Jump to content


Photo

German Armed Forces reduced to 150 000?


  • Please log in to reply
497 replies to this topic

#21 Martin M

Martin M

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,927 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0517 AM

IMO : it would be fitting to reduce to about zero, considering almost nil acceptance and backing by German society.

This should have a bad effect on development and export of military systems / equipment etc, but the Greenie-infected general mindset would see that drop in export revenue easily compensated by windmill production.

It would also mean that the only elements of German society with combat experience would be the Leftist stone-/ Molotov-throwing faction, but Germany seems happy enough with those antics also.

So so what.

A no cost military frees tax money for ransom / and Schutzgeld payments.
Probably cheaper that way.

Those individuals really wanting to join a military could join the FFL or Euroforce.

Just my opinion.
  • 0

#22 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0532 AM

Would be ironic if Germany has to start to pay Danegeld to Denmark for protection Posted Image
OTOH even after the reduction the Bundeswehr would be 4x more numerous than Czech army... Posted Image
  • 0

#23 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0541 AM

IMO : it would be fitting to reduce to about zero, considering almost nil acceptance and backing by German society.

This should have a bad effect on development and export of military systems / equipment etc, but the Greenie-infected general mindset would see that drop in export revenue easily compensated by windmill production.

It would also mean that the only elements of German society with combat experience would be the Leftist stone-/ Molotov-throwing faction, but Germany seems happy enough with those antics also.

So so what.

A no cost military frees tax money for ransom / and Schutzgeld payments.
Probably cheaper that way.

Those individuals really wanting to join a military could join the FFL or Euroforce.

Just my opinion.


A little too much, but even conservatives feel a little uneasy when the Bundeswehr goes on a fighting mission outside of Germany. Very few Germans I know like the idea. Maybe the re-education after WW2 worked too well.

The general support for the Bundeswehr is not that bad either, the support for out of area non humanitarian missions is very low though.

I can imagine that a good end result would be the following

Luftwaffe:

1. 2 wings of Eurofighter for air defense and air policing.
2. Tornado scrapped
3. 1 transport wing with 12 A400M and a few CASA 295 for internal transportation and humanitarian missions
4. SAMs scrapped

Army:

1. attack helicopter scrapped
2. tanks and IFVs scrapped (PZH 2000 as well)
3. a small number of light armored vehicles and light infantry units retained for humanitarian and peace keeping missions
4. one unified helicopter unit for transport, civil assistance and SAR (about 60 helicopters)

Navy:

1. submarines scrapped
2. warships reduced to 4 frigates and and 4 corvettes
3. 4 mine hunters kept
3. limited capability for out of area anti-piracy missions

Say 50.000-60.000 troops in total.

Edited by seahawk, 20 August 2010 - 0541 AM.

  • 0

#24 Red Ant

Red Ant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 682 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erlangen, Germany

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0549 AM

That would be a "good" end result to you??? :blink: I can see that reducing certain capabilities might make economical sense, but getting rid of them completely is utter folly. Just because Europe is mostly nice and cozy now doesn't mean it'll stay that way forever, and when things take a turn for the worse it would be nice not having to rebuild your military from scratch.
  • 0

#25 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0658 AM

Worst would be 2 consecutive red/red governments. Than I would not be surprised if the disband the Bundeswehr completely.
  • 0

#26 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0705 AM

ad point 4 of the air force, why scrap SAMs? Germany has Patriots, so it would make sense to employ them in NATO missile defences, no?
  • 0

#27 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0706 AM

Yawn, all this bitching and moaning about the reform is getting boring. :rolleyes:

IMHO what KTzG does finally appears a serious attempt at "trimming the flesh" and making the Bundeswehr fit for the future. You can thank the previous governments since the German reunification for bumbling around for almost 20 years and wasting valuable time and money on equipment and personel that apparently we don't really need (except for another cold war):

