The Future of NATO

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
One should also not forget that industrial capacity is one of the most important factors when it comes to defence.

For example, of the sh** hits the fan Germany could easily outproduce Russia and would still be able to arm the rest of europe with the spare capacities.

The real problem is that even the big countries are sacrificing core capabilities. Material is easy to produce and soldiers easy to train as long as you have the knowledge about how to employ your toys. But lost knowledge is not easily to get back.

Bringing a heavy combined arms division to the field and keeping it there may for example become a rare capability within NATO outside of the US.

I for one think that a healthy and powerfull economy are much more important for the defence of a country than some more planes, tanks, whatever, as long as one retaines the proficiency in using them.

For this reason I think that for example the economic shift in the UK away from heavy industries to a disproportional large financial sector is a much bigger risk for the big longterm goal of guaranteering the safety of the Isles in times of crisis.

Oversea missions are mere sideshows. Being able to deploy a couple of thousand troops more ore less around the globe to some 3rd world hellhole is not vital for europe as a whole but the ability to ramp up production and increase troop strength Reichswehr style is.

As Beastmaster said, Europe has done this in the past and will do it in the future if the need for it arises.
Even with the castrated militaries of these days I can't think of a country which currently could endanger the safety of the European countries even with the US turning it's back on Europe.
 

Astute

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #42
I dont think the US would ever leave Nato but i do expect them as i said before to take a back seat more i can see in the future the US trying to form a joint nato pacific alliance some sort of nato-pac would this work i dont know would germany etc send troops to help in pacific theatre ? i think the UK would has Austrailia ,New zealand would be in the firing line in any pacific conflict ,but Nato has been in action before in asia , korea for example would they be prepered to do this again i dont know.

I have got to say even in these dark economical times there are some fine armed forces in europe with very good tec and equipment which is not based on US systems this shows europe does have the capability to hold its own (if needed to with out US help )in some areas but does need to look into and improve in other areas this is possible with time but conflicts dont have a time table , and if a conflict did happen in europe it would be a very different from ww2 it takes much longer to produce the weapons,tanks,ships etc now than in the 40s and the effect of modern weapons eg cruise misslies can close down most of a countries capabilities for producing weapons in one large saturated attack in such a conflict there will be no time. but this type of conflict i dont think would happen in europe in the near or forseable future even with out the US ,nato is still capable of holding the line,
but these are just my thoughts
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Malta isn't, it's just a PfP (and EU) member. It was used to base some NATO assets, including AWACS.
Ah, I didn't realise anything had operated out of Malta. I recalled the Maltese saying they wouldn't allow strike aircraft to operate from Malta.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I am not sure they could have done it with out the US. As much as they have made of what they did without the US what percent of opening day targets would have been hit. There would have been almost no air refueling. The real time recon most of that would have been gone. The EW aircraft how many did they deploy and that was all through the fight. What we have in NATO without the US is a paper military.
Almost no AAR? How do you think British & French fighters flew from their home bases all the way to Libya & back? The French launched the first raid, & it seems to have been 100% effective, smashing the Gaddafist assault on Benghazi. EW? Well, the French (again) are reported not to have used any US EW support. And so on.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
One should also not forget that industrial capacity is one of the most important factors when it comes to defence.

For example, of the sh** hits the fan Germany could easily outproduce Russia and would still be able to arm the rest of europe with the spare capacities.
This is the case now, but at the rate they're cutting budget this will no longer be true because they will no longer have a tank to produce. Better yet - fighter jets. At this point in time the European NATO members will not be able to produce a 5th gen fighter, because they simply won't have one. I'd also question the timeframe. For example, during the War in Georgia, the Russian defense industry let the MoD use some of the Su-30MK series planes in the conflict, and pulled some of the more advanced munitions from orders intended for export, so the VVS could use them. However if there are no up and running production lines, how long would it take for Germany to get the full production cycle running for an EF-2000?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
These are crucial points and maintaining a decent defense industry is defenitely as important as keeping the basic knowledge in the armed forces.

