Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 3rd, 2012, 07:38 AM   #131

KUZGUN's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 345

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimald View Post
There is an official policy for the export of weapons of war.

First, the German constitution states in Article 26, paragraph 2: "Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details shall be regulated by a federal law."

This federal law states in article 6, paragraph 3 [Grimald's translation]:
"The approval [of the federal government for the weapon export] shall not be given (1) if there is a risk that the weapons will be used in an act disturbing the peace, in particular in a war of aggression, ...

Source (German):
KrWaffKontrG - Ausfhrungsgesetz zu Artikel 26 Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes

Every year, the German government issues a report on weapon exports; the one for 2011 can be found here, but unfortunately only in German:

BMWi - Publikationen

As stated in this report, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently under an embargo for the export of weapons from Germany. There are many more states under embargo, including for example Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan.

Export to EU countries, NATO countries, and countries similar to these (e.g. Switzerland) is not restricted. Export approvals to other countries regularly make it into the newspaper headlines, e.g. to non-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia or to developing countries that should rather think about how to feed their population than import weapons. Although Turkey is a NATO country and thus enjoys unrestricted weapon import from Germany, previous exports to Turkey anyway made headlines in the newspapers, the main reason being that the country was perceived as involved in a war in its Kurdish regions.
Thanks for the explanation.
KUZGUN is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 3rd, 2012, 07:52 AM   #132

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Getting back to the argument that tanks have been subverted by air power. That can only be posited if there are either no air defenses or Air Force available to counter enemy air power. Tanks hold ground full stop. Air power is important, but in a war against equally sophisticated systems - air power is sporadic and not usually overwhelming. It is only when the war is asymmetric that tanks are in danger of becoming overwhelmed by air power. As Iraqi and Taliban tankers found.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 08:22 AM   #133

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,692

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
Getting back to the argument that tanks have been subverted by air power. That can only be posited if there are either no air defenses or Air Force available to counter enemy air power. Tanks hold ground full stop. Air power is important, but in a war against equally sophisticated systems - air power is sporadic and not usually overwhelming. It is only when the war is asymmetric that tanks are in danger of becoming overwhelmed by air power. As Iraqi and Taliban tankers found.
Pretty much. No class of weapon is a panacea-they all have both strengths and weaknesses. All the major powers are now using some variation on "combined arms" which combines the strengths of artillery, tactical airpower, armor, infantry, and specialized support.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old December 3rd, 2012, 12:58 PM   #134
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,107

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbie View Post
...I say yes, the tank is an indispensible tool in modern warfare.
Tanks are an offensive weapon and nothing exist to better them as yet so you're right...

...but only if we see another conventional war

I'm not sure we ever will
Poly is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 09:30 PM   #135

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Tanks are an offensive weapon and nothing exist to better them as yet so you're right...

...but only if we see another conventional war

I'm not sure we ever will
We will see many more conventional wars and they will become smaller and more asymmetric, not larger. What would large countries with nuclear weapons gain by trying to directly overcome each other? Proxy wars that will effect smaller and smaller regions until all the resource rich regions in the world are accounted for by all the nuclear powers and their allies. The next wars will be fought over resources and ideas... We still want to sell things to each other. We can't let those little wars get in the way of a good sale.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old December 5th, 2012, 09:41 AM   #136
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,107

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
We will see many more conventional wars and they will become smaller and more asymmetric, not larger. What would large countries with nuclear weapons gain by trying to directly overcome each other? Proxy wars that will effect smaller and smaller regions until all the resource rich regions in the world are accounted for by all the nuclear powers and their allies. The next wars will be fought over resources and ideas... We still want to sell things to each other. We can't let those little wars get in the way of a good sale.
If you mean we'll see many isolated, small scale conflict then you're right

If you mean large scale warfare similar to Korean or WWII then you're wrong

I doubt we'll ever see combat operations at corps level again - peace keeping is what Western armies will be doing from now on
Poly is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:00 AM   #137

caldrail's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,715
Blog Entries: 15

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
Tanks hold ground full stop.
This is not the case. Whilst amrour is a powerful class of battlefield asset that can dominate conflict in the right circumstances, tanks cannot control territory in the manner infantry can. That's why we still use feet on the ground and send armour into battle with support (ignoring the threat of air power for the moment)
caldrail is offline  
Old December 9th, 2012, 11:56 PM   #138

rehabnonono's Avatar
inveterate antagonist
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: the Boomtown Shenzhen
Posts: 2,178

Quote:
Originally Posted by caldrail View Post
This is not the case. Whilst amrour is a powerful class of battlefield asset that can dominate conflict in the right circumstances, tanks cannot control territory in the manner infantry can. That's why we still use feet on the ground and send armour into battle with support (ignoring the threat of air power for the moment)
The argument I was speaking to was really Tanks vs Airpower. Thanks, I guess if we say tanks then we infer infantry will be following in armor at least in most cases... however I am not sure there was a lot of infantry involved with the Thunder Runs to the Baghdad Airport and Political center ...once they made the airport then perhaps the infantry took over the security.
rehabnonono is offline  
Old December 10th, 2012, 03:49 AM   #139

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 17,788

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehabnonono View Post
Getting back to the argument that tanks have been subverted by air power. That can only be posited if there are either no air defenses or Air Force available to counter enemy air power. Tanks hold ground full stop. Air power is important, but in a war against equally sophisticated systems - air power is sporadic and not usually overwhelming. It is only when the war is asymmetric that tanks are in danger of becoming overwhelmed by air power. As Iraqi and Taliban tankers found.
With the dominance of the U.S. as the lone Superpower, I don't think there is any other more sophisticated that it, as of the moment, making tanks irrelevant if the war is wage against it.
dagul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, crucial, tanks, today



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confederacy uses tanks Nick Speculative History 7 April 27th, 2013 06:45 PM
Crucial battles of the antiquity duccen Ancient History 2 January 16th, 2012 06:55 AM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 05:04 AM
Three most crucial battles in your nation's past? JohnnyH General History 60 December 4th, 2009 07:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.