Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces?

[Bhadra]

@Damian

you are showing me a list of US forces which has only two demobilised Armd / Cavalary division

Less than what armour Pakistan has. Leave aside India ...


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha .........

Live in your fools paradise..

How many armoured divisions Russia has ?? They will chew your 250 000 soldiers in one day...

 

[Bhadra]

Shall we look at USMC structure?

Oh ! My holy ghost ! Three tank battalions in three Marine divisions ?

You call that armour.. One Indian Tank Brigade has double that numbers ....

 

[Damian]

Список оружия сухопутных войск Российской Федерации — Википедия

Here is Russian Wiki page about equipment of their ground forces.

We can read that they have:

~300 T-90, T-90K, T-90A and T-90AK tanks in active service and 200 more in storage.

~1000 T-80BV and T-80U tanks in service and ~3500 in storage, however there is said Ещё 3500 Т-80Б/БВ/У на хранении.[1]Весь парк Т-80 ожидает снятие с вооружения к 2015 году.[2] which translates to At least 3500 more T-80B/BV/U in storage. [1] The entire T-80 tanks fleet expects to retire by 2015. [2]

~1500 T-72B, T-72BA and T-72B3 in service, ~7500 more T-72A/B tanks in storage, part of this tank fleet will be modernized to T-72B3 standard. Ещё 7500 единиц Т-72А/Б на хранении.[1] Проводится модернизация до уровня Т-72Б3 и капитальный ремонт части парка.[3]

So in the end Russia have 2800 tanks in active service, with plans to withdraw from service 1000 remaining T-80 tanks, which will leave 1800 tanks in service. In storage they have 11,200 tanks in various state (some usable, some literally junk), from which T-80 tanks are planned to be scrapped as there are no more spare parts to keep them running, which means that it will be less by 4500 T-80's in service/storage, so that leaves 7700 in storage and 1800 in service after 2015.

 

[rock127]

 

[ghost]

[MOD Edit: Truncated.]

@Damian I would like to request you to realize that this is a general forum ,not an international conference of experts .So each and every person is free to put his or her views in front ,it is not necessary that every one is right every time, a thread is churning of diverse ideas so that in the end a person reaches to a conclusion which he deems right after going through all.It helps us all to evolve ,modify,correct,develop our present ideas and thought about the topic and since it is a continuous process ,inflow of diverse views helps one to form his opinion.

It's true you might have some fool ,some intelligent ,some learned ,some naive people ,so what! it is the norm of life .Sometimes the so called intelligent could be completely wrong and so called fool completely right ,so i think you should welcome each and every views over here and do not term someone"troll" just because he does not go with ur view.You should realize someone seem fool to you might make sense to others.

In the end from my personal view i learned quite a bit about tank divisions and other things from the discussion between you ,as per me both of you have some valid points.So @Bhadra IS NOT A TROLL NEITHER YOU @ Damian.Plz continue

 

[Damian]

[MOD Edit: Truncated.]

Let's take a look, for example German Heer.

We have very balanced structure, with two armored divisions, special forces division, 3 armor brigades, two mechanized and some light infantry.

Polish Army is also balanced although a bit heavier than German one. We have 3 divisions, 2 mechanized and 1 armored plus a lot of independent brigades.

But both armies present current, very balanced model of European ground forces.

UK Army have interesting structure. This is however also balanced structure, with one armored, one infantry division and some other units.

However we can see, that they still have heavy armor in their armored division.

French Army.

And this is Indian Army structure for comparrision, as we can see Indian Army have only 3 Armored Divisions, this is less than US Army for example, where US Army have in fact 6 armored divisions, because 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions are in fact Armored Divisions, just keeping their historical names.

Indian Army also have independent Armor Brigades, but as we can see, there is actually much more Infantry Divisions.

The big difference here is not really number of armored divisions, but rather the fact for example Indian Army migth have more independent brigades or battalions, and also larger reserves. European countries also have large reserves, but decided to scrap them or sold them out.

Now of course the question is where most of these reserves were sold? Perhaps not outside NATO?

Look at Greece, they have a lot of tanks actually, also Turkey. Many tanks like most of German Leopard 2's were sold also to other European states, like Poland, Finland etc. So these tanks are kept still in Europe, just among many nations.

The realy large reduction in tanks was performed withint these very old models that were just not needed and their combat effectivenes was very low, or none.

 

[Damian]

What matters ultimately in an armoured battle is Gun Virsus a Gun meaning the the number of tanks virsus the number of tanks..

Nope, what matters the most is training, motivation and morale. Then there is command and control, then there is technology or to simply put if I have a better tank, with better armor, better gun and better ammunition I win.

You like WWII, look how much could do a handfull of PzKpfw. VI Ausf. E against hundreds of T-34/76.

In US Armoured Division there are only four Armoured Regiments.. or may be five maximum..

No regiments in US Armored Division.

Each US Armored Division can have variable number of Armored Brigades, and each of such Brigade, is in fact a mini Division, with their own command and control element, their own artillery, logistics and so on.

Each Armored Brigade have 3 Combined Arms Battalions, each such battalion have a combination of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infrantry closely cooperating with each other.

In one Pakistani Independent Armoured Brigade there are three Armoured Regiments . Group two of them together and those will make mince meat of one Armoured Division.

Really? So perhaps we should take a look?

6th Armoured Division (Pakistan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see a structure similiar to US, 3 armored brigades, and guess what, Pakistan don't have regiments, they have brigades and in brigades battalions, and oh, a Pakistani brigade is made from 3 battalions.

So in terms of structure, very similiar to US.

In numbers probably also, the difference will be technology, training, motivation, command and control, and recce element, of course in favor of US units.

[MOD Edit: Truncated.]

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian

In India and Pakistan Armoured battalions are called Regiments !! Ok !! We are not obliged to follow your NATO terminologies. You want to learn about Pakistani Armour better understand their terminologies.. a brigade does not have three battalions but three Regiments.... difficult for your conditioned mind to comprehend.

Secondly, Command, control, technology, ammunition speed etc being equal, it is the number of guns that matters... That decides the destructive poer of a tank force when it finally comes for being roosted at home.

No wonder a few years back you used to [MOD Edit: Truncated.] bricks simply because of number of Soviet armour... evn when their technology, command . control etc used to be inferior to that of the West !!

[MOD Edit: Truncated.]

And by the way Two independent armoured brides of Pakistan would be equivalent to six armoured regiments , a force more than an armoured division.

Now do not teach me about flexibility of mobile mechanised warfare... keep that to yourself...

 

[Damian]

In India and Pakistan Armoured battalions are called Regiments !! Ok !! We are not obliged to follow your NATO terminologies. You want to learn about Pakistani Armour better understand their terminologies.. a brigade does not have three battalions but three Regiments.... difficult for your conditioned mind to comprehend.

There is universal military terminology, Brigade is a Brigade, Regiment is Regiment and Battalion is Battalion.

Secondly, Command, control, technology, ammunition speed etc being equal, it is the number of guns that matters... That decides the destructive poer of a tank force when it finally comes for being roosted at home.

But Pakistani Army is not equal with US Army in above terms, neither is Indian Army.

No wonder a few years back you used to shit bricks simply because of number of Soviet armour... evn when their technology, command . control etc used to be inferior to that of the West !!

Now, do not bitch around with that..

??

And by the way Two independent armoured brides of Pakistan would be equivalent to six armoured regiments , a force more than an armoured division.

??

Now do not teach me about flexibility of mobile mechanised warfare... keep that to yourself...

Oh, yeah, right, tell a guy who never was in army or even close to army, of any kind, maybe besides army of lemings.

 

[militarysta]

you are showing me a list of US forces which has only two demobilised Armd / Cavalary division

Less than what armour Pakistan has. Leave aside India ...
(....)
Oh ! My holy ghost ! Three tank battalions in three Marine divisions ?

You call that armour.. One Indian Tank Brigade has double that numbers ....
(...)
Sufficient only to scare some Banana republic.
(...)

How primitive, naive and phatetic way of thinking!

Yes, "Pak&india stronk1111!!"

Definietly those 2,400 indian T-72M1 Alyeay is less powerfull then for exmaple active service 175 german Leopard-2A6 or active service 174 M1A1 in USMC

1. Less trained crews
2. Prmitive C3
3. No modern ammo
4. Phatetic armour
5. Poor mobility
6. Obsolate trening.

But no...."T-72M1 stronk11111!"
Phatetic.

1 Leopard-2A7 = 2,5 Leopard-2A4 (KMW estimatous)
Polish WarPac assumed losses:
attack: 1 destoryed Leo-2A4 for 8 T-72M1
deffense: 1 destroyed Leo-2A4 for 4 T-72M1.

Thats your stupid "numerical" strenght.

Those 2400 T-72M1 Aleya is equal in defense (able to protect) 240 Leo-2A6. In attack - even mor phatetic equal to circa 120 Leo-2A7. Sorry thats the bruttal true.
Primitive tank, whit not vell treined crews, obsolate amo etc vs. top wold specialist + RMA army.

ps. Hussain think the same about numbers

 

[militarysta]

Back to the tanks in Europe - I have gote some list about tanks in Europe

Countries in Europe can be placed in 3 gropus in case tank status:

1st - countries which bought tanks after 2000 and modernisated them
2th - countries which hold key role fo tanks in Land Forces and have modern tank potential or just let tank be on constans status
3th - countries whicht reduce (R) tanks numbers to absurd or withdrawn (W) it form army


1st group - countries which bought tanks after 2000 and modernisated them:

10 countries (bought newt tank or deep modernistaion)
Norway (Leo-2A4) , Finland (Leo-2A4; Leo-2A6), Poland (Leo-2A4; Leo-2A5), Turkey(Leo-2A4; Altay), Greece(Leo-2A6), Spain(Leo2A4; Leo2A6E), Portugal(Leo-2A6), Russia(T-90A), Ukraina(Oplot-M; T-64BM Bulat) , Denmark (Leo-2A5DK)

2th - countries which hold key role fo tanks in Land Forces and have modern tank potential or just let tank be on constans status
14 countries
France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Swizterland, Sweden, Austria(?), Serbia, Boshnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgary, Belarus

3th - countries whicht reduce (R) tanks numbers to absurd or withdrawn (W) it form army
6 countries
Belgium(W) Netherlands(W), Czeh(R), Slovakia(R --> W), Hungary (R), Macedonia (R?)

Of course I don't count microcountries, ar countries without tanks before 1990s,

Anyway: after 2000 in Europe 10 countries bought NEW tanks deeply modernisated it - some of them twice (Finland, Poland, etc)
14 countries reduce in whorl 1990s and 2000s tank numbers but let them key role in Land Forces. Some of those coutries have reallu grate armourd forces and very modern and dangerous tank unist (Germnay, France, UK, Sweden).
In 6 countries tanks where reduced to absurd and tottaly insignificant number (Czeh, Hungary etc) or just withdrawn (Belgium, Netherlands, Slowakia)


10-14-6
tendency is visible

 

[Bhadra]

@militarysta

I shall not doubt the wisdom of any one who has classified you as " Defense Professional"...

but mate keep those Leo there only as neither Paki Army nor Indian Army are going to use or face them. So what is the point reading a riot to me by singing in praise of those Leos etc. etc..

And those T72s are good for us to defend our country and win wars !! What India or Pakistan require is specific to our environment, terrain, conditions and requirements.. I do not think India or Pakistan desire to have a tank race to "Race to the Swift" over the plains of Western Europe and Russia.

Your Abrahams go fut fut in the heat and fraction of our deserts while T72 and T59 run quite well... that is what require.

We are not going to fight with Germany or Poland - that is below our dignity.

Bring those Loes here and those may surrender like desert rats in the heat of Thar desert....

Do not compare in the air...

 

[Bhadra]

There is universal military terminology, Brigade is a Brigade, Regiment is Regiment and Battalion is Battalion.



But Pakistani Army is not equal with US Army in above terms, neither is Indian Army.



??



??



Oh, yeah, right, tell a guy who never was in army or even close to army, of any kind, maybe besides army of lemings.

You are incorrigible and refuse to learn .... you are next to being a [MOD Edit: Truncated.]...

 

[Bhadra]

Back to the tanks in Europe - I have gote some list about tanks in Europe

Countries in Europe can be placed in 3 gropus in case tank status:

1st - countries which bought tanks after 2000 and modernisated them
2th - countries which hold key role fo tanks in Land Forces and have modern tank potential or just let tank be on constans status
3th - countries whicht reduce (R) tanks numbers to absurd or withdrawn (W) it form army


1st group - countries which bought tanks after 2000 and modernisated them:

10 countries (bought newt tank or deep modernistaion)
Norway (Leo-2A4) , Finland (Leo-2A4; Leo-2A6), Poland (Leo-2A4; Leo-2A5), Turkey(Leo-2A4; Altay), Greece(Leo-2A6), Spain(Leo2A4; Leo2A6E), Portugal(Leo-2A6), Russia(T-90A), Ukraina(Oplot-M; T-64BM Bulat) , Denmark (Leo-2A5DK)

2th - countries which hold key role fo tanks in Land Forces and have modern tank potential or just let tank be on constans status
14 countries
France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Swizterland, Sweden, Austria(?), Serbia, Boshnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgary, Belarus

3th - countries whicht reduce (R) tanks numbers to absurd or withdrawn (W) it form army
6 countries
Belgium(W) Netherlands(W), Czeh(R), Slovakia(R --> W), Hungary (R), Macedonia (R?)

Of course I don't count microcountries, ar countries without tanks before 1990s,

Anyway: after 2000 in Europe 10 countries bought NEW tanks deeply modernisated it - some of them twice (Finland, Poland, etc)
14 countries reduce in whorl 1990s and 2000s tank numbers but let them key role in Land Forces. Some of those coutries have reallu grate armourd forces and very modern and dangerous tank unist (Germnay, France, UK, Sweden).
In 6 countries tanks where reduced to absurd and tottaly insignificant number (Czeh, Hungary etc) or just withdrawn (Belgium, Netherlands, Slowakia)


10-14-6
tendency is visible

That is what precisely I am saying " Tank is Dead - Long live Tank Machanics"...

 

[pmaitra]

It is quite possible that a person whose nomme-de-plume does not appear in brown, might actually have experience of military service. Please be respectful about members, whatsoever they might appear to be.

Stereotyping certain people might be socially and politically acceptable in some places, but here, we endeavour to treat everyone equally.

Finally, there is absolutely no need for profanity. None. If you cannot make a point without being abusive, you probably don't have a point.

 

[militarysta]

That is what precisely I am saying " Tank is Dead - Long live Tank Machanics"...

You don't understand IMHO

III gen. tanks are still and still improving - the newest Abrams and Leopard modernisation (includin armour replace) sttep keep them as modern or rather on top world class level tanks.
This what is "new" not necessery is modern or valuable on level (in theory) older weapons.
Classic examples:
M1A1HA(1988) and new North Korea tanks (circa 2010) -which is better?
Leopard-2A5 (1998) or chineese ZTZ-96 (circa 2004)
M1A2SEP v.2 or Arjun?
New doesn't mean better or modern.

Second think is that many europeeans countries (10 of them) bought new tanks - even despite crisis or typical in europe whole army reductions.
Think why.
Becouse tank is not able to beeing replace on modern land warfare, and properly used tank is still key factor to aim the vicory. Of course tank suppoerted by artilery, air forces, infanty, etc - here is the same story since 1939.
Europe is place when tanks where born, and still are pretend to be key weapons.

Shoud Europe rebuild tank forces?
Yes, and No.
Yes becouse contries on UE and NATO border which must do it just do it:
Poland
Finland
Greece
Turkey
From other side Russia is rebuild it's tank forces, the same will do Ukraina.
So in Europe many countires are still improved they tank forces - mostly countries on borders between two civilisations -what is logical.

And no, many countries in Europe doesn't need to rebuild tank forces for two (2) main resons:

1) Most countries in Europe are in NATO or UE. It's colective defense advantage.
Calssic example: Rusia and NATO.
In theory Russia have huge tank fleet: circa 2500-2800 tanks, 1500 tanks in active service, but only circa 800 able to fight in night and only circa 225 modern.

So any 3 NATO countries whit significant tank fleet (not mentioned even USA) are able to countrballance sucht power, or make invasion ineffective. Thats advantage of the collective defense.

2) Countries "inside" UE and NATO are more safe then placed on it's borders, and mostly countries on borders are forced to modernisated tank fleets.

 

[Damian]

You are wasting your time Militarysta.

 

[apple]

There is universal military terminology, Brigade is a Brigade, Regiment is Regiment and Battalion is Battalion.

Agree with everything else you've said (although, I do wonder why you bother...) but you're actually a bit wrong there.

In the British Commonwealth armies Regiments are command units for; Armour, Cavalry, Artillery, etc, but not for Infantry.

For example, I know that an Australian army cavalry regiment is, basically, a mechanized (or armoured, or whatever term you want to use) infantry battalion. Would have no tanks but lots of APC's.

Tanks as primary mean of waging war in the present situation is almost out because you do not need one tank but thousands of them .

I understand you're Indian, and your army has lots of tanks. But don't think that's any excuse to adopt your counter logical position that numerical superiority (or number of barrels in your terms) is the sole determiner of who is victorous in combat.

Not surprised that I have to, but is a bit disappointing that I have to point out, on this site, that the Indian army didn't win the Battle of Asal Uttar because they "had more barrels". If I wanted to, I could come up with thousands of examples where the numerically inferior side won a military engagement.

Not all armies are tasked with the same roles as the Indian Army (surprisingly enough...) and the handful of tanks the Canadians and Dutch deployed to Afghanistan were, by all accounts I seen, greatly appreciated. Which getting onto topic, makes the Dutch binning their tanks even stranger :-/

Your Abrahams go fut fut in the heat and fraction of our deserts while T72 and T59 run quite well... that is what require.

Neither Poland, nor anyone in the EU as far as I know, uses Abrahams. They seemed to work pretty well in the desert in Gulf Wars 1 and 2. Actually, when I think about almost, if not all, countries using Abrahams are either in the desert or have large deserts.