Fighter jets is IMHO not that good of an example. Sure no 5th Gen fighter currently available but the EF, Rafale are no slouches and with the force multipliers the European nations can bring to the table should be good enough for some years to come.

And apart from this the whole of europe still looks rather good when it comes to products and systems. It can produce the whole range of land systems which are top class and often enough surpass even what the US has available.

Ships are also good to go. The same applies to the more subtle stuff (battlefield management systems, comm gear,...).

The only country with the potential capacity to even come close to endangering the european mainland is Russia. And when I look at their armed forces, their industrial capacity and new systems which are in the pipeline I am not overly concerned.

What is questionable is the ability of our politicians to react quickly enough to changing circumstancea regarding threads from other countries...
 

Beatmaster

New Member
This is the case now, but at the rate they're cutting budget this will no longer be true because they will no longer have a tank to produce. Better yet - fighter jets. At this point in time the European NATO members will not be able to produce a 5th gen fighter, because they simply won't have one. I'd also question the timeframe. For example, during the War in Georgia, the Russian defense industry let the MoD use some of the Su-30MK series planes in the conflict, and pulled some of the more advanced munitions from orders intended for export, so the VVS could use them. However if there are no up and running production lines, how long would it take for Germany to get the full production cycle running for an EF-2000?
I understand what you say and i see where you heading.
And to some extend i can agree to you because its true what you say.
However you seem to forget that pre-war production and wartime production are very differend from peace time productions.
Due shifting priorities nations within the EU have the luxoury to direct money to differend locations to for example bolster the economy...money which normally would go to military industry and military projects.

Lets say hypotheticly that there is a real option that the EU will have to stand their ground or aid in a serious war..or for whatever reason then all those billions of dollars will be put into defense related funds.
Keep in mind that EU has a incredible huge production industry and if put into action it can match and even out produce the US in the long term.

The US is having a huge fund for research and development while the EU nations have very small bugets but most of them are spreading their research and production amongst EU members.
This is differend then the US is doing the US even produces and researches at high speed during peace time, while the EU engine needs a jumpstart or a serious reason to kick in to action.

Remember that for example the EU has huge automobile plants...it will not take much time to refit them to produce tanks and such.
In regards to the EF-2000 the production drawings and testing and such is already done the plane is ready to go and tested.
Now if war time is knocking at the EU's door then i think its save to say that Germany and the other powerhouses within the EU start mass producing "toys"
As the EU has his own Ship, Air and Land + support like radar and such production located in various nations (BAE & EADS, Stork Aero, Saab and several others)
However i agree if nations like germany, uk and others keep pulling the plug on specific production lines and projects while cutting down into their reserves and research projects then this might eventually become a problem.
But given the flexibility that the EU has it just a matter of redirecting funds and pointing the heads into the same direction to get the job done.
Not to mention that nations like poland start to get increasingly bigger production and economic capabilities which together with other upcomming nations within the EU provides NATO/EU with a really serious output capability.

:D
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
These are crucial points and maintaining a decent defense industry is defenitely as important as keeping the basic knowledge in the armed forces.

Fighter jets is IMHO not that good of an example. Sure no 5th Gen fighter currently available but the EF, Rafale are no slouches and with the force multipliers the European nations can bring to the table should be good enough for some years to come.

And apart from this the whole of europe still looks rather good
Ships are also good to go. The same applies to the more subtle stuff (battlefield management systems, comm gear,...).

The only country with the potential capacity to even come close to endangering the european mainland is Russia. And when I look at their armed forces, their industrial capacity and new systems which are in the pipeline I am not overly concerned.

What is questionable is the ability of our politicians to react quickly enough to changing circumstancea regarding threads from other countries...
Given that they have no such desires or intentions, you're right. My point isn't that Europe faces a threat, rather that their capabilities are deteriorating rather rapidly. The Brits are a good example of this. Another one is the Swedes. Together they are still extremely capable, but many of the players that were large before are now becoming much much smaller. The long-term effects of this are what I'm wondering about. How much can you cut national militaries and dismember defense industries before you lose critical capabilities? I mean at this point Rafale is being produced at 11 airframes a year. This makes the Sokol plant look good. What will this lead to 30 years down the road? 50?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Now if war time is knocking at the EU's door then i think its save to say that Germany and the other powerhouses within the EU start mass producing "toys"
As the EU has his own Ship, Air and Land + support like radar and such production located in various nations (BAE & EADS, Stork Aero, Saab and several others)
However i agree if nations like germany, uk and others keep pulling the plug on specific production lines and projects while cutting down into their reserves and research projects then this might eventually become a problem.
But given the flexibility that the EU has it just a matter of redirecting funds and pointing the heads into the same direction to get the job done.
Not to mention that nations like poland start to get increasingly bigger production and economic capabilities which together with other upcomming nations within the EU provides NATO/EU with a really serious output capability.
Waylander already hit home some of the problem with this approach, namely knowing that wartime is knocking. At a time when even the Russian and Chinese militaries are becoming less dependent on mobilization, and more capable of responding quickly to a developing situation, you're advancing a line of argument that amounts to "if war starts, we can mobilize". If this is the type of war that NATO is planning, shouldn't they have some sort of mobilization base that they can call on? Something similar to the Swiss model, or even the old Soviet cadre units model?
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Waylander already hit home some of the problem with this approach, namely knowing that wartime is knocking. At a time when even the Russian and Chinese militaries are becoming less dependent on mobilization, and more capable of responding quickly to a developing situation, you're advancing a line of argument that amounts to "if war starts, we can mobilize". If this is the type of war that NATO is planning, shouldn't they have some sort of mobilization base that they can call on? Something similar to the Swiss model, or even the old Soviet cadre units model?
Yes you are right and i do understand also your previous comment where you say that for example the UK and Sweden are declining fast.
Keep in mind that due the lack of a fixed goal like for example the good old russia danger, many of NATO's capabilities did become obsolete.
So as i said before a changing world also needs a changing tactic based upon todays dangers like for example fast intervention and peacekeeping and in that regard most NATO members can play their part and play it well.
In terms of a hypotetical war EU has the capabilities to shift units from one region to another and thus massing a massive response to any invader.
Given the numbers still involved and given the advanced airlift and transportations systems within the EU this can be done in 48h.
By that time all the zero configuration plants can be switched to multipurpose building. btw zero config plants = Simcard or slot based production programs where for example the
(zero DDVS factory can switch within hours to Fennek production while it during peace time only has production lines for military spare parts and for the civil industry it makes Opel, VW and Audi parts and frames.

The only thing the factory has to do is get the right chip keycard which has all the right building routines on it plug it in and all the so called robot arms start welding the Fennek together.

I know this is also the case for MAN factory infact 90% Of the EU automobile industry, and civilain commercial aircraft manufactures can switch within 48h to a completely differend assembly and production program to suit a war.

Alot of the defense industry within EU is builded with multipurpose in mind, during peace they build only spare parts and washmachines while during wartime or pre-war time they can be retrofitted with IFV, Amoured and tanks programs.
And i do not want to make stupid claims but if i remember correctly there was a webpage (security.org or something similair where they did a comparison between the output capabilities that the EU has.
Resources are not a real problem within the EU as the EU has loads and loads stockpiled in their harbors and inland distribution centers.
Anyway there was said back then i believe 2005 that the EU is capable of having a 7% of the total combined army output. based on 180 zero config plants for 2 days back then.
Today there are over 3879 zero config plants in EU.
So to reply to your question you need a base to call upon....true and that base is provided by the nations to buy some time to get the troop and armor flow to the front sorted.
Anyway i am not a fan of zero config plants as those plants do have not many employees mostly a crew of 10 to run a plant where normally 5 or 6 hundered workers would do the job.
But given the fact that both the pharma, Electronic's, Cars, and most utility plants are based upon the zero config principle it gives the EU a incredible output.
So even if the EU total force would shrink with a massive 50% then it would still not be much of a problem as the production plants can match any production that a enemy might bring.

If you are talking about dangers that the EU might face then on of the biggest dangers is that the political key figures are sitting to long behind their laptops and to over analyse things.
By the time they reach a agreement many wars could have been over by that time lol.
Trimming down the chain of command within NATO and bringing more expertise while intergrating every single aspect of the combined EU army and its supporting structures would be a daunting task but thats imo what the EU really needs.
Also they need to pick a few goals like for example the 5th gen Airsup figther,
A upgrade for the new leo3 to perhaps a leo4, not to mention airlift capabilities and last but not least a much better comminucation system with much shorter lines from HQ to the lower ladders of the armed forces.
Also more detection and surviance systems would give the EU a huge boost.
Because these things are very easy to obtain by the EU, the knowlegd, expertise and the research capabilities are there.
Its just to get the right key figure to give the green light for this.
 

Astute

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #51
Umm UKs capabilities are declining fast i dont think so, yes they are putting projects back but declining no, the uk as the capability to produce one of the best detroyers in the world the type 45, 1st class nuclear attack submarines the astute class which is armed with tomahawk missiles,able to build large aircraft carriers ,new future frigates the type 26, one of the best tanks in the world chalanger 2, 67 apache attack helicopters ,soon to be 60 chinock transport helicopters, 100+ eurofighters, Main partner in the f-35 jsf programe ,new transport planes on order ,new refueling aircraft voyager starting to be delivered these are just a few nearly all built in house and others we are building or developing with partners ,and an army,navy and airforce which as been battle hardened due to the fact they have been engaged in nearly every modern major conflict in the last 20 years eg , gw1,gw2,afganistan ,iraq and isaf ,un,peace missions eg Libya,Bosnia,sierra leone etc i guess not bad for a country whos capabilities are declining FAST ha.

Yes they are planning to reduce the armed forces but most will be restructuring and rebalancing for the planed force 2020 concept, i think there are many countries in the europe and in the world who would love just a few of the UKs capabilities ,and fact the British will fight is one hell of a capability..
 
Last edited:

Beatmaster

New Member
Umm UKs capabilities are declining fast i dont think so, yes they are putting projects back but declining no, the uk as the capability to produce one of the best detroyers in the world the type 45, 1st class nuclear attack submarine the astute which is armed with tomahawk missiles,able to build large aircraft carriers ,new future frigates the type 26, one of the best tanks in the world chalanger 2, 67 apache attack helicopters ,soon to be 60 chinock transport helicopters, 100+ eurofighters, Main partner in the f-35 jsf programe ,new transport planes on order ,new refueling aircraft voyager starting to be delivered these are just a few nearly all built in house and others we are building or developing with partners ,and a army which as been battle hardened due to the fact they have been engaged in nearly every modern major conflict in the last 20 years eg , gw1,gw2,afganistan ,iraq and isaf ,un,peace missions eg Libya,Bosnia,sierra leone etc i guess not bad for a country whos capabilities are declining FAST ha.

Yes they are planning to reduce the armed forces but most will be restructuring and rebalancing for the planed force 2020 concept, i think there are meny countries in the europe and in the world who would love just a few of the UKs capabilities and one more thing the British will fight and thats one hell off a capability..
The british like the france, germans and other EU nations have always been productive powerhouses.
However in comparison to the coldwar the UK is dropping in production output and has lost vital production capabilities mainly for example that some industry moved out of the UK or where closed.
Its nothing that cannot be changed overtime but in the rate as it goes right now UK is falling behind to other powerhouses like france and germany specially germany has gained some serious bonus points compared to the UK.
Also structural underfunding of certain vital production programs have been hammering the UK.
And last but not least Asia is todays production powerhouse region, because everything is alot cheaper which attracts companies away from US and EU.
And this is what the main problem is for specially the UK.
 

