NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

Bulgaria had 400 of them back in ~2005-6, and sold at least 100+ since then.

[Pavel Novak]

Yep, originally there was lot of T-72 but lot of them was sold through time. I did not really track this but Hungary too sold lot of them.

[bojan]

Hungary sold/gave T-72s to Iraq post 2003.

Edited November 16, 2022 by bojan

[R E lee]

11 hours ago, Martineleca said:

I'm always a bit weary when bureaucrats announce budget increases without an actual list of what will be procured, funds can disappear pretty quickly especially these days, rather than the latest pet project or "social initiative" that wastes millions while adding nothing to actual defense, it must be ensured the majority of the budget will go towards purchasing new and maintaining existing equipment.

The real enemy is the men from the ministry.😉

[RETAC21]

On 11/16/2022 at 8:03 AM, Pavel Novak said:

I think that Bulgarian numbers are inflated. Hungarian probably too.

Bulgaria had 334 T-72s and Hungary 138 at the best of times, including basic T-72s. Most were sold/scrapped. iraq got a bunch from Hungary and Bulgaria.

[Martineleca]

11 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Bulgaria had 334 T-72s and Hungary 138 at the best of times, including basic T-72s. Most were sold/scrapped. iraq got a bunch from Hungary and Bulgaria.

Still the point stands that Ukraine's armored force will need to be replenished with at least a few hundred more T-type tanks to be able to maintain its recent advances, while the US wants NATO allies near the conflict zone to have increased capability and interoperability, an expanded Abrams tank exchange program would go a long way in achieving that.

[Rick]

On 11/16/2022 at 11:52 AM, R E lee said:

The real enemy is the men from the ministry.😉

I think it was Ken Estes in regards to the U.S. Army that stated "The Soviets are our adversary, the Navy is our enemy."

[RETAC21]

11 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Still the point stands that Ukraine's armored force will need to be replenished with at least a few hundred more T-type tanks to be able to maintain its recent advances, while the US wants NATO allies near the conflict zone to have increased capability and interoperability, an expanded Abrams tank exchange program would go a long way in achieving that.

I agree, but the source where T type tanks could be sourced fastest is... North Korea.

If the US puts its mund to it, maybe they can shake the 30 T-80Us owned by Sout Korea (already requested) and some or all of the 320 T-80UDs sold to Pakistan, and going down the line, buy back ex-Bulgarian and ex-Hungarian T-72s from Iraq. Of course, the biggest possible available source is India (1900)

[Huba]

There are still around 200 PT-91 in PL active service. We sent about a battalion's worth to UA up to now, which are probably being used for training at the moment. I imagine all  remaining 200 will go there too at some point, but  we'll need at least a token replacements that would allow some continuity for the stripped units. First few Abrams have already reach us, and a batch of 10 K2 is on it's way now, with AFAIR 20 more to be delivered next year. Hopefully the PT-91 fleet will be made available for Ukrainians in the next campaigning season.

PL also should have a vast number of T-72s, a few hundred perhaps, in various stages of disrepair. Although there's no official info on that, it's quite safe to assume that these are being worked on too.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Huba

[R E lee]

5 hours ago, Rick said:

I think it was Ken Estes in regards to the U.S. Army that stated "The Soviets are our adversary, the Navy is our enemy."

Thats originally a remark by Curtis Lemay.😉

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

There are still around 200 PT-91 in PL active service. We sent about a battalion's worth to UA up to now, which are probably being used for training at the moment. I imagine all  remaining 200 will go there too at some point, but  we'll need at least a token replacements that would allow some continuity for the stripped units. First few Abrams have already reach us, and a batch of 10 K2 is on it's way now, with AFAIR 20 more to be delivered next year. Hopefully the PT-91 fleet will be made available for Ukrainians in the next campaigning season.

PL also should have a vast number of T-72s, a few hundred perhaps, in various stages of disrepair. Although there's no official info on that, it's quite safe to assume that these are being worked on too.

If the all the remaining T-72 and PT-91 tanks are indeed sent then backfilled and the Leopards are retained in service, Poland could have as many as 1800 modern MBTs by the end of the decade. In the meantime will personnel readiness decline until the Abrams and Wilks start arriving in greater numbers, or will some IFV crews have to be retrained to operate tanks?

[Huba]

19 hours ago, Martineleca said:

If the all the remaining T-72 and PT-91 tanks are indeed sent then backfilled and the Leopards are retained in service, Poland could have as many as 1800 modern MBTs by the end of the decade. In the meantime will personnel readiness decline until the Abrams and Wilks start arriving in greater numbers, or will some IFV crews have to be retrained to operate tanks?

The current plans are not THAT grandiose. At the moment the envisioned force structure is to have one 'armored' division operating all the 370 M1s (probably with 2 armored/ 2 mech brigades) and 4 mech divisions on K2s, with a total of around 1400 tanks. This already might be a bit unrealistic due to manning problems, more so for anything larger. When this structure is fully reached, Leo 2 are to be withdrawn from service, and hopefully stored as a war reserve.
No idea how the MoD plans to do during the transition period - i guess the units stripped from T-types will just abandon any semblance of combat readiness for some time and train with the few new tanks they have. First K2s are already on the way, training on ( US-owned) M1s have already started too, with first deliveries expected in 2023. We shall see.

And regarding the IFVs, rumors are that we sent even more BMP-1s than tanks and the need for replacement is at least equally urgent. Here plan is to (apparently) have around 400 AS21 to go with the M1s, and the rest of units filled with Borsuk. Latest news is that AS21s Elbit turrets miserably failed the tests in PL, and instead we'll be integrating it with Polish ZSSW30 unmanned turret, same as on the Borsuk. Total need for new IFVs, with the above mentioned 5 division structure would be north of 1600 pieces.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, Huba said:

The current plans are not THAT grandiose. At the moment the envisioned force structure is to have one 'armored' division operating all the 370 M1s (probably with 2 armored/ 2 mech brigades) and 4 mech divisions on K2s, with a total of around 1400 tanks.

It is odd with their proximity to the conflict and outright threaths to their Moldovan kin, that Romania did no try to get in on the Abrams exchange and offer up their 200 older TR-85 tanks to Ukraine who have experience with the similar T-55, hopefully they will participate in the Wilk program even if it will be more expensive. As for Poland, I'm not sure the Abrams number will remain static, if as you expect the remaining 400 PT-91 and T-72 tanks are sent, that would bring an additional 200 M1A1s and raise the total to 600 units. I think the K2PL figures will change as well, 1000 at this time is set as the minimum procurement plan and it may surge as interest from Ukraine and other countries in the model lowers its production costs.

[Martineleca]

On 11/12/2022 at 9:25 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a case for saying all the major nations should provide a division, the minor ones a brigade. Anything other than that is laziness. Not that I think we should at present do more than that. I think we need to make it scaleable against the threat Russia presents. Which for a few years at least, is not much. But no need to be complacent.

Well if Poland eventually stands up a whole six mechanized divisions as planned, which would currently be as much as Germany and the UK combined, both larger countries with much higher GDP, will it prompt them as well as Italy and France to at least maintain four each?

[Huba]

29 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Well if Poland eventually stands up a whole six mechanized divisions as planned

AFAIK the 6th division is to be a "light" one, combining the airborne and air-assault brigades, special forces regiment and various other light formations, which will receive additional division level command and support structures. If there was to be any expansion of mech forces, it would probably first consist of adding 4th brigades to existing divisions, or additional battalions to the brigades. Kaczynski was (cluelessly I'm sure) grandstanding that our formations will be enlarged and not "puny" as up to now. Or something along these lines. Realistically, filling 5 heavy divisions (16 brigades) with men will be a big enough challenge, unless there's to be a return to conscription.
 

On 11/19/2022 at 5:28 PM, Martineleca said:

As for Poland, I'm not sure the Abrams number will remain static

Time will tell of course, but at the moment we are rather skeptical regarding more M1s - the costs to upgrade and operate these are immense, and absorbing more than what we already have would mean reequipping second division with them and cutting K2 program. Nobody wants that.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Huba

[DBNd]

How many usable M84s could you get out of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kuwait with a similar deal?

[bojan]

Bosnia has ~70, but any attempt to deliver those would be most likely vetoed, and most of them are in the poor state anyway. Kuwait has about 150, Croatia ~70.

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, Huba said:

Time will tell of course, but at the moment we are rather skeptical regarding more M1s - the costs to upgrade and operate these are immense, and absorbing more than what we already have would mean reequipping second division with them and cutting K2 program. Nobody wants that.

I actually expected those additional Abrams to take the place of the T-72s in storage and form a healthy reserve force alongside the Leopards, perhaps some of them could be supplied to other East European allies if the need arose in the future.

[Mike1158]

On 11/15/2022 at 10:02 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

 I take the point about APU's, but why did Iraq specify diesels for their Abrams? Is there more blade erosion in dusty conditions?

It jas been proven that for the fuel carried by an Abrams, a diesel motor is much more efficient and hardly if any, slower.  Running cost carries weight.

[Josh]

4 minutes ago, Mike1158 said:

It jas been proven that for the fuel carried by an Abrams, a diesel motor is much more efficient and hardly if any, slower.  Running cost carries weight.

Maintenance is also easier. IIRC the main advantage of the turbine was acceleration, along with radiated noise (though that is a minor consideration).

[Mike1158]

Yep, always going to be give and take there.  A diesel engine with a small GUE (Also diesel) is much more efficient than a gas turbine with a GUE in terms of being able to conduct continuous ops.  No doubt the turbine engine with continuous improvements has served the users well and is capable of doing sdo well into the future.

I think, given the diesel engine that is being considered, it is a better bet medium to long term.

[Huba]

At least from PL perspective, re-engining M1s with diesels would be rather counterproductive. The cost of new engines (for 116 we are getting from ready US stock), integration work etc. I imagine would kill any cost savings outright. Also, the important part of the M1 program is building interoperability with US Army - first, to be able to quickly receive and absorb reinforcements, second to be able to support US troops deployed in PL. For that, having the tanks as close as possible to the ones operated by the US, as well as broad ability to maintain and repair them is crucial.

Edited November 22, 2022 by Huba

[Martineleca]

4 hours ago, Huba said:

At least from PL perspective, re-engining M1s with diesels would be rather counterproductive. The cost of new engines (for 116 we are getting from ready US stock), integration work etc. I imagine would kill any cost savings outright.

As far as I am aware from a maintenance standpoint the turbine has fewer moving parts than an ordinary turbo diesel engine, it is very well suited to the bitter cold of the East European plain, also as we've seen recently in a war where logistics are strained, having a multi-fuel powerplant that can run on almost anything including alcohol is very useful.

[Martineleca]

On 11/22/2022 at 5:05 PM, Huba said:

Also, the important part of the M1 program is building interoperability with US Army - first, to be able to quickly receive and absorb reinforcements, second to be able to support US troops deployed in PL. For that, having the tanks as close as possible to the ones operated by the US, as well as broad ability to maintain and repair them is crucial.

And yet the Abrams based South Korean K1 tank was still powered by a German V8 engine, by the way is it known if the V12 for the K2PL will be the Doosan DV27K or some iteration of an MTU unit found in the Leopard?

[bojan]

K1 is not "Abrams based", it was based on the diesel engine powered competing design.