- keeping an inventory of thousands of tanks and IFVs until a few years ago (I am still amazed that apparently the Marder 1A3 mondernization programme for ~2100 vehicles ran until 1998! Why didn't
anybody cancel that bullsh*t way sooner?)
- keeping the Roland and Gepard for so long
- buying 180 PzH 2000s, and now 100 of those apparently will be removed after only a few years in service
- how many Taurus bunker-buster missiles did the Luftwaffe get again (I wouldn't be amazed if they still trained using the MW-1 either...)
- the Tiger helicopter, in its present configuration another cold-war relic (especially with the Trigat-LR missile)
- keepings the Navy's FACs and so many of the old subs until now

etc. etc.

Too bad for those who love massed tank formations with the Iron cross painted on the vehicles, but the Cold War is over, and that reform with all those cuts should have come way sooner than now. If other countries still want to spend vast amounts of money they don't really have (hint: public debts!), be my guest. It's also a bit rich to blame an imaginary greenie-infected general mindset instead of realizing that the apparent cold-war mindset and inflexibility of high-ranking officers and politicians is the real reson why the Bundeswehr has all those problems today. :angry2:

Maybe putting the (financial) thumbscrews on the EU armies will finally lead to some real European cooperation, but I'm probably a bit too optimistic about that.
  • 0

#28 Martin M

Martin M

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,927 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2010 - 0818 AM

The Cold War has been over for quite some time.

In our city there about 10 Kasernen with all kinds of Bundeswehr. After 1989 they were continually reduced to .. zero.
Thats ok. Cold War is over.

The Bundeswehr already is tiny compared to Cold War. I don΄t see a need for futher reduction, but it is not that important either. My main gripe being the mindset.

And the Greenie mindset is not imaginary. You belong to a younger generation, influenced over 30 years by Greenie teachers and media. In Germany there is no longer any conservative or moderate right wing.
Thats my perception, experience , opinion.
But it is not very important anymore. I try not to care, but it doesn΄t always work. ;)
  • 0

#29 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 20 August 2010 - 1135 AM

It seems now clear that the five models to be presented today/on Monday are the detailed versions of the five original force strength models. The strange structure from my last post would then be the ca. 165,000-man model called "Variant 4". I guess this means it's the second smallest, with the 205,000-man conscription legacy force "Variant 1" and the 150,000-man austere model "Variant 5". Again, both of the latter have been pretty much ruled out already. The six-brigade structure I outlined earlier might be "Variant 3" that has been estimated at about 175,000.

While the defense minister is reported to prefer "Variant 4", the choice is far from settled. As I said before, there is a (though not too large) majority in the Conservatives that still cling to the idea of general conscription, and this issue will be debated on the party conventions of CDU and CSU in October (I think). The parliamentary leadership seems in on the "voluntary conscripts" model though, which they stress is something entirely different than what the Social Democrats came up with.

The SPD is actually critizising the alleged 165,000-man force as too small and too deployment-oriented, which would make Germany unable to fulfill its defense committments to NATO partners. They want a force of 175,000 professionals and 25,000 "voluntary conscripts" which are only all-voluntary as long as there are enough of them; if not, some will get drafted anyway. The Deutsche Bundeswehr Verband, the military "union", suggests the same numbers (possible "Variant 2"?), which might be much more agreeable with many Conservatives, too - but also be too expensive. I also think the courts would have to say something about an essentially random compulsive service, which would violate the equality principle.
  • 0

#30 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 20 August 2010 - 1208 PM

Tomas, what is the issue with keeping the Taurus standoff weapon?
  • 0

#31 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 20 August 2010 - 1308 PM

Tomas, what is the issue with keeping the Taurus standoff weapon?


There isn't anything wrong with keeping the Taurus itself, it's the numbers which were bought. The MoD reportedly ordered 600 of these missiles (according to Jane's and other sources). IMHO this is a ridiculously high number, especially in light of a lack of other PGMs which would be a lot more suitable for operations in AFG.