Astute

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #53
sorry but i dont agree that Germany as gained bonus points, with large cuts in there armed forces too an army cut from around 250,000 down to around 185,000 and it could drop again ,the navy losing frigates,subs,fast attack craft and the closure of 31 major bases and another 90 being reduced in size, the cutting of new equipment contracts like only buying around 40 of the planed 80 tiger attack helicopters there are many other examples too the NH90 helicopters being reduced by 40 also the cut in the number of eurofighters wanted ,EADS will be hit hard but also will the german armed forces, also the the redeployment of the 20,000+ UK forces based in Germany back to the UK and the US planing there withdrawal , does this gain Germany bonus points does it make Germany feel stronger , i wouldnt feel that good if i was in Germany watching Russia spending billions to upgrade its forces

I dont feel any country gains bonus points at this time, each is feeling the pinch of the economical problems which will continue for the forseable future and the euopean defence industrys as a whole will take a kicking with a large cut in orders, this is all ready happening.
With all the cuts out lined through out Europe and in the US to budgets,armed forces numbers etc does this make nato weaker should we be worried or as a whole it doesnt really matter as together nato can still out match any protential foe.
Another future twist to nato could be the creation of a European army i believe france and Germany have a joint brigade and i think the Uk and France are in the process of forming another could there be a European armed forces , could this ever work with British,French,Germans etc all in one army, one air force ,one navy in one uniform under one flag ?
 
Last edited:

tafka999

New Member
This with 40% population being Russian, as in Estonia, for example... I suspect that the elites do feel the way you describe, but the ordinary population may have a somewhat different attitude.
First of all 40 % of population being Russian in Estonia is simply not true, it is in fact well below 30 % by now. And why are you trying to say what we Estonians think about something when you know nothing about us ? Your false assumptions do not contribute anything to this discussion. Indeed every Estonian did want every Russian out of Estonia asap when we regained our independence. At least the one's opposed to Estonian independence.

As for us not pulling our weight we have contributed in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Helmand btw) and we have lost 9 men there. Our contribution is one of the largest compared to the total amount of people in the army. In 2012 Estonian defence budget will be 2 % of GDP, how many NATO members can say the same ? We have a trained reserv army of about 30000 at the moment plus about 20000 paramilitary and these numbers will increase. In recent years we have aquired APC-s, short range AA missile system, radars, howitsers etc and the net 10 year development plan includes a tank battalion, limited amount of medium range AA system and additional numbers of short range systems, communication and intelligence equipment and newer anti armor weapons. I hope you can see from this that we are not just expecting others to defend us while we do nothing.

I would also suggest differentiating between the three baltic countries which are infact very different from each other both culturally and in their armed forces capabilities.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
sorry but i dont agree that Germany as gained bonus points, with large cuts in there armed forces too an army cut from around 250,000 down to around 185,000 and it could drop again ,the navy losing frigates,subs,fast attack craft and the closure of 31 major bases and another 90 being reduced in size, the cutting of new equipment contracts like only buying around 40 of the planed 80 tiger attack helicopters there are many other examples too the NH90 helicopters being reduced by 40 also the cut in the number of eurofighters wanted ,EADS will be hit hard but also will the german armed forces, also the the redeployment of the 20,000+ UK forces based in Germany back to the UK and the US planing there withdrawal , does this gain Germany bonus points does it make Germany feel stronger , i wouldnt feel that good if i was in Germany watching Russia spending billions to upgrade its forces

I dont feel any country gains bonus points at this time, each is feeling the pinch of the economical problems which will continue for the forseable future and the euopean defence industrys as a whole will take a kicking with a large cut in orders, this is all ready happening.
With all the cuts out lined through out Europe and in the US to budgets,armed forces numbers etc does this make nato weaker should we be worried or as a whole it doesnt really matter as together nato can still out match any protential foe.
Another future twist to nato could be the creation of a European army i believe france and Germany have a joint brigade and i think the Uk and France are in the process of forming another could there be a European armed forces , could this ever work with British,French,Germans etc all in one army, one air force ,one navy in one uniform under one flag ?
Yes france and germany have a brigade, Netherlands and Germany also while belguim and netherlands also share some parts of their army.
In the past there has been some brainstorming about a EU army and i believe the idea is not off the table yet but put into the freezer.
And perhaps it will never happen however in case of a large scale invasion where the future of the EU is in danger each nation will grant acces to their assets i think.
So a EU national army is in some form already in affect.

To get back at the production thing UK is falling behind france while France is already miles far behind germany.



