This is a top 10 list of the top then countries in your opinion that has a good army such as armour,infantry,special ops,artillary,training,combat experience.Please try and not to nation bash.
1.USA
2.UK
3.Russia
4.China
5.Germany
6.Australia
8.Spain
9.Sweden
10.Taiwan
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Seriuosly sir, dont you think India deserves a name in the list, we are not that good in force projection but then again, we were meant for defence. Since it is a land forces comparison, i do believe India finds herself a place in the list.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Land Forces Comparison
No score for this post
December 26 2004, 2:14 PM
The German Army was and still is with a wide margin the 3rd best land force on earth after the US and Russia. Nowadays even Russia would have serious problems.
We still have areas where even the US lags behind us like organic air defense, and artillery.
No nation has such a good mix of numbers and quality as we have (the US excluded). Additionally we have been practising for the total land war for over 40 years.
Our systems are world beaters like the Leopard 2 or the PzH 2000 and soon the Puma. Our infantry is equipped with some of the best weapons in the world. We have the most throughoutly developed doctrine of mechanised infantry in the Panzergrenadier squads and our light infantry are comparable to the best.
Really, I am confident that on a division against division matchup we could deal with any competitor.
First time I actually go on their English sites, this page for instance provides a better and quicker rundown of the equipment than the German ones, lol there you have to find them separately...of course the Army pages change every week for the last year or so, they are doing quite a lot in the presentation departement:
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, the British foreign office has had the same basic goal for at least the last five hundred years, and that is to create a disunited Europe. In that cause, we've fought with the Germans against the French and Spanish, with the Turkish and French against the Russians, and with the French and Russians against the Germans and Italians. It's the old divide and rule, you see, that's why we want to break up the European Union. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we're free to make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing. We can set the Spanish against the Germans, the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians. Foreign office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times. James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes. James Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, minister. We call it diplomacy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Additionally there is enough equipment in storage for approx. 7 entire Brigades. Stuff that in other parts of the world would still be used in frontline units like older Leopard 2, loads of Leopard 1. LARS rocket launchers, older Jaguars. On top of that there are thousands of G3 rifles, Uzis, 20mm AA's, 155mm tube artillery pieces and dozens of Alpha Jets that were placed in storange even though they had a lot of life in them still. They still would make nice battlefield support planes, think of them as baby Warthogs. And to all that comes what we still have of the DDR. I don't know how much there is, most of it is probably junk by now, but there might be some BTRs and BMPs.
Well, not many people know it, but essentially the German Army was expected to hold the Soviet advance for up to 3 weeks with only the handful of other NATO forces in Germany in support while the US implemented REFORGER and built up a defensive line on the Rhine.
Yes, but in todays context the Germans are superior to the Russians in almost all aspects other than numbers.
Don't know how long that will last however with Germany's massive defence cuts and Russia rebuilding its soviet era forces...
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, the British foreign office has had the same basic goal for at least the last five hundred years, and that is to create a disunited Europe. In that cause, we've fought with the Germans against the French and Spanish, with the Turkish and French against the Russians, and with the French and Russians against the Germans and Italians. It's the old divide and rule, you see, that's why we want to break up the European Union. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we're free to make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing. We can set the Spanish against the Germans, the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians. Foreign office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times. James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes. James Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, minister. We call it diplomacy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Don't know how long that will last however with Germany's massive defence cuts and Russia rebuilding its soviet era forces..."
Cuts? It's called restructuring
Seriously the Army is quite good of and will remain that way. We will get 5000 additional soldiers in 2006 as well as reduce the number of conscripts even further so that we will in essence only provide the population with basic soldiering knowledge and rely completely of professionals on operations (that's the case even now). It must be mentioned that conscription is quite an attractive incentive to become a career soldier. Many people see that a job in the army is quite a good thing and so the future recuiting is secured.
Of course if you look at the numbers in 1990 it seems small, but there is no way to modernise and to keep the troop levels without more funds. The army is coping well with the reforms IMO and in the next years it will get a little more funding as well as be able to keep the earnings from sold material.
Oh and I forgot one thing: The Support Command of the Bundeswehr. It is essentially a support-division compromised of AA, engineer, signals and artillery brigades. If you include them it brings the number of divisions to 8.
1. US
2. Germany/Russia
3. South Korea (the similarities between Korea and Germany are evident)
4. Israel (very powerful though they are toast when they face the opponent that goes after their supplies first instead of taking them head on.)
5. France/UK (Very good though a bit too small for my taste, still they get their job done well.)
Well, im my list I lef out China because I feel not informed enough to judge them. It seems to me that their huge force is modernising, but that still many units use old material not up to modern standards. The problem is to know how far this restructuring has gone. But I must say that China with her geographical advantage is capable of beating any invader.
Well I've been looking through the German Army website and the picture seems a little confused some things are listed but are described as being "non-active" or "semi-active", guess that's to be expected when your in the middle of a re-organisation though. Here's a list of Brigades:
atp, you forgot the other Air Mechanised brigade of the DLO (it isn't named yet, IIRC.) The Luftmechanisierte Brigade instead of the Heeresfliegerbrigade 3.
Also there is a half-brigade worth of infantry troops in the D/F Brigade.
What are the UK numbers regarding support units? I will try to look up what semi-active means.
