Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 68

Thread: German Defense Cooperations

  1. #46
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,965
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...-and-handed-it

    i agree with the sentiment that NATO allies need to contribute more to the common defense, but if true, seriously...what a dick.

    Trump handed £300B NATO 'invoice' to German chancellor: report
    BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - 03/26/17 01:50 PM EDT 543

    President Trump gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel a staff-created bill for NATO defenses estimated at £300 billion, The Times of London reported on Sunday.

    Trump reportedly handed Merkel the invoice during her trip to Washington, D.C. earlier this month.

    “The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” a German minister told the newspaper.

    Trump during his presidential campaign railed against the NATO alliance and has called for member countries to increase defense spending to support the organization.

    Merkel “ignored the provocation,” the Times said.

    The Independent reported that the fake “invoice” listed a total, as estimated by Trump's aides, to cover Germany’s unpaid contributions. In 2014, NATO countries pledge to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. The Independent said Trump told aides to calculate how much German spending fell below that 2 percent in the past 12 years -- backdating the invoice to when Merkel's predecessor was in charge -- then add interest.

    In a joint press conference with Merkel during her visit, Trump told reporters that he emphasized the United States’ commitment to NATO and the need for allies to increase defense spending.

    The chancellor said her country plans to increase its spending on NATO to 2 percent of Germany’s gross domestic product.
    Last edited by astralis; 26 Mar 17, at 20:59.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    There's some people suggesting we should hand the US a bill for the ODA quota in return, i.e. for the self-proclaimed target signed at the UN to spend 0.7% GDP on foreign aid. Which the USA undercuts since 1972 by a far higher margin than Germany's defence undercuts.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    There's some people suggesting we should hand the US a bill for the ODA quota in return, i.e. for the self-proclaimed target signed at the UN to spend 0.7% GDP on foreign aid. Which the USA undercuts since 1972 by a far higher margin than Germany's defence undercuts.
    Meh, you are at 0.5%. Should you fine yourselves, too?

    And one math issue. How can 2 be less then 0.5?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  4. #49
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,744
    Ahh, I remember being told of NZ being handed a bill at the end of WWII for our defense. We handed one back for a dollar more for supplying board, food and the ongoing care and education of the many American-fathered babies left behind. A far as I'm aware the dollar wasn't paid. :-)
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    The German-French C-130 squadron has been revealed to be planned as a fully binational unit - i.e. including multinational individual crews and full access of either country to aircraft provided by the other. Operationally similar to NATO AWACS flights.

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    i agree with the sentiment that NATO allies need to contribute more to the common defense, but if true, seriously...what a dick.
    German government has officially denied these reports to be true according to their spokesman.

    The standard interpretation of this denial is that while they didn't "send us a bill" the way the London Times wrote, someone did calculate that amount and presented it when Merkel was over there.

  7. #52
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,965
    yeah, the story sounded just a bit too "fantastic" (in the unreal sense) to me, so i'm glad i added the qualifier. :-)
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  8. #53
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Norway will procure four of the new subs (to replace six current), Germany will procure two (rounding out inventory to eight subs).
    Some details on design:

    Type 212CD ("Common Design"):
    - based on Type 212A
    - new pressure hull with enhanced stealth features that will not be rounded like previous designs
    - only slightly larger than Type 212A to preserve agility in littoral environments and enhance stealth
    - lithium-ion batteries
    - overall enhanced speed, endurance and range over Type 212A
    - mine-laying capability
    - IDAS anti-air/anti-ship/land-attack missile integration
    - possibly sub-launched NSM integration (conceptually only so far; Kongsberg is pushing for it)
    - first German boat in 2025 or 2026
    - currently being considered to replace Type 212A while selling off the only 20-25 year old boats to allied navies at that point

    Italy meanwhile will procure an additional four Type 212A, with this batch now having more Italian production components (but only slight upgrades compared to standard Type 212A, the batteries being one of them).

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    The drones will be stationed with IAI (or rather: a joint venture of IAI and EADS) in Israel when not in use on deployment. For deployment, these will go to the deployment theater with a forward deployment of drone controllers from the 51st Reconnaissance Wing. The Heron TPs will be procured in 2018 with an option to be armed. Cost will be around 600 million Euro.
    Now finally up for budget discussion, planned in three weeks in parliament. Was delayed a bit since General Atomics tried to get the deal for the Reaper through courts (and failed). Planned operations still as in post above.

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    German, French defense ministers talk new European security force

    Germany and France say they are working together toward a European security force. The Franco-German initiative is being viewed as a reaction to US President Donald Trump, but it actually goes back a lot further.


    At the press conference in Berlin after their first bilateral meeting, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen and her newly-appointed French colleague Sylvie Goulard started with a few words in each other's language. The message was obvious. France and Germany want to be seen as a unit, working hand-in-hand to make Europe more responsible for its own security.

    "We know that our common friendship and common work goes far beyond bilateralism," von der Leyen said. "For both of our countries it's crucial that we create more for Europe and that we work together toward a European defense and security union."

    At the core of those efforts is the so-called Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, which in the words of the European Commission, "allows a core group of countries to take systematic steps towards a more coherent security and defense policy without dividing the Union." Essentially, it is a mechanism allowing willing countries to launch joint security projects without requiring all EU member states to agree or participate.

    "We have to work together for European immigration, but we also need to be open for other partners," said Goulard, who only became French defense minister two weeks ago. "It's a very ambitious project we're starting, but we don't want to put up any barriers to other European countries that don't share our ambitions."

    The two defense ministers said that they had made considerable progress with respect to PESCO and security initiatives to help five countries in sub-Saharan Africa fight terrorism.

    Any talk of large European security partners is bound to be read against the backdrop of tensions between Donald Trump and America's NATO partners over spending. So did Thursday's Franco-German meeting come in response to the US president's accusations that Europeans aren't pulling their weight defense-wise?

    Not primarily a reaction to Trump

    Regardless of its initial motivations, the emphasis on European self-reliance dovetails with the decreased reliability of the US as a partner for Europe, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel highlighted earlier this week.

    "This is one of the outcomes since Trump won the US election," leading German security journalist Julia Weigelt told DW. "With Trump's last tour, it became clear that he's not just 'America first' but 'America only and we don't care about the rest.' People may have thought that he was just making campaign promises, but more and more of them are waking up."

    But Weigelt adds that the European initiative to assume more responsibility for security predates Trump, going back to the 2014 Munich Security Conference and even further. That's a point made by other security experts as well.

    "There's a long-term shift in US interests, and the trans-Atlantic relationship has changed," Christian Mölling of the German Council on Foreign Relations told DW. "The US has been moving out of Europe and more toward Asia. That's true in areas other than security. It's become harder to define common interests between Americans and Europeans. The discussion about an increased role for the EU clearly began before Trump."

    Not necessarily about 2 percent

    Trump is insisting that all members of NATO spend 2 percent of GDP on defense and has singled out Germany for particular criticism. Last year Germany devoted 1.2 percent of GDP to defense expenditures. The figure in France was 1.8 percent. So will the new security thrust bring defense spending more in line with what Trump wants?

    European experts say percentage of GDP spent on defense is a poor measure of how much any country is effectively doing to ensure security for itself and its allies. The key to the PESCO initiative is not just to spend more, but to spend more intelligently.

    "If European countries spend their money more wisely, if they get 100 euros more worth of airplane than previously, that strengthens NATO," explains Weigelt. "I think we need to stop thinking in terms of competition. And that's actually what Trump is demanding when he says that we should take responsibility into our own hands."

    Increasing efficiency is the main thrust of PESCO. At their joint press conference, the two defense ministers stressed the need to enable Europe as a whole to respond to crises, citing the latest Ebola outbreak in Africa from 2014-16 as an example in which Europe had been unable to act as a whole. Being able to function as a larger unit, say experts, is the key to progress.

    "The challenges in the area of defense are no longer a matter of smaller (largely symbolic) associations like the French-German Brigade, but keeping Europe as a whole prepared to intervene militarily," Mölling said.

    Differences in philosophy

    Neither PESCO nor any other initiative seeks to define the exact form European security cooperation of the future will take. It's unclear, for instance, whether the aim is to make the EU a security as well as an economic and political institution. That openness is by design.

    "I wouldn't necessarily say that it has to happen within the framework of the European Union," Mölling explains. "People are discussing right now whether the EU should play a greater role because we have Brexit or Trump. I don't really care in which institutional framework it happens. The main thing is that something gets done."