Basicly because germany is one of the very few nations who adopted the zero config industry and has made some last minute changes in the past years to adapt to a more automated industry.

or check German industrial production surged 4% in July; UK production fell 0.7%

And that has some serious impact.
Specially because the german economy is atm a bit more robust compared to the UK so the German production will actually rise more.

On topic in order for the EU to have a national army the political key figures have to step down and have a higher EU based government run the show and that i do not see happen very soon.
Or do you really think that for example Sarkosy is going to hand his army into the hands of some other political figure?

And in regards to Russia yes its a powerhouse and yes if they ever go mad then yes the EU has a problem.
However with Germany as number one producing powerhouse in EU, the number 1 in army and the most powerfull economy atm? i seriously doubt that Russia with all its might would be stupid enough to face Germany.
Another thing is Russia would not only face Germany it would also face the EU, the US and a number of nations that feel outraged by such a attack.
Germany in its current from would be perfectly capable of holding its own against Russia.
And regardless what some people say about germany but in the past 20 years they have come a very long way in every degree of their army which is very well equipped very well trained and very well supplied.
And this hard effort by the germans and the EU to help germany back on its feet has given them this big avantage over france and the uk.
No i do not want to praise the germans into heaven, but appearently you do not know in what badshape the UK and france (economicly) are right now.
If you watch the economic news a bit then the UK alone has lost over 35% of its former economic power and production so yes rebuilding that up takes time and will demand for some drastic cuts and reforms.
These mass scale cuts and reforms has been done by the germans 10 years ago...thats why they are overall so far ahead.
Their army is being cut true but they have still one of the biggest (if not the) and one of the best equipped armies around.

check this: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union"]Military of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Its its wiki lol but it gives a pretty good view.
In case of a war i would love to have the germans to fight along our sides.
Imagine what would happen if the Germans would redraw.....
If the UK or france would redraw then its going to be a major pain and a serious blow to the Eu and its military strenght......however if the germans redraw, then France will not be able to stop russia, and the UK will find them selfs in the same position as in WOII locked up on their island and struggeling for resources from the US.
Not saying that the UK is weak and i am not saying that Germany is super but like it or not the germans have a absolute key role and starting to play a ever increasing role in the EU while the role of UK is being overruled by France and Germany (As the latest news did show when sarkozy slammed the door on the UK ..i believe that was for saving the euro...)
And that would not have happened 15 years ago..back then it was always UK and Germany/US dictating EU policy (Or largely influence it) while today France and Germany are the main talkers...
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
First of all 40 % of population being Russian in Estonia is simply not true, it is in fact well below 30 % by now. And why are you trying to say what we Estonians think about something when you know nothing about us ? Your false assumptions do not contribute anything to this discussion. Indeed every Estonian did want every Russian out of Estonia asap when we regained our independence. At least the one's opposed to Estonian independence.
I doubt you know what every Estonian wanted. I'll take your correction in numbers, since I'm quoting the briefing we were given prior to BALTOPS.

As for us not pulling our weight we have contributed in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Helmand btw) and we have lost 9 men there. Our contribution is one of the largest compared to the total amount of people in the army. In 2012 Estonian defence budget will be 2 % of GDP, how many NATO members can say the same ?
Relative vs absolute comparisons. In absolute terms Estonia is a security burden, in an era of shrinking military expenditures among key NATO players.

We have a trained reserv army of about 30000 at the moment plus about 20000 paramilitary and these numbers will increase. In recent years we have aquired APC-s, short range AA missile system, radars, howitsers etc and the net 10 year development plan includes a tank battalion, limited amount of medium range AA system and additional numbers of short range systems, communication and intelligence equipment and newer anti armor weapons.
The only one Estonia could possible need military defense from is Russia, and what you list would be a speed bump for them. Estonia is attempting to build a small modern military, but where this leads remains to be seen. Not that any of this matters. Estonia is a security burden not because it refuses to build up a military to defend itself, but because of it's size and location. There is nothing Estonia can realistically do that would change that.

