NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

Less CE, more methalurgy, mechanical engineering, etc, etc. From the CE perspective process is relatively easy, there are more complicated polymers being made everyday...

But main issue is that in order to make tooling (molds) you need very, very, very specialized machines that do not have widespread use. Which makes it (less importantly) expensive and (much more importantly) rare and difficult to obtain. It is combination of required precision and size - it is (relatively) easy to find 12m shaper, it is (relatively) easy to find good tolerance shaper, but finding 12m shaper with good tollerances is very, very hard.

And before someone says CNC and 3d printing - no real point in CNC, since it does not require complicated shapes (well, grain might look complicated but making it is relatively simple process from the tooling geometry perspective), and 3d printing has nowhere near enough precision.

 

[Martineleca]

On 11/10/2025 at 5:37 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Indeed, that most of the equipment expended was what the Soviet army bequeathed them shows really how little progress they made.

But that's the natural thing to do, building up and upgrading equipment for decades that then may or may not be expended in a single year of operations is what every serious military used to do. Many of the half century old T-72s if properly stored were certainly within the projected lifespan of those vehicles, wasn't it the same for Pattons and Chieftains?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Of course, but look at all the potential for new kit they had to fill at least some of those formations out. The Armata's, the BMP2 upgrade, Bumerang. Some of thesel as procurements do, would fall by the wayside. Understandably, you can afford it all. But all of them? The newest infantry carrier they had was BTR82, essentially new build BTR80A's. The newest tank was an upgraded T90. Its true the National Guard got new equipment, but hardly an elite force for fighting the Ukrainian army.

They had a complete equipment cycle waiting to hand, and somehow, and we can argue how, they complete bodged it. I dont think it would have made much difference ultimately, but at least they wouldnt have had vehicles that were 40 years old and subject to reliablity, even before they met combat.

[Josh]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Of course, but look at all the potential for new kit they had to fill at least some of those formations out. The Armata's, the BMP2 upgrade, Bumerang. Some of thesel as procurements do, would fall by the wayside. Understandably, you can afford it all. But all of them? The newest infantry carrier they had was BTR82, essentially new build BTR80A's. The newest tank was an upgraded T90. Its true the National Guard got new equipment, but hardly an elite force for fighting the Ukrainian army.

They had a complete equipment cycle waiting to hand, and somehow, and we can argue how, they complete bodged it. I dont think it would have made much difference ultimately, but at least they wouldnt have had vehicles that were 40 years old and subject to reliablity, even before they met combat.

The Russians had so much material lying around it would be criminally negligent not to simply upgrade what they had instead of building brand new. But it is fair to say they hyped their new platforms to a rather over optimistic degree. Though as someone noted, unlike Europe Russia never truly disarmed, it just demobilized.

[Martineleca]

17 hours ago, Josh said:

The Russians had so much material lying around it would be criminally negligent not to simply upgrade what they had instead of building brand new.

Most of the 5400 M60A3s the US possessed at the end of the Cold War some of which barely a decade old were likely to remain in service/reserve for quite a while considering the National Guard was still operating M48A5s, those tanks continue to be active in foreign militaries to this day...

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, Josh said:

The Russians had so much material lying around it would be criminally negligent not to simply upgrade what they had instead of building brand new. But it is fair to say they hyped their new platforms to a rather over optimistic degree. Though as someone noted, unlike Europe Russia never truly disarmed, it just demobilized.

Sure. Im just saying that whilst the breadth of their formations would undoubtedly be using Soviet hand me downs, their inablity to make at least the lead elements equipped with new equipment must be viewed criminally negligent. Certainly in artillery at least, which I think when this war is over is going to be judged a major failing.

[Martineleca]

Germany’s ruling parties strike new military-service deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-ruling-parties-new-military-service-deal-after-october-breakdown/

"The compromise proposal also anchors a legal troop-growth target of 255,000 to 270,000 active soldiers plus around 200,000 reservists, aligned with Germany’s NATO commitments and reviewed twice a year by parliament."

- This is very important, specific size and scope of a standing army codified into law will hopefully protect the military from any future government attempting to "balance the budget" at the expense of national security.

[seahawk]

 

[Martineleca]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:41 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure. Im just saying that whilst the breadth of their formations would undoubtedly be using Soviet hand me downs, their inablity to make at least the lead elements equipped with new equipment must be viewed criminally negligent.

That's basically what the Russian MOD revealed as a requirement back when the Armata was revealed, that they wanted 2000 units to be produced by the year 2020 presumably so all "elite" divisions would be equipped with newly built armour and prepared for combat. The delays in development that the new model suffered from ruined these plans and the T-90M2 is set to replace it for near term procurement, why do you think this apparently long available alternative had not been taken up previously?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its not JUST Armata. There is Bumerang, there was 2S35, there was a BMP3 replacement, heck they were even trying to ramp up BMP3 production and seemingly failed to build more than trace amounts. Then there was SU57 which they pretend is operational, but isnt even close. The only combat aircraft they have are developments of Soviet ones, or ones that were unfinished they belatedly complete.

