The End of an era: The last US Army tanks leave Germany

[timmy]

Just take a look at the Kosovo War and check out the contributions of France and Germany.

After WW2, France did develop a nuclear capability that remained independent of NATO. But financially, neither nation was able to afford a rearmament program that matched their previous great power status. The Germans developed some capability to resist an invasion by Warsaw Pact forces, in conjunction with the USA, but these were defense forces for a war on German soil, and not intended or equipped for projection halfway around the world.

As XL notes, the mark of American genius in war has traditionally been in the area of logistics. The USA has a tremendous capability to project power anywhere, and to supply that war effort. For each rifle on the ground, ship in the sea, or aircraft in the air, there is a tremendous infrastructure backing it up. This is by far and away unrivaled by any other nation.

As I said about Iran, you will note that they are watching, not talking. In the last 20 years, they have twice seen the USA's ability to project power right on their own front yard. Whatever Germany and France have is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

You can be sure that, if something unfortunate breaks out, every North Korean command,, communications, and logistics site will be toast in a New York second. XL has given some basis for this statement.

Regarding the Russians, they have not had the funding to support anything near like the forces they once had, although they still have capabilities that are not insignificant. Look at how they have been selling ships (India and China) and how their nuclear missile subs have been rusting away in port.

[Skyman]

As for the Kosovo war, i take it the Americans did most of the work.Moreover the EU's strength is in the NATO, and individually they are rather insignificant.

I would like to draw your attention to the state of our defenses.I read an article which said the Indian air force can't even cover 3% of the landmass.Our naval power is laughable.The state of the army is debatable.If there is a war, with Pak or China, what do you think will happen?

[timmy]

Before leaving the Korean issue as it regards the European powers, check out this article from the BBC News. It is one of a series of articles dealing with the passing about Margaret Thatcher, and addresses the Falklands War. As I read it, I immediately thought of this thread.

Note how Thatcher and the British Admiralty had to make some interesting decisions, and also get support of the USA regarding air-based intelligence capabilities. Consider the following article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10377114

... the Royal Navy was no longer properly equipped for expeditionary warfare. It had no fleet airborne radar, for a start.

Its planners and political masters (including the Conservative government) had decided that its main role would be anti-submarine actions against the Soviet navy.

Its big aircraft carrier, Hermes, without which the Falklands would probably not have been retaken, was to be sold to India and replaced by a smaller ship.

No hesitation
Radar cover would be provided by the RAF from land. No such land, of course, was available in the South Atlantic.

... she soon got President Reagan to rally round. American air-to-air missiles followed.

Mrs Thatcher was always the practical grocer's daughter, knowing that words might lead the way but that weapons win wars.

In Europe, Britain has a significant military capability compared to the other NATO/EU nations. But even that far back you can see how British capabilities were stretched to the limit.

Regarding India with regards to Pakistan and China, Someone else will need to delve into this for you. I do know that both India and China have purchased former Soviet aircraft carriers. The last I recall, the Indian one, supposed to be equipped with about 20 MiG 29s, was tied up over an argument resulting from the Russians raising the price of the modernization project. I believe the Chinese one has been delivered, with Sukhoi 35B aircraft.

How China would go at it with India might be a question. As I understand it, China has built a submarine harbor facility in Hambantota, Sri Lanka (conveniently and, perhaps, predictably Rajapaksa's home town...). Such a base commands the sea routes between the naval bases on India's east and west naval bases at Vishakapatnam and Karwar. China also has some naval facilities in Gwadar, Pakistan. I also believe that the Chinese have a base somewhere in Bangladesh, perhaps near Chittagong, along with listening posts in the Seychelles and/or Maldives. India has some facility in Madagascar, plus there are installations in the Nicobars, I believe. Anyway, the whole Indian Ocean is dotted with bases of China, India, the USA, and the UK.

My opinion is that, if there is a flare up between India and China, it will have something to do with control of sea lanes. The route from the Far East, past Singapore, and to the raw materials of the Middle East and Africa has made the Indian Ocean in our day what the Atlantic was in the 19th and 20th Centuries. IF trouble springs up, it might have a large naval component to it.

Really, what do India and China have to fight over on land? (Yes, I know there was a war in 1962, but it was probably less over land and more over other things...)

Regarding Pakistan, I don't know anything about either India's or Pakistan's land forces, so someone else could comment on that issue.

[Skyman]

Did you hear about the Jet they built? The Chengdu J-5 or something.It was a 4.5 generation fighter i believe, and only the F-22 Raptor could outmatch it.As for Naval power, the Chinese have much more than us.On land, they have artillery and tanks only second to the US.Their cyber war prowess is highly advanced.If there is a flare-up, i doubt it will be over the sea.Our politicians don't have the will to challenge China.

I believe there might be a flare up with China over land and border intrusions.Pakistan recently beheaded two soldiers.There is simmering discontent within the ranks, and the soldiers want payback for the many deaths caused by their barbarism.One or two more such incidents and there will be cries for war.

