No I didn't. Wow!that Iceland has deployed personnel to Afghanistan to support the International Security Assistance Force? There were several Provincial Reconstruction Teams from Iceland at Kabul IAP when I was there in 2005-6. They had the most tricked out Toyota Land Cruisers that I have ever seen. Monster Mudder tires, chrome diamond plate bumpers and skid plates, tinted armor glass, winches that could move a tank, and IED jammers front and rear. They carried M4s and some kind of sidearm.
I couldn't understand a word they said, but they seemed like serious troops. At that time there were 31 different national sign in sheets at the mess hall at KAIA, so it was easy to get confused about where people were from at times, but I'll never forget those Land Cruisers.
I agree a few brigades seems too large for Iceland to man/equip/train. I was thinking a reinforced battalion is about as larger as a can see.
A small HQ/Support company, 3 small infantry companies, a weapons company (.50 cal and 40mm MGs and 81mm mortars). Maybe a light armored company based around a wheel vehicle of some sort and a small artillery battery of 105mm guns.
Iceland would have been a good nation to sell F5s too. Would the F5 work in that type of climate?
that Iceland has deployed personnel to Afghanistan to support the International Security Assistance Force? There were several Provincial Reconstruction Teams from Iceland at Kabul IAP when I was there in 2005-6. They had the most tricked out Toyota Land Cruisers that I have ever seen. Monster Mudder tires, chrome diamond plate bumpers and skid plates, tinted armor glass, winches that could move a tank, and IED jammers front and rear. They carried M4s and some kind of sidearm.
I couldn't understand a word they said, but they seemed like serious troops. At that time there were 31 different national sign in sheets at the mess hall at KAIA, so it was easy to get confused about where people were from at times, but I'll never forget those Land Cruisers.
I actually knew of this, that's why I mentioned the peacekeeping aspect of the OTL defence force in the OP. My idea is basically making the defence forces into a true little army, rather than a law enforcement and rescue organization with some basic military tech.
Just out of curiosity, what would you say the difference between the two would be in that case? I mean Iceland is unlikely to start on an expeditionary and militaristic foreign policy even if they're more heavily armed... so given their strategic situation, what difference would it make?
I would say mainly the heavy, specialized military equipment such as a batter of 155 artillery, tanks, and IFV. Also, some of the very specialized military personnel such as Forward Air Controllers and Fire Direction Officer. I am basing this on the unit I listed out.
As to having an effective light infantry battalion that is partially motorized and has a few helicopters, I would wager that the Iceland police have the personnel and equipment to field out of the existing police force. Given a two months train at a Nato base, and this ad hoc unit could probably function decently in combat.
I would say mainly the heavy, specialized military equipment such as a batter of 155 artillery, tanks, and IFV. Also, some of the very specialized military personnel such as Forward Air Controllers and Fire Direction Officer. I am basing this on the unit I listed out.
As to having an effective light infantry battalion that is partially motorized and has a few helicopters, I would wager that the Iceland police have the personnel and equipment to field out of the existing police force. Given a two months train at a Nato base, and this ad hoc unit could probably function decently in combat.
The type of equipment you're describing would let them operate in a higher intensity type of combat - it increases their firepower and protection, primarily. But someone is going to ask the question, so it may as well be me: why is this desirable? Are you also proposing a change in Icelandic foreign policy so those qualities are needed? And, if Iceland is conducting those sorts of operations, under what circumstances would they be doing so in the absence of allies or coalition partners who can supply those capabilities more effectively? Defence spending, if it's done intelligently, is aimed at acquiring and maintaining a set of capabilities which the state needs, and I don't think the Icelandic economy could tolerate a lot of wasted expenditure in this field.
I mean, we're talking about a substantial commitment to the military here. Iceland is a state with less than 400,000 people in it, with a huge EEZ to patrol and no neighbours of any sort (much less hostile ones). Expanding their maritime surveillance capabilities might make sense, but the rationale for ground forces like this is less clear. What makes them suddenly decide to commit to what proportionately is a huge and expensive standing army? A battalion plus the support units and hangers-on is going to be almost 0.5% of their population (about 1500 personnel all up, I'm estimating) - that's a massive amount for a country in a situation like this, and we're not even talking about air and naval components either. For comparison the US, with a lot of international and military commitments, has an army of less than 0.3% including reservists (about 1.1 million all up, excluding other armed services).
Basically the question that we have to look it is "why are they doing this"?
I came at this from a more technical perspective, what would Iceland need to have a credible military force capable of defending the main city. As to what I expect IRL, Iceland will basically freeload off the protection the US Navy provides.
I'm having trouble working out what sort of defensive situations this force would be useful in.
Also, I know I'm getting my history from Tom Clancy, but isn't Iceland a wonderful example of where you *wouldn't* want to try to have a resistance movement/Guerilla war?
Thanks for explaining all that, I appreciate you taking the time to make all that clear.
I agree with the IRL expectations, because as far as I can tell they have no rational reason to do otherwise.
But I'm curious about the first sentence I quoted - defending the city from what/who? Anyone capable of mounting an invasion of Iceland can bring a lot more combat power to bear than a single battalion can cope with, I'd have thought, and any invading force that a single battalion could beat probably can't make it there in the first place. I'm having trouble working out what sort of defensive situations this force would be useful in.
I don't want to deprecate the importance of any responsibility Iceland may feel to be a good global citizen, so I can understand Iceland may well wish to contribute to other operations. And I believe that utilitarian self-interest is not always an appropriate response to international relations (or human affairs in general, come to that).
Still, we're talking about a unit half the size of the New Zealand regular army (using 2 Land Force Group as an example), for a country with less than 10% the population. Granted New Zealand tends to underfund it's military and arguably should take such things more seriously, but does Iceland really need such an investment?