Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1 Germany rejects US call to join Gulf taskforce 
    Senior Member old dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    the high desert
    Posts
    1,802
    Germany has rejected US pressure to send warships to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf from seizure by Iran.“The worst thing would be a real military conflict. Then shipping would really be in jeopardy,” Olaf Scholz, the German vice-chancellor, publicly confirmed on Wednesday that his country would not take part in a US-led naval taskforce.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ulf-taskforce/

    I frankly don't know if Germany has any seaworthy vessels.

    NATO is dead and Donald Trump didn't kill it.

    The United States Navy, fighting Moslem barbarians since 1801.

    *****************************************
    Candace Owens for President 2024.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgbN76AWrw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member FourWinds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Fine, let's shut a base or two down or better yet pull our NATO funding. If they don't have our backs why should they sleep under our protection. Maybe the Germans can find someone else to watch over them while they ignore paying for their own protection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member old dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    the high desert
    Posts
    1,802
    It's not just about paying 2% or 4% or whatever. It's about actually having a military. NATO is a military alliance. You cannot have a military alliance without a military. How many divisions can Angela put in the field?

    The United States Navy, fighting Moslem barbarians since 1801.

    *****************************************
    Candace Owens for President 2024.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgbN76AWrw
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member FourWinds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by old dog View Post
    It's not just about paying 2% or 4% or whatever. It's about actually having a military. NATO is a military alliance. You cannot have a military alliance without a military. How many divisions can Angela put in the field?
    Apparently next to nothing. I was told there's a joke going around Germany about a politician there who apparently has more kids than their Army has working tanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by old dog View Post
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ulf-taskforce/

    I frankly don't know if Germany has any seaworthy vessels.

    NATO is dead and Donald Trump didn't kill it.
    I'm pretty sure they don't have anything bigger than a destroyer/frigate. Their participation would be purely symbolic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    I'm pretty sure they don't have anything bigger than a destroyer/frigate. Their participation would be purely symbolic.
    Pretty much. They also have a number of diesel-electric attack subs (SSKs), though those are having reliability problems. Their SSKs are larger than WW2 Type IXs, but are smaller and less capable than Brit or US SSNs. While I'm sure their ships and boats, if in good repair are seaworthy enough to be ocean-going, for practical purposes their fleet is basically sized for defense of the Baltic and North Seas.

    To put it perspective, I think 2 or 3 USN amphibious assault task groups centered around Wasp class amphibious assault ships carrying F-35s would exceed all EuroLand navies combined, in number of ships (possibly) and capability (until the Brit carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is fully operational). That said, most EuroLand countries' navies, just one country, could probably outclass whatever Iran has, if they could get there in operational condition and could sustain such a deployment logistically.
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    "Handmaid's Tale" is Christian-Bashing Hate Speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,498
    Quote Originally Posted by SVPete View Post
    Pretty much. They also have a number of diesel-electric attack subs (SSKs), though those are having reliability problems. Their SSKs are larger than WW2 Type IXs, but are smaller and less capable than Brit or US SSNs. While I'm sure their ships and boats, if in good repair are seaworthy enough to be ocean-going, for practical purposes their fleet is basically sized for defense of the Baltic and North Seas.

    To put it perspective, I think 2 or 3 USN amphibious assault task groups centered around Wasp class amphibious assault ships carrying F-35s would exceed all EuroLand navies combined, in number of ships (possibly) and capability (until the Brit carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth is fully operational). That said, most EuroLand countries' navies, just one country, could probably outclass whatever Iran has, if they could get there in operational condition and could sustain such a deployment logistically.
    Yeah, the Brits are the only one with any sort of blue-water navy, and theirs is 'Barely.' The French think they have one but their carrier (The Charles de Gaulle) is a harbor queen, practically a cruel marine engineering joke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer SVPete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Yeah, the Brits are the only one with any sort of blue-water navy, and theirs is 'Barely.' The French think they have one but their carrier (The Charles de Gaulle) is a harbor queen, practically a cruel marine engineering joke.
    It's an amazing change from ~110 years ago when the USN was well behind the RN (the RN schooled the USN on gunnery control during WW1, thankfully as allies) and probably behind the French and maybe the Germans. WW1 and WW2 hit the RN hard, and Brit pols decided to let the USN do what the RN used to do. Given how many Essex class carriers (with the Midway newly in commission) and modern (= fast) battleships the USN had in commission in late 1945, as well as cruisers and destroyers, the decision is at least somewhat understandable. Where the USN had built destroyer escorts and escort carriers as expedient supplements to full capability ships, the RN had had to use such expedients - US-built and UK-built - as a significant part of their front-line naval ships. Those expedient ships did their jobs, but were soon scrapped. I could go on ... but the UK allowed their navy to diminish significantly while the US did much less so.
    Facts don't matter to DUpipo.

    BIG CHEETO Is Watching You!

    "Handmaid's Tale" is Christian-Bashing Hate Speech
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by SVPete View Post
    Pretty much. They also have a number of diesel-electric attack subs (SSKs), though those are having reliability problems. Their SSKs are larger than WW2 Type IXs, but are smaller and less capable than Brit or US SSNs. While I'm sure their ships and boats, if in good repair are seaworthy enough to be ocean-going, for practical purposes their fleet is basically sized for defense of the Baltic and North Seas....
    A modern diesel sub is nothing to sneer at. When I was in the USN playing war games with South Korean and Japanese, we had to be on our toes to say the least. While all diesel boats and those with AIP do not have the sustained high speed endurance of an SSN, they are very lethal to modern SSN's when in their element; submerged and at low speed on station.

    I was not qualified to have an informed opinion, but I was surprised to see the USN let the last of their diesel boats get retired without non-nuc replacements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    20,522
    I think it's a good thing that a now re-unified Germany does not have a strong military, naval or otherwise. In 2045, it'll be 100 years since their defeat in WWII. Then they can rebuild their military.

    But England and France need to keep theirs going. In a geographic sense, Italy should rule the Mediterranean, but their government has been so corrupt for so long, they never will have the navy they need to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •