German Armed Forces reduced to 150 000?

[BillB]

Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, but I'm also including the likes of Poland and Czechoslovakia when I think about this. Granted, that isn't really fair to the Poles or the Czechs, given the economic considerations of the time, but they still paid the price for it. It's ironic when you consider just how fragile the German Army really was, in a lot of ways. If Poland had had more resources, and a better army at the time Germany invaded, what then? Or, if the UK had enough military resources on hand that they could actually do more than stand on the sidelines? German success was a narrow-run thing. It could have been derailed any number of ways. Imagine the effect a couple of squadrons of Spitfires or Hurricanes could have had on the Luftwaffe. Of course, those planes would need proper utilization, but...

 

France may have spent the money, but they spent it in wrong places, much of the time. How many modern aircraft (not to mention the trained pilots to man them...) did they have, and how many sets of portable communications equipment? Some of the things that could have enabled a successful defense would literally have cost nickels and dimes compared to the stuff they did spend money on. How much training time was spent conducting joint operations air-ground operations, for example?

 

At least a part of the problem wasn't money, per se: It was a lack of attention paid to the issues, and a lack of imagination by the establishment, who were expecting a re-run of WWI. Had the war happened a few years later, and if reformers like De Gaul had had a chance to see their reforms actually implemented, then the events of 1940 would have taken a much different course. And, there was nothing stopping the French from doing that in the 1930s, and actually being prepared for the war when and how it happened, now was there? All of it stemmed from a lack of will to actually prepare for the war that loomed in front of them, and which they'd set the stage for via Versailles. Utter foolishness.

 

Ref the first bolded bit, perhpas you could clarify how that relates to the British military?

 

Ref the second bolded bit, I think you are conveniently overlooking that the stage-setter-in-chief was POTUS Wilson.

 

You aren't doing very well here are you? Mebbe a bit less broad brush and a bit more reading might not go amiss. Along with a bit of brevity and clarity.

 

BillB

Edited December 21, 2010 by BillB

[BillB]

Oh, ad hominem? Well, some people don't have much else...

A look at the date of my registration and the quantity of my posts should silence all stupid remarks about quantity of words here.

 

Ad hominem aimed at you? Musta missed that. As for the rest, get you. Silence all stupid remarks? Please. That would read a lot better if you didn't talk a lot of tripe yourself on occasion; I expect that's why you didn't add "quality" to your list of attributes. Get over yourself FFS.

 

BillB

Edited December 21, 2010 by BillB

[thekirk]

Ref the first bolded bit, perhpas you could clarify how that relates to the British military?

 

Ref the second bolded bit, I think you are conveniently overlooking that the stage-setter-in-chief was POTUS Wilson.

 

You aren't doing very well here are you? Mebbe a bit less broad brush and a bit more reading might not go amiss. Along with a bit of brevity and clarity.

 

BillB

 

Bill, that paragraph is referring to the French, entirely.

 

And, Wilson's contribution is a whole other thing, entirely. I'll note, however, that many of his ideas didn't get taken up, and that the people who did the most to impose the post-war indignities on the Germans were mostly, ah... French, were they not? That's who I'm talking about. The peace-makers didn't have to listen to him, and I think you'll have to admit, they mostly didn't. But, yes, Wilson bears some responsibility, and the US has to own that. You go over the history of those days, and it's a little horrifying contemplating what he and his compatriots managed to accomplish.

 

It's like they completely ignored the reaction they'd (speaking of the French, here) had to the post-Franco-Prussian War peace conditions, and couldn't see that they were doing the same thing in turn to the Germans that they felt had been done to them. And, setting the stage for WWII, at the same time. Hell, many of the negotiators are on record as leaving Versailles and saying as much. What's the famous quote? Something about "We've not negotiated a peace here, it's a 20-year cease-fire...".

Edited December 21, 2010 by thekirk

[Tomas Hoting]

Still, I envy your governance.

 

Well, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, isn't it?

 

Still, it's always interesting to hear what foreigners think of another country's political system.

[TonyE]

France had plenty of tanks.....their ergonomics - those poky little one or at most two-man turrets, commanders expected to double or even triple up as radio operators/gunners etc.

 

At least two-thirds of all german tanks in 1940 had one-man turrets aswell.....

[Meyer]

At least two-thirds of all german tanks in 1940 had one-man turrets aswell.....

Not really, more like 20%-31% depending if one counts the tanks with the Pz units or the entire Heer inventory.

[TonyE]

At least a part of the problem wasn't money, per se: It was a lack of attention paid to the issues, and a lack of imagination by the establishment, who were expecting a re-run of WWI.

 

Unless the french high command had a crystalball to look into the future how would they know what type of war would eventually happen in 1940? They took what worked for them in the last war and built on it, as any army would have done and still does. Most armies don`t like extreme changes to their doctrine and outlook, atleast not when they already have what they consider to be a proven formula. Believe it or not though, during the 1 1/2 month campaign the french were trying to adapt and test new tactics on the go, discarding what did not work, unfortunatly they did not have the time nor space to fully take advantage of it.

