European Militaries Lag

From time to time I talk about military world events here.  That's what armchair generals do.  Besides, anyone with half a brain is entitled to an opinion about world events. This news interests me a great deal considering the world is a dangerous place.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that some of Europe's best known armed forces are paper tigers.  

The United Kingdom is home to only about 150 deployable tanks along with maybe as many as a dozen long-range artillery pieces.  If you can believe it, the Brits considered sourcing multiple rocket launchers from museums to upgrade and donate to Ukraine; an idea that was promptly abandoned.

France, a bigger spender, had less than 90 heavy artillery pieces; the equivalent to what Russia loses each and every month on the Ukraine battlefield.  

Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems.

Germany's army has an inventory of ammunition sufficient for two days of battle. 

All of this is evidence of the deplorable readiness of Europe's armies and dependence on the US for home defense.

To be clear, this is only one publication's summation and not all NATO members are created equal.  In aggregate, NATO forces are considered technologically superior to Russia. although NATO's ability to engage successfully in joint operations is untested.  The Ukraine conflict is evidence that a smaller, better managed force can give the Russians fits.

If Western European nations aren't willing to spend sufficiently to defend themselves, why should we?  Looks like Donald Trump was on to something when he leaned on NATO members who were not living up to their minimum 2% of GDP defense authorization commitment.

Anyway, read the entire article, linked above, for full context.  This is likely ground-shaking enough that you can find a public link to the story that gets you past the paywall.