The Problem with Heavy Weapon Exports
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- For weeks now the German Heavy Weapons debate has been stirring. What was going on?
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Footage/Museum -
Military History Visualized / @militaryhistoryvisual...
Deutsche Panzermuseum daspanzermuseum.de/
Gepard picture: IMAGO; Luftbilder ROCKENSUSSRA, 05.06.19, www.imago-images.com/st/00918... [20.04.2022].
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
Augengeradeaus; Verwirrende Umfrageergebnisse: Bessere Ausrüstung der Truppe?, 21.03.2016, augengeradeaus.net/2016/03/ve... [20.04.2022].
Bundesregierung, Pressekonferenz Bundeskanzler Scholz, 19.04.2022, www.bundesregierung.de/breg-d... [22.04.2022].
BMVg; Bericht zur materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft der Hauptwaffensysteme der Bundeswehr II/2021, 15. December 2021, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Berlin.
BMVg, Tweet 21.04.222, BMVg_Bundeswehr/s... [22.04.2022].
Defense Blog; Krauss-Maffei Wegmann offers modern artillery systems to Ukraine, 10.04.2022, available at defence-blog.com/krauss-maffe... [20.04.2022].
FAZ, Deutschland bereitet Ringtausch für Waffenlieferungen vor, 21.04.2022, www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/a... [22.04.2022].
FAZ; Die massive Schwäche der Bundeswehr in der Krise, 24.02.2022, www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/a... [20.04.2022].
Gebauer, Matthias; Tweet 22.04.2022, / 1517437967689785344 [22.04.2022].
Gepardenkommandant; Tweet 03.04.2022, / 1510671036890689538 [20.04.2022].
Gepardkommandant; Tweet 09.04.2002, / 1512834650992959495 [20.04.2022].
Handelsblatt, Deutschland bildet offenbar Ukrainer an Panzerhaubitze 2000 aus, 20.04.2022, app.handelsblatt.com/politik/... [22.04.2022].
ifw Kiel; Ukraine support tracker, April 2022, www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-ag... [20.04.2022].
Jens Wehner; Tweet 12.04.2022, / 1513949144276164614 [20.04.2022].
MacKay, Michael; Tweet 03.04.2022, / 1510697022143225869 [20.04.2022].
Mail Online; The tank graveyard, 24.04.2014, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti... [20.04.2022].
Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Umfrage: Bundeswehrsoldaten haben wenig Vertrauen in ihre Ausrüstung, 20.06.2016, www.mz.de/deutschland-und-wel... [20.04.2022].
Neitzel, Sönke; Deutsche Krieger: vom Kaiserreich zur Berliner Republik-eine Militärgeschichte. Propyläen: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
Reuters; Poland signs deal for purchase of 250 Abrams tanks, 05.04.2022, www.reuters.com/world/europe/... [20.04.2022].
Spiegel Spitzengespräch, via Carolin Katschack; Tweet 11.04.2022, / 1513573403244077061 [20.04.2022].
statista; Soll Deutschland in Zukunft für Bundeswehr und Verteidigung mehr Geld [...], 24.01.2022, de.statista.com/statistik/dat... [20.04.2022].
Tagesschau; Mehrheit unterstützt deutschen Ukraine-Kurs, 03.03.2022, www.tagesschau.de/inland/deut... [20.04.2022].
Welt; 50 „Gepard“ auf Lager [...], 25.02.2022, www.welt.de/wirtschaft/plus23... [20.04.2022].
DoD
NATO
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Disclaimer
00:58 - Intro
02:19 - Heavy Weapon Exports
03:14 - Problem 1 - Stockpiles
06:38 - Problem 2 - NATO Obligations
08:19 - Problem 3 - Training
14:35 - Sellout minute
15:40 - Short-term vs long-term solutions
21:31 - Military support in Germany
27:40 - Outro
#Gepard #Germany #militaryaviationhistory
ya'll, you have no idea what it took to get this one over the finish line. I don't think I've had so many violent face-desk interfaces in 4 years of YT than in the last 5 days working on this. From conflicting information, new announcements, complicated and constant changes to the footage sign off with third parties pushed this back and back and back. In the mean time, Germany went like 'sure, we will send Gepard now'. #timing The video is an overview of why Germany is/was so hesitant, what the governmental line is/was, and as a general update. Some will find it outdated due to the recent announcement, I don't think so - nothing has changed regarding the core information of the video. In any case, I am going to the freezer now for some ice cream.Have a good one.
Some well deserved ice cream.
bureaucracy is the pride and joy of germany
It would have been outdated over time anyway. I think it is very insightful, and as a record of this conflict, will stand the test of time.
Germany really need to work on. A: What it want. B: it's communications. Everyone tearing the hair out over the latter.
Coffee ice-cream......yummy!!!
You are doing a great job!!
based on my vast warthunder experience, gepards are very easy to use
Only with keybinds, on console I can only push so many buttons
True. Also based on my war thunder experience too i wonder why italy didn't came out with pre-nerfed Otomatico btw.
Tell that to a novice.
Russia is no match for Ukraine's 77th keyboard battalion.
This makes me wonder where the hell are the R3 are
Totally didn't read the title as "The Problem with Heavy Weapon Esports" at first
That would have been a very short video, as there is absolutely no problem with heavy weapons esports.
I can not speak for Gepards, but in a military exchange in ~1995 it took less than 2 weeks for French tank crews to learn how to operate and shoot with Leopard 1s and it took two weeks for us to shoot with their AMX.
I bet experienced Ukrainian tank crews are not significant slower.
(They just need to train loaders from scratch.)
Will be interested to hear the update after you made this piece. I have always thought of Germany as a stalwart, anchoring force in Europe, I did not realize it was so depleted. No wonder Poland is nervous.
Poland and France are really the 2 continental anchoring forces instead of Germany militarily speaking. France has the carrier + a sizeable expeditionary force, and Poland with a land army and officer corps that is very experienced from the Middle East.
Many will remember Trump forcing the issue of Europe meeting its NATO obligations. Although expressed in money, the end result is intended to produce a more capable NATO.
@@paulvarn4712 Many remember W. Bush and Obama scolding Germany on not spending enough on their military. Trump just used it for his agenda to dissolve NATO.
The future was going to be low-key peace-keeping operations, for which you only need a minimum of easily air portable equipment like Unimogs. That idea was dashed by the military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan where massive IED-proof vehicles were required, much bigger and much heaver than trucks. And now we face the reality that Russia or China might get itchy and launch an all out war for which you need proper tanks, guns and not the cheap budget stuff used to scare the locals.
Germany was a stalwart, anchoring force in Europe during the Cold War.
West Germany was the second largest military in NATO and East Germany was the second largest military force in the Eastern Bloc.
When the country re-united, it made some NATO countries nervous, so they had to cut their military down.
The re-unification process was very expensive, so they cut the military down further.
The politicians were bought by Russia, so they cut the military down even further.
There were even talks to get rid of the German military altogether, because those were the orders from Moscow.
It's still at least two years before Poland starts receiving the Abrams tanks we've bought some time ago, so the decision for sending those t-72 is not related to getting those tanks. Poland work receive a support from the UK in the form of some British tanks units that will be stationed in Poland as the replacement for those tanks being sent.
Looking at Wiki, it looks like even US does not have more than 200 Sep3s in service... That was a surprise. And they are already working on Sep4.
@@lahvancz Tank units in US are downsized and inventory sent to reserves. Reason being too high cost and logistical nightmares, too little use in their active theatres (Iraq, Syria).
Poland also has a bunch of Leopard 2s as well as modernized T-72s, including a domestic version. The T-72 variant that actually is being sent to Ukraine is really old and was probably little more than a reserve for the polish forces anyway.
@@sys3248 "too little use in their active theatres"
My brigade was ordered to leave our tanks in Kuwait when we deployed to Iraq in 2004. Within a month we had started a 'tank smuggling' operation to sneak tanks in because it was pretty obvious we needed those tanks. Obvious to the people in Iraq - not so obvious to the idiots in the Pentagon.
And as of about five years ago the US Army's focus went back to training for near peer combat using tanks and heavy mech. It wasn't just the tanks that were downsized - it was the entire Army. And in 2003/2004 we discovered that we had cut the size of the Army too much. So we increased it. Obama cut the size of the Army to less than it was in 2003. So we know that the US Army is too small to do what the government and the American people expect them to.
@@colincampbell767 you had use of them maybe in Fallujah. The defenders have nothing except some RPG there and then so tanks while ideal against infantry groupings never seen as 'vital'.
7:50 With statistics like this, it's not only interesting what they say, but also what they don't say. It is striking, for example, that one of the largest donors is missing, namely the EU. The EU is neither listed as such, nor is the EU contribution converted to the member states (you can find this in the pdf version). Government support in the form of refugee reception is not taken into account.
The Dutch army has 24 active Pantserhouwitsers (PZH 2000) There are still 29 in depot. These are from an older, technically less high-quality version.
the number of Dutch Pantserhouwitsers that will be delivered in collaboration with Germany is unclear
hopefully alot
Too late for this phase of the battle... if you take into account that you cannot train crew members so quickly, must have a logistics line, mechanics, spare parts. I estimate that you need at least one year before the Ukrainian army has the pzh combat ready
@@rikspring They need artillery now more than ever.
Artillery Is King.
Also, it should only take a couple weeks to learn the basic mechanics of the equipment. The Ukrainians are familiar with similar systems.
@@rikspring looks like we will have many more phases to come. Good to be prepared
@@thomascolbert2687 the thing is, logistics takes time.
Ukraine uses about 600 1970´s SPG´s, a shitload of BM-21 etc.
The most modern SPG is 2S19 from 1989 and they only have about 40 of those.
Nothing in the ukrainian Arsenal is even compatible with PzH2000 and other NATO Equipment.
Neither spare parts nor ammunition or even battlefield management systems.
The NATO Equipped Units have to be rebuilt from the ground up. That is not a "let the boys play for 3 Days on the range" thing, it is an edavour taking months or even up to a year.
Full training of logistic and maintenance personnel and crews, support vehicles, spare part logistics, ammunition logistics, forward fire directors with compatible guidance equipment etc etc etc.
I have been looking forward to this video. I wanted to ask what happened to the ex East German Mi8's and Mi24's. Were any stored in a reserve condition? I can find very little information online about what happened to them. As one of the most reliable German channels I thought you would be best placed to answer this. These helicopters if still maintained would be very useful to Ukraine right now.
Commenting just so it's more likely he sees this, definitely want to hear more on this topic.
@@HandleMyBallsUA-cam I saw a few of each in the museam in Gatow outside Berlin. They were stored long-term in the open so they would take quite some time to restore if it's even possible at all. They had quite a large fleet of both from what I remember.
Support comment
bump
With the sole exception of the Mig-29 (eventually sold to Poland) all flying inventory of the NVA was immediately sold or scrapped.
Hello. I was stationed in Germany from 78-80 and 88-91. I observed the German people treating the Bundeswehr as 2nd class citizens and the Americans as unnecessary occupation. When the wall fell, there were a lot of Germans telling us to go home. Then they did a study of what the economic cost to German businesses would be the Frankfurt if the Americans completely left. They changed their minds about the Americans leaving all together. To me, the German Army effort was "just enough" to defend West Germany until the U.S. could get forces sent over from the states. Before the EU, Europe had a Co-dependent addiction to the U.S. "The U.S. will fix it." Example the Balkans crisis. Europe was begging the U.S. to come over and stop the killing, even though it was in Europe's backyard!
It's the same attitude mostly across all of Europe, although France and Italy have upped their game especially in the Naval domain. France needs to build two of the future carriers instead of the one they have contracted. The Royal Navy need to build another dozen frigates/destroyer's at least on top of the planned frigate's. But again none of them will, because they know the US military will bail them out if SHTF
Idk, up to and around 1990 the german military had more then half a million active troops and like 2000 main battle tanks ready to go east. One of if not the strongest fighting force on the continent back then. Very different today tho.
@@EyeInTheSkypaulmcmenamin Hello ! Britain may have left the EU but we haven't left NATO.
Have you checked our recent naval expansion/ improvements recently ?
Yeah, and the CIA was funding right wingers all over the Balkans, it was their war.
You know that Germany was forced into pacifism after ww2, right?
Thank you for persevering! Fantastic videos. I really appreciate the research and thought you put into these.
As long as Germany wakes up, I think it's a win. I just hope the change comes soon enough to make a difference in the mess yet to come.
Oh, Germany is awake. Germany was one of the first nations to deliver MANPADS and ATM, and from day 1 on the industry offered tanks and two of the government parties (The Greens and the Liberals) immediately supported that, even including the biggest party in opposition (Christian party).
The one and only brake pad is the chancellor and his party (Workers party), who are all deeply involved in their gas business or were part of the last government, that paved Germany's way into complete gas dependency from Russia.
The true scandal here in Germany is, how all these people from the last government, despite the obviousness of their desastrous politics (also concerning the state of the army), still calim that they haven't made any mistakes, and they wonder why the Ukrainian government don't want them in Kijiv and react like little children.
I, for one, was quite happy with the post-ww2 demilitarisation and pacification of Germany. I do not think that actual remilitarisation of Germany is a positive for Europe, as it will feed existing paranoia among its neighbours, near and far.
@@lacdirk The opposite is true. Have you ever talked with Polish or Baltic people? They want a strong Germany as a protection against Russia because them alone could not stand an attack.
I was trained to be the gunner in the Marder during my serv in the Bundeswehr. Well, it isn't rocket science and you can learn that with intensive training in 2-3 weeks for sure. But the driver... Oh Boi. I remember my comrads had to learn the engine's in's and out's. The mechanics of all the stuff that keep the thing moving and so on. So a lot of theoretical knowledge to memorize and put into practical use when necessary. Better send soldiers to training that a car mechanics in civil life or something alike, so they have an easier time learning.
In 3 weeks, the Ukrainian army will be destroyed in the cauldron.
Don't worry, it won't last long enough to break down or run out of gas.
@@dennisyoung7363 that's because putin's fascist soldiers will die earlier?
Also, better send armored vehicle recovery units-effectively tank and armored vehicle “tow trucks”- because as you know many armored units become disabled but not completely destroyed and can be returned to the fight, if they can be recovered from the Battlefield. A Russian army has completely failed in its first weeks of this Ukraine war to provide sufficient armored vehicle tow trucks and has lost hundreds of units because of that.
@@joespeciale5875 Ukraine has not won.
25:10 A blindspot would imply that it was unintentional. The degradation of Germany's fighting capabilities was known and if not deliberately pushed towards this direction at the very least has been tolerated
Merkel gave Germany a corrupted banking system, dependence on Russian Gas and inadequate defense budgets as well as openness to fake refugee flows. An absolute evil cow.
No, it was deliberate. But it wasn’t necessary a degradation. Yes, Germany has much fewer tanks now then during the Cold War or when West- and East-German forces were combined into an unnecessary large armed forces after reunification. But today’s equipment 30 years later is much more modern. And I’d argue that the Ukraine war proves, that large armies of Cold War era tanks are pretty much useless today. In fact small modern forces are indeed superior. Although you can’t afford to lose or give away so many vehicles. 🤷
@@jansix4287 In the grand scheme of things I wouldn't consider what Russia is fielding in Ukraine as a "large" army
@@Starsky3022 But it is! Russia literally attacked Ukraine from all sides except the west, north (Belarus), north-east (Belgorod), east (Donetsk), south (Crimea) and the Black Sea fleet. They send so many tanks on so many roads that they couldn’t keep up fuel supply. This is the largest, best-equipped army Russia could possibly field against any opponent.
@@jansix4287 The fact that this is the largest Russia was able to field (and not supply) does not mean that it's a large army. In WW2 I'd estimate that there were at least half a million soldiers on both sides along the front that has been opened by Russia and they tried to push along and into it with at best a third of the numbers compared to WW2. Granted, we are a few decades after WW2 but I doubt that we have managed a 200% increase in fighting power nevermind the fact that you sometimes just can't substitute men with technology. So, no what Russia has fielded was inadequate for the job from the getgo and a far cry from the numbers that would have been fielded in the cold war along an even smaller frontline
What also has to be considered with the Gepard:
1) It is often advertised as a purely defensive weapon against enemy aircraft, helicopter, missiles and drones. But its AA cannons can also be used against infantry and to a certain extend against armored vehicles, such as BMP and BTR.
2) When the radar of the Gepard goes active it will show up on every display on a russian fighter/bomber or helicopter. So you want to be on active for short periods of time. This will need very good communication between other troops and the Gepard to be effective. Otherwise you will be a light target for SEAD missions (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) where Fighterbombers are targeting active radars from a distance and from a high altitude (out of range of the Gepard) with missiles.
It requires training, it requires communications, it requires lots and lots of ammunition, and lots of spare parts.
NO other western country has send heavy weapons of WESTERN production. Until now it is all ex-soviet stuff. The US wants to send 155mm howitzers, these are not self propelled. They are basicly artillery cannons that have to be towed by trucks. This is the most basic heavy weapon system that can be send. They are easy to handle. Thats why they are send. Because they can be operational and effective in a short amount of time.
The Netherlands also wants to send the Panzerhaubitze 2000, which is a very modern self propelled armoured artillery system. These can be operated from the back. But if not used correctly it can lead to friendly fire incidents. You need to train the troops on the targeting systems. That is not an easy task. It is not like in "Call of Duty" or in "War Thunder", that you simply select your favourite vehicle and then shoot on things.
It has been very well understood for almost 2 months now that Russia does not perform SEAD missions, they don't have the training or the smart bombs for it.
Several more countries has already sent western heavy weapons like the artillery you mention and it is not "wants" it is "has", you are a week out of date.
It is also very much understood that these weapon systems require training, that's why beginning training 2 months ago would be optimal and tomorrow is worse than today, the ongoing debate about "sending weapons to Ukraine" operates with the knowledge that training is required.
I don't understand how you have failed to catch on to that, the several month training period is why "sending it today" is being said, the extensive training period is why it's so frustrating that the systems aren't being sent.
If training and refurbishing of the German heavy weapons in storage had been provided 2 months ago there would be fully trained Ukrainian crews by now, yet people still don't want to start the training today because "it requires too much training".
@@freedomfighter22222 Okay, so the US has send already 155mm howitzers. Good. Thats again a very basic weapon system. You could argue that they have also M113 APCs in storage, but they wont send those. Neither does any other countries have plans to send old (heavy) NATO standard gear except for those very basic howitzers and their ammunition.
So I am asking myself why everyone is blaming Germany? :)
Chancellor Scholz also stated that he wont sell junk to Ukraine. He doesnt want to follow the route of lobbyism. The weapons industry in Germany sits on those systems for no other reason that they couldnt sell it to other countries. Because nobody wanted that stuff.
They saw an opportunity, to get a lucrative contract.
Greece for example has a large stockpile of M60 tanks, but they wont send those either, despite having a lot of Leopard I and II tanks, and they will receive 400 Abrams and 700 M113s.
Hell, Greece donated even 13 M60 tanks to Afghanistan...
I know that the Russians have limited supplies for guided missiles and bombs, but are you sure they couldnt take out one or two Gepards to strike on an important target?
@@Gentleman...Driver You're an hour behind news, the German Bundestag agrees with me :)
Denmark also Announced they are sending APCs roughly that time ago.
The Australian Bushmaster and whatever the similar UK thing was named is also considered heavy gear
The Netherlands has sent the pzh 2000
Several other countries are also sending other artillery systems and "has" already done so.
I am sure they could take out a Gepard with a missile, that's the point, it's one missile not hitting a military barracks or a railway station, as long as it is a free piece of material that's a win for Ukraine.
For that same reason the old Leopards could be sent, literally drive them into fields and park them there, Germany isn't planning to use them, if they are junk then they might as well be used to lure out Russian positions or just make some Russian soldiers think twice before attacking as they think there are more Ukrainian units than there really is.
The main reason people are giving Germany shit isn't for doing so little, it is for not being clear in its intentions and leading the EU and NATO like it is supposed to do, Germany should be the one pushing other countries to donate to Ukraine and organizing that delivery, but they have spent a month being ambiguous and eventually responding with "we could maybe backfill some countries" weeks after those countries asked for that arrangement.
Germany is supposed to be a core member but it isn't acting like one, it is constantly weeks behind other countries that it is supposed to at least be comparable to, People trust in Germany to be the rational core pillar and the entire EU is now finding that to not be the case, it is giving shit to Germany because it is performing far worse than expected.
I was chatting with a German friend and I asked her about the underfunding of the military, and she said "we don't need the military, we have diplomacy".
What an unfortunate mindset
Yes and with such a view of the world, you probably have a hard time seeing security risks. Respond to them, or see the benefits of a strong defense.
Tell her that pacifism without being able to defend yourself is worthless
@@amirulfarhan919 what do you mean unfortunate if the Ukrainians had this they wouldn’t be in this situation
That is the drawback of NATO. Why spend any money on your military when you're in a treaty with the US, UK, and dozen other small militaries.
The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. the second best time is today. Sending heavy weapons aid will be time consuming weather it is started today or next year.
Being German means letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. I have no doubt that whatever Germany says is the training time could be halved at least to give Ukrainians decent competency.
That was the Russian mindset before they lost lots of equipment plus soldiers already during the first few days of their invasion.
Soldiers that are killed because they were unprotected out in the open cannot be trained to use any kind of heavy equipment - it is too late. No equipment is the worst option. Using equipment with a poor degree of training is second worst. Survival is a precondition to training. Proper training can then enable even better chances of survival and mission success.
by far the best information/analyzation on the topic i watched. Well done, thanks.
Great video Chris! A lot of insightful analysis (as always).
Much appreciated! Thank you
Outstanding discussion as usual. In our country, USA, we also had “structural pacifism” (great description )-type leadership during the 2014 invasion by Russia, and effectively we did nothing to reply or to build up a potential response to future Russian adventurism and aggression.
Why should it?
It happens overseas
@@manubishe just because it happens overseas doesn't mean it won't one day affect us
@@spartanx9293 it will affect you.
How it will affect you depends on what you already have.
It may be a breeze, for the entertainment of the public, or a typhoon that sweeps away households by the thousands (see TikTok affect on the impressionable).
Preemptive action, on the other hand, is invasive, no matter how you put it.
I like the idea of the rolling substitutions, especially with T-72s, or other ex-Soviet vehicles. I can understand Poland giving away it’s T-72s and buying a similar number of M1s, that seems like a good idea. And as a heads up, the Slovenians also requested PUMAs, Boxers, and Leopard 2s, but I haven’t heard of any definite decisions on supplying them. I feel that the training times are an excellent point to cover. The Ukrainians have proven themselves as very competent soldiers, but I don’t know if they can learn to use all of the systems that they ask for quickly. To be fair, we will never know for sure if we don’t let them try. I don’t love living during these “historical times” but please keep these topical videos coming, I find them fascinating. Thanks Chris!
Training of the maintainers is critical. For example lets say the US decides to supply 1000 M1 tanks. The US MOS 91A (Abrams Tank Mechanic) course is 24 weeks. And I wonder how many instructors are fluent in Ukrainian or Russian. I'm pretty sure the many thousands pages of the TMs have not been translated into Ukrainian. While I'm sure there is some compression possible, the next problem is that your new tank mechanics are all new, they don't have sergeants with 10+ years of experience to lean on. So it will be hard.
Poland gave (probably, nobody will officially confirm yet) t-72s from reserve and 3rd rate tank brigades, but Abramses we are buying for sweet lots of bucks. It is not a rolling substitution. It is a long needed and planned replacement of t-72m and pt-91 oldtimers.
Good thing they are M1A2sepv3 not some "Egyptian" version, bad thing we should be buying leo2, as we do not need more versions of heavy equipment but more standardised types.
@@yt45204 ekhm.... have you ever work on heavy machinery? like tractor of semi-truck? modern tank is 10 times more complicated - to train a mechanic you have to show them, sometimes you have to guide a hand o trainee
@@yt45204 You can, to some extent. But you need that digital link, and radios attract artillery. But ignoring that, having an experienced supervisor working with you all the time is much more effective at mentoring and developing technical skills than an occasional video call. For hard problems, being able to get to an actual expert remotely would be great.
Tank crews can switch tanks with little training that’s for sure… it’s the same with cars, trucks and even aircrafts. There are differences but training from scratch and switching vehicles are different things. Also Training talk is just a lie, because if longer training is required equipment should be sent faster so recipient will be able to train, and not longer.. Point is is Germany haven’t wanted to have anything, they wanted to close eyes and keep business as usual, even before possible ww3 vs NATO. They should be thankful Ukraine is fighting vs Putler instead of them with Poland Lithuania and Estonia. If Ukraine will fall they will be attacked too.
About the conversation between Zimmerman and Melnik.
The German minister is going from the view that they'll need to train completely new crews that haven't had any experience, this of course takes a long time. The Ukrainian ambassador is talking about sending professional soldiers with previous experience operating similar equipment, in which case it's not going to take years, the whole process can be shortened to a few weeks or months. This has also been repeated by other Ukrainian officials, they're not going to send juniors to learn how to operate the heavy weapons.
They're starting from completely different assumptions.
Only 3 reasons for the German offficial position:
1.) they know they’re full of shit & they are draging their feet, kicking and screaming, trying to do NOTHING
2.) they are actually that militarily incompetent, to not know how military stuff works, AT ALL
3.) Can’t look past “established German bureaucratic procedues” & can’t see that basic training can be done MUCH MUCH FASTER, with advanced training/ maintenance able to be performed as systems get used over tune (through simple Skype calls, ffs ^^ It’s 2022 ^^)
@@elektrotehnik94 There are *some* examples where you really do need the train up time closer to what you'd expect for green troops. For example, that's why sending Ukraine F-16s wouldn't make sense in terms of near term aid.
For basic AFVs like infantry carriers and MBTs? Much easier. Still might need a week of long days to teach the turret crew the "switchology" and the drivers the "feel" to a level where they are at a high level of efficiency under stress. Maybe two weeks for maintainers, who need to know the guts and the little tricks of the trade for the specific gear. Setting up the infrastructure in-country to support the vehicles might take longer - say 3-4 weeks to ship and set it up *in the Ukrainian logistics infrastructure* (including such "meaningless" stuff like making sure supply clerks know what and how to order the right stuff for the new gear).
The point quoted in the video about the dismounts in a Marder is a red herring. The grunts in the back can be taught in a frigging day, if they aren't expected to be able to instantly step into a crew position if the driver, commander, or gunner becomes a casualty.
@@elektrotehnik94 No, training is a real thing. This is not a video game. You train in the basics (maybe they have that), then the specifics of the weapon, then squad tactics, then group tactics, then friend/foe identification, then maintenance, then advanced topics such as electronics, then.....
I enjoy reading the German high command who are on Linkin and see what they feel about the current situation.
Sun Tzu said: "A hungry tiger must use all its strength to catch a rabbit." lol
@@t5ruxlee210 that is pretty good take on this situation, well said . 💥
Yeah for a long time the Bundeswehr was not viewed in a positive light in germany. Either it was a complete disinterest or even a mockingly negative view. But i hope this will change now. The child games are over. Of course it will not change overnight. But maybe the next generation of people in germany can see the Bundeswehr in a more positive light.
The F-35 should be a good test. Will the entire buy consist of parts/ subassemblies delivered by Lufthansa freighters to prominent German rent seeking organizations for final a$$embly or flown over from the USA in half squadrons for a careful complete disassembly/ reassembly/ acceptance after arrival ?
If Germany wants to rely on NATO for national protection, and doesn't feel comfortable having a strong army and air force due to how they were used in WWI and WWII, perhaps Germany should simply fund a German NATO force. It can be manned and funded by Germany, and even based mostly in Germany, but have it permanently under NATO command. After all, if German politicians really don't want to have any military capability to take action against other countries, and only want to contribute to the NATO mutual defense capability, it shouldn't be a problem. Germany can have a separate civil defense/emergency services body that works internally for disaster relief etc.
No we will not, and tbh its not bad to be critical considering its mismanagment.
Denazification and even calling Monarchist germans as Nazis in germany is really a problem, which lead to negative view on military.... They dislikes the nazism as much as the monarchists.
Lol Homowehr and a good reputation, good joke bro
I think training some Ukrainian forces in the use of NATO weapon systems has the advantages of; if the war goes long, the 40 nations backing Ukraine can keep supplying them. With the long-term manufacturing advantage favouring Ukraine this puts pressure on Putin in the short to mid-term. The Ukrainian military can receive higher quality gear and when this war is over and Ukraine looks to switch to NATO standard equipment they will be half way there.
Half way there...? They would be far better on those systems then any European soldier as they used them in real combat, not just in training. They would teach us, how to actually use them.
I will always enjoy your sober frank and very well researched videos and even this video is no less valid in this fast moving situation. You do awesome work 👏👏👏👏👏
I think the US still has something like 3700 older M1A1 and A2 tanks in reserve. We could easily backfill the T-72 transfer with M1A1 or M1A2SEPv1 until Poland receives their SEPv2s
This is so frustrating, you can park the gepards in western Ukraine to focus on short range missile defense of your supply lines and assets and during that time the crews can be trained up, they do not need to be shoved into front line combat the second they hit Ukrainian soil. This political maneuvering is infuriating especially so when the excuses given to slow down the process are immaterial or outright lies.
Obviously in order to be trained they must be at a military training ground in Germany or Romania. No NATO country is going to send soldiers into Ukraine.
There is currently also not enough ammunition for the Gepard, Switzerland rejected a German request for the export of ammunition to Ukraine one month ago.
It just looks like this problem is currently getting solved as reports indicate that Brazil is willing to sell 300.000 rounds of ammunition to Ukraine.
Kid : "Dad, can I get a bicycle ?"
Germany : "You won't get a bicycle, because it requires training."
@@scratchy996 Have you actually watched, understood and comprehend the video? Cos your comment says otherwise.
If you would park those system anywhere in Ukraine russian missiles will put them out of action really fast. You would need to constantly move them. Also they would(actually I now can say "will") be ready to defend something after the crews have been trained.
I disagree, some amount of training would always be needed, otherwise it's just a big metal brick. And i feel like it's very unlikely untrained crews are even going to be able to defend against any aerial threat. We should definitely send the gepards, that was the right choice, and we should send more weapons, but the training is key
>When Bismarck places his new cactus in a sacred geometric structure to prevent it from withering away like his last plant…
Top-notch analysis as always, Chris!
As always, chapeau, mein Lieber. Great analysis and I can support your conclusions.
The first thing that came to my mind with the request for heavy German weapons was: What about logistics?
Sure, you now have a bunch of Marders, Gepards and maybe even Leopards along with your T-72, BMPs and what-have-you. I'm sure that will not play havoc with your ability to keep all those different vehicles operational.
From that point of view, supplying Russian tanks/AFVs made a whole lot more sense to me.
Shortterm, yes, but this war may go on for months or even years. And at a point, the supplies for soviet kits will run out. So Ukraine military will have to move to western kits eventually, but rather sooner than later (before they run out of T72s).
Yes but Ukraine is so deperate for any Heavy Weapons that they don't care. They have specifficaly asked for western heavy weapons amongst other things.
@@citamcicak well but they also wanted a no fly zone defacto causing ww3. Maybe not every request should be fulfilled without careful consideration. ;)
@@luschmiedt1071 there would be no ww3. You people know no Russia/ NATO proxy war history ^^
Only somebody not getting the lenght of this war would ignore that Ukraine needs NATO systems training ASAP.
Germany literally has child-like understanding of geo-politics ^^
They get their “bullying” now for a VERY good reason; they act like blind & deaf geo-political idiots, if not straight up cowards…
So much to cover in so little time, good job!
It is almost obvious how much the Bundes has decayed over the years.
A comment: with drones and helicopter seemingly the predominant Russian air units, it seems like the Gephard would be an ideal platform for local air control.
Excellent summary, thank you.
First time I'm here. I have to say I'm very impressed by the quality of your content. Vielen dank.
I've been a little confused why there is so much focus on Germany specifically, which seems to be both a domestic thing (I'm not German myself, but this is the impression I get) and also in the Anglo-sphere (I'm in the UK). Is this because of the restrictions Germany has on the selling on of German-made/previously-owned equipment?
Or is this a consequence of German's attempts to foster close relations with Russia which it has been getting a great deal of flack for recently? Or even all of the above?
The reason I ask is because the US apparently has a tank-graveyard, where a large number of early, un-upgraded M1s are kept, presumably either in storage, awaiting upgrades or are obsolete/out-of-service and are waiting scrapping or are kept for parts, but there are few conversations about these and other US spare hardware stocks.
The other thing is that France, while taking a lead on the diplomatic front, seems to be doing very little offering of hardware but doesn't seem to be singled out the way Germany has been, I'm curious why that is also.
I presume the lack of pressure on the UK to send spare equipment is because we have quite an under-resourced armed forces so simply don't have much in the way of useful spare hardware, ie anything we have spare is complete garbage and anything useful is front-line inventory...
I dont know why there is a focus in english media in general but at least for a german it can be a littlebit iretating if english speaking media writes or speaks german decisions into heaven or hell because a) our chancelor anounced something or b) our goverment doesnt do enought for Ukraine. Dont get me wrong I think it is an embaresment who my goverment acts in that crisis but honestly the coalition we have in the moment is made of parties that incase of the SPD swing between Military expanses and war expanses in general are in every case a waste of money and we need to have a kind of reasonable debate about defense policy. The greens that have a similar stance althought they werent in power until last November and so far at least seemed to have realized that you should spend money on defense. Last but not least the FDP is the only party that has made anouncements in the past that they at least care about the topic. Since Military Aviation History is german and has the platform to inform the english speaking world about what is going on it makes sense that he focuses more on that topic.
I think it also stems from the alignment between Germany and Russia on energy, which Germany were repeatedly warned would put them in a position where they would have to choose between their economy and supporting their NATO allies if anything ever happened. And here we are with German leaders being, at best, noncommittal about reducing energy imports from Russia and waffling on arms shipments to Ukraine. All while their former Chancellor continues to sit on the board of Rosneft and has been offered a similar position with Gazprom. So to many it appears that Germany has cast its lot, and not necessarily with its purported allies.
I think I too have been wondering what is so unique with Germany in this Ukrainian war with Russia. Everyone seems focused on it.
I personally have been sympathising with Germany, because it seems it is being forced to adopt some policies that are against its national interests.
Forcing Germany to halt Nord Stream two gas pipeline was uncalled for. And this directives coming from US, a NATO main ally was very embarrassing and humiliating to Germany. Truth be told, Russia has been selling gas to other European countries like Italy, France, Bulgaria and no one questions them. But when it comes to Germany, everyone comes arms blazing. Could there be a plan to frustrate or cut Germany down to size or so to speak in form of meddling with its domestic economic affairs and policies?
Russia historically has never cut or halted supply of gas to continental Europe even during its past confrontation with NATO members in the past, or even during cold war. Why did America raise this issue now, of Russia using its gas to manipulate Europe?
Coming to Germany commitment to NATO, and especially to current crisis in Ukraine, Germany after World War two, was really devastated infrastructurally, economically, politically and national psych. It has taken sacrifice, financial discipline and creativity to rebuild it and for a long time Germany had a defence and foreign policy of non military intervention outside its borders. This probably because of paranoid of war Germans experinced during the great war. Due to these policies, Germany has focused its energies and resources to economic development and rising to become European economic powerhouse.
Forcing Germany to focus its resources to NATO against its policy, to me is counterproductive and to some extent hatred or envy from some powers that be.
When president Donald Trump schooled Germany for not contributing enough in NATO when he was the president, it was shocking because it was a fact that Germany had contributed the biggest share in NATO second only to US, while countries like Italy and Belgium were had given a mere peanut in this arms alliance.
My question is, why are they after Germanys neck, a country that is not even focused on developing its own military, just like Japan? Is somebody interested in bringing Germany down? Are they fighting Germany indirectly? What is the motivation behind threatening a modern democratic European country like Germany with sanctions if it purchases Russian gas and oil?
And all this while US is directly buying the same from Russia? What is the end game? Are Germans aware of these double standards?
@@the_real_ch3 It just seems like that. The new government has pretty much severed all ties with Russia for the time being. Oil and coal imports will be phased out in a few weeks. Gas imports to a minimum also by the end of the year. However, Germany cannot immediately withdraw from gas deliveries, as there are supply contracts that oblige Germany to make a minimum purchase. If Germany buys less, it still has to pay. All omissions are now being blamed on the new government, even though the old government under Merkel was largely responsible for the dismemberment of the army. In Germany it is not much different from Great Britain. Everything that is available in the army in terms of material is also needed. There are no infinite reserves and surpluses to surrender and what can be surrendered is old or has been in storage for a very long time, requiring a time-consuming re-activation before delivery. The new government has actually already done more for the army in the few months than the Merkel government has done in 16 years. An additional contribution of 100 billion euros was approved for the army in parliament today, and the required 2% of GDP for the defense budget should also be adhered to in the future.
@@ericmwenda6197 Honestly that we Germans got shooled by Trump for not contributing enought to Nato was merely the first time a US President said that opinion openly not the first time this opinion was told to any German leader. Germany failed to reach the 2% of GDP Goal for Nato for more than a decade so it isnt a conspiracy more that Germany gains protection from Nato and isnt even wiling to contribute to Nato what it agreed to contribute. The whole North Stream II thing is amplified by that and that Germany has no alternatives others than buying from Russia. So no port infrastructure to unload liquified natural gas or similar things. For exaple shortly before the current russian offensive in this war started the chancelor suppressed a official report about the safe supply of energy to Germany because it stated we need North Stram II because we need the natural gas. On the other hand no german politician since 2014 when the whole Ukraine war started bothered to seriously fix our military or even pretend to fullfill our dutys that we ourselfs agreed to fullfill. Your Japan example doesnt realy fit because they are an island nation that needs a strong navy and Air Force for its defense, Japan has both. Germany needs a strong army and airforce and a navy that can help the to keep the russians in the baltic and artic sea but has none of it. Than you have to take into account that the equipment we have isnt maintained which makes it even worse. So the question should be why german politicians didnt focus more on the military or safe energy supply instead of running after literaly any other problem they could find.
I’m in the US, but I don’t feel like sitting back at all. IMO, we should get several hundred of the best Ukrainian tankers here for a good training session, and send them home with a nice “care package” of Abrahms - wouldn’t even need to be the current “best” model. Just get them more solid tech they can use and abuse. The Army here has actually been asking Congress to acquire FEWER tanks in the recent past, but Congress wants to support the manufacturing capacity - so, we keep cranking them out. Let’s spread the “love”, 70 tons at a time.
And the moment they cross the Ukrainian border they'll last 70 minutes before the Russian air force reduces them to scrap metal.
What you call 'supporting manufacturing capacity' - I call: 'Keeping the last remaining factory in the US that can build tanks in business.'
Thanks for another informative video, on a slight tangent though, what brand are the model planes in the shelf behind you? Thanks
Aloha; let me echo those previous comments - very well done. Impressive amount of analysis and research in such a tight time frame. All while the ground shakes underneath your feet - as it were. There is something of an old adage which states something like "nothing gets your attention more than a perceived threat." Bureaucratic sloth like motion cannot possibly react quickly enough. That immediate action must come from leadership. Mahalo
Thank you for this presentation. It was very interesting seeing the details of what is actually happening in Germany regarding it's own state of readiness and the practicality of sending weapons systems to Ukraine.
Given this situtation, I wonder if Germany could help the war effort more by cutting off the Russians from cash generated from natural gas, oil and coal, than by sending weapons systems. It's true Germany may not have much to offer militarily right this second, but it does have lots of cash that can be used to purchase alternative sources of LNG and oil. Having said that, I'm not sure if Germany has the infrastructure to be able to make that change quickly, for instance it s a different matter to recieve natural gas from a pipeline than it is to recieve LNG from a ship. But given the state of the German armed forces described here it is worth considering. If Russia can't pay their soldiers with German money, I don't think they are going to have much success.
German government said recently it is only days away from becoming independent of Russian oil, and open for sanctions
@@neodym5809 its natural gas thats the real problem and the real money maker.
@@TheFirebird123456 wrong. oil is the money maker. crude oil and oil products from russia make up ca.180 billion$ of russias total exports of 450 billion, while natural gas makes up around 50 billion. so not even close
@@hugodereroberer2181 in export or personal use?
@@TheCat48488 export
I think the Gepard thing is a PR move. These Gepard things are at least heavier than 5000 helmets. They can count as heavy weapons.
Where can you get the the model airplanes you see in the background? You said it in a video before.
Lovin' your work, Bismarck.
I've gotta ask, when is the next livestream? I have a VERY important question for you.
11:16 Love the subtle burn. This conversation takes place even amongst politicians who truly want to help Ukraine, implying that some German politicians do not truly want to help Ukraine.
I just realized a secondary benefit of the rolling replacement for NATO Warsaw Pact weapons: When they get backfilled with NATO equipment they'll need training. Which is a perfect time to bring in Ukranians for that same training setting Ukraine up for later getting NATO weapon systems they're now familiar with
Has everyone just forgotten about the Military industrial complex? This is not about replening old stocks, it's about prolonging a NATO proxy war for maximum profit.
@@centurionoomae1543 okay but that doesn’t change the fact that countries that are giving Ukraine their Soviet equipment are being sold/given NATO equipment
@@DefaultProphet yeah you're absolutely right. Although the effectiveness of NATO equipment is questionable after the recent events regarding Turkeys invasion of Iraq. 10 Leopard 2 tanks destroyed by 'Aysis' (cant say the real word but THOSE insurgents), 2 with IEDs, 2 with mortars and shelling and 4 with anti tank weapons, the last 2 are still being investigated. Also the poor performance of the Javelin and Stinger and NLAW in Ukraine is starting to show, I saw several videos of a t72 taking multiple missiles to the turret and still moving and firing like it normally would. It's crazy!
@@centurionoomae1543 Are you talking about the video from the 2nd story window on the tank in the street? If so that nlaw wasn’t far enough away to arm
@@DefaultProphet There is that one, but I've seen several more where they were in a field and they fired at it from quite some distance away, the tank takes it and quickly turns the turret and blasts the dude who fired it, footage was recorded by the guy behind him. Later alternative perspective footage popped up of the exact crew who got hit showing where the ERA was before it was shot off. Then there was another where a tank rolled over a mine and was shot with another missile system, before firing and retreating. I'm not saying they dont work, but they're definitely not as effective as the media is stating.
I am amazed, about those poll numbers. As a German, that is interested in defence topics, I would never have thought that anyone could have thought the Bundeswehr was fine.
That is a really staggering revelation. But does explain some of the attituded towards the Bundeswehr.
And it maybe partially explaines the shift in opinion recently.
I am still not adjusted to the fact that my opinions on the Bundeswehr are now somewhat mainstream and that a lot of what I (and others) feared would happen, really did.
Looking at the current lack of an increase of the defence budget and the massiv inertia in all decision making processes (not just on military matters) I am very worried for the future.
Yeah, that 60% number blew me away, too. Willfull ignorance is the only explanation i can come with, after decades of headlines a la "Bundeswehr kaputt gespart?" and the like...
Thanks Chris much appreciated this video
Hey Chris, love your work. Always detailed and in depth, and I love hearing about the domestic German situation from someone so careful and thorough.
