UK Urges Germany To Pull Its Weight More On Defense

[Steak-Sauce]

Oh, and please don't take the two companies to literally. Personally I wouldn't go beneath an entire battalion for any sort of expeditionary adventure, but I doubt Germany could extent our MSK to a level, where they could deploy three entire battalions for amphibious operations

You see, speaking of staying real, that's another problem. Now it's up from one or two companies to an entire battalion. This battalion then asks for even more men in form of own artillery and tank support, etc. etc. In the end, people are fixated on a German USMC equivalent (albeit smaller) with all these nice gadgets one needs to have for these kind of expeditionary adventures.

Can't we just stay a green water navy and focus on the Baltic and North Sea, i.e. our very own backyard? We're not one of the big boy blue water navy members, and I seriously don't see the reason why we want to become a part of this club.

That said, is the Bundswehr even able to deploy three entire battalions (+ support units) for normal, classic, land-based operations?

Also the Somalia anti-terror and anti-pirate missions have drawn attention to the Marine.

Indeed, the navy has drawn some attention with these missions. The latest one involved the definition of beach, and how deep into Somali territory the navy guys are allowed to go. Until the sand ends? 1km, 5km? Not to mention all these weird legal considerations. Just the other day I heard in the radio about the on-going pirate trial in Hamburg. It took them hours, days, weeks just to sort out birth names (lol), birth places, and birth dates (lol) to begin with. No country near Somalia wants these captured pirates. Propably for a good reason.

I'd personally like to see more funds allocated to my Unit. We want new Leos at some point.

What unit are we talking about? How to define "at some point", i.e. near or distant future? "New" Leos as in the latest variant or a completely new development? Please don't come up with canister shots, we already had this discussion.

I'm all for preserving our tank skills and stuff like that, but I regard infantry and special operations as much more important in a big picture.

[wARLOCK]

Can't we just stay a green water navy and focus on the Baltic and North Sea, i.e. our very own backyard? We're not one of the big boy blue water navy members, and I seriously don't see the reason why we want to become a part of this club.

to be honest, the ability to dock some troops and helos is realy nothing that only "the big boy blue water navy's" have. the dutch ore italian navys are miles ahead of us. at the end its a political decision, if they want the marine to go out and fight against piracy ore for open trade routes (like the weißbuch says) we will need ships like these. and no, nobody talks about a beast like the wasp class. the zvm2025 names three possible typs:

JSS800, 800 troops plus staff and gear, huge ships with up to 30.000ts and in my opinion the most impropabel option

JSS400+, 400troops plus staff und gear, and with more then 20.000ts maybe similar in size to the mistral class.

JSS400, 400 troops without staff and gear, smaller then 20.000ts and maybe depends on additional ships

at least i dont know what will happen, but if german policy goes on the way like in the last decade it would only be logical to build up abilities in this array

[Steak-Sauce]

JSS400, 400 troops without staff and gear, smaller then 20.000ts and maybe depends on additional ships

This in form of a "Germanized" and simplified variant of the Absalon-class would be more than enough for our navy and their desire to secure our oceanic trade routes, in my honest opinion.

[wARLOCK]

This in form of a "Germanized" and simplified variant of the Absalon-class would be more than enough for our navy and their desire to secure our oceanic trade routes, in my honest opinion.

that depends on which scenario you approve. the abslon got only one helo port with a maximum of two medium size choppers in the hangar. thats not realy what we are talking about.
and what you call a "desire" is the result of political decisions. all ship building projects in the younger past, the present and the future are designed for "out of area" missions, so staying in the baltic and the north sea will not happen.

[Astaran]

You see, speaking of staying real, that's another problem. Now it's up from one or two companies to an entire battalion. This battalion then asks for even more men in form of own artillery and tank support, etc. etc. In the end, people are fixated on a German USMC equivalent (albeit smaller) with all these nice gadgets one needs to have for these kind of expeditionary adventures.

Can't we just stay a green water navy and focus on the Baltic and North Sea, i.e. our very own backyard? We're not one of the big boy blue water navy members, and I seriously don't see the reason why we want to become a part of this club.

That said, is the Bundswehr even able to deploy three entire battalions (+ support units) for normal, classic, land-based operations?

Well, you can't have the cake and eat it. If you want to project German/European "power" overseas, secure German/European interests (nope, not colonies ) or want to throw some German/European weight around in UN or NATO led missions, you need to spend a lot of money on military hardware and training. From a purely military point of view a specialized "German Marine Corps" would be the most effective option, because you can deploy highly trained professionals who are experts in the art of amphibious operations.
But considering "realistic" approaches, this can't and won't happen. Imho they should take the currently existing naval infantry, expand the manpower and dedicate one or two battalions to amphibious warfare for the core force. Additional army units can still be attached, if they get the proper training (like tanks, AA units, artillery, NBC protection, SIGINT etc.pp.). Basically everything that doesn't need to be part of the initial assault force could be picked from the army.

I doubt Germany will take any expeditionary adventures on it's own for the next couple of decades, so it is fair to assume additional Allied forces to fill possible "gaps" in manpower or capabilities (although the latter shouldn't happen; keyword: MEDEVAC in Afghanistan). To get a bit back to the initial article, I don't think anyone in the EU wants Germany to go "all militarism" again and pump out Carrier Battle Groups and Battleship Fleets like Ivan is at the gates again. I think the main issue is, Germany needs to commit more than the occasional medics or the lonely frigate (hyperbole intended and Afghanistan excluded) in EU/UN/NATO missions. Since most potential future and current conflict areas are rather close to the shoreline, one or two vessels for amphibious operations with adequate deployable manpower and equipment would benefit Germany more than a new wing of Typhoons or new battalion Leopard 2s.

We can't stick to the North Sea and Baltics since our area of influence and interests is much, much greater and as long as the Scandinavians don't discover their viking blood again, there isn't much of a conflict there anyway. I still have to see the Somali Skiff or [insert hostile state here] frigate to blockade Hamburg harbor like the Danes did 1864

[S@ncho]

Basically, you can screw that. Without a veto, you're nothing at the UN. That aside, I wonder if Germany has ever taken a position against the US in the UN. I remember vividly the bashing for abstaining in the Libya case (n.b.: not voting AGAINST the US)

That's your opinion, but not German governments and they took a position against the US in the last Iraq war, which caused the rejection of US support for an UNC seat. Since then they tried for a joined bid with India, Brazil and Japan and even today, the US is prefering Japan and even India.

So Germany does well, if it doesn not beef up military expenditures.

I disagree, if Germany wants to be a leading country in Europe and the world, they have to change their denfence policies and make their military stronger and more suited for missions abroad, but as mentioned, the biggest issue is the public opinion and Germany's history.

[EricBloodaxe]

Germany's interests don't end at the borders of Europe. Germany must be ready to defend it's assets, citizens and interests overseas just as any other modern nation.

Yes, Iraq was a grave threat to germany and the involvement there and in Libya has greatly reduced the chance for an attack on german soil.
/sarcasm

[happyslapper]

Yes, Iraq was a grave threat to germany and the involvement there and in Libya has greatly reduced the chance for an attack on german soil.
/sarcasm

Are you genuinely that simple minded, that ''assets, citizens, and interests'' can only be threatened by a conventional or terrorist attack within territorial Germany?

[Astaran]

Yes, Iraq was a grave threat to germany and the involvement there and in Libya has greatly reduced the chance for an attack on german soil.
/sarcasm

Too bad Germany participated neither in the Iraq war nor in Libya. But since you're new here, I offer you a second chance for better trolling. Pro Tip: do at least some halfarsed research to sound more credible.