Return of the legions

[Sam Samson 0]

prague is past now, and we know that nato will grow.

with this alliance - the most powerful ever to exist on the face of the earth - there's a chance now - like never before - to play hardball with noxious dictators and other threats to basic human rights and our common interests.

but this is not to be another political thread.

it seems obvious that in a force of that magnitude there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication of capabilities.

why not specialize?

like with different nations taking over different jobs for which they historically of technically are most qualified.

what would your country be best at in your opinion?

germany: tanks and commandos?

france: tactics?

...

what do you think?

[brgnorway 0]

I believe that Nato countries first and foremost should focus on what objectives Nato should have. I'm sure the picture of specialization you have does fit US interests rather well. After all, US want's a kind of task force to send all over the world whenever they feel like it, but most europeans want Nato to be strictly defencive - not offencive (in my mind).

I think your question is interesting, but I see no way around politics on this one. Specializing a countries military force would tend to make them dependent on other countries knowlegde and capabilities (does that mean we have to call US every time Sweden gets inspired by their "Wasa-history" - denoir growls and looks hungrily on norwegian oilfields    ).

Besides, a specialized Nato would halt european plans on a future rapid reaction force.

Norway already is specialized on arctic conditions. An enemy would have a hard time fighting in our climate and terrain.

[Bordoy 0]

Speacalities in countries is a bad idea.

If France and Germany speacalizred like that and they got wiped out, we'll have infantry and aircraft going nowhere

[MesserJockel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 24 2002,20:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Norway already is specialized on arctic conditions. An enemy would have a hard time fighting in our climate and terrain.<span id='postcolor'>

remember narvik? j/k =)

@topic.

i think you underestimate the pride of specific countries, besides, i think noone would feel happy being utilized as a task force (i can imagine that many countries will see it that way). being part of a team does not necessarily lead to specialization; sometimes it is necessary, tho, but diversification should take place if needed and in more tactical situations... in strategic szenarios this may leed to insufficient decisioning, apart from all the explanations one will have to make for 1 country doing the logistics and another one dealing with intel eg.

apart from that, the decisioning alone will be the most expensive bureaucratical act in mankinds history ...

[Sam Samson 0]

the czech republic figured out specialization is a good idea all by itself - without its government reading this thread -

they are specializing in bio/chemical detection and countermeasures.

also: if - by way of specialization - we create greater interdependence, all I see is the decreasing likelyhood of western nations stabbing each other's back.

I'll treat you right if I depend on you.

so I maintain, what would your country - based on its history - be most capable in providing?

the US would furnish the diplomatic four-stars... remember ike and schwarzkopf? powell...

of course they would be the cincs.

[KingBeast 0]

Individual ispecialisation is just a step backwards. There are inter unit rivalries (more often friendly) as it is between the Army Navy and Airforce, putting it on a country wide scale would be a terrible mistake.

It would also lead to some horrible balances of power. Who is ever going to argue or oppose the decisions of "A-Bomb country" ?

But on to your other point, I guess traditionally one would place Britain in the Naval Warfare category. Or perhaps, "foreign assets"

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 24 2002,23:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">, all I see is the decreasing likelyhood of western nations stabbing each other's back.

<span id='postcolor'>

I can't see how any european country would stab another country's back again. We are (also US) far too economically dependent on eachother already for that to happen.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also: if - by way of specialization - we create greater interdependence.....<span id='postcolor'>

I sort of reject the idea of further and greater hegemony by US over european security issues. I'd rather see a united europe defending it's own interests. This does not imply hostility towards US - but cooperation with a choice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">powell...<span id='postcolor'>

An honourable person in my view.

[second_draw 0]

You could do like Red Alert 2. The allies would get the chronospheres, weather storms and so on. The commies would get the nukes and iron curtains. Then each country could have special unit with a specialisation like the iraq chemical weapon trooper.

[Balschoiw 0]

I dont think it´s a good idea to specialize on countries. One thing I would really appreciate would be standards in weapons, ammo, training and Radio com´s. If you ever tried to com with some Italians you´ll probably know what I´m talking about.

They sound like soccer reporters on speed and their english often is a bit "italian style"

[Akira 0]

france: tactics?

What tactics is that? Running away? Lightning fast surrender? Hehehe *runs for his Anti-Flame suit*

Err....back on topic. I would have say specialization would be bad as well.

And I find the idea of a United Europe Army and political structure quite interesting which sends my little mind through hypothetical situations and "what-ifs."

Lets say that Europe does unite into what you could call a Superpower Confederation. Two super powers are eventually going to butt heads. The US and the HECS (Hypothetical European Confederation Superpower), are eventually going to clash over some regional political crisis, because thats what super powers do. You become a super power you start flexing your muscle to make your voice and opinion heard and to get your way...its a perk of being a super power.

So the US and HECS clash? War? Possible. What would be a strong enough issue for the HECS to go to war? And how would it turn out? Forget about invading all of Europe...no one in their right mind would try that.

Just my little coffee-adled mind "thinking."

[-TU--33ker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US and the HECS (Hypothetical European Confederation Superpower), are eventually going to clash over some regional political crisis, because thats what super powers do.<span id='postcolor'>

what sould the USA and europe fight for? Territory? i don't think so.

and we're not talking about europe becoming a superpower. we're talking about specialisation of the single NATO countries!

[Akira 0]

"I sort of reject the idea of further and greater hegemony by US over european security issues. I'd rather see a united europe defending it's own interests. This does not imply hostility towards US - but cooperation with a choice."

