The European Union Military?

Originally posted by devilwasp
A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.

I don't know if I agree with that, while Europe has excellent equipment and training, the US military is the most experienced military in the world, and experience goes a lot further than practice. For that matter, it is one of the most practiced as well, with more training hours and flight hours than any other western military (the South Koreans and Japanese beat all westerners in these catagories btw).

While in side by side comparisons I can think of areas where a European weapon system beats a US weapon system, in the 21st century we have reached a joint era of warfare, and in that regard it becomes the whole of the parts not the parts of the whole that militaries are measured.

One of the major lessons of Afghanistan so far is there are serious command and control issues between European units of different nations. There have been too many instances where units of two different European nations can't communicate without relaying through a headquarters.

It is noteworthy the US has had this problem as well, and it has caused friendly fires incidents with the USAF and alleis on the ground.

Originally posted by darksided
I don't know if I agree with that, while Europe has excellent equipment and training, the US military is the most experienced military in the world, and experience goes a lot further than practice.

Umm may I ask how you come to this conclusion?
I do believe that france and britain have probably been in mroe smaller wars than the US has in the last 50 years. Dare I mention northern ireland?

For that matter, it is one of the most practiced as well, with more training hours and flight hours than any other western military

May I ask how you come to this conclusion as well?

Total manhours of training might give them "more" but that doesn't mean the per person time is higher.

I agree that EU troops have been sent to smaller warzones more often then the US, but when it comes to true battle experience as a whole, they don't.

I'm fairly certain that if needed, the EU will decide on a centralized command that has direct control over the troops, but as long as its like it is now in Afghanistan, with every nation sending troops and every nation commanding these troops as proxy's to the central command, a true "force" won't be established.

We do have the amount of troops, the quality of equipment and the quality of training but the troops have to little experience fighting side by side with soldiers from other nations as their equals and teammates.

I do have to say though that training and organisation as a whole is improving.

Over the last few weeks, several EU nations had a joint exersize on belgian and german soil, made specificaly to let them work as 1 military rather then cooperating with each other.

battle experience? every generation of british troops have experienced combat!

no offence but before WW2 america never even had a military, WW1 they used all british & french equipment and just committed huge amounts of 'men' during WW1.

britain have been in wars all throughout our history, all that knowedge gets passed down & passed down & passed down to the next generation.

even in recent history fighting 2 world wars from start to finish/korean/ireland/peacekeeping dutys/both gulf wars/alfganistan/falklands (from the top of my head)..i'm not denying the fact america have experience, but british training of troops i would argue with ANYONE is the best in the world, even many people (non british) on ATS have agreed with that statement.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by st3ve_o]

The EU Rapid Reaction Force - or should it be called a Rapid Reaction Farce, was an idea kicking around the halls of power in Brussels, sometime around 1996.

By 1999 [?] there was supposed to be a Multinational Force, in principal

Comprising 5 or 6, 1500 strong Brigades, the EU RRF should be able to deploy at 15 days notice, anywhere in the world, but most notably the African continent. [To protect EU interests[?]]

Individual governments have failled to ratify verbal agreements and the Germans certainly have problems with their post-war constitution that forbids German troops deploying for combat operations on foreign soil.

Britain was, I think, supposed to contribute 16 Air Assault Brigade with an artillery battalion and a light armour [Recce] regiment and I believe I'm right in thinking the whole RRF was to be fully operational by April 2007.

I remember questions in the House at the time, as the Conservatives did not like the idea of UK forces coming under direct orders from Brussels and I'm sure there were some in the military who voiced their concerns that Labour was scaleing down UK forces in order to fund a European Army.

To date, only Britain has made any serious committment to the EU RRF, but I suppose the recent deployment of French forces to southern Lebanon in some ways counts as part of the EU RRF.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by fritz]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by fritz]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by fritz]

Originally posted by fritz
Individual governments have failled to ratify verbal agreements and the Germans certainly have problems with their post-war constitution that forbids German troops deploying for combat operations on foreign soil.

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

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.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
no offence but before WW2 america never even had a military, WW1 they used all british & french equipment and just committed huge amounts of 'men' during WW1.

