NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Ssnake]

It may drag on for another six years, and be cancelled then. Think of MBT70.

[Martineleca]

4 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It may drag on for another six years, and be cancelled then. Think of MBT70.

But many of the MBT 70's features still found their way into the Abrams and Leopard 2, if MGCS is indeed halted indefinitely what will take its place in the different armies, Leclerc 2, Leopard 3, Panther? 

[glenn239]

9 hours 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 militarily, as it hasn't yet and just tried their luck.

The measures you outline would not have prevented a war, but it might have triggered Russian general mobilization and their move to a war footing several years before a war broke out in Ukraine.

 

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

But many of the MBT 70's features still found their way into the Abrams and Leopard 2, if MGCS is indeed halted indefinitely what will take its place in the different armies, Leclerc 2, Leopard 3, Panther? 

Maybe let MGCS die first before thinking about how its carcass might be plundered.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Martineleca said:

But many of the MBT 70's features still found their way into the Abrams and Leopard 2, if MGCS is indeed halted indefinitely what will take its place in the different armies, Leclerc 2, Leopard 3, Panther? 

Challenger 4?

 

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Challenger 4?

 

Is it realistic that the French Army would adopt a British tank, when the whole point of Europanzer was to revitalise their domestic armor industry? I think if that project is further delayed they should look into either refurbishing the Leclerc production line, or possibly buying some of them back from the UAE. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its not realistic. But Id find it hilariously funny. And to be fair, much of the optical equipment on Challenger 2 was French built anyway.

I think all of us should give up on a nationally developed tank, put money in the kitty, develop a Europanzer, and all build it. And that should ensure we all have viable suppliers to build parts, and we dont just buy it on the cheap getting the bits abroad.

I guess what im saying is, Europe needs AFV capacity. Which we have been pissing away down a drain for 30 years, thinking we would never need it again.

[Ssnake]

On the face of it it makes complete sense. But it's doomed right from the start as long as every buyer insists on their national doctrine being reflected 1:1, because then you design the tank by committee.

Which is precisely the reason why France and Germany snubbed Poland's aspiration to be included in the MGCS, only to have it turn to Korea and the US in frustration. I can understand both sides here. There simply are contradicting forces at play. Heck, getting France and Germany to agree on something is hard enough, and we've been trying to make it work since the 1960s, with mixed results. AMX30 and Leopard 1 requirements looked closely enough on paper - alas, it wasn't to be. Airbus kinda works, Arianespace so-so, KNDS ... we'll see.

In the end, I think the more promising if more frustrating and ultimately less-beneficial-for-all solution is that some defense contractor for land systems emerges as a dominant force in the European defense sector. At least, that will unify construction under one roof, and they can then think of ways to accommodate the individual customer with bespoke add-ons, on a common platform.

BAE doesn't seem to be much committed to the land domain. Yes, they have Hägglunds and the CV90, but will that yield an independent MBT design?  That leaves, by and large, KMW (for whom the KNDS/MGCS thing is a matter of survival) and Rheinmetall. Leonardo, GDLS Europe ... theoretically they might be contenders, but I wouldn't seriously expect them to be. Will a Polish company rise to the top? Only if they manage to escape the fate of merely assembling K2 and Abrams parts locally.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

On the face of it it makes complete sense. But it's doomed right from the start as long as every buyer insists on their national doctrine being reflected 1:1, because then you design the tank by committee.

Which is precisely the reason why France and Germany snubbed Poland's aspiration to be included in the MGCS, only to have it turn to Korea and the US in frustration. I can understand both sides here. There simply are contradicting forces at play. Heck, getting France and Germany to agree on something is hard enough, and we've been trying to make it work since the 1960s, with mixed results. AMX30 and Leopard 1 requirements looked closely enough on paper - alas, it wasn't to be. Airbus kinda works, Arianespace so-so, KNDS ... we'll see.