The German army's twenty-four combat brigades include sixteen mechanized brigades, three airborne brigades, one mountain brigade, and the German component of the Franco-German Brigade. Only six brigades are maintained at full strength--two airborne brigades, three mechanized brigades, and the mountain brigade. Some of these ready brigades are committed to the NATO Rapid Reaction Force. All of the active units are staffed with a high proportion of regulars. The remaining brigades are staffed at about a 60 percent level in peacetime, mainly with conscripts.
By sheer quality... i.e training, experience, technology, equipment...
1. UK
2. Israel
3. USA
4. France
5. South Korea
6. Germany
7. Australia
8. Japan
9. Greece
10. Turkey
By sheer combat power... remember this is ONLY LAND... Navy and Airforce not considered...
1. USA
2. China
3. Russia
4. Germany
5. Israel
6. India
7. France
8. UK
9. South Korea
10. North Korea
United We Stand.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think I might of mentioned it before,but when I was in the Marines,I overheard two high ranking officers talking and overheard one of them say," Hell,the Germans,man for man,are the best soldiers in the world,followed by the Brits and Israelis,..the Americans and Russians know this. "
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
German officers and German operations are studied closely by nearly everyone who studies land warfare. I can't say much about German operational concept, but the officer's ability to free maneuver mechanized group is a quality sought after by every tank and mechanized officers.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It's not really something new. It is in essence there since the times of Moltke. It's called Auftragstaktik and features a heavily decentralised form of command. The leading officers only give the broad goals and the junior officers and NCOs are left to chose their method of achieving the goal themselves.
This is so because of the fact that the soldier on the spot knows better what to do than a flag officer 100km's behind the lines. So a German junior officer or NCO can do tasks that would be the work of higher officers only in for example the British and US militaries.
In battle the effects are clear. When for example American or British(only as an example, not meant to say that they are not good, in fact it's the opposite) troops attack much depends on their officers. If they are lost then the soldiers become passive while German soldiers, knowing higher command responsibilities, can remain active.
This different approach was apparent in WW2, where most small unit engagements were won by the Germans for exactly this reason. Interestingly after that most foreign armies chose to adopt our principle with the ones that came closest to us being the US Marines. The other units still rely far too much on officer leadership for my liking. I don't know why they don't trust their soldiers as we do, for they are excellently trained and surely as able as ours are.
It really comes down to this,there is a NATO standard for training and a non-NATO standard.Its just that simple.While there are differences on a deatiled level,i.e..the US Armies logistical system is second to none,the Germans manuever warfare ability,at the small unit level,etc...But these differences are not noticable on the surface,but what is noticable,is their ' overall ' training standard.Thats pretty much how it comes down,NATO vs. non-NATO.
@ Reaver,well said,the USMC are quite proud of their abilities in the small unit(micro) approach to combat.We always felt we were " superior " to the US Army in this example.Many reasons why the USMC are far more flexible in multi-mission roles.
This message has been edited by Paljoey on Dec 26, 2004 7:27 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Exactly, I have only one qualm with the US Marines, from my admittedly not huge experience with them, they are too agressive. In an engagement with our Jägers they were defeated cause they pushed too far and were flanked. Might not be something that is widespead, but I remember it also being mentioned by some comrades.
Anglophile26 i beleve the french army can defeat the indian army from outright quality, witch is far superieur to the indian army in terms of funding and etc...
unless you have proof of otherwise thats how i stand
if you do have proof plz show them amd i will politely retake my coment
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I've heard that before,and its somewhat true,though it depends on the battalion/company commanders " philosophy ",but I can say that my unit was/had a reputation for being real " door-kickers ",if you get my meaning. I never met any Germans,only British Royal Marines,Italian Marines(San Marco) and Royal Dutch Marines.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Anglophile26 i beleve the french army can defeat the indian army from outright quality, witch is far superieur to the indian army in terms of funding and etc...
unless you have proof of otherwise thats how i stand
if you do have proof plz show them amd i will politely retake my coment"
Agree here, The quality of the French in a real war would bring a victory over the numerous but lower quality Indian forces. Unless both armies are lined up with all personnel and equipment and personnel 10 miles apart and told to charge the French will always the the evnntual victors.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The German Army undoubtedly has the potential to make a lot more of itself, but it just doesn't get the funding. The German defence budget only amounts to I think 70% of the British defence budget and given that Germany actually has more manpower to pay for even subtracting conscripts, how can Germany afford the same equipment the UK buys for it's troops?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Your higher spending in contrast to us goes mainly into yur far larger navy and nuclear weapons. Besides I doubt that it is only 70%."
Britains nuclear weapons cost us very little, around 1 billion per year. This is mostly because the US and UK share the cost as opposed to other nuclear power which have to do it alone.
The British military budget is $60 billion, The German budget is $38 Billion.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You guys may be right with regard to India and France. its very hard to place India, they have a lot of guys, but their equipment for the most part is just awful. Both the French and the Brits MAY deserve a place above them... but who knows...
United We Stand.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
They have conscripts, so no matter how good their officers and equipment are they are still civilians in cammo kit.
True but then so are the Israelis! One should never doubt the motivation of Germans defending their home land against the Communists hoards. I remember speaking with X soviet officers . They never did forget the lessons of the Eastern Front in WW-II. They had few illusions as to how hard it really would be to fight the germans.
I read a report some time ago [Philosophy & Tactics of Armored Warfare]. In this report [1980] they discussed American and german approaches to defeat a then expected soviet invasion from the east. After extensive discussions they set about an simulation of a Soviet Shock army attacking USA corps in the fulda gap area with the view to breaking through to allow follow on tank army to exploite.
Two visiting german [ex wehrmacht] officers were asked to show the Americans how they would defend the area if they were in command. They marshalled their forces into two distinct groups. The front line was maintained by a scattered line of mech brigades with Mech heavy battalions, supported by ALL of the arty from the entire corps [ divisional and corps levels]. Each front line battalion had atleast two Arty battalions firing in support and more if needed [upto 4 along most threatened sectors].
In the rear, the rest of the armor battalions where concentrated into a group of brigades [Armored & Armored Cavalry brigades] as corps reserve.
The soviets were allowed to break through along a particular major road and where shadowed by a couple of divisional recon battalions. When this gap got to be a certain size , the group of armor brigades were unleashed in a 'back handed blow' type maneuver [Mainstein @ Kharkov spring 1943], and defeated the soviet attack sending it retreating back to the inter german boarder.
While many in attendance were surprised at the german success the American field commander noted that his approach would have been very similar.
You have to understand that standard literature of the day ,on this type of operation, assumed that NATO forces would have to rely on Nukes to achieve any level of success. Other wize they would be buried alive under the massive soviet advance. So this was a real eye opener!
That was during the cold war and while I expect things have deteriorated since then, I doubt they are much different. Uk forces sent to Iraq in 1990 had not conducted large scale mechanized warfare since WW-II and yet they seemed to have performed upto expectation....quality of training can never be underestimated.
This message has been edited by Paul_L on Dec 26, 2004 10:07 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes, very true. But the Israeli's do 1 month of military service every year and they have a lot of experience for a conscript army.
Very interesting story.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Land Forces Comparison
No score for this post
December 26 2004, 10:11 PM
Well, the funny thing is that a non-nuclear ww3 is almost impossible. NATO called for using tactical nukes if the Soviets breech the Rhine defensive line and the Soviets called for their use if they got stopped before achieving a breakthrough. IMO the generals knew that nukes would be used and all this non-nuclear scenarios are only to make the people feel more secure.
And our conscripts do 9 months once. Anyway, there is no single German conscript soldier on deployment and that will continue to be that way. I have said it before, if you consider US National Guard or Reserve forces to be sufficently trained then conscripts at the end of their 9 months surely are too.
9 month conscripts!!! Russian conscripts serve for 2 years. Most agree that proper infantry skills take at least 2 years to build up. The fact is after 2 years its stupid to let them leave just as they are becoming professional but after 9 months they are dead men with guns. Boot camp alone is a 1-2 month thing depending on the country. So how do they get expert in anything in just 9 months? The Israeli approach to conscription is probably ideal.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Conscripts do not get amywhere near a conflict zone in our army. 9 months is not ideal, true, but it is enough to learn the basic skills and rules. Nobody expects them to act like the Navy Seals or something. We use them primarly for guarding US and NATO bases (theat traffic control stuff), cleaning vehicles and helping civilians in danger after they did their basic training. Anyway, many want to keep the conscription because many soldiers decide to proceed to professional status.
Well... both the USSR and NATO doctrine called for Tactical Nukes to be used... but in would the politicians ever trust the field commanders with the use of the nuclear warheads? In the soviet case, isn't the arheads under the control of the KGB? distrust between the KGB and the regular army is quite deep is it not?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well, the funny thing is that a non-nuclear ww3 is almost impossible. NATO called for using tactical nukes if the Soviets breech the Rhine defensive line and the Soviets called for their use if they got stopped before achieving a breakthrough. IMO the generals knew that nukes would be used and all this non-nuclear scenarios are only to make the people feel more secure.
Only problem is that I've never seen a perwar strategic that worked out as planned. WW-II was supposed to begin with massive bomber delivered poision gas attacks?????
To me its the other way around....threat of nukes was the illusion. It is there to scare the population into unlimited and uninterupted military budget support
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Land Forces Comparison
No score for this post
December 26 2004, 11:31 PM
"You mean to say that regular front line German infantry/tankers/airmen are not conscripts but professionals?"
What I mean is that every German soldier on deployment, be that in Bosnia, Kosovo, Africa or Afghanistan is a professional soldier. Conscripts only serve in Germany. That is for instance also the reason why it is next to impossible to be posted on a ship as a conscript now.
For all purposes conscription is only used to keep the supply going, do maintainance and guard duties inside Germany.
So for sure there would be no conscript fighter pilots or helo pilots etc? What would happen if all the army units were pressed into service at the same time...IE if germany was attacked? To what extent would constripts have to man front line postions like tanker or infantry man or Artillerist? Or would they all be apart of the support services branch?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"So for sure there would be no conscript fighter pilots or helo pilots etc? "
These tasks by definition require long training periods, so yes, no pilots are conscripts of any kind.
"What would happen if all the army units were pressed into service at the same time...IE if germany was attacked? To what extent would constripts have to man front line postions like tanker or infantry man or Artillerist? Or would they all be apart of the support services branch?"
Well, in theory they should be able to be used in their function, therefore all tasks done by enlisted soldiers. Tanker, infantry etc. In wartime the Army will be further bolstered by reservists. These people, who are mostly officers or high-rank enlisted soldiers would complement our officers and do the things that require more training.
Strange that India is so far behind in many people's list . Hmmm... must be something to do with "not being modern".
Theres something i would like to say to reaver and other German Forumers...
"Our systems are world beaters like the Leopard 2 or the PzH 2000 and soon the Puma. Our infantry is equipped with some of the best weapons in the world. We have the most throughoutly developed doctrine of mechanised infantry in the Panzergrenadier squads and our light infantry are comparable to the best."
You guys are forgetting that this is no longer 1940-50, this is the nuclear age where everyone is after a nuke arsenal. The reason why Germany is the best in infantry equipment is, coz France and UK got their best minds in the nuke thing. That is not to say that Germany lacks a good army, their martial prowress is well exhibited in WW2. But the fact remains, if the nuke arsenal was not discovered, Russia would be miles ahead and UK-France would have given Germany some stiff competition.
"Really, I am confident that on a division against division matchup we could deal with any competitor."
Dont know too much about invading forces, but if you fight a defensive war, even a mediocre force can pack a lethal punch. Look Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan. Reason, defensive forces are always at a "home advantage".
Pax : "The Germans are better than the Russians imho."
Hard to tell, the Germans got quality while the Russians got numbers. But calling Russian tech. poor is not that true. Evenly matched would be my opinion.
Paje Brazil :"US,UK,Russia,China,France,Germany,Brazil,Cuba,Portugal,Spain".
Till Germany i understand. But i thought India is atleast as good as Brazil. And you seriously not putting Spain, Portugal and Cuba (!!!!) ahead of India.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nuclear war seems more likely than ever if there is another world war. We don't see any huge build-up of conventional forces by any country (as seen during the cold war era), yet we see countries such as Russia invest large sums of cash into their strategic rocket forces. More and more countries are relying on WMD as deterents and it should be infered that countries will use these weapons if they feel backed into a position where use of force is necessary. My understanding is that China has may also be procuring more ICBM's currently than in the 45 years of cold war. India and Pakistan continue to build missiles with longer range and the DPRK may already have missiles that can target some of the U.S. if not much.
It's my belief that one MUST take into account the large scale deployment of nuclear weapons if there is another world war. One must also look into the ability for a country to survive nuclear war. In North America, it was always believed that all out nuclear war meant the destruction of everything, but from what I have read, it seems the USSR believed they could win a nuclear war (there was a reason they built bomb shelters in most of their buildings).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First of all the Germans are awesome troops, ive trained with them many times
We teach the Germans things and the Germans teach us things, same as every other NATO country which i have trained with.
Infantry is the backbone to any military, Any army besides the US is not as 'mechanized' as you would think. UK/France/Canada/Germany/Netherlands/..many of the main NATO countries are still on the concept of 'light infantry' where they carry all their equipment where ever they go. The US on the other hand will always have a base camp with hummers and blackhawks to drop in and bring out their troops.
Everyone seems to forget were all on the same team! But the Brits are the best to drink with afterwards !
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Restructuring by cutting 26billion Euros (£18 billion) is highly worrying though :S
Hate to see it happen, i like the German Army.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, the British foreign office has had the same basic goal for at least the last five hundred years, and that is to create a disunited Europe. In that cause, we've fought with the Germans against the French and Spanish, with the Turkish and French against the Russians, and with the French and Russians against the Germans and Italians. It's the old divide and rule, you see, that's why we want to break up the European Union. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we're free to make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing. We can set the Spanish against the Germans, the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians. Foreign office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times. James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership? Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes. James Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, minister. We call it diplomacy.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Germany is strongest in Western Europe.
In both germany and US, tanks more than IFVs. In UK, IFVs more than tanks. What does this mean? How is an armoured brigade structured? How is a mechanized infantry brigade structured?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Many western nations simply follow 2:1 ratio when structuring a mechanized brigade. That is, 1 tank battalion to 2 mechanized infantry battalions for mechanized, or 2 tank battalions to 1 mechanized infantry battalions for armored. The specifics are, of course different for everyone and every brigade.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Lets all laugh at Darkness. NATO apparently can be killed by India, Russia, China, and Israel. This is great because the last time I checked, the US was still a part of NATO. But for the sake of the argument, lets just say that the US left. Well Germany, France and the UK alone could stand up to China, India, and Israel. The equipment barrier between China, India, and NATO is huge. The Israelis, might have technological and training parity but Israel simply isn't big enough. Then there is the fact that that the Merkava is one of the least mobile MBT's in the world. Russia would be equal, except a war with Europe would kill their crippled economy. They would need time to repair and put into service its massive forces. Even then, T-72's even top of the line one's with top of the line ammunition isn't much against Leo II's. Russia has a very limited number of the latest MBT/IFV.
"I shall return" Douglas MacArthur
"There are two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity." Einstein
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
What makes you think Germany got even a ghost of a chance against the Russians, they couldnt do it when it was 1940, they cant do it when it is 2004.
The reason why Germany has a good infantry is becoz its strategic offensive force is worse than Pakistan (non-existent).
Darkness post was a result of darkness in logic. But Paje Brazil post was more ridiculous. Spain, Portugal and Cuba in front of India. Even though we kicked Portugal out of Goa in 1962, when we were not even a missile power, forget nukes, and our forces were demoralised after the Chinese debcale. Still Portugal in front???
"If you want to know war, fight the Germans"- Winston Churchill.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Land Forces Comparison
No score for this post
December 28 2004, 12:17 PM
"What makes you think Germany got even a ghost of a chance against the Russians, they couldnt do it when it was 1940, they cant do it when it is 2004."
1941-1945 to be exact. We killed 10 million Soviet soldiers, while being distracted by the other Allies. The Soviets in turn recieved millions of tons of key supplies for free so that they could happily just chunk out tanks and planes without worrying for such things as logistics since much of that they got from the Allies. I'm still convinded that we would have won that war had we used the same strategy as in WWI.
Today, why should we attack Russia? They are our 2nd strategic partner in the world. Equally they can't defeat us. You at least need a 3-1 superiority to begin successful offensive operations (same tech levels being the condition, of course you can defeat militaries like Iraq more easily).
With what please will they defeat us? T-80s? T-72? And their countless upgrades? They have no tank in service that is equal to the Leopard 2. Yes, they have numbers, but what is the ready status of them? Hell, Western militaries have many problems keeping most of their tanks operational, I seriously doubt the Russians are better there.
"The reason why Germany has a good infantry is becoz its strategic offensive force is worse than Pakistan (non-existent)."
Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day.
"Infantry is the backbone to any military, Any army besides the US is not as 'mechanized' as you would think. UK/France/Canada/Germany/Netherlands/..many of the main NATO countries are still on the concept of 'light infantry' where they carry all their equipment where ever they go."
Yes, that is the norm, but in Germany it really is different. We really don't have much light infantry now, but we still have a lot of mech infantry. It is and was our primary part of the infantry forces by nature of us being on the frontier of the Soviets.
Its quite interesting to read Free Nation's logical rationalization to prove that Indian Army is one of the top 4 armies in the world. I am surprised that he counts Goa as a battle because as per Indian Government's stand Goa was a Police Action, if in doubt please read Official Indian History. Moreover there was no Portugese Army in Goa. Leaving that a side I think having numbers is not in fact a factor to decide the strength of an Army. If the Indian Army is so strong it wouldnt have been held hostage to an Army a fourth its size I mean the Pakistani Army. Moreover, i dont think the Indian strategic planners have any global designs coz they have a neighbour which is a source of continous and constant worry, I mean China. So the Indians can only start counting themselves as a world class Army when they neutralize Pakistan and China. And I sincerely hope that this will never happen. However, India and Pakistan joining hands with other countries in the region excluding china can create quite a stir if only such an opportunity presents it self and our politicians and Generals take into account the dictates of coming times and set aside their personal glory and pride.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day."
Thats exactly what i meant to tell you in sarcasm. Pakistanis got the WORST strategic offensive, but Germany is bad becoz it has no nukes.
Referrineg to the 1940 question, i meant the "Barbarrossa" fiasco. Hitler attacked Russia when it was in its abysmal low, but still Germany failed to pushover Russia. History speaks for itself and i dont want to speak all this again. But yes, the Germans sure fought like Tigers, evil or not. Nazi Germany knew how to fight wars.
Coming to 2004, Germany is developed militarily, very true. But its biggest drawback is lack of a strategic offensive force. If it's not for "his" NATO allies, Germany will have to fight every battle inside/border of Germany, not a good thing.
One more thing is that in the nuke scenario, UK and France are diverting their energy and attention to develop a credible nuclear strategic force. So the common infantry may just have taken a backseat.
Russia may have only T-80's, but pray, what makes you think that the T-80 is a bad tank?? Becoz it got the Russian label in it. Or becoz the drubbing T-"55" and T-"60" took in the Iraq war. Iraqi commanders are no way comparable to the Russians. The Iraqi tank arsenal was a moving mueseum piece, not so for the Russians. The Russians (as Soyuz says) got 20,000 tanks in service today, so even if it is only 5,000 T-80 tanks in round-the-year service, i would say they got armour to reckon with.
If Germany is attacked by Russia thee Russians wont be able to defeat you, coz of NATO support. But can Germany take the battle to the Russian camp? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.
On the whole, German army is impressive, more so becoz of the invincible German fighting spirit. But it is a defencsive force, not a pre-emptive one.
PAKONE, LOL man you are simply awesome. I will respond to your queries the day you develop a skull with a brain inside your head.
"If you want to know war, fight the Germans"- Winston Churchill.
"Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day."- a German forumer.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
" Thats exactly what i meant to tell you in sarcasm. Pakistanis got the WORST strategic offensive, but Germany is bad becoz it has no nukes."
Well, that is, as you surely know a purely political decision. The day we want to develop nukes, we will have considerable delivery technology at our disposal. We are members of ESA, so rocketry tech is well developed. It is often understated that delivery means are far more important and technologically complex than the nukes themselves. Let's use our favourite example of Pakistan. So they've got a bunch of nukes, they take them and strap them on missiles that have more in common with the V-2 than modern rockets. Coupled with the delivery means, the command and control of nuclear weapons is a science on it's own.
I rather have the delivery means and control infrastructure developed than have an arsenal of nukes just to brag about them. The day we need them, we can simply change for example the warhead of a TAURUS from conventional to nuclear.
"Referrineg to the 1940 question, i meant the "Barbarrossa" fiasco. Hitler attacked Russia when it was in its abysmal low, but still Germany failed to pushover Russia."
Wrong, Russia wasn't bad at all. They were simply caught off guard (thanks to Stalin) and were commanded by fools (again thanks to Stalin).
" History speaks for itself and i dont want to speak all this again. But yes, the Germans sure fought like Tigers, evil or not. Nazi Germany knew how to fight wars."
Barbarossa was winnable, but we botched up some pretty important aspects of it. Flawlessly executed, it would at least guaranteed a ceasefire.
"Coming to 2004, Germany is developed militarily, very true. But its biggest drawback is lack of a strategic offensive force."
