Talk:CENTAG wartime structure in 1989

Berlin Brigade, SETAF, 32nd AADCOM

This page is titled 'CENTAG' War Time Structure. Were these units under CENTAG in wartime? Berlin Brigade I think definitely not, SETAF would have been under AFSOUTH, and 32nd AADCOM might have well been under Allied Air Forces Central Europe. Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Brigade came along with the French Forces and the British Berlin Infantry Brigade under command of some HQ in Berlin; but as I could not find the name of this HQ (and I tried to find it!!) I did leave for now the two brigades (US & UK) under NORTHAG and CENTAG. If anyone knows the name of the HQ in Berlin, please let me know! SETAF true! well spotted! I would have definitely been under LANDSOUTH! Fixed that error now. 32nd AADCOM was the Air Defense command for the US part of the NATO SAM belt - the US had to field a 100km wide SAM belt from around Kassel down south towards almost Munich and the rear belt (approximately 150km around each allied air base) was entirely a US affair (with the exception of a German sector just South of Frankfurt). In the NORTHAG area the air defense was the task of the Germans, Dutch and Belgians (no UK and Canadian participation in the SAM belts at all). noclador (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the politically sensitive nature of Berlin, I have never been able to locate a formal HQ for coordinating the three allied brigades, though the Berlin Brigade article might give some hints on what it was. From the information available to me, I do not believe it was a formally constituted headquarters - more likely, one of the three brigade commanders (maybe the American) would have had command of the entire three brigade force. Regarding the SAM belt, well aware of the various national contributions (and Br/Canadian non-contribution), but which NATO headquarters did it report to? Integrated NATO Air Defense System (NATIADS)? Was that an actual command? As earlier, suspect AAFCE or other air command. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

it was part of the air commands - I checked a few sources and this is the organization the SAM systems followed during war:

• 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force (ATAF)
  • Air Defence Operations Center (ADOC) in Maastricht coordinated the air defense operations (mostly fighter support)
    • Sector Operations Center 1 (SOC 1) Brockzetel, NL commanded the SAM units and airborne fighters in the Northern half of the 2 ATAF zone and had 4 fixed radar stations (CRC) (480km range - at Brockzetel, Brekendorf, Visselhövede, Nieuw Milligen), 2 mobile radar stations (CRP) (450km range), 2 forward air control posts (FACP) (450km range) and 6 mobile low level air penetration reporting posts (45km range) and it would assign targets to the SAM units in its area of operations.
    • Sector Operations Center 2 Uedem
• 4th Allied Tactical Air Force (ATAF)
  • Air Defence Operations Center (ADOC) Kindsbach
    • Sector Operations Center 3 Börfink
    • Sector Operations Center 4 Meßstetten

for more info: here is all you ever want to know about the SAM belt, the command structure and the units involved: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The only thing I do not know - when did command of the air defense units go over to the ATAFs... or were the AD units placed under the two ATAF at all the time? I know the German units were under German command when it came to training, doctrine, etc. but operationally the deployed radar and SAM units did always report directly to the SOCs.

As for Berlin - I know that the units would have come automatically under a unified command in one building... but which building and what this unit was to be named... no idea! but I think it would help to find out what rank the CO of the three brigades had in Berlin. I suspect the US CO was one rank higher then the other two; which would point clearly to him being the designated CO of the defense of Berlin. noclador (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ugh! I just had a thought... basically it is impossible to do a clear picture of the wartime structure of the ATAFs. The air units were assigned to Air Defence Operations Centers, which send the air units out to the sectors as needed, where they would then come under the Sector Operations Centers for the duration of the mission... and the the air defense units would come under the SOC in the area they would operate in... so even though i.e. the German Patriot and Hawk battalions are under 4th Luftwaffe division, they would come under SOC when hostilities begin... they had designated areas of operation, but which squadron of which command was where... (2nd and 4th Luftwaffe each had 3x Radar Rgt. and 3x Air Def. Commands, each command with 3 groups: 1x Patriot and 2 Hawk groups; with 6 Patriot/ respectively 4 Hawks squadrons... (the exception was the third group: 1 Patriot, 1 Hawk, 1 Roland group - the latter as airfield defense))... how to solve this problem??? noclador (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador for your hard work. We have a page on Allied Air Forces Central Europe, and at that page (actually named right now AACC-Ramstein or suchlike) is the beginnings of some notes on 2 ATAF and 4 ATAF. I think we just group all the 2 ATAF and 4 ATAF materials there for now, and further research later will no doubt come up with a clearer within-ATAF wartime command structure. I believe AAFCE and its subordinates had operational command of air defence fighters in peacetime; US, UK, BE, NL, only. This was because of the ceasefire agreements ending World War II; only Allied fighters could enforce German air sovereignty in peacetime. As soon as Queen's Order Two or suchlike went out, the Bw Luftwaffe fighters could start flying wartime air defence missions. Thus, if you wouldn't mind moving the 32 AADCOM material to AAFCE, that would be good. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Berlin Brigade: the three brigade commanders were always 1-star generals and there was a US Berlin Command/US Army Berlin Commander a 2-star general, who did not report to US Army Europe/7th Army... so for the Americans he was the highest military authority in Berlin; I did not find a comparable command for the British or French,... but that doesn't mean there wasn't - I might just not have found it.
2. war time chain of command:

• Allied Command Europe (ACE)
  • Allied Forces Central Europe (AFCENT)
    • Northern Army Group (NORTHAG)
    • Central Army Group (CENTAG)
    • Allied Air Forces Central Europe (AAFCE)
      • 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force (2ATAF)
      • 4th Allied Tactical Air Force (4ATAF)

and you're right! only Allied fighters could enforce German air sovereignty! I think I will move ALL the 2 ATAF and 4 ATAF material to a new article now. noclador (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

American Corps Asset

you don't mind if i rearrange all the american corps asset. For example like the all the field artillery brigade would fall under Corps Artillery, and i'll will do the same for the rest of the non-combat brigade.--Corpusfury (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

please go ahead - just do what you think is the correct way to present the US forces. cheers, noclador (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1st Airborne Division

This was not going to be a CENTAG asset in wartime, as far as I know. Isby and Kamps write '..While the divisional headquarters still exists, the three brigades are unlikely to be concentrated to serve as a divisional force in wartime.' (p.203) Can we please take this out? The ACE Mobile Force (Land) was not going to be a CENTAG asset either - rather if I understand it, a SACEUR asset, probably with either AFNORTH or AFSOUTH or split. Also note that Isby and Kamps say that the German AMF-L artillery battery was a battery of 545 Fd Arty Bn, 54 HSB - that's right, Territorials. (p.232) Using Andy's material (the Version 8) is really uncertain because he uses a whole lot of educated guesses where he doesn't have hard data - and his Soviet material, I must add, was completely inaccurate. I'm not sure we should use his GErman data at all. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

please follow this link and you will find the most detailed study ever about the Bundeswehr in 1989 and it confirms with Andys about 98% of the time. As for the Italians he is about 99% correct and as far as I can see he is at the same level of accuracy for the British, Dutch and Belgian armies. Only the French... some of the equipment seems odd there. The 1st Airborne Division would stay with II Corps until requested by SHAPE for AMF-L missions. And you are right - the division was not intended at all to command its brigades. noclador (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

After I wrote this, I checked with Teil and found the Airborne Division, but only in passing in Vol I when I was looking for more details on the NATO command structure. Can you give me the precise page reference in Teil where it says 9 LL Div would stay with II Corps until detached? And also, any ideas as to why the Germans maintained an airborne division HQ that they weren't to use? HQ AMF-L was a separate headquarters of its own. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1st Airborne was the tasked with training, readiness, doctrine, equipment, etc. for all German airborne forces. In peacetime the division commanded the 3 brigades and ensured their readiness; operationally they were always a reserve force for the 3 corps'. Also 1 Airborne was the only HQ that the German Army was willing to allow to leave German soil. All other divisional HQs had to be in Germany and ready at all the time, so 1 Airborne, besides managing the airborne units, was the expeditionary HQ of the German Army and in the seventies it was assigned to AMF (L). When Germany for the first time send troops abroad (Iraq to help the Kurds in 1991 and Somalia in 1993) both times the HQ came from the 1 Airborne and the troops from whatever volunteers the Army could find (as there were no pure professional units until the end of the nineties, every mission contingent had to be drafted together from all kinds of different units.) noclador (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to talkpage - 1st Airborne Division section

1st Airborne Division

• 1st Airborne Division,^{note 3note 4} Bruchsal _{(note: the 1st Airborne Division was the 9th division raised by the Bundeswehr)}
  • Staff Company, 1st Airborne Division, Bruchsal, (includes AMF(L) General Staff)
  • 9th Airborne Signal Company, Bruchsal, (AMF(L) assigned ready to deploy signal company)
  • 9th Airborne Artillery Battery, Philippsburg, (AMF(L) assigned ready to deploy artillery battery fielding 6x 105mm M56 howitzers)
  • 9th Airborne Artillery Regiment, Philippsburg, (staff only, would command artillery units assigned to AMF(L))
  • 9th Airborne Signal Battalion, Pöcking (doubles in peacetime as the training battalion for the Army Signal School)

_{note 3: during peacetime the 1st Airborne Division had oversight over the 25th, 26th and 27th Airborne brigades, which during wartime fell under the command of the three corps' of the Bundeswehr.
note 4: the 1st Airborne Division kept a fully functional and equipped general staff ready to be deployed with ACE Mobile Force (Land) (AMF(L).} The German article is at de:1._Luftlandedivision_(Bundeswehr). Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

French

Noclador, yes, I was going to raise this with you. After 1966 the French were not part of either CENTAG or NORTHAG, formally. See the NATO article for a one-sentence description I added some time ago about the US/French agreement that would have brought them back in in case of war. All French forces need to be removed from both articles, and a paragraph added to the intro, something like 'in wartime according to the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements it is very likely that FAR & III would have reinforced NORTHAG and I and II would have reinforced CENTAG.' But, formally, under the NATO command structure, this arrangement did not exist; the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements were bilateral between the US and France.

