NATO return to Cold War force structure

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

...if the French and British can sort out their procurement policies...

If.

I am talking about current reality.

[Roman Alymov]

On 11/18/2025 at 2:03 PM, urbanoid said:

They are cutting the workforce of the civilian part of the UVZ. UVZ doesn't produce just tanks, the 'vagon' in the name means 'railcar'. 

I'm afraid you are wasting your time - Stuart was provided with detailed explanation of this some time ago, but unfortunatelly he (as well as Western experts) tend to ignore explanations he do not like

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

As pointed out if it was JUST Uralvagonzavod, it might be an explanation. But it isn't.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/09/30/8000486/

This is from July.

https://kyivinsider.com/cracks-appear-in-russias-defense-industry-as-its-largest-firms-sue-for-lack-of-payment/

Cracks are now widening inside Russia’s defense-industrial complex, as some of the country’s largest military manufacturers take the government to court over unpaid debts.

On July 9, 2025, Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works (MMK) filed its third lawsuit in two months against Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), the state-owned producer of the T-90M tank, demanding 105 million rubles ($1.1 million) for undelivered payments. The case was filed in the Chelyabinsk Arbitration Court and adds to a growing series of legal actions stemming from Russia’s deteriorating war economy.

UVZ—based in Nizhny Tagil and central to the Kremlin’s armored vehicle production—has become a bellwether for the wider unraveling. In total, UVZ now faces over 160 million rubles in court claims from suppliers, with earlier suits filed in April and June. The company’s financial instability dates back years, with local reports noting debts exceeding 880 million rubles as early as 2020. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Western sanctions have further constrained operations by cutting off access to key components and export markets.

Production has slumped. While state-aligned sources once touted a target of 1,000 T-90M tanks per year, the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates only 300 units were produced in 2024. A Military Watch Magazine report from September 2024 cites both parts shortages and financial strain as major causes

But the trouble goes far beyond UVZ. Aircraft manufacturer Tupolev—builder of the Tu-160 and Tu-95MS bombers—is now battling a 1 billion ruble ($10.5 million) lawsuit. The Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, which produces Russia’s ICBMs, faces claims exceeding 211 million rubles. Together, these cases point to a systemic liquidity crisis across the entire defense sector.

The Kremlin’s own numbers help explain the squeeze. Military spending for 2025 has ballooned to $145 billion (6.3% of GDP), but Russia’s national reserves have shrunk from $91 billion in 2022 to $51 billion by late 2024, according to Bloomberg. The civilian economy is also in sharp decline: car sales are down 25%, clothing by 30–35%, and inflation has exceeded 15%, per EL PAÍS English and independent monitors.

Moscow is reportedly considering drastic measures—such as nationalizing suppliers or printing money—to maintain output. But as analysts warn, either path risks deepening inflation and fueling internal instability. Public discontent is rising, as noted in a recent Chatham House assessment, which ties economic fatigue and defense sector strain to broader shifts in public support

[Martineleca]

12 hours ago, bojan said:

If.

I am talking about current reality.

That's why I also inquired on realistic projections, looking at Japan that designed the Type 10 from scratch they've oddly decreased the average output to fewer than ten so far this decade which won't be enough to grow their armoured force if it's not increased. If a French EMBT-Leopard is approved or a British Panther-based Challenger (4?) then what maximum output do you foresee for each, 30-50 a year? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well the UK just opened one of 4 new drone factories. I think an awful lot of happening, even if the procurement right now is lingering. It was like that in WW2 as well of course, where good ideas were often developed and ready for production, no matter what the Air ministry or the War Department thought.

[Martineleca]

Germany offers Brazil used Leopard MBTs, Marder IFVs

https://www.defencetoday.com/land/land-platforms/germany-offers-brazil-used-leopard-mbts-marder-ifvs/

"Germany has made a formal government-to-government offer to sell 65 used Leopard 2A6 and 78 Marder 1A5 to Brazil. These specific units were reportedly offered to and declined by Ukraine, which cited concerns over their technical condition, the vehicles come from German strategic stockpiles and would be reconditioned by the defence firm KNDS before delivery."

- Condition must have been really bad if they were declined when there's an obvious need considering reported losses, also is this "strategic stockpile" separate from regular Bundeswehr reserves?

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/rpg-30-and-verba-manpads-romanian-and-moldovan-customs-officers-seize-arsenal-of-russian-weapons/

At the Leuseni Albica checkpoint between Romania and Moldova, customs officers found an arsenal of Russian weapons and ammunition in a truck.

According to Ziarul de Gardă, the driver, a Moldovan citizen, said that the cargo was to be delivered to Israel.

The truck was carrying Russian grenade launchers, including the RPG-30 Kryuk, the latest 9K333 Verba portable anti-aircraft missile system, 9K135 Kornet missile launchers, and components of attack drones.

The incident occurred around 1:30 am on November 20. The driver of the truck with the container provided customs officers with documents describing the cargo as metal elements.

After a risk analysis, the Moldovan customs officer informed his Romanian colleagues of his suspicions, and a joint scan of the vehicle was conducted. It is claimed that weapons belonging to the Moldovan Armed Forces were also found there.

[Martineleca]

Germany unveils Leopard 2A8 after 30 years without new battle tank

https://defensemirror.com/news/40560/Germany_Unveils_Leopard_2A8_after_30_Years_without_New_Battle_Tank

- Amazing that the KMW plant managed to stay open for so long only through supporting existing tanks rather than building new ones, hope they won't need to resort to such accounting wizardries ever again.

[Laser Shark]

It's the first new one in 30 years for Germany, but new Leo 2s have been produced for other countries in that time frame (Sweden, Spain, Greece, Qatar, Hungary).

[Stuart Galbraith]

So, are these all new builds, or Restomods?

[sunday]

Most of Spanish Leos were built in Spain.

[Laser Shark]

52 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So, are these all new builds, or Restomods?

New builds for the countries I mentioned. Same is true for the new 2A8s.

A common feature among these is that they all have improved turret roof armor, which is something you don’t see on upgraded older models.

[bojan]

Didn't Swedish Strv 122 and Greek 2A6 also feature improved roof armor?

[MiGG0]

18 minutes ago, bojan said:

Didn't Swedish Strv 122 and Greek 2A6 also feature improved roof armor?

Yes, atleast Strv 122 has better top and side armor compared to standard 2A5

[Laser Shark]

55 minutes ago, bojan said:

Didn't Swedish Strv 122 and Greek 2A6 also feature improved roof armor?

Yep. Same with the Leo 2E, Leo 2A7+ (Qatar), Leo 2A7HU and now also the Leo 2A8. It's a common element among the post-Bundeswehr production batches... until the 2A8 of course.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Laser Shark

[Ssnake]

As so often, it was a compromise. It's not like the Bundeswehr didn't recognize the value of the roof armor. It opted against the roof protection package to stay within MLC60 for as long as possible (bridgelayer fleet etc.)

Other countries didn't have to factor that in, so they adopted it much earlier.

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

As so often, it was a compromise. It's not like the Bundeswehr didn't recognize the value of the roof armor. It opted against the roof protection package to stay within MLC60 for as long as possible (bridgelayer fleet etc.)

How would you say the Soviets rated the threat to their tanks from earlier Leopard 2 and M1 variants, one had a more powerful cannon while the other sported arguably tougher armour, did they consider the later M1A1 combining features from both as the most dangerous opponent?

Edited November 25, 2025 by Martineleca

[Martineleca]

20 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

 

 

Edited November 25, 2025 by Martineleca

[Sinistar]

i think the the algorithms is the soviets tend to look like operational level thinkers

it is virtually pointless to think like that from the perspective of ussr / warsaw pact other than for individual crews which in theory are running on rote training to focus on objectives

 

i would assume that for individual crews in the 1980s it would not matter so much whether individually a t-72 or t-80 would prefer to meet leopard 2 vs vs M1

 

their problems are more interesting to them in the sense about which sector is covered by centag or northag and which states that means fighting and so on-

the problem is not per se leopard 2 but meeting a more powerful formation- west german III corps in terrain familiar to the germans

likewise you are not fighting an m1 but you are fighting the united states backed by the united states air force

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[seahawk]

That is why they had identified the Belgians and the British as the weak links and planed to push in their sectors.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

How would you say the Soviets rated the threat to their tanks from earlier Leopard 2 and M1 variants, 

I don't think I'm qualified to make a statement what the Soviets thought of the Leo 2 and M1. What I read somewhere is that they treated them as incremental improvements but were more concerned about the Bradley's introduction (because suddenly seemingly every unit had long-range anti-tank capability) than about the M1. But maybe whoever wrote that made shit up, or quoted from a singular paper rather than weighing the whole body of achived documents.

Maybe they should have been more concerned. Then again, maybe they should have opted for better armor protection for the T-xx rather than optimizing heavily for height and weight reduction. Also, maybe they should have opted for greater personal liberty and less government control of the economy. 

So, lots of maybes all over the place.

 

My personal impression was that the importance of thermal imagers as a force multiplier were seriously underestimated at pretty much all levels. I think it's one of those cases where you have to experience one to understand how these devices change everything.

[seahawk]

Especially the jump in capability that happened in the 1980's compared to the 1970's. PZB200 to WBG-X made a lot of difference and PZB200 was already much better than the Soviet equipment. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

43 minutes ago, seahawk said:

That is why they had identified the Belgians and the British as the weak links and planed to push in their sectors.

Nope.

[MiGG0]

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I don't think I'm qualified to make a statement what the Soviets thought of the Leo 2 and M1. What I read somewhere is that they treated them as incremental improvements but were more concerned about the Bradley's introduction (because suddenly seemingly every unit had long-range anti-tank capability) than about the M1. But maybe whoever wrote that made shit up, or quoted from a singular paper rather than weighing the whole body of achived documents.

Maybe they should have been more concerned. Then again, maybe they should have opted for better armor protection for the T-xx rather than optimizing heavily for height and weight reduction. Also, maybe they should have opted for greater personal liberty and less government control of the economy. 

So, lots of maybes all over the place.

 

My personal impression was that the importance of thermal imagers as a force multiplier were seriously underestimated at pretty much all levels. I think it's one of those cases where you have to experience one to understand how these devices change everything.

This is my impression aswell. Comparing invidual tanks M1 vs Leo 2 vs T-72 vs T-80 vs T-64 is relevant more to crew that mans it. They all are good enought operationally except in area of western thermals which gives them much, much more adventages all around.

Edited November 25, 2025 by MiGG0

[bojan]

6 hours ago, Martineleca said:

...one had a more powerful cannon while the other sported arguably tougher armour...

Early M1 armor (pre IPM1) did not differ much from early Leo 2 armor, protection requirements were 115mm APFSDS from 1km. and Sagger over frontal arc.