UK to retain military forces in Germany

it,s also been reported that Mr Williamson stated Albion and Bulwark will not be scrapped bet that went down well with Hammond

That’ll keep the ruskies at bay!
Seriously though I assume this is to help if we need to move mass forces onto the continent, liaisons and such, and to maintain some facilities there.

It’s the way the army works. To get them out of anywhere. Except Afghanistan and Iraq ? Has always been a nightmare. They have a death grip on any overseas base you have to prise it out of their grip one finger at a time. We’re down to the last finger now just 30 yearsafter the fall of the Berlin wall. The chiefs miss Rheindahlen. That was where their army was. Not the Armoured Divisions or the Berlin Brigade.

i enjoyed being based in Paderborn,used to go all over the place in my time off,just a shame my old camp is going to be either an immigrant holding centre or turned into houses

Always good to let the opposition know in advance where to strike if a war was ever to break out!

“Elsewhere, the MoD say that the Army is maintaining a presence at the Ayrshire Barracks in Mönchengladbach, where approximately 2,000 vehicles can be stored, and the German Wulfen Defence Munitions Storage Facility, which holds operational ammunition.”

FFS why?!?! Bring it all home.

I’m just not seeing the need, if we want to have a support stucture ready for a European deployment at a time of crisis it needs to be close to where the issues will be, I’m guessing that actual problems that need the Army would occure around 500miles east, maybe investing in facilities in Poland would be more strategically sound ?

(Chris H) – forgive me making an obvious observation but if the EU keep saying ‘Non’, fail to come up with a reasonable alternative to the PM’s Chequers deal (still the ONLY plan) and keep insulting us and our PM then we leave without any deal. So no £39 BN and no further £13 Bn a year. Now we will have to construct an import tariff regime that allows car manufacturers and industry to claim back any tariffs paid on import (eg: don’t have any tariffs just 40% VAT and then claim back 20% all legal under WTO) but basically we will copy whatever EU External Tariff they levy on us.

Point being the UK as from next April will have a huge amount of money saved plus an annual tariff income from the EU of some £10 Bn a year (10% of the £100 Bn deficit we run with the EU in Goods. Services are not subject to Tariffs) so we could fund a large increase in defence spending, make substantial investments in advanced engineering, in our infrastructure and offer deals so British fishermen and women can borrow at zero cost to build a new more modern fishing fleet to fish OUR waters.

We then pull every single soldier, tank, Land Rover and Warrior out of Germany and close the lot down. Let the EU defend itself against the Russians because we owe them nothing contrary to waht Remainers will have us believe. Then leave NATO (which exists for the benefit of Europe) and forge a bilateral defence pact with the USA. Followed by a mutual defence pact with the countries of the commonwealth. All 55 of them.

The EU clearly do not value us or our contributions or our huge military and intelligence capabilities. Let them look after themselves for a change

Can Germany have a military base in UK!

Brexit is just an excuse, the economic effect of whatever deal we get will be unclear. No one is clear on what a good deal is and what a bad deal is, these are just terms flying around without detail.

We will probably never really know if we were better off leaving or staying, since by the time the new trade deals are in place and the real details of the negotiations are ironed out (i doubt all the details will be there for years), the world economy., booms and busts would have moved so much that it is impossible to compare.

Was that right? 185 military troops will be kept in Germany? Is this a joke or what? I’ll bet the Russians are going to have to reformulate their doctrine after this.

I would take issue with defending each other Anthony, the largest economy in the EU ( second largest in NAYO) is Germany, they are by all measures militarily infective….

Do you honestly think Germany would come to anyone’s aid? No they wouldn’t, couldn’t if they wanted to….

From a European perspective, NATO is effectively Britain and France. We provide 80% of its European capability between us.

I can’t see NATO surviving in its current form to be honest, god knows I can’t stand that hateful individual Trump, but he’s absolutely right regarding NATO being underfunded.

The UK needs to restore our defence spending to to 3% to arrest the decline and bring force levels back to a sensable minimum level.