Well we did equip most of our infantry ourselves. We fielded the BAR(Browning Automatic Rifle) and the Springfield M1903. But in terms of artillery, aircraft and tanks we used british and french equipment.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
even in recent history fighting 2 world wars from start to finish/korean/ireland/peacekeeping dutys/both gulf wars/alfganistan/falklands (from the top of my head)..i'm not denying the fact america have experience, but british training of troops i would argue with ANYONE is the best in the world, even many people (non british) on ATS have agreed with that statement.

Yeah right I'd challenge anyone to say they've got more experience than us at blowing stuff (people) up. But yeah the Brits put way more into training then we do and it shows.

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.

There are German special forces units in Afghanistan as well. Wonder what would that mean.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
no offence but before WW2 america never even had a military, WW1 they used all british & french equipment and just committed huge amounts of 'men' during WW1.

We had a military force long before WW2. It was just smaller then even small European countries' military. Under FDR, he increased budget for the U.S. military, especially the Navy.

One of the biggest hurdles that the EU faces in military integration is communications and deciding on uniform weapons systems. The logistics of having multiple armies with different weapons systems will make a huge problem for the EU should it ever get involved in something major. How many different MBT do European countries have for example? They will need to streamline those issues if they are to be a very good fighting force that can sustain their projection of force for a long period of time.

Originally posted by pavil
One of the biggest hurdles that the EU faces in military integration is communications and deciding on uniform weapons systems. The logistics of having multiple armies with different weapons systems will make a huge problem for the EU should it ever get involved in something major. How many different MBT do European countries have for example? They will need to streamline those issues if they are to be a very good fighting force that can sustain their projection of force for a long period of time.

That is a great point.

Amatures talk tactics, experts discuss logistics.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm may I ask how you come to this conclusion?
I do believe that france and britain have probably been in mroe smaller wars than the US has in the last 50 years. Dare I mention northern ireland?

It is reality, for the last 5 years the US Military and the UK military have been deployed at high operational tempo for all branches of their armed services. There are few soldiers today in either army that don't have real and present battlefield experience, and virtually every NCO and CO in both Armies have multiple years experience.

The weapon systems of both militaries today have been tested on the battlefield, developed from battlefield experience, and designed for battlefield requirement.

You can mention Northern Ireland all you want, but I have no idea what point you could possibily make that surpasses Afgahnistan or Iraq. Afgahnistan was the place that crushed the Soviet Army at the height of the cold war, and the US and UK took it down with a reinforced bridgade plus a combined special operations regiment.

The combined US and UK forces completely crushed the largest military in the middle east only 3 years ago using 4 divisions and 9 brigades, and did it in less than 30 days. Both countries, despite constant threat since March 2003, have incredibly low causalties which are historically invisable in wartime, and are lower than every other country (except Australia) statistically engaged in war in Afgahnistan or anywhere else today, including believe it or not, the Indian Army casuality rate in UN peacekeeping operations!

Think about it, the death rate in Iraq for US soldiers is lower than the death rate of US soldiers doing training exercises in peacetime in the 80s and 90s. Remember, over 3000 military personal on average died per year in training for the US military in 80s and 90s, but the US military has only had 3000 people die in an all out war for 3 full years in Iraq. Perspective is an amazing thing.

To answer your question, I come to these conclusions by reading the data, and presenting it honestly and fairly.

Originally posted by devilwasp
May I ask how you come to this conclusion as well?

Sure.

That is what I call growing pains. I think it should be pointed out the US, Canadians, and Australians have had the same problems. Any country not engaged that thinks they don't have similar, if not worse problems, are living in a world of military hubris.

A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HAHAHAHAHAHA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-Snort-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Thank you. :]

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.

Do you require a tissue to clean up the mess you made from that wet dream?

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Cruelapathy
A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.

Do you require a tissue to clean up the mess you made from that wet dream?

Oh, Oh Seeker, hold me..
I'm.. I'm laughing so hard..
I think.. I think .. Oh god, the room is going black..
*Heavy panting*
So good.. so very, very good..

Originally posted by pavil
One of the biggest hurdles that the EU faces in military integration is communications and deciding on uniform weapons systems. The logistics of having multiple armies with different weapons systems will make a huge problem for the EU should it ever get involved in something major. How many different MBT do European countries have for example? They will need to streamline those issues if they are to be a very good fighting force that can sustain their projection of force for a long period of time.

definitely, i agree - i think the only solution would be one of the following:-

1) different regiments of nations (if you will), each designed to do a specalist job.
2) EU operating on the same lines how NATO dutys work (each nation taking its turn)
3) combat dutys (like iraq), split into groups... britain in basra/US in baghdad.

i agree its no good having numerous people, speaking different languages fighting in the same zone together at once, therefore you've got to split people into groups and give seperate missions..

it's a method that worked quite well in the world wars.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by devilwasp
A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.

Which countries would those be? The Brits are better trained but don't nearly have the kit us yanks get(at least I here that from lots of Brits). Are you talking about the French or the Germans?

edit: Quote Correction sorry Cruelapathy

[edit on 3-10-2006 by danwild6]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by danwild6]

I like to quickly point out, that was a quote from the first page.
I'm not [expletive]-for-brains enough to believe that.

Originally posted by darksided
It is reality, for the last 5 years the US Military and the UK military have been deployed at high operational tempo for all branches of their armed services. There are few soldiers today in either army that don't have real and present battlefield experience, and virtually every NCO and CO in both Armies have multiple years experience.

May I stop you right there, the UK is currently one of the largest members of the EU and had the presidancy last year for it. Ergo makes up part of the EU's experience.

The weapon systems of both militaries today have been tested on the battlefield, developed from battlefield experience, and designed for battlefield requirement.

Almost all of the EU's main weaponry is battle tested, infact both the armies you listed USE alot of those weapons.

You can mention Northern Ireland all you want, but I have no idea what point you could possibily make that surpasses Afgahnistan or Iraq. Afgahnistan was the place that crushed the Soviet Army at the height of the cold war, and the US and UK took it down with a reinforced bridgade plus a combined special operations regiment.

Look up NI then come back and tell me it was a walk in the park compared to afghanistan.

The combined US and UK forces completely crushed the largest military in the middle east only 3 years ago using 4 divisions and 9 brigades, and did it in less than 30 days. Both countries, despite constant threat since March 2003, have incredibly low causalties which are historically invisable in wartime, and are lower than every other country (except Australia) statistically engaged in war in Afgahnistan or anywhere else today, including believe it or not, the Indian Army casuality rate in UN peacekeeping operations!

Iraq had no where near our level of military powers, we didnt so much fight them as slaughtered them.
Bumble bees vs asian hornets.
Also the UK and US did not do it alone, you might remember the small but well used forces of the coalition that went in.

Think about it, the death rate in Iraq for US soldiers is lower than the death rate of US soldiers doing training exercises in peacetime in the 80s and 90s. Remember, over 3000 military personal on average died per year in training for the US military in 80s and 90s, but the US military has only had 3000 people die in an all out war for 3 full years in Iraq. Perspective is an amazing thing.

The UK has had over 100 dead, thats the worst casualty rating since the faklands war. I for one do NOT see this as good.

Originally posted by devilwasp
May I ask how you come to this conclusion as well?

That is what I call growing pains. I think it should be pointed out the US, Canadians, and Australians have had the same problems. Any country not engaged that thinks they don't have similar, if not worse problems, are living in a world of military hubris.

What does this have to do with training?

Originally posted by danwild6
Which countries would those be? The Brits are better trained but don't nearly have the kit us yanks get(at least I here that from lots of Brits). Are you talking about the French or the Germans?

edit: Quote Correction sorry Cruelapathy

[edit on 3-10-2006 by danwild6]

[edit on 3-10-2006 by danwild6]

Well for the size of germany thier equipment is superb, not to mention finland the fact that several western countries send thier men to train from the finish due to thier training and experience in the winter conditions.

The UK on the kit level yeah every squaddie doesnt have the boots (which is what happens when you spend more on computers than equipment grr!) but speaking generally, we have the best armoured tank in the world, the top production non stealth plane in the world and one the best armed navies in the world.

The size and impact of the nations inside the EU may be restricted but they are certainly more than well equipped and trained but US standards.
I am not saying they pack more punch they are simply better equiped and trained longer.