I think this numbers include a lot of standard WW2 infantry divisions, not full mechanized divisons like they later become standard.
European NATO Army alternatives: 1950 - 1990
- Thread starter Giant Man Eating Rabbits
- Start date
Mechanised divisions didn't become standard; rather, as armies shrunk, they became more common due to the particular exigencies of Western military deployment.
For the US Army, Korea was fought entirely by 'leg infantry' divisions (with the Marines not having a markedly different organisation). Vietnam was fought by 'leg infantry' divisions. What wasn't was the Seventh Army in Germany, where the divisions were armoured, airborne and mechanised during the 1950s and 1960s, then armoured and mechanised in the 1970s and 80s. The ROAD divisional organisation did have infantry divisions as well as mechanised, airborne and armoured, and those units stuck around and in some cases 'morphed' into the light infantry divisions of the 1980s. The whittling down of the National Guard and the complete elimination of the combat divisions of the US Army Reserve during the 1956-1967 period coincided with the rise of the mechanised division, but was more due to cost cutting and a shift from large mobilisation plans.
Ze Germans, limited to 12 divisions, went for 6 panzer, 4 panzergrenadier and 2 light divisions, as they were up front and needed to model their force according to the direct threat.
For Britain, the infantry divisions went away with the Army. Once it was reduced to the 3-4 heavy divisions of the BAOR, only 2nd and 5th IDs had a brief life as lighter infantry divisions, with the latter being a beast of the 1968-71 period slain by the necessity of Northern Ireland deployments. The earlier elimination of the Territorial Army's divisions and reinforcement/mobilisation role is more a function of Britain's recoil from great power sized defence forces than a preference for mechanisation.
For other states, they largely never reached the heights of the Lisbon goals, but came close in a number of cases (France and Italy). The death of the leg infantry division began post Korea and coincided with the New Look and accompanying shift from conventional forces + atomic weapons to a much more atom-centric approach, but wasn't entirely due to it. No one ever went fully mechanised and many armies maintained quite large infantry components for a long, long time (Spain, Greece and Turkey, among others, along with the French up until their 1960s and then 1970s shifts),
'The Strange Death of the Infantry Division' is a great PhD thesis for a future student out there.
For the US Army, Korea was fought entirely by 'leg infantry' divisions (with the Marines not having a markedly different organisation). Vietnam was fought by 'leg infantry' divisions. What wasn't was the Seventh Army in Germany, where the divisions were armoured, airborne and mechanised during the 1950s and 1960s, then armoured and mechanised in the 1970s and 80s. The ROAD divisional organisation did have infantry divisions as well as mechanised, airborne and armoured, and those units stuck around and in some cases 'morphed' into the light infantry divisions of the 1980s. The whittling down of the National Guard and the complete elimination of the combat divisions of the US Army Reserve during the 1956-1967 period coincided with the rise of the mechanised division, but was more due to cost cutting and a shift from large mobilisation plans.
Ze Germans, limited to 12 divisions, went for 6 panzer, 4 panzergrenadier and 2 light divisions, as they were up front and needed to model their force according to the direct threat.
For Britain, the infantry divisions went away with the Army. Once it was reduced to the 3-4 heavy divisions of the BAOR, only 2nd and 5th IDs had a brief life as lighter infantry divisions, with the latter being a beast of the 1968-71 period slain by the necessity of Northern Ireland deployments. The earlier elimination of the Territorial Army's divisions and reinforcement/mobilisation role is more a function of Britain's recoil from great power sized defence forces than a preference for mechanisation.
For other states, they largely never reached the heights of the Lisbon goals, but came close in a number of cases (France and Italy). The death of the leg infantry division began post Korea and coincided with the New Look and accompanying shift from conventional forces + atomic weapons to a much more atom-centric approach, but wasn't entirely due to it. No one ever went fully mechanised and many armies maintained quite large infantry components for a long, long time (Spain, Greece and Turkey, among others, along with the French up until their 1960s and then 1970s shifts),
'The Strange Death of the Infantry Division' is a great PhD thesis for a future student out there.
Ramontxo
Donor
You mean an Chieftain with the Swedish S tank suspension an MTB engine and transmission and an higher pressure 120 mm gun?
Last edited:
Speaking of the Chieftain, or rather its Achilles heal, multi fuel engines are a nice idea in theory but they don't work. Give the damn thing a nice reliable diesel engine.
Last edited:
OK, Sherman tanks in WW2 had an APU.
The Germans trialled petrol electric hybrids
Gas turbines were looked at for the Conqueror, and used on the S-tank (and some cars in the UK and US)
How about, instead of trying an opposed piston engine for the multi-fuel engine, the UK goes left field with a gas turbine-electric hybrid (given gas turbines will burn anything), for the Chieftain, with a second, small, turbine to act as an APU to cut fuel consumption?
No, not specifically. If there has to be a Joint NATO MBT (and there are many reasons why this isn't a good idea, as Fred the Great mentioned), then in an ideal world, it will be a mix of the best gun, best armour, best engine, transmission and suspension and so forth. Actually getting that will be extremely hard, given the need to balance the competing interests, needs and philosophies of the Americans, British, French and Germans, at a minimum.
The process reminds me of the old joke that 'In heaven, the police are British, the cooks French, the mechanics German, the lovers Italian and everything is organised by the Swiss; in hell, the chefs are British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss, the police German and everything is organised by the Italians.'
So getting an ideal result will be very difficult and getting the closest thing to that which is acceptable will be something of a victory. The minimum specifications for a late 1960s/early 1970s 2nd generation Universal NATO MBT should, in my view, be ~55 tons and include a 120mm gun to ensure an overmatch against Soviet firepower; as excellent protection as possible rather than the minimal approach of the late 1950s that lead to the AMX-30 and Leopard I; and an engine that is powerful enough, efficient, not incredibly thirsty and won't have the tank in the garage all the time for repairs.
I indicate this reference site concerning the French army in 1989 which is very complete at the level of the order of battle and armored vehicles assigned by units and command:
In 1962, the last year of the Algerian War, the French army had a total strength of 1,027,7807 men, namely:
721 102 men for the army
139,873 men for the Air Force
78,506 men for the national navy
85,132 men for the national gendarmerie and common services
Of those 1,027,807 men, 441,346 are stationed in Algeria.
For the year 1966 (1st reference year of peacetime without any personnel in Algeria), we had 583,956 men under the flags or 443,851 less soldiers compared to the situation of 1962.
In 1978, after the reform of General LAGARDE Chief of Staff of the army, we go to a total of 579,188 men or 4,768 less military compared to 1966.
The reform of the army structures initiated by the Ministry of Defence in 1983 saw the total number of men increase from 577,884 in 1983 to 557,893 in 1986, a decrease of 19,991 men in three years, while the decrease was only 6,072 positions from 1966 to 1983. Numbers stabilised from 1986 to 1989.
The loss of jobs between 1966 and 1989 was 26,052, or 4.42% of the total workforce.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe will lead to a vertiginous drop in the strength of the French army.
In 1997, the last year in which the breakdown of the workforce is published in the Official Journal, the total workforce is listed at 475,147 men, a decrease in 8 years of 82,757 men or more than 10,000 men per year.
index - armee-francaise-1989
Bienvenue sur la page index de armee-francaise-1989
armee-francaise-1989.wifeo.com
In 1962, the last year of the Algerian War, the French army had a total strength of 1,027,7807 men, namely:
721 102 men for the army
139,873 men for the Air Force
78,506 men for the national navy
85,132 men for the national gendarmerie and common services
Of those 1,027,807 men, 441,346 are stationed in Algeria.
For the year 1966 (1st reference year of peacetime without any personnel in Algeria), we had 583,956 men under the flags or 443,851 less soldiers compared to the situation of 1962.
In 1978, after the reform of General LAGARDE Chief of Staff of the army, we go to a total of 579,188 men or 4,768 less military compared to 1966.
The reform of the army structures initiated by the Ministry of Defence in 1983 saw the total number of men increase from 577,884 in 1983 to 557,893 in 1986, a decrease of 19,991 men in three years, while the decrease was only 6,072 positions from 1966 to 1983. Numbers stabilised from 1986 to 1989.
The loss of jobs between 1966 and 1989 was 26,052, or 4.42% of the total workforce.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe will lead to a vertiginous drop in the strength of the French army.
In 1997, the last year in which the breakdown of the workforce is published in the Official Journal, the total workforce is listed at 475,147 men, a decrease in 8 years of 82,757 men or more than 10,000 men per year.
Torsion bar and a decent engine - it was the only tank to be capable of multi fuel and that capability required significant work on the engine to make it a reality and was never a 'thing' so an utterly pointless compromise.Speaking of the Chieftain, or rather its Achilles heal, multi fuel engines are a nice idea in theory but they don't work. Give the damn thing a nice reliable diesel engine.
Also the design desire for the engine to be rapidly replaced in the field was compromised by the niggling fact that spare engines were not provided for many years
Lets assume the design goes with the originally planned RR Diesel V8 and not the Leyland L60 that was 'built by communists in the Midlands'.
I am a big fan of the Horstman suspension - but I have become a bigger fan of the superior Torsion bar suspension and Vickers were quite happily using it on their succesful Vickers MBT tank / Vijayanta so no real reason why the Chieftan cannot be designed with the same
In fact let Vickers design the bloody thing and be done with it!
Location of the load on ballistic missiles. For example, the development of SRBMs by the Federal Republic of Germany or the Italians (e.g. to attack targets in Yugoslavia).
Development of the M227 equivalent instead of its purchase by Germany and France or the UK. The UK builds some sort of universal tracked chassis and installs their GBT-155 and M227 on it.
Development of the M227 equivalent instead of its purchase by Germany and France or the UK. The UK builds some sort of universal tracked chassis and installs their GBT-155 and M227 on it.
I recall a NATO project in 1964/1965 for a multilateral seaborne force (MLF) where ships carrying Polaris ICBMs were served by crews of 6 or 7 nationalities :
I come back to the Italian light fighter Fiat G-91 carried out within the framework of the following NATO programme:
en.wikipedia.org
We can imagine that it will be adopted by all the countries of the Alliance with constructions under license in France, England and the USA (for the US Army as indicated in my message of January 14).
We would thus have had the beginning of a real standardization of the air forces.
The Mirage III as a supersonic fighter, instead of the F-104 sold by Loockeed with his corruption, becoming the standard in Western Europe, with Sidewinder missiles?
West Germany would consider taking it before turning to the American fighter.
NBMR-1 - Wikipedia
We can imagine that it will be adopted by all the countries of the Alliance with constructions under license in France, England and the USA (for the US Army as indicated in my message of January 14).
We would thus have had the beginning of a real standardization of the air forces.
The Mirage III as a supersonic fighter, instead of the F-104 sold by Loockeed with his corruption, becoming the standard in Western Europe, with Sidewinder missiles?
West Germany would consider taking it before turning to the American fighter.
Last edited:
Assuming the French are willing to sell it to a reformed Luftwaffe. Admittedly the French weren't exactly fussy about who they sold weapons to, but arming West Germany may make them twitchy.
Good Sunday. The new West German army founded in 1955 being under the control of NATO, France in reality delivered a good part of the first German equipment, and collaborated on projects such as the Transall transport plane, the Alfajet trainer and on the anti-tank missiles :
Exemple, + of 2300 Schützenpanzer Kurz/Hotchkiss TT-6 :
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schützenpanzer_SPz_11-2_Kurz
* https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_TT_6
260 hélicoptères Alouette II, and Entac and SS-11 anti-tank missiles also sold to American forces.
There were secret transactions in the 1950s for a joint military nuclear program between France, Italy and West Germany. Cancel with the return of De Gaulle to power in 1958.
Exemple, + of 2300 Schützenpanzer Kurz/Hotchkiss TT-6 :
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schützenpanzer_SPz_11-2_Kurz
* https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_TT_6
260 hélicoptères Alouette II, and Entac and SS-11 anti-tank missiles also sold to American forces.
There were secret transactions in the 1950s for a joint military nuclear program between France, Italy and West Germany. Cancel with the return of De Gaulle to power in 1958.
Last edited:
At the organizational level, I recall these organizations created following the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 between France, the United Kingdom and the Benelux just before the creation of NATO. With Montgomery and De Lattre in command of the general staff:
en.wikipedia.org
WUDO is the ancestor of the Western European Union founded in 1954 :
en.wikipedia.org
Western Union Defence Organisation - Wikipedia
WUDO is the ancestor of the Western European Union founded in 1954 :
Western European Union - Wikipedia
I would suggest that not all of those tanks are actually produced in the USA.
The tanks for the German Army are built by a german company who has the right to build US tanks.
The same for the other countries.
And yes, different countries may need differnt tanks.
So, lets put the design teams of every country work on the ideal tank for their own country and then put all those solutions with those teams in one room and tell them to find a way to come to a solution, like you need three different chassis and three different engines, but with this as base every country has its near perfect tank.
They take chassis A, engine B, put their prefferred armor on it and their gun and its finished.
And if this tank is damaged in another country, they can repair the chassis, may have to replace the engine, armor, but because everything is standarsized, a lot of parts can be used by all countries and voila the tank is battleworthy again.
And to ammo:
I never understood the need to have now four different types of ammo for a soldier.
In 1989 (when I was a soldier in Germany ) we had 9mm for Pistol and SMG and 7,62 for Rifle and Sniper and MG.
Now we have 9 mm for Pistol, 9mm and 4,6 for SMGs and 5,56 for Rifle, 7,62 for MG but now the MG fire 5,56 and 12,7 for Sniper.
Yes, maybe one type of ammo is good for Pistol but not so ggod in SMG or vice versa but the less ammo types the less confusion and "I need ammo for the 4,6mm" and hearing "Sorry, no 4,6 available but I can offer you 2.000 rounds of 9mm."
In fact, 9mm ammunition against vests is a joke, which is why 5.7 mm and 4.6 mm were developed.
That is why many soldiers of the Polish Armed Forces complain about the Vis100 because it still uses 9×19 instead of the initially proposed 5.7 mm.
The use of submachine guns by vehicle crews is probably due to someone sleeping through the 1990s and the introduction of 10" barrels.
That is why many soldiers of the Polish Armed Forces complain about the Vis100 because it still uses 9×19 instead of the initially proposed 5.7 mm.
The use of submachine guns by vehicle crews is probably due to someone sleeping through the 1990s and the introduction of 10" barrels.
1950,
Go for a .257"/.258" for rifle and SAW, in a stoner type rifle but separate LMG.
(As suggested in earlier study). UK adapts FAL in imperal measurement, Canada, Australia, and Commonwealth follows suit. US M14 "quarter cal". FN make Minimi in .257", universally adapted.
Keep .30-06 as medium MG and sniper round, but M1 180grain.
MG3 .30" becomes NATO MMG.
Replace. 50" with .60" modern HMG with HEI and API.
Carl Gustav 84mm as platoon AT.
A 90mm M40 to replace WW2 75mm. 106mm to big.
Keep 60mm Mortar as coy Mortar, but new smooth bore 107mm to replace both 81mm medium and 4.2" heavy.