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.
Western kit is designed around the idea of winning wars quicky and so maintainace isn’t such an issue. Should that assumption not play out and we get pulled into a multi year war, then those issues will become major problems. Not that we have the stocks to fight a long war.
The C2 seems to fair better under wartime conditions it’s much less over engineered whilst still delivering a capable and resilient tank.
I’d hoped SDSR would have announced additional C2 to C3 conversions but that’s not going to happen seemingly.
148 C3s is a frankly pathetic MBT fleet.
Completely agree, though I don’t think we need quite the level of tanks that Germany is (rightly) considering, out currently fleet is almost pointless in its current volume, some 300/400 would seem far more appropriate.
Mr Bell, I agree, and of those 148, some 116 are in the Field Army.
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.
The CR3 order can’t be increased. A former Tory Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that he wanted to do this in 2023, but it was reported back to him that there were simply no other CR2’s left that could be converted – over and above the 148 that had already been allocated for conversion. Whilst trying to start construction of new build CR3s would be nonsensical on cost, time and capability grounds. Back in 2005, when the Challenger 2 Capability Sustainment Programme began it was widely assumed that at least 300 CR2’s would be upgraded in order to maintain a deployable Armoured Division, and as late as May 2021 there were still 227 in the fleet!
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.
RB, I know about the CH3 situation and I’m suggesting the purchase of another tank, which may not be Leopard due to manufacturing capacity. A South Korean design might be worth investigating but the choices are very slim indeed. If ever the UK is called upon to take a significant combat role on the European mainland, we could face a dilemma within six months to a year as the CH3 fleet diminishes due to the rigours of war. Without a sizable MBT fleet, the British Army could be forced to use a third party to forge ahead due to insufficient heavy assets, with all the political and practical problems that would ensue.
Evidence gathered by the Institute for the Study of War indicates that Russia is struggling just to bring back into service their stockpiles of 1960s vintage tanks, let alone build entirely new ones: Hence the emphasis has switched to the use of motorbikes for use in deeply attritional infantry assaults.
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.
Daniele, Picked up from Nicholas Drummond from a reliable MoD source…or speculation from Drummond? I don’t think MoD has ever confirmed that more ARES will be bought and reconfigured to be Infantry Section Carriers for 3 Div, thus releasing Boxers to 1 Div.
Afternoon Graham.
The article, identical to what Nick D has on X, was on Army Recognition website, so I don’t think it was his speculation.
I’m uncertain as to the reliability of it, but errr on the side of it being genuine, or parts of it.
The Army are indeed looking at ARES, role, I’ve seen that mentioned elsewhere.
The Army, as in the RAC on an online description of component Regiments, have also confirmed KRH remains as an Armoured Regiment and that they will still number 3.
That alone will require internal ORBAT changes, unless the two AI Brigades end up differing in make up.
Ideally we end up with 3 square Brigades identical to get a proper Division back, by reorganising 1 Bde back to Armoured from DRSB.
Or, a new Bde forms and DRSB becomes the DAG.
Evening Graham, theres deploy, then there’s deploy and ‘sustain’ mate.
Take Afghanistan as an example, we deployed 10,000 personnel in total across all three services and it effectively broke our armed forces.
Everything that wasn’t directly involved operationally, or indeed support was either cut or neglected to prop it up.
Do you think we could sustain anything more than a brigade in combat operations for more than a year without causing severe stress on the Army in 2025?
Baring in mind the Regular Army was maintained at 100,000 then, today it’s barely
72,000.
The Army of today is set up to blow the doors off, get the job done and get out. We have sustained capability in SF, but in my opinion, as we currently stand, we won’t deploy in anything more than Brigade strength in anything outside of a national emergency.
We have chosen as a country to dissarm over the last 30 years and spend the money on a vast bloated welfare state instead.
It will need a decisive change of direction to alter that, alas as Stamer is evidently at the mercy of his militant MP’s, it won’t happen under Labour.
As discussed many times on here mate, tbe Army is currently sized and equipped to deploy and sustain at Brigade level, anything more than that would break it.
Unless there is a substantial change over the next 10 years, that won’t alter.
Germany and Poland will provide NATO’s boots on the ground, the UK will fill the gaps as best we can.