 

It's like they completely ignored the reaction they'd (speaking of the French, here) had to the post-Franco-Prussian War peace conditions...

 

I recall being at the lecture of a german professor many years ago, during which he mentioned that if the germans had won WW1 they would have made similar demands on France as was in turn demanded of them during Versailles. So what was the french to do? Take it in the rear and sing kumbaya, telling the germans to be nice little boys and do no more naughtiness? It was revenge for the franco-prussian war and expecting anything else would be rediculous, the germans themselfs made sure of that in 1871.

[Yama]

Ah, well. Hope the optimistic worldview turns out to be true, for all our sakes. Just because you're living under another halcyon period like the Pax Romana, however, doesn't make it any less necessary to be prepared for bad things to happen. You sound as though you honestly believe that Europe has no interests outside it's narrow little part of the world--Which I have to question.

 

Where are the European export markets, and where do most European imports come from? Care to extrapolate what happens if say, Argentina, decides to start charging "Transit Fees" for rounding Cape Horn? Or, if Iran decides to cut off oil flow from the Arabian Gulf? What's the European game plan, then? Send a pithily worded diplomatic cable? What does Holland do, if Venezuela decides to make a grab for Aruba, and the US isn't up for policing the Caribbean?

 

All of those countries have even less ability for power projection than any of the major European countries, as gutted as their militaries are. You can't possibly draw analogy between Hitler's Germany and Chavez' Venezuela. Lets get real here.

 

No matter what happens, US will always have more interest to police Caribbean than Europe. Argentine would piss off much more countries than just those in Europe with such 'transit fees'. There is no such thing as "Arabian Gulf".

[lastdingo]

I recall being at the lecture of a german professor many years ago, during which he mentioned that if the germans had won WW1 they would have made similar demands on France as was in turn demanded of them during Versailles. So what was the french to do? Take it in the rear and sing kumbaya, telling the germans to be nice little boys and do no more naughtiness? It was revenge for the franco-prussian war and expecting anything else would be rediculous, the germans themselfs made sure of that in 1871.

 

Well, the conflict about Alsace-Lorraine went back to Louis XIV, who began to annex it iirc.

 

There were German demands (especially from the industry) to annex the French region which had much iron ore (that ore proved crucial to Germany in WWI and was close to the border).

 

I am not aware of any actual intent to annex anything in 1914, but the demands grew as the burden of the war grew. It was nevertheless probably no mission creep. I think Germany would have accepted a status quo ante peace in 1916-1918 - haven't seen anything that really suggested otherwise.

 

This was meant as an answer to "So what was the french to do?"

The whole idiocy should have been stopped by early 1915, at the latest in summer of 1916. It was obvious that no participant (save for Japan, which grabbed Tsingtao at low cost) could expect a net gain from continued warfare.

[TonyE]

Not really, more like 20%-31% depending if one counts the tanks with the Pz units or the entire Heer inventory.

 

Total number, and i dare consider the Pz-II as having a one-man turret....

[TonyE]

I am not aware of any actual intent to annex anything in 1914

 

I believe it would mostly have been economic demands + possibly colonies.

[Ken Estes]

I believe it would mostly have been economic demands + possibly colonies.

There were still proposals and concepts for making the French even less capable of rivaling German power at war's outbreak. Once the stalemate was reached and losses mounted on the western front, feelings hardened and as might be expected in such a conflict, war aims began to include retributions to punish the other side, make the sacrifices 'worthwhile' and so forth. There were definitely expanded war aims on all sides, and for the Germans it included territorial concessions vs. Belgium and No. France, perhaps a revision of the status of Lux, and so on. By 1918 and the Michael Offensive, one can be sure that a successful German offensive [however unlikely] leading to a 11Nov18 armistice requested by the defeated Allies would have brought a much harsher peace than did the Trty of Frankfurt in 1871.

 

Several of Wilson's 14 Points argued against this trend, of course, as expectations remained high and heated.

[swerve]

Total number, and i dare consider the Pz-II as having a one-man turret....

Yeah, but it was hardly the ultimate expression of German armour in 1940. There were hundreds of Pz III & IV around to lead the charge. The French problem was that all their tanks had little turrets.

[Yama]

I recall being at the lecture of a german professor many years ago, during which he mentioned that if the germans had won WW1 they would have made similar demands on France as was in turn demanded of them during Versailles.

 

Germans of course already did that in Brest-Litovsk treaty. In retrospect, they perhaps should not have been so greedy...

[Jim Martin]

The situation in Europe was so different form today, that a comparison is just stupid. There no open territorial disputes in Central Europe, there was no European Union, no Euro and down to the level of the population there was no Europe.

 

If you look at Greece for example, they surely have more pressing needs than having a big army, an army they simply can not afford.

