Should America have stationed troops to defend Europe?

^^^^"Peacekeepers don't need mortars"?

edited 30th Sep '10 4:13:54 PM by DasAuto

Uh.. Ground attack? Pretty freaking useful.

^ I doubt that police armories include them, either.

edited 30th Sep '10 4:14:44 PM by pvtnum11

If your enemy is bombarding you from behind a hill, its nice to be able to shoot back.

Yes. You could rely on counter-battery fire, but it would be nice to be able to lob some shells over the hill with what you have on-hand, rather than having to call in for a CAS mission or artillery strike, both of which involve waiting.

Germany didn't just rely on the US defending it during the cold war. The German military was pretty big, and very well equipped, and very motivated to do its job. Which was to defend Germany.

However, Germany had been indoctrinated into the notion that the only legitimate purpose for military force was to defend itself at home. Let's not forget that the US deliberately did this. Of course, when the Soviet Union fell, Germany would cut military spending. Nobody was going to invade Germany anymore.

Well, the Bundeswehr relied on the US and NATO command structure/logistics to the point where it was unable to field troops by itself. They called this concept "Bündnisarmee" (read: vassal army or even cannon fodder if you feel pessimistic).

edited 1st Oct '10 8:51:49 AM by DasAuto

Ouch.