Should Europe Rebuild Tank Forces?

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

I am iritated because I writed about this subject many times on this forum, and I become tired repeating myself over and over again.

all you need to do is paste the link if you got one if not no worries we all have different opinions and some times sorry if being repetative it can be repetitive but keep cool buddy we all are here to learn i might have missed because some threads are hundreds of pages will check again thank you

 

[Damian]

Sorry, I do not have time to again search for all these documents, sources etc. I had them on my old HDD but it is broken. Many of these things I posted on these forums however.

Besides this, you should really read about new nanomaterials, like graphene or carbon nanotubes, or nanometric steel.

A vehicle with structure and armor builded from these materials, will be relatively lightweight and will in the same time have superior protection and survivability to everything we know today.

When nanomaterials will be avaiable for mass production, we will see a true revolution in subject of armored fighting vehicles.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Sorry, I do not have time to again search for all these documents, sources etc. I had them on my old HDD but it is broken. Many of these things I posted on these forums however.

no worries all is cool heheh ill search for those page in old threads

 

[Damian]

Advanced Modular Armor Protection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should also read about IBD Deisenroth AMAP solutions. Their modular armor uses such materials like nanometric steel, new metal alloys, or nano ceramics. You can see that despite reduced weight, these solutions still provide high protection levels.

As I said above, nanotechnology gives us new possibilities, perhaps possibilities we never imagined before in terms of protection.

Just imagine, we can actually increase protection of everything, armored fighting vehicles, aircrafts, navy vessels, even soldiers individual protection, and everything still can be relatively lightweight and usable.

Nanotechnology offers other interesting possibilities, for example during ballistic tests of carbon nanotubes (of course in a small scale against small arms rounds and with relatively thin nanotubes layer), bullets were not only stopped, but also scientists observed that after some time, carbon nanotubes regenerated to their original form.

This is future that is ahead of us. And fortunetaly, future avaiable only for the most technologically advanced and richest nations.

IMHO in future, physically destroying completely AFV will be very difficult, and fighting with them, will be more focused on actually disabling them by mobility kills, or firepower kills (damaged sights, main armament etc.).

 

[Bhadra]

Maybe back to the tanks?

Ok, I know that is your love. But Tanks are dead man !!

Secondly, Since when has NATO been a defensive organisation ??

 

[pmaitra]

I think we have dedicated threads for technical discussions on tanks. Why repeat the same thing in every thread?

Anyone has anything to speculate as to how relevant tanks would be in the future?

How does European demographics affect it?
Is Europe's decision or predicament (to be left with fewer tanks) related to the above?
Or is it economics? Are the European taxpayers willing to pay or capable of paying for large number of tanks?
Will recent political changes in Europe have any effect in military doctrine?

Technical:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology.html
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition.html

Politico/Economic:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ght-parties-have-seized-ground-elections.html
Euro Crisis (too many threads to list)

 

[Bhadra]

I think we have dedicated threads for technical discussions on tanks. Why repeat the same thing in every thread?

Anyone has anything to speculate as to how relevant tanks would be in the future?

How does European demographics affect it?

Tanks are required to be manned. When one envisages employment of tanks, those are employed in mass and not a small force.

Ok - look at it this way _ Why does NATO exist? To defend Europe against Russia?
From Russia what is principal threat ? It is the massive Armour columns .
So what numbers would be required to stop that armour columns ?
Massive numbers.
So who will man those tanks ?
The populations - hence demographics is important.

Is Europe's decision or predicament (to be left with fewer tanks) related to the above?

Or is it economics? Are the European taxpayers willing to pay or capable of paying for large number of tanks?
Will recent political changes in Europe have any effect in military doctrine?

All of it.

The Americans have almost disbanded their Tank formations.

Europeans can not fight a war at a scale that was WWII.

Military operations to grab Europe are neither profitable nor possible.

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 .

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

US prepares for tank battles in Europe

The newest American tanks arrived at the American military base in Bavaria on January 31. So what? According to the statements made by American military officials, 29 heavy new generation Abrams tanks would be a part of the European Activity Set (EAS). They are supposedly just to serve as equipment for the training center.

The appearance of the tanks is explained by the fact that at a time when the American command has decided to continue training American tank personnel in Europe, they had nothing to train them on. In the course of reducing the US military presence in Europe the last tank brigade was disbanded and all tanks sent back to the US. And now less than a year later a new generation of Abrams tanks has been shipped back to Europe. But now it is exclusively to strengthen the military cooperation with the European colleagues...

In the spacious grounds and shooting ranges of the Joint Multinational Training Command (JMTC) at the US Tower Barracks military base in Grafenwöhr, military personnel from all over Europe have been trained there for many years. Why couldn't the American military be trained at the American base? According to Colonel Thomas Matsel from the JMTC operations unit, "with the help of the EAS our regiments will have access to the whole spectrum of military operations that they potentially would have to conduct".

The issue of a military equipment deficit in Europe is naturally an internal issue of the US and Europe's NATO institutions. But the US has demonstrated a special interest towards a specific part of that "spectrum" - to the NATO Response Force. According to the American military, the "European set" created by them is to "give a new life to the US involvement in the NATO Response Force".

Last fall Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary General of NATO, explained what the NATO Response Force was. "The NATO Response Force is units of fast response, the tip of the spear of the North Atlantic Alliance - ... capable of guaranteeing the defense of any member-state, capable of being deployed in any place and to withstand any threat". On rotation basis the member states allocated their military contingents to that force for a period of one year. It is a natural and plausible intent. But it turns out that as of late not only NATO countries are looking to guarantee the defense of the member states.

In 2014 Sweden, Finland and Ukraine will allocate their military contingents to the NATO Response Force, while in 2015 Georgia has offered to join the rotation of the response forces. The largest stages of last year's military exercises in November 2013 took place in Latvia and Poland. This year four large-scale exercises are planned in the same locations. "Keeping the tip in a sharp and ready condition" (as the NATO Secretary General defined the task of the exercises) is taking place in the European theater of military operations and oftentimes next to Russia's borders. Is it possible that now the problems of the European defense will be resolved not only with the help of American missile defense systems, but also with American tanks?

It appears that the suspicions that come to the minds of the conspiracy theory advocates would be dissolved by the format of the "American set". The battalion and the elements of the higher-ranking command and control staff could hardly be considered a large-scale force. But it turns out that the Americans have also developed their own very peculiar rotation scheme. The First Team, the name of the US 1st Cavalry Division, the tank personnel of which served the first term in Germany, precisely reflects the future plans of the pentagon. The tank personnel from other units will replace the battalion of the First Team. And their rotation will take place much more frequently than once a year.

In the US people also agree that the military games of the current period increasingly remind one of the lavish years of the Cold War. While commenting on the return of American tanks to Germany, Michael Darnell of the Stars and Stripes newspaper points out: "When the 22 M1A1 Abrams departed the continent it was seen as the end of an era"¦ Now, it appears that chapter of history may have been closed a bit prematurely".

Read more: US prepares for tank battles in Europe - News - World - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Reference purpose article from 2011

Mass Sale of European Battle Tanks Highlights Potential Defense Weakness

Last week, Austria announced it would be scrapping or selling 758 of its tanks and armored vehicles — over 66% of its entire force. This highlights an escalating trend: European militaries are substantially reducing their armored vehicle fleets.

The reasons behind this are easy to identify. Tanks are increasingly militarily irrelevant to today's perceived security threats, and are thus seen as an easy place to find savings in the financial crisis. However, these large unilateral reductions in tank numbers highlight a worrying lack of coordination, which could lead to a European continent stripped of certain military capabilities.

Everywhere you look, Europe has been downgrading its armored vehicle fleets. The UK recently scrapped 163 of its Challenger main battle tanks (MBTs), whilst Germany is reducing its fleet of Leopard MBTs by 75, along with 60 lighter vehicles. Perhaps most drastically, the Netherlands recently scrapped its entire tank fleet.

This "fire sale" is not hard to explain. Large tank fleets are a historical hangover from the Cold War, when the world held its breath for confrontation with the Soviets in Eastern Europe. It is the reason why as recently as 2006, Europe operated more tanks than the U.S. military.

Yet, as Austrian officials said of their decision, "Today we face cyber threats, terrorist threats: These are the challenges of the future."

Tanks are of little use in both these areas. Indeed, in an age when climate change is consistently listed as one of the biggest existential threats to European security, lumbering armored vehicles look increasingly obsolete.

Given the financial crisis, it is thus inevitable that armored vehicle numbers have come in for re-evaluation. There are substantial savings to be made. But there should be a note of caution about this European fire sale.

While massed tank attacks are hugely unlikely in today's strategic environment, there is still a place for heavy armor in interventionist or counter-insurgency warfare. Canadian and U.S. forces have both used MBTs in small numbers in Afghanistan, for example. Just because today's threats are apparently irregular and dispersed doesn't mean armor is completely useless. Europe will still need tanks in the future, just in smaller numbers.

And here is the problem - Europe's tank numbers are in uncoordinated freefall. This is worrying, because NATO or the EU's overall defense picture relies on a full spectrum of capabilities being accounted for across its members.

Yet the actions of small nations such as Austria and the Netherlands are instructive -- by scrapping almost all their tanks, they are clearly signaling that another European partner will need to provide this capability in future. Yet Germany and the UK are apparently just as keen to scrap their MBTs. Who is left?

Clearly, role specialization for European militaries is a necessity in today's financial crisis. Not everyone needs to maintain a fast-jet fleet or tanks. Yet, as former NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has consistently warned, this needs to be done in a coordinated fashion. Otherwise, the result will not be budget savings and military specialization. Instead, it will be gaping capability gaps and defense weakness.

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Tanks for the Memories, Europe

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.
- See more at: Lexington Institute » Tanks for the Memories, Europe

 

[AVERAGE INDIAN]

Affirming The Value Of Tanks,The future of the main battletank looks secure


The decision late last year by the U.S. Marine Corps to send a tank platoon to Afghanistan was criticized by some analysts, who rejected the idea that M1A1 Abrams tanks could be useful in a counterinsurgency (COIN) environment.

But for all the talk in recent years of the civilian population representing a center of gravity in COIN operations, and the corresponding need to cut back on air strikes, long-range artillery fires and other initiatives, one aspect of COIN has often been ignored—even with the outreach, local alliance-building and efforts to spare civilians from the ravages of war, the need remains to kill the enemy.

As such, what the Marines are doing in southern Afghanistan with a platoon of tanks is hardly unusual. Main battle tanks (MBT) have been used successfully by the Canadians and the Dutch in southern Afghanistan, and by the Israelis, who learned hard lessons from bitter fighting in Lebanon in 2006, and went in heavy in Gaza in 2008-09. Rand Corp.'s David Johnson, a retired U.S. Army colonel who writes about heavy armor in conventional and irregular operations, and is finishing a book about Israel's experience in Lebanon and Gaza, says Israeli officials tell him they've learned that if they don't go into urban and asymmetric combat heavy, they won't survive. "When they came out of Lebanon they restarted the Merkava Mk4 tank line to start building the Namer," an armored personnel carrier based on a Merkava chassis, he says.

Tanks were critical in the U.S. Army's fight against the Shiite Mahdi army in Baghdad's Sadr City in 2008, and against Al Qaeda-backed Sunni insurgents in Fallujah in 2004, mainly due to the threat of rocket-propelled grenades and the entrenched nature of urban combat. "If you show up with a Merkava Mk4 or, in the case of the Canadians in Afghanistan, a Leopard 2 tank, insurgents have to be pretty dedicated to shoot at something that they know they won't kill, but will kill them," Johnson says.

To modify the Abrams for urban areas of Iraq, the Army undertook a major refit of the vehicle in 2005, producing the Tank Urban Survivability Kit (TUSK), now installed on more than 900 tanks. The kit includes belly armor, blast-resistant seating, gun shields, tile armor, a remotely operated weapon system, countersniper capabilities, thermal imaging and a rear-view camera. Army Majs. Howard Donaldson and Michael Sansone have written that "TUSK was the most critical modification effort in the history of the Abrams program."

In Afghanistan, the Canadians and Dutch have used tanks to great effect—even providing fire support for British troops. Canadian Army Maj. Trevor Cadieu wrote in The Canadian Army Journal that after the Canadians deployed a squadron of Leopard 2 tanks to Kandahar in December 2006, "the tank squadron and armored engineers featured prominently in all major combat operations . . . Since May 2007, the tank squadron has fought almost constantly alongside Canadian and Afghan infantry in close combat with the Taliban."

The Canadians found so much success in Afghanistan with the German-made Leopard tank that they revised plans for the structure of their ground forces. In 2001, Canada decided not to replace its aging Leopard I tanks, but to ride them until they died and transition to a lighter force structure using the Stryker-like light armored vehicle (LAV) infantry carriers as their heaviest equipment. It wasn't long before the powerful roadside bombs Canadian troops encountered in southern Afghanistan changed this, prompting Ottawa to start a crash program to buy surplus German and Dutch Leopard 2 tanks, which began arriving in Afghanistan in 2008.

The Dutch had much the same experience with the Leopard 2 in Afghanistan, claiming that the tank's 120-mm. gun is so accurate it minimizes civilian casualties.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have always held MBTs as a centerpiece of tactical operations, and the Merkava Mk4, combined with the Namer armored vehicle, has a sure future in IDF doctrine.

Utilizing its adaptable, modular design and "telescopic evolution," the Merkava is transforming from a MBT to a multipurpose fighting vehicle, characterized by a balanced blend of protection, mobility, firepower and information systems. The tank is designed as a network-centric system with four redundant networks managed by multiple servers in the turret and hull. These have been enhanced with external wireless connectivity, enabling the latest Merkava tanks to share sensor data, situational displays and other information with nearby tanks and units.

The tank's basic design provides sufficient power, processing, communications and interfaces for growth. Using its unique modular armor design, the armor suite of the Merkava has been continuously upgraded to face evolving threats. The latest boost to its combat effectiveness is the Rafael Trophy active defense system (ADS), which enhances survival on a redundant fire-saturated battlefield, against all known antitank weapons.

The armor corps conducted live-fire tests of the ADS last December, launching representative missiles without warheads against an ADS-protected tank with its crew inside. The missiles were intercepted by the Trophy system and destroyed while on their approach. The IDF is equipping its first Merkava Mk4 brigade with the Trophy upgrade.

European allies also seem pleased with in-service MBTs. Part of this is the result of economic reality. In cash-strapped European capitals there is no political pressure or money to fund a next-generation tank. Given the current reductions in force structure, many armies may end up with large stocks of excess tanks. This could result in yet another cascading effect, which will see some of the best equipped armies selling their tank inventories at bargain prices to new users within NATO and the European Union, as well as on the international market. This happened with early versions of the Leopard 2, in which used tanks, usually German or Dutch models, went into service with at least a dozen armies. A new round of used tank sales could begin in the next 12-18 months, with the Leopard 2 likely as the best seller.

Even as the value of the MBT in asymmetric warfare and COIN has been confirmed in Afghanistan, European armies are being restructured to place more emphasis on medium/light maneuver units and rarely devote more than one-third of their force to heavy armor. Tanks are being upgraded to handle the new requirements of COIN and stabilization missions. Here the emphasis is on improving protection against mines, improvised explosive devices and antitank rockets. This comes through a combination of better armor and active defense systems, coupled with increased levels of networking capabilities, plus new features, weapons and systems to make the tank more capable in urban environments.

This is the case with the German army, which is upgrading part of its Leopard 2A6 fleet to the latest 2A7+ configuration—more extensive than the TUSK program—while the Italian and French armies are improving, respectively, Ariete and Leclerc tanks. Funding permitting, something along these lines is what the British Army plans to do with Challenger 2 tanks, which will feature new versions of Dorchester armor and lethality improvements.

While there are tests of new technologies that could be applied to a next-generation tank, there is no such program of record or a requirement in place across Europe. This is reinforced by the fact that Russia is considered more of a partner than a potential adversary, and by the demise of its T-95 tank program. There are currently four European MBTs—Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger 2 and Ariete—and it is likely that there will be just a single European new-generation tank project in the medium term, which would stimulate industrial consolidation. For the time being, every major European country with a military vehicle manufacturing capability can afford to build its own wheeled vehicles. While some could develop a tracked infantry fighting vehicle, designing an MBT from scratch would be a different story. Discussions are going on between current MBT players on this score.

Europe came close to embracing a common tank program in the 1990s when the U.K., France and Germany worked on a 140-mm. gun with autoloader and an evolved turret for a three-man crew. The program came to a halt with the end of the Cold War, however. This time it will be the shaky economies of European powers that lead governments to look to one another for help in designing, testing and paying for the next-generation MBT.

Affirming The Value Of Tanks | AWIN content from Aviation Week

 

[Bhadra]

No way are we returning back to cold war era !!

Americans and Europeans know it well that neither Soviet Union exist not Russia will be able to take their tank columns to Paris.

Nuclear deterrence is good enough.

 

[pmaitra]

No way are we returning back to cold war era !!

Americans and Europeans know it well that neither Soviet Union exist not Russia will be able to take their tank columns to Paris.

Nuclear deterrence is good enough.

You are correct. They know it. So do the arms manufacturers. However, they need a bogey of a threat, so that they can keep peddling their arms.

 

[Illusive]

Future tanks or ground armoured vehicles might be unmanned, so manpower wouldn't really be a problem.

 

[Bhadra]

You are correct. They know it. So do the arms manufacturers. However, they need a bogey of a threat, so that they can keep peddling their arms.

Tanks will remain but in fewer numbers specially in countries that have tankable borders such as Ukraine, Russia, poland, India and Pakistan and Arab countries, Iran, China etc. Specially those countries who do not have nuclear deterrence.

However, these tank expert on the forum seem essentially to be promoting sales of tanks of their countries ... and their technologies to the third world countries like Pakistan or India. Their technical discussions are aimed at marketing.

such as Israeli tanks, Polish tanks, German tanks, Ukrainian tanks and the technology.

US international military roles no longer envisage role of Tank formations. They have essentially switched over to to light armour such as Strykers which can take a few men to the battle field as also a Gun. They do not envisage an opposition from Tank formations but interventions in COIN and low conflict low technology oppositions.

 

[Damian]

@Bhadra you are little lier aren't you?

Secondly, Since when has NATO been a defensive organisation ??

Since the beggining of it's existance, did you ever reads any NATO documents, about it's creation, it's strategy?

I have a big question to all of you, is here even a single person, that ever studied National Security or something similiar? Did any of you was ever educated how to understand profiles of politics of different states or multinational organizations like NATO or UN?

So let me explain, a basic document, that shapes all other documents and in the end politics, is a strategy, for example national security strategy. And if this strategy, there is said, that subject A main doctrine is defence, then it is defensive organization.

http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/index.html

Here is NATO website, and there is said: NATO's essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Which by itself means that it is defensive organization.

Seriously, I don't understand, how dumb must be people around the world bitching about NATO, if they are incapable to understand meaning of such simple words.

But Tanks are dead man !!

No they aren't. I see plenty of nations using tanks you little troll.

How does European demographics affect it?
Is Europe's decision or predicament (to be left with fewer tanks) related to the above?
Or is it economics? Are the European taxpayers willing to pay or capable of paying for large number of tanks?
Will recent political changes in Europe have any effect in military doctrine?

1) It does not affect it much really. Only problem is that every type of weapon system in Europe after 1991 was reduced to quantity of absurd. I said it once, everything was reduced, number of soldiers, small arms, artillery, navy vessels, armored vehicles, aircrafts, helicopters, literally everything.
And if so, by @Bhadra child "logic" (it is hard to call logic his way of thinking, and I do not dare to say hard truth about it either) everything is dead, infantry, aircrafts, navy vessels, because every type of weapon system had been reduced to this point of absurd. But democraphics was not the reason.
2) Nope, it was illusion of lack of threat, or the other way around, it was belief that Fukuyama was right, that this is the end of history, and we ultimately won. Obviously this shows how stupid are our politicians, and in the end European society if it believed to them and choosen them.
3) Economy in each separate European country, besides perhaps Greece, and Italy now, SPain perhaps also, should be good enough to keep large enough army, also with tanks. Altough you point out something very important, mentality of each society. I will put it that way, there are nations willing to pay for army, I can say we Poles are perfectly ok with that, why? We have a good memory, and we probably better understand reality, than some of our dellusioned western neighbours, and history likes to repeat itself.
4) It allready have! Just look at military affairs in Europe, I can give you a perfect example of Poland, we not only modernize our army, with large focus on AFV's as I said earlier, but also we try to convience USA, to permamently deploy Armored Brigade to Poland. Everything changed.

The Americans have almost disbanded their Tank formations.

Another of @Bhadra's lie.

Let's look at it:

US Army after transformation and restructurization:


1st Armored Division
Headquarters Fort Bliss, Texas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Fort Bliss
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Bliss (Army Evaluation Task Force)
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Bliss (Scheduled for inactivation)
4th Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Bliss
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Bliss

1st Cavalry Division
Headquarters Fort Hood, Texas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Hood

1st Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Riley, Kansas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Riley
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Riley
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky (Scheduled for inactivation)
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Riley (Scheduled for inactivation)
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Riley

2nd Infantry Division
Headquarters Camp Red Cloud, South Korea
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Camp Casey, South Korea
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Combat Aviation Brigade at Camp Humphreys, South Korea

3rd Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Stewart, Georgia
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Stewart
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Stewart (Scheduled for inactivation)
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Benning, Georgia
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Stewart
Combat Aviation Brigade at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia

4th Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Carson, Colorado
1st Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Fort Carson
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Carson (Scheduled for inactivation)
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Carson
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Carson
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson

7th Infantry Division (HQs only, fills an administrative role as a non-deployable unit) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

10th Mountain Division
Headquarters Fort Drum, New York
1st Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Drum
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Drum
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Drum (Scheduled for inactivation)
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Polk, Louisiana
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Drum

25th Infantry Division
Headquarters Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
1st Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Fort Wainwright, Alaska
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Schofield Barracks
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Schofield Barracks
4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne Infantry BCT) at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
Combat Aviation Brigade at Schofield Barracks

82nd Airborne Division
Headquarters Fort Bragg, North Carolina
1st Brigade Combat Team (Airborne Infantry BCT) at Fort Bragg
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Airborne Infantry BCT) at Fort Bragg
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Airborne Infantry BCT) at Fort Bragg
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Bragg

101st Airborne Division
Headquarters Fort Campbell, Kentucky
1st Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault Infantry BCT) at Fort Campbell
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault Infantry BCT) at Fort Campbell
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Air Assault Infantry BCT) at Fort Campbell
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell
159th Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell

2d Cavalry Regiment (Stryker BCT) at Vilseck, Germany
3d Cavalry Regiment (Stryker BCT) at Fort Hood, Texas
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment (Multi-Compo Armored BCT) at Fort Irwin, California
173d Airborne Brigade Combat Team (Airborne Infantry BCT) at Vicenza, Italy

Division Totals

11 division headquarters (one division headquarters stationed overseas in South Korea)

Combat Brigades: 34 Structure, once latest round of reorganizations are complete:

12 Armored Brigade Combat Teams
8 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams
6 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Light)
5 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Airborne)
3 Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (Air Assault)

Oh look, I see 12 Armored-Mechanized Brigades, 8 Motorized Brigades, and 14 Light Infantry Brigades. Which means that US Army is rather heavy, we have ratio of 20 Armor-Mechanized-Motorized Brigades to only 14 Light Infantry Brigades.

Army National Guard:

28th Infantry Division (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland)
2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
55th Armored Brigade Combat Team
56th Stryker Brigade Combat Team
28th Combat Aviation Brigade

29th Infantry Division (Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Florida)
30th Armored Brigade Combat Team
53rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
29th Combat Aviation Brigade

34th Infantry Division (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Idaho)
1st Armored Brigade Combat Team
2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team
34th Combat Aviation Brigade

35th Infantry Division (Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Georgia, Arkansas)
33rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
39th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
35th Combat Aviation Brigade

36th Infantry Division (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi)
45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
56th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team
155th Armored Brigade Combat Team
256th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
36th Combat Aviation Brigade

38th Infantry Division (Indiana, Michigan and Ohio)
37th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
76th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
278th Armored Cavalry Regiment
38th Combat Aviation Brigade

40th Infantry Division (California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii)
29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
41st Infantry Brigade Combat Team
79th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
81st Armored Brigade Combat Team
40th Combat Aviation Brigade

42nd Infantry Division (New York, New Jersey, Vermont)
27th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
86th Infantry Brigade Combat Team
42nd Combat Aviation Brigade

I also see here Armored Brigades.

Europeans can not fight a war at a scale that was WWII.

Really, why?

I can ask this also other way around, who is capable? Russia with even worser demographics than Europe?

Or who is willing to fight such war? Who is willing to perform such complete destruction of everything?

Besides this, why you compare everything to WWII? This is some kind of fetish? War has changed, nobody will perform a carpet bombing, because why? Technology does not stops.

Today's Armored Brigade is stronger than Armored Division during WWII.

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 .

You can talk as much BS as you like, it does not change reality. And I am very pleased to show everyone that you are little lier.

You are correct. They know it. So do the arms manufacturers. However, they need a bogey of a threat, so that they can keep peddling their arms.

Really? Oh, well perhaps I should explain this to you from European perspective. No, nuclear detterence is not a option, simply because it is not flexible, and using it means end, nothing, hasta la vista life. Only complete moron base his defence on nuclear weapons only.

Of course I am completely aware of you negative and silly sentiment towards Europe, but this does not change a fact that you are wrong.

In fact more and more people here in Europe thing that arms reduction was tragical mistake. I know it, as I study at National Defence Academy, we discuss such things among ourselfs (student), with proffesors and other teachers, we have guests from other NATO members and our other allies.

To be honest, you people know nothing, and understand nothing from internal affairs of NATO members.

Actually from perspective of military leaders and specialist in this subject, there is consensus that paradigm of security in Europe changed. Do you actually understand this?

Obviously the problem are politicians, as I said most of them are morons. Not to mention that it is very clear that this people, by reducing army's, by reducing MoD's budget's, preaty much destroyed our economy, how many companies failed when there were no orders?

There is stronger and stronger conclusion that we need to reindustralize Europe, and one of the best ways to do so, is to increase defence spending and increase armed forces in size. This will also boost forward technology, as allways.

Future tanks or ground armoured vehicles might be unmanned, so manpower wouldn't really be a problem.

No, no unmanned. US Armed Forces officers a year ago I believe, on AUSA said they do not want armed ground drones, as robot in their belief is not something that should kill people. And by such they show a great deal of responsibility and understanding of how dangerous is to base armed forces on unreliable unmanned systems.

To be honest, I hate the concept of drone. Robot does not feel nationality, patriotism, duty. You can reprogram this thing as you wish, someone can stole your drone, use it against you. Not to mention that drones are expensive and dumb in the same time. Few weeks ago, Polish Army nearly lost a drone because damn thing malfunctioned and lost contact with it's operator, good that we have large proving grounds and that damn thing did not fall on to some civilians head.

Tanks will remain but in fewer numbers specially in countries that have tankable borders such as Ukraine, Russia, poland, India and Pakistan and Arab countries, Iran, China etc. Specially those countries who do not have nuclear deterrence.

Really? One more of your lies?

US international military roles no longer envisage role of Tank formations. They have essentially switched over to to light armour such as Strykers which can take a few men to the battle field as also a Gun. They do not envisage an opposition from Tank formations but interventions in COIN and low conflict low technology oppositions.

Another of @Bhadra lies. This is probably US Army alone (I do not count Army national Guard and USMC) have large tank formations, and they actually back to conventional tank formations training?

Let's be honest, Bhadra does not know what actually happens around the world, then I present you proof of US Army change int raining priorities.


Listen what these soldiers says, they took old field manuals, update them with knowledge gained from recent conflicts, and create in essence new field manuals that are hybrid of conventional and assymetric warfare.

Look how they train, mostly we have a conventional tank crew training.

Let's look at some photos maybe? US Army in Europe again train conventional conflict using tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and artillery.

So I have question Bhadra, how long you will lie? Or perhaps you should educate yourself about real world around you, not your fantasies.

 

[Damian]

Shall we look at USMC structure?

Oh look, they have a tank battalion!

Ohhh, another tank battalion!

And another one!
@Bhadra, I can put such graphics with structure of each NATO army, each their formation, that will show how much you lie.

 

[rock127]

I haven't read much articles about NATO but based the kind of operations it has undertaken till now it's basically a defensive force.Until it's spearheaded or nudged by US it would not be a offensive force.

NATO was formed through US to save Europe from mighty USSR.

Today NATO forces are operating under US command and strategy in locations like AFG. This way they get their war practice.

 

[Damian]

I haven't read much articles about NATO but based the kind of operations it has undertaken till now it's basically a defensive force.Until it's spearheaded or nudged by US it would not be a offensive force.

NATO doctrine for conventional war is purely defensive. Other thing is that each member have a freedom to also create it's own doctrine and tailor it's armed forces to it. And for example most European members will have defensive armed forces, however some members can have more capable forces optimilized for both offensive and defensive operations like USA have.

Today NATO forces are operating under US command and strategy in locations like AFG. This way they get their war practice.

USA is core of NATO, especially when it comes to military capabilities. But this is the whole concept of collective defence.

Even after these ridiculous reductions, NATO as a whole, is still the most powerfull military on this planet.

The problem is tough, that not every member actually is capable or willing to contribute enough for collective defence.

You have nations like USA, Poland, Romania, that spend nearly 2% of GDP that is advised by NATO, or spend much more, USA actually around 4%, Romania will increase to 2%, Poland is currently spending 1,95% with plans to increase to 2%.

However there are nations capable without a problem to spend these 2% GDP on defence, but for some reasons are not willing to, like Germany or France.

 

[Bhadra]

@Damian

First of all, stop using foul language . that does not add weight to your stupid arguments.


NATO was created against Warshaw pact. When USSR and warshaw pact does not exist why does NATO ??

Now tell me which of the following were your so called defensive operations :



16 July 1992 – 22 November 1992 Operation Maritime Monitor

International waters off Serbia Naval blockade
Naval blockade aimed at enforcing sanctions.

October 1992 – 12 April 1993 Operation Sky Monitor

Bosnian airspace No-fly zone

Established a no-fly zone over the airspace of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Effectiveness of the no-fly zone is debatable as by April 1993 500 violations (by all sides) of the no-fly zone had been recorded. NATO members voted for an "all necessary measures" resolution by the United Nations to allow NATO a mandate to enforce the no-fly zone more stringently.

22 November 1992 – 1993 Operation Maritime Guard
International waters in Adriatic Sea
Naval blockade

Authorized NATO to use force, and included stopping, inspecting, and diverting ships bound for the former Yugoslavia. All ships bound to or coming from the territorial waters of the former Yugoslavia were halted for inspection and verification of their cargoes and destinations.

13 April 1993 – 20 December 1995 Operation Deny Flight
Bosnian airspace No-fly zone

extended the ban to cover flights by all fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft over the country, and to use all measures necessary to ensure compliance with the ban. Resolution 836 authorized the use of force by UNPROFOR in the protection of specially designated "safe areas".

15 June 1993 – 2 October 1996 Operation Sharp Guard
Yugoslavia Naval blockade A widespread naval blockade aimed at all former Yugoslavia.

30 August – 20 September 1995 Operation Deliberate Force
Bosnia and Herzegovina Air campaign Involving approximately 400 aircraft, Deliberate Force targeted at the Army of Republika Srpska whose presence in Bosnia posed a danger to United Nations "safe areas".


20 December 1995 - 20 December 1996 O

peration Joint Endeavour Bosnia and Herzegovina
Peacekeeping force NATO-led Implementation Force(IFOR) peacekeeping force was established which was a force tasked with enforcing the peace under the Dayton Accords.

21 December 1996 - 19 June 1998
Operation Joint Guard
Bosnia and Herzegovina
NATO-led Stabilisation Force(SFOR) peacekeeping force which replaced the IFOR which was a force tasked with enforcing peace under the Dayton Accords.

20 June 1998 - 2 December 2004
Operation Joint Forge
Bosnia and Herzegovina
A continuation of Operation Joint Guard.
Serbia and Kosovo (1999)


24 March 1999 – 10 June 1999
Operation Allied Force
Kosovo and Serbia
Air campaign A sustained air campaign targeting infrastructure in Serbia and Serbian forces in Kosovo with the ulterior aim of getting the 'Serbs out [of Kosovo], peacekeepers in, refugees back' in the eyes of one NATO spokesman. The bombing lasted for nearly 3 months before all sides accepted the Kumanovo Treaty which ended the Kosovo War and the deployment of KFOR. The legitimacy of the NATO air campaign has been questioned[opinion] as too was the number of civilian casualties in the operation.

12 June 1999 - Present KFOR
Kosovo
A NATO-led Kosovo Force(KFOR) responsible for establishing a secure environment in Kosovo to enforce Resolution 1244.

just see what the mess NATO has made of :


1 Bosnia (1992–2004)
2 Serbia and Kosovo (1999)
3 International Security Assistance Force – Afghanistan (2001–present)




And you call these defensive operations -- do not live in a fools paradise.