mdlouie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael D. Louie) (05/08/91)
From: mdlouie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael D. Louie) For those of you that have been waiting so long that you forgot about this, here it is...finally. I posted it once before, last month, but it never made it. I haven't had enough time to deal with it until now, of all times...finals!!! Here is a summary of the NATO briefing that I attended on March 26th, here on the University of Texas at Austin campus. The school's ROTC and Government departments, in particular, were contacted by SACLANT (Supreme Allied Command Atlantic) as to whom would be most interested. I am enrolled in an American Foriegn Policy 1945-present class, which is basically the US/USSR cold war thing. --- Anyway, SACLANT headquarters, based in Norfolk, VA, sent three officers to conduct the briefing: Capt. Fitch (U.S. Navy, director of Strategic Concepts and Policy) , Capt. Jose (Royal Netherlands Navy, Asst. Chief of Staff, Warfare) and Commander Mahlert (Federal German Navy, Strategic Inteligence Officer). The last officer had all the information and numbers. He claimed that when he went back home next year, he would be integrated into the UNITED German Navy. They all joined up with SACLANT between 1988 and 1990, serving two-year tours with their respective branches. The briefing team from SACLANT headquarters tours North America to explain what NATO and the Allied Command Atlantic are and do. They held a thirty-minute slide presentation to emphasize the history, goals, military strategy, mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The purpose is that of a mutual-security alliance, assembled to preserve peace and order, through not only military, but a variety of other means, such as political and economic ones. Originally, in April of 1949, when it was formed, NATO was to keep the Soviets in check. This has since changed with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of Eastern European communism. One of the briefers explained that the membership is flexible and can take in whomever, but not the USSR right now. He said E. Europe, excluding E. Germany, is being considered, but I believe the nation must petition to join. Right now, there are sixteen members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Next, they discussed the NATO command and control structure. There are three military zones: Allied Command Atlantic, Allied Command Europe, and Channel Command. The first one is responsible for all operations in the Atlantic Ocean. The second one concerns the European continent and the Mediterranean Sea. The last one is responsible for the use and protection of the North Sea and English Channel. The NATO primary headquarters is located in Brussels, Belgium. Each nation's foriegn minister, including Secretary of State James Baker, goes there to mutually inform other nations on current policy. This was apparent during the Gulf action (the briefers mentioned it, but I don't think they used the word "war"). There is a huge chain-of-command trickling down from Brussels. Each sector has it's own head. The one that is based in Norfolk, VA (SACLANT) is headed by an American admiral. Right at this moment, he is Admiral Leon Edney (CinC, US Atlantic Command). This sector is responsible for keeping control the vital sea lanes from the North Pole to the Tropic of Cancer to the coastal waters of North and South America, Europe, and Africa, which is about twelve million square miles of ocean. Its primary purpose is to carry out forward NATO defense. SACLANT is divided down into three geographic regions, Western (WESTLANT), Eastern (EASTLANT), and Iberian Atlantic (IBERLANT). There is also Supreme Allied Command, Europe. This is forward defense of the Continent. I suppose this is what Operation Reforger, the joint ground operation conducted the last few years. The head of SACEUR ground forces is an American general. Each officer serves a tour, so I don't think they get to stay there forever. I believe Gen. Eisenhower was CINC-SACEUR once in the '50s. As for the Channel Command, it covers the English Channel and the lower portion of the North Sea. There is a British admiral in charge of this zone. Next, they discussed the future for the alliance. Now that our primary threat, the Warsaw Pact is gone, our forces can be scaled down and put in a more constabulatory role. Not a bush-war police action-type force, but not really too far from the massive ground war-type action in Germany, as originally planned, decades ago. As stated above, new members are being considered, but who is considered? I don't know. I believe NATO will become part of the European Community's defense force...since there will be a united continent, economically, why not militarily, still? In actuality, NATO came before the EEC. The goals for the future are optimistic and flexible. The alliance did work quite well in the Gulf. Although NATO didn't send actual forces, the forces sent by individual nations worked well together. They've had a lot of practice, with huge practice campaigns, such as Operation Reforger, in Germany, and the sort, where they trained together. This helped for better rapport between the individ That was it for the briefing. As mentioned before, Germany is now totally integrated. The Soviets are pulling their troops out of what used to be East Germany to move home. The officer briefing this segment (they switched out according to their specialties) said that the homefront for incoming soldiers is pretty dismal. Prior to the Conventional Forces Europe agreement (CFE), there