94 replies to this topic

[BansheeOne]

I attended a talk by the inspectors of the Dutch and German Army respectively this week, and I was slightly wrong on several points. First, the Dutch actually have a company's worth of tanks left, which they hope to save by assigning it to a German tank battalion that is to be activated for the purpose, then assigned to Dutch 43rd Mechanized Brigade, which in turn will be assigned to German 1st Panzer Division. That's some pretty ambitious military integration; both generals pointed out that 75 percent of their respective top-level formations will be integrated with each other.

 

The latest rumor is that there are also plans for tighter naval cooperation, including joint use of submarines and amphibious support ships. Which makes a whole lot of sense.

[Andreas]

Amphibious support ships? Such as Mistrals?

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[BansheeOne]

I thought the same, but the one expressively mentioned is recently-finished JSS Karel Doorman which hasn't even been officially commissioned yet AFAIK (though she was already used for delivery of aid to the Ebola-stricken West African countries). She only narrowly survived a decision to not commission her at all for cost reasons in 2013, and is basically what Germany intended to get for an own JSS design if there ever was any money for it, so I guess sharing operating costs is good for both sides.

 

I'm more curious about the submarine part; the blurb I read was about the Dutch participating in operation of the German boats. Of course they still have their Walrus(ses?) which are a bit older than the German Type 212A, but were recently announced to remain in service until 2025, so I would think that joint use would be reciprocal. A common type for both navies might be in the future though.

[seahawk]

Could lead to more 212As. Perhaps 2 German 4 Dutch for shared use? Would fit the 2025 timeframe and keep HDW happy.

[BansheeOne]

Or a follow-on design with joint input. The Dutch boats are more oriented to oceanic use, though I think Germany will remain wed to littoral missions, particularly with the prospect of having to face Russia in the Baltic Sea again. So probably not something the size of the Type 216 which is aimed at the Pacific market (Singapore's future Type 218 is also thought to be derived from this), but it might use some of the solutions proposed for it like the multi-purpose VLS/dock space in a package the size of the Dolphin 2 or so.

[Panzermann]

With all of this DE/NL cooperation... How long until the dutch forces become just an annexe to the Bundeswehr?

Edited by Panzermann, 13 February 2015 - 1311 PM.

[seahawk]

Or a follow-on design with joint input. The Dutch boats are more oriented to oceanic use, though I think Germany will remain wed to littoral missions, particularly with the prospect of having to face Russia in the Baltic Sea again. So probably not something the size of the Type 216 which is aimed at the Pacific market (Singapore's future Type 218 is also thought to be derived from this), but it might use some of the solutions proposed for it like the multi-purpose VLS/dock space in a package the size of the Dolphin 2 or so.

 

The 212A are good enough for the Baltic, but lately the Marine has been talking about something larger. So you could be right with something like U216. A joint buy by Dutch + Germans would surely be a good start for the export attempts.

[Gregory]

With all of this DE/NL cooperation... How long until the dutch forces become just an annexe to the Bundeswehr?

 

Unless current trends are reversed, how long until there are no Dutch forces, period?

[Daan]

All successive Dutch governments since the end of the Cold War made cuts to the defense budget. Although the Walrus class submarines received a number of upgrades starting in 2007 and recently a decision was taken to replace them in 2025, their age (and the recent asbestos scandal) may well make them a target for future governments looking for money to finance the welfare state.

[BansheeOne]

With Poland, the intention is to swap one battalion each between brigades of both sides, though I failed to ask whether they would actually be based on the far side of their own border, a pretty relevant point in view of the current efforts to reassure East European NATO members and the limits of the NATO-Russia Founding Act to same.

 

This seems now decided; talk is of a battalion from Panzergrenadierbrigade 41 "Vorpommern" coming under Polish command and vice versa by mid-2016. It will be units already based close to the mutual border, but they will remain in place; possibly Panzergrenadierbataillon 411 in Viereck or Panzerbataillon 413 in Torgelow on the German side, both just about 30 km from Szczecin. You can't really put a Polish battalion into East Germany either; all the time I was so hung up over the NATO-Russia Founding Act that I forgot the 2+4 Treaty stipulates that no foreign armed forces shall be based or moved there. Of course that was also meant to refer to Western NATO troops, but the language merely says "foreign", which is pretty unambiguous.

 

BTW on the original topic, Gen. Laubenthal was there when Gen. Hodges of USAREUR gave a briefing in the house last week. Great flatterer, this Hodges. Started off in German, apologized that his language skills had crumbled since he was a little lieutenant based here and would therefore continue in English, then apologized again in case his English was not to good either "because I'm from Florida". He proceeded to call Laubenthal "not merely a passenger, but the Mercedes-Benz engine in the American vehicle". I thought he laid it on a little thick.

[Panzermann]

Laubenthal is a Chrysler Crossfire?


 

Of course that was also meant to refer to Western NATO troops, but the language merely says "foreign", which is pretty unambiguous.

Seems like an artifact from when the soviets aimed for a neutral Germany in the negotiations.

[urbanoid]

Seems like an artifact from when the soviets aimed for a neutral Germany in the negotiations.

Seems like Berlin is giving too much a fuck for much too long.

[BansheeOne]

Well, given that the 2+4 Treaty also guarantees such minor things as the Oder-Neisse Line, you should be really supportive of anybody giving a fuck.

[urbanoid]

We also have a border treaty signed in 1990, don't we?

 

Sticking to such documents as 1997 NATO-Russia treaty makes no sense anymore, Russia doesn't give a flying fuck about the treaties it signs, including those about borders. It makes all those idiotic 'rotations' in Central Europe necessary, effectively dividing NATO into 'better' and 'worse' members.

[Panzermann]

Well, given that the 2+4 Treaty also guarantees such minor things as the Oder-Neisse Line, you should be really supportive of anybody giving a fuck.

Psht, shut up. Now we have to call back the friendly men in Lederhosen! *shreds plans* *whistles inconspiciously*

 

Seriously, even if there had not been this passage in the treaty, why should any of the NATO members (or any other foreign state) stationed any troops in the former GDR territory the last quarter of a century? Since 1990 the numbers have been successively been reduced and further reduction is going on. With the recent refocus on eastern Europe of NATO it is a minor inconvenience, but I strongly doubt any troops would be put in the former GDR even if it was possible. Makes more sense to me to put them in Poland, Romania or Turkey. And the three baltic states of course.

Edited by Panzermann, 09 March 2015 - 1425 PM.

[BansheeOne]

We also have a border treaty signed in 1990, don't we?

 

Well yes, though it makes reference to the 2+4 Treaty. But the latter is really such a fundamental cornerstone of European post-Cold War order that you don't want to fiddle with that. I know that's just what the Russians have been doing to other cornerstones; however, what's really up for debate if they continue is, as you say, the NATO-Russia Founding Act. After all, as Panzermann point out, it's the Eastern European members which face a possible immediate threat.

 

If we get to the point where putting additional NATO troops in East Germany looks necessary (or for that matter, increase of the Bundeswehr beyond the limit of 370,000 also stipulated in the 2+4 Treaty), the post-1990 regime has evaporated anyway. Increasing tensions further by touching that particular cornerstone is quite unnecessary if the general idea is that German soldiers should defend Eastern Poland if necessary, not Polish soldiers East Germany (because no Poland remains to defend) ...

[Andreas]

Seriously, even if there had not been this passage in the treaty, why should any of the NATO members (or any other foreign state) stationed any troops in the former GDR territory the last quarter of a century?

 

To make a point?

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Ken Estes]

<Ahem> Banshee, any reason you omitted Oder-West Neisse as the frontier?  that was conceded in 1970 as part of the Ostpolitik of Mr. Brandt, right?

[Andreas]

<Ahem> Banshee, any reason you omitted Oder-West Neisse as the frontier?  that was conceded in 1970 as part of the Ostpolitik of Mr. Brandt, right?

 

In German it is only referred to as 'Oder-Neisse', this is the first time I have heard of 'West-Neisse' in this context. Has been like that since the 70s. I don't think there is a 'West Neisse' in German, it is called 'Lausitzer Neisse'.

 

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausitzer_Neiße

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[BansheeOne]

Frankly I wasn't even aware that there would be several, though I see now there are four headstreams (White, Black, Gablonzer and Wiesenthaler Neisse, all uniting inside the Czech Republic), and the Polish Oder tributaries of the Silesian, Angry ( ) and Little Neisse. I certainly didn't know there are Neisse rivers not directly feeding into the mainstream; as Andreas says, the latter is the only one commonly referred to in Germany, the "Oder-Neisse Line" being a very definite term.