# The worlds newest army



## CQB (Mar 18, 2015)

A pretty sound idea given Russia has designs on the Baltic (IMO)

EUROPEAN Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has called for the creation of an EU army in the wake of rising tensions with Russia.

Juncker said the force could help counter new threats beyond the bloc’s borders and defend European “values”, in an interview with Germany’s _Welt am Sonntag _newspaper.

“You would not create a European army to use it immediately,” he was quoted as saying.

“But a common army among the Europeans would convey to Russia that we are serious about defending the values of the European Union.”

http://mobile.news.com.au/technolog...alls-for-eu-army/story-fnpjxnlk-1227257460341


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 18, 2015)

Actions speak louder than words.  While I think this would be a fantastic development, I am not so naive as to think this would happen anytime soon or with any appreciable effectiveness.  In fact, I'm leaning more towards "Hi, goat.  Here's a rope.  You know what to do."


----------



## pardus (Mar 18, 2015)

NEVER HAPPEN.

Who will command it? Politically and Militarily? A country is going to allow people of all ranks to jump ship to join this new force? On TDY or swear a new allegiance entirely? Who will allow their citizens to serve in an Army that is not their own? 
Sure there is precedent with the Spanish and French Foreign Legions but I'd be very surprised to see it happen.
Who's going to fund it? Does Germany who pays 60% of the cost, get more say in it's deployment than say Greece, who will pay sometime in the future if things work out... maybe.
The Greeks (for example) will flood the EU Army to make money from it, just the Fijian's have been doing for years with the UN.

Besides, what difference is there to this than NATO that at least has some logistics (thanks to the USA) to actually fight outside of the EU borders?

The Germans would be better off re-introducing conscription and seeking foreign volunteers.

Again... :-"


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 18, 2015)

pardus said:


> NEVER HAPPEN.
> 
> *Who will command it? Politically and Militarily?* A country is going to allow people of all ranks to jump ship to join this new force? On TDY or swear a new allegiance entirely? Who will allow their citizens to serve in an Army that is not their own?
> Sure there is precedent with the Spanish and French Foreign Legions but I'd be very surprised to see it happen.
> ...



The bold is exactly what came to mind - who commits to this and who gets to call the shots?  What exactly is the criteria to commit forces?  I see this easily getting stalemated when there isn't a unanimous decision or when the costs for certain countries get to be too high.


----------



## AWP (Mar 18, 2015)

So they want NATO without the US involved?

That sound you hear is me laughing. Hysterically.

pardus makes some great points, but the article makes it sound like....well, NATO without the whole "North American" thing. If you start talking about citizens from the EU nations enlisting into some common army...that's just insane which is the same as this argument: insane. I guess Europe's military involvement, or lack thereof, since the end of the Cold War was forgotten.

It looks like the Good Idea Fairy is spending this spring in Europe.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 20, 2015)

Pretty nutty idea. Jean-Claude Junker must be smoking some especially strong crack  if he thinks the Russians would be scared or intimidated by the threat of an EU Army without American military might to back it up.


----------



## Poccington (Mar 21, 2015)

Europe doesn't go to war without the US behind them. Simples.

Anyone who tries to act like that's not the reality of the situation, is talking utter shite.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 21, 2015)

This briefs well but Europe can't afford the kind of military it would need to go it alone against Russia or any other major player.  Many of the EU nations don't pay what they are supposed to for defense right now, and we expect them to pay more?  How are the going to fund all of their social programs if they're not partially free riding on American-provided security?


----------



## CDG (Mar 23, 2015)

The most ironic thing is that some of the same countries that call America out for trying to play world police are the first ones to look over their shoulder and make sure we're standing there before they do anything militarily.


----------



## AWP (Mar 23, 2015)

CDG said:


> The most ironic thing is that some of the same countries that call America out for trying to play world police are the first ones to look over their shoulder and make sure we're standing there before they do anything militarily.