were 60 Soviet and Warsaw Pact divisions on the front line, not to mention 85-90 more divisions in European USSR and 50-60 divisions in the rest of the USSR, they have to integrate all of that into the interior. That's hard. Someone asked about our divisions, since we will be moving about 3 2/3. He said they will be either reassigned to new home bases, or disbanded and demobilized. That is just as hard as the Soviets, except on a lesser scale. That's all. I felt honored to actually see a real NATO briefing. They conduct these periodically in order to keep the public informed of NATO's activities and achievements. All opinions are mine and mine alone. I do not work for NATO or the Federal government, nor the Government department of the University of Texas at Austin. Most of this information was dredged from memory, but the rest came from supplementary material provided to my government professor by SACLANT. Please E-mail me if you have any questions. -- Michael Louie Univ. of Texas at Austin mdlouie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) (05/08/91)
From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) >There is also Supreme Allied Command, Europe. This is forward defense >of the Continent. I suppose this is what Operation Reforger, the joint >ground operation conducted the last few years. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I took part in REFORGER IV back in Jan '73, and then it was an annual field training exercise (FTX)...so, I can only assume that it's still an annual thing;-) Certain units stationed in Germany were selected to take part (units selec- ted were different every year, I believe)...they played the role of the Soviets invading the German plains. Then, certain units (some reserve) sta- tioned in CONUS would airlift to Germany to manuever with/against the 'enemy'. They would take some of their equipment, but also utilize some of the pre-positioned stock already in Germany/Europe. I was stationed with 1/37 Armor, 1st Brigade, 1st Armor Division (Old Ironsides)...for REFORGER IV, we became part of the 1st NATO Armor Division; 1st NATO Armor Division was comprised of 1st Brigade, 3rd Brigade, Division Artillery, and Division Sup- port Command of the 1st U.S. Armor Division, 4th Canadian Mechanized Battle Group, and Panzer Regiment 200. BTW, REFORGER stands for REturn of FORces to GERmany; our operation in REFORGER IV was FTX Certain Shield. -- Mark Aldo UUCP: (osu-cis)!dsacg1!waldo INTERNET: waldo@dsac.dla.mil Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center | 614-238-8111 DSAC-ZTB, P.O.Box 1605, Columbus, Ohio (USA) 43216 | AV 850-8111 I'm not authorized to have an opinion....;-)
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (05/09/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) Some supporting/clarifying comments: > From: mdlouie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael D. Louie) > Allied Command Europe... "ACE". The ACE Mobile Force is a unique multi-national airborne force consisting of British, Netherlands, German, Italian, and U.S. airborne battalions. The U.S. contingent is based in Vicenza, Italy. A lot of their exercise training takes place in Norway. Once in a while they'd airdrop into Grafenwoehr for training - then we'd have to drive around in jeeps and pick up the troopers that missed the drop zone :-) > There is also Supreme Allied Command, Europe. > The head of SACEUR > ground forces is an American general. Each officer serves a tour, so I > don't think they get to stay there forever. I believe Gen. Eisenhower > was CINC-SACEUR once in the '50s. Yes he was - but not "CINC" - just "SAC" (Supreme Allied Commander). So was Bradley (which was when he got his 5th star - NO let's not go through that again). Alexander Haig was also SACEUR at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe), Belgium. Today, General John Galvin is SACEUR. (was Colonel Galvin, Chief of Staff 3rd Inf Div when I served under him). > The goals for the future are optimistic and flexible. The alliance did > work quite well in the Gulf. Although NATO didn't send actual forces, > the forces sent by individual nations worked well together. They've had > a lot of practice, with huge practice campaigns, such as Operation > Reforger, in Germany, and the sort, where they trained together. Especially true for German-based U.S. units, Canadian, British, and French. And not only large-scale exercises but small-unit exchanges and even individual cross-posting. Reforger (Return of Forces to Germany) began as an exercise to re-deploy the 1st Infantry Division back to Germany. It was mainly a logistics exercise that grew out of proportion and ended up a multi-corps, multi- national exercise - - it's a very complicated story - if anyone wants background detail - email me. mike schmitt
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (05/09/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) mdlouie@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael D. Louie) writes: >I believe NATO will become part of the European Community's defense >force...since there will be a united continent, economically, why not >militarily, still? In actuality, NATO came before the EEC. There is such an entity -- called the CSCE, for Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It will be NATO minus the U.S. and Canada, and will (ideally) perform many of the same functions. I haven't heard much of late about it, but some Europeans feel they don't need the U.S.'s "extended deterrence" anymore.... Time will tell if this beast ever really gets off the ground. -shane
