NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 11/28/2025 at 12:16 PM, kokovi said:

Having lived in Northern Germany for my entire life, I do not understand why the North German plain is thought by so many people as being some kind of open terrain. It is actually full of small forests, hedges, tree lines, towns and villages, and I highly doubt that the average line of sight is much more than 1500 meters.

Without knowing your age, its difficult to determine what Germany was like when you were born. When Chieftain was designed it was the late 1950' and early 1960's. That Germany is gone, and its perhaps a mistake to judge what now is as what always was.

This is a British Army guide to West Germany, dated from the 1980's. When it talks of villages from 1 or 3km apart, clearly there was terrain that could be commanded by an L11 gun, and of course Swingfire.

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

... 

Edited December 1, 2025 by Stefan Kotsch

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Without knowing your age, its difficult to determine what Germany was like when you were born. When Chieftain was designed it was the late 1950' and early 1960's. That Germany is gone, and its perhaps a mistake to judge what now is as what always was.

This is a British Army guide to West Germany, dated from the 1980's. When it talks of villages from 1 or 3km apart, clearly there was terrain that could be commanded by an L11 gun, and of course Swingfire.

 

Soviet tank crews were taught to expect relatively short distance of fire

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, but that was fighting the Americans, which was largely walds, creating short range engagements. North of the Belgian sector, it really wasnt like that at all.

Ive a book from 1985 called 'Before the Day After' that gives an excellent overview of the defensive opportunities to NATO, and was saying yes, the North German plain isnt so much anymore, and was illustrated this with a map showing increasing urbanization along the IGB. Either because of a more defensive mentality, or realising this was the case, by the latter half of the 1980's, the Soviet Army was converting several Tank Regiments in GSFG to Motor Rifle, something that would be very necessary in any NATO war in that period.  Slowly but surely the arteries of Northern German were hardening, but that is not the same as saying it had never been open in the first place.

https://archive.org/details/beforedayafterca0000mart

Anyway, my point is, places change, particularly in places that have a bustling economy, which im sure is absolutely no revelation. Look at what happened in China. Thats a boom of what, just 35 years? Imagine how West Germany changed post 1945.

[seahawk]

Google Earth Pro has a good set of Sat images for Northern Germany. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Google Earth Pro has a good set of Sat images for Northern Germany. 

Back in the 2000's you could get mapping of the region on a DVD called D Sat, which was also pretty useful.

North German plain was exaggerated as a giant autoban you could drive tank armies down with abandon. It was never that, though it was clearly the traditional invasion route into Europe.

Ironically unrepentent Western capitalism was probably the best defensive measure NATO ever enjoyed.

[seahawk]

Here is a map of all protected nature areas:

https://www.umweltkarten-niedersachsen.de/umweltkarten/?topic=Natur&lang=de&bgLayer=TopographieGrau&layers=Naturpark,Nationalpark,Biosphaerenreservat,Naturschutzgebiet,Naturdenkmal,Landschaftsschutzgebiet&zoom=3&E=569378.15&N=5852107.27

They are obviously quite green. 

[Stefan Kotsch]

Google street view is suitable for an approximate assessment of the possible firing distances for firing in direct aiming. Stand on street points and look around you. That's it. A view from above shows only illusions.

There are many trees, rows of trees, bushes, small woods, hedges and much more in the North German Plain. Then it should be noted that at a height of the gun barrel muzzle of around 1.80 m, even a gentle curvature of the terrain becomes an obstacle. And there are many of them here, too.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I remember reading in my Isby that Soviet designed tanks were really rather good at disapearing in small depressions. It also noted though, that they seemed more designed for the environment found on the Russian steppe than what they would actually find in Western Europe. The low gun depression in particular would have been problemeatic in the American sector.

Its not much an exaggeration to think everyone designed tanks for the WW2 experience. The British designed tanks like Tigers, because Tunisia,  Italy and Villers Bocage. The Germans built tanks like Panzer III/IV, because Blitzkrieg. The Americans (at least till Abrams) designed tanks like Shermans, because Patton. And the Soviets (at least till T64 which was a real departure) built tanks like T34. And the French built AMX30 because... well because they were French.

We all carried cultural baggage, and only some of it would be relevant.

[seahawk]

19 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Google street view is suitable for an approximate assessment of the possible firing distances for firing in direct aiming. Stand on street points and look around you. That's it. A view from above shows only illusions.

There are many trees, rows of trees, bushes, small woods, hedges and much more in the North German Plain. Then it should be noted that at a height of the gun barrel muzzle of around 1.80 m, even a gentle curvature of the terrain becomes an obstacle. And there are many of them here, too.

But that favours the attacker. Driving at 20 km/h at mechanized unit in on top of the ATGM team 1,5km away within 4,5 minutes. How many ATGMs can they fire in that time? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

If its milan, 7.5 seconds to target, say another 2 or 3 to put in a new round and sight a new target. Say one round every 15 seconds In theory, assuming no fumbles and you had enough rounds, you could put out 16 rounds in 4 minutes. If you had 20 firing posts as a British battalion had, and if you had sufficient a stash of rounds (and there would undoubtedly be limits) thats potentially about 300 missiles. (maths isnt my strongpoint, so please fact check me here please)

If you have a missile that goes out 3 kilometres, the math is even worse. Thats why the Soviets went so heavy on artillery and air delivered  firepower, so you wouldnt get even close to that. 

And thats before you even factor in tank guns, RPG's, or our own aircraft delivered air, artillery or FASCAM.

Edited December 1, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[bojan]

Anything more than 2 rounds per minute is not realistic in practice for SACLOS ATGMs. Maybe 3 per minute if you have very nicely visible targets in open with very clean line of sight (which will also work against you, because more enemy forces will be able to concentrate fire on you).

In a typical "lane defense" as practiced by ATGM teams in real life - 1 - 1.5 rounds per minute would be about average.

Also, combat load for Milan was 4 missiles. Then, in practice hit % for SACLOS ATGMs will be about 50%, not 85% claimed by manufacturers. So 4 Milans = 2 hits. Some of those hits might not penetrate (at least tanks from the front).

Originally YPA counted that ATGM team with Fagot (AT-4, so ~ Milan equivalent) could destroy 3 tanks with 4 missiles, but in reality that number is probably at best 1/2 that. Which is still good, because you are trading 3 soldiers, ATGM launcher and 4 missiles for at least one enemy tank.

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

But that favours the attacker. Driving at 20 km/h at mechanized unit in on top of the ATGM team 1,5km away within 4,5 minutes. How many ATGMs can they fire in that time? 

Their whole combat load of 4. Which was one of the reasons why combat load for infantry ATGMs was usually 3-5 missiles, they would not have time to fire more, and in case they have time to fire more they can also get more from the rear areas/Co/Bn supply train.

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

...Then it should be noted that at a height of the gun barrel muzzle of around 1.80 m, even a gentle curvature of the terrain becomes an obstacle. And there are many of them here, too.

Yep, this is a big issue with any flat terrain that is actually very gently rolling, there are many, many lower points, even if only few meters difference at 500m it will limit visibility to a tank target to ~1-1.5km unless tank is cresting a high point.

[seahawk]

Yes and if you want to see the infantry and ATGM teams survive more than one fight (well after the artillery bombardment by the Soviets, it will only be a small part anyway)  You need forces to protect the withdrawal. That is where you want tank or IFVs to stop the tide. 

[Jaroslav]

Milan has a max 2km range and 200 m of dead zone in front of it (minimal range). T-80 is 2.2 m high and T-64 is little less, for them Milan view horizont is 2.5 km. Missile speed is max 200 m/s. But we should calculate T-64/80 height as only ~1.5 m and we should ad smoke, counter fire, adrenalin, reload time...

[bojan]

That is all reasons why in real life hit % for second gen ATGMs was ~50% instead of factory stated 85+%.

[Tim Sielbeck]

On 11/28/2025 at 6:16 AM, kokovi said:

Having lived in Northern Germany for my entire life, I do not understand why the North German plain is thought by so many people as being some kind of open terrain. It is actually full of small forests, hedges, tree lines, towns and villages, and I highly doubt that the average line of sight is much more than 1500 meters.

Because it was flat compared to the areas west of Fulda so the canalization of armored formations was not so easy.  I was at LDK Kaserne '81-'83 and noticed a few really long LOS points from B-6 looking east but had no experience with the terrain further east than that.  I still think it had the possibility of becoming a shooting gallery that favored the defense.

[Roman Alymov]

For comparison sake, as far as i remember, Soviet motorised infantry section with BMP was supposed to inflict following losses on attacking enemy force: 2-3 tanks, 1-2 armored personnel carriers and 12-15 enemy soldiers. For section on BTR, figures were lower (1-2 tanks etc.). No doubt this figures were inflated (as they were sort of high expectations for training/spirit boosting purposes).

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, Jaroslav said:

Milan has a max 2km range and 200 m of dead zone in front of it (minimal range). T-80 is 2.2 m high and T-64 is little less, for them Milan view horizont is 2.5 km. Missile speed is max 200 m/s. But we should calculate T-64/80 height as only ~1.5 m and we should ad smoke, counter fire, adrenalin, reload time...

And numbers, 20 dead armoured vehicles do not matter if hundreds are coming. 

[Martineleca]

On 12/2/2025 at 12:24 AM, Tim Sielbeck said:

Because it was flat compared to the areas west of Fulda so the canalization of armored formations was not so easy.  I was at LDK Kaserne '81-'83 and noticed a few really long LOS points from B-6 looking east but had no experience with the terrain further east than that.  I still think it had the possibility of becoming a shooting gallery that favored the defense.

There was also more room to maneuver further north than in the south, operational area from Fulda to Frankfurt was just 100km wide, in that case would you say the Centag forces were as a consequence of geography set up for heavier attritional combat than the ones who made up Northag?

[Martineleca]

On 12/1/2025 at 2:00 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its not much an exaggeration to think everyone designed tanks for the WW2 experience. The British designed tanks like Tigers, because Tunisia,  Italy and Villers Bocage.

The "crisis" that the US armored corps experienced having to face up to thousands more Tiger/Panther and then IS/ISU-series heavy AFVs than initially expected was only in part mitigated by the Pershing and later Patton tanks, I've read that the MBT 70 was as much an exercise in restoring morale as well as technical capability. Only after the succeeding Abrams finally arrived in increasing numbers post-1979 did American ground commanders start feeling confident of their superiority in any potential engagement, not sure if the British went through anything like that as their Churchills, Centurions and all other follow on models had always been on the heavier side regarding the balance between armour and mobility...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah. Im convinced Chieftain, at least in gun power, was an attempt to get firepower superiority, as seen in Tiger. In fact, the design brief of Centurion started as a heavy cruiser that could kill Tigers.

The years 42-44 left a LONG shadow.

[urbanoid]

Ironically, the country that produced Tigers has taken a completely different approach and came up with Leo1.

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Ironically, the country that produced Tigers has taken a completely different approach and came up with Leo1.

Wasn't the high speed of the Leo1 due to the fact that no armour on a tank at that time could survive a hit from a HEAT round. So the Germans thought only a high speed tank could survive on a modern battlefield?

Edited December 6, 2025 by TrustMe

[Josh]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

Wasn't the high speed of the Leo1 due to the fact that no armour on a tank at that time could survive a hit from a HEAT round. So the Germans thought only a high speed tank could survive on a modern battlefield?

I think it more accurate to say that they came to the conclusion nothing could survive on a HEAT battlefield so it was better to armor against auto canons only and make it more maneuverable. For that specific time period, it does not seem like a weird choice.

Edited December 6, 2025 by Josh

[bojan]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Ironically, the country that produced Tigers has taken a completely different approach and came up with Leo1.

Which for all it's faults was in the end possibly better choice than Chieftain. More reliable one for sure.  

2 hours ago, TrustMe said:

Wasn't the high speed of the Leo1 due to the fact that no armour on a tank at that time could survive a hit from a HEAT round.

Leo 1 speed was not replacement for armor, it was one of the requirements from a day 1, even when heavier armor was considered. It was possible to have both speed and armor in that time period as proven by T-64.