NATO-SECRET ORGANISATION DU TRAITÉ DE L'ATLANTI Q U E N O R D NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION PLACE (Hl MARECHAL DE LAITRfc OE lASSKNY - PARIS (X W ) - TEL KLL 50-20 NATO SECRET BUREAU DU REPRÉSENTANT Otf ICE OF THE STANDING GROUP DU GROUPE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE LOM 232/65~^) l8 June 1965 MEMORANDUM FOR : Director, Standing Group SUBJECT : Meeting of the NATO Army Advisory Group (AC/225) The attached Report of the fifth meeting of NAAG, held on 9,10 and 11 June, I965, is forwarded as a matter of information. Your attention is invited to Para 8, which contains the recommen­ dations by NAAG to the NMA. FOR THE STANDING GROUP REPRESENTATIVE v '■ n A- t t - A. EHBEL, Captain, R.N.N. Enclosure .: Report of the fifth meeting of NAAG Copy to : SACEUR (Attn: Col. HEFFENER, PANDP Division) ■ ;//IS Control N° I (T\ DECLASSIFIED DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - - PDN(2015)0004 MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE When separated from its classified --- — ----- -—— --- ^ enclosure, this cover letter may be downgraded to NATO RESTRICTED NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRET ENCLOSURE TO LOM 23 2 / 6 5 NATO SECRET Report on the Fifth Meeting held by the NATO Army Advisory Group (AC/225. References: (a) AC/225-A/5 (Revised (b) 1. NAAG met on 9 - H June I965, in line with Agenda ref (a). All countries were represented, except Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal. A summary report on this meeting follows. 2. Item II - Exchange of Information on ABC Armies' Operational Concept: a. Chairman introduced the discussion by summarising the decisions taken at the last meeting. He invited the ABC countries to inform the Group on the status of the Annexes to their study (AC/225-D/46). b. US, on behalf of the ABC countries, expected the Annexes to be avail­ able for formal release early in I966. £. F HD, on behalf of FINABEL, informed that a Special Working Group had been set up to study the basic military requirements for the Army and. to try to define common points between ABC and FINABEL concepts. However, in view of its fundamental importance, the study should not be hurried up. A Draft exists for the two first Parts; Parts 3 and 4 are still under preparation. The FINABEL concept will then require the approval of the Chiefs of Staff and is expected to be issued by Spring 1966, about the same time as the ABC Concept. d. Chairman then asked SGREP if any new developments had followed STAND “ 6697. £. SGREP stated that, since STAND 6697 had been issued, SGN had taken no further action.X SHAPE, on the other hand, had initiated a study regarding the possibility of drawing up a tactical concept of limited scope, but no final conclusions had been drawn until now. f . SHAPE confirmed, stressing that they did not intend to set up a Working Party with national representatives. They also asked to what extent would NAAG be in a position to help SHAPE in drafting such a concept. In reply to the question raised by the Chairman as to what the Group, as such, would be ready to do to help SHAPE: DECLASSIFIED DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - - PDN(2015)0004 MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE (i) The US Rep considered that SHAPE'S advantage was to be a Command structure and therefore was able to recommend a Command's view, whereas NAAG still holds national views. He wondered if SHAPE was not the right place to try to reconcile ABC and FINABEL Concepts. (ii) The UK Rep considered as almost certain that divergences will exist between the two Concepts: they will be extremely difficult to combine, but it is worth trying. (iii)Turkish Rep suggested that an analytical study by STC may prove useful. NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRET - 2 - NATO SECRET (iv) Norway supported the US position. (v) Netherlands was of the same opinion as UK: it would not be a happy solution for SHAPE to arrive at final conclusions before the ABC/FINABEL studies are finalised. (vi) Italy suggested to wait until the ABC/FINABEL Concepts are issued; then, NAAG could endeavour to draw a concept on points common to the two studies. (vii) FRG approved the instructions given by SGN to SACEUR who should decide when to start his study as the basic documents (Para 4, STAND 5697) are still not available. They considered that NAAG should act in capacity of consultant. (viii) France was sceptical as to the possibility for SACEUR to establish rapidly and by his own means an agreed concept. They considered that the thoroughness of the study is more important than its early availability; therefore it would be wiser to wait until ABC/FINABEL studies are published in order to avoid too broad divergences between the latter and the SHAPE concept; however, this should not prevent SHAPE from starting the study. In their opinion, NAAG should try to reconcile differences between