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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.