The European Union Military?

Devilwasp,

I don't think anyone here or at least me, is doubting the UK's military. It's a fine military with great training, equipment and soldiers and experience. To extend the UK to the rest of the EU is another matter. Their weapons, troops and leaders have not been battle tested the way the US and UK's have. Sure they may have good or great weapons, decent troops and the like but they haven't been "put to the test" nearly the way our two countries have. Afganistan while good experience for EU/Nato troops is not the same as all out warfare in very mobile conditions. The only other EU country that comes close would be France and they haven't had a really major military conflict since Algeria.

Actual combat experience does really count, at the individual level and more importantely at the command level, since many commanders will be around for decades and multiple conflicts.

Originally posted by pavil
Their weapons, troops and leaders have not been battle tested the way the US and UK's have. Sure they may have good or great weapons, decent troops and the like but they haven't been "put to the test" nearly the way our two countries have.

Take a look at the members of the coalition in afghanistan and tell me how many are european, two I can name off my head are dutch and british.
The HK weapon family is WELL tested, so far so that almost every nation uses them: MP5? German. G-36? German. FAMAS? French , used by many many countries.
Sig saucers? Made in austria but used by the SAS.

Afganistan while good experience for EU/Nato troops is not the same as all out warfare in very mobile conditions.

We are fighting the exact same tactics in iraq as in afghanistan , what on earth are you talking about?

The only other EU country that comes close would be France and they haven't had a really major military conflict since Algeria.

And neither has america since GW1.

Actual combat experience does really count, at the individual level and more importantely at the command level, since many commanders will be around for decades and multiple conflicts.

Yes and many of the EU commanders where around during the balklands conflict and during GW1, same with US commanders.

Originally posted by devilwasp
We are fighting the exact same tactics in iraq as in afghanistan , what on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about Multiple Divisions being used in full scale warfare. No EU country had done that except for the UK.

And neither has america since GW1.

Algeria was in the late 60's, is that recent for you? Even in GW1 France had 16,000 + troops there

Yes and many of the EU commanders where around during the balklands conflict and during GW1, same with US commanders.

Again you are primaraliy talking UK troops and commanders on the EU side. While there were many forces in GW1 only the US and UK committed the bulk of their forces to it. Every country that contributed did a good job bu

If you are referring to the Balkans, I would not consider that full scale warfare, even though things got quite heated there. We did not deploy in the manner a full scale war would dictate.

When was the last time a major EU country fielded 3 divisions with armor, air and naval support in full scale war outside of it's own border area?

Originally posted by pavil
I am talking about Multiple Divisions being used in full scale warfare. No EU country had done that except for the UK.

Yes because no EU country has the lifting power for that sort of manpower except the UK.

Algeria was in the late 60's, is that recent for you? Even in GW1 France had 16,000 + troops there

I know I looked it up to be sure, whats the point in your statement then??

Again you are primaraliy talking UK troops and commanders on the EU side. While there were many forces in GW1 only the US and UK committed the bulk of their forces to it.

So because those 2 had the largest bulk you think the other units did not think for themselves and plan missions?

If you are referring to the Balkans, I would not consider that full scale warfare, even though things got quite heated there. We did not deploy in the manner a full scale war would dictate.

What would you call that situation then?
I would call it experience for any soldier.

When was the last time a major EU country fielded 3 divisions with armor, air and naval support in full scale war outside of it's own border area?

When was there a need to field armour, air and naval support? The US has only done so in the last 20 years when there have been other countries involed.

Originally posted by devilwasp
I do believe they are either medics or support units, thier constitution does prohibit them engaging war on foriegn soil I think.

Then they are very heavily armed medics!

Just searched for a few reference... This may give an idea.

www.dw-world.de...

Regards

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by paraphi
Germany do deploy abroad. THey have a significant contingent in Afghanistan. They also deployed to the Balkans in force. The German navy has also bn active.

Regards

I do believe they are either medics or support units, thier constitution does prohibit them engaging war on foriegn soil I think.

Afghanistan:
Germany: approximately 2,250 troops including special forces, naval vessels, NBC cleanup teams. 18 German soldiers have been killed, but under ISAF.

Lebanon
Up to 2,400 navy personnel will patrol Lebanon's coast to prevent arms from reaching Hezbollah militants.

Well I guess I was wrong on thier constitution....ah well.

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by devilwasp
I do believe they are either medics or support units, thier constitution does prohibit them engaging war on foriegn soil I think.

Then they are very heavily armed medics!

Just searched for a few reference... This may give an idea.

www.dw-world.de...

Regards

That's a really funny link to the Germans in Mazar-al-Sharif [Afghanistan] because that was where the 1st Batallion RGBW-LI was based.

The German contribution to the so called war on terror are Medics, Loggies and Combat Engineers. They are being used by the UN in the NW and Central Provinces to rebuild villages and towns, increase sanitation, treat sick and wounded, rebuilt schools, clinics and houses. They are not there to fight the Taliban.

As I stated in my post EU Rapid Reaction Force, the German troops are prohibited by Law as laid down in their Constitution post WWII, from carrying out any type of warfare on foreign soil.

They are however, able to return fire if fired upon, as does any other UN force on peacekeeping duties.

Originally posted by fritz
The German contribution to the so called war on terror are Medics, Loggies and Combat Engineers. They are being used by the UN in the NW and Central Provinces to rebuild villages and towns, increase sanitation, treat sick and wounded, rebuilt schools, clinics and houses. They are not there to fight the Taliban.

As I stated in my post EU Rapid Reaction Force, the German troops are prohibited by Law as laid down in their Constitution post WWII, from carrying out any type of warfare on foreign soil.

They are however, able to return fire if fired upon, as does any other UN force on peacekeeping duties.

I think that you may be referring to Artilcle 26 of the German Constitution which I think states undertaking "war of aggression". The fact is that Germany contributes a large number of armed personnel to the "war on terrorism" and fields a large number in Afghanistan where the rules of engagement (being NATO and not UN) are quite robust and proactive. We can only speculate whether German soldiers sit passively waiting to be attacked or whether they are a bit more proactive... I think the latter applies.

German forces are also deployed off the horn of Africa, in Congo (I believe), Kosovo and Bosnia and in the Mediterranean, as well as other places too no doubt.

Regards

Yes Sir, I am.

I also draw your attention to the Article in it's entirety:

Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)

1. Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
2. Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details will be regulated by a Federal Law.

Also, Article 65a (Power of command over the Armed Forces) [Ammended 24 June 1968]

Power of command in respect of the Armed Forces shall be vested In the Federal Minister of Defense.

Also, Article 87a. (Establishment and powers of the Armed Forces) (Added March 19, 1956)

1. The Federation shall establish Armed Forces for Defense purposes. Their numerical strength and general organizational structure shall be shown in the budget.
2. Apart from Defense, the Armed Forces may only be used insofar as explicitly permitted by this Basic Law.
3. While a state of Defense or a state of tension exists, the Armed Forces shall have the power to protect civilian property and discharge functions of traffic control insofar as this is necessary for the performance of their Defense mission. Moreover, the Armed Forces may, when a state of Defense or a state of tension exists, be entrusted with the protection of civilian property also in support of police measures; in this event the Armed Forces shall cooperate with the competent authorities.
4. In order to avert any imminent danger to the existence or to the free democratic basic order of the Federation or a Land, the Federal Government may, should conditions as envisaged in paragraph (2) of Article 91 obtain and the police forces and the Federal Border Guard be inadequate, use the Armed Forces to support the police and the Federal Border Guard in the protection of civilian property and in combating organized and militantly armed insurgents. Any such use of the Armed Forces shall be discontinued whenever the Bundestag or the Bundesrat so demands.


I think the above just about covers all eventualities and I believe that the Articles above, prevent German forces from taking offensive and/or warlike action.

Given planned force expansion, Europe will field 4 fleet aircaft carriers as well as more than half a dozen smaller escort carriers and numerous surface warships by 2015. Combined with the Airbus A400M and aerial refueling tanker orders, this sea power will, if placed at EU disposal, unquestionably achieve superpower status for Europe.

Ah-ha, this is from Wikipedia, the user-edited encyclopedia... which explains why it is so stupid, factually incorrect, and propaganda-wise misleading. Anyone can edit that encyclopedia and write whatever lies or idiotisms he wishes to write.

Facts are facts though, only two EU countries have ordered any aircraft carriers, two of them will be crappy, and one of the other two (PA2) will be a good ship except being conventionally-powered (ever heard of the oil crisis?), which leaves Europe with only one world-class aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. At the command of a sovereign country, France, unless the EU constitution is adopted.

As for "hyperpower status of Europe" - don't make me laugh. Europe is everyday becoming more and more irrelevant. It is replacing F-4s... with a Europrestige fighter that was never intended to be a good plane (other countries are already using or buying F-16s - aircraft that the USAF will retire in 5 years). Europe's navy is inferior to the USCG, never mind the USN. How many nuclear powered subs does Europe have?

hello zibi (again), can tell its you the way you write & the way you flood the message board

Originally posted by PatrioticAmerican

Facts are facts though, only two EU countries have ordered any aircraft carriers, two of them will be crappy, and one of the other two (PA2) will be a good ship except being conventionally-powered (ever heard of the oil crisis?), which leaves Europe with only one world-class aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle. At the command of a sovereign country, France, unless the EU constitution is adopted.

As for "hyperpower status of Europe" - don't make me laugh. Europe is everyday becoming more and more irrelevant. It is replacing F-4s... with a Europrestige fighter that was never intended to be a good plane (other countries are already using or buying F-16s - aircraft that the USAF will retire in 5 years). Europe's navy is inferior to the USCG, never mind the USN. How many nuclear powered subs does Europe have?

I know you've been banned, Zibi, but I am going to post a reply anyway.

I see you seem to think that the new CVF is "crappy". Not sure how you came to that conclusion. It's the largest and most advanced ship ever to be constructed by the Royal Navy. It may be smaller than a Nimitz, but size isn't everything you know.

As to the propulsion, there is a very good reason for not having Nuclear Power.

Cost.

The Charles de Gaulle is seriously unwanted by the French due to the complexity and cost of maintaining the Nuclear ship. The new CVF's will be gas powered (not oil) and there is more than enough Gas in the world to provide them with power for hundreds of years. Gas supplies globally outstrip oil by a large amount.

If you can't get it out the ground, you can make it if you really want to. It will still be cheaper than maintaining a nuclear reactor and then disposing of it later on.

You really do have it in for the Eurofighter, don't you? Despite the fact that it has proven to be able to outfly the F-15, the plane with the best combat record in the world. I am not going to say any more than that.

As for your question on how many nuclear sub's Europe has, the answer is 20. Between the UK and France alone. There are another 7 planned for construction by the 2011. Here is a breakdown:

3 SSBN Triumphants in service. 1 planned. France
4 SSBN Vanguard Class in service. UK
6 Astute Class planned. Expected insv 2011. UK
6 Amethyst in service. France
7 Trafalgar Class. 7 in service. UK.

Not a bad number. I know the US has around 72 in service, but they spend a great deal more. I believe (may be worng) that the 51 LA Class are to replaced by 30 NNSN Virginia Class, so the overall number looks likely to reduce.