    But whatever framework, if any, ultimately emerges for Europe's future security concept, differences in outlook with the US and the UK will remain.

    "What Trump wants is for Germany to pay more - what Germany wants, since the Munich Security Conference in 2014, is to recognize and fulfill its responsibilities," Weigelt said. "But the difference between the German and the Anglo-American position is that responsibility is not necessarily the same as military deployments. It means resolving conflicts, and von der Leyen said recently that the military doesn't resolve conflict. Politics resolves conflict. The military is there to create a break in conflict."

    That philosophy will guide any new European defense and security union.
    http://www.dw.com/en/german-french-d...rce/a-39086419

    The article is kinda wrong in calling Goulard the French Minister of Defence. Macron renamed the office to Minister of the Armed Forces.

    A summary of PESCO can be found here with the EU.

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    The Bundeswehr is preparing to move its aircraft currently stationed at Incirlik to Al Azraq due to the current political problems between Germany and Turkey. The base in Jordan - 50 km from the Syrian border - has been scoped, SOFA agreement has been inked, and an agreement with USAF has been drawn up to use their C-17 fleet to speed up the move of the 270 men and their about 10,000 tons material. The base is co-used by the JAF and USAF, and has previously been used as a forward stationing base by Belgium and the Netherlands. The Luftwaffe guys stationed with NATO AWACS at Konya AFB in Turkey are not affected.

    Government will officially decide whether to withdraw German operations in Turkey next wednesday. The affair is part of the current campaign mode of the government parties, with the SPD gaining the upper hand over the pro-Erdogan CDU in this case.

  12. #57
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    Germany Is Quietly Building a European Army Under Its Command

    Berlin is using a bland name to obscure a dramatic shift in its approach to defense: integrating brigades from smaller countries into the Bundeswehr.


    Every few years, the idea of an EU army finds its way back into the news, causing a kerfuffle. The concept is both fantasy and bogeyman: For every federalist in Brussels who thinks a common defense force is what Europe needs to boost its standing in the world, there are those in London and elsewhere who recoil at the notion of a potential NATO rival.

    But this year, far from the headlines, Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, quietly took a radical step down a path toward something that looks like an EU army while avoiding the messy politics associated with it: They announced the integration of their armed forces.

    Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, “The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration” — even if others on the continent aren’t yet.

    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has repeatedly floated the idea of an EU army, only to be met with either ridicule or awkward silence. That remains the case even as the U.K., a perennial foe of the idea, is on its way out of the union. There’s little agreement among remaining member states over what exactly such a force would look like and which capabilities national armed forces would give up as a result. And so progress has been slow going. This March, the European Union created a joint military headquarters — but it’s only in charge of training missions in Somalia, Mali, and the Central African Republic and has a meager staff of 30. Other multinational concepts have been designed, such as the Nordic Battle Group, a small 2,400-troop rapid reaction force formed by the Baltic states and several Nordic countries and the Netherlands, and Britain’s Joint Expeditionary Force, a “mini-NATO” whose members include the Baltic states, Sweden, and Finland. But in the absence of suitable deployment opportunities, such operations-based teams may as well not exist.

    But under the bland label of the Framework Nations Concept, Germany has been at work on something far more ambitious — the creation of what is essentially a Bundeswehr-led network of European miniarmies. “The initiative came out of the weakness of the Bundeswehr,” said Justyna Gotkowska, a Northern Europe security analyst at Poland’s Centre for Eastern Studies think tank. “The Germans realized that the Bundeswehr needed to fill gaps in its land forces … in order to gain political and military influence within NATO.” An assist from junior partners may be Germany’s best shot at bulking out its military quickly — and German-led miniarmies may be Europe’s most realistic option if it’s to get serious about joint security. “It’s an attempt to prevent joint European security from completely failing,” Masala said.

    “Gaps” in the Bundeswehr is an understatement. In 1989, the West German government spent 2.7 percent of GDP on defense, but by 2000 spending had dropped to 1.4 percent, where it remained for years. Indeed, between 2013 and 2016 defense spending was stuck at 1.2 percent — far from NATO’s 2 percent benchmark. In a 2014 report to the Bundestag, the German parliament, the Bundeswehr’s inspectors-general presented a woeful picture: Most of the Navy’s helicopters were not working, and of the Army’s 64 helicopters, only 18 were usable. And while the Cold War Bundeswehr had consisted of 370,000 troops, by last summer it was only 176,015 men and women strong.

