7 ms·

Germany’s soldiers of misfortune

31 points by smacktoward 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago
> it sounds like an exaggeration to compare Germany’s Bundeswehr to “The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” look no further than the army’s standard-issue assault rifle, Heckler & Koch’s G36. The government decided to scrap the weapon after discovering that the gun misses its target if it’s too hot. Is this actually indicative of a design flaw? All guns' accuracy degrade as the barrel heats up. The metal flexes more and expands, thus throwing off the zero. Weapons like belt fed machine guns mitigate this by having heavy barrels to soak up heat, and quick-change barrels to swap them out with fresh cold ones. Internet searches about the G36's accuracy problems seem rife with fudd-lore. Government studies did not find said accuracy problems: https://m.dw.com/en/heckler-and-koch-vindicated-in-g36-accuracy-row-but-lobbying-concerns-linger/a-18781312 https://m.dw.com/en/heckler-and-koch-vindicated-in-g36-accur... Other firearms like tank cannons get around this by having barrel sag sensors that adjust the crosshairs to compensate for the effect of the sag. I get that nit picking the anecdote in the opening statements is kind of pedantic. But it shapes my senses of the author's technical understand (or lack thereof) for the rest of the article.
- ahakki 8y ago
  Due to the extensive polymer use in it's construction the G36 is more sensitive to heat buildup than other assault rifles. Therefore it is very likely that the rifle did in fact perform underwhelmingly in hot areas at high rates of fire. Moreso than a metal construction rifle would. It's almost certain that the new rifle will be the HK433.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  It's a funny statement when you think about it > the gun misses its target if it's too hot What does 'too hot' mean? Too hot... to do what? How do we define 'too hot'? Too hot to hit its target? Well that's tautological then isn't it - a rifle that is too hot to hit its target will not hit its target. Presumably all rifles at some point get too hot to hit their targets, because at some point they're going to simply melt. So all rifles miss their targets when they get too hot. If they're not missing their targets then they're not too hot are they? I guess what they mean is that the rifle starts to miss its targets at a lower temperature than other rifles, but that's not what they said. It's one of those statements that seems to make sense on first reading but then when you really think about what it says, it doesn't say anything and you could say it about all rifles and be truthful.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    > What does 'too hot' mean? "The weapon's capacity to hit targets fell to 30 percent when the surrounding temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit) or when the weapon became hot through constant use, the report said." https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-says-no-future-for-g36-rifles-in-bundeswehr/a-18399209 https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-says-no-future... I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      Right - that's what I suggested it really meant. I was commenting on how the article was phrased not actually about the rifle.
    - elcapitan 8y ago
      > I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems. It's important to remember that the German army's equipment was originally intended for NATO defense of western Europe, basically to defend a conventional soviet attack in Northern Germany. That's true for the tanks and armored vehicles as well, which also had issues when Germany first took them to places like Afghanistan. Germany participating in operations externally to Germany is only a thing since 1999 (Kosovo).
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        I don't think it's important to remember that in context of the G36. The gun basically doesn't work if you pop a couple of rounds through it, or if it's hot out. I'm certain it didn't pass any of their mil specs.
        elcapitan 8y ago
        It passed all the military specs. That has been settled in court, the manufacturer H&K didn't have to pay any damages.
- _iyig 8y ago
  Ian McCollum of “Forgotten Weapons,” who I hold to be an authority on the subject, commented on this in a recent video. IIRC, in his view, this problem is not nearly as big of a deal as it’s been made out to be.
  - wespiser_2018 8y ago
    Yes! Ian does such great work,one of my all time favorite YT channels!
- tobias3 8y ago
