insights especially on the RDM and on the Luftwaffe and Marine part of the GIF.

BTW, was there ever a good explanation why PzBrig 21 only got 2 combat bns?
Staying within some number limits for the GIF?

You were right to mention this thread in the "NATO's multiple frontier"-thread.
The GIF alone if stationed in Georgia would have made it necessary for Russia to assemble alot more troops and support assets to even remotely be able to push them out of their positions.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
BTW, was there ever a good explanation why PzBrig 21 only got 2 combat bns?
Staying within some number limits for the GIF?
No explanation as far as i know - but the limitation is already in the 2003 KdB.

"The Mechanized Infantry Brigade has two combat task units and additional forces comparable to those of the Armoured Brigade. This brigade will be partially air-transportable."
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You were right to mention this thread in the "NATO's multiple frontier"-thread.
The GIF alone if stationed in Georgia would have made it necessary for Russia to assemble alot more troops and support assets to even remotely be able to push them out of their positions.
Provided that they managed to get their air assets deployed in time. There are also implications to consider under what conditions the GIF would have been permitted to engage the Russian Army. Finally if I was the Russian president and I knew NATO had responded by giving troops the go ahead to engage my forces in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia proper, I would use nuclear weapons against the NATO deployment (after of course giving enough political statements to make sure the other side knows it's coming).

There is of course another issue, of offensive SAM operations. The Russian IADS in the N. Caucus MD engagement range extends well over parts of Georgia. Either GIF air operations would be significantly constricted, or the would have to launch offensive SEAD and DEAD over Russia proper and that's borderline to declaring war. Finally I doubt that they have the assets to suppress abovementioned IADS, and if we consider mobilization of out of district assets (which for aviation can be done much faster then ground troops, and even in terms of ground troops two VDV divisions were brought in, after about 3 days) the situation gets even messier.

EDIT: And don't forget, if NATO deploys to Georgia, you can put a big black line through SALIS, which does put a dent in airlift assets.

EDIT2: Sorry for the sort-of derail, but I think it would be interesting for us to explore how effective the GIF and RDM would be in deployments, so I guess that could fall in line with that.
 

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
Provided that they managed to get their air assets deployed in time. There are also implications to consider under what conditions the GIF would have been permitted to engage the Russian Army. Finally if I was the Russian president and I knew NATO had responded by giving troops the go ahead to engage my forces in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia proper, I would use nuclear weapons against the NATO deployment (after of course giving enough political statements to make sure the other side knows it's coming).

There is of course another issue, of offensive SAM operations. The Russian IADS in the N. Caucus MD engagement range extends well over parts of Georgia. Either GIF air operations would be significantly constricted, or the would have to launch offensive SEAD and DEAD over Russia proper and that's borderline to declaring war. Finally I doubt that they have the assets to suppress abovementioned IADS, and if we consider mobilization of out of district assets (which for aviation can be done much faster then ground troops, and even in terms of ground troops two VDV divisions were brought in, after about 3 days) the situation gets even messier.

EDIT: And don't forget, if NATO deploys to Georgia, you can put a big black line through SALIS, which does put a dent in airlift assets.

EDIT2: Sorry for the sort-of derail, but I think it would be interesting for us to explore how effective the GIF and RDM would be in deployments, so I guess that could fall in line with that.
I throught SALIS was Ukraninan so wouldn't be effected in a NATO russian fracas [of it would polticaly i thought the airlift would remain uneffected]
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
SALIS is technically a German limited company that leases 50% of its aircraft from Volga-Dnepr (Russia) and 50% from Antonov Airlines (Ukraine).

It should be clear what NATO NFR - and related such battleforces as these - were created for. That is a repeat of a war on a scale of Yugoslavia 1999, against an enemy of similar capability to that back then.
Eurocorps was reformatted around the same kind of threat, albeit with a far higher forces footprint (two armoured, five mechanized, two infantry brigades from five main contributors).

As IADS go, don't forget the GIF would set one up in Georgia as well then. And if it comes to that, i'd expect the full German ECR wing in Georgia. And to escalate publicizing a couple "show-off" drop tests by the German nuclear strike wing. Actually, a hostile IADS over own territory would be a nice test for coordination of strategic recon from the sat network with regional UAV use and naval/airborne cruise missile and GMLRS strikes for Germany. Hell, if this would happen mid of next decade, use it to test out WABEP and perhaps some initial test runs from an armed Barracuda successor.
Gotta practice all that somewhere after all :lol
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
You don't understand. The problem I am raising is that the scenario described would escalate out of control in no time. And demonstratory nuclear drops by Germany, would lead to a Russian response. And we certainly have far more tactical nukes. Hence why I find it rather unrealistic and problematic to speculate on the deployment. Well I would get my answer to the question of whether VVS performance (poor performance) over Georgia was indicatory of it's actual current capabilities, or just a result of being caught with their pants down. Once they start redeploying high-readyness Foxhound and Flanker units from the Far East into the region, as well as AEW&C assets we would at least find out how good those are.

I suppose the main problem of the GIF in this scenario then is the fact that they are a limited size force that can only do so much when faced with an opponent that has 5-6 times that many deployable troops. Like it was mentioned earlier, if we discount simply nuking the GIF flat into the ground, it would requite significant mobilization.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I think you got me wrong.

I was referring to the statement in the other thread that Georgia's armed forces were a role model of how a smaller country should build up it's forces and that their performance in the war showed how shitty this model is.

In my opinion the Georgian forces are nowhere close to being that western style armed forces some want them to be.
The RDM are a good example of how smaller armed forces should look like today when it comes to NATO/EU.
And yeah I am aware of the fact that georgia will never be able to reach this just due to the difference in population and wealth.

There is a trend to somehwat lighter units as well as a trend to force reduction in general in NATO. Nevertheless most countries retained alot of punch while adding some new capabilites to the force mix.

What I really wanted to say is that if Georgia really would have had armed forces with the equipment, training, structures and NATO-connections of a real western NATO country (relative to it's size) the fight for SO might have been alot more bloody for Russia and I am sure Georgia's forces would have been able to do alot more than what they actually did.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Absolutely, but again running into the dilemma of being a limited sized force that can't absorb losses on a large scale. Ultimately that's the problem with most European militaries at this point is that they simply cannot wage a large scale war.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
That's right.
I am sure every big scale ware in Europe has to be fought with mostly the existing equipment unless there are some years of warning to ramp up the military industrial production and to get the conscript/reservist concepts back in shape.
But with enough warning time europe still has the potential to outproduce everybody except the US if it is necessary.

But who else doesn't has these kind of problems these days?
I suspect most of the stuff in Russian depots is not serviceable without some major overhaul (if at all). At least the remaining stuff in NATO depots (it is not all gone) should be relatively ok to equip some reserve formations with.

There are not that many countries out there anymore where thousands of AFVs, fighters and other stuff is running out of the production lines to fill the ranks of cold war armed forces.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
The RDM are a good example of how smaller armed forces should look like today when it comes to NATO/EU.
And yeah I am aware of the fact that georgia will never be able to reach this just due to the difference in population and wealth.
Well, a quick look at wikipedia suggests that Bulgaria of all places is assuming a very similar force to the RDM, albeit primarily with WARPAC equipment. And two territorial commands each with a semi-active mechanized brigade and some reserve infantry regiments for the "ramp-up".
Pity there doesn't seem to be too much declassified information about their structure out there on the internet.
 
Top