In the end, I think the more promising if more frustrating and ultimately less-beneficial-for-all solution is that some defense contractor for land systems emerges as a dominant force in the European defense sector. At least, that will unify construction under one roof, and they can then think of ways to accommodate the individual customer with bespoke add-ons, on a common platform.

BAE doesn't seem to be much committed to the land domain. Yes, they have Hägglunds and the CV90, but will that yield an independent MBT design?  That leaves, by and large, KMW (for whom the KNDS/MGCS thing is a matter of survival) and Rheinmetall. Leonardo, GDLS Europe ... theoretically they might be contenders, but I wouldn't seriously expect them to be. Will a Polish company rise to the top? Only if they manage to escape the fate of merely assembling K2 and Abrams parts locally.

Britain is particularly bad for this, which is why our kit takes so damn long to develop, and why nobody seems to think it fits anything like what they want to do, so it doesnt sell.

TBH, it shouldnt be that hard today. You want a tank with reasonable protection, and we know what kind of weapons the Russians or Chinese have.  So that puts the horsepower required. One can argue about the engine, but its not like there are that many choices in Europe these days anyway. You dont want a gun with less than 120mm, again, not many choices. You want the capacity for it to be upgunned. And frankly, the future seems to be with gun over hull tanks, and there are ownly two companies with any experience with autoloaders on AFV's of the 120mm scale. There is probably far more we all agree on that disagree on these days (particularly since we have been weaned off our beloved rifles). The rest as they say is politics and workshare. And ultimately, the real problem here is not designing a tank that fulfills most national requirements, the real problem is designing one without politicians interfering with it.

At the very least, there needs to be maybe 3 or 4 production lines in Europe, capable of producing tanks. We have seen what happens when we just rely on one European manufacturer. We have to depend on Asia or the Americans to bale us out, and as far as Ukraine, there are clear limitations with that. Not least because they dont want to send their most modern tanks where they are needed.

Yeah, BAE bailed from land combat, when they realised how the MOD and the Army were wholly screwing up AFV production, not least refusing to pick them as the prime contractor for Ajax, specifically because they were British and had the most skill base to do so. But for a pan European project? They might got hand in hand with Rheinmetall, as they have over Challenger 3. If there is money in it, they would probably come back, with a large chunk of the US skillbase I shouldnt wonder.

To me, it matters less what design is picked, than we recognise the problem we have with the lack of production capacity, and fix it. We could build Bob Semples fitted with Spike ER for all I care at that point.

[Martineleca]

15 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The measures you outline would not have prevented a war, but it might have triggered Russian general mobilization and their move to a war footing several years before a war broke out in Ukraine.

 

I'm sure a lot of people were saying the same things during the post-Korea buildup in West Germany and Italy, at a time when marxist movements in both countries actively urged the Soviets to invade, they didn't only because of daily assurances that a comparative military response would swiftly follow. Had a NATO Army Group been present in the Donbass, the Russians would have thought twice and thrice about the cost-benefit of any adventurism, ironically of course in the past no such force was active anywhere near the borders of Russia, whereas recent events have made this strategic eventuality a foregone conclusion...

Edited March 14, 2023 by Martineleca

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

I'm sure a lot of people were saying the same things during the post-Korea buildup in West Germany and Italy, at a time when marxist movements in both countries actively urged the Soviets to invade, they didn't only because of daily assurances that a comparative military response would swiftly follow. Had a NATO Army Group been present in the Donbass, the Russians would have thought twice and thrice about the cost-benefit of any adventurism, ironically of course in the past no such force was active anywhere near the borders of Russia, whereas recent events have made this strategic eventuality a foregone conclusion...

Curious that a few brigades turned into a NATO army group overnight.

Whether a couple brigades or an army group, nothing will have changed from the broader picture of NATO badly overextended in a place they cannot defend in the longer term.  War would be inevitable.  As the NATO forces started entering Ukraine, the Russian army would itself have advanced into Ukraine, and when the two sides met, either fighting would or would not break out.  Either way, Russian mobilization would follow.  NATO would not be in a position to win the war due to the Russian nuclear arsenal, while Russia would simply await events, (its own military buildup or Chinese tensions) to pick its moment.

 

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Curious that a few brigades turned into a NATO army group overnight.

A territory as large and exposed as Ukraine cannot be successfully defended with a few brigades, I said they would have served the purpose of deterring the Russians from invading. This is because no matter what is claimed by the Kremlin, they didn't really want to pick a fight with NATO at this time, they just wanted to swallow up Ukraine at the opportune moment when the West was still busy appeasing them.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, Martineleca said:

I'm sure a lot of people were saying the same things during the post-Korea buildup in West Germany and Italy, at a time when marxist movements in both countries actively urged the Soviets to invade, they didn't only because of daily assurances that a comparative military response would swiftly follow. Had a NATO Army Group been present in the Donbass, the Russians would have thought twice and thrice about the cost-benefit of any adventurism, ironically of course in the past no such force was active anywhere near the borders of Russia, whereas recent events have made this strategic eventuality a foregone conclusion...

Didn't even needed to be in Donbas. Just present in Poland and regularly exercising in Ukraine would be enough.

[Josh]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Curious that a few brigades turned into a NATO army group overnight.

Whether a couple brigades or an army group, nothing will have changed from the broader picture of NATO badly overextended in a place they cannot defend in the longer term.  War would be inevitable.  As the NATO forces started entering Ukraine, the Russian army would itself have advanced into Ukraine, and when the two sides met, either fighting would or would not break out.  Either way, Russian mobilization would follow.  NATO would not be in a position to win the war due to the Russian nuclear arsenal, while Russia would simply await events, (its own military buildup or Chinese tensions) to pick its moment.

 

Russia seems to awaiting events right now.

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Martineleca said:

A territory as large and exposed as Ukraine cannot be successfully defended with a few brigades, I said they would have served the purpose of deterring the Russians from invading. 

I can see two possible Russian response to the course of action you outline.  Either they would call general mobilization and then attempted to eject NATO forces from Ukraine after the Russian army was fully mobilized and ready, or they would have invaded immediately using hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Ukrainian army in its positions, then driven over the Dnieper and met NATO forces there.   

These two scenarios would imply different arcs to a crisis and war in Ukraine, but war there would be.

Quote

This is because no matter what is claimed by the Kremlin, they didn't really want to pick a fight with NATO at this time, they just wanted to swallow up Ukraine at the opportune moment when the West was still busy appeasing them.

I think the opposites is actually closer to the truth.  It was NATO that was hoping to scoop up Ukraine to the Western orbit on the cheap, and when the Russians called the bluff, NATO did not come in.

Edited March 14, 2023 by glenn239

[Martineleca]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Either they would call general mobilization and then attempted to eject NATO forces from Ukraine after the Russian army was fully mobilized and ready, or they would have invaded immediately using hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Ukrainian army in its positions, then driven over the Dnieper and met NATO forces there.

It was NATO that was hoping to scoop up Ukraine to the Western orbit on the cheap, and when the Russians called the bluff, NATO did not come in.

First off this is not central Europe anymore, utilizing even tactical nuclear weapons in an area you want to occupy that is also very close to your own country is a really bad idea, not to mention that Russia has been repeatedly warned by both NATO and China that nuke use on any scale would lead to total war. And what bluff exactly did they call, the hundred or so NATO advisors left as soon as the first bombs dropped, it's true that Western powers grossly cheapened out on Ukraine by not even allowing them to purchase anything above hand held weapons and light vehicles, let alone get involved themselves when sovereignty is threatened per the Budapest memorandum, but it is because they just couldn't comprehend the barbarian Russian logic of escalate to de-escalate.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:58 AM, Ssnake said:

Maybe let MGCS die first before thinking about how its carcass might be plundered.

From Defense News: "French defense boss marks German industry over sluggish tank program, MGCS which is meant to modernize the German and French tank inventories by 2045, has not moved past its study and design phase." - I can only imagine how forty years ago, defence executives non-comically talking about three decades long MBT programs would have been laughed out of their respective capitals.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Martineleca

[Ssnake]

That wasn't industry's choice, but a long string of political decisions to the effect (including a German MOD paralyzed for a whole year by the SPD's inability to wrap their heads around the idea that the world did not conform to their perfect ideas).

One somehwhat underappreciated fact about the German defense industry is that all these corporations are privately rather owned - at least up to before when BAE was formed, the majority of European players were state-owned. And German defense corporations have been privately owned over the last 60 years. This suggests tthat they are prefectly able to adapt to the political-economic conditions. It's just that shrinking and downsizing is easier than growing, especially when it comes to weapon system design, prototyping, and scaling up to mass production. These are skills that need to be exercised.

[seahawk]

Actually growing is easier, but you obviously only grow, if you have binding contracts.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Actually growing is easier, but you obviously only grow, if you have binding contracts.

But how can a binding contract even be drafted without political will? Poland over the course of a year pretty straightforwardly said: We're buying 250 Abrams, we're buying 1000 K2s, we're doing 1400 Borsuk IFVs, the rest of the details can be worked out over time, but the official intent is there. When Germany came out last spring with their plan to add a few hundred billion euros to military spending, they would have been better served to present that in actual equipment procurement and readiness terms, so there's no wiggle room.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

One somehwhat underappreciated fact about the German defense industry is that all these corporations are privately rather owned - at least up to before when BAE was formed, the majority of European players were state-owned. And German defense corporations have been privately owned over the last 60 years.

Well can you explain then why in the past only a single company offered a German tank per generation, Porsche for the Leopard 1 and later KMW for Leopard 2. The present situation with Rheinmetall working on the Panther as a serious challenge to an established producer is a very rare example of modern intra-national MBT competition, the only other I can think of is China with the Type 96 made by IMG and Type 99 by Norinco.

[Ssnake]

14 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Well can you explain then why in the past only a single company offered a German tank per generation, Porsche for the Leopard 1 and later KMW for Leopard 2.

Yes, because that's not what happened. While Krauss-Maffei was chosen as the Prime Contractor for the Leopard 2, MaK was still awarded like 40% of all produced Leopard 2s. Wegmann (then still independent) produced turrets (with heavy contribution from Rheinmetall). Later Wegmann basically acquired KM, but presented it as a merger of equals and put KM first in the name. MaK sold its tank business to Rheinmetall in 1992.

So, clearly there has been a lot of consolidation going on, but until the end of the Cold War there were quite a few companies still very much active in the field of armored land systems:

- Atlas (later acquired by Rheinmetall)

- Diehl (still active/independent)

- FFG (still active/independent)

- Henschel, later Thyssen-Henschel, then part of Krupp after Thyssen's unfriendly takeover

There's probably more, but these I remember off the bat.

[Martineleca]

12 hours ago, Ssnake said:

So, clearly there has been a lot of consolidation going on, but until the end of the Cold War there were quite a few companies still very much active in the field of armored land systems.

Do you foresee further industry stratification if for instance KMW-Nexter MGCS/Leopard eventually moves to the 140mm tank gun, while the Rheinmetall Panther remains with their 130mm cannon, essentially splitting the 120mm NATO standard?

Edited March 16, 2023 by Martineleca

[Ssnake]

Who's going to build that 140mm gun, Nexter?

[Martineleca]

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Who's going to build that 140mm gun, Nexter?

Well yeah they designed it, tested it on the Leclerc and will likely insist on its incorporation in MGCS, so far as I know it doesn't offer better penetration, but has massive concussion effect with HE rounds, enough to dislodge the turret on a T-14.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Martineleca