NATO return to Cold War force structure

[kokovi]

I think you need to differentiate between the positions to be filled by reservists and the manpower required to continuously replace losses.

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, kokovi said:

I think you need to differentiate between the positions to be filled by reservists and the manpower required to continuously replace losses.

I think until negotiations on the matter are concluded within the ruling coalition there's no way to really be sure, the lefties want to restrict conscription options as much as possible whereas the righties want to make it more open ended depending on the need. A larger pool of people going through a six month course would be preferable to a smaller number for a year or so as a sizable percentage of those serving will end up professionalising, the last American draftee stayed on for over 30 years...

Edited October 24, 2025 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

Croatia reintroduces conscription to boost defence

https://www.euractiv.com/news/croatia-reintroduces-conscription-to-boost-defence/

"Around 18,000 men would be enlisted annually as they turn 18 to take two months of training."

- Two months is somewhat on the low end of the ideal short draft period, still if implemented and sustained in a decade Croatia may have more people that have gone through basic military training than several vastly more populous European countries currently have, restoration of similar national service systems is badly needed there as well.

[Martineleca]

Germany’s new €377B military wish list

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-military-wish-list-defense-politics-budget-domestic-industry/

"The document foresees a total of 687 Pumas, including 662 combat versions and 25 driver-training vehicles, to be delivered by 2035. In air defense, the Bundeswehr aims to procure 561 Skyranger 30 short-range turret systems for counter-drone and short-range protection. The Bundeswehr plans to buy 400 Tomahawk Block Vb cruise missiles along with three Lockheed Martin Typhon launchers, a combination that would give Germany a 2,000-kilometer strike reach."

- it's awesome that the Puma IFV program will be turbocharged with over a thousand units entering service, could also build potential customer confidence so it can compete with the Lynx for exports. The Typhon order is a bit confusing, 400 Tomahawk missiles with just three launchers, that wouldn't even be enough for a single battery unless the real count was lost in translation...

[Ssnake]

Maybe three batteries of four launchers each, which would bring the cost of a launcher down to ca 18M, which sounds much more reasonable than three launchers for 220M.

[Martineleca]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe three batteries of four launchers each, which would bring the cost of a launcher down to ca 18M, which sounds much more reasonable than three launchers for 220M.

I suspect that's probably what they meant, although a battery must also contain support vehicles the cost of which is probably not included in this sum. What do you think about the Puma news, you have previously mentioned that more are bound to be ordered only perhaps not so many, does this mean the remaining Marders will be fully retired?

[Ssnake]

Yes, of course the Marders will now get retired. Though the Puma reemains a godawfully expensive piece of kit. It's good, but not THAT good. I hope the large number at least reduces the per-piece costs though neither Krauss-Mafia nor Rheingold have a reputation for accommodating the taxpayer. Though it's part of the truth that decades of domestic neglect while at the same time strangling export efforts have given them little reason to be "thankful".

[Martineleca]

On 10/29/2025 at 9:26 AM, Ssnake said:

Yes, of course the Marders will now get retired.

The plan seems to be to replace it with Puma on the high end in the Panzer/Grenadier brigades and Boxer Jackal on the low end in the mid-tier units, or is it the other way around?

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 10/28/2025 at 10:03 AM, Martineleca said:

- it's awesome that the Puma IFV program will be turbocharged with over a thousand units entering service, could also build potential customer confidence so it can compete with the Lynx for exports.

Yeah I don't see that happening, sorry.

[Ssnake]

Boxer can't remotely offer the protection level of Puma. Even when considering the completely outlandish premise that the Bundeswehr radically changed its doctrine in complete secrecy over the last months, I just don't see from a numerical perspective how the acquisition of 200+ Boxers with Puma turret would make these the new top tier and relegate 1200+ Pumas to second fiddle.

[Ssnake]

On 10/28/2025 at 9:03 AM, Martineleca said:

the Puma IFV program will be turbocharged with over a thousand units entering service, could also build potential customer confidence so it can compete with the Lynx for exports.

I don't see them mutually supporting each others, they are competing designs in different priuce classes. You might get three Lynxes for two Pumas or even better. The bigger question might be who can expand production faster - BAE with CV90MkIII, Rheinmetall, or KMW. So far, of the three Rheinmetall has been the company that demonstrated the greatest flexibility by far.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Boxer can't remotely offer the protection level of Puma...

For some reason, people have extremely unreasonable hard-on when they see wheeled IFVs, expecting it to be better protected* and in general better than tracked vehicles... because.... reasons. Fact that those, especially heavy ones like Boxer have horrid mobility on muddy grounds is totally lost on them.

Part of that is "OMG, fast reaction times!" "OMG, ideal for combating tribals!" buzzword soup that was fed to them last... 25 years or so, but part of it is deeply puzzling to me and more than little irrational.