    Since then the Bundeswehr has grown to more than 178,000 active-duty troops; last year the government increased funding by 4.2 percent, and this year defense spending will grow by 8 percent. But Germany still lags far behind France and the U.K. as a military power. And boosting defense spending is not uncontroversial in Germany, which is wary of its history as a military power. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel recently said it was “completely unrealistic” to think that Germany would reach NATO’s defense spending benchmark of 2 percent of GDP — even though nearly all of Germany’s allies, from smaller European countries to the United States, are urging it to play a larger military role in the world.

    Germany may not yet have the political will to expand its military forces on the scale that many are hoping for — but what it has had since 2013 is the Framework Nations Concept. For Germany, the idea is to share its resources with smaller countries in exchange for the use of their troops.

    For these smaller countries, the initiative is a way of getting Germany more involved in European security while sidestepping the tricky politics of Germany military expansion.

    For these smaller countries, the initiative is a way of getting Germany more involved in European security while sidestepping the tricky politics of Germany military expansion. “It’s a move towards more European military independence,” Masala said. “The U.K. and France are not available to take a lead in European security” — the U.K. is on a collision course with its EU allies, while France, a military heavyweight, has often been a reluctant participant in multinational efforts within NATO. “That leaves Germany,” he said. Operationally, the resulting binational units are more deployable because they’re permanent (most multinational units have so far been ad hoc). Crucially for the junior partners, it also amplifies their military muscle. And should Germany decide to deploy an integrated unit, it could only do so with the junior partner’s consent.

    Of course, since 1945 Germany has been extraordinarily reluctant to deploy its military abroad, until 1990 even barring the Bundeswehr from foreign deployments. Indeed, junior partners — and potential junior partners — hope that the Framework Nations arrangement will make Germany take on more responsibility for European security. So far, Germany and its multinational miniarmies remain only that: small-scale initiatives, far removed from a full-fledged European army. But the initiative is likely to grow. Germany’s partners have been touting the practical benefits of integration: For Romania and the Czech Republic, it means bringing their troops to the same level of training as the German military; for the Netherlands, it has meant regaining tank capabilities. (The Dutch had sold the last of their tanks in 2011, but the 43rd Mechanized Brigade’s troops, who are partially based with the 1st Armored Division in the western German city of Oldenburg, now drive the Germans’ tanks and could use them if deployed with the rest of the Dutch army.) Col. Anthony Leuvering, the 43rd Mechanized’s Oldenburg-based commander, told me that the integration has had remarkably few hiccups. “The Bundeswehr has some 180,000 personnel, but they don’t treat us like an underdog,” he said. He expects more countries to jump on the bandwagon: “Many, many countries want to cooperate with the Bundeswehr.” The Bundeswehr, in turn, has a list of junior partners in mind, said Robin Allers, a German associate professor at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies who has seen the German military’s list. According to Masala, the Scandinavian countries — which already use a large amount of German-made equipment — would be the best candidates for the Bundeswehr’s next round of integration.

    So far, the low-profile and ad hoc approach of the Framework Nations Concept has worked to its advantage; few people in Europe have objected to the integration of Dutch or Romanian units into German divisions, partly because they may not have noticed. Whether there will be political repercussions should more nations sign up to the initiative is less clear.

    Outside of politics, the real test of the Framework Nations’ value will be the integrated units’ success in combat. But the trickiest part of integration, on the battlefield and off, may turn out to be finding a lingua franca. Should troops learn each other’s languages? Or should the junior partner speak German? The German-speaking Dutch Col. Leuvering reports that the binational Oldenburg division is moving toward using English.
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/22/...r-its-command/

  13. #58
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,281
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    The Bundeswehr is preparing to move its aircraft currently stationed at Incirlik to Al Azraq due to the current political problems between Germany and Turkey. The base in Jordan - 50 km from the Syrian border - has been scoped, SOFA agreement has been inked, and an agreement with USAF has been drawn up to use their C-17 fleet to speed up the move of the 270 men and their about 10,000 tons material. The base is co-used by the JAF and USAF, and has previously been used as a forward stationing base by Belgium and the Netherlands. The Luftwaffe guys stationed with NATO AWACS at Konya AFB in Turkey are not affected.

