Germany’s army no machine guns just broomsticks

[frigidmagi]

Washington Post

The German army has faced a shortage of equipment for years, but the situation has recently become so precarious that some soldiers took matters into their own hands.

On Tuesday, German broadcaster ARD revealed that German soldiers tried to hide the lack of arms by replacing heavy machine guns with broomsticks during a NATO exercise last year. After painting the wooden sticks black, the German soldiers swiftly attached them to the top of armored vehicles, according to a confidential army report which was leaked to ARD.

[Related: The German military faces a major challenge from disrepair]

A defense ministry spokesperson said the use of broomsticks was not a common practice, and that the decision of the involved soldiers was "hard to comprehend." According to the ministry, the armored vehicles were furthermore not supposed to be armed. It remains unclear how many broomsticks were substituted for machine guns.

The awkward revelation on Tuesday came at the worst possible moment for Germany's defense ministry. The same day, Ukraine's army was about to suffer a defeat in the town of Debaltseve, putting a renewed focus on the question whether Europe's NATO allies would be able to manage the crisis militarily – without an American intervention, if necessary.

To make matters worse, the broom-equipped German soldiers belong to a crucial, joint NATO task force and would be the first to be deployed in case of an attack. Opposition politicians have expressed concerns about Germany's ability to defend itself and other European allies, given that even some of the most elite forces lack basic equipment.

The central European country was the world's third-largest arms exporter in 2013, but when it comes to Germany's own defense politicians have been unwilling to invest. In 2013, Germany spent only 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense -- a ratio which was below the average spending of the European members of NATO.

In an interview with local German newspaper Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, the head of the country's green party Cem Özdemir argued that it was not only the lack of funding that posed a problem. "The financial resources are not being used efficiently," Özdemir said last September. According to him, Europe's armies only have one tenth of the strength of the U.S. Army, although they cost half of the defense budget of the United States.


The lack of equipment does not come as a surprise to close observers of the German army. Last year, the parliamentary defense committee was informed that out of 89 German fighter jets, only 38 were ready for use. The list of damaged items also included helicopters, as well as a variety of weapons.

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen leaves a helicopter during her visit at Camp Shaheen outside Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP Photo/Thomas Peter, Pool)
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen leaves a helicopter, Wednesday, July 23, 2014. (AP Photo/Thomas Peter)
After the lack of arms and vehicles was made public, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen vowed to upgrade and repair the equipment. According to some soldiers and officers, the minister has so far failed to deliver on her promises.

According to the confidential report that was leaked on Tuesday, the German NATO task force would face serious problems if it had to intervene abroad. More than 40 percent of the task force's soldiers would have to do without P8 pistols, and more than 30 percent lacked general-purpose machine guns, known as MG3. Operating at night would be particularly difficult for Germany's armed task force, given a lack of 76 percent of necessary night viewers.

Germany's continuous equipment problems hardly match von der Leyen's public rhetoric. On Tuesday, she announced that Germany would overhaul its security strategy and become more active internationally and in eastern Europe in the coming years.

According to Reuters, von der Leyen said that Germany's new policy had to take into account the Kremlin's attempt "to establish geo-strategic power politics and military force as a form of asserting their interests." Critics, however, say that such statements remain pure rhetoric, as long as the financial resources dedicated to the German army are insufficient.

[Steve]

This came up on SDN, the general response was "Who cares? Germany is better off funding its social services than the military".

[frigidmagi]

That's nice but frankly I stopped giving much of a damn about SDN's opinions awhile ago. It's very liberating.

[Steve]

I was sharing it for the general amusement.

Simon_Jester's dealing with some of their opinions on the subject has been amusing.

And are you saying you are denying the Progressive Truth of SDN, which recognizes the foolishness of religion, the base hypocrisy and evil of the United States, and the One True Path to the Advancement of Mankind to a Better World?

[Josh]

Given their current capacities any European-based aid to the Ukraine would essentially come in the form of human shields, so broomsticks or machine guns make no real difference.

But seriously, they could only put thirty-odd birds in the air?

[Lys]

Actually, I'm going to echo SDN's opinion here, who cares? None of Germany's neighbours are going to invade it, and if NATO has to intervene militarily or defend itself in Eastern Europe the Poles are more than happy to provide the troops. Any situation in which the Poland is disintegrating under external pressure is also one in which American troops are being flown across the Atlantic and, very likely, nukes are flying. Germany exerts influence economically not militarily, and it is under the strategic umbrella of countries that are well armed. Having a strong military doesn't materially improve Germany's geo-strategic situation, so I don't see why it should bother.

That said the whole broomsticks as machineguns thing reminds me of the USA in the Interwar period, where they had to do the same thing during training exercises. They also had trucks labelled "tank" in lieu of actual tanks, would be pretty funny if the Germans started doing that too.

[Josh]

That's the scenario now, but long-term relying on everyone else for your stabby shooty means you end up marginalized. What's the scenario in thirty years? Fifty?

Countries that rely on mercenaries end up serving the mercenaries.

All that said, I expect that the proliferation of drones is going to drastically change everyone's military picture beyond present recognition within our lifetimes.

[Lys]

If the picture changes then they can ramp up military production accordingly. I mentioned the US Army having to use broomsticks and trucks labelled "tank" for military training exercises in the Interwar years, and yet the US Army became a world-striding juggernaut of military might in the Second World War. So long as there exists some military force to serve as a cadre upon which to build if needed, they're fine.

[Josh]

The US military buildup prior to WWII was the product of an organizational genius and you can't always count on having a George Marshall handy. Furthermore, we had the advantage of having a couple of oceans of buffer zone to allow us to get our shit together because we were only half-ready at the start and took it in the teeth as a result.

Germany may not have that same luxury of time and separation and as a consequence really should be investing more in their capabilities. Libya was a prime demonstration of just how incapable Europe is of projecting power in their own damn backyard.

[Lys]

Europe is too many people, the French demonstrated they're quite capable of projecting power into Africa. They started bombing Gaddafi's forces ahead of everyone else without waiting for the rest of NATO to deploy and acquitted themselves well in the process. Of course that should be no surprise given that a number of former French colonies have their governments resting on the bombs and bayonets of French Republic. They have interests outside of Europe, so they have the military power to back them up. The same is not true for the Germans.

[Josh]

They also put their only fleet carrier out of service thanks to Libya.

Still, it's not like military capability is a faucet that can simply be turned off or on. For one thing, having the capacity can buy needed deterrence while a waffling political establishment debates whether or not it's time to start really tooling up.

You can never count on a representative government to move in a sensible or timely fashion.

[Lys]

No, Charles de Gaulle was due for maintenance anyway, the need for it was just accelerated by combat operations, but that's normal. She was out of commission for two months, which is actually a pretty fast turnaround far as those things go. The big problem the French have is that they need two fleet carriers so they can keep on one station when the other one is undergoing maintenance, but they only have one. That's why the British put in an order for two Queen Elizabeths, though rather embarrassingly because the QEs are behind schedule the British right now have no aircraft carriers. I've heard it joked that now is the right time for Spain to declare war on Britain, since our navy can actually take theirs on for the first time in over two hundred years.

[General Havoc]

No, Charles de Gaulle was due for maintenance anyway, the need for it was just accelerated by combat operations, but that's normal. She was out of commission for two months, which is actually a pretty fast turnaround far as those things go. The big problem the French have is that they need two fleet carriers so they can keep on one station when the other one is undergoing maintenance, but they only have one. That's why the British put in an order for two Queen Elizabeths, though rather embarrassingly because the QEs are behind schedule the British right now have no aircraft carriers. I've heard it joked that now is the right time for Spain to declare war on Britain, since our navy can actually take theirs on for the first time in over two hundred years.

You guys'd just wreck your fleet on the coast of Scotland again.

[Lys]

Look man, it was the age of sail, everyone wrecked their damned fleets when the weather became disagreeable!

[General Havoc]

Look man, it was the age of sail, everyone wrecked their damned fleets when the weather became disagreeable!

But few did it with as much gusto as the Spanish.

[Lys]

And yet the English Counter Armada still managed to lose 40 ships to the Spanish Armada's 35, also mostly due to storms. The North Atlantic's nasty now, but it was way worse back then because of the Little Age. Sure over the course of the war the English came off looking better, but it's only because they were playing defence. They got to stay close to their home ports allowing them to make short sorties and repair and refit frequently. The one time they went on the offensive things went just as badly for them as it did for the Spanish.

[General Havoc]

And yet the English Counter Armada still managed to lose 40 ships to the Spanish Armada's 35, also mostly due to storms. The North Atlantic's nasty now, but it was way worse back then because of the Little Age. Sure over the course of the war the English came off looking better, but it's only because they were playing defence. They got to stay close to their home ports allowing them to make short sorties and repair and refit frequently. The one time they went on the offensive things went just as badly for them as it did for the Spanish.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your numbering there, Lys. 130 ships left Spain for the Armada, and 68 of them came back, which by my count comes to 62 ships lost, captured, or sunk. Twenty-thousand Spanish sailors and soldiers died along the way, more than the English had in the entirety of the battle (discounting land forces on both sides). And while it's true the English got to stay close to their home ports, it's not like that wasn't understood at the time. When one invades another country, one must reckon on the invadees being able to use their home ports and bases. Napoleon found that out when he invaded Spain, after all.

Yes, storms were a constant menace back then, but the Armada was one of the great cataclysms of military history (for Spain). It's an event worth remembering.

[Josh]

Clearly the only way to resolve this debate is to find a game and simulate the conflict all over again.

[Lys]

It depends on what source you use. According to wikipedia Neil Hanson states only 67 vessels returned, whereas Michael Lewis, José L. Casado Soto, and Garrett Mattingly all list 35 ships lost. The two numbers might not even be incompatible, as while the body of the fleet returned to Santander and may have numbered only 67, stragglers no doubt turned up in other ports, which would not count them against the losses. Meanwhile, the Counter Armada lost 40 ships and 15 000 men, certainly a comparable disaster.

[Cynical Cat]

It depends on what source you use. According to wikipedia Neil Hanson states only 67 vessels returned, whereas Michael Lewis, José L. Casado Soto, and Garrett Mattingly all list 35 ships lost. The two numbers might not even be incompatible, as while the body of the fleet returned to Santander and may have numbered only 67, stragglers no doubt turned up in other ports, which would not count them against the losses. Meanwhile, the Counter Armada lost 40 ships and 15 000 men, certainly a comparable disaster.

Don't forget the huge numbers of Spanish were suffering from disease and malnutrition and continued to die after arriving home.

[Lys]

Yes, same deal for the English. Disease didn't just run rampant amongst the sailors, but spread through the populations of various port towns once the fleet arrived home. In both cases the number of deaths amounted to around two thirds of all mobilized personnel. Fleets in that time period just weren't well equipped to handle sustained campaigning.