I hope you can see from this that we are not just expecting others to defend us while we do nothing.
It's not that you're expecting that, it's that you can't help but have that state of affairs. Best case scenario, there will never be a war with Russia, and Estonia will continue to contribute token forces to NATO missions abroad, which will allow the bigger NATO states to contribute slightly less. Worst case scenario, Estonia requires a huge NATO commitment to fend of Russia. I would argue that this is not worth it. I'd argue that the better solution would have been to leave the Baltics out of NATO.

I would also suggest differentiating between the three baltic countries which are infact very different from each other both culturally and in their armed forces capabilities.
This is true, so why don't you give us a good rundown of their militaries. What kinds of equipment they use, what units and how many they are organized into, etc.

What I personally saw from the Estonian Army Scout Btln during our stay at Tapa was not terribly impressive, and this is coming from a reservist. Their land-nav skills were non-existent (the Estonian that was with our group for the exercise could contribute nothing useful, despite my and his fluent Russian), their coordination with us during the final fex was abysmal, causing an 11-hour long traffic jam (11 hours of sleep in the back of a 7-ton, for us), and their medevac APCs continuously messed up the order of movement, during the night march, forcing us to pause for them every 5-10 minutes (the numbers of notional IEDs were ridiculous to put it mildly). Overall they did not make a good impression on me, or on other Marines around me.

The only air-defense I saw were ZU-23-2s, and even then only on photos (there was also one on display in front of the barracks). The trucks they used were civilian-looking Mercedes trucks painted green, with makeshift wooden benches for troop transport (I doubt those trucks could go off-road). The Galil of one of the soldiers I got to play around with for a little bit was dirty, lacked optics and anything similar to our PEQ-15/16s. Granted these are just personal observations, but they were quite troubling.
 

phrank

New Member
First to the joint forces some have talked about. Had anyone had something joint with Germany in Libya well they could have used their half maybe. When you have joined forces you can deploy the whole only if both sides agree. We watched over here in the US our allies struggle to keep the few aircraft they had deployed supplied. Talk about building up forces in times of war means nothing unless you think you will have years to get ready for said war. Some talk like this day we are making washing machines and tomorrow we are making warplanes, tank and ships. Sorry doesn't work that way. As for the pacific not being a NATO area, does that mean if someone attacks Guam then NATO doesn't consider that a attack on the US. From what I understand NATO countries have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defense. I would say that if any are not we should let them know that we consider them in default of there word and will not come to their aide unless they do.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
From what I understand NATO countries have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defense. I would say that if any are not we should let them know that we consider them in default of there word and will not come to their aide unless they do.
Comparing GDP is misleading not all countries have the same wages and personnel expenses (clothing accommodation and so on).Australia for instance spends approximately 1.8% of GDP but out of that roughly 32% goes on wages and personnel expenses, with operating cost are roughly36%. So that is roughly 68% of the defence budget, just in clothing feeding housing fuel and maintenance of the equipment already in service. Also some urgent needed items Australia purchase like the original 4 C17 Globemaster or the just bought EX RFA Largs Bay was supplemental to the defence budget a one off type of purchase.
 

Astute

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #59
( QUOTE FROM BEATMASTER)-----------------------------------------------------------
Basicly because germany is one of the very few nations who adopted the zero config industry and has made some last minute changes in the past years to adapt to a more automated industry.However with Germany as number one producing powerhouse in EU, the number 1 in army and the most powerfull economy atm? i seriously doubt that Russia with all its might would be stupid enough to face Germany.Another thing is Russia would not only face Germany it would also face the EU, the US and a number of nations that feel outraged by such a attack.Germany in its current from would be perfectly capable of holding its own against Russia.And regardless what some people say about germany but in the past 20 years they have come a very long way in every degree of their army which is very well equipped very well trained and very well supplied.
And this hard effort by the germans and the EU to help germany back on its feet has given them this big avantage over france and the uk.
No i do not want to praise the germans into heaven, but appearently you do not know in what badshape the UK and france (economicly) are right now.
If you watch the economic news a bit then the UK alone has lost over 35% of its former economic power and production so yes rebuilding that up takes time and will demand for some drastic cuts and reforms.These mass scale cuts and reforms has been done by the germans 10 years ago...thats why they are overall so far ahead.Their army is being cut true but they have still one of the biggest (if not the) and one of the best equipped armies around..Imagine what would happen if the Germans would redraw.....If the UK or france would redraw then its going to be a major pain and a serious blow to the Eu and its military strenght......however if the germans redraw, then France will not be able to stop russia, and the UK will find them selfs in the same position as in WOII locked up on their island and struggeling for resources from the US.Not saying that the UK is weak and i am not saying that Germany is super but like it or not the germans have a absolute key role and starting to play a ever increasing role in the EU while the role of UK is being overruled by France and Germany (As the latest news did show when sarkozy slammed the door on the UK ..i believe that was for saving the euro...)And that would not have happened 15 years ago..back then it was always UK and Germany/US dictating EU policy (Or largely influence it) while today France and Germany are the main talkers...[/END QUOTE FROM BEATMASTER)---------------------------------------------------------------------]

