Bundeswehr trains for a new deployment in the Baltics

[sburke]

1 minute ago, Ivanov said:

Good news 

No, no it's not.  You tossed me aside with no thought at all about how I might feel.  I don't think we really share anymore.  You seem distant and aloof.  I... I ... I am afraid maybe we need some time apart.

 

 

 

 

[Ivanov]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

No, no it's not.  You tossed me aside with no thought at all about how I might feel.  I don't think we really share anymore.  You seem distant and aloof.  I... I ... I am afraid maybe we need some time apart.

 

 

 

 

 I think we need some meditation and spiritual healing 

[sburke]

LOL love it

[Erwin]

Anyone see "The Death Of Stalin"?  Hilarious pythonesque absurdity movie.

[Saint_Fuller]

16 hours ago, Ivanov said:

What I've been saying, is that given the size and it's mission, the German military budget is not too small.

The Bundeswehr doesn't have enough money to maintain the equipment it needs to do its job, ergo it's not getting the funding it needs to do its job. Its budget is too small.

This surely cannot be that difficult to grasp?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Saint_Fuller

[Saint_Fuller]

e: accidentally double-posted, please ignore

Edited May 17, 2018 by Saint_Fuller

[Codename Duchess]

Regarding the percentage debate, remember that NATO countries are obligated to spend 2% of their GDP on defense but few major European countries do. There’s no obligation to spend it wisely but it’s at least a start. 

 

As for German military readiness, two examples painting a pretty bleak picture of the Sea and Air. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/german-military-fighters-jets-not-ready-for-combat-2018-5

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/

[DerKommissar]

18 hours ago, Ivanov said:

Ah the magic of statistics... With the massive GDP Germans don't need to spend 2% on the defence. Even with their 1.3%, they spend little less than UK and only 30% less than Russia, which  is suffocating itself with an unsustainable military expenditure. Also keep in mind, that unlike those two countries, Germans don't need to maintain nuclear forces or a big navy. Sure Federal Republic could spend a little more, but IMO their current problems don't originate from an insufficient military budget. As to the equipment expenditure, they spend less because unlike the Baltic states they have the equipment. If you compare German APC's, tanks or helicopters to what Poland has ( 2% of GDP spending on the defence ), it's like comparing modern army to a museum exhibition. I'm not saying that Bundeswehr is in a great shape, but you have to look a little further than the raw statistics or press articles with a clear political aim. 

NATO has guidelines regarding defence expenditures commitment, the guideline is 2 percent. How much of their money are they putting where their mouth is? US has a much higher GDP. For some reason, it spends 3.58 percent on military expenditures (and has their largest land deployment in Germany).  The Germans have the economy to support a larger army, yet they don't. Is it possible that it has to do with foreign commitment to the defense of their borders?

Let's forget about GDP, for a moment. Let us consider the total expenditures. Defence Expenditure, in millions of US dollars: France: 44,333, Germany: 42,875, UK: 54,863, US: 683,414, Canada: 20,315. It is important to note that Germany has the highest population in the EU (List of European Countries by Population , all of that data is from Government cites). Table 5 has Defence expenditure per capita (2010 US dollars): Germany: 569, France: 761, UK: 897, Canada: 665, US: 1,887. Table 5 also has total Military personnel (thousands): Germany: 179, France: 209, UK: 161, Canada: 73, United States: 1,308. 

What does this mean? Despite its potentially dangerous strategic location, Germany spends less to defend a larger population. It relies on its allies for protection more than similarly populated countries. I am sure that they have shiny equipment. Considering the previously mentioned statistic regarding equipment expenditures, I would question the readiness and logistics behind that equipment. A decent parade army that was never intended to defend their borders sufficiently (that is what the rest of NATO is for). 

For the record, I welcome questioning of the context of these statistics. I do not have any political goal in this debate. I am simply drawing conclusions from observations.

Edited May 17, 2018 by DerKommissar

[Ivanov]

1 hour ago, Saint_Fuller said:

The Bundeswehr doesn't have enough money to maintain the equipment it needs to do its job, ergo it's not getting the funding it needs to do its job. Its budget is too small.

Now you can provide some hard data to back up this claim. I mean the supposedly low numbers, that are devoted to maintain the equipment readiness. BW is not a big army and it doesn't have thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes to maintain like it was during the Cold War. Do they spend all the cash on salaries and kindergartens for soldier families?  You can convince me if you show me the numbers ( I don't have them ). In my opinion the current situation is caused by organizational and maybe cultural issues, not by insufficient funds.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Ivanov

[Ivanov]

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

Let's forget about GDP, for a moment. Let us consider the total expenditures. Defence Expenditure, in millions of US dollars: France: 44,333, Germany: 42,875, UK: 54,863, US: 683,414, Canada: 20,315. It is important to note that Germany has the highest population in the EU (List of European Countries by Population , all of that data is from Government cites). Table 5 has Defence expenditure per capita (2010 US dollars): Germany: 569, France: 761, UK: 897, Canada: 665, US: 1,887. Table 5 also has total Military personnel (thousands): Germany: 179, France: 209, UK: 161, Canada: 73, United States: 1,308.

 

Again, the magic of statistics  If anything, in context of this discussion ( low readiness and poor shape of BW in general ), you should be looking how much is spend per soldier, not per capita of general population. You shouldn't compare medium size country to US, with it's global reach and commitments of a super power. UK and France are also separate cases being more active on the international stage. The issue if Germany should be more involved militarily on the global stage, if their armed forces should be bigger ( pitiful 220 tanks against resurgent Russia ) and if they should meed their alliance commitments are a matters for another discussion.  I appreciate your input.
 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Ivanov

[Saint_Fuller]

36 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

Now you can provide some hard data to back up this claim. I mean the supposedly low numbers, that are devoted to maintain the equipment readiness. BW is not a big army and it doesn't have thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes to maintain like it was during the Cold War. Do they spend all the cash on salaries and kindergartens for kids of soldier families?  You can convince me if you show me the numbers ( I don't have them ). In my opinion the current situation is caused by organizational and maybe cultural issues, not by insufficient funds.

How long are we going to keep this going?

Fact: The Bundeswehr does not have enough money to maintain its equipment.
Fact: The Bundeswehr can't do its job, because it can't maintain the equipment it needs to do that.
Conclusion: the Bundeswehr needs more money so it can do its job.

I've provided the evidence, both the raw data and literal admissions from the German government that the Bundeswehr is not capable of doing its job, to prove my claims.
You've yet to provide any at all for the claim that I'm wrong in any capacity, only "no u" denials and odd rambling about how we can't just trust the data because... something something muh unreliable statistics.
I must admit I look eagerly forward to whatever sources you have to back your claims up. I do however expect you're going to keep up this dancing around and refusing to provide anything to back up your claims though, so until you shape up, I think we're done here.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Saint_Fuller

[Rinaldi]

This is some spicy, top-tier, fingers-in-ears denial. God Bless. 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/less-third-german-military-assets-operational-says-report/

Quote

Number of weapon systems ready for action:

• Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
• Tornado jets: 26 of 93
• CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
• NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
• Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
• A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
• Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
• Frigates: 5 of 13
• Submarines: 0 out of 6

 

"The Bundeswehr’s problems aren’t new, but it is shocking that nearly nothing has improved after four years of Ursula von der Leyen serving as defence minister,” said Tobias Lindner, a defence and budget expert for the opposition Greens."

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1G31PF - My emphasis.

I am sure you will find a way to hand wave this away as well, while at the same time preaching of being open-minded in an onion-like ironic display. Again: I am always amazed at the hills some forum members here choose to die on, but this one amazes me the most.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bundeswehr+equipment+ready+rates

For further edumacation. By the way; it matters very little how 'small' an army is; operational ready rates of 50 percent or lower are atrocious. Absolutely atrocious. Having to cannibalize a division to equip a battalion is what we call a joke with a very bad punchline. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Rinaldi

[Ivanov]

@Saint_Fuller equipment maintenance is under the category "other", right? Also if you're looking at the chart, there's only a marked difference in the equipment spending between Germany and France.  

[Ivanov]

@Rinaldi denial of what? I'm not denying that the BW is in a poor shape. Wer're just discussing what is the cause.

[Rinaldi]

10 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

there's only a marked difference in the equipment spending between Germany and France.  

Which circles back to the point that the Bundeswehr is a bit of a shambles, not well motivated, questionably well trained, and poorly maintained. 

Quote

denial of what?

Quote

I see that you really believe that. Below some vehicles with the broomsticks attached instead of machine guns

Quote

 don't mean that the army is ineffective or the other way around. I'd expect less superficial comments on this forum

If I raise my eyebrows any further they may merge with my hairline. You turn yourself around two posts later then go off on this very strange pseudo numbers crunch about GDP and defense expenditure. I'm not sure why everyone voluntarily chose to get lost in the sauce here, but the bottom line is the Bundeswehr is not currently capable of maintaining themselves and it shows quite clearly in their soldiery. Most here who decided to dance the jig have shown pretty strong evidence that the political management of funds is a large factor, if you want your why. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Rinaldi

[Ivanov]

8 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Despite similar GDP expenditure by similarly sized militaries, in similar economic circumstances, the Bundeswehr routinely shows itself to not be up to snuff. 

And why is that in your opinion?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think the amount of money is not as bad as the way in which the money is being spent.

Basically Germany needs to decide.   Is it going to have a small, low capability Army that's properly funded, or is it going to have this weird mish-mash of the ghost of the once highly capable West German military, with some COIN elements we don't like talking about, all of which is criminally undercapitalized.  

Seeing as this just popped up as a lovely way to illustrate my point:
 

2 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

This is some spicy, top-tier, fingers-in-ears denial. God Bless. 

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/less-third-german-military-assets-operational-says-report/

 

"The Bundeswehr’s problems aren’t new, but it is shocking that nearly nothing has improved after four years of Ursula von der Leyen serving as defence minister,” said Tobias Lindner, a defence and budget expert for the opposition Greens."

https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1G31PF

I am sure you will find a way to hand wave this away as well, while at the same time preaching of being open-minded in an onion-like ironic display. Again: I am always amazed at the hills some forum members here choose to die on, but this one amazes me the most.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bundeswehr+equipment+ready+rates

For further edumacation. 

Germany needs to decide if it wants to have 105 tanks, or 224 tanks, not if it wants to pretend it has 224 tanks while funding 105, while pretending it's still 1988 and their armor force is still a cornerstone of European defense.  It's also worth noting the USMC alone has more equipment, let alone more operational equipment than Germany if we're talking about defense burdens.  

Basically it's honesty of intentions.  For many NATO partners it's readily apparent Germany's role in NATO isn't to contribute to the greater defensive mission, it's to benefit from other people's investment in their military forces.  This isn't a slight against the German military, and as soldiers, airmen, and sailors I'd contend they're at least on par with most of Western Europe (I'd put them behind the French and the UK potentially).  But the German civilian government's answer to the unfortunate legacy of their grandparents is to simply refuse the idea of having a military role now that it isn't likely a Soviet armor column clatters its way through Fulda and beyond, and worse to underwrite this behavior while expecting others to fulfill their military obligations, while remaining one of the richest nations in Western Europe. 

In so many words it can be contended that rebuilt with American dollars, defended with American, British, French, Dutch, Belgian (and others) blood and steel, Germany is now turning around, danke schone mine kamrade bitte hilfe, I cannot be bothered to help the Poles, the Baltic states, the Ukraine, I have too much prosperity going on to possibly be bothered with collective defense!

This isn't to indicate a true rift with NATO, or a policy position of anyone.  I'm certain if the balloon goes up, the 105 or so Leo 2s in running order will show up, if Russian cruise missiles are striking Berlin US and others ADA systems will be fully involved in that fight. but goddamned wouldn't it be cool if the Germans were fielding an armored division or two worth of effective troops instead of a few battalions?

[Rinaldi]

A combination of factors, not all of them something that I would describe as bad; straight up political mismanagement aside, the 'cultural' view of military service, if you'll forgive that term, doesn't exactly make it a first choice for a fit teenager or a well educated young man. The lack of an existential threat on your border, a strong pacifist movement, the knowledge that a superpower is going to come rushing to your nation's defense, and the (understandable) optics of deploying German military power anywhere also factors in. The long and short of  it: They don't have an esprit d'corps and they aren't really being given the incentive (and green) to develop one. Stagnation is basically inevitable. That's the quick and dirty of it. 

Anything else I could write would be parroting @panzersaurkrautwerfer and there's no need to be redundant. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Rinaldi

[Ivanov]

It's also worth mentioning, that from the point of view of the majority of German political class, using military in international relations is "obsolete". German international politics, has similar goals to Russian aims, that is to spread German influence in the "near abroad" and expand the buffer zone around the country. But the main tool of this expansion is economy and the main vehicle of it is the EU. This policy has been hugely successful so far, hence I don't expect that we'll see increase of importance of German armed forces any time soon.

[sid_burn]

8 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

It's also worth mentioning, that from the point of view of the majority of German political class, using military in international relations is "obsolete". German international politics, has similar goals to Russian aims, that is to spread German influence in the "near abroad" and expand the buffer zone around the country. But the main tool of this expansion is economy and the main vehicle of it is the EU. This policy has been hugely successful so far, hence I don't expect that we'll see increase of importance of German armed forces any time soon.

AKA everyone who was telling you the German army is a steaming mess (such as @Rinaldi and @panzersaurkrautwerfer) were right and you admit that the Germans place little importance on their army. So, this entire previous argument was pointless. 

And yes, Merkel's 4th Reich will bring world peace. 

GOTT

MIT

UNS

[Ivanov]

Just now, sid_burn said:

AKA everyone who was telling you the German army is a steaming mess (such as @Rinaldi and @panzersaurkrautwerfer) were right and you admit that the Germans place little importance on their army. So, this entire previous argument was pointless. 

And yes, Merkel's 4th Reich will bring world peace. 

GOTT

MIT

UNS

I see that the functional analphabetism is alive and well. Where did I say that German army is in a perfect shape?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

12 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

It's also worth mentioning, that from the point of view of the majority of German political class, using military in international relations is "obsolete". German international politics, has similar goals to Russian aims, that is to spread German influence in the "near abroad" and expand the buffer zone around the country. But the main tool of this expansion is economy and the main vehicle of it is the EU. This policy has been hugely successful so far, hence I don't expect that we'll see increase of importance of German armed forces any time soon.

Which is rather rage inducing on some level, because much of the stability Germany relies on isn't the result of German political masterstrokes*, but of a security stability underwritten by other people's spending on greenly painted equipment of narrow utility, young Americans living overseas in various oddly located gated communities, and so forth.

It's a bit like in arguing you don't need to bother with road taxes any more because you can do everything over the internet now, you don't really have the internet without the physical infrastructure to allow it to exist.  And it's very frustrating because the Germans will not pay for the structure that allows them the peace to be who they are, and often, their political class sees fit to lecture other countries on the validity of their "new" way, while ignoring it only exists because of the rest of NATO (especially one English speaking, multi-ethnic, hamburger devouring country's) sacrifices.  

It's a bit like being told how we should all be more thrifty like zee Germans while ignoring they have reduced expenses because they're living in the house we bought for them, and they're getting their electrical power from an extension cord they've plugged into our house.  This isn't to imply Germany's post war success is entirely on the backs of other people, but it does again, make their lack of contribution to Western security rather a fly in the ointment,  and you can see some of the discontent resulting from this.

*Like as a lovely case in point, please note the failure in German engagement with Russia.  This warmer, fluffier more open approach was supposed to bring the Russians in from the cold.  Instead it hooked the Germans on GAZPROM, Putin did whatever he was going to do any way, and the Germans were sort of standing around blankly like "but we were friends!"  The Germans believe they're a lot better at diplomacy than they are, largely because the protections they have from the failure of that diplomacy are absorbed by others.  

[Sulomon]

12 minutes ago, Ivanov said:

I see that the functional analphabetism is alive and well. Where did I say that German army is in a perfect shape?

You didn't but you said it was in better condition than it is by disagreeing with people who showed the German army is in a state of disarray.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Sulomon

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

It wouldn't surprise me if part of the German Military's budget is being diverted to pay for the millions of unproductive Third World immigrants that Angela Merkel and the other open-borders lunatics in Germany have imported over the last two decades. 
 

[Ivanov]

16 minutes ago, Sulomon said:

You didn't but you said it was in better condition than it is by disagreeing with people who showed the German army is in a state of disarray.

Nope. I was just disagreeing with judging BW state based on the look of the soldiers from the video. I've been also trying to turn this exchange into more constructive discussion about the real reasons, why German army has become what it is today. So thank you for the recent comments of @panzersaurkrautwerfer @DerKommissar @Rinaldi and @Saint_Fuller

Edited May 17, 2018 by Ivanov