NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Panther might be an aptly named tank, as it would be the second case of it arriving at the front a day late and a dollar short.

The lesson from the Ukraine war so far seems to be that to have enough tanks to assert a policy, you have to have 3,000 or more of them.  They have to be simple and robust enough to go for months in the field with only minimal material support.   Is the Panther like that, or is it like the Leopard in Canadian service seems to be  -  a temperamental beast with low serviceability rates?

 

The alternative might be simply winning in the first couple months rather than worrying about that level of maintenance. One wonders what kind of peace deal Russia could have wrangled at the end of last March before three large withdrawals from almost half the territory they occupied.

[bojan]

Tanks, just like any other machinery have to be maintained even when they are "just" stored. Any European country (or even multiples of them combined) having 3K tanks today is a pipe dream.

[urbanoid]

1 minute ago, bojan said:

Tanks, just like any other machinery have to be maintained even when they are "just" stored. Any European country (or even multiples of them combined) having 3K tanks today is a pipe dream.

Only because we made it so. Sure, no European country actually needs 3k tanks, but it's not impossible, especially with "multiple of them combined". 

[Martineleca]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Only because we made it so. Sure, no European country actually needs 3k tanks, but it's not impossible, especially with "multiple of them combined". 

Probably no other country besides the US will have over 3 000 tanks in the West, but it's very likely Poland and Ukraine will each be operating an equivalent of three armored corps or 1800 MBTs. Every larger country should support at least two corps with a total of 1200 tanks, depending on their size other smaller countries must be able to provide at least a mechanised division or brigade. If everyone pulls their weight with the goal of strengthening our collective defense, NATO could eventually have more active maneuver formations than Russia, China and Iran put together.

[urbanoid]

19 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Probably no other country besides the US will have over 3 000 tanks in the West, but it's very likely Poland and Ukraine will each be operating an equivalent of three armored corps or 1800 MBTs. Every larger country should support at least two corps with a total of 1200 tanks, depending on their size other smaller countries must be able to provide at least a mechanised division or brigade. If everyone pulls their weight with the goal of strengthening our collective defense, NATO could eventually have more active maneuver formations than Russia, China and Iran put together.

Yeah, I get it, you like big numbers. The thing is, you don't necessarily have to counter tanks with tanks. Unless you expect the whole PLA supported by IRGC on NATO's Eastern border, it doesn't make much sense. Hell, even then it probably doesn't.

Why would you want to have several times more tanks in European NATO than Russia has? NATO never had more tanks than the USSR, of which Russia is but a shade. The Russians are almost unable to operate their air force against Ukraine which has no air force to speak of. A competent air force like RAF or AdA would turn Russian invaders in Ukraine into dead meat, provided they have enough munitions, not like it was in Libya.

Want to counter China? Great idea, I'm sure the US and Japan would appreciate European help if shit hits the fan in the Far East. The thing is, you may not be able to counter them with tanks, you'd rather need a modern navy and air force if you want to help. 

Sure, Russia may rebuild, hence Polish military expansion plans have a lot of merit. That doesn't mean that France or Spain need ~1000 tanks each to help the Eastern flank if shit hits the fan again in 10 or 20 years, it would be better if they concentrated on modernizing their air forces and stocking up on a shitload of PGMs - such help will arrive to the East much quicker and may be... more of a help - especially that Poland, Romania and others in the region won't be able to afford comparable air power to Western Europe. Of course, if common problems are to be common Poland or Germany should also have some naval forces to send to the Med if Spain or Italy needs assistance for some reason or the other, even if in general a navy is not a priority for them. 

Alliances are about complementing strengths and reducing weaknesses of each member, while ideally every country (at least the bigger ones) should have some capabilities of each kind, the extent of those capabilities is negotiable. Spain doesn't need ground forces on par with comparably populous Poland, just like Poland doesn't need a navy comparable to Spain. Should Spain have some deployable ground forces to help Poland? Absolutely. Should Poland have a frigate or two and an odd submarine to send to assist Spain if needed? Absolutely. 

[Martineleca]

6 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Unless you expect the whole PLA supported by IRGC on NATO's Eastern border, it doesn't make much sense.

Sure, Russia may rebuild, hence Polish military expansion plans have a lot of merit. That doesn't mean that France or Spain need ~1000 tanks each to help the Eastern flank if shit hits the fan again in 10 or 20 years.

That's the whole point of rearmament though, we have absolutely no idea what dangers lurk down the road. Much of he West kept living in the End of History world even after Georgia and Crimea, it took a full scale war to snap them out of it. Right now China and Russia are using their influence to form some weird alliance of grievance of many heavily armed countries in Asia and Africa that normally hate each other, but despise the Europeans even more. We have to be able to deter them from trying their luck with the threat of a brutal counter invasion, neither nukes nor air forces can manage that. The strategic air campaign against Iraq was important in reducing their capability to move and supply their army in the field, however it was Schwarzkopf's armored thrust that ultimately kicked them out of Kuwait. Such an overkill air operation is just not feasible anymore considering the cost and increasing effectiveness of modern integrated AA networks, the mechanised, artillery and rocket forces certainly still are.

[seahawk]

It absolutely is possible for NATO. And most countries would be much better advised to field more planes and have more SAMs than having 1200 tanks.

Spain for example would help a lot more if they would buy a wing of Growlers or SEAD-Eurofighters than adding 100 tanks to their force. More air defence systems and more ships for the Navy would help too. 

Germany on the other hand could go to 600 tanks and it would make sense. But even more sense for Germany would be to get more SAMs and trains that can carry tanks and other heavy military equipment. Also more capability to repair rail lines and more rail lines to be re-activated. Also nice would be more supply depots and a healthy reserve of NATO compatible ammunition.

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

But even more sense for Germany would be to get more SAMs and trains that can carry tanks and other heavy military equipment. Also more capability to repair rail lines and more rail lines to be re-activated. Also nice would be more supply depots and a healthy reserve of NATO compatible ammunition.

That's a given, the entire continent is severely lacking in SAM systems of every class, the challenge will be coming from air and ground launched heavy missiles, rather than tactical aircraft that zoomie advocates dream they will be dogfighting with.

[urbanoid]

5 hours ago, Martineleca said:

That's the whole point of rearmament though, we have absolutely no idea what dangers lurk down the road. Much of he West kept living in the End of History world even after Georgia and Crimea, it took a full scale war to snap them out of it. Right now China and Russia are using their influence to form some weird alliance of grievance of many heavily armed countries in Asia and Africa that normally hate each other, but despise the Europeans even more. We have to be able to deter them from trying their luck with the threat of a brutal counter invasion, neither nukes nor air forces can manage that. The strategic air campaign against Iraq was important in reducing their capability to move and supply their army in the field, however it was Schwarzkopf's armored thrust that ultimately kicked them out of Kuwait. Such an overkill air operation is just not feasible anymore considering the cost and increasing effectiveness of modern integrated AA networks, the mechanised, artillery and rocket forces certainly still are.

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

That's a given, the entire continent is severely lacking in SAM systems of every class, the challenge will be coming from air and ground launched heavy missiles, rather than tactical aircraft that zoomie advocates dream they will be dogfighting with.

Sure, NATO in general is lacking in SAMs because NATO always had air superiority over the potential enemy. Substantial one during the Cold War and near-total now. We have means to engage enemy SAMs from outside of their practical firing range, we have means to fool them too. What is technological superiority for if you don't use it? Sure, you need some numbers to be effective, but at certain point bigger numbers are going to be a waste - not in a sense of being useless, but in a sense of draining resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere. At some point you may want to stock up on more spare tank engines, transmissions, guns and ammunition for your or allied use than on more tanks. Or you may want a squadron of state of the art multirole fighters instead of another armored brigade.

What seahawk said makes far more sense. Like we see Poland intends to build strongest land forces in Europe due to purely geographic reasons, which means sacrifices in other areas, like the air force and navy. What will Poland need more from, let's say Germany, if the shit hits the fan? Similar number of tanks and artillery that it will have coming out of its ears anyway or a mighty Luftwaffe to make up in the area where Poland is and will remain much weaker? Countries like Spain or Italy, due to geography and their national interest will concentrate on land forces even less than Germany, but they'll make it up with their naval contribution to the alliance - that too has its uses. Demanding from Spain or Italy to have "a thousand tanks" because they are big, populous countries (and Poland will have even more!!!111one!) makes as much sense as demanding from Poland to have a navy on par with them.

 

 

[Mike1158]

Birds of a feather.......

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

 Countries like Spain or Italy, due to geography and their national interest will concentrate on land forces even less than Germany, but they'll make it up with their naval contribution to the alliance - that too has its uses. Demanding from Spain or Italy to have "a thousand tanks" because they are big, populous countries (and Poland will have even more!!!) makes as much sense as demanding from Poland to have a navy on par with them.

But most of those brigades won't be operating in their own countries,US troops travel all over the globe defending allies. During the Cold War, the majority of active forces in the British, Dutch and Belgian armies were stationed in West Germany, today the eastern frontier of NATO has moved 1000km, but it is still hostile and that is where they will be needed.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 3/6/2023 at 3:25 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not that I don't think we should not have viable sea power, but we probably need to do a far better job of burden sharing in that aim and start providing land power far more.

In other words - We are either all together in the trenches when it counts, or there is no real alliance.

[Martineleca]

On 3/6/2023 at 3:25 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think we all should be prescribed a minimum of capabilities we need to bring to NATO. An Armoured Brigade, a Mechanised Brigade...

Well I just read the Romania will be purchasing an initial 50 Abrams tanks, guess there wasn't a lot of interest in their TR-85s being sent to Ukraine that could then be backfilled. This is probably the most logical choice in terms of availability, they had an interest in the K2 that will be very busy over the next five years with the large Polish order, the Leopard 2 is also slowly working through a slew of existing orders that only a doubling of capacity can meet this decade. Wonder how much support Poland will provide as the first regional user, maybe one day we could see a "belt" of Abrams operators stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 3/6/2023 at 8:21 PM, kokovi said:

Sad but true. The 1989 NORTHAG would wipe the floor with today‘s conventional European forces.

Nine corps formations used to be stationed on the line of contact in West Germany, three German, two American, one British, one Dutch, one Belgian and one mixed German-Danish corps in the far north with four more in active reserve and a further two prepped for rapid deployment in the US. No wonder the Soviets were so concerned if they would be able to punch through that wall of steel, without resorting to nuclear weapons.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 3/9/2023 at 9:01 PM, Martineleca said:

In other words - We are either all together in the trenches when it counts, or there is no real alliance.

Yes, pretty much that.

There has been a succession of British politicians and they even conned the British Army into buying it, that the British Army shouldnt have grown so big, and that it should become some kind of colonial force that can intervene in minor disputes, preferably from the sea, with light armour.

Which probably sounds great, for accountants. Then suddenly the recent unpleasantness has make them realise that the entire force structure they have been transitioning towards for 20 years is completely wrong, and they need to rethink it. If NATO had demanded that ALL NATO nations maintain a solid force structure in Europe, its quite possible not only would the present silliness have been avoided and much money saved, but Russia would not have invaded Ukraine at all. We cant do anything about the past, but we dont need to keep making the same mistakes.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 3/8/2023 at 3:14 PM, bojan said:

Tanks, just like any other machinery have to be maintained even when they are "just" stored. Any European country (or even multiples of them combined) having 3K tanks today is a pipe dream.

But you dont really need 3000 tanks each. Just 3000 tanks in Europe would suffice for deterence purposes. 30 nations in NATO at the moment. Assuming an equal split (and you remove the US from the subject of the Calculation) then thats just over 103 tanks each. After all, its Russia that is the threat, not a newly reemergent USSR. Yet. It gets even easier when Finland and Sweden come in.

Granted not all nations, such as the Baltic States, or Lichtenstein, are going to have the ability to do that. So there needs to be a certain amount of burden sharing (you cant do it in tanks, you can do it in medical support units or communications), but with Britain, France and Germany all having 200 tanks each, there is to my mind, no reason why you cant get 2500 plus tanks, perhaps even 3000, on the European continent and maintain it for decades. And we didnt do it already, partly because we spent the last 20 years convincing ourselves of the dire threat of Islamic terrorism, the inability to perceive Russia in terms other than we saw it in the 1990's (thank you Angela), and because we are too ruddy lazy to make invesments of that kind.

Ultimately the worst danger to European security is America. Because we have been fat dumb and happy assuming they would carry any burden for us, and forgot to do it ourselves.

[Martineleca]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Granted not all nations, such as the Baltic States, or Lichtenstein, are going to have the ability to do that. So there needs to be a certain amount of burden sharing (you cant do it in tanks, you can do it in medical support units or communications), but with Britain, France and Germany all having 200 tanks each, there is to my mind, no reason why you cant get 2500 plus tanks, perhaps even 3000 and maintain it for decades.

Well one of the drawbacks of defending an East European front compared to a Central one is that there's considerably more ground to cover, so you actually need more maneuver units on standby to strike at enemy spearheads. In that case if the four larger West European countries in addition to Benelux and Spain can provide at least 4000 tanks, just as many IFVs and 1000 SPGs for adequate mobile artillery fires, it would offer deep enough support to equivalent East European, Scandinavian and US formations deployed on the eastern border. If such a force can be built up throughout the decade it would not only contain the spread of the current conflict, but also dissuade China, North Korea and Iran from getting further involved in this part of the world.

Edited March 12, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 3/12/2023 at 10:05 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Then suddenly the recent unpleasantness has make them realise that the entire force structure they have been transitioning towards for 20 years is completely wrong, and they need to rethink it. If NATO had demanded that ALL NATO nations maintain a solid force structure in Europe, its quite possible Russia would not have invaded Ukraine at all. We cant do anything about the past, but we dont need to keep making the same mistakes.

Watched the 1980 BBC Nuclear Nightmares with great interest the other day, though it was probably meant as a critique of NATO's double track decision it also displayed the late 70s buildup in great detail. Like how many days V Corps had to hold the Fulda Gap against an entire Soviet field army bearing down on Frankfurt before reinforcements could arrive, or calculations on the number of Minuteman ICBMs that would survive a massive first strike, perhaps unwittingly the documentary proved that sustaining this state of detterence at great cost is precisely what prevented the "wars that must never happen", rather than make the more likely. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Peter Ustinov right? Yeah that was quite interesting in recapturing the mood of the times.

The thing is, and its the thing politicians miss, for deterrence to work, it has to work at ALL levels. its no good having the most expensive, reliable and convincing nuclear deterrent, if your army is incapable of action. Putin has found that out himself. After all nuclear weapons only deter other nuclear weapons. They are singularly poor at deterring lower levels of action ,like arming your enemy to the teeth and giving him all kinds of modern weapons. That was true during the cold war, and not surprisingly still is. You can read it in the first chapter of Team yankee, the entire purpose of the US Army in Europe, to avoid a war, had failed. Politicians seem to think if an Army isnt invading somewhere or blowing something up, its a waste of money. They only have to look at Ukraine to see how much the alternative costs.

Russia will not, in my lifetime, return to being our friend. We need to face up to that and start building armies that can keep them out of Europe. And we need to be honest that its going to be an ongoing process, that will have no definite end, any more than the Cold War did.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The thing is, and its the thing politicians miss, for deterrence to work, it has to work at ALL levels.

The fundamental issue with deterrence is that it cannot and can never be effective in places and situations where the enemy power feels its core interests are threatened.  

 

[Martineleca]

29 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The fundamental issue with deterrence is that it cannot and can never be effective in places and situations where the enemy power feels its core interests are threatened.  

 

Ok, but what deterrence mechanism did NATO actually have in Ukraine, did they deploy armored cavalry brigades to block every possible invasion route, did they emplace air  defence systems around every important city and nuclear power plant, no they did not. Russia felt totally undeterred, sensed weakness that the West would not push back militarily, as it hasn't yet and just tried their luck.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

27 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The fundamental issue with deterrence is that it cannot and can never be effective in places and situations where the enemy power feels its core interests are threatened.  

 

 

Cuba, October 1962.

And every single, sodding day of the cold war. So no, yet again.

4 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Ok, but what deterrence mechanism did NATO actually have in Ukraine, did they deploy armored cavalry brigades to block every possible invasion route, did they emplace air  defence systems around every important city and nuclear power plant, no they did not. Russia felt totally undeterred, sensed weakness that the West would not push back, as it hasn't yet and just tried their luck.

Right. Because despite realms of evidence, and folks like me pointing out the necessity of doing it, we didnt arm Ukraine, and we didnt bring them into the fold, for the perceived idea we would make things worse. Which just goes to show how monumentally stupid politicians are at figuring out solutions to complex situations, particularly when the right solution costs money.

Ukraine could have been avoided, easily. We could have done everything Russia was claiming we did. putting troops in Eastern Europe, basing warplanes there, basing cruise missiles. Doing everything they were threatening dire retribution for doing. Now we have to do it, in a context when its likely not going to have the primary benefit, safeguarding Ukraine. Whose army after all, would have been the largest benefit to a secure Europe. Instead of rightly viewing Ukraine as the front door of Europe, we viewed it as a responsiblity we didnt want.

[Martineleca]

On 3/7/2023 at 6:57 PM, Ssnake said:

I don't want this war to last for years, but as a means of risk mitigation we should have started building a new tank production line a year ago, with generous state guarantees just in case the war would be over much quicker. We got to stop with the borderline ciminal wishful thinking.

From Breaking Defence: "Germany has agreed to provide NATO with a first operational land division in 2025 to support the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), while long-term targets of providing a modern mechanised division by 2027 and a further two divisions, to the alliance by 2031, both remain." 

Does this mean that the Bundeswehr will be adding four extra mechanised divisions, cause that would require an additional 900 MBTs. How would that even be feasible without either expanding Leopard 2 production, or significantly accelerating the MGCS program?

Edited March 13, 2023 by Martineleca

[BansheeOne]

No, that's a terribly convoluted and misleading sentence. The plan is to turn the three existing divisions into fully equipped and deployable formations, which they currently aren't. Progressive capability levels to be reached by 2025, 2027 and 2031 respectively.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

The plan is to turn the three existing divisions into fully equipped and deployable formations, which they currently aren't. Progressive capability levels to be reached by 2025, 2027 and 2031 respectively.

Recently I've read about mounting tensions between France and Germany regarding the timeline and eventual scale of the MGCS project. Basically the German side is intent on keeping to the original 2035 service date, while the French are demanding moving that up to the middle of this decade so they can initiate their planned force expansion, even contemplating  restarting Leclerc production to remain on schedule. In the meantime the Panther is constantly advertised to other NATO countries as a more timely alternative, with all this going on, do you think this new Europanzer program is in danger of cancellation?