As an outsider: Part of the issue isn't just Germany's weapon export policies it is Germany's other decisions IN COMBINATION with its weapon support policies. I know there's quite a bit of bitterness around Germany's apparent (real or perceived) sluggishness in taking significant economic sanctions against Russa where it would actually hurt them - especially on the issue of natural gas. Of course there are issues in Germany that would prevent just shutting the valves on the pipeline given Germany's energy needs (and the history of how Germany became dependent on Russian gas is another entire story that is somewhat awkward with the benefit of hindsight), but the perception in places outside of Germany/Europe is one where Germany is prepared to make some noise about the righteousness of the Ukrainian cause, but aren't prepared to shoulder any domestic discomfort at all to support them. I've seen comparisons made between the austerity imposed on smaller EU members at other times in its history (Greece etc) for the "greater good" of Europe and the perceived reluctance of Germany to take on any burden for itself now. It is not a good look. In many ways it is being seen that Germany had a great opportunity to support the victims of a clearly unjust invasion and act against an obviously aggressive and facist dictator and show clear and just European leadership, and fumbled it badly. I hope its just a matter of German bureaucracy being slow and the eventual contributions from Germany exceeding the rest of Europe. Ukraine needs all the help it can get, and Germany needs to show that European safety and Ukranian independence is more important to Germany than Deutsche bank's bottom line if it wants to be the leader of Europe.
Germany is basically moving as fast as possible to replace Russia as a supplier.
Coal imports will stop completely, the EU agreed on a total embargo.
The share of oil imports is down to 12% from 35% prior to the war and probably they will stop completely soon. Only one German oil refinery still buys oil from Russia (it‘s owned by a Russian company), but it will probably also switch soon to buying oil imported through Gdańsk harbor in Poland. It looks thus like Germany manages to replace the Russian oil imports faster than anticipated.
With regard to gas the Russian share decreased (down to 40% from 55%), but it takes time to create the infrastructure needed to replace them.
Germany ordered 4 swimming LNG terminals for 2.5 billion € and two LNG terminals will be constructed on land.
There’s also the problem with the treaties, basically if the German companies don’t buy a certain amount of gas they still have to pay the money to Russia. Not getting gas but still paying Russia is also not exactly a great solution 😂
@@HingerlAlois Of course all of that makes sense which is why I made the distinction between what is real and what is perceived. Overall the optics are still pretty bad even if the logic is there. If nothing else, the German government needs a better PR department!
@@arkadyromanov7803
Yes they suck at communicating 😂
But obviously also the press in Germany and other countries is talking a lot of crap.
Just for example headlines like „France and Germany 'sold £230million of military hardware including bombs, missiles and guns to Moscow' - likely used in Russia's invasion of Ukraine - despite EU-wide arms embargo in wake of 2014 annexation of Crimea“.
DailyMail UK
Germany sold two icebreaker vessels to Russia in 2012, those got delivered classified as dual use goods in 2015. They are unarmed and used by the civilian Russian Federal Agency for Maritime and River Transport for search and rescue operations in the Arctic.
Those two ships account probably for the vast bulk of the supposed German arms sales to Russia. In 2015 when they got delivered the exports to Russia are listed as 118 million €, the total German „arms“ exports to Russia are stated as 121 million €.
The rest of German „arms“ exports (probably only a few million €) according to the reports rifles and some special protection vehicles are also listed as dual use goods and apparently Russia assured their use for civilian purposes, thus the Russian military was definitely not the customer.
Even the original source on which the newspaper articles are based says that Germany didn’t violate any embargos, as only dual use goods got delivered. In the case of the icebreakers the deal was also signed years prior to 1 August 2014, the embargo allowed sales signed prior to this date to be concluded.
It’s true that France sold weapons and military equipment to the Russian armed forces, but their deals were also signed prior to 1 August 2014, thus they also didn’t really violate the embargo.
@@arkadyromanov7803 And it wouldn't cross your mind that some of the intense scapegoating and vitriol that you see emerging on Reddit and other platforms over the past few months are part of psyops to sow discord in the West?
@@arkadyromanov7803 Agreed! Our government, or rather the SPD and Scholz are really the problem right now. Even their two coalition partners pushed them to make a quicker decision. When the governing coalition is split like that, you can already see the problems
Poland gave Ukraince t-72(pre modernization types) tanks from various sources its around 100-130 tanks. And Poland didnt get abrams for that, Poland have bought them from US for quite large sum. Also i read that poland gave a lot of mig's parts to ukraine to make the damaged ones operational. Either way poland for such poor country gave a lot compared to Germany.
Germany put alot of money and ressurces into ukraine since 2014. If you calculate it together how much germany has spended its more than that poland give, even more then the americans and ther was alot money spend for the civil sector and infrastructure.
@@albertkurz913 glad to know all that infrastructure funding is helping the Ukrainians defend themselves. Typical German foreign policy, coddle your enemies and hope they attack you last.
@@raf155 Yes its helping, never underestimate the ability to move goods and troops on the roads, power supply, internet water etc. Hospitals wher build with it and buildings wher updatet.
The ukrainians should say thank you germany to pay us such amount of money and boost your econemy. Thats all german money that is not circulating in germany, thats money needed itself in germany to build up ther own forces and boost the econemy
@@albertkurz913 I think this is a very hard question to answer without good stats.
Looking at a lot of these Feb 24 2022 to April charts. You find Germanys contribution to be very meager.
Looking at absolute numbers over time Germany contributed 0.87 billion euro since 2014, before this second invasion. That's ~2x of Polands contrubutions in this Feb - April period.
Polands contrubutions were big too I hate that I can't find raw numbers but many sources say they're fourth. So after NATO, the US, and Canada.
I don't think the claim that Germany has outperformed Poland to be realistic. I don't see how it's possible. There's clearly a conflict of interest in Germany. They're not helping as much because they fear retaliation from Russia. And there's no way that wasn't even more of a factor before this invasion. Public attention on Ukraine was much lower so its cheaper to do things like push for nordstream 2 against the cries of Eastern European countries. Excellent realpolitik Merkel.
Germany is right now giving as much as Sweden as a percentage of GDP (just marginally behind Sweden). Sweden was considering itself neutral until recently (perhaps still) and isn't entirely sure on joining NATO despite Russias obvious hostility to non-NATO members. Poland is contributing 6x that 0.41% of GDP vs Germanys 0.06.
So yes Poland is giving a lot.
It is not just training to operate that takes time. There is also a learning curve for those involved in the maintenance of the equipment as well, in my experience this can take longer.
Very intelligent analysis, towards the end particularly.
In my experience of working with German businesses and colleagues. There is an endemic hesitancy and resistance to taking risks or even showing initiative when an opportunity presents itself. They become so wrapped up in what could or couldn't happen that paralysis results.
Absolutely true.
And I am German.
Yes. My take, also, is this is clumsiness on the part of German arms industry, not being able to see business opportunity here. They should view this as a chance to expand the user base of their products. They should be sending samples and provide initial training out of their pockets.
It’s unlikely that the Russians will snuff out the Ukrainian nation. Ukraine will keep buying equipment going into future (probably funded by US and EU). German arms exporters will find themselves excluded from this future market if they keep acting so dull.
@@PapaOscarNovember It's impossible to think in this direction in Germany, and I think rightfully so;
Weapons and military are of course a must-have, a country needs these to defend its freedom and human rights against weirdos like Putin.
But still these are tools that are made to kill people, human beings like you and me. Marketing for the military industry crosses a red line, you come to an area where you can hype these things and totally forget that it's a damn neccessity that we simply need military.
Yes, the military industry may (and must!) do research, produce state-of-the-art weaponry and if wanted, can sell them to other liberal democratic states. But military and marketing and saying "hooray, look what great killing tools we have" - I assure you, most people here would also say that this makes ones stomach ache.
@@PapaOscarNovember Those arms manufacturers will have agreements with the German government to regulate what they can and can't export. I do not know the specifics, but I assume that most of their products will have been german-funded and thus the export will be controlled. A good example of this would be ITAR protected equipment from the USA. They can't just operate on their own without permission from the state.
"Marder has slight stutter at idle" **mutterings in german perfectionism** "nein its not operational"
One thing that I've come to appreciate as you spoke about training on the Gepards is that the UK supplied Ukraine with stationary Starstreak launchers and then after a few weeks announced they were sending Stormer AA vehicles, which are just APCs with Starstreak launchers mounted. So at least they only need to train on driving the vehicles. It's a shame that the Gepard doesn't have the same sort of stationary turret system.
Regarding rumors (**wink**) of the Polish T-72 showing up in Ukraine, there won't be any official statements for a while, to prevent what happened when EU started declaring sending Polish MiGs there, at the beginning of the war, and all that drama that ensued from that (it was also supposed to be on the down low).
The 250 of M1A2SEPv3 tanks are not to backfill the disappearing T-72s, for few reasons:
1. the M1A2 are being bought, for full market price, although financed from outside of Polish military budget;
2. the procurement of Abrams tanks begun last year;
3. the M1s will not replace the disappearing tanks, because it will replace the tanks that are currently being used (T-72M1Z, T-72M1Rs), and the tanks that evaporate, are the ones sitting in reserves.
Point of fact: The UK has supplied far more than $0.2bn of weapons to Ukraine.
Heck, we've sent more than 4,000 NLAW, significant amounts of Javelin & other more expensive materiel.
Still not enough though.
Hopefully the UK sending CR2 to Poland will speed up the latter's transfer of T72 variants to Ukraine.
It seems like those t-72 are already there. Thanks for sending those CR2 over here!
If nlaw is $20,000 per, than 4000 is 80 million. That leaves 120 million left to spend from $0.2 billion. It seems about right.
Depending on Germany for anything looks like a very bad idea in the 21st century.
They have NO right to mock the Italians anymore, not the way things are now.
Outstanding job. Thank you.
What did you use for that bar at the beginning for the disclaimer?
My question is though, how useful is something like a Gepard really on a modern battlefield? What can it actually shoot down? I've always been under the assumption that because generally speaking planes (except for those made for a CAS role) have been getting faster, more maneuverable and / or harder to detect that missiles in the future would be the way to go. As far as I'm aware Germany has replaced it's Gepards with the AA variant of the Wiesel 2, and most countries, including ex soviet states, as well as Russia itself largely rely on missile based systems to fight aircraft.
If we consider that a helicopter can also be taken out with a relatively simple and easy to use MANPAD wouldn't the Gepard be kind of too much trouble to be really worth it? If all it can engage is fairly slow moving targets, and Ukraine seems to already be capable of dealing with these threats using various types of MANPAD's, is the payout really worth the amount of training and logistics that would have to go into getting these things in Ukrainian service? Wouldn't it just be better to send more stingers?
I'm assuming that I'm grossly underrestimating the capabilities of good old fashioned flak on the modern battlefield, but not many countries seem to use systems that solely rely on guns to take something down.
Apparently Ukraine's most interested in using them to shoot down cruise missiles fired at cities
against orc weapons they will fucking kill fucktons of them!
The answer is yes, if you have manpads available you're right, but if you have BOTH it's better. They're not terribly hard to support, and while missiles are excellent guns like this can be used in unorthodox ways.
For a defense like Ukraine options has an inmate value. Moreover, these can be used against medium and large sized drones.
Overall it will be up to Ukraine to decide if they need it. They know what they want, they know what they're doing.
Well yeah. They are not that great, but i think in a war you take everything you can. The problem is more with SEAD i think. (Planes countering AA or radar guided AA systems. The Gepard is using radar to lock on targets. But it can fire only around 6km. (3 miles). Russian rockets used for SEAD can be fired from a far longer distance. Furthermore the russians do not even have to use sead. They could just use SEAD planes to locate the Gepards when they have their radar active and strike them with cruises missiles or maybe even artillery when they are close enough. This is the reason why the russians aren´t using their Shilkas anymore too.