*For those that don't know - Boxer (and other wheeled IFVs, like Patria and French... thing) has ~same or even worse level of armor as does 1980s Marder 1A3.

 

[Ssnake]

May well be. Still, I don't see the Bundeswehr's doctrinal development falling for this claptrap; give them some credit.

[bojan]

I was thinking more of the "fans", but speaking of armies, while BW did not fall for for that crap lot of other armies did. Like, why did Balts buy wheeled IFVs when threat is literary at their doorstep?

[urbanoid]

Lower operating costs?

[bojan]

Difference was significant when wheeled vehicles used truck chassis and engines, they were lighter than tracked vehicles and had no FCS or electronics. Nowadays difference is much, much less.

 

 

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

I was thinking more of the "fans", but speaking of armies, while BW did not fall for for that crap lot of other armies did. Like, why did Balts buy wheeled IFVs when threat is literary at their doorstep?

   Actually, it is quite logical for Baltic terrain 

1) They have inhereted dense road network (created by Germans and USSR)  - so in almost every useful place there is a road, and where it is not - even tracked vehicle is in trouble (see the incident with M88 lost on excercises with all hands onboard by just driving the dirt road), so wheeled vehicles are quite logical for domestic use (they could travel regular roads next to everywhere without damage).

2) Their armies are to significant extent expendable expeditionary force for the case of "police mission in Russia" west is hoping/dreaming for, so high mobility of wheeled vehicles could be usefull in case of another "trouble in Moscow".

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

why did Balts buy wheeled IFVs when threat is literary at their doorstep?

I am not privy to their tactical requirements and strategic planning. I'm also not sure if 112 CV9035 rather than 112 Boxer with Samson turret would make a huge difference for Lithuania. If Russia is your main threat, either number is too small, but so is their country. So, Lithuania can and must provide an element for self-defense, but it just can't do it completely on their own (and, surprise, now an armored German brigade gets stationed there permanently which about doubles the number of armored vehicles). And I guess we all here know that this still isn't enough, should Belarus and Kaliningrad get uppity at the same time. So, I'm not sure what your counterproposal is.

[bojan]

Tracked vehicle, because they can at least be reasonably used in the mud... at least more sorts of mud than wheeled ones.

Size od army is irrelevant for that choice if enemy is right next to you.

Or make all infantry "die in place" light infantry and use money for ATGMs and mines while rest of NATO provides maneuver elements, but that is more risky approach.

[Sinistar]

wasnt there some female european politician- - i do not recall which- inspecting a cv90 and saying something like it was all well and good but needs to be able to accommodate pregnant female crews

 

not per se that this was taken seriously but just the sort of political decisions which can range from reasonable to absurd as to why certain countries do things

 

there is however some theoretical advantage - wheeled vehicles could conceivably still move even if one or more wheels are knocked out

with tracked vehicles when the linkage is broken on either side then the vehicle is stuck until repairs can be done or until it can be recovered and removed from the battle

repairs and replacement or recovery conceivably easier

 

wheeled vehicles may have speed and weight advantages on bridges and paved roads since the hulls tend to be lighter anyway and not based on MBT platforms but lighter vehicles for a different role- so a vehicle like a BTR-80 which is not supposed to operate on the front in a high intensity conflict can easier transition from relatively softer terrain to urban areas to crossing water obstacles which makes it less protected but more versatile- in theory

 

 but of course under muddy or loose, sandy conditions you see might see the opposite as they get stuck or spin their wheels or cannot grip some inclines

 

 

[TrustMe]

Given that in the Ukraine war tanks and APC's are just targets for drones the whole idea of wheeled or tracked vehicles otherwise known as mechanized tactics maybe obsolete.

[bojan]

Except those are still used by both sides.

Whole "tanks and APCs are just targets" BS ignores fact that w/o those manpower loses would be much, much higher. So they do their job still, reducing casualties. Which is why those were invented in the first place.

 

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, bojan said:

Except those are still used by both sides.

Whole "tanks and APCs are just targets" BS ignores fact that w/o those manpower loses would be much, much higher. So WHEN USED PROPERLY, they do their job still, reducing casualties. Which is why those were invented in the first place.

  Corrected for you - since using armor "traditional way" in modern situation of drone-dominated battlefield is leading to massive (and useless) losses while not bringing any results.

[bojan]

Ofc, but that goes for any piece of military hardware.

[Roman Alymov]

5 minutes ago, bojan said:

Ofc, but that goes for any piece of military hardware.

Yes and no: yes any weapon system requires proper use, but no since exactly the use of armor the way it was created for (and officers where tought to use it) is now the way to create few more burned wrecks to field roads without any practical goals achieved.