John Clark
That was the best post I have seen on this site for a long time. Sorry to all for getting heated on this issue but my grandad would be turning in his grave after fighting in Europe, being evacuated from Dunkirk, then going back again on D day +4 and spending a further year fighting the Germans until they surrendered. Having first liberated northern France, Belgium (including Brussels) and all of Holland.
That is our legacy towards Europe, what have they ever done for us? Someone please tell me.

This is the last bit of willy waving, trying to make out that we matter. A couple of hundred troops are symbolic at best. We withdrew the British forces on the Rhine years ago.

Ironic that Germany hosts foreign troops as a result of the outcome of WW2 and has some limitations on its sovereignty yet rebuilt its economy in such a way as to control the EU. They finally realised why use force when we can use money to dominate.

Leave the prideful but poor British to fight unwinnable unpopular wars with yesterday’s equipment and mindset.

Some excellent posts guys, if we step back and look at the whole referendum, its bleeding obvious that Cameron and the EU thought they had it in the bag and the vote would be to stay…..

So we have a vote, the great British public democratically said enough is enough and voted leave.

So far so good …. Then Cameron pulls on his parachute, said ” so long suckers” and jumped.

It’s been an utter mess since then to be honest, our leaders incapable of pushing a strong position and the EU hell bent on damaging us as much as possible.

I have yet to hear a single remain or Single market membership argument that doesn’t smack of capitulation and us becoming an EU buffer state utterly at their mercy …. That’s Labours (and some Tories) pathetic grand plan!

The Lib Dems want to ignore democracy and remain as part of Germania…. Trampling democracy under foot, doesn’t seem terribly ‘liberal’ to me, it doesn’t matter how Mr Cable tries to justify it!

If we did remain in the EU, the pound would be gone and our remaining nation state powers by 2040, along with our seat on the Security Council, of that I have no doubt what so ever….

The European project has a single direction of travel and a single destination, that’s the creation of a Single European State.

This is absolutly beyond question and clear for all to see.

If you don’t think that’s the case, just look at what my parents voted for in the 1970’s …. They voted for a perfectly sensable and commendable ‘Common Market’, Governments both blue and red have sold us progressively down the river ever since, paddle thrown away, gagged and straight jacket on!

Pushing us further and further into an increasingly insular blinkered and protectionist little Europe.

I can’t personally wait to leave and properly reconnect with the world, on our own terms.

There are those among us who see themselves as European’s first and British second, as is their right in a democracy, thank god they are in a minority!

It is a grave mistake to conflate NATO and the EU, as some are doing here while protesting that they aren’t!

The abiding lesson from the Nazis’ rapid conquest of western Europe was united we stand, divided we fall. All the small neutral or non-aligned nations were rolled up one after the other, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, etc, etc. Many of them fought hard to the end but were completely overwhelmed by superior numbers, tactics and equipment. The lesson was and remains, try to stand alone and you will inevitably be gubbed by the next militarist wannabe.

Hence NATO – never again will the European continent fall prey to such, henceforth it’s all for one and one for all. Invade one and you invade all. It has worked pretty well so far.

Now we have a new military threat from the east, in the shape of a new Russia that grants itself hegemonic titular rights over its former USSR vassal states. Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova have already experienced the Russian panzers, Bosnia and Kosovo got Russian troops foisted on them, Montenegro’s president narrowly avoided being bumped-off by Kremlin’s goons, Estonia and Latvia have been and continue to be subject to crippling cyber attacks, internal separatist political agitprop, backed by large Russian finding, etc, etc.

It is doubly important that NATO now stands together. Or as someone once put it, hang together or we’ll all hang separately.

Stories about how little the Germans spend etc are a bit out of date, both Germany and France have announced large increases in defence expenditure over the next 5 years. To put contributions in a national perspective, we are now:
– The 3rd-largest navy in Western Europe, behind both France and Italy, narrowly in warship numbers, noticeably in personnel
– 7th IIRC in number of fast jet combat aircraft, behind France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Turkey and Greece
– Far down the list in the number of combat brigades we can field, behind Turkey, Greece, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and probably Romania too.