But it's probably another case of the government(s) and parts of the Bundeswehr living in the past as well as throwing the industry a bone. Examples would be:

- the acquisition of Trigat-LR ATGM for the Tiger: probably well-suited for stopping tank hordes, but totally unsuitable for anything else (it's fire-and-forget only, can it get any more useless?)
- one certain politican delaying the acquisition of the MOWAG Eagle IV
- the selection the Heron UAV instead of Predator B / Reaper
- the F-125 frigate instead of Absalon
- the Herkules IT system (billions of wasted €)

But I guess I'm rambling... ;)
  • 0

#32 SCFalken

SCFalken

    Eagerly awaiting the return of Feudalism

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,166 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, Mississippi
  • Interests:Geological Engineering

Posted 20 August 2010 - 2237 PM

Wouldn't "peacetime" be the optimal time for short-service conscripts to make up the bulk of the force (shelling out the Euros to entice the best to stay on as long-service NCOs and Os)? That way, you cycle a chunk of your population through the BW, giving the Body Politic at least some idea of what it's all about, and creating a pool of people who could be recalled within 36 months of service, in the case of emergency. It'd also give you the capability to surge your end-strength, by simply keeping the current conscripts on and enlarging the next callup.

Yes, that's unlikely to be required next month....but if you'd have asked me to prognosticate the near-term future on 9-10-2001.....


Falken
  • 0

#33 m4a1

m4a1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 766 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 0504 AM

Have the Germans eventually purchased the Trigat LR?
  • 0

#34 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 21 August 2010 - 0519 AM

Have the Germans eventually purchased the Trigat LR?


Yeah, a contract for 680 missiles was signed in June 2006...
  • 0

#35 m4a1

m4a1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 766 posts

Posted 21 August 2010 - 0751 AM

For me, this purchase is rational. It is not a huge quantity, and the missile is great and effective.
PS:
Remember, that all that equipment that you claim to be "Cold-war-old-fashioned-against-Red-Hordes", and the entire German military costs the country only 1.2 % of its GDP. Is it that much, or the matter is rather about the all-out ill-management of the public finance?
  • 0

#36 Tomas Hoting

Tomas Hoting

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nuremberg, Germany
  • Interests:General Military
    History
    Politics

Posted 21 August 2010 - 0904 AM

For me, this purchase is rational. It is not a huge quantity, and the missile is great and effective.
PS:
Remember, that all that equipment that you claim to be "Cold-war-old-fashioned-against-Red-Hordes", and the entire German military costs the country only 1.2 % of its GDP. Is it that much, or the matter is rather about the all-out ill-management of the public finance?


If the whole Trigat LR contract is worth 380 million €, and 680 missiles were ordered, it appears that a unit price of ~580000 € (rough calculation) is a bit high, isn't it? Compare that with a Spanish army order for 200 Spike-ER missiles (a much more flexible system than Trigat LR) and 44 associated launchers for their Tiger helos which amounts to 40 million €.

Now tell me if that isn't a classic case of all-out mismanagement of public funds? Granted, the whole Trigat LR contract also involves industrialization etc., but costs of several hundered thousand € for a single missile which is only good for tank killing and nothing else is still unacceptable. It's a rip-off, the Bundeswehr could have gotten a better, more flexible system for less money.
  • 0

#37 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 21 August 2010 - 1554 PM

If the whole Trigat LR contract is worth 380 million €, and 680 missiles were ordered, it appears that a unit price of ~580000 € (rough calculation) is a bit high, isn't it? Compare that with a Spanish army order for 200 Spike-ER missiles (a much more flexible system than Trigat LR) and 44 associated launchers for their Tiger helos which amounts to 40 million €.

Now tell me if that isn't a classic case of all-out mismanagement of public funds? Granted, the whole Trigat LR contract also involves industrialization etc., but costs of several hundered thousand € for a single missile which is only good for tank killing and nothing else is still unacceptable. It's a rip-off, the Bundeswehr could have gotten a better, more flexible system for less money.


It's the curse of multi-national development. which causes a penalty of higher costs and a longer development time. A formula has been derived for this in which the costs are a function of the square root and the length of time taken is a function of the cube root, of the number of participants in a project. Bilateral costs, therefore, are 40% higher, trilateral being 73% higher while the corresponding time increases are 20% and 45% respectively.
  • 0

#38 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 22 August 2010 - 0729 AM

If the whole Trigat LR contract is worth 380 million €, and 680 missiles were ordered, it appears that a unit price of ~580000 € (rough calculation) is a bit high, isn't it?


Bloody Hell!
  • 0

#39 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,512 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 24 August 2010 - 0321 AM

So now we're a little wiser, though not as much as I'd have liked.

Turns out the five structure models are not numbered consecutively by total strength. They are:

Variant 1 - This is the conscription legacy model of ca. 205,000 troops by 2012.

Variant 2 - The minimum 150,000 all-volunteer force which would be reached in three steps by 2013. This might be the one which according to one rumor would leave the Bundeswehr with just a single Panzer regiment of 72. But again, it has been pretty much ruled out already.

Variant 3 - A slightly larger all-volunteer force of 156,000 to be reached in six steps by 2016. Probably referred to in a press report from yesterday that predicted only three Panzer battalions of 44 each to remain. Not really more likely than Variant 2.

Variant 4 - The ca. 165,000-man force including at least 156,000 professionals and 7,500 "voluntary conscripts" preferred by the Defense Minister as previously posted. Target date would be 2016, to be reached in six steps.

Variant 5 - An all-volunteer force of 180,000 by 2013. Reported to save more money than Variant 4 in the long run, probably due to abolishing the huge selective service system.

The Chancellor, while expressing support for the "voluntary conscription" thing, is waiting which way the wind blows as usual and wants to keep Variant 1 in the race as a possible alternative until the party conventions in October/November show a clear picture. Among conservative defense politicians in the Bundestag, there seems to be a movement towards a "Variant 4 plus", which would increase the number of voluntary conscripts to ca. 15,000 and raise the number of professionals equally for a total of about 180,000. Defense Minister zu Guttenberg has indicated he might be prepared to compromise on this.

The problem with the smaller models is as usual that you have to get rid of scores of senior officers, protected by the walls and trenches of German public servant law. Hence the apparent intention to get rid of the brigade rather than the division level (even if the latter will become "joint" and thereby shrink a bit itself), since two-star commands offer a lot more slots to stow away O-5s and up you'd otherwise have to pay heavily for separation anyway.

Several sources have reported by now that the Heer's CH-53s will go over to the Luftwaffe. Which won't make much difference if there's in fact a "Joint Helicopter/Air Mobile Operations Command".

Edited by BansheeOne, 24 August 2010 - 0324 AM.

  • 0

#40 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hannover, Germany
  • Interests:Contemporary armor - tactics and technology

Posted 24 August 2010 - 0446 AM

The problem with the smaller models is as usual that you have to get rid of scores of senior officers, protected by the walls and trenches of German public servant law. Hence the apparent intention to get rid of the brigade rather than the division level (even if the latter will become "joint" and thereby shrink a bit itself), since two-star commands offer a lot more slots to stow away O-5s and up you'd otherwise have to pay heavily for separation anyway.

Personally I'd rather pay for separation and then concentrate on building a lean command structure rather than perpetuate the current bloated staff structure with its many redundant and/or competing commands. If we can typically commit 3-5,000 soldiers abroad I'd rather not have 1,000 in the command structure and another 3,000 in the logistics tail, leaving us with a mere 500...1000 teeth that are further dulled with restrictive RoE. As long as we deploy light infantry mostly, we should attempt to have at least a 25/75 ratio of teeth to tail and not 10/90 or worse.
But of course I know that that happening has a snowball's chance in hell.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users