ABC and FINABEL concepts which, they expected, would be more of a formal rather than of a substantial nature. (ix) Canada expressed the view that SGN had placed the task at the logical place as the concept, in first instance, must be acceptable to SACEUR. (x) The Belgian opinion was very close to the French: they felt, however, that SACEUR1s study may prove useful as it will reflect the viewpoints of the "performers". h . General FISBER (IS) was concerned that the problem would be once more delayed until 196^ A lthough admitting the difficulty to progress rapidly in this field , be wondered if it was wise to wait for comparing the different doctrines, until they are issued in their final form: in his view, they would be easier to synthétisé when they are still in the drafting stage. JL. US felt that ABC and FINABEL concepts would prove fundamentally different: the first provides for deployment, positioning and equipment of forces to meet initially a conventional attack whereas according to the latter,the forces should be ready to deal at the outset with a nuclear attack. On the other hand SACEUR is primarily concerned with practical problems and therefore may have his own opinion. DECLASSIFIED DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - - PDN(2015)0004 MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE General COBURN, SHAPE, informed NAAG briefly of the discussions which took place at DPC/DPWG meetings. He stressed that it would be impossible for SHAPE to establish a doctrine without knowing which forces, in terms of quality and quantity, would be available; the problem is also different in each region of ACE. For all these reasons, it is extremely difficult to establish a doctrine on standard use of ground forces. NATO-SECRET NATO-SECRET - 3 - NATO SECRET However, General COBURN strongly supported the proposal to have representatives of ABC and FINABEL countries and of SHAPE sitting together and discussing these problems because SHAPE is in a good position to recognise the problems facing the national forces, both in their military and economic aspects, in terms of "realities". k. NAAG: - invited ABC and FINABEL countries to pursue their studies and to make their conclusions available. - agreed, that when it is in possession of the studies, AC/225 should decide on the next course of action - Invited SGN, to request SACEUR, v;hcn establishing ah .opera­ tional concept, to keep in touch with ABC/FINABEL countries in whatever way may seem most convenient to all concerned. 3. Item III . Exchange of Information on the Activities of the following AHMWG a, AHMWG on Telecommunications Equipment (AC/220) (1) Chairman pointed out that, once more, some of the difficulties encountered by AC/220 were due to the lack of a common concept. (2) Chairman AC/220 commented on AC/225-D/9O. (3) US, on behalf of ABC Countries, submitted the following written statement: "1. As a result of joint studies over the past year, members of ABCA have agreed in principle that a Common Operational Requirement and Technical Solution should be sought for the tactical trunk communications system for the ABCA Armies for use in General and Limited War. Accordingly, it has been agreed that a project team will be established forthwith to achieve : (a) Common Operational Requirements for a digitally switched, secure, tactical trunk communications system (Corps/Division) together with single channel access thereto that could be fielded not later than 1977. (b) Concurrently identification of common technical solutions agreeable to the countries and that would permit the initiation of cooperative DECLASSIFIED DECLASSIFIED - PUBLICLY DISCLOSED - DÉCLASSIFIÉ - - PDN(2015)0004 MISE EN LECTURE PUBLIQUE development. 2. It is envisioned that agreed operational characteristics and technical parameters can be prepared for national authority review about March I966. As soon as possible thereafter, detailed plans for cooperative developnent will be prepared. 3- It is also planned that NATO be apprised of progress regard­ ing this undertaking in reports to the Ad Hoc Mixed Working Group on Telecommunications Equipment, AC/220". NATO-SECRET .A... NATO - SECRET - 4 - NATO SECRET (4) Chairman AC/220 indicated that his Group intended to amend the TOR of W.G.2 to allow it to undertake the study of existing digital systems as well as component problems for the post-1975 period. (5) NAAG noted the statements made and the excellent progress made by AC/220. b . AHMWG on Land Mine Warfare (AC/l77) (1) Chairman AC/177 introduced his Report (AC/225-D/91) indicat­ ing that the first necessity for his Group was to find a common concept. He concluded by asking NAAG guidance with respect to the possibility of transferring the responsibility for remote mine laying/detonation in conjunction with aircraft to a Group concerned with air defense in view of the heavy workload of AC/177 and of the nature of the primary requirement for such mines.