We should be cautious when we talk ourselves up militarily, we are certainly no exemplar for force levels within NATO Europe. Yes, we are one of 4 to nominally spend more than 2% of GDP, (if nobody minds us including Aldermarston, forces pensions, much of MI6 and GCHQ and all the other Treasury tricks that figure is based on), but I doubt anyone in NATO takes that expenditure too seriously, particularly when they weigh it up against the rather slender force contribution we can actually make.

180 soldiers is a joke really, we should be putting an armoured infantry brigade on the Polish border, with Germany and the Benelux countries matching it in a multinational NATO division, as a proper deterrent to Russian games in eastern Europe. It is a very timid little response by Williamson, a pretendy gesture to the home audience to lull them into believing that we are really pulling our weight and are an important NATO player. Dream on!

Ref Brexit, we seem to have spent two years asking for special terms that we were told on day one by the EU and its members aren’t on offer. We cannot resign from the golf club but still demand entry to the clubhouse and the right to play on the greens, while not accepting the rules of the club! May, however unpropitious a leader, at least seems to understand this basic reality, unlike others in her party who seem to be holding their ears and chanting, ‘Can’t hear you, can’t hear you’!

Good post Mr Cummings, a balanced approach and taking us back to the core of the post.

I would say however, I personally don’t think the Germans would react to an attack on another NATO member. I think their pacifist mentality is at their they core…

France and the UK are ‘effectively’ the European arm of NATO, I am certainly not suggesting we are beyond reproach, oh no, decades of underinvestment and paying for Blairs desert wars has gutted our armed forces.

The greatest threat to NATO however isn’t Russia, its the already pathetic European defence effort being diluted further with an EU military arm!

Perhaps I am being paranoid here, but perhaps the EU military structure is the starting point of a single European Armed Forces.

I want to see the UK remain a powerful NATO and EU ally, but actually dont want us to have bases in Europe at all).

My view is that with a much smaller force we should concentrate on what we do best, which is predominantly light infantry maneovre. Or put another way Strike and amphibious brigades.

Surely our Central European partners should have the heavy armour that suites their topology and the UK should have the maritime and specialist capabilities that suit ours.

I am on record as stating the UK should be European NATO’s USMC (with a navy) as that is what we are good at. How does this work in reality…

European allies have heavy armour and are engaged by an enemy in Central Europe, At the same time allies in scandinavia are also attacked as is Britain from air.

The UK mobilises its forces and sends 2 strik divisions (backed up with Apaches and Typhoons) to Central Europe and a specialist cold weather Brigade to northern Scandinavia with reinforcements also flooding int later. Our Navy secures the northern atlantic waters and our aircraft carriers move into position.

We do this in a matter of hours/days not the weeks/months it takes to get our forces ready now.

This is all doable, we just have to change our mindset, our force structure and our asset base. Leave tanks and tracks to those who have the land mass for such things. The UK needs air, sea and land strike capability, we should act as re-inforcements to plug gaps and to show up where the enemy least expect us to cause mayhem.. That is what we are a good at and are losing as we spread ourselves too thing. Light and lethal is my mantra and infantry section on Polaris vehicles loaded with ammo and weapons is the new infantry for me…

The EU/NATO argument is moot – what do we bring to the party is not

Reading most of this dribble really makes we want to weep – how many people on here have actually served in the Army, and why is it that when it comes to the SEA and AIR topics on this forum we seem at least to get some sensible informed comment but when it comes to LAND people churn out cr*p? The 185 uniformed pax and 80 civil servants are not there to fight a war, they will be highly skilled ‘enablers’ technical personnel, REME and others who are there to maintain the vehicles in store, and in tip top condition so you just have to turn up, sign for the kit and it is combat ready to trundle out the door. That is how we do it now under WHM (Whole Fleet Management) where the combat units only have the necessary holdings of A vehicles, heavy weapons etc with which to train on a day to day basis, and then when you need to do a major exercise or deploy on ops you turn up at the storage site and draw the remainder on an as needed basis. This is exactly how Ayrshire Barracks is used now so there is no change there. The only real difference is that the crews who man the kit wont be based in Germany but in Tidworth or wherever, as many are already. All they need to do is get on a coach and go through the Tunnel, take a ferry or whatever and pick up the kit. A damn sight easier (and cheaper!) than putting a whole load of heavy metal onto low loaders and moving it back to Germany when we might need. I for one like most in the Army have been holding our breath that the right decision would be made and regard this announcement as very welcome news indeed!

Mr Bell is quire right that a single NATO armoured infantry division would be ground down pretty quickly in a shooting war against the Russian masses, but that is to misunderstand its role and the sequence of events.

A NATO division on the Polish border, or the Romanian/Bulgarian hinterland, is a deterrent to the kind of small, irregular actions Russia took in the Ukraine or the relatively small number of regular forces it put into Crimea and Georgia. Putin is not going to play games which lead to combat with a well-equipped NATO force of close on 20,000, backed by superior air combat assets.

Such a forward force is not just a deterrent but also a tripwire: threaten or engage with our tripwire forces and full NATO deployment and mobilisation will kick in on day one. NATO Europe has more than a million troops, which is a big nut to crack and not one that Putin the opportunist gambler would realistically fancy.

All that would of course change if other NATO nations follow the isolationist or sea power routes advocated by others on here. The German and Polish armies could no more defend the North German Plain than Romania and Bulgaria could the Black Sea coast. Indeed, their obvious weakness would be an invitation to Russia to step up its game-playing in the East. Safety lies in all 29 NATO members playing their part in an integrated defence and mobilisation scheme, not in members like the UK retreating into an isolationist, nationalist stance on the fringes. The biggest supporter of such a stance would of course be Putin himself!

A retreat into a maritime strategy is about a century out of date. The first decider and therefore top priority in any future war will be airpower and the ability to maintain air superiority over the battlefield. NATO has that superiority for now. The second decider is the ability to match and halt an invading army. NATO has long relied on its air dominance to make up for a shortage of army combat units but the pendulum has swung too far, a good increase in land forces is well overdue.

The third decider only applies in a long war and that is the maritime sphere. The Russian surface fleet is small, pretty vulnerable and a comparative pipsqueak of a threat. Their submarines are of course a threat to the Atlantic supply line. However, the US Navy is massive, well-equipped and well capable of securing the Atlantic sea lines of communication to ferry troops and equipment to Europe. Sure the UK can help and also recreate an ASW capability in GIUK (if we ever build enough ASW frigates, where we are currently very deficient and can’t do much more than provide enough escorts for one carrier). And yes, we can provide a small amphibious force of one weak brigade to Norway or wherever. But the naval role is small beer next to the priorities of air combat superiority and sufficient ground forces. Only in a long war requiring worldwide convoy escorts – and neither Russia nor China have anything like the number of subs to pose a serious worldwide threat – would the naval role increase in importance.

That is not to say that the RN is not currently woefully short of ships and personnel, it is critically short of both even for its peacetime operations. But the army and air are even moreso and they have to be the higher strategic priority.

I feel that a retreat to our sceptered isle and reliance on sea power proposed by some here is less to do with military priorities and realities than a retreat into an insular, isolationist political stance that harks back to days of Empire, Commonwealth and Britain rules the waves. None of these apply today and we do not have the ships to provide any more than a figleaf of support to the far-flung Commonwealth countries, which largely now fall under the US protective wing.

It would thus be a very mistaken strategy. The only existential threat we and Europe face in the immediate future is the latent menace from Russia and we should play our full part in helping to match, deter and if necessary defeat any Russian action against NATO or European members.

Good points, well made. Given the scale of ground formations in the Russian western military district, it would seem a British brigade would be an important trip wire but little else. Perhaps if the uk were to focus on the northern framework concept, working with the scandanavian countries, to face off against the northern fleet district with its independent naval brigade. If we were to specialise in naval, air and expeditionary ground forces then these would be well suited to supporting operations on the northern flank. They are also the type of forces that can be used worldwide to protect our interests and allies, so more adaptable. If we were to ditch dreadnought in favour of more astute, then We would have a better chance of countering the northern fleet as part of the nato response and with nuclear cruise these boats would be on station and in range of launching a more limited nuclear strike. During the Cold War the uk/us naval strategy was to forward deploy to the Norwegian fiords with carrier battle groups to take the fight to the soviets and counter the northern fleet. Seems quite relevant a strategy today too.