 

Except that they're directly across from the Turks, and the Turks have been acting decidedly more un-neighborly lately.

[swerve]

But the Turks know the difference between geese & golden eggs. They understand that invasions are out of fashion, & upsetting their biggest source of investment, tourists & aid, their biggest export market, & both of their two main sources of military equipment is probably not worth a few piffling little islands.

Edited December 23, 2010 by swerve

[seahawk]

Except that they're directly across from the Turks, and the Turks have been acting decidedly more un-neighborly lately.

 

That depends what you want to achieve. With the economy broke they will be weaker in the long run.

[BansheeOne]

I've caught a glimpse at a briefing document that treats the early six-brigade army model (with two division HQs, plus French-German brigade, airborne and SF forces) and the more recent divisional battlegroup phantasms as equal options. The buzz is that with the increased manpower ceiling there's now enough mass to have proper brigades with balanced armor and infantry capabilities (and maybe even organic artillery) again.

 

Latest unconfirmed reports:

 

- two divisions with three brigades and organic artillery (no word on unit size) each

 

- each brigade will have three light/mechanized infantry battalions, one tank battalion and one recon, engineer and logistics battalion each

 

- additional two-star command "Fast Forces" with one airborne and one airmobile regiment, one attack (Tiger) and two light transport (NH 90) helicopter regiments

 

- French-German Brigade as now

 

- subordination of KSK not yet decided, but joint special forces command likely.

 

Which means we're mostly back to the original plans detailed in my first post, and the six projected deployment brigades will even have four maneuver battalions each. Thank God.

Edited January 5, 2011 by BansheeOne

[BansheeOne]

organic artillery (no word on unit size)

 

Newer reports say battalion-sized divisional artillery. I'd imagine a mixed battalion like in the French-German Brigade, with two (or maybe three, supporting three brigades) PzH 2000 and one MLRS battery. And you would have to stick a spotting battery with radars, UAVs etc. in there, too.

 

Out of six brigades, they allegedly want to have two on operations at any time which would be ... ambitious given the individual soldier is currently intended to be deployed four out of 18 months. I think it rather means "two simultaneous operations" with no mention of scope.

[Mistral]

That depends what you want to achieve. With the economy broke they will be weaker in the long run.

 

Thats true but having 8 armed Turkish F-16 perform repeated low overflies over a Greek inhabited island the same day the Greek prime minister is visiting Turkey a couple of days ago puts a different light on things. The Greeks lived under the Turks for over 400 years, I have a feeling they do not wish to relive that experience ever again

[Archie Pellagio]

There is no such thing as "Arabian Gulf".

 

While I'm sure Ahmedinejad will love you, the US military as well as National Geographic amongst others disagrees.

 

Persian Gulf is out of vogue for political reasons - Official US military guidelines and all maps designate it the 'Arabian Gulf'

[BansheeOne]

The new force sturcture is reportedly to be presented to the minister of defense on January 25th. Grapevine says force commanders will be briefed on the 18th already.

 

Other rumor mill products:

 

- The new Panzergrenadier battalions will have four instead of three line companies so as to have no overall decrease with six instead of eight battalions.

 

- Panzerlehrbrigade 9 will retain a second Panzer battalion instead of one light infantry battalion (which would mean an overall increase from six to seven).

 

- Brigade Pionier battalions will take over the EOD capabilities from Force Base and consist of two armored Pionier companies, one heavy engineering company and one EOD company each.

 

- KSK will remain under the future Fast Forces Command rather than a joint special forces command (so probably no extra airborne "Ranger" battalion.

 

 

So in comparison to the old army structure of

 

 

- five division HQs

 

- ten brigade HQs (plus French-German Brigade) and

 

- 23 line battalions (six Panzer, eight Panzergrenadier, nine light infantry) plus one airmobile infantry regiment and KSK

 

 

the new army structure will have

 

 

- three division HQs (including Fast Forces Command)

 

- six brigade HQs (plus French-German Brigade) and

 

- 26 line battalions (seven Panzer, six Panzergrenadier, 13 light infantry) plus one airmobile and one airborne regiment and KSK.

 

 

Counting the future airborne regiment as two battalions, this accounts for the "six new light infantry battalions" promised. More teeth, less tail overall.

[Tomas Hoting]

Any news about the army air corps (esp. the Tiger, really only one regiment)?

[seahawk]

And the Luftwaffe?

[BansheeOne]

Nothing I've heard or seen indicates more than a single Tiger regiment. The current extent of the ambition seems to be having twelve tails in operational service by next year IOT be able to deploy four of them to Afghanistan. Same-same for an IOC with pre-series NH 90 (28 by 2012 IIRC) to establish a national MEDEVAC capability. It seems settled that the Luftwaffe will take over the CH-53s and all of air defense including MANTIS, leaving all NH 90s to the Heer in turn.

 

Otherwise you don't hear as much about the other forces, everybody seems centered on the Heer. The only other definite thing seems the reduction to 53 A 400Ms.