'A series of secret accords between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Ailleret Agreements, detailed how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.' (Cody, Edward (March 12, 2009). "After 43 Years, France to Rejoin NATO as Full Member". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 19, 2011.) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know about the Lemnitzer-Ailleret agreements; and as far as I know it basically says: if article 5 is invoked 1st French Army comes under SHAPE, which then would split 1st French Army up as needed. As far as I know it was a given that the French Forces would come under CENTAG and NORTHAG (both planned with the French assets as operational reserves), but they would not come under the NATO commands in the direct way. Also you're right - these accords were French-US (although by SACEUR). The question is: can we get our hands on a copy of the agreements? because the French would have fought! there even were plans how their fighters would come to fight in the Allied Air Forces Central Europe sector. noclador (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

When I inserted the sentence in NATO I went looking for the agreements, and no, they're not available. Even a US FOIA would probably not secure their release, because I doubt the French would want that kind of agreement in public, they don't have the US FOIA tradition. However, should you want to try, the people to talk to would be the National Security Archive in Washington DC, who run all these kinds of FOIAs. Thus I would really ask that you add a sentence about what you understand about the Lemnitzer-Ailleret agreements to SHAPE, with your sourcing. As you suggest, it would be a given that they would fall under CENTAG and NORTHAG, but that was not a NATO agreement, and we can't list the forces in the listing here. Wait 25 years for the release of the agreements and then more details will become available, and oh, yes, they would have fought. You ever heard of the Manoeuvre National de Dissuasion, the pre-Pluton counterattack? Isby and Kamps say that it was 1st Army's primary mission and that that might limit the forces 1st Army could commit in Germany (p.107). Buckshot06 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, at least partial texts of the agreements are now available Noclador. https://archives.nato.int/exchange-of-letters-between-saceur-and-the-french-commander-in-chief-concerning-cooperation-with-french-forces-in-germany-lemnitzer-ailleret-agreement. They cover solely, as regards land forces, the French divisions actually in Germany, see pages 4/7 and 5/7 and do not mention the words "First Army." Buckshot06 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The French at CENTAG

I was posted to Support Company C, U.S. Army Element, Headquarters, CENTAG (NATO) from December 1973 to November 1977. The French Forces in Germany (Forces françaises en Allemagne) were represented there during that time by the French Military Mission at CENTAG (Mission Militaire Français auprés du CENTAG) (Groupment Armèe du Centre, GAC). The mission was commanded by a brigadier or major general named Marvel or Marcel d'Bonnery (to the best of my recall). There were two (or perhaps one) other senior officers, one warrant officer and six enlisted men. The French had a large garrison at Speyer, complete with a PX, canteen and housing area named Cité de France. French troops were also stationed in Baden Baden. The officers of the Mission had quarters in Benjamin Franklin Village in Schwetzingen. The warrant officer was quartered in Cité de France. The other ranks were quartered in Company B (the German company) barracks. I had a good mateship with the OR's and the WO, and still have contact with some of them. CENTAG also had a German army element, Canadian forces element and HQ's Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land), (AMF-L) there. All this was at Hammonds Barracks (Loretto Kaserne) in Mannheim-Seckenheim. As we understood it (ORs, WOs and me) the French were there as a result of "a bilateral defence agreeement" with the Germans; the French were in NATO politically, but not militarily, and should the shit hit the fan, France would be in the fray. We were very satisfied with this arrangement at our level. Not Able To Organise, Tjlynnjr (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank for the insight! All I was able to find and source was the French Army structure in 1989 though: Order of battle of the French Army in 1989, noclador (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on CENTAG wartime structure in 1989. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131029200759/http://www.scribd.com/doc/61301646/5/French-Army to http://www.scribd.com/doc/61301646/5/French-Army
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120424235637/http://www.tanaka-world.net:80/?p=444 to http://www.tanaka-world.net/?p=444

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infantry - Battery ?

German term was Begleitbatterie (literally: Companion battery), wonder if Infantry battery marks it properly. A hybrid of Infantry/artillery, think custodial battery (safeguard for US nuclear ammo) fits better, see: de:Liste_der_Artillerieverbände_der_Bundeswehr#Begleitbatterien --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

4th Infantry Division (US)

I have removed the 4th Infantry Division section from this listing, as (a) there are no in-line citations; (b) the listing for the division's three long-time brigades is entirely regarding stationing in the U.S., and thus cannot be sourced to the Dragoner documents, which are not even cited at the page in any case. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)