All across the line, they were truly great at shining up Soviet era equipment. Building new? Not so much. The only procurement success was BMD4M, and that was waiting in procurement hell to be procured for years.

This wasnt an Armata procurement failure. All across the board they failed. They couldnt even buy sodding tyres for their trucks. Even expensive vehicles like Pantsir had rotted out tyres on them. Where was the money all going? Because It wasnt going into the military.

[Martineleca]

On 11/15/2025 at 10:11 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

This wasn't an Armata procurement failure. All across the board they failed.

Still the Russian MOD recognised at least on the surface the need for lots more newer tanks, in 1995 they lost like 80 mbts getting into freaking Grozny against casual guys with Molotov cocktails, that their wishes weren't fulfilled is quite a different matter.

[seahawk]

They are aiming at 1500 new armoured vehicles per year...that says enough. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

They are aiming at 1500 new armoured vehicles per year...that says enough. 

If thats Armata's, impressive. If its BA-64's, not so much.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Still the Russian MOD recognised at least on the surface the need for lots more newer tanks, in 1995 they lost like 80 mbts getting into freaking Grozny against casual guys with Molotov cocktails, that their wishes weren't fulfilled is quite a different matter.

Its a bit more than that. There were Chechen tank hunter teams (many ex Spetsnaz) that had a guy with a rifle, an MG and an RPG. Then the Russian command forced armour without enough dismounted infantry into urban areas, but neglected to fit all the reactive armour first.  Kinda sounds familar dont it? The Russian Army has forgotten more lessons than they ever learned.

Bear in mind, they were building small amounts of T90's all through the 1990's. I think they less built them because they wanted them, than because they wanted to keep the plant alive. Many of the T90's seem to have ended up in reserve, God knows what condition they were kept in.

The natrual state of Russia is corruption. Until they solve that basic problem (or at least, like the Soviets, manage to keep it away from the military production side for the most part) they will struggle to build the armed forces they want. Tragically corruption seems to be precisely what they are fighting in Ukraine for.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If thats Armata's, impressive. If its BA-64's, not so much.

 

It does not matter. It still is 15.000 armoured vehicles in 10 years, enough for quite a number of armoured division. And a compared to the existing fleets of all other European nations, it is also a lot. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, well I still remember they claimed they should have 2300 Armata right now.

As they say, If wishes were horses, the world would be full of rocking horse shit.

[bojan]

18 hours ago, Martineleca said:

...against casual guys with Molotov cocktails,...

Myth.

Chechens were quite well equipped, including having own tanks.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/nov/17/ukraine-russia-france-poland-zelenskyy-macron-eu-europe-news-latest-updates

In case nobody has noticed, Russia seems to have attacked Poland.

[Josh]

6 hours ago, seahawk said:

They are aiming at 1500 new armoured vehicles per year...that says enough. 

Are they remotely close to that number?

[bojan]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

Are they remotely close to that number?

They did ~300-400 new and modernized tanks last year (~120 T-90M + rest T-72B3 and T-80BVM) + probably about same number of overhauled. I don't have data for APCs, but overall 1500 vehicles, if you include modernizations and overhaul sounds like +/- OK number.

[seahawk]

19 minutes ago, Josh said:

Are they remotely close to that number?

That is a number that has been mentioned. 

https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-military-production-goes-into-surplus-403631/

https://www.kielinstitut.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Publications/fis-import/eef51261-68bf-4883-b1e9-ed0fb74a92ed-Kiel_Report_no3.pdf

[Josh]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

They did ~300-400 new and modernized tanks last year (~120 T-90M + rest T-72B3 and T-80BVM) + probably about same number of overhauled. I don't have data for APCs, but overall 1500 vehicles, if you include modernizations and overhaul sounds like +/- OK number.

Is not the modernization/overhaul stock quite finite at this point? Perhaps ~1000/yr have been put into service the last couple years, but most of the analysis I’ve seen seems to indicate many of the most modern AFV types are all but exhausted already.

[Markus Becker]

They are said to run low of tanks easy to modernize but the figure is for armored vehicles in general. 

[Josh]

12 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

They are said to run low of tanks easy to modernize but the figure is for armored vehicles in general. 

The modern types are also exhausted. I think recent counts of BMP-2 and BTR-70/80 were low hundreds and BMD was basically extinct. BMP-1 and BTR-60 I believe are still prolific, though I would guess older machines require more refurbishing.

Perun did the best summary with all the necessary caveats that I have seen though it is almost a year out of date now.

 

Edited November 17, 2025 by Josh

[Martineleca]

16 hours ago, bojan said:

They did ~300-400 new and modernized tanks last year (~120 T-90M + rest T-72B3 and T-80BVM) + probably about same number of overhauled. I don't have data for APCs, but overall 1500 vehicles, if you include modernizations and overhaul sounds like +/- OK number.

500 brand new T-90Ms annually is the figure they plan to reach a few years from now, ironically it was the same for the Armata had it's original assembly timetable been followed, how does that compare to projected Chinese/Nork/Iranian production or for the"collective" West?