EU creates nine battle groups

[mustamato]

About a month ago Germany and France proposed the creation of a ”The
Battle groups Concept”, nothing has been decided yet, but several other
countries are interested in the concept as well. The idea is that EU can take
care of problems in example in Africa after that the UN has given its approval
mainly, even though they can be used without UN approval as well. In December
all countries shall have handed over a list of which units they have ready to be
part of their national battle group.

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/mustamato/EUstrid_831.gif

From http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_7056232.asp (I just translated some text).

1991: European community becomes European Union that in the "long
term" will have a common defence in accordance to the Maastricht treaty. The war
in Yugoslavia erupts and EU can´t do anything about it.

1997: When Albania collapses EU does little. In a Swedish-Finnish proposal
it´s said that EU shall have the right to act (send military forces to non-EU countries)
and that this shall be written into the Amsterdam treaty.

1998: During the Kosovo crisis Tony Blair and Jaques Chirac, during a
meeting in St Malo agrees to that EU must have a military capacity.

1999: The EU-top summit in Köln confirms the military peacerole of the EU,
and in the top summit in Helsinki it is agreed that a catalog of 60.000 soldiers
will be ready in 2003. The role model is the NATO-forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

2003: NATO and EU agrees about co-operation. EU´s first mission in Congo
shows that EU needs small, fast reaction units.

[Ichhabe]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help.

[fdt]

Who will decide whether to send or not the particular Group?
Who is EU here (a propos the EU own troops) - a commission, council or some other body?
How the deployment will be consulted (if ever) with national govts?
Will there be any equipment standarization among the Groups?
How the heck they are going to transport the MBT's via Hercules ["the 1500 landings to deploy" :roll: ] or even A-400?

[fdt]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help. Hmmm many decades? How many? Enlighten me :lol: .

[mustamato]

Who will decide whether to send or not the particular Group?
Who is EU here (a propos the EU own troops) - a commission, council or some other body?
How the deployment will be consulted (if ever) with national govts?
Will there be any equipment standarization among the Groups?
How the heck they are going to transport the MBT's via Hercules ["the 1500 landings to deploy" :roll: ] or even A-400?

1.) The country itself decides if it wants to be part of the mission or not. But I
really can´t think that any country would say "no thanks" if there was a new
crisis in the Balkans for example.

2.) Equipment standardization is not a big problem, most of these countries
are NATO already, and those that isn´t (in example Finland which uses a lot of
russian calibres) haven´t to my knowledge had any problems with this when
attending UN-missions abroad. Radio equipment and so forth is mostly NATO-standard
(as the newest field radio that is even made in USA). And if the Germans and
French is wearing different uniforms, well I don´t think no one could care less.

3.) And the "this is how many Hercules landings it takes" was of course just a
simple illustration. They will of course not send tanks with Hercules. Let´s say that
the mission is to restore order in Albania, then most of the tanks will of course
be sent with railroad as close as possible, or with boat or whatever. It´s not a problem.

[Old300]

It's interesting that these forces may be used with or without UN approval. I assume that means that a battle group may deploy without UN permission only if one of the countries participating in The Battle Group scheme is attacked. And, if so, that would preclude its use in places like Kosovo, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and the Ivory Coast (unless, of course, the UN authorized action in one of those countries - something that it did not do when some European countries invaded those places). And since an attack on any Battle Group-participating country is extremely unlikely, I wonder whether they will be much use at all, beyond making a political statement about European independence from le hyperpuissance.

[Ichhabe]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help. Hmmm many decades? How many? Enlighten me :lol: .

My opinion: 1975. :P

[Old300]

or, uh, 1999?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/27/kosovo.war.crimes/

[Dalleer]

Hmm, am I to understand that Finland and Sweden will share a joint-command position?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Really good idea I think
good luck to my European allies

[fdt]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help. Hmmm many decades? How many? Enlighten me :lol: .

My opinion: 1975. :PMake it 1985... so it gives 1,8 of decade :D . Helsinki accord (if You mean that) was not a Cold war's end.

[fdt]

Who will decide whether to send or not the particular Group?
Who is EU here (a propos the EU own troops) - a commission, council or some other body?
How the deployment will be consulted (if ever) with national govts?
Will there be any equipment standarization among the Groups?
How the heck they are going to transport the MBT's via Hercules ["the 1500 landings to deploy" :roll: ] or even A-400?

1.) The country itself decides if it wants to be part of the mission or not. But I
really can´t think that any country would say "no thanks" if there was a new
crisis in the Balkans for example.

2.) Equipment standardization is not a big problem, most of these countries
are NATO already, and those that isn´t (in example Finland which uses a lot of
russian calibres) haven´t to my knowledge had any problems with this when
attending UN-missions abroad. Radio equipment and so forth is mostly NATO-standard
(as the newest field radio that is even made in USA). And if the Germans and
French is wearing different uniforms, well I don´t think no one could care less.

3.) And the "this is how many Hercules landings it takes" was of course just a
simple illustration. They will of course not send tanks with Hercules. Let´s say that
the mission is to restore order in Albania, then most of the tanks will of course
be sent with railroad as close as possible, or with boat or whatever. It´s not a problem. One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

[Ichhabe]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help. Hmmm many decades? How many? Enlighten me :lol: .

My opinion: 1975. :PMake it 1985... so it gives 1,8 of decade :D . Helsinki accord (if You mean that) was not a Cold war's end.

I was thinking of SALT I... 1972 I think... :P

[fdt]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help. Hmmm many decades? How many? Enlighten me :lol: .

My opinion: 1975. :PMake it 1985... so it gives 1,8 of decade :D . Helsinki accord (if You mean that) was not a Cold war's end.

I was thinking of SALT I... 1972 I think... :PA bit disputable assumption... but anyway any other date will be assumption too... so be it. :D

[Ichhabe]

I agree with you on that fdt. This would only apply in a perfect world. But Hey! It is nice to dream.

[mustamato]

It's interesting that these forces may be used with or without UN approval. I assume that means that a battle group may deploy without UN permission only if one of the countries participating in The Battle Group scheme is attacked. And, if so, that would preclude its use in places like Kosovo, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and the Ivory Coast (unless, of course, the UN authorized action in one of those countries - something that it did not do when some European countries invaded those places). And since an attack on any Battle Group-participating country is extremely unlikely, I wonder whether they will be much use at all, beyond making a political statement about European independence from le hyperpuissance.

Hm, I have a slight feeling of that you don´t really have understood the
purpose with these battle groups. There is at the moment natonal armies
in each European state, these contribute to the "EU-army" (Eurocorps,
about 60.000 men strong), this is not really intended to defend EU, but nowadays
mainly to be a rapid deployment force to hotspots outside EU, as in example
the Balkans.

These new units will be rather small but rapid deployment, within 15 days.
These are not exactly "main armies" intended to defend EU, rather
spearhead units in peace-keeping and peace-inforcing missions
outside EU. That would primarily be Africa. The first of these missions
was the one in Congo, although in a very small scale and only in a small
region in the huge Congo. In the future they will be of the same concept,
but only in larger scale.

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/2391781.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=6FC2412928C29F9E8017FB523E2D8198
Swedish soldiers (SF) in Congo as part of the EU-mission there that was intended
to pave way for UN peacekeepers.

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/mustamato/svenska_soldater_i_kongo.jpg
Congo again, French-Swedish-Belgian soldiers

Interesting with this picture is that there has been reports that the Swedes
and French soldiers working together had problems communicating. As we
all know most French can´t speak very good english, and most Swedes can´t
speak a word French or the French Swedish. Not that good...


One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers.

[fantassin]

I am sure I would have no problem communicating with a Lotta...

[cut]

It's interesting that these forces may be used with or without UN approval. I assume that means that a battle group may deploy without UN permission only if one of the countries participating in The Battle Group scheme is attacked. And, if so, that would preclude its use in places like Kosovo, Haiti, Sierra Leone, and the Ivory Coast (unless, of course, the UN authorized action in one of those countries - something that it did not do when some European countries invaded those places). And since an attack on any Battle Group-participating country is extremely unlikely, I wonder whether they will be much use at all, beyond making a political statement about European independence from le hyperpuissance.

It will be able to act like NATO does now, so it will be available for the likes of Kosovo, Haiti, Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. The way I see it is not as a political statement (as you obviously do), but more as a way of using the resources of european smaller armies of the of the EU that on their own are unable to act independently like the US does.

This would mean that the US or the other major powers don't have to do all the global "policing". In other words alowing the US to do it's own thing without worrying about over-stretching. At the same time it means armies from Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, the Czech Republic will see more action and not have to wait around for the UN or NATO. It also gives more independence from the US which means the EU could fight it's own wars.

[fdt]

One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers. Well if that's so, it's a bit premature to tell that it's an a "core of EU own forces". If there is no separate command, if there is no procedure of "use" the Force by the decision of some EU body if there are no separate funds of this military Force that come from EU own budget.... there is no EU Force. Hopefully it will develop, but so far it looks like some kinda political accord of the member states that maybe beginning of the beginning... sort of a kindergarten for future EU Military Identity. Well, we will see what good comes of it.

[mustamato]

One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers. Well if that's so, it's a bit premature to tell that it's an a "core of EU own forces". If there is no separate command, if there is no procedure of "use" the Force by the decision of some EU body if there are no separate funds of this military Force that come from EU own budget.... there is no EU Force. Hopefully it will develop, but so far it looks like some kinda political accord of the member states that maybe beginning of the beginning... sort of a kindergarten for future EU Military Identity. Well, we will see what good comes of it.

What? In case you have´t noticed EU is not a country like USA, it´s a union
of independent states. And if you don´t think that EU has a rapid deployment
force, well that´s too bad for you, because this is the reality -> http://www.eurocorps.org/

These new proposed combat groups will be the "spearhead" of these.