Thats what got me thinking about the HECS.

And there are a thousand things HECS and the US could fight over. The Pacific War started primarily because of trade sanctions and embargos after all...

[-TU--33ker 0]

a war between europe and the USA is still too unrealistic to think about.

[DarkLight 0]

Hmmm, a united army would be pretty nice, but language might be a problem, not everyone can speak a lot of languages...

Giving each country something where they are really good at doesn't look a good idea to me. As mentioned before, if one country gets whiped out, the army might lose something important. Also, certain countries might turn into huge targets, the country that has the most important task will obviously be the most important target for the agressor.

Belgium would probable take care of the chocolat, the frites, and the beer. And maybe some weapons too, i don't know our army very well so basically i dunno if we have anything special that's worth mentioning!

[nolips71 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Nov. 25 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">france: tactics?

What tactics is that? Running away? Lightning fast surrender? Hehehe    *runs for his Anti-Flame suit*

Err....back on topic. I would have say specialization would be bad as well.

And I find the idea of a United Europe Army and political structure quite interesting which sends my little mind through hypothetical situations and "what-ifs."

Lets say that Europe does unite into what you could call a Superpower Confederation. Two super powers are eventually going to butt heads. The US and the HECS (Hypothetical European Confederation Superpower), are eventually going to clash over some regional political crisis, because thats what super powers do. You become a super power you start flexing your muscle to make your voice and opinion heard and to get your way...its a perk of being a super power.

So the US and HECS clash? War? Possible. What would be a strong enough issue for the HECS to go to war? And how would it turn out? Forget about invading all of Europe...no one in their right mind would try that.

Just my little coffee-adled mind "thinking."<span id='postcolor'>

time to stick up for the frogs

america: shoot everything that is not the enemy

[KingBeast 0]

The french must be given credit, for they had an empire that stretched across the whole of Europe. Not many people can equal that.

[KingBeast 0]

Belgium make very good guns Darklight. Chocolate and guns, what a combination

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Nov. 25 2002,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Chocolate and guns, what a combination  <span id='postcolor'>

Bon-Bons away!!!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bon-Bons away!!!<span id='postcolor'>

sorry, couldnt hold it.

[habdoel 0]

i think belgium has a specialisation, its communication.

Most of the people in Belgium can handle much different langues: dutch, german, Francais, Englisch (not me),...

and its right in the middle of europe, so Brussels would be a good place to bould a second pentagon

[Sam Samson 0]

I think germany would make a great logistics specialist, given their close proximity to almost everywhere in the world.

and based on their history they're not too keen on fighting, which I understand fullwell.

UK?

the navy, but then, what would the US do with its carrier groups? okay. UK does commandos, the US the navy.

france?

I once heard that french soldiers with a competent officer are one of the most awesome infantry combinations.

who does:

submarines?

tanks?

airforce?

...

best?

(history would favor the germans, but we already went over this. )

[advocatexxx 0]

Royal Navy is a joke. Britain's days of sea domination are over. I think it happened when U-boats were starving the Brits to death and Bismarck sunk the Hood when they finally realized they're not as powerful as they think. Reminds me, Discovery channel is showing a documentary on Dec. 8th I think, James Cameron's "Expedition: Bismarck"

[Badgerboy 0]

Actually, Britain was still a very powerful naval power at the end of WWII. Sadly, what with having the crap blown out of us for 6 whole years, we were a bit skint, and had lots of rebuilding to do. This mean't that many ships were decomissioned or sold, and not replaced. It wasn't until the start of the Cold War proper, that new, modern ships were being built.

As for the Bismarck, have you heard of the Washington treaty? All the Naval powers agreed to limit the size of Battleships after the 1st world war.

When the Bismarck was launched, no-one else in the world had a ship coming close to the tonnage of the Bismarck, hence the surprise sinking of the Hood.

Most the Royal Navy's kit is still ASW, left over from the Cold War. (Yes, some countries did specialise back then, and the RN's prmary responsibility was ASW.) As with most things however, the money is not around....

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 25 2002,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...have you heard of the Washington treaty? All the Naval powers agreed to limit the size of Battleships after the 1st world war.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, since Hitler broke the Treaty of Versailles and commited genocide towards "inferior" races breaking all human morals what made the Brits think he'd obey some silly little law limiting the size of Naval combatants?

When a World War erupts the losing side will not obey any international laws, Geneva Conventions etc. won't mean jack. It may be useful in peacetime and small conflicts here and there, but in an all out war people will do just about anything to stay alive.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Nov. 25 2002,21:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the Bismarck, have you heard of the Washington treaty? All the Naval powers agreed to limit the size of Battleships after the 1st world war.

When the Bismarck was launched, no-one else in the world had a ship coming close to the tonnage of the Bismarck, hence the surprise sinking of the Hood.<span id='postcolor'>

Battleship Comparison

Interesting page.

Not sure when the Yamato was laid down, but it was commissioned in 1941. I do believe it is still the larget battleship ever built. It was certainly planned and concieved during the Washington Treaty era, but was most likely built after the Japanese had pulled out of the Treaty and League of Nations.

Also I heard, or saw a program, that suggested that the miniscule deck armor protection was what sank the Hood. They suggested the shell came at a high angle, penetrating the deck, and exploding in a magazine, thus obliterating the ship (much like the Arizona's demise). Or it might have been lack of a substantial armor belt, since this protection was fairly new (made for the new sub threat), and the above mentioned ships were fairly old (the Hood being 20 years or thereabouts).

Ummm....just my OT two cents.