Should Europe Rebuild its Tank Forces?

[Hakan]

Should Europe Rebuild Its Tank Forces?​

Russia’s recent adventurism in Europe, most notably the massing of armor and mechanized units along the border with Ukraine, has prompted defense officials in Europe and the United States to do something they haven’t done in nearly twenty years: assess the balance of military power on the continent. While most public discussions of the changing balance of forces between East and West have focused on the shrinkage that has occurred in nuclear capabilities, the most dramatic reduction in military power has been in conventional forces.

Just take the heart of modern land warfare, the main battle tank. At the end of the Cold War, Russia had nearly 60,000 tanks in its fleet. The majority of these were in Eastern Europe and the Western military districts. The Warsaw Pact countries possessed nearly 20,000 more. On the other side of the line that divided Europe down the middle, NATO possessed some 30,000 tanks, although a substantial fraction of these were deployed in Southern Europe and Turkey. Germany alone had 3,000 tanks. The U.S. immediate military commitment to NATO consisted of two heavy corps with several thousand tanks. In addition, the United Kingdom had the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) centered on three armored divisions with some 600 main battle tanks.

Today the armies in Europe are a faint shadow of their Cold War heritage. Russia now deploys around 3,000 tanks, with another 18,000 in storage. Germany’s tank fleet today is a little over 10 percent of its Cold War size. The U.S. ground combat presence in Europe has been reduced to two light brigade combat teams with virtually no tanks. The British Army has a little over 200 tanks total and the number on the continent will drop to zero when the BAOR returns home in 2015. Other NATO allies such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark have essentially exited the armored warfare business entirely. The largest tank forces in NATO now reside in some of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Poland has a tank fleet three times that of Germany.

Ironically, despite having gone through the collapse of the Soviet Union and nearly two decades of Spartan defense budgets, the Russian military today compares relatively well to its erstwhile NATO adversary particularly with respect to ground forces. Over the past five years it has reorganized and modernized its ground forces. Virtually all its tanks are more modern T-72s and T-80s.

Without question, NATO still holds the advantage in the quality of its tanks. The M-1 Abrams is the world’s best tank. Enhancements added over the past decade have made it even more capable. The British Army’s Challenger tank and German Leopard are also quite good. The trouble is that most of these are not in Europe.

There is no better symbol of the demilitarization of Europe than the decline in its armored ground forces. Given the long history of warfare on the continent, this seemed like a good thing. However, now that Russia is reverting to old patterns of behavior, the balance of conventional military power on the continent is again important. The West may yet come to regret its decision to disband most of what had been the most capable conventional land force the word had ever seen.

Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces? | Army & Land Forces News at DefenceTalk

 

[Zarvan]

Should Europe Rebuild Its Tank Forces?​

Russia’s recent adventurism in Europe, most notably the massing of armor and mechanized units along the border with Ukraine, has prompted defense officials in Europe and the United States to do something they haven’t done in nearly twenty years: assess the balance of military power on the continent. While most public discussions of the changing balance of forces between East and West have focused on the shrinkage that has occurred in nuclear capabilities, the most dramatic reduction in military power has been in conventional forces.

Just take the heart of modern land warfare, the main battle tank. At the end of the Cold War, Russia had nearly 60,000 tanks in its fleet. The majority of these were in Eastern Europe and the Western military districts. The Warsaw Pact countries possessed nearly 20,000 more. On the other side of the line that divided Europe down the middle, NATO possessed some 30,000 tanks, although a substantial fraction of these were deployed in Southern Europe and Turkey. Germany alone had 3,000 tanks. The U.S. immediate military commitment to NATO consisted of two heavy corps with several thousand tanks. In addition, the United Kingdom had the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) centered on three armored divisions with some 600 main battle tanks.

Today the armies in Europe are a faint shadow of their Cold War heritage. Russia now deploys around 3,000 tanks, with another 18,000 in storage. Germany’s tank fleet today is a little over 10 percent of its Cold War size. The U.S. ground combat presence in Europe has been reduced to two light brigade combat teams with virtually no tanks. The British Army has a little over 200 tanks total and the number on the continent will drop to zero when the BAOR returns home in 2015. Other NATO allies such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark have essentially exited the armored warfare business entirely. The largest tank forces in NATO now reside in some of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Poland has a tank fleet three times that of Germany.

Ironically, despite having gone through the collapse of the Soviet Union and nearly two decades of Spartan defense budgets, the Russian military today compares relatively well to its erstwhile NATO adversary particularly with respect to ground forces. Over the past five years it has reorganized and modernized its ground forces. Virtually all its tanks are more modern T-72s and T-80s.

Without question, NATO still holds the advantage in the quality of its tanks. The M-1 Abrams is the world’s best tank. Enhancements added over the past decade have made it even more capable. The British Army’s Challenger tank and German Leopard are also quite good. The trouble is that most of these are not in Europe.

There is no better symbol of the demilitarization of Europe than the decline in its armored ground forces. Given the long history of warfare on the continent, this seemed like a good thing. However, now that Russia is reverting to old patterns of behavior, the balance of conventional military power on the continent is again important. The West may yet come to regret its decision to disband most of what had been the most capable conventional land force the word had ever seen.

Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces? | Army & Land Forces News at DefenceTalk

Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces?

By Lexington institute on Tuesday, May 27th, 2014

AT-M Ad

​

Russia’s recent adventurism in Europe, most notably the massing of armor and mechanized units along the border with Ukraine, has prompted defense officials in Europe and the United States to do something they haven’t done in nearly twenty years: assess the balance of military power on the continent. While most public discussions of the changing balance of forces between East and West have focused on the shrinkage that has occurred in nuclear capabilities, the most dramatic reduction in military power has been in conventional forces.
Just take the heart of modern land warfare, the main battle tank. At the end of the Cold War, Russia had nearly 60,000 tanks in its fleet. The majority of these were in Eastern Europe and the Western military districts. The Warsaw Pact countries possessed nearly 20,000 more. On the other side of the line that divided Europe down the middle, NATO possessed some 30,000 tanks, although a substantial fraction of these were deployed in Southern Europe and Turkey. Germany alone had 3,000 tanks. The U.S. immediate military commitment to NATO consisted of two heavy corps with several thousand tanks. In addition, the United Kingdom had the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) centered on three armored divisions with some 600 main battle tanks.
Today the armies in Europe are a faint shadow of their Cold War heritage. Russia now deploys around 3,000 tanks, with another 18,000 in storage. Germany’s tank fleet today is a little over 10 percent of its Cold War size. The U.S. ground combat presence in Europe has been reduced to two light brigade combat teams with virtually no tanks. The British Army has a little over 200 tanks total and the number on the continent will drop to zero when the BAOR returns home in 2015. Other NATO allies such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark have essentially exited the armored warfare business entirely. The largest tank forces in NATO now reside in some of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Poland has a tank fleet three times that of Germany.
Ironically, despite having gone through the collapse of the Soviet Union and nearly two decades of Spartan defense budgets, the Russian military today compares relatively well to its erstwhile NATO adversary particularly with respect to ground forces. Over the past five years it has reorganized and modernized its ground forces. Virtually all its tanks are more modern T-72s and T-80s.
Without question, NATO still holds the advantage in the quality of its tanks. The M-1 Abrams is the world’s best tank. Enhancements added over the past decade have made it even more capable. The British Army’s Challenger tank and German Leopard are also quite good. The trouble is that most of these are not in Europe.
There is no better symbol of the demilitarization of Europe than the decline in its armored ground forces. Given the long history of warfare on the continent, this seemed like a good thing. However, now that Russia is reverting to old patterns of behavior, the balance of conventional military power on the continent is again important. The West may yet come to regret its decision to disband most of what had been the most capable conventional land force the word had ever seen.

To Rebuild Tank forces Europe needs to have large Armies I think the countries which has the biggest Army in Europe are UK and France and they have an Army of around 120000 each so with this kind of Armies they can't have much bigger Tank Force and as the world changes they will have to go for bigger Armies again which they decreased after World War II

 

[Nike]

Some say this is the times for Asian era, with Asian opportunity and Asian problems, not European era anymore

In Asia, there is a lot of country who possesses large MBT fleet along with their large armies forces such as Saudi Arabia, PRC, India, Pakistan, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam and so on.

 

[vostok]

Europe needs first to get rid of foreign occupation and external control. Only then they can set some tasks that are needed specifically for Europe, not occupiers.

 

[sancho]

Europe doesn't need more or new tanks (more than up to mark anyway), but make themselfs less dependent on the US / NATO policies on the one side and find resonable relations with the Russians.
Europe needs peace to grow and that is only possible with Russia and not against them. Increasing NATO in the east and installing radar and missile sites, with the cheap excuses of defence against Iran clearly only were caused by US policies, which had to lead to a Russian reaction someday. Now we have Russian unofficial soldiers and US private militaries fueling the already difficult situation in the Ukraine, which makes it only worse for Europe.
The more united Europe stands and that even against the US, the less chances of war against Russia and the less are new arms and techs needed.

 

[rockstar08]

Europe needs first to get rid of foreign occupation and external control. Only then they can set some tasks that are needed specifically for Europe, not occupiers.

i agree with you... they have potential but until they remain under Uncle Sam , they are going no where

 

[Porus]

European men have to beget some sons before they think of raising an army. Importing hordes of Muslims from north Africa and Turkey cannot be their best bet.

 

[truthseeker2010]

why do they need strong tank force when they have large and strong air force?

 

[Desertfalcon]

i agree with you... they have potential but until they remain under Uncle Sam , they are going no where

I agree as well, but before they get rid of invited guests, (US military), they should get rid of uninvited invaders, (Russia). When the French told us to leave back in the 1960's, we packed up and left. When the Georgians, Chechyns, and Ukrainians, told Russia to stop meddling....Russian tanks and troops crashed across their boarders and occupied them against their will. Big difference.

 

[waz]

That's all well and good but the Leo, Abrams and Challenger are far superior to anything they are up against.

Quality is the key here.

 

[nangyale]

As already noted by some members. Europe today doesn't have an independent foreign and defence policy, and they can not develop one under the shadow of NATO.
The first thing the Europe needs is to disband this relic of the past and then decide what kind of defence and foreign policy they want to have, which will also dictate if they need to re-arm or not.
At the moment Europe is a continent of the defeated living under occupation. It doesn't want to fight nor does it want to produce kids.

 

[rockstar08]

I agree as well, but before they get rid of invited guests, (US military), they should get rid of uninvited invaders, (Russia). When the French told us to leave back in the 1960's, we packed up and left. When the Georgians, Chechyns, and Ukrainians, told Russia to stop meddling....Russian tanks and troops crashed across their boarders and occupied them against their will. Big difference.

you are talking about 60's sir , and today its 2014 ... EU is capable of defending their own land from any threat , they have the latest tech, best Fighters , Tanks , Air defense systems , Naval Ships and capable AC... i dont think russia will alone go for this adventure , but problem this is the same thing US do since 1960's by giving EU a phobia of Russian invasion they want to set their goals and stay in EU ..

 

[Desertfalcon]

you are talking about 60's sir , and today its 2014 ... EU is capable of defending their own land from any threat , they have the latest tech, best Fighters , Tanks , Air defense systems , Naval Ships and capable AC... i dont think russia will alone go for this adventure , but problem this is the same thing US do since 1960's by giving EU a phobia of Russian invasion they want to set their goals and stay in EU ..

Oh, I don't think Europeans needed the US to give them any "phobia" about Russia. Russia and her occupation of Eastern Europe for decades more than did that without our help. It was the peoples who the Soviets occupied, that on their own after the Soviets collapse, joined NATO in order to prevent such occupation by Russia, ever again. No help from America was needed. I agree with you though about Europe being capable of it's own defence, but you seem to think that NATO is some sort of American lap dog. If the Europeans want us gone, just as France once did, then we shake hands, pack up and go. We Americans, as the OP article states, have already drawn down our forces in Europe to a minimum. When Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Poland and now the Ukraine wanted Russia gone, it resulted in Russian tanks crashing across their boarders and/or martial law and tyranny.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The only Western nations that are strong enough to form some sort of "credible" conventional deterrence to Russia (USA/UK/France/etc) have already decided not to counter Russia in Ukraine.

That said, there is never anything wrong with strengthening your own defense sector, even if it's not going to be used in a war.

 

[rockstar08]

Oh, I don't think Europeans needed the US to give them any "phobia" about Russia. Russia and her occupation of Eastern Europe for decades more than did that without our help. It was the peoples who the Soviets occupied, that on their own after the Soviets collapse, joined NATO in order to prevent such occupation by Russia, ever again. No help from America was needed. I agree with you though about Europe being capable of it's own defence, but you seem to think that NATO is some sort of American lap dog. If the Europeans want us gone, just as France once did, then we shake hands, pack up and go. We Americans, as the OP article states, have already drawn down our forces in Europe to a minimum. When Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Poland and now the Ukraine wanted Russia gone, it resulted in Russian tanks crashing across their boarders and/or martial law and tyranny.

the you can say it very easily that " when they want us to leave we'll leave " , i dont think US will let alone Germany, US has its own reasons to stay in EU , not just to protect EU but to counter Russians from multiple sides , in case of any war US will fire its own bullet but putting the gun on EU's Shoulder