 
For every asshole European there's his counterpart in America and while there are plenty of good guys we forget there's no shortage of assholes we remember. I've worked with the Germans a little over here and by and large they are good folks. We did meet one O-6 that perfectly your post. We hosted/ dog and pony show, an ISAF delegation that was looking into C2 upgrades for Afghanistan. The group was led by a German O-6, his eputy was an O-5 US Naval Aviator, and the Major and Captain equivilents were from the RAF, Canadian Air Force, Dutch Air Force, some French pilot, and one or two others.

We went through our routine and my boss, a USAF O-5 pointed out that I had more experience with that Afghan mission than anyone in the room and would I like to share my thoughts. Um...yes, Sir. When I finished the German was bright red and I expected the Downfall bunker scene. What we received was a lecture on how to run a war which contained something like "You Americans need to provide the funds and leave me alone so I can build the network you need. You don't understand what you need and I can't help you until you fund this project." The US, UK, and CAN reps were mortified while the Dutch officer and others looked at their shoes and the Frenchman had a shit eating grin on his face.

They left and we never paid for it. The RAF did and they owned it, no German required.

I've wondered how that one conversation reflected their nations' attitude.


----------



## CQB (Mar 24, 2015)

Africa has a model, I'm tyre kicking, but it's not in the realm of impossible.


----------



## pardus (Mar 25, 2015)

CQB said:


> Africa has a model, I'm tyre kicking, but it's not in the realm of impossible.



Shitty model, and if they wish to be held as even somewhat serious, they need to vastly increase their budget and capability. As they stand right now, the EU is pathetic militarily.


----------



## CQB (Mar 25, 2015)

There's a precedent, and a model to refer to. As discussed, the devil would be in the detail.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 29, 2015)

http://rt.com/news/245009-arab-joint-force-agreed/

Arab League to create their own military force.

This has disaster written all over it.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 29, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> For every asshole European there's his counterpart in America and while there are plenty of good guys we forget there's no shortage of assholes we remember. I've worked with the Germans a little over here and by and large they are good folks. We did meet one O-6 that perfectly your post. We hosted/ dog and pony show, an ISAF delegation that was looking into C2 upgrades for Afghanistan. The group was led by a German O-6, his eputy was an O-5 US Naval Aviator, and the Major and Captain equivilents were from the RAF, Canadian Air Force, Dutch Air Force, some French pilot, and one or two others.
> 
> We went through our routine and my boss, a USAF O-5 pointed out that I had more experience with that Afghan mission than anyone in the room and would I like to share my thoughts. Um...yes, Sir. When I finished the German was bright red and I expected the Downfall bunker scene. What we received was a lecture on how to run a war which contained something like "You Americans need to provide the funds and leave me alone so I can build the network you need. You don't understand what you need and I can't help you until you fund this project." The US, UK, and CAN reps were mortified while the Dutch officer and others looked at their shoes and the Frenchman had a shit eating grin on his face.
> 
> ...


This mirrors my experience in Bosnia and Kosovo.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 29, 2015)

Many nations field excellent fighters.  Far fewer have much in the way of intel or logistics.  And NONE of them can put it all together like the Americans.


----------



## CDG (Mar 29, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Many nations field excellent fighters.  Far fewer have much in the way of intel or logistics.  And NONE of them can put it all together like the Americans.



What's that saying? Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics?  I have a feeling that whether it's Europe, Arab states, or Africa, any military "union" will be throwing us a "Hey bro, can we get a couple tankers?  And some trucks, and ships, and maybe automated logistics software with some SMEs?  Oh yeah, and can you throw in some troops to teach us all this shit?  You know what, nevermind, can you guys just handle ALL the logistics for us, but then we'll take credit for all the successes and blame you for the failures?  Cool."


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 29, 2015)

CQB said:


> Africa has a model, I'm tyre kicking, but it's not in the realm of impossible.



I worked with ECOMIL (ECOWAS Mission in Liberia) in 03, glad to have made it home safely.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Many nations field excellent fighters.  Far fewer have much in the way of intel or logistics.  And NONE of them can put it all together like the Americans.


