From: Richard Allan (stucs203@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:47:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

>kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh) writes:
>
>
>>Economically yes, militarily no. Both France and especially the UK
>>still have a military capacity far exceeding that of Germany.  I would
>>also say that the UK has far more influence worldwide, as does France, than
>>Germany - although this is changing.
>
>Aw, that's just loony.  Come On!  I agree that both France and the UK
>have a NAVY far exceeding that of Germany, but the German army is both
>bigger and (probably) better than either France or the U.K.  In fact,
>it would be an interesting chalange to put BOTH France and the U.K.
>against Germany.  Also, the German airforce is bigger and better
>equipped than the French of UK air force, but is not bigger than the
>sum of both.  If you want, I can post numbers.  But I'm rather confident.
>
>However, the permanant members of the Security council are exactly
>those natiosn that have publically declared themselves to have nuclear
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   The existance of a country as a world power relies on its capacity to influe
nce events on a global basis. In the miltary field this is its ability to
deploy its forces (if even in a limited or token manner) on a global basis.

Your information is wrong the Luftwaffe and the RAF are of a similar size and
they share a lot of common equipment, so your "better equiped" comment does not
 hold water.
A more important consideration is there direction. The Luftwaffe is primarily a
 tactical force having very few strategic resources for deployment of its aircr
aft or German troops, these in the form of tankers and transports. It is in thi
s field that the organisational differences of the two forces is most apparent
 . The UK has of the order of 60 Hercules transports in addition to VC10 tankers
and Tristar tanker/cargo aircraft. These provide it with an indigenous long ran
ge support structure. This is backed up by training where British forces have d
emonstrated there ability to deploy globaly whether to the Falklands or to the
Middle East. This is a capability shared with the French.
   The Royal Navy is equiped to mount amphibious operations at long distances
by both air (vertical assult) and sea (seaborne landings). This is a capability
 that the germans do not have and would take time to build up both in equipment
and experience. A considerable proportion of the Bundesmarines strength is
deployed in the Baltic in an area of closed seas not conducive to the training
of large national task units. Indeed the germans lack the support to deploy
there fleet on a global basis, this is again a capability that the British and
the French continue to demonstrate.
     Your comment that the Bundeswehr is better than the British Army I would q
uestion also. True it is larger and in some respects better equiped but it is a
 conscript army and as such cannot be better trained than that British Army
which is a professional force, where all have decided they are prepared to figh
t. Indeed it should be noted that there were problems with the deployment of co
nscripts to Turkey during the Gulf War.