[perdurabo]

One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers. Well if that's so, it's a bit premature to tell that it's an a "core of EU own forces". If there is no separate command, if there is no procedure of "use" the Force by the decision of some EU body if there are no separate funds of this military Force that come from EU own budget.... there is no EU Force. Hopefully it will develop, but so far it looks like some kinda political accord of the member states that maybe beginning of the beginning... sort of a kindergarten for future EU Military Identity. Well, we will see what good comes of it.

What? In case you have´t noticed EU is not a country like USA, it´s a union
of independent states. And if you don´t think that EU has a rapid deployment
force, well that´s too bad for you, because this is the reality -> http://www.eurocorps.org/

These new proposed combat groups will be the "spearhead" of these.
hmmmm:)
It will be good if they equipment will be compatibile (sp?) and it that forces will have enough means of transportation to rapid delivery :) EU funding would be niece too (like take some money from farmers and give it for military)

[M1A2U2]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

[wholagun]

Yes Poland is in it.. nice any figures on how much each country will contribute?

[wholagun]

It will be good if they equipment will be compatibile (sp?) and it that forces will have enough means of transportation to rapid delivery EU funding would be niece too (like take some money from farmers and give it for military)

Yes I hate farmers, and I fvcking hate CAP, its biggest bull**** ever. If the Polish and French famers don't like it they can go kiss my ass cause I would get rid of it so fast.




Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US


Dude get over yourself, this isn't about counter weighing against US hegemony
Look who's in it Poland, Great Britain, Italy, Spain - funny how thse countries suppored US war in Iraq and all have troops there.

[Ichhabe]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

Just out of curiosity: Why is that wrong? Are we supposed to be your puppets?

[wholagun]

I know that Polands new F16's Block 52 will be part of the rapid strike force since we have the most modern F16s in Europe it kinda made sense to have our jets for ground assult.

[Vance]

Someone explain what the EU is - is it just like NATO, except for Europe only?

[-Max2-]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

:cantbeli:

You are an idiot...

[USMarine3521]

so its going to be sort of like a MEU(SOC)?

[fdt]

What? In case you have´t noticed EU is not a country like USA, it´s a union
of independent states. And if you don´t think that EU has a rapid deployment
force, well that´s too bad for you, because this is the reality -> http://www.eurocorps.org/

These new proposed combat groups will be the "spearhead" of these.Please.... In case You didn't notice the reality, it's too bad for You, because in the real life Eurocorps is just a few hundred well paid posts for fat staff officers.... nothing more. Giving it a fine name doesn't make it an independent operational force under the EU political and operational command.... or smth that can be a framework for such. It's possible that in future when the EU defense identity will crystalize the name remains but it will have to be filled with a completely new political and operational structures.
As it comes to the "union of independent states" :roll: see what the new (and first) EU constitution tends to create... smth that will not be just a "union of IS" but a completely new subject of international law. Whether You like it or not all scandinavian countries have backed the idea in Brussels at 13th of Dec. 2003. Creating the "spearheads" without first dealing with political reality is rather premature, as they will have to change completely in the future.

[aeternum]

Those interested into the original paper, the outline of these batte group, can read it up here:

http://www.geopowers.com/Allianzen/EU/akt_eu/RRF_BGConcept.pdf

[fdt]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

Just out of curiosity: Why is that wrong? Are we supposed to be your puppets?Huh, why is it always to be said. Does really a buildup of EU military capabilities must be seen as an attempt to create a counterbalance for NATO and US? When You go to the gym, does it always mean that You want to fight with someone? Is it so strange that some people (and subjects of international law) can do it just for health?

[Parzival]

Sweden has a higher military expenditures than Poland but they share there battlegroup with Finland. Shame Sweden! :slap:
And European Union should stop make use of poor Poland! :bash:

[Parzival]

Someone explain what the EU is - is it just like NATO, except for Europe only?
No, Is more like USA. EU got there own Consulution and laws. Even if the countrys got there own laws to. And we don't need pass or something like that to go fly or drive to another EU country. If you live in Sweden yiou don't need any pass if you want to drive to France. No pass control. Is more like the USA.

[fdt]

Sweden has a higher military expenditures than Poland but they share there battlegroup with Finland. Shame Sweden! :slap:
And European Union should stop make use of poor Poland! :bash:Calm down. It won't be any extra expenditures involved for Poland nor for any other country. It will be simple labeling some existing unit with the "Euro Battlegroup" sticker... or just a mix of some sub units taken from different existing units. There will be no hiring the new girls for that funhouse, it's just moving the beds.

[wholagun]

Sweden has a higher military expenditures than Poland but they share there battlegroup with Finland. Shame Sweden!
And European Union should stop make use of poor Poland!


No no, use us, use us.
I want to be in this battle group. Our military capibility is getting better and better.
By being in this thing other countries see that we are not users and freeloaders after all, I want to show EU that we have something to contribute.

[fdt]

Sweden has a higher military expenditures than Poland but they share there battlegroup with Finland. Shame Sweden!
And European Union should stop make use of poor Poland!


No no, use us, use us.
I want to be in this battle group. Our military capibility is getting better and better.
By being in this thing other countries see that we are not users and freeloaders after all, I want to show EU that we have something to contribute. ;) Postaw się a zastaw się... Sorry I don't translate. ;)

[Parzival]

Sweden has a higher military expenditures than Poland but they share there battlegroup with Finland. Shame Sweden!
And European Union should stop make use of poor Poland!


No no, use us, use us.
I want to be in this battle group. Our military capibility is getting better and better.
By being in this thing other countries see that we are not users and freeloaders after all, I want to show EU that we have something to contribute.
Yea, Of course. But if Poland charge of one group, Sweden and Netherland should do the same.

[gorg]

I don't know about Poland but I don't belive Sweden has the capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup.

[Parzival]

I don't know about Poland but I don't belive Sweden has the capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup.
Well, They have a higher militarybudget than Poland. I don't really understand whata hell are you talking about???!!!!!!!

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I don't know about Poland but I don't belive Sweden has the capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup.
What makes you think things like that, don't think there would be any problems with that. Not very far from an insult imo.
Not that I have anything against the finns, or the current plan.

[Ichhabe]

I don't know about Poland but I don't belive Sweden has the capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup.
What makes you think things like that, don't think there would be any problems with that. Not very far from an insult imo.
Not that I have anything against the finns, or the current plan.

Poland: population 38,622,660 (July 2003 est.)

against

Finland: population 5,190,785 (July 2003 est.)
Sweden: population 8,878,085 (July 2003 est.)
_______________________________________
Total population 14,068,870 (July 2003 est.)


Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

Do you really think that the Nordic countries can get the man power for that, and keeping it stable for the years to come?

This is made so that those Nordic countries also can contribute. It is just not a question about money, but man power. So just relax. ;)

[SOG]

sounds good and more hands on than the UN of late. should be fun to see the armies in action.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I don't know about Poland but I don't belive Sweden has the capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup.
What makes you think things like that, don't think there would be any problems with that. Not very far from an insult imo.
Not that I have anything against the finns, or the current plan.

Poland: population 38,622,660 (July 2003 est.)

against

Finland: population 5,190,785 (July 2003 est.)
Sweden: population 8,878,085 (July 2003 est.)
_______________________________________
Total population 14,068,870 (July 2003 est.)


Source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html


Do you really think that the Nordic countries can get the man power for that, and keeping it stable for the years to come?

This is made so that those Nordic countries also can contribute. It is just not a question about money, but man power. So just relax. ;)

So how is this relevant to the capability on having a battlegroup of 1500 men? If it was 150000 it would have been a quite different story.
I'm not saying that Sweden should have it's own battlegroup, just questioning the that Sweden don't have the "capability to be in charge of a own battlegroup".

[Ichhabe]

How many serve in the Swedish Army, Navy and Air Force then KalleBalleSvartSk@lle?
Remember that having 1500 men/women in combat readiness year after year does not only cost a lot of money, but also you need to have a steady flow of man power that is motivated for this kind of un-scandinavian service.

Respectfully I don't think Sweden, Finland or Norway have that capacity,...yet.

[Parzival]

Your idiots. Even if a country has a higher population it doesn't mean the country has a bigger military. Sweden have a much bigger military than Poland. Under the cold war between 1950-1970 we got the 3:e greatest airforce in the world e.t.c
The Swedish Military budget is about 4,5 billions US dollars at year. But under the cold war our military budget were a much bigger than that.
The Polish budget is about 3,5 billions US dollars at year.

[soma]

What's the main language? English?

[wholagun]

I don't mean to bragg but our national population is 38 million ya but world wide population is about 60 million.

Yeah I agree population doesn't matter, what matters is the equipment and training. I don't know how the heck the Poles will get from point A to B? We have some heavy lift capibility but hardly adequate for such a mission. We have a few spainish planes and US is giving us money for British C130s not to mention hummvees for special rapid reaction units.
Im not sure about Polish communications and how up to date they are. I can see Sweden having its own 1500 team easier then I do Poland having one.

Good question about language.

[cut]

What's the main language? English?

naturally

[Fioraon]

One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers. Well if that's so, it's a bit premature to tell that it's an a "core of EU own forces". If there is no separate command, if there is no procedure of "use" the Force by the decision of some EU body if there are no separate funds of this military Force that come from EU own budget.... there is no EU Force. Hopefully it will develop, but so far it looks like some kinda political accord of the member states that maybe beginning of the beginning... sort of a kindergarten for future EU Military Identity. Well, we will see what good comes of it.

What? In case you have´t noticed EU is not a country like USA, it´s a union
of independent states. And if you don´t think that EU has a rapid deployment
force, well that´s too bad for you, because this is the reality -> http://www.eurocorps.org/

These new proposed combat groups will be the "spearhead" of these.

FYI THE UNITED STATES IS A UNION.

[cut]

One more question I forgot to ask before. Will those Groups have smth like a common operational budget or any other form of the "pocket/milk money"?

Each country pays for their own soldiers. Well if that's so, it's a bit premature to tell that it's an a "core of EU own forces". If there is no separate command, if there is no procedure of "use" the Force by the decision of some EU body if there are no separate funds of this military Force that come from EU own budget.... there is no EU Force. Hopefully it will develop, but so far it looks like some kinda political accord of the member states that maybe beginning of the beginning... sort of a kindergarten for future EU Military Identity. Well, we will see what good comes of it.

What? In case you have´t noticed EU is not a country like USA, it´s a union
of independent states. And if you don´t think that EU has a rapid deployment
force, well that´s too bad for you, because this is the reality -> http://www.eurocorps.org/

These new proposed combat groups will be the "spearhead" of these.

FYI THE UNITED STATES IS A UNION.

of independent states? :roll: read what he wrote

[M1A2U2]

I have a right to an opinion...no one else does

[radon]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US
whee :cantbeli:. ... What is your opinion on how european countries managed doing something in the balkans in 1999? That would be interesting

[Backis]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

Just out of curiosity: Why is that wrong? Are we supposed to be your puppets?

Hey, they won't be able to whine about being the only dudes with a stick in troubled times any more...

–"Mr President, we must not allow a stick gap!" :roll:

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

The Swedish Military budget is about 4,5 billions US dollars at year. But under the cold war our military budget were a much bigger than that.
The Polish budget is about 3,5 billions US dollars at year.

It depends on how you count, I'm sure the polish armed forces are bigger than the swedish, our money goes to pay higher wages, shinier boots etc.
But to my point, currently there are 700-1000 men in deployed on various peace keeping missions. Source: http://www.mil.se/int/ (They are two different numbers, which is the most up to date I don't know).

[Parzival]

The Swedish Military budget is about 4,5 billions US dollars at year. But under the cold war our military budget were a much bigger than that.
The Polish budget is about 3,5 billions US dollars at year.

It depends on how you count, I'm sure the polish armed forces are bigger than the swedish, our money goes to pay higher wages, shinier boots etc.
But to my point, currently there are 700-1000 men in deployed on various peace keeping missions. Source: http://www.mil.se/int/ (They are two different numbers, which is the most up to date I don't know).
You could Stop be sure now. The Polish military is absolutly NOT bigger than the Swedish. Of course it depends on how you count, But let´s say we count soldiers and material.

[Backis]

You could Stop be sure now. The Polish military is absolutly NOT bigger than the Swedish. Of course it depends on how you count, But let´s say we count soldiers and material.

Numbers?

Sources?

Or just blowing stuff out your arse as usual? :roll:

[Marmot1]

As for poland curently 4400 soldiers are on various peacekeeping missions and usualy after 6months there is rotation so another 4400 are preparing for it (training etc.)

polish military budget for year 2004: 16.046.000.000 mln zł.
(1$ is ca. 3.8zł) this give 4.223.000.000$ - 1.95%GDP

[tooms]

You could Stop be sure now. The Polish military is absolutly NOT bigger than the Swedish. Of course it depends on how you count, But let´s say we count soldiers and material.

Keep cool ;) If that project works ( i'm pessimistic ), it will be a big step forward anyway. Don't be angry , it's certainly not a definitive plan .

[Tengu]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US :cantbeli: The idea is to have a more efficient militairy machine. We don't need to counter the US :bash:

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US :cantbeli: The idea is to have a more efficient militairy machine. We don't need to counter the US :bash:
No, that's phase C, which will come after Africa and Russia have become our serfs.

[Backis]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US :cantbeli: The idea is to have a more efficient militairy machine. We don't need to counter the US :bash:
No, that's phase C, which will come after Africa and Russia have become our serfs.

:lol:

[Parzival]

As for poland curently 4400 soldiers are on various peacekeeping missions and usualy after 6months there is rotation so another 4400 are preparing for it (training etc.)

polish military budget for year 2004: 16.046.000.000 mln zł.
(1$ is ca. 3.8zł) this give 4.223.000.000$ - 1.95%GDP
Doesn't matter, Our military budget are still higher. And we got absolutly more material and stuff. Under the cold wa we built and bought damn much weapons.

[Backis]

Doesn't matter, Our military budget are still higher. And we got absolutly more material and stuff. Under the cold wa we built and bought damn much weapons.

Most which by now have been given away (to the Baltics) or scrapped...

Figures and sources please... :roll:

[mack pl]

The strongest countries on the world-1)USA,2)Russia,3)Sweden ;)

[Backis]

The strongest countries on the world-1)USA,2)Russia,3)Sweden ;)

;)

Well, were at least the superpower of Scandinavia! :D

[M1A2U2]

mack pl wrote:
The strongest countries on the world-1)USA,2)Russia,3)Sweden




Well, were at least the superpower of Scandinavia!


im sorry is that funny? no no its not not at all you should all go die

[M1A2U2]

mack pl wrote:
The strongest countries on the world-1)USA,2)Russia,3)Sweden




Well, were at least the superpower of Scandinavia!


im sorry is that funny? no no its not not at all you should all go die

[Parzival]

The strongest countries on the world-1)USA,2)Russia,3)Sweden ;)
Yea, It was......between 1950-1975 If you count the airforce.

[Thor]

Primarily In the 1950's Sweden hade the fourth largest air force in the world.

[M1A2U2]

Primarily In the 1950's Sweden hade the fourth largest air force in the world.

congradulations...you must be really pround of yourself. in the 50's really? does it look like i give a sh*t about the 50's!! Give me call when sweden does anything worth note these days..beside sit on their ass and critisize....o they sent special forces to congo? great they might as well send special forces to my ass crack

[cut]

Isn't it sweden that has those stealth ships?

[Ichhabe]

Primarily In the 1950's Sweden hade the fourth largest air force in the world.

congradulations...you must be really pround of yourself. in the 50's really? does it look like i give a sh*t about the 50's!! Give me call when sweden does anything worth note these days..beside sit on their ass and critisize....o they sent special forces to congo? great they might as well send special forces to my ass crack

What is your problem?

And by the way, you still have not answered earlier questions.


Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

Care to give an in-deep answer on this one??? Or is is you way of reveal your self of gas instead of the normal way?

[M1A2U2]

dont get me started on norway...

[Ichhabe]

dont get me started on norway...

That would be quite interesting if you did. According to previouse post from you it seems like all you can say is: I'll decide that.

Seems like someone is of his medication without the doctors knowledge.

[Thor]

Primarily In the 1950's Sweden hade the fourth largest air force in the world.

congradulations...you must be really pround of yourself. in the 50's really? does it look like i give a sh*t about the 50's!! Give me call when sweden does anything worth note these days..beside sit on their ass and critisize....o they sent special forces to congo? great they might as well send special forces to my ass crack

I don't know who you are or what your deal is but also I could not care less.

[wholagun]

ichhabe just leave him, he's a 15 year old thats trying to get attention and his post count to go up so he can get an extra star.


Dude get a life.

[Thor]

Isn't it sweden that has those stealth ships?

Yup
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/index.html

[Backis]

dont get me started on norway...

I don't think you've started at all. At least your brain seem inert. :lol:

Chill out, the mods have warned about nation-bashing. Or are you actually looking for a vacation from here?

[cut]

ignore him he's having a psychotic episode

[Ichhabe]

ichhabe just leave him, he's a 15 year old thats trying to get attention and his post count to go up so he can get an extra star.


Dude get a life.

I just had a check on what he has been posting here. so I have to agree with:

cut said:


ignore him he's having a psychotic episode

Either puberty has kicked in really hard on him or he is developing something that is not good for him at all.

[Parzival]

Primarily In the 1950's Sweden hade the fourth largest air force in the world.
Not only in the 50's. In the period between 1950-1970.

M1A2U2, What is your Problemos :|

[kinghk]

Someone explain what the EU is - is it just like NATO, except for Europe only?
No, Is more like USA. EU got there own Consulution and laws. Even if the countrys got there own laws to. And we don't need pass or something like that to go fly or drive to another EU country. If you live in Sweden yiou don't need any pass if you want to drive to France. No pass control. Is more like the USA.

The lack of border control between the european states have nothing to do with EU, it is the Schengen agreement. I'm not a EU-citizen, but I'm still able to travel within most parts of Europe (not including UK and East-Europe) without showing a passport.

[mack pl]

Vacon-can you give us information about Swedish army(how many soldiers,MBT,airplains etc.) ?Im not interested what you have 30 years ago,but what you have now.BTW wich unit you will sent to this UE battle group?Regards.

[Parzival]

Someone explain what the EU is - is it just like NATO, except for Europe only?
No, Is more like USA. EU got there own Consulution and laws. Even if the countrys got there own laws to. And we don't need pass or something like that to go fly or drive to another EU country. If you live in Sweden yiou don't need any pass if you want to drive to France. No pass control. Is more like the USA.

The lack of border control between the european states have nothing to do with EU, it is the Schengen agreement. I'm not a EU-citizen, but I'm still able to travel within most parts of Europe (not including UK and East-Europe) without showing a passport.
Yep, You right. But is becouse of EU the Shengen exist.

[mustamato]

Vacon-can you give us information about Swedish army(how many soldiers,MBT,airplains etc.) ?Im not interested what you have 30 years ago,but what you have now.BTW wich unit you will sent to this UE battle group?Regards.

About the soldiers I don´t think anyone knows that todays since the Swedish
defence forces is in the midst of a huge ass re-organization. In example I myself,
like a couple of hundred thousand others a couple of months ago lost my wartime
duty, and just maybe I´m going to get a new one. But say, it´s about 200.000
soldiers. And which units will be part of the battle group is impossible to say because
of the re-organization. But since it will be a combined Finnish/Swedish battle group
I guess the finns will have atleast the artillery company, mortar, ATGM and perhaps
2 infantry companys and a shared HQ, and the Swedes the rest. The equipment
(Google on the name of the equipment you want more info about:

AIRPLANES

* JAS39 - ~250 (all versions)
* JA37 - ~300 (all versions)
* SH89 - 1
* TP84 - 8
* Stridsledningsflygplan S 100B - 3 (?)
* Signalspaningsflygplan S 102B - 2

HELICOPTERS

* Hkp4 - 14
* Hkp5 - 26
* Hkp6a/b - 19/10
* Hkp9a - 20
* Hkp10 - 10
* Hkp11 - 5
* Hkp14 - 18
* Hkp15 - 20

ARMOUR

* Strv122 - 120
* Strv121 - 160
* Strf90 - 509
* Pbv302 - 647
* Pbv401 - 610
* Pbv501 - 350
* Patgb 180 - 70
* Patgb 202 - 18
* Patgb 203 - >86
* Piranha 3 - ?

ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES

* Bv206 - ~4500
* Bv308 - ?
* Tgb11/3 - ?
* Tgb20 - ?
* Tgb30/40 - ~2700

BOATS

* Grpb - 100
* Strb90e/h - 40/147
* Tpbs200 - ?


U-BOATS

* Ubåt Gotland - 3
* Ubåt Västergötland - 4


SHIPS

* Korvett Visby - 6 to be delivered
* Korvett Stockholm - 2
* Korvett Göteborg - 4
* Minfartyg Carlskrona - 1
* Minröjningsfartyg Landsort - 7
* Minröjningsfartyg Styrsö - 4
* Hydrofonbojfartyg Ejdern - 4
* Robotbåt Ystad - ?
* Torped och robotbärgningsfartyg - 2
* Patrullbåt Kaparen - ?
* Ubåtsräddningsfartyg Belos - 1
* Signalspaningsfartyg Orion - 1 st

(Not a complete list, artillery etc is missing)

[dan27]

:lol:

what a whorehouse here ! you re quarrelling while we still are 15 EU countries . but what it will be with 10 more ? :)
all i know is northern countries has got a very good military technology but i do know anything about poland ,so ?

polish , dont forget ,next time , to choose EU weapons :) its easier to shape battle groups if the guys has got the same material ...
furhtermore, i think that europe should build unique european weapons and clothing and ,surely , forget those flags on their jacket ( a EU flag should be better).

[Sixgun Symphony]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help.

Agreed,

The European nations could take care of themselves were they to spend more on their defense rather than on their welfare states.

Better for national security to have a few aircraft carrier battle groups rather than the millions of "asylum seekers" living on the public dole.

[cut]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help.

Agreed,

The European nations could take care of themselves were they to spend more on their defense rather than on their welfare states.

Better for national security to have a few aircraft carrier battle groups rather than the millions of "asylum seekers" living on the public dole.

there's no real point until we get decnt military cooperation going

[Parzival]

:lol:

what a whorehouse here ! you re quarrelling while we still are 15 EU countries . but what it will be with 10 more ? :)
all i know is northern countries has got a very good military technology but i do know anything about poland ,so ?

polish , dont forget ,next time , to choose EU weapons :) its easier to shape battle groups if the guys has got the same material ...
furhtermore, i think that europe should build unique european weapons and clothing and ,surely , forget those flags on their jacket ( a EU flag should be better).
I agree. But actually when the swedish/france elite troops fought in Congo 2003, They got uniforms with the EU flag on :) I think the Eropean Union should build there own weapons, Vehicles e.t.c Well, Eurofighter is an european fighter :) Almost..

[Parzival]

Vacon-can you give us information about Swedish army(how many soldiers,MBT,airplains etc.) ?Im not interested what you have 30 years ago,but what you have now.BTW wich unit you will sent to this UE battle group?Regards.
We will probaly send the Airborne Rangers. For 10 years ago our army were 100% bigger but now we got about 250.000 soldiers after mobilize.
And if you want to know our military material, check mustamatos post.

[mustamato]

I agree. But actually when the swedish/france elite troops fought in Congo 2003, They got uniforms with the EU flag on :)

No they did not.



Vacon-can you give us information about Swedish army(how many soldiers,MBT,airplains etc.) ?Im not interested what you have 30 years ago,but what you have now.BTW wich unit you will sent to this UE battle group?Regards.
We will probaly send the Airborne Rangers. For 10 years ago our army were 100% bigger but now we got about 250.000 soldiers after mobilize.
And if you want to know our military material, check mustamatos post.

Where do you get your imagination from? Does the airborne rangers drive tanks?
And since when have Sweden mobilized 2.5 million soldiers? In the late 80´s
it was more like 750.000.

Sweden will send those units that are already today assigned for rapid reaction
(30 days) international missions, in other words those that are sent to Liberia
now, but it will be re-inforced (in example one mechanized company will be changed
to one MBT company), Finland will add a artillery company and so forth, and then
Finland/Sweden have their battle group.

[mack pl]

Vacon wrote 250.000-its not 2,5 milion :) BTW thanks Mustamato for information about yours Army.I have one more question, how many soldiers you have before mobilisation.Regards.

[tony6]

Vacon:
During a cold war Polish Army was about 420,000 regular soldiers (and far more after mobilisation).
I don't know exactly but right now it's about 160,000 (with 4400 on the missions outside Poland).

[mack pl]

I guess we have max.150.000 soldiers.Im not sure but we have something about 460.000 reservists.Im not sure,i must check it :|

[Skaman]

This is a smart move for Europe. I think it is strategically, and financially wise for Europe to consolidate its forces as one homogenous unit and cohesively work together. NATO presents a great concept, but could inevitably draw European states into unwanted conflict. Europe itself is collectively a strong military unit, and with the Cold War over, I see no reason why a military relationship and alliance between the USA and Europe needs to continue. Europe is self sufficient, and financially developed. It is time to leave NATO behind. Let the United States fight its own wars. What stake does Germany, France, or say Finland have in conflicts in the Middle East? Again, this is a good move for Europe, and a step in the right direction.

woot

[cut]

ducismus, if nato goes where does that leave canada?

[Skaman]

ducismus, if nato goes where does that leave canada?

It will provide an incentive for Canada to be militarily self sufficient.

[marktigger]

EU nations unfortunatley do not have the military infrastructure to mount major operations. So therefore it will be a while before they can challange the USA as worlds policeman. And definitly not without major investment in defence which given the atitude of the centre left in the EU will never happen.

[Parzival]

I agree. But actually when the swedish/france elite troops fought in Congo 2003, They got uniforms with the EU flag on :)


No they did not.

Yes, They did. Haven't you see that pictures with SSG. They Cheked hand with the French Defence minister. They got uniforms with the EU flag on.


[quote=mack pl]Vacon-can you give us information about Swedish army(how many soldiers,MBT,airplains etc.) ?Im not interested what you have 30 years ago,but what you have now.BTW wich unit you will sent to this UE battle group?Regards.
We will probaly send the Airborne Rangers. For 10 years ago our army were 100% bigger but now we got about 250.000 soldiers after mobilize.
And if you want to know our military material, check mustamatos post.


Where do you get your imagination from? Does the airborne rangers drive tanks?
And since when have Sweden mobilized 2.5 million soldiers? In the late 80´s
it was more like 750.000.

.............................. :roll:
If 250.000 are 100%....100% + 100% are 500.000, You got it???? I never said we got 2,5 million soldiers. Come on, I hope you listen to the matematic lessons when you were in School.


Sweden will send those units that are already today assigned for rapid reaction
(30 days) international missions, in other words those that are sent to Liberia
now, but it will be re-inforced (in example one mechanized company will be changed
to one MBT company), Finland will add a artillery company and so forth, and then
Finland/Sweden have their battle group.
True, Course the Airborne Ranger Can't drive tanks. I've hear they will sned the airborne rangers as a unit but I can't confirm that information.

[mustamato]

EU nations unfortunatley do not have the military infrastructure to mount major operations. So therefore it will be a while before they can challange the USA as worlds policeman. And definitly not without major investment in defence which given the atitude of the centre left in the EU will never happen.

Hm, worlds policeman? I don´t think the European leaders want to be the
worlds policeman. To start with they would be happy to take care of problems
in their own backyard, (Balkans, Africa etc) and to this, yes the military infrastructure
exists. But to invade Mongolia? No, but then again, why should we?

[Ichhabe]

Vacon said:


Yes, They did. Haven't you see that pictures with SSG. They Cheked hand with the French Defence minister. They got uniforms with the EU flag on.

Keep you comments comming. I think you still can surprise us even more with your ignorance. That ain't a flag. It is called a Unit patch.

The flag is on the other side. And as I suspected, it is the godd old Swedish flag. You do know what it looks like? Don't you?

[Parzival]

Vacon said:


Yes, They did. Haven't you see that pictures with SSG. They Cheked hand with the French Defence minister. They got uniforms with the EU flag on.

Keep you comments comming. I think you still can surprise us even more with your ignorance. That ain't a flag. It is called a Unit patch.

The flag is on the other side. And as I suspected, it is the godd old Swedish flag. You do know what it looks like? Don't you?
Oh, You suprise us again with you dumb intellegence. Amazing....

No, It ain't a flag but it is a EU symbol.

[mustamato]

I've hear they will sned the airborne rangers as a unit but I can't confirm that information.

Read more, listen less (especially to your 16 year old friends).

[Backis]

Oh, You suprise us again with you dumb intellegence. Amazing....

No, It ain't a flag but it is a EU symbol.

Please emigrate...

[Maj C]

I can't read Finnish but is this the new EU defense force? just a joke guys take it easy...I think this is some alternative history site that projects what would have happened if Germany won.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/aseet/newssposter2.jpg



http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/aseet/newssposter1.jpg


http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/aseet/saint.html

[Sixgun Symphony]

EU nations unfortunatley do not have the military infrastructure to mount major operations. So therefore it will be a while before they can challange the USA as worlds policeman. And definitly not without major investment in defence which given the atitude of the centre left in the EU will never happen.

Hm, worlds policeman? I don´t think the European leaders want to be the
worlds policeman. To start with they would be happy to take care of problems in their own backyard, (Balkans, Africa etc) and to this, yes the military infrastructure exists. But to invade Mongolia? No, but then again, why should we?

The Balkans is part of Europe and that is your backyard, but Africa is another continent. So I don't see how you can say that it is in your backyard.

Let Africans police Africa.

[mustamato]

I can't read Finnish but is this the new EU defense force? just a joke guys take it easy...I think this is some alternative history site that projects what would have happened if Germany won.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/aseet/saint.html

HAHA, that´s a wonderfull site. And not bad at all for Finland (considering that
Finland was brothers in arms with Germany during the war). It would have
become a Suur-Suomi (Great Finland), annexing Karelia (northeastern parts
of Russia) and Murmansk.

http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/eurooppa/imagemap.jpg
How it would have been if Germany won the war

http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/aseet/newssposter2.jpg
The people are fighting - for Europe


Let Africans police Africa.

Many African countries can take care of themselves, not all can, i.e. Liberia.

[radon]

http://www.taivaansusi.net/reich/eurooppa/netz.jpg
lol

edit: If the the nazis would have won , I am sceptical what kind of attitud they would have had on this country...

[Kekkonen]

http://www.mil.fi/paaesikunta/tiedotteet/819.dsp
Article in Finnish... short version in English:


Finland will participate in two of EU´s battlegroups which will be at full force
and ready 2008. The soldiers will be under contract, and shall be ready and equipped
for deployment in ten days, including to Africa, and shall be able to stay in the area for
atleast 4 months.

Some of the units that has earlier been commited to the EU´s 60 000 men strong crisis
management troops will also be attached to these battle groups.

Together with the Netherlands Finland will participate in a German-led battle group
and will be responsible for the "self-protection" (I have no idea what that means).
This battle group will be ready 2007, training starts a year earlier.

Finland will also participate in a Swedish-led battle group and will to that add firepower
(artillery, mortars), protection (again, I have no idea what they are trying to say), and
with recon troops. This battle group will be ready 2008.

The first battlegroups will possibly be ready and at full force next year. EU will hold a
conference on 22nd November, and in that every EU-country participating shall report
which units they are going to attach to the rapid deployment battle groups

[Bluezoo]

About a month ago Germany and France proposed the creation of a ”The
Battle groups Concept”, nothing has been decided yet, but several other
countries are interested in the concept as well. The idea is that EU can take
care of problems in example in Africa after that the UN has given its approval
mainly, even though they can be used without UN approval as well. In December
all countries shall have handed over a list of which units they have ready to be
part of their national battle group.

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/mustamato/EUstrid_831.gif

From http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_7056232.asp (I just translated some text).

1991: European community becomes European Union that in the "long
term" will have a common defence in accordance to the Maastricht treaty. The war
in Yugoslavia erupts and EU can´t do anything about it.

1997: When Albania collapses EU does little. In a Swedish-Finnish proposal
it´s said that EU shall have the right to act (send military forces to non-EU countries)
and that this shall be written into the Amsterdam treaty.

1998: During the Kosovo crisis Tony Blair and Jaques Chirac, during a
meeting in St Malo agrees to that EU must have a military capacity.

1999: The EU-top summit in Köln confirms the military peacerole of the EU,
and in the top summit in Helsinki it is agreed that a catalog of 60.000 soldiers
will be ready in 2003. The role model is the NATO-forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

2003: NATO and EU agrees about co-operation. EU´s first mission in Congo
shows that EU needs small, fast reaction units.

Please explain thisfurther. Is this an change from a defensive policy to a more forward leaning policy?

[moughoun]

About a month ago Germany and France proposed the creation of a ”The
Battle groups Concept”, nothing has been decided yet, but several other
countries are interested in the concept as well. The idea is that EU can take
care of problems in example in Africa after that the UN has given its approval
mainly, even though they can be used without UN approval as well. In December
all countries shall have handed over a list of which units they have ready to be
part of their national battle group.

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/mustamato/EUstrid_831.gif

From http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_7056232.asp (I just translated some text).

1991: European community becomes European Union that in the "long
term" will have a common defence in accordance to the Maastricht treaty. The war
in Yugoslavia erupts and EU can´t do anything about it.

1997: When Albania collapses EU does little. In a Swedish-Finnish proposal
it´s said that EU shall have the right to act (send military forces to non-EU countries)
and that this shall be written into the Amsterdam treaty.

1998: During the Kosovo crisis Tony Blair and Jaques Chirac, during a
meeting in St Malo agrees to that EU must have a military capacity.

1999: The EU-top summit in Köln confirms the military peacerole of the EU,
and in the top summit in Helsinki it is agreed that a catalog of 60.000 soldiers
will be ready in 2003. The role model is the NATO-forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

2003: NATO and EU agrees about co-operation. EU´s first mission in Congo
shows that EU needs small, fast reaction units.

Please explain thisfurther. Is this an change from a defensive policy to a more forward leaning policy?
not really, they are rapid intervention unit's, with air support, artillery, sf ect, to be used in Peacekeeping/enforcement, European civilian extraction's and in the future as a war fighting capacity, p-)

[Parzival]

It is a crying shame that Norway ain't there.

The time has expired for many decades ago that we should turn to the US for help.
That is sad. Sweden and Norway would be excellent partners for an battlegorup.

[moughoun]

European troops may train in Stavanger
Minister of Defense Kristin Krohn Devold is considering offering the European Union's new battle groups Jåttå in Stavanger as a training ground, newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad reports. Even though Norway is not an EU member, Britain has invited Norway to the battle divisions to be created from 2007.
"An offer to use the new NATO center at Jåttå for training and modernization can be part of Norway's contribution to and support for the new battle groups the EU has decided to form," Krohn Devold told the paper.

The government will later consider the question of whether or not Norwegian soldiers will take part in the new EU force.

"A Norwegian contingent of 150 officers and soldiers is relevant," Krohn Devold said.

Norway is wanted as a participant in the new Swedish-Finnish EU force under British command. Sweden has agreed to contribute about 1,000 soldiers while Finland will commit up to 350 men.

The new EU battle forces should be able to move out on short notice to most locations and perform short-term assignments.

[FDF_Hemppis]

YAY for Norway woot

Maybe Finland will offer other countries the chance to use the Rovajarvi artillery range in turn :)
(Said to be unique in Europe, though I don't know why exactly)

But one thing that I'm wondering is that if Finns will be providing arty&mortars for the Swedes, what fire control system they'll use? Will it be some standard one, or will it be the Finnish system, which would mean embedding Finnish forward observers in to the Swedish troops?

Anyways, I’m glad too see the EU forming its own military capability… unfortunately our piss-poor country can’t afford but a few hundred soldiers :(

EDIT: typos :cantbeli:

[Kekkonen]

unfortunately our piss-poor country can’t afford but a few hundred soldiers :(

I wouldn´t say that the Finnish contribution is piss poor. Finland has a population of
5 million people, and per capita they won´t contribute with more than for example Sweden
or the Netherlands. But what they contribute is IMO worth more than just statistical figures
over how many soldiers they send. I´m wondering a little over for the first, what will the
Finnish contribution be to the German/Netherlandic battle group. What does "self-protection"
mean? Maybe it´s this professional 50 man strong special jaeger unit that will be
ready then and that will act as bodyguards for high-ranking officers? Who knows, who
knows.

And as for the Swedish-led battle group I´ve understood that the core will be a Swedish
CV9040C reinforced batallion, as for the Finnish support it might be arty, mortar,
logistics, self-protection and possible also anti-tank support. But I wonder, hm, will they really send...

http://www.ilmatorjuntaupseeriyhdistys.fi/2_2001/kuvat/kanuuna_2005.jpg
155 K 98...

http://www.ilmatorjuntaupseeriyhdistys.fi/2_2001/kuvat/krh_2005.jpg
... or will they just send this

If they send the 155 K 98´s I understand what they will need "self-protection" troops
for, since they can´t really defend themselves although they can atleast shoot and scoot.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

The Finns kick ass

[Kekkonen]

Maybe Finland will offer other countries the chance to use the Rovajarvi
artillery range in turn :)
(Said to be unique in Europe, though I don't know why exactly)

Rovajärvi is unique since it´s big, or to be more precise long. When Sweden leased
AS90 and PzH 2000 recently and testfired them, they had to do it from civilian property
outside an artillery range. Rovajärvi is big enough for modern and future long-range
munitions, including the heavy rocket system the Finnish army wants now.

[username]

Just another stupid lame ass attempt to counter the US

your a serious contender for the stupidest post of 2004

[FDF_Hemppis]

mean? Maybe it´s this professional 50 man strong special jaeger unit that will be
ready then and that will act as bodyguards for high-ranking officers?

lol, very much doubt it. :|
Finns will probably provide comms or fire support…


as for the Finnish support it might be arty, mortar,
logistics, self-protection and possible also anti-tank support. But I wonder, hm, will they really send...


It would be nice to see the "high-speed" 155 K 98 in use, but imo it's much more likely it will be 155 K 83, or even the favorite piece in the FDF arty, the 122 H 63 (aka D-30 ;))...

If heavy mortars will be used, I imagine them to be those in the picture.



If they send the 155 K 98´s I understand what they will need "self-protection" troops
for, since they can´t really defend themselves although they can atleast shoot and scoot.

If the enemy gets so far that it attacks arty positions, someone fecked up good…
They do need some close-protection, but every artyman carries a rifle for that purpose :P

And btw, you don’t exactly “shoot&scoot” with 155 K 98 :lol:

[Kekkonen]

mean? Maybe it´s this professional 50 man strong special jaeger unit that will be
ready then and that will act as bodyguards for high-ranking officers?

lol, very much doubt it. :|
Finns will probably provide comms or fire support…
Perhaps perhaps. But IMO this new Finnish unit will be like the Swedish SSG. Since
it will be a professional full-time force they will be able to deploy pretty much
immediately. SSG has been the first one to be in place for Sweden pretty much
everywhere in the later years, Afghanistan, Congo etc. No way that the Finnish
military is going to have a Gucci-force that will not be used to anything. In Sweden
the military has also been able to "convince" the politicians that SSG is so extremely
elite that it is "safe" to send them pretty much everywhere (as to Congo for example).

Hopefully the Finnish military will be just as good lobbying.