  Yeah, the main problem was that the weapon is not designed to work in conditions like in Afghanistan. That's why soldiers in Afghanistan (righfully) complained. Then, the weapon trades of weight (plastic), against accuracy (in long fire fights). And if that is the correct trade-off to make is of course debatable and depends on the usage.
Shivetya 8y ago
The US should have pulled out of NATO a long time ago but empires of even that sort are hard to give up. The EU is more than capable of providing for their own security and perhaps having to do it all would make some wavering member states understand that they are truly all in it together.
- pexaizix 8y ago
  There's no way the US will pull out of anywhere. Gotta keep the war machine rollin'
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    I disagree. Sure, there's profit motive. But 80 years ago, US population was extremely against any kind of military involvement overseas, and funding of US military reflected it. But turns out even if we don't want war, there's always someone/something like Hitler, Putin, Communism etc etc. And due to the size/location of US, US is forced to take a role overseas.
  - mc32 8y ago
    For odd reasons, the Dems and neocon Repubs are the ones wanting to remain in these alliances and engagements whereas the current admin wants to withdraw.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  I don't understand where any of this comes from. The US has profited greatly (financially, strategically, (geo)politically) from basically owning Western Europe as a base of operations in that part of the hemisphere. It wasn't an act of generosity to form NATO. It was a calculated plan to ensure America's global hegemony, from which we've all benefited (for better or worse).
  - SuoDuanDao 8y ago
    The justification for OP's position I've heard, and must say it kind of makes sense, is that the US's major benefit to running the empire was having a lot of nations buying its exports. But the US is no longer a net exporter, so the benefits of being the global hegemon are similarly in decline.
ThJ 8y ago
This sounds similar to the state of affairs in Scandinavia. The part about there being little pride in being a soldier rings especially true. Scandinavians have died in military operations in Afghanistan, but you never hear about it. No one wants to hear about it, because we don't see ourselves as warlike nations. Germany probably has that times 100 due to the legacy of the Nazis.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Yeah, they try to fight the stigma in Germany by promoting the service as a fun adventure and to gamers... https://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/spiele-messe-bundeswehr-verteidigt-umstrittenen-werbe-auftritt-auf-der-gamescom-169190 https://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/spiele-messe-...
- doktrin 8y ago
  > Scandinavians have died in military operations in Afghanistan, but you never hear about it "Scandinavians" is in this case seems deliberately vague. It's certainly covered in Norwegian media, can't speak to wherever you're from.
- mips_avatar 8y ago
  Most of the Norwegians I know take great pride in their 18 months of military service.
lqet 8y ago
In case anyone has missed it, Angela Merkel could not attend the beginning of the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires because her plane, which is operated by the Flugbereitschaft [0] (part of the Luftwaffe) had to make an emergency landing because of serious technical problems [1]. It's a sad state of affairs, and getting increasingly embarrassing. That being said, you have to be careful. There recently was an insightful article in the FAZ [2] (in German). Basically, a few years ago, the current minister of defense Ursula von der Leyen started to reform a department that may be seen as something between a gentlemen's club of military traditionalists and a lobby organization of the military industrial complex with around 250.000 employees. It swallowed up copious amounts of tax money, and Ursula von der Leyen made herself a lot of enemies among the profiteers of that system by trying to put this to an end. She then made the mistake of attacking Bundeswehr traditions which may be seen as politically incorrect and archaic from the outside, but are important for the troop morale. So, if you like conspiracy theories, you may argue that there are people inside the Bundeswehr who are interested in making the army look worse than it actually is, as long as it undermines von der Leyen's political position. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugbereitschaft_des_Bundesministeriums_der_Verteidigung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugbereitschaft_des_Bundesmin... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/29/angela-merkel-plane-unscheduled-landing-g20 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/29/angela-merkel-... [2] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ursula-von-der-leyen-gorch-dock-16021524.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ursula-von-der-leyen-gorch-dock-...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Dodge54 8y ago
Jesus, what’s the point of the comment section on Politico?
Guthur 8y ago
To suggest that Germany or any European country without oversea territories is threatened military by china is ludicrous scare mongering. China has barely any capacity to protect power much further than it's coastal waters. And there is something similar to be said of Russia. The US wants to maintain a dependency that is being harder to justify.
- cglace 8y ago
  As a US citizen i would love to see Germany pay for their own defense. So sure have at it.
  - kevingrahl 8y ago
    Ah man I hate that so many Americans seem to think they are paying anything for Germany’s defense. It’s just not true. Sure there are US troops in Germany but only because you need them to be here for your own purposes like that Rammstein base for example which is used to relay data so your drones in the Middle East can work. Of course you’ll have to pay for something like that one way or another. We even pay a percentage (~10%) of the construction cost of your bases. But you‘re not here for us. The majority of Germans is against US troops in Germany btw. We Germans don’t receive any kind of military financing from the US. In fact we pay you money in exchange for military equipment ($163.7 million in 2014 for example).
    - cglace 8y ago
      I meant that Germany relies on the US for defense. Not that we directly pay you to defend yourselves. "We even pay a percentage (~10%) of the construction cost of your bases" Because that base is the cost of the US military. I think you are focusing too much on the US assets in Germany as the deterrent.
  - polotics 8y ago
    As a non US citizen, may I ask you to please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege The US military defends this privilege. Everyone is open to the US dropping both its privilege, and its reliance on force to impose it. Since 2001 it's floundered mightily anyway.
Proven 8y ago
European Military Indistrial Complex is weak compared to American. The US is constantly engaged in unconstitutional wars, and on top of that there's fixed demand for resources by American military bases in the EU (including Germany), so business is good. The EU is constantly engaged in silly "progressive" spending so taxpayer money is wasted through other channels (such as various EU development funds and foreign aid).
davidf18 8y ago
Instead of using Accenture and McKinsey they Germans should consult with the Israelis (perhaps in secret -- the Israelis built the entire Singaporean Army in secret). The Germans are already leasing Israeli drones to protect their troops in Afghanistan for nearly a decade so there is a good working relationship. The German drone pilots are trained in Israel and they fly the drones from Israel because of some regulation in Germany that doesn't allow them to fly the drones from Germany. Germany extends lease of IAI Heron drones until 2020 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-extends-lease-of-iai-heron-drones-until-2020-1001264905 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-extends-lease-of-... Germany to approve €1b deal to lease Israeli UAVs https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-to-approve-1b-deal-tomorrow-to-lease-israeli-uavs-1001241078 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-to-approve-1b-dea...
rossdavidh 8y ago
The awkward reality is that, for nations like Germany (and Italy, and Belgium, and the Netherlands, and...), they have no land borders with unfriendly countries, and no significant overseas possessions that would be worth the effort to make a large navy to protect. Poland, the Baltic states, Turkey, etc. have more reason to be enthusiastic about NATO; western Europe simply does not. In fact, one could argue that Germany is _safer_ to have a hapless looking military, because it causes France, Poland, etc. to all see them as incapable of being a military threat, and that keeps relations with their neighbors on a friendlier plane. It seems unfair to the U.S., because many of the wealthiest nations of NATO spend the least on their defense, but it is simply a reflection of their actual position. Not to say that it could never change, but it's not as if the current attitude towards defense spending in Germany is entirely nonrational.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Germany is very close to Russia. The Russians would have already taken the Baltic states and probably more of Ukraine (if not all of it) were it not for American leadership. Everywhere outside North America is touchy.

31 points by smacktoward 8y ago

> it sounds like an exaggeration to compare Germany’s Bundeswehr to “The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” look no further than the army’s standard-issue assault rifle, Heckler & Koch’s G36. The government decided to scrap the weapon after discovering that the gun misses its target if it’s too hot. Is this actually indicative of a design flaw? All guns' accuracy degrade as the barrel heats up. The metal flexes more and expands, thus throwing off the zero. Weapons like belt fed machine guns mitigate this by having heavy barrels to soak up heat, and quick-change barrels to swap them out with fresh cold ones. Internet searches about the G36's accuracy problems seem rife with fudd-lore. Government studies did not find said accuracy problems: https://m.dw.com/en/heckler-and-koch-vindicated-in-g36-accuracy-row-but-lobbying-concerns-linger/a-18781312 https://m.dw.com/en/heckler-and-koch-vindicated-in-g36-accur... Other firearms like tank cannons get around this by having barrel sag sensors that adjust the crosshairs to compensate for the effect of the sag. I get that nit picking the anecdote in the opening statements is kind of pedantic. But it shapes my senses of the author's technical understand (or lack thereof) for the rest of the article.

ahakki 8y ago
Due to the extensive polymer use in it's construction the G36 is more sensitive to heat buildup than other assault rifles. Therefore it is very likely that the rifle did in fact perform underwhelmingly in hot areas at high rates of fire. Moreso than a metal construction rifle would. It's almost certain that the new rifle will be the HK433.
chrisseaton 8y ago
It's a funny statement when you think about it > the gun misses its target if it's too hot What does 'too hot' mean? Too hot... to do what? How do we define 'too hot'? Too hot to hit its target? Well that's tautological then isn't it - a rifle that is too hot to hit its target will not hit its target. Presumably all rifles at some point get too hot to hit their targets, because at some point they're going to simply melt. So all rifles miss their targets when they get too hot. If they're not missing their targets then they're not too hot are they? I guess what they mean is that the rifle starts to miss its targets at a lower temperature than other rifles, but that's not what they said. It's one of those statements that seems to make sense on first reading but then when you really think about what it says, it doesn't say anything and you could say it about all rifles and be truthful.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  > What does 'too hot' mean? "The weapon's capacity to hit targets fell to 30 percent when the surrounding temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit) or when the weapon became hot through constant use, the report said." https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-says-no-future-for-g36-rifles-in-bundeswehr/a-18399209 https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-says-no-future... I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Right - that's what I suggested it really meant. I was commenting on how the article was phrased not actually about the rifle.
  - elcapitan 8y ago
    > I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems. It's important to remember that the German army's equipment was originally intended for NATO defense of western Europe, basically to defend a conventional soviet attack in Northern Germany. That's true for the tanks and armored vehicles as well, which also had issues when Germany first took them to places like Afghanistan. Germany participating in operations externally to Germany is only a thing since 1999 (Kosovo).
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      I don't think it's important to remember that in context of the G36. The gun basically doesn't work if you pop a couple of rounds through it, or if it's hot out. I'm certain it didn't pass any of their mil specs.
      - elcapitan 8y ago
        It passed all the military specs. That has been settled in court, the manufacturer H&K didn't have to pay any damages.
_iyig 8y ago
Ian McCollum of “Forgotten Weapons,” who I hold to be an authority on the subject, commented on this in a recent video. IIRC, in his view, this problem is not nearly as big of a deal as it’s been made out to be.
- wespiser_2018 8y ago
  Yes! Ian does such great work,one of my all time favorite YT channels!
tobias3 8y ago
Yeah, the main problem was that the weapon is not designed to work in conditions like in Afghanistan. That's why soldiers in Afghanistan (righfully) complained. Then, the weapon trades of weight (plastic), against accuracy (in long fire fights). And if that is the correct trade-off to make is of course debatable and depends on the usage.

Shivetya 8y ago

The US should have pulled out of NATO a long time ago but empires of even that sort are hard to give up. The EU is more than capable of providing for their own security and perhaps having to do it all would make some wavering member states understand that they are truly all in it together.

pexaizix 8y ago
There's no way the US will pull out of anywhere. Gotta keep the war machine rollin'
- dba7dba 8y ago
  I disagree. Sure, there's profit motive. But 80 years ago, US population was extremely against any kind of military involvement overseas, and funding of US military reflected it. But turns out even if we don't want war, there's always someone/something like Hitler, Putin, Communism etc etc. And due to the size/location of US, US is forced to take a role overseas.
- mc32 8y ago
  For odd reasons, the Dems and neocon Repubs are the ones wanting to remain in these alliances and engagements whereas the current admin wants to withdraw.
jplayer01 8y ago
I don't understand where any of this comes from. The US has profited greatly (financially, strategically, (geo)politically) from basically owning Western Europe as a base of operations in that part of the hemisphere. It wasn't an act of generosity to form NATO. It was a calculated plan to ensure America's global hegemony, from which we've all benefited (for better or worse).
- SuoDuanDao 8y ago
  The justification for OP's position I've heard, and must say it kind of makes sense, is that the US's major benefit to running the empire was having a lot of nations buying its exports. But the US is no longer a net exporter, so the benefits of being the global hegemon are similarly in decline.

ThJ 8y ago

This sounds similar to the state of affairs in Scandinavia. The part about there being little pride in being a soldier rings especially true. Scandinavians have died in military operations in Afghanistan, but you never hear about it. No one wants to hear about it, because we don't see ourselves as warlike nations. Germany probably has that times 100 due to the legacy of the Nazis.

Krasnol 8y ago
Yeah, they try to fight the stigma in Germany by promoting the service as a fun adventure and to gamers... https://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/spiele-messe-bundeswehr-verteidigt-umstrittenen-werbe-auftritt-auf-der-gamescom-169190 https://www.horizont.net/marketing/nachrichten/spiele-messe-...
doktrin 8y ago
> Scandinavians have died in military operations in Afghanistan, but you never hear about it "Scandinavians" is in this case seems deliberately vague. It's certainly covered in Norwegian media, can't speak to wherever you're from.
mips_avatar 8y ago
Most of the Norwegians I know take great pride in their 18 months of military service.

