Germany is considering a sweeping defence procurement plan worth up to €25 billion to acquire thousands of new armoured vehicles and battle tanks, aimed at fulfilling NATO’s force generation targets and bolstering deterrence against Russia.
According to multiple reports citing government and industry sources, the German Ministry of Defence is evaluating proposals to purchase up to 2,500 GTK Boxer infantry fighting vehicles and as many as 1,000 Leopard 2 main battle tanks. If approved, the order would support the formation of seven new combat brigades that Berlin has committed to raising for NATO over the next decade.
The move comes amid growing concern within NATO over the risk of a wider European conflict, with several allied governments warning that the window for deterrence could close within five years. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who took office earlier this year, has pledged to make the Bundeswehr the strongest land force in Europe in response to rising tensions with Russia.
Both the Boxer and Leopard 2 platforms are produced domestically by a consortium of German defence firms, including Rheinmetall and KNDS Deutschland (formerly Krauss-Maffei Wegmann). The Leopard 2 has seen extensive service in Ukraine, where it has been tested in high-intensity combat since deliveries began in 2023.
The GTK Boxer, a modular 8×8 armoured vehicle, is also in service with multiple NATO members and has been selected for joint procurement by several European armies. Germany’s decision to significantly expand its fleet would likely sustain production lines into the 2030s and reinforce the country’s position as a central hub for NATO ground forces.
According to Bloomberg, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and senior Bundeswehr leaders are finalising the details of the potential deal. While not yet formally announced, the scale of the proposed procurement underscores Germany’s growing willingness to rearm at pace, reversing decades of underinvestment.
The initiative is part of a broader pan-European effort to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and improve collective readiness. German forces are already leading NATO battlegroups in Lithuania and Slovakia, and the planned new brigades would allow Germany to take on a more permanent, high-readiness posture within the alliance.
At the same time, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has urged Washington to maintain support for Ukraine after the Pentagon paused some weapons transfers, citing concerns about US stockpile levels. European allies, including Germany, have expressed interest in backfilling shortfalls or accelerating their own deliveries to Kyiv.
If approved, the German procurement would represent one of the largest armoured vehicle acquisitions in Europe since the end of the Cold War.
Well, they do seem to do tanks rather well.
Well when they worked they were lethal true, but they were fundamentally over engineered, for one thing the overlapping wheels a a terrible decision in actual use. The Leopard 2 interestingly has attracted similar criticism for over engineering too in battle conditions.
Agreed, if there is one thing Ukraine has proven (again) is that much of our kit is over engineered or potentially unnecessarily hard to maintain. Something the industry must be forced to resolve as quite obviously deliberate in many cases.
Quite the contrary – the Leo 2 and the PZH2000 have been praised in their use in Ukraine,with the Swedish Strv122 in particular being regarded as probably the best of the donated MBT’s.
If the UK required an increase in its MBT fleet, the chances of it being Leopards are now reduced. That’s the problem of not having the capacity to build our machines. The MBT is far from dead, yet the UK believes it does not need a large fleet, even though any UK deployment will be on foreign soil, with the MBT at the forefront. I agree with the argument that Germany needs more MBTs, but a 148 UK Challenger 3 fleet it’s ludicrously small with very little in reserve. With capacity for Leopard production likely to be maxed out with this German order, where does the UK go to buy its additional MBTs if it suddenly wakes up and smells the coffee?
There maybe might be some impetus to increase the C3 fleet and the future Boxers may even become cheaper and come sooner! We wish!
Korea?
👍
‘…yet the UK believes it does not need a large fleet’. I think the issue is that the army has been cut by Ministers time and time again. A Reg Army of a mere 72,000 does not permit headroom for a large number of armoured regiments and the FS ORBAT shows just two regiments, however some think that the third might now be retained.
You are of course correct that tanks are for overseas deployment, as they have been since they were first fielded in 1916. We have never had a tank fleet solely or even mainly for Home Defence. Qty 148 for two Type 56 or Type 58 regiments allows very few for Attrition Reserve.
If the third regiment is kept, then we would have to increase the CR3 order or more likely adopt Type 44 ORBAT thus just 16 tanks would be left over to cover the duties of Training Org (RAC and REME), Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve.
Spy, don’t know about your over-engineering claim but the key problem with Leo2 is its poor protection, certainly of earlier models. Many have been destroyed in combat.
A worrying and somewhat self-satisfactory attitude by the British establishment that our Army is a capable force in the face of a brutal and determined enemy. Russia is (allegedly) building thousands of new MBTs with the aim of continuing the General Zhukov method of warfare. Sling mass at your foes until they buckle under the relentless push. Putin shows no sign of pulling the MBT from the battlefield but settling for a continuous push towards victory, regardless of how many tanks and troops it costs. Germany’s sudden awakening is a lesson for us all, but is it too late? Technology will steadily protect the tank in the field, and the West may perfect the art of countermeasures more rapidly than Russia, which will strengthen MBT deployment in the future. The small CH3 fleet will effectively increase by a small percentage as countermeasures result in fewer losses, but mechanical failure will reduce that advantage, so the UK still needs additional mass.
Building a 4th Reich, except this one will be on our side 🙂
The third one wanted to be on our side too mind and pretty much for the same threat. At least this time we don’t have to choose between Dictators to be on the right side I guess. I wonder how long it will take them to build up these numbers. Hopefully sooner than our proposed F-35A acquisition date.
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen what we do beyond talking and smoke and mirrors.
Although we do not need that number of Tanks, being an island with maritime and nuclear commitments, we do actually have to do something beyond talk.
Army wise, we have committed to the NATO task of providing a Corps of 2 Divisions.
So lets see HMG take action and put the enablers and assets in, as only 4 Brigades have the CS CSS to be seen as truly deployable.
I predict it never happens. And it should, as it is a NATO requirement of the UK, who talk big as being a “leader” while others expand their forces.
Interestingly, on Twitter one guy is stating the Army will move to the 2 Division structure ( it already is, but with holes aplenty ) with a 3 Brigade 3 Division, all tracked, so Ch3, and Ajax vehicles, with the ARES order expanded to be the infantry carrier.
That would mean DRSB converted back to Armoured, the third Armoured Reg retained ( KRH, already confirmed ) and a “set” of enablers, CS and CSS, for that Brigade.
1 Division will be reformed as “expeditionary” with Boxer vehicles. Some expansion, considering Boxer is only scheduled to go to 4 Battalions and some supporting CS units. Only 2 Brigades of this Division have their CS and CSS, and one of those is 16 AA Bde shoved in it after the latest deck chair reshuffling. And there are no “Divisional troops” beyond a Royal Signals Regiment.
The Army is light years away from a 6 Brigade, 2 Division Corps. And HMG have already admitted they cannot increase manpower yet.
So, no Corps for NATO, despite that being a UK commitment.
Even NATO must know we are all words.
Article on armyrecognition web site. 3 Div to have C3, Ajax and Ares modified as an APC.
That’s the one. Picked up on X by Nick D, where I read it.
Couple of points: i read the article as saying that Ares would be modified for use as an APC and secondly the article states that there will be a turreted version of Boxer. So we are seeing a pragmatic resolution of the Warrior replacement issue.
Remains to be seen what turret is selected for Boxer.
Yes, ARES order expanded as Warrior replacement.
Read about the turret but no info.
I’m curious where this report came from and see it as too ambitious and exaggerated compared to what the Army can do.
There is no manpower!
“Boxer in 1 Division” it took as Division wide, where it is more realistic that only 7 Bde would get it. 4 is light with no supports, and 16 is Air Assault.
So no actual mention of a being a rws/turreted …might give us an “ARrESt” variant.
Here here, well “talked”.
Just for a thicko like me, what are you referring to by initials CS and CSS?
Hi Craig.
Combat Support.
Combat Service Support.
The “enablers” that allow a Brigade to actually deploy.
So the RA, the RE, the RS, the REME, the RAMC, the RLC.
A Brigade needs a Regiment of each, and in REME’s case a Battalion, to be truly self deployable.
And add a RMP Coy to that too.
Some of our Brigades are paper tigers without the above.
We had 7 Brigades with a full CS CSS set up till 2015 and Carters Strike plan.
Now, we have 4.
Things like 4 Brigade, that HMG were grandstanding about sending to Estonia.
They have sod all regular CS CSS, and would need to take from other formations.
To be fair, a light Bde might need less REME support, but they should all have medics, logistics, Engineer, and Artillery Support.
Thanks for explaining, certainly we’ve committed to these six brigades so I imagine the gaps will be identified and a plan established in the autumn
Some uplift.
We have the 6 Brigades. Only 4 are complete, the other two are missing most CS CSS as well as Armoured / Mech Infantry. The DRSB only has REME, the 4 Light Bde only has a Jackal Regiment.
There is no expansion in manpower so I don’t see what rabbit they will pull out the hat. An internal reorg, called Wavell, is underway. At the most that shuffles posts around.
Really it’s more like 7 brigades minimum looking at the NATO commitment for a Strategic Reserve Corp (2Div/6Brigades), there is also the battle group committed to Estonia which realistically requires another brigade that is separate from the strategic reserve to properly maintain both commitments.
It could also be worse than this though, RUSI has an article from 10.07.24 that states that the Uk has committed the Strategic Reserve Corps with the 2 Divisions but this Corps should also include corps echelon troops that would be equivalent to a third division. Perhaps Daniele or Dern can explain the corps structure better.
The gap between NATO commitments alone and the capacity that the government is willing to fund seems far to large to be addressed in the Autumn.
It’s good to ask questions, I didn’t know either.
CS ( combat support) and CSS ( combat support services) are the support for the infantry battalions and armoured regiments.. with CS essentially still being teeth arms so armoured cavalry, cavalry and artillery regiments and CSS essentially being none teeth arms..medical, logistics and electrical and mechanical engineering etc… so combat support essentially actually support the fight directly and combat support services support indirectly by keeping the combat units and combat support units fighting.
So for a really well rounded and supported heavy brigade you would have
Combat units
1-2 armoured regiments
2-3 armoured infantry or mec infantry regiments
Combat support units
1-2 armoured Cavalry regiments and or cavalry regiments
1-2 artillery regiments of fires
1 artillery regiment of long range precision fires
1 artillery regiment GBAD ( short range air defence regiment)
1 engineering regiment ( combat engineers)
combat support services units
1 regiment medical support services
1 regiment logistics support services
1 REME battalion
1 signals regiment
So as you can see a really well rounded heavy brigade would have around 4-5 battalion/regiment sized combat formations, 5 combat support formations and 4 combat support services formations.. the problem the British army has is that although on paper it has 6 deployable brigades it only has 3 with anything like full CS and CSS…
I saw on some French Mil Twitter accounts that the French army might procure a tracked IFV, shows that IFVs are still valuable, considering the French were a big part of the argument for wheeled Brigades.
Having gone down the all wheeled route, that is some turnaround.
Carter bringing forward MIV ( rich, considering how long Boxer is taking ) meaning the Army had WCSP, Ajax, Ch3, and Boxer all at once was
a disaster.
The 3 UK Division pre 2015, so the A2020 version from 2010 was intact, with 3 solid Brigades. The goalposts were then moved and somebody decided that a Division of 2 manoeuvre Bdes was acceptable.
DRSB not being such a formation.
And as you said above, with the Cabrit commitment a large chunk is in effect double hatted committed to Estonia. Not what a reserve is!
In addition, 3 Division retains its Logistics Brigade, Signals Group, AD Group, Engineer Group.
1 Divisions Divisional supports are so, so thin, another Logistic Brigade, a Signals Regiment, and Intelligence Battalion, which form the Divisions DIEG.
The wider ARRC, of which the UK is framework nation, and most of our main combat formations now a part, has 104 Theatre Sustainment Brigade, 1 Signals Brigade, including the Gurkha ARRC Spt Bn.
104 is one of the Army’s most important formations, but some imbeciles decided to strip it from most of it’s organic Railway capability, just as the Army put it’s armour around SPTA and lesserly, Catterick.
France was always about just heavy enough to participate in European.. but in reality it was always focused on Western Europe and expeditionary forces for Africa.. with the focus on expeditionary.
The French never thought they would be fighting a battle in Eastern Europe mud… their army was built on the assumption that the Soviet Union would be at their boarder before you could say “ what sub strategic nuclear deterrence “ it was designed to pose a swiftly deployed credible stop point that would require the Soviet Union to concentrate its army as the french could then start blowing stuff up with with ASMPAs.. the French army was therefore.. designed to operate in Africa on its own.. but in Europe it was only ever a speed bump to ASMPA delivery.
The French red line to MAD was always the french border
It’s a study for the next IFV, yes.
And it’s the visible “symptom” of a shift in French doctrine with the end of interventionism in Africa, where wheeled vehicles were king.
Cynical. Moi?
They don’t have the manpower to sustain that number of tanks but they are VERY good at flooding the market with 2nd hand and I suggest they will meet easily meet the NATO spending target but at the cost of swamping the market with Leo2s once the Donald has departed; smart move.
Same with the other vehicles, money goes to German industry, Germany shows meeting NATO baseline and then all the kit gets sold off squishing any competition.
Got to love the Germans and their business tactics.
Very true, the CSS levels needed to sustain an extra 7 brigades and that many Tanks is horrendous!
The German’s offloading of surplus Military Equipment was mainly because of Timing,it wasn’t a Strategic Business decision.Yes German Industry did well out of it,but with the Cold War Drawdown and all the inherited Equipment gained from the DDR it had no will or means to keep it all.
Yes, but they have learned from that. They need to get Trumpty Dumpty on board and when he is gone, sell it all off – I mean the Greeks will be getting good for another 400 tanks, financed by Germany, as you do.
No, this is German business doing what German business does.
It would be good if we could get back 300 MBTs 400 would be better and give us some reserves.
The Army will definitely need a new IFV , the APC variant of Boxer is a poor replacement for warrior.
200 Griffins?
There was some spirited discussion in the past, largely moderated by Graham Moore, re the number of CR2 which could feasibly be upgraded to CR3 standard. Given sufficient time and virtually unlimited funds, BAES/Rheinmetall could favorably surprise observers, but 300-400 MBTs might be seriously pushing the envelope. Of course, any number of governments would be pleased to vend other MBTs.
What’s happening with the US IFV competition? Isn’t it RM Lynx vs GDLS/Griffin Ascod variants? Might be something there for the UK to purchase or build under licence for an IFV if not all to be Boxer based.
German army currently has around 64000 personnel and a return to conscription is very unlikely.. To make use of these additional AFVs, with all the necessary enablers, they would need to double army manpower.
OK, admittedly this is not a PC comment, but did anyone else pause for reflection at the thought of the formation of multiple Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions? Striving mightily to be an enlightened NATO supporter, but history provides some unpleasant echoes from the past…🤔
Bring them on, UK had a lot in common with the Germans before the Kaiser and Hitler, democracies don’t attack each other (I don’t count Britain declaring war on Finland in WW2 as the only instance).
No, never crossed my mind. Germany is a solid Allie if somewhat politically reluctant and it plays largely by the rules and respects the global world order. I dare say Germany arming up is far more important to UK national security now than anything Washington offers and Germany actually values our friendship and security guarantees instead of acting like it’s entitled to them.
The rules based global order that the UK created and the US has lead since 1945 is our overriding provider of security and economic wealth. Countries who follow it and respect it are by default our Allie’s, everyone else should be seen as a potential enemy. This far exceeds any notion of historic kinship or adversarial relations pre 1945.
Prussia and later the German empire were strong UK Allie’s for a lot longer than the period of enmity that existed between 1914 and 1945.
Germans along with Italians the Nordics and Dutch are some of the few countries who genuinely like the British. This contrast to the likes of the French or to a lesser extent our former colonies who regularly go out of their way to screw us over especially in free trade deals while constantly looking at us to provide some form of security assistance.
Canada, US, Australia and NZ have all be only too eager to screw us on trade yet Australia expects to get AUKUS like they are doing us a favour. Canada was looking at us to do something for then over US economic cohersion while just 12 months before trying to force us to eat hormone treated beef and and the US ignored us on a trade deal for 8 years to protect US jobs. The EU signed the most comprehensive trade deal in its history with us in just two years largely and the behest of Germany, Italy and the Nordics while France the country we fought two world wars to protect is quite happy to f**k us up over fishing rights while allowing 40,000 migrants to pass through its country each year.
Germany and Poland building a massive army to protect our eastern flank is far far more important for our security than anything else. It lets us focus on providing security in the North Atlantic and Scandinavia.
An unarmed and weak Germany always suited non European actors but I don’t believe it was ever in Europe’s best interest.
I love Fish, all sorts of fish apart from that awful farmed stuff that swims in it’s own soup of chemicals and shit, I love seafood of all descriptions but we just don’t do seafood like the French, I love France because they have lots of fish.
Untill we in the UK start to eat Fish, It will still mostly be exported to places like France.
Today, I have Crabs.
Hi Jim well I’m glad someone mentioned Poland as they seem to have the same stared objective as Germany ‘the biggest land army in Europe”, it like watching “Top Trumps for Tanks, IFV and Artillery”. And of the 2 Poland is the one with the Manpower / reserves and Political resolve to succeed.
So as we are an Alliance and it’s a simple fact that some countries have strengths that others lack I have to ask myself if we shouldn’t be focusing on the Big NATO gaps. By all means double the numbers of CR3, get a tracked IFV and oh and some Artillery / MLRS, but that’s it.
Poland is massively short of Airpower and Europe is reliant on Seaborne imports of food / materials, so my suggestion is we boost what we are good at and what we are uniquely placed to provide, so as follows.
1. CASD SSBN up to 5 (we provide the ONLY strategic Nuclear Weapons that are primarily tasked to NATO).
2. Develop with France a joint stand off Tactical Nuclear missile (or 2 as in a Cruise and Hypersonic).
3. Increase the size of the RN SSN force to 10/12 (no one knows how many RAN boats we may end up having to build parts for).
4. Double the size of the RN surface fleet and reenergise our Amphibious capability’s.
5. Boost the size of the RAF by at least 50% (more Typhoons, F35A, A330 MMT, A400 and a new medium Transport Aircraft). In addition to that I’d do the sensible thing and split the F35B off to the FAA.
6. Join one of the two European GBAD Teams (preferably France and Italy).
Europe doesn’t really need more Armour as if you add on the other Leopard users it’s already got over 3000 modern MBTs in service or on Order. What we could do is go heavy in Artillery and SHORAD to back those up.
Agree mate. This sounds like my RN, RAF, Intell first philosophy.
The Army posters here will go nuts, though.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we are busy shedding enablers.
2 Waves gone, Puma gone, main Amphibs gone.
Hmmm. Who’s screwing over who might depend on your historical perspective. You could argue that the UK has been exploiting and screwing over the aforementioned colonies for a significant period since the late 1700s. Hell the U.S. even fought a war over that very thing. Let’s also conveniently put aside the 60,000 dead Australian Diggers fighting in WWI and discuss how Great Britain is being bullied and persecuted by Australia in a one sided trade war.
Fun fact that Australia doesn’t import U.S. beef because it is pretty much all hormone treated while the small percentage of Australian beef that uses those practices are carefully regulated and the supply chain fully traceable. Our major supermarket chains market their beef as hormone free.
Australia is BSE (mad cow disease free) so we don’t import UK beef. As a continent Australia is free of many of the pests and diseases found globally and would like to keep it that way and as a result has some of the most stringent bio security regulations on the planet. This applies to all agricultural imports regardless of which country they originate from and Australia was never (is never) going to comprise on this for any FTA with any country. Any negotiators who didn’t understand this in talks with Australia would be naive.
Most of our meat exports go to Asia where it is in high demand so the UK market is relatively small. While the UK government believes the A-UKFTA will benefit the UK by £2.3 billion the Australian Government hasn’t even published a figure so it’s not central to the Australian economy.
There is a large part of the Australian defence community, even before Trump and the latest Hegseth review, that argue Australia would be better served by redirecting the $350 odd billion away from AUKUS submarines towards other long range strike platforms (including B21s and sovereign built ballistic missiles) and/or a larger surface fleet, land or air forces. In the current threat climate an SSN in the 2040s may be too late regardless of how leading edge it may be. The death of the AUKUS submarine deal might do Australian defence a real favour.
We talk of manpower issues, how on earth will Germany man these new brigades. They would never have conscription so that’s not an option. This is a country in the heart of Europe with the biggest population in Europe but have a smaller army than the British army, a threadbare 63000. Granted they don’t have Capita to ruin their recruitment like we do, but I don’t see it.
Neither do I.
They had conscription before and are openly talking about it again at the moment, just as other European nations are expanding their conscription models, so I wouldn’t automatically rule it out, even though that alone won’t be a magic solution given all the other investments that would need to be made.
Way to go Germany wish we in the UK would take a leaf out of their book .However to do this I hope there have made plans for troop numbers to be increased otherwise these Tanks & IFV will be sitting in sheds.