Monday, June 27, 2011

German Army is combat IN-effective.

That's right.  According to an article in the Daily Beast the German Army is combat in-effective.

Thanks Jonathan!  Much appreciated.  Read the entire article but here's some highlights.

First this...
"German soldiers mostly don’t know how to use their weapons.” They “have no or little experience driving armored vehicles.” For German field commanders, “the necessity and ways [to protect their units from roadside bombs] are to a large extent either unknown or incorrect.”
Then this...
The secret reports bemoan German soldiers’ outdated training and antiquated, insufficient equipment. German forces could not operate if it weren’t for Ukrainian cargo planes and American helicopters and their U.S. Army crews, most crucially the Chinook troop transports and Black Hawk MedEvac helicopters that ensure Bundeswehr soldiers can get into and out of their battles quickly and safely. Considering Obama’s announcement about the beginning of the pullout of U.S. forces, the Bundeswehr couldn’t even fight in terrain like Afghanistan’s if it wanted to. “If the Americans pull out of the north, the Germans will stand there in very short skirts,” says Bundeswehr General and former NATO Commander Egon Ramms.
I wish I could lay my hands on the actual report. This is damning. 

The most powerful economy in Europe is no longer capable or willing to defending itself.

AMAZING.

7 comments :

  1. Where is their defense money going?

    After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO's military budget are Germany (16.6 percent); France (12.4 percent); United Kingdom (12 percent)...

    Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/501364/main20070541.shtml#ixzz1QUko9WTp

    ReplyDelete
  2. i fear that they're becoming the bankers of NATO...not a warfighter in NATO.

    they fund different initiatives...contribute bases and infrastructure to the alliance but fail when it comes to fielding troops to participate in battle.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Germans have been relying on NATO and the US to a much greater extent and for a lot longer than the UK and France, so despite a relatively large budget, they are not in a good position to fight, not to mention their massively pacifist attitudes over there now. They've had their fill of war and unlike some of us, have not been the focus of any major terror attacks in recent years, basically they've forgotten the need to have a strong force.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After the WWII the Germany was castrate , even the children were no more allowed to play with "war toys" like G.I.Joe , they were invaded by millions of turks & muslims , the armed forces are full of gay and pacifist actually , the people were and are not allowed to know and talk about their past and their historic heritage , so why wonder about that nowday ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. i don't know if i buy that MauFul.

    from what i've read (cause i don't know...i wasn't there) but the German military was considered formidable during the cold war.

    they were and still are innovators when it comes to armored vehicles.

    they allowed their aviation industry to atrophy. obviously thier infantry skills are now non-existent. but i don't think you can trace the decline to the end of WW2 and the occupation by allied forces.

    i think the change happened after the end of the cold war when the soviet union was placed back in its cage.

    thats when the German people said ok, we're fine...screw the world we'll only sell stuff to them and loan them money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The article refers to the BILD "newspaper". I'd rather read the original contingent reports (2009 & 2010). The BILD is often referred to as the BLÖD newspaper or STUPID in English. Too often their reports are wrong or at least partially incorrect, all to often on purpose.

    Regarding basic infantry skills: The report complained that the training wasn't reflecting the reality in Afghanistan. German Army soldiers are as proficient in the handling of firearms as their American counterparts, but as the report states until recently they trained in a different way. More precision and high volume of fire over long distances (300m). Before the weapons training was overhauled, a lot depended on your instructor. If he's competent and committed, you'd also get short range training. Besides there's a stark contrast in training quality between combat troops (e.g. paratroopers or mountain infantry) which are out in the field for weeks and support troops who often never leave the base.

    And about the armored vehicles. Most units use different vehicles in Afghanistan than in Germany. A mechanized infantry unit (equipped with IFVs) might find itself using Dingo MARP-type vehicles in Afghanistan or Fuchs APCs. If not preparing for a deployment these units train for their primary role and only during the preparation phase they'll get their hands on the Dingos or Fuchs, which are of course in high demand for preparation training as there's only a limited pool of vehicles for training.

    It's the same with a lot of equipment. From C4 systems to demining vehicles.

    The Ukrainian transport planes. Those are heavy transport aircraft leased as part of the SALIS agreement. 18 NATO and EU countries participate, including France and the UK. It's cheap.

    And about helicopters. As the original report mentioned it's about MEDEVAC helicopters (until the arrival of US MEDEVAC helicopters German CH-53 had to double for cargo/personnel transport and MEDEVAC), not about transport helicopters.

    Actually the Bundeswehr did fight in Afghanistan before 2009, but only in that year did the fighting intensify. Before that the Taliban relied on IEDs in all kinds. For other military operations by the Germans in Afghanistan see Operation Harekate Yolo and Operation Karez.

    Regarding Germany and defense. In what way do the Taliban or AQ threaten Germany in a conventional way that would warrant a military response? It's not as if we're inexperienced with terrorism from leftist extremists to right extremists to Palestinian nationalists to Islamists, we've seen them all and our intelligence and police services have done a pretty good job so far. So most Germans think that terrorism is best dealt with by the police.

    And please, Solomon. Would you mind to write just one post detailing exactly in what way Germany - and Europe for the matter - is actually free riding on the US for its defense. I'm not talking about Afghanistan, we're there because of you for fucks sake.

    To understand why the Bundeswehr is the way it is, you have to know about its development after the Cold War. The first missions in Somalia, Cambodia and the Balkans which led to reforms in the late 90s and again in the mid 2000s. There was a lot of focus on Bosnia style peacekeeping, unfortunately Afghanistan is a fully-fledged counterinsurgency campaign, an actual long war that you cannot win or fight on a peacetime budget, so there's bound to be quite a few problems.

    @MauFul
    Are you stuck on some weird ass acid trip?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's keep this simple. Germany spends 1.3 of GDP on defense.

    “NATO at War: Understanding the Challenges of Caveats in Afghanistan”
    http://www.aco.nato.int/resources/1/documents/NATO%20at%20War.pdf

    Good reading about NATO member caveats in Afghanistan comparing and contrasting the Canadians and Germans.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.