Nordic Battlegroup 2008

rattmuff

Lurk-loader?
Nordic battlegroup is a EU-led rapid reaction unit, with Sweden as the lead country. The unit consists of up to 1500 soldiers from Sweden(1100), Finland(200), Norway(150) and Estonia(50). The hq is based in Enköping, Sweden and the management is done by Sweden together with UK in London.

The battlegroups tasks are everything from humanitarian support to terrorist fighting.
It basicly look like this(swedish group):
1. 150 elite troops, 2 CVs arrive to capture and hold an airport.
2. Same time a big ship are being loaded with tanks, artillery, support,supplies.
3. More troops and supplies arrive all the time.
4. Gripens and choppers arrive and make a strength demonstration.
5. The ship arrives and the group are fully operational.
6. Mission accomplished and after forces arrive.

Now I wonder if SAF(Swedish Armed Forces) is capable of this. It is their biggest international thing ever. I belevie this is a bit to much. Especially when it comes to combat situations.


Demonstration of Nordic Battlegroup/Live fire exercise :soldier
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2695960670143112040&q=battlegroup
It's just for fun
((might have mispelled and used wrong words in some places))


Sources:
http://www.mil.se/index.php?lang=E&c=news&id=32771
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1042&a=404306 (swedish)
http://www.mil.se/article.php?id=12793 (swedish)
 
Last edited:

Big-E

Banned Member
What was that double-barrelled self-propelled mortar I saw?

I like the fact there is a dominant country with final say and all the other particapents are tasked with set responsibilities. It makes sense in a multi-national force.

I think 30 days is a little long for rapid deployment.

IMO the 150 commando team might not be enough to secure an airport if it's heavily defended. If they can't get control the whole airlift is down the toilet. It doesn't make good sense to throw your special forces into harms way if you can't support them. The concept of this force is similar to an MEU. This Battle Group basically is attempting to do what US Marines do without the LHD and support assets, rather waiting on their support to come in by air. Alot of the equipment looks reduced in weight like the FCS doctrine calls for. This is good but if the NBG doesn't have C-17s it will still take a long time to fly these assets in. The whole NBGs success hinges on having everyone arrive, if this takes days and weeks what if the enemy decides to counter attack, the NBG will crushed while they wait for everybody else. What the NBG needs is a Navatia LHD with some F35Bs, maybe Norway should provide the airpower.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Oh man! My computer crashes consistently about 1 min into the video. :mad

An addendum which might explain the headquartering and deployment issues:

The EU Battlegroup is defined as a unit of 1500 troops. It can be formed by one nation, or by a group of nations. It does not have to include a specific number of member states. European NATO countries, which are candidates for accession to the EU can also participate in the EU Battlegroups.

Key objectives for the EU Battlegroups are that they can take the decision to launch an operation within 5 days of the approval by the Council. Forces should be on the ground no later than 10 days after the EU decision to launch the operation.

In response to a crisis, or to an urgent request by the UN, the EU should be able to undertake two Battlegroup-size operations for a period of up to 120 days simultaneously.

At the 22 November 2004 Military Capability Commitment Conference, member states made an initial commitment to the formation of 13 EU Battlegroups. Full operational capability for the first battlegroups is scheduled to be reached in 2007.

  • France
  • Italy
  • Spain
  • United Kingdom
  • France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg
  • France and Belgium
  • Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
  • Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic
  • Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
  • Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
  • Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia
  • Sweden, Finland and including Norway
  • United Kingdom and the Netherlands
To qualify as an EU Battlegroup the force packages will have to meet commonly defined and agreed standards and undergo a Battlegroup generation process. The EU is aware of potential overlaps with NATO initiatives such as the NATO response force, so EU and NATO have started to address overall coherence and complementarity between EU Battlegroups and the NATO Response Force. This includes compatibility of standards, practical methods and procedures, wherever possible and applicable. Since the membership overlap between the EU and NATO/Partnership for Peace, interoperability between forces developed by EU member states and NATO nations is first and foremost the responsibility of individual countries.

The EU Battlegroups have put the spotlight on the EU's lacking capabilities in military hardware in areas such as airlift capacity, battlefield surveillance in the shape of drones (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), and on the need to enhance the interoperability of equipment and communication systems.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/eu-battlegroups/article-150151
 
Last edited:

Big-E

Banned Member
Thats cool! :cool:

I think the FCS should use that turret on the lightweight chasis for her mortar system.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I also like this one very much. Since our self propelled 120mm mortars on M113 chassis have been rejected from active service our Panzer/Panzergrenadier btls lack implemented support fire elements. :mad:
Getting all your support fire from the brigade artillery btl takes too long sometimes.
I would like to see this system on a Puma or Boxer chassis.