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (05/10/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: nzt1939@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (William M. Aldo) > I took part in REFORGER IV back in Jan '73, and then it was an annual field > training exercise (FTX)...so, I can only assume that it's still an annual > thing;-) The MAIN purpose was to redeploy the 1st Inf Div back to Germany. The FTX was something to do after getting there. In the late '60s, the Vietnam manpower requirements were draining the European-based units. Some were only at 'cadre strength'. 6-man squads, companies commanded by lieutenants, battalions commanded by majors, staffs at half-strength. Plus, those of us stationed in Europe at the time considered ourselves only on extended "R&R" until we were shipped back to Vietnam. Given all that - the US decided to withdraw a division out of Europe (the 24th ID, Goeppingen, I believe - which went to Fort Riley and became the 1st ID). NATO (Germany) was worried about the US having enough combat power to stop the evil Russian hordes (we can discuss the MTO&E of a type-Mongol Horde later). The US promised that they would dedicate one mechanized division (1st ID) to Europe and that it would redeploy upon the first indication of trouble. NATO (Germany) said, "we don't really believe you can do that, prove it." Thus, the birth of Reforger. The plan was to store in "POMCUS Stocks" all the MTOE equipment for a full Mech Div in Pirmasens and Karlshrue - division personnel with personal weapons would be flown to nearby airfields and 'fall-in' on the equipment and drive away. It was a logistics exercise. Transport people, draw equipment, exercise the equipment by means of a 10 day FTX, convoy to Grafenwoehr to 'live fire' tanks, artillery, crew-served weapons, convoy back to POMCUS Sites, turn-in equipment, redeploy to CONUS. The 1st Inf Div was THE class I, premier division in CONUS for European deployment. Matter of fact, all our maps, regulations, "enemy" were Germany. All our regs were VII Corps. Our "parent unit" was VII Corps and USAREUR, not FORSCOM and CONUS. The first six REFORGER exercises were with the 1st Inf Div, under command/control of VII Corps, and manuevered against VII Corps units in Germany (either 3rd ID or 1st AD). Usually the 4th Canadian Mech Brigade and one of the 12th Panzer Division's brigades would manuever with either of the divisions. Well, pretty soon, the other Corps' and divisions thought that this was a great idea and great training and wanted a piece of the action. The first non-1st ID REFORGER was in 1976 with the 101st Airmobile Division - over to V Corps area - against the 8th ID. (Doomed to failure - just with the participants - my opinion). First, you don't "rapidly" deploy helicoptors by ship! And I guess they proved that helicoptors without a heavy ground tank support cannot survive a 'tank battle' battlefield. Lessons learned? I participated in 6 Reforger exercises. Two from CONUS and 4 while in Germany. They kept getting bigger and bigger - and now (or at least the last one) it is a multi-corps, multi-division, multi-nation exercise (called "AUTUMN FORGE" - series of manuevers). The enormity of the amount of troops involved becomes apparent when you know that for every "reinforced division" manuevering against another "reinforced division" there must be an almost equal number of "Controllers" and "Umpires" for each side. That takes another full division complement of people. And since all manuever is on the German countryside - Manuever Damage takes another brigade-plus size of manuever damage organization plus an Engineer Brigade to repair damage. (and there are plenty of horror stories about manuever damage - I'll tell you about the 3d Cav tanks doing pivot steers on the cobblestone streets in the town square of Schweinfurt - some other day). What did all this serve? First, we kept the peace in Europe. But secondly, the battalion and brigade commanders and staffs that learned to plan these long range deployments and swift, fast, hi-speed manuevers and action - were the division commanders and staffs in the Gulf. The last couple years of Reforger manuevers were with M1A1 Abrams, M2 Bradleys, MLRS, Apache attacks helicoptors, supported by USAF A-10s. Now, I understand Reforger is being scaled back, further and further. And maybe there is no need for it at all anymore. It served its purpose. Mike Schmitt "Sir, is our ration cycle A-C-A?" "No, it's B-M-G. Bacherei, Metzgerei, Gasthous."
mcdaniel@adi.com (Tim McDaniel) (05/16/91)
From: mcdaniel@adi.com (Tim McDaniel) [Moderator, please be merciful. It's brief.] [Belongs in soc.history, but Just This Once. --CDR] bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) writes: > to stop the evil Russian hordes (we can discuss the MTO&E of a > type-Mongol Horde later). Size Name Size Name Size Name Size Name --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- 10 arban 100 jagun 1000 minghan 10000 tumen "Generally there would be two to three tumens in a Mongol army", and three armies (Jun-gar: Left Wing/East; Baran-gar: Right Wing/West; Khol: Center) in the Mongol army. For more info or the source, e-mail me (or Hal Heydt 8-). "The Mongols", The Compleat Anachronist #54. Does anyone have a source for a Roman legion's table of organization, tactics, history, et cetera? Please e-mail me with any info. -- "Of course he has a knife; he always has a knife. We all have knives. It's 1183 and we're barbarians." Tim McDaniel Applied Dynamics Int'l.; Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA Internet: mcdaniel@adi.com UUCP: {uunet,sharkey}!amara!mcdaniel