[timmy]

Are you talking about the Chengdu J-7? It is nothing more than a gussied up MiG 21, which would be comparable to the F4 Phantom used in Vietnam. These are late 50s to early 60s technology, not new stuff. If this is the aircraft you speak of, it is toast for F14s, F15s, and F16s, which are no longer front line aircraft for the USA.

If you are talking about the Shenyang J-5, these are even older, copied versions of the MiG 17, or Korean War - era hardware. These aircraft aren't even in Chinese service any longer, I believe.

I'm not sure that Indian politicians need the will to fight China -- what is the point? The Indian navy will have two aircraft carriers when the ex-Soviet carrier is completed, and the Indian Navy has held maneuvers with the US Navy -- which should tell you something. A good, old-fashioned war is about the last thing anyone needs right now, and only the countries like North Korea are threatening it -- which should also tell you something.

[Skyman]

The Chengdu something, reverse engineered from a Ukrainian MiG.The article claimed it would beat the Eurofighter Typhoon and all that.In addition there were rumors of some carrier sinking cruise missile.

[xl_target]

The German's are a small country and their Armed Forces are not really big enough to project power on a global scale. If you look back to WW2, the reason they were so successful is that their opponents were still getting ready for the last war. The maneuver and dash that they displayed when sweeping across Europe contrasted with their opponents who were, for the most part, getting ready for a static war.
The French have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the need for which was first identified in the mid 1970's. The hull was laid in 1989 and for whatever reasons, political and financial, it was not commissioned till 2001. Putting a ship that expensive, in terms of resources and national treasure, in harms way is not donelightly. They do have some excellent troops like the French Foreign Legion but they are light infantry and you don't project global power with light infantry. I think the biggest issue with France is that the political will is not there to police the world or to engage in international endeavors.

The Indian Navy and Air Force have had joint exercises with US Forces. I believe the Indian Army has also done so. The Americans were full of praise for the professionalism of the Indian Armed Forces, especially in the air.

What really bothers me about the Indian Army is that they don't have a decent standard rifle. I'm not enamored with the INSAS. The SLR has passed its prime. The AK is OK, at least it is reliable. There are Tavors, M4's etc but they vary from unit to unit. India has never really displayed offensive tendencies. All the major wars have been defensive, usually reacting to incursions. The Indian Armed Forces have never been about projecting power internationally. Still as is still being seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, you still need "boots on the ground" to take and hold territory (or in India's case to re-take and hold territory). It messes with your logistics to have to supply parts, accessories and ammunition for a bunch of different small arms. I'm not saying that India cannot come up with a decent rifle but if they want to rely on an indigenously built rifle, it looks like they will never have a decent one as long as IOF is the sole supplier.

The Indian Army has a lot of armor. Something like 4500 tanks (T90 and variants, T72 and Arjun MBT). They are the third largest operator of tanks in the world. They also have a substantial artillery force. In general, the Indian Army is considered pretty capable for their mission, which is defending India and its borders. Going up against China would be a challenge regardless.

As an aside: in the 1970's I talked to an old soldier who had been in Kashmir during the Chinese incursion. He said that the Chinese kept coming for days. He said that they (jawans) would shoot from their emplaced machine guns till they ran out of ammo or barrels. Then they would fall back to the next emplacement. He said that the Chinese still kept coming and they killed thousands of them. Then one day, they just stopped coming. It won't be the same this time but it won't be easy. In 1962, the Indian Army was small as they felt they had no real natural enemies and they were protected by the sea on three sides and the Himalayas on the fourth. Things are not the same now. India now has a large, professional, volunteer army. They also have access and use of a large number of modern weapons and are not equipped with just the leavings of the Allied armies, left over from WW2 (as they were in 1962).

New Chinese Aircraft coming up relatively soon:
Chengdu J20 - not due till 2018 (supposedly stealthy to compete with the US F22 Raptor)
Shenyang J-31 - not due till 2016 (designed to compete the the US F35)
Shenyang J-15 - not due till 2016 (Naval multirole fighter - SU 33 copy)
Harbin Z-19 - not due till 2015 (Attack helicopter - modified licence built AS365 Dauphin)

[Skyman]

AHH! It was the J-20 i was talking about, the raptor competition.Wrt ARJUN MBT, some Generals have said they will never go to war with that.It can't navigate hilly terrain apparently.And the artillery is from the 70's.They are hopelessly outdated.

The lack of a standard battle rifle is another major issue.One of utmost importance.Everyone knows a good battle rifle can make a lot of difference.M1 being the case point.This indigenous obsession is quite deplorable.It's like trying to build a blackbird when you don't know how to build a P-38.

[xl_target]

Here are the specs for the Arjun MBT. On paper, it doesn't look too bad.



Here is a report on the Arjun. Is it a good tank or not? It's hard to decide as there is no independent verification of it's performance.
Arjun tank outruns, outguns Russian T-90

Over the last four months, the army had systematically signalled that it did not want to buy more Arjuns. The message from senior officers was: 124 Arjun tanks have been bought already; no more would be ordered for the army’s fleet of 4000 tanks. The comparative trial, or so went the message, was merely to evaluate what operational role could be given to the army’s handful of Arjuns.

