The recent transformation of most developed armies has highlighted to deep factors which make a country’s military force. Surprisingly, arithmetic human resources, such as population within military age, are found out to be not as important as technological developments and the international cooperation which enables them.
Human factors are only secondary parameters
For as long as armies have been organized, staff headquarters have kept tabs on other countries, relying on the works of demography experts and military potential analysts, to assess what they would be facing, should a conflict erupt with any given nation. Among those factors, naturally, are found the present-day volume of the military forces, their equipment, and the mobilizable population within war-time (generally considered to be between 18 and 45, although these numbers can vary according to the country and the circumstances). Indeed, even disregarding the state of development of a country, an army can compensate, in some cases, its poor technical capacities, with sheer numbers. The US Marine corps experienced this reality at its own expense during the battle of Chosin Reservoir (Korean War), when highly-trained and well-equipped marines struggled facing an endless stream of Chinese peasants quickly turned into soldiers. Today, the countries with the largest military forces are India, China, the US and North Korea, all with over a million soldiers. Their level of training and professionalization is, of course, an important parameter, when assessing a nation’s overall offensive potential. Matthew Sinn, strategy analyst for the (very large) Sudanese forces, explains how large numbers can amount to little or nothing: “In 2003, Sudanese regulars were unable to adapt to the mobile style of warfare predominant in western Sudan, while in 2005, tens of thousands of ethnic Darfuris, and much of the best leadership, were cashiered for political reasons. The army’s performance continues to be poor. In October 2006, one unit, deployed near Chad without adequate ammunition, rapidly disintegrated under rebel fire.” With the transformation of most Western armies in and around the 1990s, known as professionalization, a strange and instructive perspective arose: with fewer soldiers, armies were able to do more. How so? Technology.
Technological developments turn one soldier into many
The ancient history of weapons shows a constant trend: the name of the game is to place the shooter as far away from his target as possible. Defense specialist Kris Osborn writes: “Army developers with the Army’s Program Executive Office Ammunition at Picatinny Arsenal are taking the technology to a new level by improving upon the range, accuracy and functionality of the weapon. Perhaps of greatest importance, the emerging PGK-M shell is engineered such that it can still fire with range and accuracy in a war environment where GPS guidance and navigation technology is compromised or destroyed.” Of course, the physical preservation of the soldier is in mind, as he will be able to reach his target while remaining at safe distance. But an additional consequence of technological developments is that one team is able, through increased capacities such as range, to achieve results which would previously have required a much larger workforce. And this phenomenon is not limited to range. By providing military units with increased fire-power, for instance, one team can be deployed to address a threat, instead of two or more. Mobility is also a factor, as it enables one unit to cover several areas in a given time-frame.
The new CTA 40 caliber, developed by a Franco-English partnership, gives a perfect example of the effects of technological developments. In a quest to upgrade Infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and their mounted armament, the partnership created a new “telescopic” type of 40 mm ammunition for turrets. While being more compact (and therefore easier to move and handle), CTA 40 provides superior impact potential at a considerably increased range. Most IFVs in the world being old-generation BMP-types, one unit using CTA 40 ammunition could engage multiple targets well before being within range of the enemy, covering wider ranges. Also, the reduced weight would increase the IFV’s mobility and capacity to evade. A similar advantage can be found with Nexter’s CAESAR truck-mounted howitzer. By placing a new-generation artillery vector onto an off-road wheel-based chassis, the artillery truck is able to cover wide ranges within very limited deployment times. Using the MRSI (multiple round – simultaneous impact) system, the CAESAR is able to shell out 1 ton of shells within 1 minute and 15 seconds and then reposition, thus avoiding counter-strikes from enemy fire. In recent deployments, such as Mali and Afghanistan, in which capacity to strike hard on any given point of large territories was crucial, small numbers of CAESAR trucks enabled commanders to control immense areas. Drone capacities also considerably increase military units’ potentials, by increasing their range, mission potential and survivability. However, military tech must not hide reality and be confused with military readiness: England is making do with terribly aging material, and is still a force to be reckoned with. Germany, on the contrary, pours (and makes) oceans of money into its military industry, but is systematically absent from international operations or even from coastal areas to be secured.
Partnerships and international cooperation are the gateway
The American army has long shown how to achieve such military technological levels, and Europe is starting to confirm it: cooperation is the only way to stay ahead in the race. The American defense industry is organized around a constellation of mid-sized highly-specialized defense firms (focused on ballistics, communications, sonar tech, vehicles, etc.), formed around a handful of giant “integrators”. These integrators call upon the numerous available experts for sub-contracting and are responsible, facing the client, for assembling the final product exactly the way the US army requested it. In Europe, the recent decision by Germany and France to integrate European defense firms and mutualize defense orders is taking the same path. Financial analyst Valerie Herzberg writes: “Member States have recently shown increased willingness to move toward a “Europeanisation of defence”. In 2016, France and Germany outlined a joint vision for a European defence union, while Italy also proposed a “Schengen for defence”[5], and a joint permanent military force”, both for economic and military benefits. For example, any European country which purchases the new TITUS multi-role armoured vehicle will benefit Nexter’s armor technology, Tatra’s mobility technology, and whichever other firm’s drone technology, according to the type of chosen drone. But there is still much to be done for a clear leadership to emerge, as Germany still needs to build military credibility with its European partners.
All military commanders have identified the technological key factor for their military potential, hence the numerous and regular defense procurement bids. However, tech levels have increased and complexified so considerably that almost no stand-alone firm (or even country) can achieve them. The US implemented integrated strategies a long time ago, Europe is currently undergoing the same transformation. China has not done so yet, which explains why they are still to match the American potential, despite a far larger rank-and-file.