 
Agree. It also took us a couple of world wars, a neverending GWOT, four decades of a Cold War, a bunch of "others," and a metric crapload of money. That isn't to say others can't learn from us with a greatly reduced cost/ time penalty to themselves, but they have a ways to go. If they wanted, they could pull it together in a few years, the UAE has the coin if it so desires, but politics will falcon punch this dream long before poor logistics or planning.


----------



## CQB (Mar 29, 2015)

There are also historic precedents on mixed forces, with mixed successes admittedly.


----------



## pardus (Mar 29, 2015)

CDG said:


> What's that saying? Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics?



I recently heard some guy with a PhD or whatever, give a lecture on "Why the Germans lost WWII"

His bottom line was, that while the Wehrmacht was the best fighting force in the conflict, with regards to equipment, tactics etc...
They concentrated everything on fighting to the detriment of logistics, which proved to be their downfall.
Very interesting.


----------



## CDG (Mar 29, 2015)

pardus said:


> I recently heard some guy with a PhD or whatever, give a lecture on "Why the Germans lost WWII"
> 
> His bottom line was, that while the Wehrmacht was the best fighting force in the conflict, with regards to equipment, tactics etc...
> They concentrated everything on fighting to the detriment of logistics, which proved to be their downfall.
> Very interesting.



I've also read/heard this view espoused in books and documentaries.  It's my understanding that many historians attribute their loss on the Eastern Front to their lack of concern for the required logistics of fighting in the Russian winter.


----------



## pardus (Mar 30, 2015)

CDG said:


> I've also read/heard this view espoused in books and documentaries.  It's my understanding that many historians attribute their loss on the Eastern Front to their lack of concern for the required logistics of fighting in the Russian winter.



Yeah, I don't fully buy into it though. 
Given the huge lack of trucks, and oil, to name but two essential requirements for the successful prosecution of the war, and the obvious fact that the German system supplied 3 million men during Barbarossa, leads me to think there is more than a lacking logistic system. Particularly given the anal nature of the Wehrmacht.


----------



## CQB (Mar 30, 2015)

An historical illustration is the Spanish Campaign of Napoleon & one Arthur Wellesley his opposite British number. Napoleons men relied on loot with a side order of pillage, after battle to get by as there was nothing in place compared to their enemy. Whilst this worked well further north in lush Europe it didn't go do well in dry central Spain. Wellesley fed and victualled his men well, a trade he'd learnt in India, which had a lot to do with his victory in Spain. Better fed, better led.  So yes, a long winded way to agree Admin & Log is vital. But I digress ( yet again).


----------



## CDG (Mar 30, 2015)

pardus said:


> Yeah, I don't fully buy into it though.
> Given the huge lack of trucks, and oil, to name but two essential requirements for the successful prosecution of the war, and the obvious fact that the German system supplied 3 million men during Barbarossa, leads me to think there is more than a lacking logistic system. Particularly given the anal nature of the Wehrmacht.



The Germans didn't lack the ability for the logistics, they just didn't do it.  They expected to be in Moscow by the time winter hit, and when they got bogged down they were too far behind the 8-ball to ever catch up.  German soldiers were using newspaper and straw to try and insulate their summer uniforms.  I read somewhere that there were something like 15k recorded limb amputations due to frostbite in the German Army that winter.


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2015)

The Wehrmacht suffered from a number of logistical problems in Russia:

- Distance. The further it advanced the harder it became to sustain the armies. This is further complicated by distances between army groups.
- Roads.  At times the Russian "road" network was little more than trails. It bore little resemblance to  anything the Germans had encountered and certainly not on that scale. Additionally, they could not sustain the amount of traffic required. Periods of high precipitation and traffic volume reduced the roads to quagmires, further hindering logistical efforts.
- Volume. The further the log train traveled the more fuel, rations, and spare parts it required. This detracted from supplying the front which required more vehicles which used more parts, fuel, men and rations...now you have a circular problem.
- Rail. I think we can file the Soviet rail system under "LOL."
- Hubris. It didn't expect a protracted war, nor a winter war, and it showed.
- Fuel. In addition to hubris the Germans lacked the fuel reserves to sustain ANY war.
- Arrogance. Had Hitler allowed commanders to shorten their defensive lines it would reduce the manning requirements for those vast spaces plus the distances needed for resupply.
- Sheer numbers. As @pardus pointed out, the number of available trucks and the number of troops to support them were out of proportion.
- Two fronts. Russia plus the desert and then later Russia plus Italy/ the Med divided German's meagre resources.

None of the above takes 1944 into consideration, but by then the war was "over" and not applicable to the crucial period from 1941-1943. The only hope Germany possessed was the quick capitulation of the Soviet Union and we all know that would never happen.


----------



## pardus (Mar 30, 2015)

CDG said:


> The Germans didn't lack the ability for the logistics, they just didn't do it.  They expected to be in Moscow by the time winter hit, and when they got bogged down they were too far behind the 8-ball to ever catch up.  German soldiers were using newspaper and straw to try and insulate their summer uniforms.  I read somewhere that there were something like 15k recorded limb amputations due to frostbite in the German Army that winter.



For the first winter.
The Germans never had a problem with winter after that first year.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 30, 2015)

My experience (limited as it is) with non 1st world militaries is no one wants to be a log/intel/support guy.  They all wanted to be Lt/Capt/Maj/Col Macho and support is not macho.

We have the same problem to some extent, but tell people to suck it up.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 30, 2015)

CDG said:


> I've also read/heard this view espoused in books and documentaries.  It's my understanding that many historians attribute their loss on the Eastern Front to their lack of concern for the required logistics of fighting in the Russian winter.



To that point, in 1943 Hitler wanted more Tigers, so he delayed the largest tank battle in history for a few more months at Kursk.. That proved a disaster as the Russians churned out far more T34s than the Germans knew what to do with.


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2015)

SOTGWarrior said:


> To that point, Hitler delayed the
> 
> 
> In 1943 Hitler wanted more Tigers, so he delayed the largest tank battle in history for a few more months. That proved a disaster as the Russians churned out far more T43s than the Germans knew what to do with.


 
Tigers and Panthers, both of which were still teething and not ready for the battlefield. The extra time not only allowed for more T-34's but also more anti-tank trenches and guns to be constructed/ employed. The tanks mattered, but ultimately the trenches and AT guns were the deciding factor.


----------



## Dienekes (Mar 30, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Tigers and Panthers, both of which were still teething and not ready for the battlefield. The extra time not only allowed for more T-34's but also more anti-tank trenches and guns to be constructed/ employed. The tanks mattered, but ultimately the trenches and AT guns were the deciding factor.



Makes me think of the quote "A good plan executed violently now is better than a perfect plan executed later".


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 30, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Tigers and Panthers, both of which were still teething and not ready for the battlefield. The extra time not only allowed for more T-34's but also more anti-tank trenches and guns to be constructed/ employed. The tanks mattered, but ultimately the trenches and AT guns were the deciding factor.



Just as many Tigers were destroyed by the Germans during Kursk as the enemy destroyed because PM was a nightmare. The Germans did not want that to end up in the Russians hands so they blew up their disabled tanks they had no clue or way of fixing.


----------



## pardus (Mar 30, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Tigers and Panthers, both of which were still teething and not ready for the battlefield. The extra time not only allowed for more T-34's but also more anti-tank trenches and guns to be constructed/ employed. The tanks mattered, but ultimately the trenches and AT guns were the deciding factor.



The depth of the Russian defensive's was crazy. IIRC Hitler did not want to go ahead with the attack but was convinced otherwise.


----------



## AWP (Mar 30, 2015)

SOTGWarrior said:


> Just as many Tigers were destroyed by the Germans during Kursk as the enemy destroyed because PM was a nightmare. The Germans did not want that to end up in the Russians hands so they blew up their disabled tanks they had no clue or way of fixing.


 
I vaguely recall an issue with the engines in the Panther and something similar (or transmission problems?) in the Tiger. You're right though, they destroyed a lot of their own tanks.



pardus said:


> The depth of the Russian defensive's was crazy. IIRC Hitler did not want to go ahead with the attack but was convinced otherwise.


 
He didn't, but he didn't stop it. I want to say some of the German generals were against it, but Citadel was executed through inertia more than anything. By the time of the attack I doubt many Germans supported the action, but shrugged, sighed, and went on their way. It was a pointless offensive.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 31, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Many nations field excellent fighters.  Far fewer have much in the way of *intel or logistics*.  And NONE of them can put it all together like the Americans.


 
I agree with you about the logistics part.  No one does it as well as Americans.  Especially when you look at all the extraneous bullshit we bring to the battlefield and the amount of vehicles we put on the road.  IIRC, one of the ways American soldiers identified German infiltrators in the Battle of the Bulge (Panzer Brigade 150/Operation Greif) was that Americans rode 1-2 in jeeps and the Germans, not used to having a lot of wheeled vehicles, put 4 Germans in every jeep.  Easy day spoting the Germans.  Look at all the PXs and Burger Kings in Iraq back in the day. 

I don't agree with you on the intelligence part.  I've seen way too many piss-poor intelligence briefs and we've seen too many intelligence failures to be able to support that.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2015)

0699 said:


> I agree with you about the logistics part.  No one does it as well as Americans.  Especially when you look at all the extraneous bullshit we bring to the battlefield and the amount of vehicles we put on the road.  IIRC, one of the ways American soldiers identified German infiltrators in the Battle of the Bulge (Panzer Brigade 150/Operation Greif) was that Americans rode 1-2 in jeeps and the Germans, not used to having a lot of wheeled vehicles, put 4 Germans in every jeep.  Easy day spoting the Germans.  Look at all the PXs and Burger Kings in Iraq back in the day.
> 
> *I don't agree with you on the intelligence part.  I've seen way too many piss-poor intelligence briefs and we've seen too many intelligence failures to be able to support that.*



I think our ability to suck data in is unsurpassed, we need to do a better job understanding what we sucked in.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2015)

Pulling in data isn't the same as processing or analysing that data. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff and turn the grain into flour. At times the volume of data collected exceeds our ability to process it all. I've also seen lazy -2 shops over here, conventional stuff, where they did a copy-paste from one estimate to the next. I've watched others produce dynamic products (One, an AF Intel guy is now doing "interesting things. Nice to see one of the good guys win) whcih were then ignored.

As an outsider I think Intel failures come down to processing the data, understanding it, and a commander's will to use the information.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 31, 2015)

pardus said:


> I recently heard some guy with a PhD or whatever, give a lecture on "Why the Germans lost WWII"
> 
> His bottom line was, that while the Wehrmacht was the best fighting force in the conflict, with regards to equipment, tactics etc...
> They concentrated everything on fighting to the detriment of logistics, which proved to be their downfall.
> Very interesting.


 
And not only logistics but lack of resources. I forget the exact figure but something like 60 or 70% of the Wehrmacht's transport was horse-drawn.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 31, 2015)

0699 said:


> ...
> 
> I don't agree with you on the intelligence part.  I've seen way too many piss-poor intelligence briefs and we've seen too many intelligence failures to be able to support that.



There are always things that could be improved, but America's intelligence apparatus is the best in the world when it comes to military operations.  That's why every other country we're involved with asks for it.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 31, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> There are always things that could be improved, but America's intelligence apparatus is the best in the world when it comes to military operations.  *That's why every other country we're involved with asks for it*.


 
What specifically do they ask for?  Our analytical capability?  Or our gathering capability?  I agree with @Freefalling in his above post; we can gather raw information like no one's business, but that's simply a factor of money and technology.  I don't think our analysts and our ability to gather are equivilent.


----------