You could still use them to supress infantery. The Shilkas were used as anti infantery systems in the Afghanistan war too. But in the end they are way to complex compared to manpads for what they can do.
Its actually rather simple. Most drones or planes have traditional electronic defense mechanisms to defend against rocket targeting systems. The only way to defend agaisnt these weapons is to hide your radar signature because once it fired the ammo can not be redirected by defensive measures like rockets.
Also these things are long term more cost effective and even more importantly can easily accompany tanks or an armored assault with no problem. Infantery would have to leave the vehicle, pull out the manpads, aim and fire. This thing can do the same in 1/10th of the time.
If they are useful for ukriane, Im not sure. BUt they ares till usefull. They are also useful against stuff like kamikaze drones or UAV drones that not every rocket based system can target. If necessary you can use this thing "iron sight" without the radar equippmeant to get everything in range out of the sky. And especially against stuff like kamikaze drones they might be useful (not tested yet so just guessing) because they can rapidly respond with fire against any incoming target, something manpads cant really do.
And I doubt planes are so much faster or better now then during the hight of the cold war, especially not in ukraine. I doubt russia has only modern planes flying around.
I live in Ukraine and now I see that the troops have to use scarce anti-aircraft systems, such as Stinger or Starstreak, against unworthy targets, such as reconnaissance UAVs. This is due to the lack of barreled anti-aircraft artillery on the battlefield. Therefore, I think that even 15 Flakpanzer Gepards could have a significant impact on the economy of the war in Ukraine.
Shhh.
Danke! Gut erklärt und alles verständlich... Nice and Thanks!!
About the difficulty of training of PH2000, Estonia chose K9 as our new SPH and I was told difficulty in training conscripts was one of major reasons why PH2000 lost.
I honestly think that Germany has more to worry about in the public eye concerning their oil and natural gas purchasing from Russia than they do regarding what types of weapons they are sending to Ukraine.
Most of that is even just awfull PR by the German government. The strategy of saying NO until you have a perfect plan and know exactly how to do it, is just bad. Oil wise Germany is pretty much done and gas should be feasable as soon as the floating LNG terminals are ready, which should be by winter.
The oil embargo was signed by Germany. The gas is still a problem that can't be immediately solved.
The problem is that new things have come to light with the gas imports, apparently there were secret clauses that were signed, hidden behind Germany's impenetrable bureaucracy. Getting rid of the gas purchase will be a messy business.
We will see what happens.
Worked for a German company on contract once it was all training and tool box meetings ........ hardly picked up a tool , good times good times . Glad i was getting paid not paying for it . That it takes 6 weeks to drive a leopard says alot , I learnt how to operate an excavator in 4 weeks im assuming I'd need a degree for that in Germany.
Well, you need a license to ride a bicycle or wind surf there too!
Germ moment
Did they also teach you tactics of how to position your excavator to not immediately get blown up? ;) the turks have shown what happens when you badly trained personal in modern tanks, not that they would have fared better in ww2 tanks.
@@luschmiedt1071 well, Germany is only arms supplier that do not offer training as standard so that's more of a german issue.
COPE MORE GERM
@@fazole in what country do you live?
license for a bicycle? never heard of that and never seen one.
you need a license for driving a car or motorcycle.
you can windsurf without license, but if you want to surf from a club property they may require a license like a diving license too.
The supply of different systems from the USA/ Germany/ Britain, or France etc, must entail a dedicated supply chain for each of them, and specialised training for the crews. The maintenance of three different types of howitzer for example, would be all the more difficult. This would be no easy task.
Belgian here. I have been frustrated for over a decade that the population has been lied to when it comes to capability. I mean ... someone actually said that around that time that an IFV with a 30mm canon or 90mm low pressure gun was a valid replacement for our Leopard 1 capability... this angered me. Now sadly, the EU has to see that decades of counting on "peace dividends " have reduced our defensive status to nought. It is my opinion that the EU should invest and rearm quickly investing solely in systems with an existing assembly line. Leopards 2A7, Puma ifv and Boxer and Patria afv, Caesar artillery, AMOS or NEMO carried mortar systems, HK 416 an FN SCAR rifles, ... off the shelf stuff, without political or protectionist preambles, just get what we can get from where we can get it. The industrial base has been defunded for so long that a rebuild might be necessary.... as a pacifist it's not easy to say, but "Si vis pacem, para bellum " . For the EU , the second era of "No more war" sentiments has ended, let's not make it another 1939.
Well, you have to tailor your defense to the threats that you are anticipating. Who is going to walk through all those surrounding EU countries to have a tank battle with Belgium? I think, it makes absolute sense to use lighter vehicles that are easier to transport to where they are needed.
Interesting stuff thanks for making this!
I think Germany is actually doing quite alot to help Ukraine, but by passing on equipment from their own stockpiles it's also highlighting how bad of a state the German military was in before the Ukraine war. I just hope the aid keeps flowing, and I hope the various entities providing military aid understand that the Ukraine war isn't ending anytime soon. They will have time to train the Ukrainians on most weaponry, although providing newer equipment to former soviet-bloc NATO countries, so they can pass their gear to Ukraine, is definitely faster in the short to medium term. Really we should be doing all of the above, the cost of Ukraine losing this war is just too high for the West in general and Europe in particular.
The funny thing is that Scholz et al. said it's useless to send armour, because the Ukrainians couldn't use it immediately & needed to be trained. Wasting loads of time arguing this & then after 2 months, they decide on sending not the fairly easy to master Marder, but the much more complex Gepard. (Probably because it says 'defence' in the name, 'Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer'. As if it couldn't be used offensively.)
Everything is an offensive weapon, if your opponent is easily offended.
It's one thing to use the Marder as battle taxi as transport, it's a whole other deal to use it effectively for coordinated attack, you armchair strategist.
The term cannon fodder really stood out. Very interesting video. Perceptions and realities.... for the soldier it can be life or death.
23:00 Sounds like the Swedish One week defence, Enveckasförsvaret, where Överbefälhavaren publicly stated that the Swedish defence would last about a week, against an attack limited to one direction in a single area.... once the new IO14 organisation was in place, which was expected to take a few more years due to the budget constraints.
That was then followed about articles about the now employed PROFESSIONAL soldiers not even having march boots for the whole force at once.
Great video, could draw some parallel with Canada. If you think your army is underfunded, come take a look at Canada T-T Our troops are great, train hard and professional but under equipped and under funded. It takes forever to get anything procured and guess what, approval levels on those acquisitions are usually in the political sphere... best exemple is the F35, wasted 10 yrs for the same result. Hell there was a kind of irony to see an UA MP plead for stinger's and AA systems in early march to us...buddy, sorry to say that but...you got more then us... by a landslide (we have no AA whatsoever, we assume we'll be supported by other nations in peer-to-peer ops) and...same on anti tank system beside the carl-G. Not that we dont want to help but... yeah...we aint got shit. They recently announced that they would send 4x M777 howitzers to UA. We got 36 total across the CAF. It aint much but...its honest work I guess. The difference though is that in Canada, the talks about funding the forces in the public sphere have already disappeared. The defence minister announced an investment plan that is essentially no different then the ones before and but essential repair / replacement of systems are presented as investment (ie NORAD radar system in the north, getting it up to speed is not rly an increase of investment) and more as intentions then clear cut plans...so yeah. :(
The army is not poorly equipped. Upgraded leopard 2s, brand new LAV6s, new Bisons, new TAPVs, modern M777s with excalibers, Counter radar suites, Modern Heavy and Medium duty armoured trucks, Effective Recovery and Mine Clearance. Excellent small arms C7,C8,C14,C16. TAC-McM, Barretts, AT4 and Spike ATGM systems are used by CANSOF. Various Drone systems in place, Yes anti-air has been absent for some time, but to be honest it wasn't needed in the fight for the past 30 years
@@scottmccambley764 still not enough in numbers tho
Another point to be made that is often overlooked is the cost of training. Training every recruit coming through in basic tactics is expensive. Bullets, fuel, maintenance on vehicles, field rations, etc. don't come cheap. That is just the basic stuff. We could buy a stack of e.g. Javelins for anti-armour. Ok, now you need to train every combat arms member of the army in their use. I know they have discounted training versions and simulators, but those don't come cheap either, and there is no substitute for a bit of live fire training at the end. And that is before you even get into the REALLY expensive stuff. If we are going to have F-35s, we should be going through a non-trivial amount of fuel and training rounds each year, plus the added wear and tear on the jets. That kind of training is a large part what differentiates NATO air forces from e.g. Russian air forces. Then turn around and look at the navy, rinse and repeat the arguments above, with the details changed (e.g. helicopters chew through fuel and maintenance hours, and even recoverable training torpedoes are expensive).
Cutting the budget for navy exercises this year "just a little" so you can make the budget work this year when there is a payment for F-35s coming due is tempting. But then that level is the new normal, and in a couple years you cut the training budget on the air force to make the budget work with equipment purchases for the army, and then it is the army's turn a few years later to help fund the new frigates. This spiral slowly degrades your budget on "non-headline" items (like fighters or frigates) everywhere, and is not a problem unique to the CAF. Businesses do the same thing. They defer budgets for essential IT upgrades or staff training, so they can help fund a new product launch, or squeeze the last little bit to make the numbers the markets expect that year. In any situation, it takes a hard shock to galvanize political will, or to finally penetrate to C-suite execs, and turn around and actually increase funding. Then you see the dollar value on the "infrastructure debt" you have built up, and it is a shocker. Fifteen new frigates are going to cost $80 billion CAD (probably more) over their lifespan. To translate that: we should have been spending $3-5 billion annually on new ships and upgrades to existing ones since that last Halifax was built in 1996, but we haven't been even close to that.
And then the debate becomes: what could we do with $5 billion per year in funding for health care, tax cuts, affordable housing, etc.? Without that shock to the system, without a looming threat, it becomes very easy to justify the others as more important. Quite arguably, they are. Canada hasn't faced an existential military threat in close to a hundred years (counting WW2/WW1, if not we go back to pre-Confederation and 1812). Chris made the point in the video about what if they had prepped the Gepards for the eventuality of sending them to Ukraine, only to have that fall through. How much did/will the Halifax-class frigates cost per year in the end? They never (at least to public knowledge) had to go sub hunting in 30 years. Wouldn't we have rather spent that on X, Y, or Z? Probably, but the unique problem of military spending is it is something you have to spend massive amounts on, hoping it "goes to waste" when you never end up going to war. But it is also not something you can just buy last minute when you suddenly need it. I am certain that many in the current government and a large chunk of the public now wish we had spent more in the past, so we could have helped Ukraine at the drop of a hat. But we didn't and now we can't. Are Canadians willing to learn the lesson and bite the bullet on higher taxes or reduced services that would be required to support sustained future investments? Probably not, but we will see.
This whole thread, and really this whole video, have showed just how complacent so many nations have become. And just how jarring, like empty shelves everywhere during the first months of Covid, a wake up call like Ukraine could be...
