This may be O.T but i was just wondering...

[Alpha]

pdoktar said:
I´ve heard stories about the G36 not beeing such a good weapon, because it´s aiming point is so much higher than the barrel, causing aiming errors at ranges, when holding the weapon a bit tilted, as sometimes happens in combat situations.

I know that the G3 is a good weapon (well "good" might be wrong word for a weapon, but you know what i mean)...we had old rifles, but they still had fair accuracy, reliable, easy to use, compared to the G36 (which i didn´t shoot only held)the G3 is quite heavy.

[Alpha]

Hey,maybe some ppl. that were in the infantry or know the infantry of their countries if it was a Nato or WP army, can poist their opinion (personal experience)in the thread about the Nato/WP capabilties. Thanx.

[RecruitMonty]

I never said they needed to get their "Prussian militarism" back just the élan and high standards that it entailed. An army needs good morale to be effective in any kind of deployment be it a humanitarian one or one involving combat. Hearkening back to some of the older German military traditions (obviously not the unsavoury ones) will help to bolster that.

What it will be used for is anyone’s' guess. Just because we are on a defensive footing and/or fighting "rogue-states" and terrorists today does not mean that we won't be facing bigger and better equipped forces tomorrow. Trying to predict the sort of opponents we will face in the future by just focusing on present conflicts and then throwing all our eggs in one basket (as the modern Western military establishment seems to enjoy doing) is a stupid and ironically short-sighted way of running the military.

It would be best to maintain training standards and practices at a high level (in Germany that would mean lengthening the time conscripts had to stay in the service, something I believe you would support, and increasing the quality and scope of their training and pay). Focussing on Symmetrical warfare and operations of an offensive and defensive nature should be the norm for regular units.
Recruits and/or conscripts that show promise or are in special units should also be trained to fight A-symmetrically. If the defence budget is high enough then even regular units can be trained in similar ways (depending on the combat they are likely to face).

As for the right way to run counter terrorist deployments, well there are two ways I can think of for dealing with that sort of operation: one is messy, inhumane, expensive and long and drawn out. This would involve the deployment of large amounts of combat troops and equipment to the region where the terrorists etc were (like the USA and NATO forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan)

The other is equally expensive, smaller in scale, equally brutal but less likely to involve large numbers of your (whichever counry you represent) troops. Instead specialist troops can act as "advisors" to a local force the counter-insurgency).

Both methods have been used in the past (the Germans fought a fairly succesful if somewhat brutal anti-partisan campaign against the Russians and the Yugoslavs, the Americans used special forces to train Montagnards in Vietnam, the Russians fought the Afghans by using similar anti-partisan tactics as the Germans did in WWII in Afghanistan). Neither way is clean and neither way is quick. That is something the West is no longer willing to come to terms with, I fear.

With that said let me return to the subject at hand. Thank you very much for your answers Alpha. Anyone else here an old Bundesheer Soldat?

[Alpha]

Okay.

Btw. BundesHEER = Austria !
http://www.bundesheer.at/

So you were talking the whole time about austrian forces, then i agreee, they need more ELAN. Lazy austrian

German armed forces = BundesWEHR.

[RecruitMonty]

I was talking about the Bundeswehr. I heard that some units had a problem with morale. I also thought that Bundeswehr was the collective term for the whole military in Germany and that Bundesheer was the name for the army. My mistake.

[Siddhi]

Alpha said:
Okay.

Btw. BundesHEER = Austria !
http://www.bundesheer.at/

So you were talking the whole time about austrian forces, then i agreee, they need more ELAN. Lazy austrian

German armed forces = BundesWEHR.

Oooh, them fighting words. Funnily enough we think you guys have compeltly gone down the drain. Last couple of joint exercises in the alps was your gebirgsjaeger (crack unit) against a normal dirt-infantry (jaeger) unit of ours - guess who won.

Austrian Army, 12th JgBN and then wonderfull wonderfull green slime duty.

Regarding the use of the Steyer in NZ / Oz, I heard from a colonel who did a stint as a G-1 that the improvement over the m-16 was so great that had to recalibrate the ranges complety. True? Also, how's the grenade launcher? You know the thing was designed for a "motor" type sitck-gernade that was never purchased. Still, the gas adjust feature is pretty handy for other nasty tricks, anyone use it ( if you know what i mean?)

[Rich]

I served in the US Army, 1966-1969. Guess that makes me an old fart compared to the rest of you.

[RecruitMonty]

They had to recalibrate the rages! Wunderbar! What do you Bundeswehr and Bundesheer guys think about all the so gennante "Skandals". I personally think its a load of fuss about nothing. Just a load of crap that the pacifists are cooking up to try and stop the Bundeswehr (and Germany) from taking a bigger role on the world stage.

[loktarr]

As for the right way to run counter terrorist deployments, well there are two ways I can think of for dealing with that sort of operation: one is messy, inhumane, expensive and long and drawn out. This would involve the deployment of large amounts of combat troops and equipment to the region where the terrorists etc were (like the USA and NATO forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan)

The other is equally expensive, smaller in scale, equally brutal but less likely to involve large numbers of your (whichever counry you represent) troops. Instead specialist troops can act as "advisors" to a local force the counter-insurgency).

I maybe wrong, but I think that what history thaught us with Viet-Nam or Iraq is that victory in a war is not a military but political problem. Soldiers won fights, General won battles and politicians won wars...

Just imagine what will if in Afghanistan there was a real war, OTAN will send 10.000.000 troops from USA, 4.000.000 from Germany, 3.000.000 for each Italia,UK and France ...etc... What would happen? I am sure that in one month there wont be any taliban alive. With such an amount of troops, you don't need to bombard anything, so, no collateral dammage. But in order to get such a deployment you have to justify a war and not only a 'peace-keeping/war on terror' badly defined and conducted operation.
That's why I don't like tha therm of asymetrical war: it's asymetrical but certainly not a war, because in a democraty a war involves the country and not only a little group of unlucky professionnal soldier...
But this clearly off-topic, so, shame on me... [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Bomb.gif[/img]

[RecruitMonty]

Good point though. I never really considered it a war either. I don't mean any disrespect to the troops when I say that by the way. They are indeed in a war! Back at home in the UK and the other Nato states you really wouldn't think a war was on at all though.

It used to be the case that if a country was at war you could see that much in the streets, in the way people behaved and in the language used on the radio, tv and even in the language used by the people. But today in the UK and in Germany (and maybe even in the USA too, I heard someone saying that the USA didn't feel like it was at war) you really cannot tell at all.

The fact that everyone, and I mean everyone, has a bloddy opinion on wether the war is right or not or on how best to pull out etc also doesn't help create that unified fealing.