EU army

[Kagemusha]

Where can I start, what training levels would they impose, what equipment would they use, whose publications would be used, which system of support would be used, which style of operations would be used, whose rank structure would be used, would it be tri-service, could they still swear to Queen and country, so many questions and so meany personalities would mean it would take decades.

Saying you would only need a new HQ is pretty niaive, no offense but if you don't work in that area you don't really know.

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

[Ja'chyra]

I don't see that working either, the training disparities would be enormous as would the capabilities of each army group, also who else would appoint the command structure.

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

[Ja'chyra]

And Third - if England doesn't particpate - most likely other nations will also not particapate and that will lessen the crediblity of such a unified force.

I'm sure you mean Britain.

[Kagemusha]

What you are suggesting is a EU equivalent of NATO, not an EU army, which is more workable.

You are right the first phase would be like NATO.You cant create an Army in one day.

[Redleg]

What i meant you wouldnt re-organize lets say British army.You could use your own equipment and You could swear to Queen and country as much as you would like.British Army would be an Army group.Commanding of one Army group doesnt effect other Army groups anyway.
It would be up to high command which part of your army would be suitable for certain assignments.Ofcourse in the long run EU would support its own weapons industry for its Army.But you cant say it doesnt work because European Armies differ of each other.You can count how many multi national operations have been succesfully completed after WWII.

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

[Al Khalifah]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

[Kagemusha]

The problems are:
- vast range of hardware used by the various members
- vast difference in quality of training and equipment between various members forces
- different C&C structures
- a standard army pay rate would cause a great economic disparity due to the varied living costs across the EU
- there is no common language for the EU
- the French and British would not agree to the head of the army being from the other nation
- it would require Britain and France to place their strategic forces in the hands of foreign powers

As i stated before in first phase it would be only commanding structure.

[Al Khalifah]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

[Kagemusha]

In that case what would be the point of such a combined army?

An army is designed to act quickly and decisively. By adding more and more layers of hierarchy to delay the C&C decisions, you would essentially be slowing the army's response down which could potentially cost lives.

A unit in an army should never have two masters. This is a disasterous state of affairs.

It would be only the first phase and it wouldnt lead to an situation that the chain of command would be breached.The overall command could only use troops fro countries that would agree to join certain scenario.In the long run we could strip lots of troops from our national Armies that have had been planned to use against eachothers armies and with that money we could create more advanced troops and weaponry together.It would be a long road tough.

[Kagemusha]

They were successful because the operations were conducted under one centralized command. There are also a few cases where the unified command broke down and the mission was considered a failure. Somilia for one comes to mind.

What you are describing here is not so much as an EU army but another command structure much like NATO. Which is still in place with many of the nations that are members of the EU. To accomplish what your advocating here - all you have to get accomplished is kick the United States out of NATO - or invite the US into the EU - then the command structure and organization is already in place.

Pretty soon Europe will have so many chiefs that there wont be enough Indians to do the work.

It has been sayd before that NATO has served its purpose because the Cold War is over and there is now Warsaw pact anymore.The problem with EU countries that arent in NATO is that they will never join it as long as USA is in it.I think its about time that European countries would stand for themselves in defence matters.It would also benefit USA because they could release their troops from Europe.I think while NATO could be abandoned it wouldnt worse therelationship with Europe and USA.In matter of fact,i think this would benefit us both in the long run.