It would be nice to see the "high-speed" 155 K
98 in use, but imo it's much more likely it will be 155 K 83, or even the
favorite piece in the FDF arty, the 122 H 63 (aka D-30 ;))...
155 K 98 has a 40 km range and is able to fire guided munitions, such as the Swedish
BONUS Mk II. 122 H 63´s range is not even near. 155 K 83 is very possible since those were
the guns Finland sent to the Nordic artillery exercise in Sweden some months ago.

http://www.artreg.mil.se/images/local/finland_van.jpg
K 83´s in Sweden in May

http://www.artreg.mil.se/images/local/arturmater_van.jpg
Swedish ArtHuR in Rovajärvi, these will definitively be a part of the battle group


And btw, you don’t exactly “shoot&scoot” with 155 K 98 :lol:
The whole point of slamming an APU on the K 98 was just because to give it an ability
to shoot and scoot IMO and atleast according to the Patria advertisement. Then it´s of
course a whole different matter that FDF arty doctrine might not use it that way.

[anv2]

But IMO this new Finnish unit will be like the Swedish SSG.

I just watched the evening news and there was a story about the new finnish special force. They mentioned that it will be used in EU operations and will be able to perform variety of special tasks.

[Imshi-Yallah]

Hmmm I think Ireland was expecting to muck in with the Swedes and Finns, the question now being whether we can get rid of the triple lock and participate properly who will we team up with?

[Irish-Fianoglach]

The Irish Defence Minister will decide this week whether Irish troops will join new EU battle groups which would act under a UN mandate to stabilise troublespots before they erupt into major conflicts.

The minister will present his views to Cabinet this week ahead of a meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels on November 22 which will also consider the new peacekeeping concept.

He is being briefed by officials but it is expected he will agree that Irish troops should join the 10 proposed EU battle groups of 1,500 soldiers each.

Under the plan the battle groups would be on call to move within 15 days to contain a crisis for up to four months before a larger force can arrive.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has already sought the support of the Irish Government for the plan.

If the Government agrees they would still insist that the so called "triple lock" procedure - a UN mandate and approval by the Dail and Government - would apply to Irish troops taking part in such an operation.

Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Jim Sreenan has already come out strongly in support saying the military were looking forward to being involved.

Ireland is expected to join Sweden and Finland to form one battle group. Irish, Swedish and Finnish troops are already serving as integrated units in Kosovo and Liberia.

Gen Sreenan pointed out that it will be very costly to join the battle groups as we will have to deploy our forces, resupply them, and equip them.

[Thor]

AS90 and PzH 2000 recently and testfired them, they had to do it from civilian property outside an artillery range.
They did their record try on Gotland didn't they? I think that in northern Sweden there are ranges that are quite sufficient (but I could be wrong on this one).



But IMO this new Finnish unit will be like the Swedish SSG.
I strongly welcome this finnish force but from what I've seen I would compare it more to FJS IK Fallskärmsjägarskolans insatskompani (they were also in Congo and Afghanistan) or the quite newly formed Jplut/int Internationell Jägarpluton (which will be part of the EU Battle Group). SSG has a different age profile on their guys and it's an all officer unit.



The whole point of slamming an APU on the K 98 was just because to give it an ability to shoot and scoot IMO and atleast according to the Patria advertisement. Then it´s of course a whole different matter that FDF arty doctrine might not use it that way.
To me it seems strange that Finland should participate with howitzers in this battle group. The fire support on battallion level I believe should be more like CV 90 with AMOS. Secondly, Finland has a lot of artillery pieces but they aren't that modern really.

I'd like to use this one
http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/art3_fh77b.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16989&highlight= (bottom of page)

@Irish-Fianoglach
You’re welcome. Though Sweden has a thousand colonels we can't put up a 1500 men battle group..

[Kekkonen]

The whole point of slamming an APU on the K 98 was just because to give it an ability to shoot and scoot IMO and atleast according to the Patria advertisement. Then it´s of course a whole different matter that FDF arty doctrine might not use it that way.
To me it seems strange that Finland should participate with howitzers in this battle group. The fire support on battallion level I believe should be more like CV 90 with AMOS. Secondly, Finland has a lot of artillery pieces but they aren't that modern really.
I'd like to use this one
http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/art3_fh77b.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16989&highlight= (bottom of page)
And as for the Finnish field artillery and "how obsolete" it is I´d say that´s a pretty strange
comment regarding how many more modern and versatile pieces Finland has now and
that could rock the ass out of any want to be opponent. And as you can understand they
exist availably in numbers way above "the Swedish 48 howitzers". And as for future
Swedish projects continuesly presented in these endless teknikdemonstratorprojekt,
well I stopped beliving in those a long time ago. Example of stuff that would be nice
to send along with the Swedish/Finnish/Irish(?) battle group...

http://www.surfnet.fi/mil/images/data/media/17/DSC00051_2.jpg
152 TelaK (2S5) and/or...

http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/pics/sivu063.jpg
122 PsH (2S1) and/or...

http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/pics/sivu065.jpg
122 RakH 79/86 (BM-21 and RM-70) and/or...

http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/pics/sivu061.jpg
155 K 83 and/or...

http://www.ilmatorjuntaupseeriyhdistys.fi/2_2001/kuvat/kanuuna_2005.jpg
155 K 98 and/or...

http://www.ilmatorjuntaupseeriyhdistys.fi/2_2001/kuvat/krh_2005.jpg
Patria 120 mortars in Nasu tracked trucks and/or

http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/pics/amv8x8_iso.jpg
AMOS on AMV which of 24 will be delivered from 2006

However I´m not sure wether they will send artillery or not. The first Finnish AMOS
on AMV´s will be delivered "soon", about the time when the battle group should be
ready for use, it will of course not be used immediately which will give enough time
to get enough AMOS´s on AMV´s. But AMOS lacks the 30-40 km range that a 155
K 83/98 could have. And this types of guns are good enough for the worlds last
superpower so it would sure as hell be good enough for us.

http://cache.*****images.com/comp/51699710.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=CB711602F2C0BA52C49A70338FCCA46BA9C30E9B9B114CE8</img>
Comparable to 155 K 83 I´d say, while 155 K 98 is superior in mobility and range

[FDF_Hemppis]

Secondly, Finland has a lot of artillery pieces but they aren't that modern really.


...says a guy from a country that has like a single regiment of artillery p-)
j/k, but a question: what would you consider to be "modern artillery" then? :P

EDIT: true enough, I would like Finland to have more tracked/wheeled artillery pieces :)

[Kekkonen]

EDIT: true enough, I would like Finland to have more
tracked/wheeled artillery pieces :)
Using the "Swedish mounting a FH77B on a forest working dumper"-concept would be
an idea for Finland IMO. I doubt it would be so very expensive since forest working
machines are quite common in Finland, and it would be easy to use civilian parts to a
large extenth, and I don´t see how it could be difficult to do either to a smaller number
of say, hm 36 (an artillery regiment).

http://www.artreg.mil.se/images/local/dumper.jpg
Something like this but with a
1.) 152 H 88-31
2.) 152 H 88-37
3.) 152 H 88-40
4.) 152 H 55
5.) 155 K 83
6.) 155 K 98

http://tietokannat.mil.fi/data/629/2</img>
High-res: http://tietokannat.mil.fi/data/629/3

And put on of these on it as a self-defence weapon now when FDF
finally have made up their mind about using H&K´s AGL.

[Kekkonen]

[double post]

&lt;- Go back to page 8.

[Luno]

Kekkonen
The concept with the FH77B on a dumper have been cancelled by the Swedish army :( but there is a new model under testing (FH77 BW L52)
link
http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/art3_fh77b.htm

[marktigger]

I think its time the EU wound its neck in and went back to what its ment to be a Trading group.
I took an oath to the Queen of the United Kingdom not a President of Europe.

[Backis]

Using the "Swedish mounting a FH77B on a forest working dumper"-concept would be an idea for Finland IMO.

I made a post about the FH77BD here a few months ago. :)

The "dumper" its mounted on is almost entirely civilian, just because parts should be cheap to get hold of.

And as for Finnish arty being obsoloete... well, you do have some older types in your inventory, but most of them good designs (like the D30 f e, its a workhorse for sure), but as you showed the Russians in WW2, what's more important how its used.

I have much respect for Finnish artillery.

As for Sweden, yeah, its was sort of a no-brainer killing of the artillery, but since were only going to do "peacekeeping" in the future (barring a few cases of lipservice to national defense, statements usually connected with a drastic reduction in defensive capability just afterwards...), I can somewhat understand the idea behind it...

At least the little we will have will be modern... :|

Oh, on a positive note, the FH77B and BD will get the new L52 replacement barrels, with RAP they will have a 60km range. The old L44's will be used up for practice, but no more added to inventory.

Used (or to be used) pieces;

15,5cm FH77BD SPA
15,5cm FH77B howitzers
12cm AMOS SP-mortars
12cm Grk 95 mortars
8cm Grk 84 mortars

That is all...

I'm still hoping for a MLRS-mount based on the armoured BD dumper chassi, the HIMARS should fit nicely.

On the idea that an engine-fitted howitzer like the FH77 or your K98(?) should be able to use shoot and scoot tactics...

Not really. The APU makes emplacement and redeployment times shorter, but its still a towed weapon regarding moving between battery sites.

Survivability increase due to quicker dispersement after firing a salvo yes, shoot and scoot, no. 6-8km/h isn't fast enough for that.

[Kekkonen]

12cm Grk 95 mortars
Hm, as opposed to the m/41D, what is the 95?


I'm still hoping for a MLRS-mount based on the armoured BD dumper chassi, the HIMARS should fit nicely.
My thought exactly. The Finnish army released their "Strategic" study some months
ago, this can be seen as guidelines for the politicians about funding. The study was
however based on a "probable budget" given by the politicians, so most of the equipment
in the study wanted by the Finnish military will probably be bought. Attack helicopters
were sadly (but realistically) ruled out for Finland being too expensive. However the
Finnish Air Force want to upgrade the F-18´s with an attack capacity to "somewhat"
compensate for this. The F-18´s will receive an midlife update anyway soon, giving
them AIM-9X etc, so adding some attack software might not be such a big deal.

Since the Finnish artillery is the backbone of the Finnish army (according to themselves)
there will be further investments made in the artillery field. From the study it became
clear that the Army wants "heavy rocket launchers", that has a range longer than
possible (40 km) with the 122 mm MRL´s and that can carry submunitions. HIMARS
on a dumper would be nice indeed. Guided munitons was also part of this study, I can
say STRIX for sure (to AMOS), but possible also Bonus Mk II to the K 98.

[oldsoak]

I think its time the EU wound its neck in and went back to what its ment to be a Trading group.
I took an oath to the Queen of the United Kingdom not a President of Europe.

- I think what might happen is we have a mix 'n match - the units within the "EU force" being seconded in from member countries. Armour From Germany, You are still "owned" by your own country but placed on EU operational control for a period of time. Bit like us going on a UN mission.

[Backis]

Hm, as opposed to the m/41D, what is the 95?


Its essentially the (formalized version of) 41D updated to use STRIX, so electronics...

So yes, we still use the Finnish design 12cm mortar. ;)

I think they even might be the same (41D and 95) when I think about it... perhaps a lighter and shorter tube...

[FDF_Hemppis]

So yes, we still use the Finnish design 12cm mortar. ;)


:D woot

[sp2c]

pleeeeeaase say milimeter ... I get confused quickly, I was thinking about a mighty small little mortar (size of a handgun ;))

[Luno]

There can’t be many M41D left in the Swedish army today
There where only 330 in service before the year 2000

[Thor]

And as for future Swedish projects continuesly presented in these endless teknikdemonstratorprojekt, well I stopped beliving in those a long time ago.
Really, so when did you stop believing in the Visby-class, Arthur, Gotland-class submarines, CV 90 (A to C), AMOS, JAS 39C or practically any other swedish military project in the last 20 years. It's always ongoing and it's a very successful and cost effective way to integrate knowledge from all different parts of industry and the armed forces. The first deliveries of this Bofors FH77 BW L52 are scheduled to 2005. Regarding the ARTDEMO project its mainly focused on PzH 2000 that probably will be ordered in the upcoming years, but its pretty far away.



And as for the Finnish field artillery and "how obsolete" it is I´d say that´s a pretty strange comment regarding how many more modern and versatile pieces Finland has now and that could rock the ass out of any want to be opponent.
Eh, no.. Finland has a lot of WWII/Soviet style kind of artillery. If you want to rock your opponent you need integrated systems, gun n run, MRSI and so on.



And as you can understand they exist availably in numbers way above "the Swedish 48 howitzers".
The swedish artillery has been neglected for years, however with the new size of the armed forces and the new artillery systems it will be sufficient and also in many ways a world leader.



And this types of guns are good enough for the worlds last superpower so it would sure as hell be good enough for us.
As long as the enemy does'nt shoot back its ok even for the yanks to use slow outdated artillery.. But I guess they don’t need HIMARS and so on then. If one would have to choose between integrated, mechanized and armored (preferably a CV 90 chassi) AMOS-style fire support and light howitzers for this EU Battle Group I'd prefer.. Both.



Using the "Swedish mounting a FH77B on a forest working dumper"-concept would be an idea for Finland IMO. I doubt it would be so very expensive since forest working machines are quite common in Finland, and it would be easy to use civilian parts to a large extenth…
Well, that's pretty much the concept of FH77 BW if you haven't noticed.



…and I don´t see how it could be difficult to do either to a smaller number of say, hm 36 (an artillery regiment).
The thing is that future of combat belongs to information supremacy and pin point artillery fighting. Sweden, USA and others have already realized this. But I guess the finns in few years will wake up and realize that thousands of artillery pieces without the the proper supplies, intelligence and mobility are pretty useless.

@Luno
Are you really sure it has been canceled? Artilleriregementet presented the system in june 2004 saying it would be delivered in 2005..

[Kekkonen]

But I guess the finns in few years will wake up and realize that
thousands of artillery pieces without the the proper supplies, intelligence and
mobility are pretty useless.

[Thor]

Here's the information Artilleriregementet presented in june 2004:

"The new artillery system will have a range of up to 60 km, an automatic loading system (20+20 rounds) capable of handling Excalibur and Bonus as well as modular charges. It will be capable of six round Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) and will also be able to engage mobile targets. The system will be capable of roadspeeds of at least 65 km/h and it will be transportable by rail and air. The operational mobility is a vital factor and the good all-terrain capability of the system provides ability to use modern tactics and capability of autonomous battle field use. The system will be armored (shrapnel and small arms) and use an automatic grenade launcher (40 mm Mk19) or a 12,7 mm HMG as a secondary armament. The system will be equipped with an internal communications system from start and will be upgraded with the equipment in demand of the newer C3 system.

Deliveries starting in 2005."


http://www.artreg.mil.se/images/local/dumper_ny_hytt_van.jpg
http://www.artreg.mil.se/images/local/dumper_grupperad_van.jpg

[FDF_Hemppis]

Eh, no.. Finland has a lot of WWII/Soviet style kind of artillery.


Eh...and that style is what?



The Swedish artillery has been neglected for years, however with the new size of the armed forces and the new artillery systems it will be sufficient and also in many ways a world leader.


Sufficient, for what? Shooting in the Stockholm area? Even if you have that world leading arty system, it doesn't help much if you only have enough of 'em for a couple of places ;)
(I'm sure they're fine for peacekeeping missions, though)



As long as the enemy doesn’t shoot back its ok even for the yanks to use slow outdated artillery..


True, towed artillery is more vulnerable to enemy counter fire. However the enemy also can't always do counter-firing ;)
Hence, I wish we would get more wheeled/tracked arty.



The thing is that future of combat belongs to information supremacy and pin point artillery fighting.


Pinpoint artillery? You DO know how Finnish artillery works, don't you?
(and how accurate it is?)


The thing is that future of combat belongs to information supremacy and pin point artillery fighting. Sweden, USA and others have already realized this. But I guess the Finns in few years will wake up and realize that thousands of artillery pieces without the proper supplies, intelligence and mobility are pretty useless.


Yeah, sure we just stand by and watch what the others do...information supremacy? Gosh, we don't even know what the word means... Oh, and we hold the artillery just for the looks too :P

EDIT: typos

[Kekkonen]

IMO Thor is a very typical Swede. Yesterday I watched the news and there was a story
about how Swedes think that Sweden is the no. 1 welfare state while it these
days of course are not so with the huge black holes because of criminally incompetent
politicians. Somehow Swedes live with the fantasy that despite all the shortcomings
there are simply more of it abroad and they are even more incompetent. For example
totally lacking the capacity to pinpoint accuracy and intelligence :lol:

What Hemppis says is true all of it. And as for ArtReg´s (Sweden one and only artillery
regiment) vision about creating "the best artillery" in the world... well what can I say.
IMO we have that Swedish thinking about how good they are again and how bad everything
else is. Buying 12 FH77´s on a dumpers is not the best artillery in the world, with such
a low amount Sweden should atleast buy MRLS´s.

But well let´s just say that I understand why it isn´t Sweden providing the support
element in the battle group ;)

[moughoun]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

[FDF_Hemppis]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

:lol:


:|


:oops:

[Phil642]

Very embarressing :oops:


:D

[mack pl]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

:lol:


:|


:oops:

hehe, Hemmpi, you should listen to uncle Moug., he has always right(even If he's only Irish, who belive on magic potato)).... p-)

[Backis]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

I tried...

But nooo... "Thora" had to stick his foot back in his mouth... :lol:

;)

Finnish guns may sometimes be old, but they know that the artillery system is not only based on the guns.

Finland has had a very modern and up to date artillery system since before WW2, by that time only the USA had a better method of controlling and directing artillery fire. Finland's main artillery pieces in the Winter War were mostly turn of the century 75-76mm fieldguns back then, but they knew how to use them.

Finland was unfortunately somewhat hampered by a lack of radios though... but one not so unimportant "secret" of the Finnish ability to hold off vastly numerically superior Soviet forces for so long was due to their superior artillery doctrine.

There is nothing that says that a 122mm D30 from the sixties can't be laid by data sent to the battery though a encrypted netcentric C3I system with GPS support..

Finland isn't exactly there yet, but claiming they adhere to an "antiquated Soviet system" is ridiculous IMHO...

We get netcentric arty first by cutting off all the excess "fat" instead of upgrading what we have. As I said, what we have will be first rate, but we won't have much of it I'm afraid... (ie enough for supporting a brigade or two IMHO).

The real irony in all this as at the same time we declare the FH77A "obsolete" because it uses non-NATO ammunition (77A use semi-fixed incremental propellant casings instead of powder bags to speed up loading), the USA is seriously contemplating breaking with NATO standard (again) to develop a similar system...

...to speed up loading...

...maybe we shouldn't have scrapped all those guns... we could have sold them to the US instead...

:cantbeli:

[moughoun]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

:lol:


:|


:oops:

hehe, Hemmpi, you should listen to uncle Moug., he has always right(even If he's only Irish, who belive on magic potato)).... p-)
quiet you, p-) .......anyway if the plan's work out we might be in the same BG group with Sweden and Finland, so please play nice children,we may be depending on each other in some **** hole back water one Day.....like New York p-)





run's away very fast :lol:

[Luno]

can we all shake hand's like men now and stop acting like kid's......it's embarressing in front of the American's p-)

:lol:


:|


:oops:

hehe, Hemmpi, you should listen to uncle Moug., he has always right(even If he's only Irish, who belive on magic potato)).... p-)
quiet you, p-) .......anyway if the plan's work out we might be in the same BG group with Sweden and Finland, so please play nice children,we may be depending on each other in some **** hole back water one Day.....like New York p-)





run's away very fast :lol:

That would be nice to be in the same BG as the brave Finnish soldier :D I have always been impressed by the Finnish army. They have very good soldiers and probably the best army in Scandinavia :D

[Phil642]

I'm very glad to see that the Europeans are gentlemen, and that each of the European countries has the best army in the world. ;)

[Thor]

Come on guys, we're here to debate, right? :) However, if you want to hold hands and sing songs that’s fine with me to. I might even join team Eurowussie :D




Eh...and that style is what?
Quantity rather then efficiency.