PS: Do I have to translate Panzergrenadier? I think Panzer is known all over the world. :D
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Waylander said:
I also like this one very much. Since our self propelled 120mm mortars on M113 chassis have been rejected from active service our Panzer/Panzergrenadier btls lack implemented support fire elements. :mad:
Getting all your support fire from the brigade artillery btl takes too long sometimes.
I would like to see this system on a Puma or Boxer chassis.

PS: Do I have to translate Panzergrenadier? I think Panzer is known all over the world. :D
not as far as i'm concerned!
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And I thought since WWII Panzer is multi-language word. :D
Panzer = tank
Panzergrenadier = This type of unit is very similar to the US mechanized infantry using IFVs (Marder/Puma) and fighting by foot or from within the IFV.

In the past every Panzergrenadier btl had one 120mm mortar company and one tank hunter company attached to it. During combined weapons battles from company level upwards we mix Panzer and Panzergrenadier units. With the rejection of the mortar companys only the 155mm artillery btl (M-109G/PzH2000) of the brigade has the ability to support the mechanized units with support fire. That is not enough in numbers and not fast enough.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Waylander said:
And I thought since WWII Panzer is multi-language word. :D
Panzer = tank
Panzergrenadier = This type of unit is very similar to the US mechanized infantry using IFVs (Marder/Puma) and fighting by foot or from within the IFV.

In the past every Panzergrenadier btl had one 120mm mortar company and one tank hunter company attached to it. During combined weapons battles from company level upwards we mix Panzer and Panzergrenadier units. With the rejection of the mortar companys only the 155mm artillery btl (M-109G/PzH2000) of the brigade has the ability to support the mechanized units with support fire. That is not enough in numbers and not fast enough.
My Mistake I was answering the question,'Do I need to translate?' No way grew up on stories of the Panzergrenadiers and Panzers.
 

rattmuff

Lurk-loader?
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
Ok it's nice ... Back to the battlegroups now.

What I described in the initial post was based on a scenario made by a swedish newspaper. The scenario was total chaos and hell with street fighting, rapes, torture and killing breaks out in Kinshasa. UN and EU responds by sending NBG.
 

renjer

New Member
Sounds like a British BSE (British Subject Extraction?) scenario. A company size force seize an airport ahead of the reminder of the Leading Parachute Battalion Group. If I am not mistaken the balance of LPBG is actually supposed to be circling in the air waiting for the all-clear to begin landing.

Do the Nordic countries have the air transport assets to lift an entire battalion that far away from their home bases? Or will these be drawn from other European countries? Where would the forward base most likely be?
 
Last edited:

rattmuff

Lurk-loader?
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
renjer said:
Do the Nordic countries have the air transport assets to lift an entire battalion that far away from their home bases? Or will these be drawn from other European countries? Where would the forward base most likely be?
The only thing we can do is speculate. Swedens strategic air transport capability is very limited. I don't know how it looks in Norway, Finland and Estonia. Probably Finland and Norway will co-operate on this matter.
I also found a protocol where the swedish defence minister gets questions from parliament members on this isseu. It didn't look good.

((forward base? feel really dumb not knowing that phrase))
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
renjer said:
Sounds like a British BSE (British Subject Extraction?) scenario. A company size force seize an airport ahead of the reminder of the Leading Parachute Battalion Group. If I am not mistaken the balance of LPBG is actually supposed to be circling in the air waiting for the all-clear to begin landing.

Do the Nordic countries have the air transport assets to lift an entire battalion that far away from their home bases? Or will these be drawn from other European countries? Where would the forward base most likely be?
Given it is an EU asset would the EU not provide the transport, i.e the RAF may be transporting the NGB.
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
renjer said:
Sounds like a British BSE (British Subject Extraction?) scenario. A company size force seize an airport ahead of the reminder of the Leading Parachute Battalion Group. If I am not mistaken the balance of LPBG is actually supposed to be circling in the air waiting for the all-clear to begin landing.

Do the Nordic countries have the air transport assets to lift an entire battalion that far away from their home bases? Or will these be drawn from other European countries? Where would the forward base most likely be?
Sorry double post and the WM please delete this one?
 
Top