Strategic = nuclear for you? I ask this because we have strategic strike assets. The Taurus being the prime example.
"If it's not for "his" NATO allies, Germany will have to fight every battle inside/border of Germany, not a good thing."
Correction, a very good thing, since we planned for that for decades, you would be fighting us on our terms, not a good starting point.
"Russia may have only T-80's, but pray, what makes you think that the T-80 is a bad tank?? Becoz it got the Russian label in it."
It's not a bad tank in itself, but it's bad compared to what we have got. --> Leopard 2A4/A5/A6
" Or becoz the drubbing T-"55" and T-"60" took in the Iraq war. Iraqi commanders are no way comparable to the Russians."
I don't say that, but these Russian tankers would have to attack an enemy that is waiting for them, has the advantage of being the defender, knowing the terrain, a supportive population and better equipment.
" The Iraqi tank arsenal was a moving mueseum piece, not so for the Russians. The Russians (as Soyuz says) got 20,000 tanks in service today, so even if it is only 5,000 T-80 tanks in round-the-year service, i would say they got armour to reckon with."
Absolutely, the Russians are a fearsome opponent, just that they can't IMO defeat us. I wouldn't want to attack them, but in defense we can grind them down. If they have 20'000 working (which I doubt very much) then the odds are not even 1 to 10, better than last time around . Now take away the real museum pieces, the obligatory defense against China etc.
If they could field 3000 tanks for the invasion I would be very impressed.
"If Germany is attacked by Russia thee Russians wont be able to defeat you, coz of NATO support. But can Germany take the battle to the Russian camp? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL."
We disagree on minor points only. In a conventional defensive war, we wouldn't need NATO, and I don't dream of attacking them anyway.
"On the whole, German army is impressive, more so becoz of the invincible German fighting spirit. But it is a defencsive force, not a pre-emptive one."
Yes, by it's definition it is, but this is changing slowly...wheter that's good is to b seen.
there is absolutely ZERO chance of a Russian offensive succesfully invading Germany. Germany is just too strong.
United We Stand.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
NATO may be "hi-tech" but they just dont have enough numbers to compare with India or China....
The US may be a part of NATO, but the US military is overstretched now.....
Just by saying NATO is "hi-tech" doesn't mean that Indian Army, and PLA fights with sticks, and sheild/swords.... We have very fast growing economies and we are fast developing our military....
I put Isreal, and Russia ahead of NATO because they are at par with NATO in terms of technology, and have a much bigger experience at war, and they have good, maybe better training than NATO.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
@ Darkness,you put both of your feet in your mouth on your last comment.Stop and think about ALL the nations that make up NATO.Trust me as a former serving US Marine,there is a NATO standard for training and a non-NATO standard.I am not the only person who has said this,ask any of the Germans,Brits,French,Dutch,etc.. that have served their resepctive nations armed forces,and they will say almost to the letter,that same thing as I am saying.Of course,this is no slap in the face to Russia or Israel,its just not on par with NATO,as a " collective."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
All them countries above make up NATO.. are you saying that India, China, Israel and Russia, each by themselves have better land forces then the whole of NATO? The US alone is better than any of the countries you placed above NATO. Then we have the UK, France, Turkey and of course Germany, a strong land power.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Free nation and darkness are really in the darkness as far as logic is concerned. I think both of them have no Idea what or how the Armies are made. After all they represent a nation which was ruled by outsiders for over 1200 years. The brits were only 100,000 and the Indians were 200 million but they were being ruled by the brits. there is one problem with the past it can not change. The present day world is quite different but even now India is no where in the list of the Strong Armies.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the problem with the germans is their infantry aint what it used to be aint what it used to be aint what it used to be. With conscripts who serve 9 months its debateable whether the bulk of the German army can march in step. Now granted Russia is also a conscript force but our lads serve 24 months full time. Granted the Germans have a smaller force and spend more per capita but Russia does outspend Germany so the qualitative advantage also aint what it could have been aint what it could have been aint what it could have been.
Russia cant invade Germany because there is this 20 country strong thing called NATO and this little thing called Poland that seperates the two and he Poles arent exactly CHICKEN SH*T they are well armed in their own way.
But Russia is still the worlds number 2 on air and on the ground and if heaven removed Poland from the map tomorrow and NATO as well Russia could beat Germany like a 2$ Ukrainian whore. Unless you actually believe that 2,000 Leos are going to stop 5,000 T-80's and 300 T-90's plus 15,000 lesser vehicles oh and 1200 4th gens and 1600 helicopters and 210+ medium/heavy bombers.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First of all I must respond to Darkness insult of my response. Yes the US seems to be stretched. But lets see India, China, or Russia attack Nato, because the last time I checked, the US has decent forces in Afghanistan that can assrape those countries and start a second from. In the cases of China and Russia, that is literally true since they either share or almost share a border with Afghanistan. The US could then move troops into Europe to fight back, or they could start a third front in the Pacific. Just bomb the heck out of India and China. As for Russia, we just need to destroy all of those tanks tucked east of the Urals. I'm sure a couple of strategic bomber sorties will do the job. Yes, I am talking fuel air explosives.
Now to get to the serious stuff. Soyuz, I respect you in every since of the word, but I really don't think that Russia can muster the type of forces you are talking about. Does Russia really have the logistics to supply that kind of force, even 2000 miles from its borders. Russia might control the air later in the conflict, due to attrition, but during the initial attack, the Russian AF will face stiff competition from the Luftwaffe. With the proliferation of MANPADs, the effectiveness of attack helicopters will be reduced. In the end, it will come down to land battles. If it stays conventional, does Russia have the number to defeat some of the most advanced infantry equipment in the world. The German's have the Leo II, which IMHO is better than anything that Russia has. Russia does not have a sufficient number of Kornet missiles to kill Leo II. Remember how tank guns can't even penetrate the frontal arch of other modern MBT's in the first place. Discounting the 300 T-90's and Leo II's as one-to-one, Germany still has 2400 Leo II's to fight 5000 T-80's. But remember that the German's are in prepared defensive positions, giving them a huge advantage.
"I shall return" Douglas MacArthur
"There are two things that are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity." Einstein
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
India was ruld by the British, so what was pakistan when British were ruling India? A WORLD POWER???
Why dont you develop te essential human thing called brains inside your head??
"If you want to know war, fight the Germans"- Winston Churchill.
"Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day."- a German forumer.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Absolutely. I never said that Germany didnt have the tech. to go nuclear. They CHOOSE not to. But i really dont understand why. Sorry about the strategic thing. I honestly didnt know that Germany fielded its own missiles, TAURUS. Can you please tell me its range and payload.
Fighting a war in your5 backyard is not always pleasant. I agree the Germans will have a strong plan, but still waiting for the enemy to come to you doesnt look appealing.
You are right again about the Pakistanis. HEHEHE. They got vintag technlogy. But as they say, OLD IS GOLD! The pakis have a love for nostalgia you see.
"If you want to know war, fight the Germans"- Winston Churchill.
"Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day."- a German forumer.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Free Nation..you are damn right, but you are forgetting one thing I or anyother Pakistani is not trying to prove that Pakistan army is better then whole of the World, we know what we are. It is only zealous brats like you who forget what their "assliat" is. hope you wont mind the use of the word whose equal I cant find in English. Heheheheheheh. One more thing Pakistan was never a world power would never be a world power but it is enough for India at least. so stop day dreaming and come to terms with reality. i think everone here now knows who is talking without thinking or weighing. best of luck to you for your arguments to prove that your poor country also be mentioned as a world power.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
ROFLAMO!!! When will you start developing brains pakore?
Three cheers for PAKORE, the DJ of Pakistani MULLAH NITE'S.
"If you want to know war, fight the Germans"- Winston Churchill.
"Pakistan's strategic forces are a laughing stock. Please, it is low tech at best. I will take our Tornados with American free fall nukes over it any day."- a German forumer.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Land Forces Comparison
No score for this post
December 29 2004, 12:39 PM
Soyuz,
"the problem with the germans is their infantry aint what it used to be aint what it used to be aint what it used to be. With conscripts who serve 9 months its debateable whether the bulk of the German army can march in step."
As I said, these troops are only to be employed in Germany itself. Now granted in total war they would be employed, but in total war conscript armies beat professionals with their mass. So we, because we still have conscripton even if only 9 months, we will be better prepared for total defense than other European countries that only have their professionals and nothing in reserve.
As to the quality of our professionals, it is up with the world's best.
" Now granted Russia is also a conscript force but our lads serve 24 months full time. Granted the Germans have a smaller force and spend more per capita but Russia does outspend Germany so the qualitative advantage also aint what it could have been aint what it could have been aint what it could have been."
Still enough, considering also that we will fight on the defense.
"Russia cant invade Germany because there is this 20 country strong thing called NATO and this little thing called Poland that seperates the two and he Poles arent exactly CHICKEN SH*T they are well armed in their own way. "
Let's leave NATO out of it then.
"But Russia is still the worlds number 2 on air and on the ground and if heaven removed Poland from the map tomorrow and NATO as well Russia could beat Germany like a 2$ Ukrainian whore."
On the offensve? On the ground that we prepared for decades? I don't buy that, what would be your plan?
"Unless you actually believe that 2,000 Leos are going to stop 5,000 T-80's and 300 T-90's plus 15,000 lesser vehicles oh and 1200 4th gens and 1600 helicopters and 210+ medium/heavy bombers."
We started this thread concerining land forces, but fine. 2400 Leos actually that are superior 1 on 1 to all Russian tanks. The attacker needs approximately a 3-1 advantage to even consider successful operations (at approx. equal tech level). 5000 T-80's (I hardly believe that they will be operational to 100%, our tanks aren't too) and your T-90's are simply not enough combat power. Your lesser vehicles, well we have tons of vehicles that can halt them and even your MBT's. The Jaguars, Leo 1A5 etc. still have the ability to defeat most of the Russian stuff. Also our artillery with the world's most advanced SPH and targeting radar will cause heavy losses on the attacker. The planes, well on top of facing our airforce, they will have to cope with the densest AA net of the NATO. Our organic AA assets are second to none. While for example the Americans have hardly something between Patriot and Stinger, we have also Roland, Hawk, LeFlasSys and thousands of gun AA, perfectly suited to downing Hind's for example. Anyway, the helicopter is becoming very vulnerable in the modern battlefield, look at the excessive losses to only Stingers or Iglas. To put them against a first level air-defense is daring.
Is Eurohawk in German land Forces service or about to enter service soon?