This is a low velocity threat to everyone saying get ready. And as for Ukraine, they surely know suffering, but man, can they fight...
The world took notice, and help is on the way.
And I'm most certain they'll put it to good use (doing NATO's job for them.) Regardless, they have proven themselves more than capable and up to the task of figuring out how to best use the tools in front of them to drive the invaders from their soil.
And that in and of itself is remarkable...
Especially given the rarity of resilience and actual courage among world leaders today.
Good video, very well presented, I would suggest if Germany is unable to provide heavy weaponry for the reasons you have mentioned then it would do its reputation no harm to look very carefully at all of the ways it is giving money to Russia and ask itself who should carry the burden of the decisions made by German leadership over the decades, themselves or its Nato partners and Ukraine.
Great video thanks.
I was a conscript driver and trainee gunner on the Dutch PRTL analog system. Seen in the video has a seeming log in stead of a shovel type search radar.
Indeed it's a question how long it takes to for instance even translate the manuals in military and technical terms. Google translate won't work.
Then the training systems such as the mechlua trainer will not be stored.
Then 2010 stuff stored might no longer work or be quickly be produced when required.
Okay say 50% of the stored stuff at least works.
As a Leopard 1 driver getting a T72 well motivated driver to learn that should be one or two weeks.
Actually a ZSU 23-4 crews would be capable to master the digital Gepard in two weeks as well.
Only getting all low echolon maintenance with help of zoom should be able to work.
Higher echolon repair should have logistics back to Poland or Germany is needed.
On Gepard (PRTL) I was critical in a they give us shit but we'll win anyway attitude.
It did however show deterence of a mean machine "Tiger tank scare"
To use the system in a combinend force effectively is difficult.
Hunting tactics. Good camoflage. Leap frogging.
And, I hear Switzerland embargo on 35 mm ammo.
Having a Gepard as a German sales film racing along with a tank attack having the radar turnend on is stupid. It shows where the target is for the enemy.
A lot to be said.
You make the excellent point of how far industry can be trusted to indeed field even 15 of these.
For the Gepard we have a comparison. I can't remember were I read it but I can remember the points made. We Germans sold Gepards a few years ago to Romania, they previously had similar systems in use as Ukraine has now. It took 5 month to get the basic training fpr Romania done and that was with experienced radar operators on Soviet systems. OKay with a war on that time maybe can be shortened but how much is purely speculation.
@@betaich we Dutch had a six mounth training for conscript commander four for gunners and two for Leopard1 drivers. The latter requiring to already have a normal drivers licence.
Yet this is all raw recruit level including basic infantry learning to lead etc.
If you are well versed in combinend Soviet military tactics picking up improved ways as mindset is a trasition Ukraine has already made.
Finding the experienced instructors on a ten year old system is a chalenge. But Portugal could help. Yet langauge problems.......I hope not too little too late.
Yet Putin is certainly going to make a de-escalating nuke strike if he can't show some sort of succes. Then I hope indeed NATO will do what they should of done in 2014. Neutralize Putin and his mob.
Make Putin a modren monarch Tsar and Xi a dito Emperor. We are en route to WW3 .
@@gerhardris The romanians we trained were experienced soldiers on other short range anti aircraft vehicles and even than it took 5 month. The driving around will no be the problem but the gunnery and operaton of the radar and stufff will.
Gepard seems like a great tool against drones providing a low cost solution against a low cost threat. I would expect to see more of them instead of hearing of those systems being retired.
They have enough ammo for 20 minutes combat, a Germany doesn't make it any more.
I was watching a stream going over current events in Ukraine this morning. They said Switzerland is going to block any ammo transfer for the oerlikon auto cannons. I'm assuming that means if Germany goes through with the transfer Switzerland won't allow the sell of more ammo to Germany
Apparently Brazil will sell its stockpile.
Siwtzerland has 1 of 3 ammo factories. The other oens are in sardinia, Italy and Turkey. The german goucvernment would hardly agree to the sale if they could carry through with it.
Watch fewer sensationalist streams I guess, there is a lot of anit german propaganda and false narratives going around :)
I'm sure Germany will be able to reverse engineer the ammo and copy it
that is a NATO standard caliber, Swiss isn't the only surce of that ammo.
@@citamcicak but is it a licensed?
Problem with the Dutch (and German, and some others') promises is that they're part of already seriously depleted active stockpiles.
E.g. the Dutch government has pledged a number of Panzerhaubitze 2000 self propelled howitzers with ammunition, out of a total of only about 25 active ones (and how many of those are combat ready is anybody's guess, given the chronic lack of spare parts).
There are a similar number in long term storage, but those have been canibalised for spares to keep the rest going, and are probably useless (they were never used or kept upgraded, put in storage right from the delivery to the Dutch army because there were no funds to actually operate them, and there are no funds to keep stored equipment in good order either).
So NATO is depleting their own capability to oppose Russian aggression while at the same time making such aggression more likely (Moscow has repeatedly stated that they consider weapons shipment an act of war).
This is a good point, but the immediate need is Ukraine. Man do I ever hope that out of all of this FINALLY NATO understands the need to have a robust self-defense capacity in Europe instead of outsourcing the whole project to America.
If these weapons were being sent to the Middle East or something, I’d agree. But they’re being used against Russia, and they are seriously degrading Russia’s ability to fight NATO in the future. So the loss of European stockpiles is at least somewhat countered by that. And let’s not forget that these weapons-for the most part-aren’t what Europe would rely on for its primary defense and counter-attacks. NATO will have superior tanks, better technology, and plenty of air power, SAMs, cruise missiles, and other precision weapons to deny Russia the airspace over Europe and to strike inside Russia at will, plus near total naval supremacy. Once the US gets significant forces to Europe then it would really be a walkover.
That being said, I fully agree that Europe needs to re-arm to at least immediate post Cold War levels. The US is happy to help defend Europe, but US forces take time to arrive and have other commitments as well. Europe needs to do more, even if entails some reasonable cuts to social programs.
Germany and Holland are the worst offenders in low defense spending. Germany had reunification costs but don't know what hollands problem is. Both were at 1.4% GDP for defense expenditure.
@@williamzk9083 and for the Netherlands that 1.4% is largely theoretical as the bulk of it went to covering the extremely high cost of overseas deployments in all the "peacekeeping" operations the Dutch government is constantly shoehorning itself into for political brownie points with the EU and UN.
Yugoslavia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, various operations in Africa.
Actual operational expenses for the standing army are largely paid for by selling off the best equipment the Dutch armed forces have to countries like Peru for a song and then using the income from those sales to keep half the rest working using the other half as sources for canibalised spares.
@@bluemarlin8138 uh, the Dutch ARE sending their primary, frontline, equipment.
Not second line reserves and mobilisation stockpiles, which in the Netherlands no longer exist because they've all been sold off 20 years ago and never replenished.
When the Dutch military command heard Olongren and Rutte brag about giving away all that equipment they were seriously alarmed as those two idiots were giving away our entire active artillery capability and a good portion of other front line equipment as well.
As a "Passdeutscher" (German by citizenship but not birth) who came here in the 80s, it took me, let's see, I think it was 6 or maybe 7 minutes to get thoroughly fed up with the constant firehose of peace-at-any-price war-is-hell we-are-the-worst-people-in-the-universe. Of course that was an understandable reaction to the sad events of '39-'45. I remember there was some sort of soccer championship in 2004 was it? I forget, anyway it was held in Germany and people were surprised that it was suddenly OK to wave German flags. Germans spent so long ridding themselves of warlike nationalism that they forgot that no other country did that, and now we awake to be shocked - shocked! - that there are bad people out there.
Keep it up, good video!
well presented. given the startling horrific actions of russia, it's in the interest of self-preservation to get off the pot and ensure solid linkages with the rest of nato to present putin with a wall he dare not try to break.
1-10 how brainwashed do you think you are?
@@namesurname624 pot kettle black.
If the war escalates tens of millions will die and the US will be destroyed along with Russia, and the Western European powers.
@@ericgrace9995 sure buddy
@@centurionoomae1543 Wow! A passive aggressive "buddy" retort.
You even debate like a big girl...
The overall public opinion of the average german towards the Bundeswehr has so far been one that can barely be descriped to (or understood by) most people in other countries but I think I have a decent comparison for it. Look at nuclear power. Some countries want to reduce it and long term get away from it. Most countries want to keep it or even increase it and some even want to drastically increase the use of nuclear power. All countries have some parts of society that are against it but it's a very small group who really strongly opposes it in most countries. In Germany on the other side nuclear power is phased out at tremendous costs both fiscally and for the environment as well as it's a problematic step in light of geopolitics but they can't go back because the majority of german society is dogmatically and radically opposed to nuclear power. Some out of fear many just because they've grown up with being anti nuclear as their ideology. With the relation society/military it's exactly the same. I don't know any country in the world that is so structurally opposed to it's own ability to defend itself. This could be changing somewhat now but we'll have to see if it lasts.
I understand why the German public have negative views of their military, but it hasn't been that long since Germany fielded two of the largest, most advanced and most powerful armies in the world and I'm not talking about wwII. BOTH Germanies had massive and powerful militaries who would be on the frontlines in almost every WW3 scenario. West Germany was spending some 5% of GDP on their military and East Germany was spending much more of their economy.
@@TheFirebird123456 You are completely correct of course. In 1990 the Bundeswehr was over 500k strong. 2k MBT's.. Generally one of the best territoral Armies in the world however my thoughts on this are as follows. On one hand back then there was also quite a strong opposition against the German Army, Nato, defence spending and against all kinds of specific weapon systems. That's another point I didn't mention before I don't know of any country where there is public opposition against having more effective weapon systems. It took until now for them to allow armed drones. So again there was opposition then too but the world was different. The media landscape and the way people could communicate with each other or also voice their dissent was much more limited so it was easier for politicians to ignore. Also being right on the frontline of a potential ww3 meant simply having to be way more prepared for a large scale war. There just was no alternative. After the "Wende" they thought all that had changed and with every year that went by the idea of war became a far more distant memory. I also believe that it made a big difference that back then there were still large parts of the population that still remembered war. When I was in school in the early 90s almost every grandpa or other ancestor of me and my classmates had been in the war or at least lived through it in some form. Also many of the politicians and decision makers back then where around during the war and remembered what it meant. So there was dislike and opposition to the army by many but also much more understanding for the fact that you NEED and army to prevent war. Nowadays (at least until Feb24th) people seem to have forgotten war is actually real and not something from a history book.
"it's a problematic step in light of geopolitics" if you refer to German Gas Imports, Germanys heavy Industry needs Gas, a Steel Plant wont function without it
and without heavy Industry, Germany is basicly a third World Country
I think you’re confusing issues and not seeing either clearly as they relate to the German public. How about I throw these monkey wrenches at your thoughts- Germany was buying nuclear power plant fuel from Russia, and they know that when more renewable energy systems come online, it’s easier and cheaper to shut down a gas fueled generator than a nuclear fueled one. You can’t plan for a nuclear powered future if nobody in the world is building next generation new versions, because nobody wants to take the risk and liability. Also, nuclear waste products are not as useful in industry as petroleum and natural gas. The average German’s support of the Bundeswehr has nothing to do with nuclear power generation.