    Government will officially decide whether to withdraw German operations in Turkey next wednesday. The affair is part of the current campaign mode of the government parties, with the SPD gaining the upper hand over the pro-Erdogan CDU in this case.
    Silly question maybe but....USAF C-17s being used.

    A-400M couldn't handle it? Not being snarky...just wondering why you'd need the C-17s.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  14. #59
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    Oh, they could handle it. If they were flying properly. That's why we're ordering 10 spare engines for them...
    A400M has been a disaster in that Airbus is delivering extremely shoddy quality on that contract. Which pretty much resulted in the government always looking twice for competing bids on contracts where Airbus bids, and there's plenty snarky remarks from the government for future larger tenders about not choosing Airbus (such as Tornado replacement). It's a pretty major issue.

    Realistically it's about 10,000 tons spread out over 2 months of flights. Comes out to exactly two C-17 flights per day, which realistically is a nice standard operation; we do flight plans like that with Transalls around Mali and Niger. With A400M we'd probably have to move the entire currently flight-worthy contingent into Incirlik.

    We could also do the move with our SALIS An-124 contingent - we've used them in the area before, e.g. to move replacement Patriot radars into Incirlik. Probably would have to pay quite a bit extra for that though, usually the flight hour contingent is pretty much planned out for the year. Mostly for flights to Iraq and Mali these days. Cost for the extra flight hours required would probably be around 10 million.

    For C-17 usage from USAF Germany has pre-existing bilateral contracts. Mostly for Afghanistan, about twice per week for about $100,000 per flight - using them for cost reason there too, as our air base in Uzbekistan got a bit too pricey (35+ million per year rent...). Slight problem about those contracts is that the air taxi service we're hiring is notoriously unreliable, with about 20% of flights delayed by at least a day. Military was grumbling a bit about that last year, while the MoD considers the USAF taxi service just fine the way it is. Cost for the move from Turkey to Jordan on rented USAF C-17 is probably somewhere around 5 million, that is half the cost of using An-124.
    Last edited by kato; 30 Jun 17, at 16:03.

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,887
    NATO Allies move to replace aging maritime anti-submarine and patrol aircraft capabilities

    Today (29 June 2017), six NATO Allies announced their readiness to work together in developing and fielding follow-on solutions for their existing maritime anti-submarine and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.

    At a ceremony in Brussels, Defence Ministers from France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey signed a Letter of Intent on “Cooperation on Multinational Maritime Multi Mission Aircraft Capabilities.” This cooperation could lead to the joint acquisition or development of new aircraft.

    “The decision to work together demonstrates both foresight and the willingness to invest in the critical capabilities that the Alliance needs” said NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller, in the margins of a meeting of NATO’s 29 Defence Ministers.

    The initiative reflects the readiness of Allies to reinforce European capabilities, contributing to fairer burden-sharing across the Alliance. This cooperation will also ensure better value for money for taxpayers. Other Allies are expected to join the initiative.
    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_145520.htm

    It's mostly about replacing (8) German P-3C, (4) Greek P-3B, (4) Spanish P-3A/M and at least partially (15) French ATL2 it seems. Italy and Turkey seem to be in there to align their ATR-72MP fleets with the new capability; even though there are marked differences, in particular on endurance (ATR-72MP: 10 hours, P-3: 16 hours, ATL2: 18 hours). With all those P-3s it's also somewhat interesting not to see Norway and Portugal in the mix.

    Previously agreed MRTT procurement (A330 tankers for EATC) was also signed off at NATO, although that really was already signed by all partners in February.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. German F-125: I don't get it...
    By jlvfr in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05 Jul 17,, 19:30
  2. German Defense Minister Guttenberg resigns.
    By Tarek Morgen in forum International Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03 Mar 11,, 21:11
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 28 Dec 10,, 15:54
  4. What's that German machine gun?
    By temujin77 in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 27 Aug 09,, 05:32
  5. I'm German
    By Ironduke in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10 May 04,, 23:44

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •