European NATO Army alternatives: 1950 - 1990

[Capt Thunderbolt]

IEdid not have the capacity to build it. And this is the McNamara era, where there is a 90% + chance that everything he touches turns to shit (I include Ford in that).

The Gov't changed AFTER the decision to build M60.

The US problem in the late 50s is they know that right now their entire tank fleet with 90mm guns is not effective vs T54/55 tanks

They did, and hence why the L7 105.

During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a Soviet T-54A medium tank was driven onto the grounds of the British embassy in Budapest by the Hungarians in November. After a brief examination of this tank's armour and 100 mm gun, British officials decided that the 20-pounder was apparently incapable of defeating its frontal armour.

The first production tank to integrate the L7 was a single up-armoured Centurion Mark 7 in 1958 which was to prove the future viability of up-armouring and up-gunning the Centurion. From 1959 onwards newly built Centurions incorporated the L7 at production.[3]

While the United States began design development of the XM60 tank in 1957 and began user trials of the weapon in 1958.

 

[Sasza]

You overestimate the number of T-54s in service.
Until the 1960s, the basic tank for mobilization would still be the T-34.

A bigger problem is the severely limited artillery, NATO lacks rocket artillery to destroy manpower.

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly I think a greater cooperation between the smaller states would make a lot of sense.

As example Denmark, Norway and to lesser extent Iceland had pretty similar needs; a focus on navy and air force and a army mostly for defensive action. Instead of tank they should buy tank destroyers instead, the navy should focus on mine layers and submarines. Fundamentally armed forces those primary reason should be to bog the Russian down, until the greater military powers could intervene

Benelux too should after the loss of Indonesia and Congo have seen greater integration of their armed forces, they too have similar needs and could honestly also integrate with the West Germans.

 

[Sasza]

Honestly I think a greater cooperation between the smaller states would make a lot of sense.

As example Denmark, Norway and to lesser extent Iceland had pretty similar needs; a focus on navy and air force and a army mostly for defensive action. Instead of tank they should buy tank destroyers instead, the navy should focus on mine layers and submarines. Fundamentally armed forces those primary reason should be to bog the Russian down, until the greater military powers could intervene

Benelux too should after the loss of Indonesia and Congo have seen greater integration of their armed forces, they too have similar needs and could honestly also integrate with the West Germans

I'm sorry, but your ideas are simply saying, "F**k your independence, buy and do what the Germans do."

 

[Jürgen]

I'm sorry, but your ideas are simply saying, "F**k your independence, buy and do what the Germans do."

No, the other way around.

 

[Sasza]

In the 1950s and 1960s, West Germany was the only country to introduce tank destroyers on a mass scale. Until the 1970s, they only built minesweepers and submarines.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The Gov't changed AFTER the decision to build M60.

But its a no brain decision Congress had already decided not to fund M48 production after 59 the T95 programme is 4 prototypes. Its going nowhere and Congress knows it and part of that program was the armour which is also going nowhere. So whoever is in the presidency its new tank now. So they do the sensible thing, and put the 105l7 which works, and its T95 turret on an M48 hull with a proven power plant and call it new.

Then they proceed to fuck it up with the A2 and fuck up the MBT70 program then get the M1 which actually combines mature technologies. And having learned their lesson the Children of the design team go into naval architecture and develop the Littoral Combat Shit.

This is not a bug btw its a feature of US procurement over decades everyone has issues with this for obvious reasons ( there are new technologies, requirements do change and evolve, politicians have constituents money is not infinite but its cheaper to spend on R&D than actually making things) but the US started coasting in the mid 50s and its not until the Rumsfeld era DoD ( Reagan presidency) that the shit got cut out.

You overestimate the number of T-54s in service.

No NATO overestimated see also Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Commie Hordes, etc etc etc. But the decisions are made against the background of these estimates so its a real consideration.

F**k your independence, buy and do what the Germans do

Kinda. But then you have subordinated most of your armed forces to NATO anyway.

Practically the Germans are building several thousand tanks anyway the unit cost will be low - ditto US tanks, French APC etc etc. You will get more bang for the buck buying Leopard unit number 2001 than a locally built and designed Tank Destroyer unit 1. What you do is deal with KraussMaffei to get work on components, if not this time then on the next model and buy in on the design and development of the next model from the start and tweak it in ways you want for your service.

If we exclude the US and France for most of this period there has been a very high degree of European cooperation on procurement and manufacture of kit. The French actually tend to be good partners up to a certain point then amicably walk away.

 

[Crowbar Six]

I always liked the Idea of the UK adapting an EM2 to use a 7.62 version of the Voss Bullet with a case length to match the overall dimensions of what became the 7,62 NATO round. The Belgium's do the same with the FAL which the Canadians pick it. The Spanish also change to what is now the standard European round for their roller delayed SETME rifle.

They did make a some EM2's in 7.62 x 51mm , in one of the earliest Forgotten Weapons Ian got to shoot one that made it to the US. The UK MOD concluded that the action would require a redesign to handle the extra-power so they abandoned the design and picked the FAL instead.

EM2 shooting video

We had the opportunity to shoot a select-fire EM2 rifle in 7.62 NATO caliber, and put together a video showing how it operates.

www.forgottenweapons.com

 

[sonofpegasus]

"They did make a some EM2's in 7.62 x 51mm , in one of the earliest Forgotten Weapons Ian got to shoot one that made it to the US. The UK MOD concluded that the action would require a redesign to handle the extra-power so they abandoned the design and picked the FAL instead."

I was not talking about 7.62 NATO but an alternative round being 7,62 Voss Bullet in a case to match the overall length of 7,62 NATO so it could be used in a rifle with an action length designed for the NATO. The whole point of the Voss bullet is that it is a high velocity bullet fired from an intermediate cartridge which due to its low ballistic coefficient is still effective at 1000m and supersonic at that range, Also it is very flay shooting when compared to most other intermediate rounds of the same bore. The SETME 7.92 mm cartridge was conceived to be fired from a lightweight rifle (max weight 4kg) and to have a low recoil impulse. Therfoe it should have been ideal for the EM2 and the FAL as originally designed.

 

[L'amateur d'aéroplanes]

In the early 1980s, several years before the Caesar, a French company launched a concept for a howitzer mounted on a camoin used by military engineers to install a minefield. This remained on the drawing board. he would have used the FH70 155 mm calibre 39 :

Obusier de Campagne Motorisé / SPFH90

SPFH90 évacué d’un atelier de la Force terrestre d’autodéfense japonaise suite au tsunami du 11 mars 2011 Inspiré de l’article de Marc Chassillan pour RAIDS Hors-série N° 73. Une d…

auborddelabime.com

At the same time, 20 years before HIMARS, there was a concept from french Lieutenant-Colonel Hatier, in response to the “challenge” launched by Marc Chassillan to his students. It was necessary to design a Multiple Rocket Launcher capable of providing fire support in external theaters of operations. The system had to be able to be projected by air and have a small logistical footprint. The system uses the same M26/M30/M31 rockets as the M270 MLRS in a basket containing 6 rounds.

One of the constraints imposed was to use an existing chassis. The study focused on the following chassis: ACMAT 6×6 and 8×8 trucks, TRM, VA, Sagaie, AMX-10 RC, AMX-10 RTT trucks. It is the latter which is chosen as the basis of work. A two-seater cabin is installed at the front, above the GMP. The latter is accessible, because the cabin is tiltable. The concept envisaged a weight of 16 tonnes in combat configuration.
The concept is called ALLARM for Automoteur Léger Lance-Roquettes Multiple (Light Self-Propelled Multiple Rocket Launcher).

ALLARM

J’ai découvert l’ALLARM dans le magazine RAIDS Hors-série N° 73. Il était présenté par Marc Chassillan qui est l’un des spécialistes techniques du blindé en France. Il a passé un peu plus de 2…

auborddelabime.com

 

[Questerr]

???

From what I understand, the FAL beat the M14 in basically every category of testing, but Springfield was able to claim that the M14 would be incredibly cheap to produce because it was highly parts compatible with the M1 Garand and could reuse most of the tooling. But that was a lie. It had almost no parts commonality with M1.

 

[DUWANG]

*Germany would have had an air force, but a clause in the EDC treaty would have forbidden it to build war-planes, atomic weapons, guided missiles and battleships.

So an air force without any fighting capabilities?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

So an air force without any fighting capabilities?

As quoted the treaty doesn't prevent West Germany from using those things, just making them themselves. So they could have a fully functioning Air Force but it could only be equipped with what W.G's partners were willing to provide it with. No doubt the intention was that the new Luftwaffe would only have enough weapons to train with and resist an initial assault after which they would have to draw on allied stores. They would not have the weapons to be able to launch an attack on anyone.

 

[Ramontxo]

The French not wanting to sell to Germany, including Monsieur Dassault, is a myth.
The West germans even sent a test pilot, Walter Krupinski, to fly the pre-series Mirage III, but since it was underpowered and not yet close to what the Luftwaffe wanted, they backed away.

Dassault was ready to sell the Mirage powered by an rr Avon (it was offered to the Aussies).

 

[Michel Van]

So an air force without any fighting capabilities?

only in Nuclear bombing, for rest is german Airforce with fighting capabilities under Paris treaty.

The French not wanting to sell to Germany, including Monsieur Dassault, is a myth.
The West germans even sent a test pilot, Walter Krupinski, to fly the pre-series Mirage III,
but since it was underpowered and not yet close to what the Luftwaffe wanted, they backed away.

That was very strange case
Dassault offered nice package deal for German government to build Mirage in Germany.
The Bundes Luftwaffe send Walter Krupinski to test those aircraft

Lockheed F-104
Northrop N156 F (F-5)
Dassault Mirage III
Grumman F-11F „Tiger“

So far i know Krupinski flew only the F-104, then Mirage III,
Serge Dassault in interview told about how Krupinski mess up the test flights,
Constantly complaining on "issues", the french testpilots never experience before with MIrage III.
On return to Germany Krupinski recommend vehement the F-104, despite it not fit role the Luftwaffe needed.
Their allot speculation that Lockheed bribe Krupinski or the Luftwaffe or even Defence Minister Franz Joseph Strauß.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

But its a no brain decision Congress had already decided not to fund M48 production after 59 the T95 programme is 4 prototypes. Its going nowhere and Congress knows it and part of that program was the armour which is also going nowhere. So whoever is in the presidency its new tank now

So it could be done, thank you.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

I was not talking about 7.62 NATO but an alternative round being 7,62 Voss Bullet in a case to match the overall length of 7,62 NATO so it could be used in a rifle with an action length designed for the NATO.

It would be perfect, if you could stabilise it 😢

The Boss needs very fast rifling, to stabilise, even tighter in cold weather. Unlike the current "bull" like 155mm, which have their mass on the circumference, that acts a flywheel, smallarms don't. Hard core AP is even worse, with a light circumference.

Ideally you want a smaller diameter cartridge to reduced magazine length.

 

[sonofpegasus]

The Voss used a copper jacket around a hard aluminium alloy core and was stable and accurate from the information I have, In 1950/52 getting the Americans to accept a smaller bore than 7.62 would be very difficult, that would take another 10 years in OTL.

 

[Jürgen]

In the 1950s and 1960s, West Germany was the only country to introduce tank destroyers on a mass scale. Until the 1970s, they only built minesweepers and submarines.

Yes, and I think it was a mistake for Benelux and Scandinavian NATO members to not do the same. None of these countries had to wage offensive war, so they should look focus on inflicting losses and keep the Soviet stuck.

 

[Sasza]

Yes, and I think it was a mistake for Benelux and Scandinavian NATO members to not do the same. None of these countries had to wage offensive war, so they should look focus on inflicting losses and keep the Soviet stuck.

The tank is not just for attack.

As World War II showed, the only way to stop the Soviet advance is to immediately counterattack.

Otherwise, the Russians will dig in, create a pakfront and they will bring the artillery closer.