@@ottersirotten4290 one of the largest industrial nations in the world is a third world country? Also, yes industry needs gas but there are other countries selling it.
I think you have missed an important facet. The Gepard uses the Leopard 1 chassis, even if only 15 Gepards can be brought into a state of operational readiness, the other 35 could be used for spares, training aids to also allow for Leopard 1s that have been offered by Rhinemettal would allow the Ukrainians to build a capability that would enable them to upgrade to the lastest versions of the Leopard.
Relatively quickly probably means... quicker that building new ones... though they would probably have to strip them down and rebuild them especially the engines and all gaskets and hoses. Maybe all new wiring harness as well
That stupid comment by Strack-Zimmermann really ground my gears. Firstly, she bragged with knowledge that she probably just acquired in the 30 min before, when she was briefed or she read it on Wikipedia and that knowledge really doesn't matter in this discussion. Secondly, she argued that we're not sending weapons, because the Ukrainians must be trained or otherwise they'll be cannon fodder.
As if the Ukrainians weren't already cannon fodder.
It's a stupid argument made by someone who seems much smarter than she is.
They will drive to the front in non-armored vehicles instead.
It's moving that, while villages and cities are being levelled by Grad bombardment and citizens are being starved hidden in basements, the German government goes such lenghts to care about proper training of Ukrainian tank deivers and their 100% readiness. If it takes 6 weeks to train the driver there could have been trained crews by now surely...
Two Czech proverbs came to my mind while listening:
He who gives quickly, gives twice.
He who wills, looks for ways; he who doesn't, looks for reasons (excuses).
Its not only about training. Way more important ... is there enough ammunition, spare parts, trained mechanics and electronic specialists? Logistics is always overlooked, but without it you cannot win a war.
@@harzzachseniorgamer5516
Don't worry about logistics. Do you really think that Germany cares about training Ukrainian users, since they scrapped 80% of this equipment? The rest is in the magazines for show, so that the numbers line up on the paper.
Ask the author of the video, why did the Germans train with the Chinese army and with the Russian army? You are surprised, but these are facts.
@@roberts1938 I read your words, but i dont understand them. Care to explain?
@@harzzachseniorgamer5516
All talk...no action.
Without proper training, then it is a waste of lives and equipment. The training aspect is more important than the quality of equipment.
The training takes whatever time it takes, so it needs to start now. After the training, then the Ukrainians will need to do war game exercises against NATO forces, in order to makes sure the people are ready. Proper training also inspires confidence and moral. It takes a lot of confidence and moral to risk life and limb in a warzone. Troops that lack confidence and moral risk the whole mission and/ or get killed or runaway.
could you do one about the german F-4 Phantoms? from when they just entered service to the ICE and the upgrades/problems they had
For the dutch pzh2000's, 6 will be provided in the immidiate term. Unconfirmed rumors from the ministry spoke of it being the first batch so its possible that over time more will be provided in multiple tranches. It is true that only 24 are in active service and the rest in storage. I suspect the in service ones will be provided and the stocked ones will need to be made operational and updated as a replacement. For the YPR-765, around 200 of multiple versions should be in storage, but with the connotation that the main guns (25mm)have largely been sold... so not really for assaulting use.
On a side note, in the Netherlands we should really take another look at buying german equipment or participating in cooperative projects with them in the future. There have been incidents in the past with german made weaponry exports. With regards to ship building cooperation with germany, the totally different appoach to defense or also known as the lack of involvement and lack of taking responsebility by the kriegsmarine just does not mix well with the Dutch approaches. This also goes without saying with regards to israeli weapons. Sometimes cooperation to keep costs down is just not worth it compromising. Policy wise, internationally we are far more inclined to follow or agree with the Anglo Saxon camp.
@@Martijn89l or do like Sweden and build your own.
As an American I have to say that I do NOT blame Germany for it's current readiness state. You guy's have your own concerns, and nobody thought this would come to pass. I love Germany and the German people. I have been in your country on several occasions and have friends there. I have no doubt in my mind that Germany will do the pragmatic and right thing in regards to Ukraine.
Adopting a "pragmatic" course of action is not in any way the same thing as doing what's right. It's often the coward's way out.
I also seem to recall President Trump being mocked by both politicians and the media in Germany when he told a NATO meeting that Russia was a potential threat to Europe and becoming dependent on Russian energy was a mistake.
I guess that as an American you're unaware that Britain was providing military training to Ukraine begining in 2015 and supplied NLAWs and Javelins before this recent stage in the conflict began.
Britain had its citizens and Russian dissidents murdered on our streets by Russian FSU agents using polonium and our government had a different take on the nature of the Russian state than did Germany.
@@ericgrace9995 "I guess that as an American you're unaware that Britain was providing military training to Ukraine begining in 2015 and supplied NLAWs and Javelins before this recent stage in the conflict began."
My fellow human being, that's speculation on your part that I'm unaware of world events as they pertain to the UK. Your tone towards my comment also tells me that you're just looking for a debate or Flame War in the YT comments section. I will give you neither one nor the other. I don't feed Trolls. Have a good day and a better tomorrow, Slava Ukraine...
“You can always count on the [Germans] to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”
Winston Churchill
My understanding what the Bundeswehr is was something like the base of an army, something that has the structure of an army, but is to small and weak to be seriously dangerous. Germany's military power was represented by the US army, and that felt right. Meeting a soldier from the Bundeswehr was even somewhat awkward, while meeting an US soldier felt natural.
If you understood what the German army did, and that it did it again only few years later, created an intuition that Germany with strong military power is not something desirable, while being quite aware that we would technically be pretty good at it if we tried.
This has changed now, and it is not a superficial change. It was a change on a deep cultural level, in what defines to be German. We had consensus in being pacifist. And then, we had consensus that we want to protect Ukraine - and we could agree that Ukraine has priority, with the most pacifist party getting it first.
Now the perspective is totally different, and it feels just as right as it did before.
Seems to be an ammo issue for the Gephart's. Swiss will not supply, and that was where it was made, Brazil can supply 300K rounds. So, unless there is an ammo supply somewhere, it may well not happen.
The Gephard uses 35mm NATO standard ammo which has been in service since 1963. It's used by over 40 nations.
I suggest Gepard has far less utility as an anti air weapon compared to its potential as an anti materiel weapon for ground use.
Can't take out a tank frontally but BMP, BTR & other light armoured vehicles would be torn apart by a short burst of 35mm Oerlikon & flank/rear shots at tanks with the optional anti armour ammunition could indeed disable T72 or T80.
Yeh and the Gepard armour can be penetrated by 14.5mm rocks.
Do you forget that Russia has plenty of UAVs and artillery? These wont make a single difference. Just another excuse for the MIC to profit off dead slavs.
I definitely think Germany is not doing enough. The main reason I say this isn't so much in what or how much it is sending, but something you mentioned here; Germany should be taking a leadership role in rallying NATO countries to provide support for Ukraine, but instead seems to continually have to be dragged along by everyone else. It makes it appear that all the talk about supporting Ukraine is just that - talk. And as you mention, this bodes very poorly for Germany's future reputation and ability to play a leadership role in NATO going forward. Even with the announcement of sending in the Gepards, it looks more like they were shamed into it than that they made a well-reasoned decision on their own.
Yeah, but what can you do, when the leading coalition party is in Russia's pocket ?
Scholz and his buddies have invested billions in the NS2 pipeline, they need Putin to win this war as fast as possible.
They only care about their money, they don't care about Germany's reputation. And that works for them, the feelings of shame and guild have been hammered into the German people for decades, the bad reputation is normal for them.
True. German Diplomacy at it's finest once again. This level of incompetence has been consistent since the death of Bismark.
You are aware that Germany has 0 interest in being a leader in NATO or even the EU, right?
@@waslos2588 Is not in itself a strange attitude?
Europe has not good experience with german leadership. The last time Germany wanted to play a leading role in Europe, the rest of the world didn't agree.
Well, I've just discovered that Germany may have asked Brazil for help on supplying ammunition for the Gepards. And it seems that Brazil only have around 300k rounds remaining, since this platform is on storage for many years now and have an "on sale" status since 2014.
the ammunition is manufactured in switzerland and they have similar laws like the germans with the exporting of guns. The main problem with weapons for ukraine is now the laws in germany, laws in the countries arround germany, the laws of the eu and important the bad treating of ther own army.
@@albertkurz913 yeah, I've heard that about Switzerland (which also hits the export rules of the Oerlikon Cannons). Too bad that wars don't obey any law, timeframes or ordered manners in that respect. I hope politicians/legislators/justice realize asap that bureaucracy is on then Russian side.
But Ukraine is facing a worse case scenario than urgency can describe. (Albeit I doubt that this Gepards would be of any help against "flying targets" they are now more effective as IFV Support role)
@@ryche.rising The russians mainly use tech that was even avaible in the GDR ( East germany/ NVA). And the gepard was build to counter them. BUT ther is someting important: The ulraine need the modern ones, the soft and hardware upgraded ones they coud fill wounderfull the rolle. Not the older ones and thers a problem with the rader the gepards cant use ther radar or they get directly countert by air to grund missles
I was reading an article the other day, sorry the source eludes me now, on a discussion in the German Parliament whereby representatives of the CDU were saying that there was backsliding in the coalition on spending two per cent on the armed forces, and that there was members of the coalition saying Germany didn't need to spend two per cent "every" year as we now have the one hundred billion euro fund.
I'd be very interested to hear your views on the two per cent question and whether or not you believe the government will achieve it, or if they'll likely to backslide?
As a Brit, I'm proud of what we've done so far. But I also know it's nowhere near enough. Germany was put in a very difficult position, and I do not envy it at all.
The Brits have courage and have a history of punching above their weight class. The Germans are so dependent on Russian gas that they have been quietly hoping that Russia would win this war so they could move on. It's really pathetic. How could a country that is suppose to "smart" be so freaking stupid as to really so heavily on Russian natural gas?
Not sure Germany was put into that position. It's a position Germany chose to be in?
They put themselves in that position with arrogance and blind stupidity. US warned them through Trump to step up NATO spending and cut energy ties with Russia. It's all on video on UA-cam. Watch the arrogance of the germans laughing at trump when he warns them about Russian energy reliance. The germans have been coddled since the end of WWII by the US. They deserve what they get
The problem minus the USA most NATO members have very few stuff they can give away, they barely have enough of the heavy weapons and equipment to keep their militaries equipped and a few spares in case of losses. It is due to three decades of no real enemies and long term peace. When the Soviets went down most of Europe did not see no need for a huge force anymore.
You are overlooking motivation. You might be surpised how fast the Ukraine military can learn. Plus grab some of the best and brightest young engineering students from the Universities in the Ukraine. I promise you that the speed of their learning an mastering will shock you.
Great video. Do you think that small unit size deployment is to test if full support for 🇺🇦 can be provided for those German weapons that have already been sent so that greater systems of logistical supply can be set up?
Good video! Noice work!