Were do i start umm, well first the Uk would not pull out of nato just out of Germany as will the US in time , and if a conflict did happen with Russia germany would be on the front line and i wonder how many shinny automated factories would be left to produce the tanks,weapons,ships,etc after the first attack happened, now i see you are a big fan of the German armed forces thats fine they do have a good armed forces but there are also more cuts coming and contracts being scraped for new equipment every day, and good on David C (never thought i would say that) for telling them were to go when both france and germany were asking for more money to bail out another stalled euro country which the UK isnt even in ,as for the shuting of the door on the uk ha ha they were angry because they could not get the uk to help them again and both sarkozy and merkel were wondering which of them was going to lose there job and join the list of failed pms, after the spanish pm, greece pm,italian pm,portugal pm, irish pm have all ready gone in what has been a total mess of economices and they were all so wondering what the french,german people would think when they found out they were going to have to pay for the massive european debt and that they had no choice in the matter or most of europe would go under then they would too,and after all britain took steps to reduce its debt straight away so kept its AAA+ credit rating i wonder how many others will retain theres ummm,
I do know whats going on in the UK ,yes times are hard but we are taking steps now to help us in the future and i would still say the UK market is still one of the safest bets in europe.and the world
And as for France not being able to stop Russia and the uk being land locked again like in ww2 land locked yes we are a island after all but powerless never ,but we kept the sea lanes open at great cost yes but we did it ,Britain was able to hold there own for years before the US got involved they fought around the world from the deserts of africa to the jungles of asia ther navy took the fight to the u boats in the atlantic,indian ocean,med and to the japanese in the pacific and fought the nazis all the way to berlin liberating europe on the way yes with the US but you must remember the Uks gold reserve was sent to the US to pay for the material sent to the uk and we even paid for the ones at the bottom of the atlantic, we also give the US bases ,tec to cover the cost and continued to pay the war time debt when the US was busy pumping the money back into Germany and japan at the start of the cold war ,alot of the equipment bought was sent to russia, and to equip free french,free dutch,free polish and many other units The US did very well out of ww2 war is a after all a great business,,,,,,
 
Last edited:

Beatmaster

New Member
Comparing GDP is misleading not all countries have the same wages and personnel expenses (clothing accommodation and so on).Australia for instance spends approximately 1.8% of GDP but out of that roughly 32% goes on wages and personnel expenses, with operating cost are roughly36%. So that is roughly 68% of the defence budget, just in clothing feeding housing fuel and maintenance of the equipment already in service. Also some urgent needed items Australia purchase like the original 4 C17 Globemaster or the just bought EX RFA Largs Bay was supplemental to the defence budget a one off type of purchase.
Thats very correct.
If i look at my own country then the wages and personel expenses are shockingly high.
Which means that the 1.?% GDP we use largely goes to personel expenses.

However i got a rather offtopic question about using a certain percentage of the GDP to maintain army.
If you take the 3 major nations within the EU lets say UK, France and Germany.
How far would they be able to raise the GDP before the economic system collapses of their nations? and how would that look like in terms of army numbers compared to what they have right now? Hypoteticly speaking?
 
Top