Sufficient for what? shooting in the Stockholm area?
Sufficient for it’s size. Remember that the Swedish defence's new purpose is that of a task force rather then to defend against a massive soviet invasion. I don’t support the defence cuts however.



Pinpoint artillery? You DO know how Finnish artillery works, don't you?
Concentrated fire support and so on (which is pinpointing in a way). However one doesn't need thousands of bombers to bomb a city anymore instead one simply send some tomahawk missiles and guided munitions to do the same job. See the difference? It's the same with artillery. Remember, firepower is one bullet that hits..

The second problem is that it doesn't matter if you have all these artillery pieces if you can’t use them the way you want to. As for logistical support even US Army would have a hard time using that many artillery pieces in a war zone.



Yeah, sure we just stand by and watch what the others do...information supremacy? Gosh, we don't even know what the word means... Oh, and we hold the artillery just for the looks too :D
In fact Finland is way behind in developing network centric warfare and is relying heavily on old thinking. I don’t say this is all wrong from Finland's point of view and I strongly think that Finland would perform much much better than Iraq if being invaded. But still, to be able to surivive in future conflicts you can't rely on the past.



IMO Thor is a very typical Swede. Yesterday I watched the news and there was a story about how Swedes think that Sweden is the no. 1 welfare state while it these
days of course are not so with the huge black holes because of criminally incompetent politicians.
As earlier stated I support moderaterna and is therefor thinking that the swedes are being misled to pay high taxes believing they get so much for every krona spent when they infact don't. The swedish economy however is doing pretty good but that’s not thanks to our government.



What Hemppis says is true all of it. And as for ArtReg´s (Sweden one and only artillery regiment) vision about creating "the best artillery" in the world... well what can I say. IMO we have that Swedish thinking about how good they are again and how bad everything else is. Buying 12 FH77´s on a dumpers is not the best artillery in the world, with such a low amount Sweden should atleast buy MRLS´s.
Well, the performance of Bofors FH77 BW is up there at the top. You disagree?

There are pros and cons with MLRS and Sweden is looking in to that too within a separate project. However, we'll problaby end up buying PzH 2000 instead. The budget wont simply allow both and the PzH 2000 would come more handy. Perhaps in 10-15 year we'll see some swedish version of HIMARS (basically MLRS on a dumper).

[Backis]

No chance in hell we'll buy a tracked SPA...

ArtDemo was a baseline evaluation of capability, not procurement related.

oh, and the FH-77 "BW" you relate to is the towed export FH-77B with a L52 barrel that India is interested in, not the dumper gun.,, or even intended for Swedish service...

That's the FH-77BD, D as in Dumper.

[FDF_Hemppis]

Eh...and that style is what?
Quantity rather then efficiency.


I beg to differ, mate :) (note that me being a FO might have some effect on my opinion p-))
It's pretty much exactly the other way around. Efficiency comes first.
I'm talking about the number of fired shells, which is quite low compared to (some) other armies. This is of course because of the simple reason that our supply organization couldn't handle the amount of shells that for example, the US or the Russians would use.

Maximum damage with minimum amount of shells. Isn't that efficiency, no matter from which kind of cannon it's fired? ;)





Sufficient for what? shooting in the Stockholm area?
Sufficient for it’s size. Remember that the Swedish defence's new purpose is that of a task force rather then to defend against a massive soviet invasion. I don’t support the defence cuts however.


Good answer, even if imo, a single regiment is too little even for the future Swedish forces.





Pinpoint artillery? You DO know how Finnish artillery works, don't you?
Concentrated fire support and so on (which is pinpointing in a way). However one doesn't need thousands of bombers to bomb a city anymore instead one simply send some tomahawk missiles and guided munitions to do the same job. See the difference? It's the same with artillery. Remember, firepower is one bullet that hits..


We don't have thousands of bombers :P
Seriously, guided munitions are the future, however most firepower is still presented trough conventional munitions. And as I said before, our tactic has since before WW2 been maximum effect with minimal effort, so to speak.



The second problem is that it doesn't matter if you have all these artillery pieces if you can’t use them the way you want to. As for logistical support even US Army would have a hard time using that many artillery pieces in a war zone.

Naturally the size of our artillery and its supply organization is relative to the size of our troops, the ones which they support. We just cut our war-time strength from ~500.000 soldiers to ~350.000 to keep the fighting troops younger and better equipped (less people, less equipment, more money for the rest). Especially with those cuts, I'm confident our army can do its duty.
We don't have that many guns after all ;)
I remember seeing somewhere a number that the total number of our cannons & mortars is some ~2000. Dunno what that contains exactly...





Yeah, sure we just stand by and watch what the others do...information supremacy? Gosh, we don't even know what the word means... Oh, and we hold the artillery just for the looks too :D
In fact Finland is way behind in developing network centric warfare and is relying heavily on old thinking. I don’t say this is all wrong from Finland's point of view and I strongly think that Finland would perform much better than Iraq if being invaded. But still, to be able to survive in future conflicts you can't rely on the past.


You fortunately noticed that I wasn't dead serious :P

Anyway, this "networked warfare" is being implemented fast and hard to our forces. Our Air Force just took in to use a new "leading system" which is based on this principle of "networked 24/7 info warfare"... And it's the first of its kind in Europe ;)
So while we seriously lack in some areas (i.e. tank-to-tank comms etc), we are playing serious catch-up in other areas.


And while debating about Sweden getting a "dumper gun" or MLRS, please keep in mind that these are 2 totally different kind of weapon systems. At least back here, arty is more of a pinpoint support weapon, while rocket launchers are meant for area suppression. On the other hand, with new guided munitions, things might not be all that black&white ;)


Ok, can I have my 0.98eur back now? :)

[FDF_Hemppis]

Boy, are we off-topic or what? :D

[moughoun]

Boy, are we off-topic or what? :D
so far off it.....you'd need a map and GPS to find it.........

[Thor]

No chance in hell we'll buy a tracked SPA...
That you know because you're what, General Backis? The procurement of a new tracked SPA is much needed but it's pretty far ahead in time. You can also take a hint from the fact the artillery regiment now is being permanently moved to the northern part of Sweden (were they no longer have any tracked Bandkanon).



ArtDemo was a baseline evaluation of capability, not procurement related.
Yup, we were just test driving some tracked SPA for the pure fun of it. Not because we in some years probably once again will be interested in buying some kind of tracked SPA and that we therefor want to maintain expertise in that area.



oh, and the FH-77 "BW" you relate to is the towed export FH-77B with a L52 barrel that India is interested in, not the dumper gun.,, or even intended for Swedish service...

That's the FH-77BD, D as in Dumper.
http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/art3_fh77b.htm
Well, I guess Bofors doesn't know much about their own guns anyway then..?

I'm no artillery guy but surely I will get it right next time. You too maybe?

[Kekkonen]

I think we can come to one conclusion. Thor doesn´t know **** about artillery
in general or about the Finnish defence forces and it´s capabilities. What is even
worse, he doesn´t know much about Sweden either it seems.



ArtDemo was a baseline evaluation of capability, not procurement related.

Yup, we were just test driving some tracked SPA for the pure fun of it. Not
because we in some years probably once again will be interested in
buying some kind of tracked SPA and that we therefor want to maintain
expertise in that area.

Yep it´s fun, and at the same time maintains some basic competence when sending
Swedish officers to Germany to take some courses in how to handle a PzH 2000 for
example and leasing some MRLS´s from Norway. Pretty comical considering that
ArtReg claims to be aiming for the best artillery in the world :roll:

Maintaining competence is what it´s about. The chance of Sweden buying the stuff is
non-existent. And just for your information Finland had PzH 2000 and AS90 in something
similar to the ArtDemo about 2-3 years before Sweden. And guess what, they didn´t
buy the stuff.

[Phil642]

I join team Eurowussie :D p-)

Very nice mate, welcome in our glorious team!

[Meph]

Am I the only one who doesn't like where that timeline is heading? Say the EU did have huge standing army when they tried to stop Bush from Invading Iraq?

[Romulus]

Am I the only one who doesn't like where that timeline is heading? Say the EU did have huge standing army when they tried to stop Bush from Invading Iraq?

What are you implying?

[moughoun]

Am I the only one who doesn't like where that timeline is heading? Say the EU did have huge standing army when they tried to stop Bush from Invading Iraq?
60,000 men is not a standing army, it's a speed bump ;)

[mack pl]

Polish-German-Slovakian(+Lithuania and Latvia) Battlegroup under Polish command.
-1 500 soldiers(60% Poles).

it will be ready for action in 2009/2010.

link(only in polish)
http://info.onet.pl/1012750,11,1,0,120,686,item.html

Regards
mack pl

[wholagun]

Polish-German-Slovakian(+Lithuania and Latvia) Battlegroup under Polish command.
-1 500 soldiers(60% Poles).

it will be ready for action in 2009/2010.

link(only in polish)
http://info.onet.pl/1012750,11,1,0,120,686,item.html

Regards
mack pl

you got more information on his Mack.

1500 is not a big battle group.

Im assuming the language to be used will be english.
Will the new f-16s be part of this battle group? Cause i know that our F 16s are meant to be part of rapid reaction force, or is that a NATO thing?

[mack pl]

Polish-German-Slovakian(+Lithuania and Latvia) Battlegroup under Polish command.
-1 500 soldiers(60% Poles).

it will be ready for action in 2009/2010.

link(only in polish)
http://info.onet.pl/1012750,11,1,0,120,686,item.html

Regards
mack pl

you got more information on his Mack.

1500 is not a big battle group.

Im assuming the language to be used will be english.
Will the new f-16s be part of this battle group? Cause i know that our F 16s are meant to be part of rapid reaction force, or is that a NATO thing?

well, I guess it will be a "land forces" group, 1 of 12 EU battle groups.
thats all what I know about it at the moment.