EUROHAWK debuts at Berlin International Air ShowILA/Berlin, le 11 mai 2004
EADS/Northrop Grumman alliance highlights new developments
on EUROHAWK TM programme
EADS and Northrop Grumman Corporation today presented the results of last year’s demonstration in Nordholz, Germany, of an EADS-developed electronics intelligence sensor operated from a Northrop Grumman-built Global Hawk high altitude, long endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The two companies also discussed the next steps in their joint efforts on the EUROHAWK TM programme.
EUROHAWK TM , which EADS and Northrp Grumman are currently offering to the German Ministry of Defense (MoD), is a Global Hawk derivative equipped with a new signals intelligence system sensor developed by EADS. A full-scale model of the ELINT-sensor-equipped Global Hawk UAV used during the Nordholz test flights is on display at the EADS/Northrop Grumman Stand No. 642.
EUROHAWK TM 's briefing included remarks by Tom Enders, member of the Executive Committee of EADS and CEO of EADS Defence and Security Systems and Chris Hernandez, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems sector vice president and general manager of the company's Unmanned Systems unit.
The executives reported results from the six successful flights conducted in October of 2003 at the German Air Force Base in Nordholz. The flights had demonstrated the technical feasibility of using an unmanned platform carrying an ELINT type sensor to conduct wide area surveillance missions. The EUROHAWK TM demo also had included the first successful operation of a UAV in controlled European airspace, having paved the way for further developments of unmanned flight in Europe.
"The flight test results will help define the next developmental phase of EUROHAWK TM . The demonstration helped convince military and political decision makers that a Global Hawk-derived sensor platform to satisfy the HALE wide area surveillance requirement will meet their reconnaissance needs", said Tom Enders.
Government's commitment to start the development of an unmanned SIGINT reconnaissance system by 2005 was again stressed by the comments of the Minister of Defence in a press conference on March 30th of this year. To deploy an independent German SIGINT surveillance and reconnaissance system by 2008, the German MoD has requested that a proposal on EUROHAWK TM be delivered by midyear, 2004. EUROHAWK TM is on schedule for the proposal delivery and is expecting to get parliamentary approval by the end of this year. The first prototype delivery is scheduled for mid 2007, with contract approval for series production and initial operational capability expected mid 2008. This schedule will ensure an on-time replacement for the ageing fleet of SIGINT equipped Breguet Atlantiques currently in service.
Another significant milestone in the EUROHAWK TM programme is the founding of a joint venture between Northrop Grumman and EADS. This new company, which would be based in Germany, would be tailored to the customer's requirements and act as the national prime contractor for the German MoD through the entire lifecycle of the system. A related agreement to guarantee necessary technology and information transfer between Germany and the US is currently being defined by the two governments.
“Northrop Grumman and EADS have developed and maintained a cooperative relationship that has proven its benefit to customers we traditionally serve, and to new customers who require innovative solutions to meet ever-evolving mission requirements,” said Chris Hernandez, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems sector vice president and general manager of the company’s Unmanned Systems unit. “The EUROHAWK TM programme is designed to meet the German MoD’s wide area surveillance mission.”
EADS and Northrop Grumman had initiated the EUROHAWK TM project in July 2000 by signing an agreement to develop an unmanned wide-area surveillance and reconnaissance system. The project, which brings together the companies' respective expertise and internally funded developments in UAV and sensor technology, was created to offer a replacement for the ageing fleet of SIGINT equipped Breguet Atlantiques. This cooperation had then been followed by a bilateral project agreement between the U.S. Air Force and the German Ministry of Defence signed in October 2001. The first phase of the project included the operation of the HALE UAV concept, the sensor integration, and the October 2003 flight demonstration programme in Nordholz.
EADS Defence and Security SystemsEADS Defence and Security Systems, with revenues of about € 5.2 billion in 2003 and roughly 24,000 employees across nine nations, forms the defence pole within EADS. It offers integrated systems solutions to the new challenges confronting armed forces and homeland security units. It is active in the areas of military aircraft, missile systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems with manned and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), battlefield management systems, defence electronics, sensors and avionics, and related services.
EADS is a global leader in aerospace, defence and related services. In 2003, the Group generated revenues of over € 30 billion and employed a workforce of more than 109,000.
Northrop Grumman Integrated SystemsNorthrop Grumman Integrated Systems is a premier aerospace and defense systems integration organization. Headquartered in El Segundo, California, the sector designs, develops, produces and supports integrated systems and subsystems optimized for use on networks. For its government and civil customers worldwide, Integrated Systems delivers best-value systems, products and services that support military missions in the areas of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; battle management command and control and integrated strike warfare.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
". I never said that Germany didnt have the tech. to go nuclear. They CHOOSE not to'
We had a long discussion on this same subject, and i believe that those "CHOOSE" resons are a poorly provided excuse by the Germans. They cant build it, and even if they tried to waste a huge percent of your GDP on it, there still would be treaties blocking Germany from doing such a thing.
---
Didnt World War 2 teach the germans anything? The tigers and the Panzers were far ahead of their time, the russians only had vodka bottles filled with karosine to throw at these tanks, but what happened ater. We developed better tanks in mass quantaties, we improoved our guns, and we drove out the germans from Stalingrad all the way back to Berlin, and we completly destroyed that city. So in your fictional world of removing NATO and Poland, I would say Germany would be helpless our bombers and fighter aircraft. So the best thing that happened to you, was that you joined NATO like all those other countries who could not protect themselfs well enough.
--------------------------------------------
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.” Joseph Stalin
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
. Hmmm... must be something to do with "not being modern".
!