“The senior officers who attended the trials were taken aback by the Arjun’s strong performance”, an army officer who was present through the trials frankly stated. “But they were also pleased that the Arjun had finally come of age.”

The army’s Directorate General of Mechanised Forces (DGMF), which has bitterly opposed buying more Arjuns, will now find it difficult to sustain that opposition. In keeping out the Arjun, the DGMF has opted to retain the already obsolescent T-72 tank in service for another two decades, spending thousands of crores in upgrading its vintage systems.

Now, confronted with the Arjun’s demonstrated capability, the army will face growing pressure to order more Arjuns.

Now is the Arjun so bad that the army wants to keep the obsolete T72's in service yet? As both Gulf wars have shown, the T72 while it works fine against Kurdish tribesmen, stands absolutely NO CHANCE against modern MBT's.
Who knows what the real story is?

[Skyman]

Word was, during the testing it had difficulty navigating challenging terrain and some other issues.The Generals didn't think that tank could be relied upon for battle, and said the older ones were better, mobility wise.Which might explain the decision to stick with the older tanks.

Again, who knows?

[Safarigent]

Skyman, you are not doing enough research and your cavalier attitude shows you up in bad light as compared to the meticulous research and answers posted by other respected members.
Read more, ask less.
( this is not meant to be offensive, and please dont misread me)
A cursory glance will reveal that the Arjun MBT today is superior to the T 72/ T 80 and perhaps equal to the T 90 series in a lot of spheres.
The army is ordering these tanks.
The news of the poor performance is old, as is the news about not more than 124 tanks to be inducted.
Compare the specs of the tanks and see.
Also, spend some time, researching yourself the troop levels and deployment figures for the various militaries you mentioned.
You will find a lot of tanks in the mountains and quite a few navy chaps up there too!
But you gotta read yourself to get these nuggets out.
Best

A

[Skyman]

The article on the tanks was from India Today.While the troop numbers etc are to be easily had, their true capabilities are less straightforward.The Israelis for example, have a standing army that is a little over a 100,000.Their training however makes them far more effective than twice the number of NK soldiers.Facts such as these are not the forte of google.

[Safarigent]

Here you go champ.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ind ... ion-04984/


First page of google search on arjun mbt.
I am sure if i delve a bit deeper, there will be a whole treasure trove of information available.
All i am saying is that if you are spend a bit of time researching the topics of your interest, you'd have a far more fruitful and equal debate.

As far as the israelis go, its all over the internet, about their capabilities and how not only are they equal of North Korea( (what a comparison you make!) but of all heir neighbours combined. Remember they have fought a few wars, which were fought on all fronts simultaneously.
And lastly, my small two bits, it doesnt matter the kind of training you have, what your numbers are etc etc. every once in a while, having your back to a wall, desperation, profound belief in the cause you are fighting for etc will make a mish mash of any and all superiority enjoyed by the adversary. So that special something is not to be found in the training manuals, but in social and political spheres of the subject country.
What are your views on that?

[Skyman]

AB, the facts are present.However, unless the men who tested it tell us how it performed ( unlikely ), only a battle will tell if it is a success or not.There were many issues, and they appear to be resolved.The truth however, is only a battle brings out a weapon's strengths and weaknesses.

The Israelis were just an example.

And lastly, my small two bits, it doesnt matter the kind of training you have, what your numbers are etc etc. every once in a while, having your back to a wall, desperation, profound belief in the cause you are fighting for etc will make a mish mash of any and all superiority enjoyed by the adversary. So that special something is not to be found in the training manuals, but in social and political spheres of the subject country.
What are your views on that?

History is full of such examples.However, it is the coming together of a number of factors.Look at out own Soldiers.In the Indo-China war, they stood their ground and fought off the enemy as long as they could with whatever they had.What caused them to do it? Bravery? Patriotism? Or did they simply do their duty?

The answer is - Each soldier had a different set of reasons for his actions.One may have fought to defend his homeland.Another may have fought to evade death.An indecisive leader may have gotten his men killed, regardless of their capabilities.A good leader may have multiplied his men's combat power by his intelligence and leadership.Politics can get men killed for nothing.From the central leadership to each man, there are a multitude of things that determine how fights go.What they believe in, makes most of the determining.

As for the debates being one sided, think of me being a reporter.Men who know a good deal about things share their views.Timmy spoke of what would happen politically.XL commented on the military aspect.They are based in North America and speak things as they see it over there.I most certainly don't use them to get information, rather their thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOF.30-06_Sporting_Rifle

This is what wikipedia says.Now, what could i learn about the rifle merely by looking at the facts? If you told me how they shoot however, that is a different thing.I want their thoughts on the matter.Not plain facts.

[Safarigent]

Your call sir.
I will leave to your devices.
Interesting thread, this one.
Always good to read other peoples opinions.