lqet 8y ago

In case anyone has missed it, Angela Merkel could not attend the beginning of the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires because her plane, which is operated by the Flugbereitschaft [0] (part of the Luftwaffe) had to make an emergency landing because of serious technical problems [1]. It's a sad state of affairs, and getting increasingly embarrassing. That being said, you have to be careful. There recently was an insightful article in the FAZ [2] (in German). Basically, a few years ago, the current minister of defense Ursula von der Leyen started to reform a department that may be seen as something between a gentlemen's club of military traditionalists and a lobby organization of the military industrial complex with around 250.000 employees. It swallowed up copious amounts of tax money, and Ursula von der Leyen made herself a lot of enemies among the profiteers of that system by trying to put this to an end. She then made the mistake of attacking Bundeswehr traditions which may be seen as politically incorrect and archaic from the outside, but are important for the troop morale. So, if you like conspiracy theories, you may argue that there are people inside the Bundeswehr who are interested in making the army look worse than it actually is, as long as it undermines von der Leyen's political position. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugbereitschaft_des_Bundesministeriums_der_Verteidigung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugbereitschaft_des_Bundesmin... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/29/angela-merkel-plane-unscheduled-landing-g20 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/29/angela-merkel-... [2] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ursula-von-der-leyen-gorch-dock-16021524.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/ursula-von-der-leyen-gorch-dock-...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Dodge54 8y ago

Jesus, what’s the point of the comment section on Politico?

Guthur 8y ago

To suggest that Germany or any European country without oversea territories is threatened military by china is ludicrous scare mongering. China has barely any capacity to protect power much further than it's coastal waters. And there is something similar to be said of Russia. The US wants to maintain a dependency that is being harder to justify.

cglace 8y ago
As a US citizen i would love to see Germany pay for their own defense. So sure have at it.
- kevingrahl 8y ago
  Ah man I hate that so many Americans seem to think they are paying anything for Germany’s defense. It’s just not true. Sure there are US troops in Germany but only because you need them to be here for your own purposes like that Rammstein base for example which is used to relay data so your drones in the Middle East can work. Of course you’ll have to pay for something like that one way or another. We even pay a percentage (~10%) of the construction cost of your bases. But you‘re not here for us. The majority of Germans is against US troops in Germany btw. We Germans don’t receive any kind of military financing from the US. In fact we pay you money in exchange for military equipment ($163.7 million in 2014 for example).
  - cglace 8y ago
    I meant that Germany relies on the US for defense. Not that we directly pay you to defend yourselves. "We even pay a percentage (~10%) of the construction cost of your bases" Because that base is the cost of the US military. I think you are focusing too much on the US assets in Germany as the deterrent.
- polotics 8y ago
  As a non US citizen, may I ask you to please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorbitant_privilege The US military defends this privilege. Everyone is open to the US dropping both its privilege, and its reliance on force to impose it. Since 2001 it's floundered mightily anyway.

Proven 8y ago

European Military Indistrial Complex is weak compared to American. The US is constantly engaged in unconstitutional wars, and on top of that there's fixed demand for resources by American military bases in the EU (including Germany), so business is good. The EU is constantly engaged in silly "progressive" spending so taxpayer money is wasted through other channels (such as various EU development funds and foreign aid).

davidf18 8y ago

Instead of using Accenture and McKinsey they Germans should consult with the Israelis (perhaps in secret -- the Israelis built the entire Singaporean Army in secret). The Germans are already leasing Israeli drones to protect their troops in Afghanistan for nearly a decade so there is a good working relationship. The German drone pilots are trained in Israel and they fly the drones from Israel because of some regulation in Germany that doesn't allow them to fly the drones from Germany. Germany extends lease of IAI Heron drones until 2020 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-extends-lease-of-iai-heron-drones-until-2020-1001264905 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-extends-lease-of-... Germany to approve €1b deal to lease Israeli UAVs https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-to-approve-1b-deal-tomorrow-to-lease-israeli-uavs-1001241078 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-germany-to-approve-1b-dea...

rossdavidh 8y ago

The awkward reality is that, for nations like Germany (and Italy, and Belgium, and the Netherlands, and...), they have no land borders with unfriendly countries, and no significant overseas possessions that would be worth the effort to make a large navy to protect. Poland, the Baltic states, Turkey, etc. have more reason to be enthusiastic about NATO; western Europe simply does not. In fact, one could argue that Germany is _safer_ to have a hapless looking military, because it causes France, Poland, etc. to all see them as incapable of being a military threat, and that keeps relations with their neighbors on a friendlier plane. It seems unfair to the U.S., because many of the wealthiest nations of NATO spend the least on their defense, but it is simply a reflection of their actual position. Not to say that it could never change, but it's not as if the current attitude towards defense spending in Germany is entirely nonrational.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Germany is very close to Russia. The Russians would have already taken the Baltic states and probably more of Ukraine (if not all of it) were it not for American leadership. Everywhere outside North America is touchy.