Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Germany

This is a discussion on Germany within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; catchall thread for Germany...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old April 5th, 2017   #1
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Germany

catchall thread for Germany
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2017   #2
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
cypherbrief op-ed, German Armed Forces Modernize, Build Cyber Defenses

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/artic...ef35-122474249
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2017   #3
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
cypherbrief op-ed on future planning devs, Germany, Japan Strengthen Defensive Capabilities

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/artic...ef35-122474249
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 5th, 2017   #4
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
cypherbrief op-ed, German Armed Forces Modernize, Build Cyber Defenses

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/artic...ef35-122474249
I generally agree with this.

I think nuclear is not really relevant outside of North Korea and is not an issue for Germany or the EU in that context. I think it is a furphy.

I think again 2% is a target, but its capabilities that are more important that the target itself. Germany trashing its economy doesn't make it safer, nor does spending 2% GDP ineffectively. The fact there doesn't seem to be a plan of effective action to get to points like 1.25%, 1.5% etc makes me feel that Germany as a political entity doesn't believe this is a genuine strategic change.

I think it is essential for Germany (in combination with others) to project significant power through the EU and near EU countries. It seems quite clear that the US isn't going to ride in and stop Russian magic tricks with polite green men. Thats not a Trump thing, that is a reality for decades. Russia has now strong enough to be able to act and act successfully. The US isn't superman who will fly in every time there is a Russian cat stuck in an European tree.

If the US is occupied with higher priorities elsewhere (which it is) Europe will have to take a ticket and wait if Russian tanks roll in to Latvia or Poland. Or more likely take advantage of confused, divided and weak political situations to soft invade.

Rasmussen is wrong, the US isn't going to lead Europe any more. This is no longer the great century of the US in Europe. The training wheels are off Europe and they will have to deal with their own immediate threats.

For Europe, that is going to include countries like and around Turkey.

I am underwhelmed by the German announcement of cyber capability. Leading from the center equates to following stronger nations. Does it expect to take the average of views of NATO and do that?

Which stronger nations? An imploding UK? A self absorbed and distracted US? France, who is notable for acting in Frances interest even against its allies, and has only recently tentatively rejoined NATO at the same time they tried to supply arms to Russia? None of these see NATO as essential to their security.

Germany is the only country that can pull the strings of NATO together. Germany is what NATO is all about, no one else is going to lead it.
StingrayOZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 6th, 2017   #5
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
There are news about the future German army concept which fit nicely as a reply to the above mentioned idea of Germany not having a plan apart from spending some more money.

Sorry, only in German. Couldn't find an english source

Summary:
The are plans to bring the army up to three fully equipped divisions. Two of them heavy with identical structures and one light.

In order to bring back the required capabilities and troop strengths the army will raise 27 new bataillons.

And we talked about it in other threads (like the fire support one) were I stated that artillery is more important than ever. The Bundeswehr seems to agree with me as the number of artillery bns is to be raised to 14 (currently 4).

Even if this includes the resurrected army air defense arm (which would be strange as unlike in other armies it was never part of the artillery in the Bundeswehr) this is a significant increase in artillery strength.

These plans actually look very sensible to me and adequately address the newfound problems on NATO's eastern border. The recently announced procurement of additional corvettes and SSKs and yes, also the new cyberwarfare command fit the new orientation back to conventional warfare against a peer enemy.

And a little correction regarding France. They never left NATO. They left NATO's integrated command structure for some time. I am sure they would have fought on the side of their allies nevertheless.

And they also participate in the joint battlegroups in the Baltics just as they went into Afghanistan in strength in order to support their US allies.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 7th, 2017   #6
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,765
Threads:
The link was useful, it is an interesting plan, if you have any further links, please post them even if they are in German (between google translate and my feeble german they are very readable).

I do think it is a bit cold war thinking. Artillery is still useful of course, but we aren't talking about a traditional Soviet Russian invasion through the Fulda gap.

Russia has shown it is becoming very skillful in conflicts other than war, and what best can be described as asymmetric warfare. Rather than big set heavy moves, it is a much more agile and cloudy type of maneuvers that are winning conflicts.

It is this type of conflict that Germany is ill prepared for, and ill prepared to support other nations against. In a way the artillery is a way of germany to dither. They are unlikely to be deployed into real combat zones, they aren't massively useful to coalitions.

Germany could certainly invest more in ssk's, currently there is one more before 2030?, I think the collaboration with Norway will be an interesting one.

If you look at what Norway is doing, what their concerns are and compare to Germany I find they are two different ends of the spectrum.

I had hoped the collaboration with the Neatherlands and Poland regarding naval and amphibious assets would be the start of shifting things into that direction. I had envisaged that forming a much more agile and mobile task force. Certainly the Dutch had focused on that type of capability.
StingrayOZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2017   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
Light forces are not what is needed in the east. They are deployable troops which are ill equipped for coping with heavy adversary forces.

Take a Stryker Brigade for example. Just how long do you think the M777s whill survive in thr face of Russian counterfire?

And with which forces does it performs a counterattack? It's leg infantry?

No, the value in heavy forces lies in Russia not being able to just walk over them and call it a day.

As for Russias new approach to warfare. With sufficient NATO troops in country there won't be heavy equipment coming over the border into the Baltics and the Russians pretending not knowing about it while at the same time pounding Baltic positions with artillery.

Those "dissidents" get obliterated or Russia has to step up and openly act against it's NATO neighbours. That in itself is already a deterrent.

As for Germany not putting it's artillery (or other forces) into harms way. We operated PzH2000s in Afghanistan and right now they reinforce the rather heavy German lead battlegroup in the Baltics to which the Bundeswehr added MBTs, IFVs and support units.

Thinking mainly about SSKs seems like a very Australian way of looking at things. A conflict in the east will mainly be decided on land and in the air with the baltic sea being important but not crucial (and well covered already compared to the Russian strength there).
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2017   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post

Thinking mainly about SSKs seems like a very Australian way of looking at things. A conflict in the east will mainly be decided on land and in the air with the baltic sea being important but not crucial (and well covered already compared to the Russian strength there).
agree, its a mackinder conflict - a continental war in the first instance and the majority of the conflict

maritime control is about managing SLOC and restricting movement of sea trade for supply

germany is not bound by sea, and restricting sea trade doesn't restrict her ability to fight

she can be supplied and provisioned by air - and the russians would be pulling in other countries to a conflict where she works on division as an important factor in progressing her aims
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 8th, 2017   #9
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 15,014
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
As for Germany not putting it's artillery (or other forces) into harms way. We operated PzH2000s in Afghanistan and right now they reinforce the rather heavy German lead battlegroup in the Baltics to which the Bundeswehr added MBTs, IFVs and support units.
But the PzH itself isn't the most modern of systems. Is Germany looking into getting a fully automated SP Arty like the Swedish Archer or the Russian Coalition-SV? Both offer considerable advantages in RoF, crew size, and set-up time. To me personally it's amazing that the Swedes are the only ones who bothered with a truly advanced SP Arty system.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2017   #10
Banned Member
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 449
Threads:
Hey, if an arty can fire these munitions, I consider it advanced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155
Toblerone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2017   #11
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 15,014
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toblerone View Post
Hey, if an arty can fire these munitions, I consider it advanced

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMArt_155
There's a difference between the munition and the arty piece itself. With the Swedes and the Russians, we're looking at fully automated artillery systems controlled basically, remotely, from inside an armored compartment. In the case of the Russian 2S35, they claim to have reduced crew size to two people. Eventually, this is heading for a future where an entire arty battery can be controlled remotely by an operator sitting in a safe position in a battery command post vehicle.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2017   #12
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,989
Threads:
The above plans published by FAZ (a rather conservative daily paper in Germany) have been officially denied by the Ministry of Defense.

For a one-sentence summary, under those plans Germany would have added a single extra mechanized brigade, reintroduced brigade artillery and sorted out all light forces into separate commands, also introducing an extra brigade there to field medium equipment shifted away from the armoured troops. Not much more than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
we're looking at fully automated artillery systems controlled basically, remotely, from inside an armored compartment. In the case of the Russian 2S35, they claim to have reduced crew size to two people.
PzH2000 requires a driver, a commander and a single loader. The loader's function is to operate and watch the already automatic loading system. KMW has a concept in its drawers that eliminates that crew member. As a finished vehicle since about a decade ago.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2017   #13
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 15,014
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
The above plans published by FAZ (a rather conservative daily paper in Germany) have been officially denied by the Ministry of Defense.

For a one-sentence summary, under those plans Germany would have added a single extra mechanized brigade, reintroduced brigade artillery and sorted out all light forces into separate commands, also introducing an extra brigade there to field medium equipment shifted away from the armoured troops. Not much more than that.


PzH2000 requires a driver, a commander and a single loader. The loader's function is to operate and watch the already automatic loading system. KMW has a concept in its drawers that eliminates that crew member. As a finished vehicle since about a decade ago.
Interesting. All the info I've seen, and granted I haven't seen much, seems to indicate a crew of 5. Is it that it can carry a crew of 5 but only requires 3?
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2017   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,989
Threads:
"Loader 2" and "Gunner 1" are only required if automatic systems fail, i.e. as a manual backup. "Gunner 1" would take over manual gun laying, "Loader 2" would load ammunition instead of the autoloader; as required crew "Loader 1" places the charges, "Commander" fires the gun, "Driver" drives. That's the original layout at least.

The "Loader 1" position is not used anymore in German operations (i.e. the vehicles are run with a 4-man crew) with "Gunner 1" instead taking over placing the charges and "Loader 2" mostly twiddling his thumbs just sitting around* and as a fig leaf operating the pintle-mount machine gun when necessary.

In stationary operations in Afghanistan the PzH operated with 3-man crews (no driver), with "Loader" responsible for reloading the vehicle's magazine from outside, a role he'd also typically fill on firing ranges.

The unmanned AGM version of the PzH2000 turret - apart from the smaller magazine to save weight - has its only major change in using a separate autoloader for the charges, eliminating the need for the third man in the back.

* - Literally. You can find video evidence on youtube
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2017   #15
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 15,014
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
"Loader 2" and "Gunner 1" are only required if automatic systems fail, i.e. as a manual backup. "Gunner 1" would take over manual gun laying, "Loader 2" would load ammunition instead of the autoloader; as required crew "Loader 1" places the charges, "Commander" fires the gun, "Driver" drives. That's the original layout at least.

The "Loader 1" position is not used anymore in German operations (i.e. the vehicles are run with a 4-man crew) with "Gunner 1" instead taking over placing the charges and "Loader 2" mostly twiddling his thumbs just sitting around* and as a fig leaf operating the pintle-mount machine gun when necessary.

In stationary operations in Afghanistan the PzH operated with 3-man crews (no driver), with "Loader" responsible for reloading the vehicle's magazine from outside, a role he'd also typically fill on firing ranges.

The unmanned AGM version of the PzH2000 turret - apart from the smaller magazine to save weight - has its only major change in using a separate autoloader for the charges, eliminating the need for the third man in the back.

* - Literally. You can find video evidence on youtube
Thank you for the clarification.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 AM.