Unless we want to return the regular Army to 115,000, with all the bells and whistles enablers, Artillery etc, to support 5 Armoured Regiments (350 Mbt’s in total), then we are on the side lines.
John, why do you think the army could only deploy and sustain a single brigade? Is it lack of CSups, or what? Lack of SPGs?
Our two divisions are assigned to the ARRC which hardly exists to sit on the sidelines. or just fill gaps. It is a strategic reserve for SACEUR.
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.
D – ‘To be fair, a light Bde might need less REME support’.
A light Bde will still need second line REME but thats a lighter footprint than that in 3 Div …and of course the units of the light Bde will have their organic first line REME.
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.
Craig. Without an increase in manpower those gaps can not be closed. A CSS battalion/regiment is about 3-500 (depending on role) people. At a minimum each brigade needs and Artillery Regiment, a Medicsl Regiment, a RLC Regiment and a REME battalion, and ideally an engineering Regiment.
That’s a 5,000 pid increase just in enablers for two brigades.
@ATJohn.
Basically at every level you repeat CS and CSS but add in specialisms.
So at a Company level your CS is maybe a MG section and the CSS is the CSM, CQMS and 1xCMT.
At battalion level you get mortars supporting, the QM department, Battalion g2/j2 cell, LAD, RAP, and pioneers.
Then at Brigade level you have CSS battalions supporting the Brigade, and at divisional level you’ll have a couple CS/CSS brigades (simplifying because a) I’m typing on phone and b) there’s nuance here).
It’s basically a web with the CS/CSS at each successive level being more capable and further back. Eg Divisional RLC assets bring munitions forward to the Brigade RLC Regiment, who then bring it fwd to the Battalion QM, who then distributes it to his CQMS departments. A casualty will be treated by a coy Medic, before going to the Regimentsl Aid Post, the Brigade MRS, the divisional field hospital. A battalion will have its own integral mortars, the Brigade commander will have his 155s, the divisional commander MLRS. Etc
For a Corps to be able to operate the same principle applies. The Corps Commander needs a robust Logistics unit to feed their divisions with supplies, they’ll need fires, either long range artillery or rotary air to provide support to their divisions, they’ll need AA to deny airspace, etc etc. But because its now supporting two divisions rather than three brigades the increase in mass is corresponding. Also a lot of specialist capabilities might come in, a 3* commander might for example have SOF under his command, or independent air assault forces, In practice this means that yes a Corps probably has a divisions worth of enablers that sits under the 3*.
The US army’s III Corps (their main warfighting corps) has 7 CS/CSS brigades that sit directly under the Corps commander, and a recce nrigade supporting 4 divisions, for comparison.
But let’s not be too Harsh on the UK, this is one of the few areas we are ahead of our allied ground Armies at the moment. As we at least have a 3* HQ, with a log brigade and a signals brigade under it, and at least some of Force Troops can be repurposed to be corps enablers.
RAMS
Lol, you’re back.
When I wrote that at the time I thought…..I’m in trouble…..😄
Hi Dern, Thanks for your response above outlining the corps structure.
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…
Just for clarity:
Combat – Infantry, Cavalry and Army Air Corps
Combat Support: Engineers, Artillery, REME (I think though elements may be CSS?)
Command Support: (Royal Signals)
Combat Service Support (Logistics,
Admin etc)
Bob,
REME is not Combat Support (CS) – it is CSS.
Best to add AMS to the CSS list.
Cavalry is a bit of a live one on being either combat arm or combat support.. depends on what you want it to do.. the if your cavalry paradigm is mainly istar then it’s CS if on the other hand your using it as a unit that will undertake reconnaissance in force then it’s a combat arm.
US doctrine always puts it cavalry as a combat arm but it was my understanding that at present the British army stuck it as a CS.
Cavalry is a combat arm mate, in my book at least!
RAC, Corps of Infantry, and the AAC are combat arms.
CS. The RE. The RA. And I thought the Royal Signals but unsure.
CSS include RLC, AMS, REME.
Assume the RMP and Intelligence Corps ( let’s not forget them!) fall under CS.
To add.
Cavalry are a manoeuvre arm.
I’ll have to consult the books for the definitive answer.
My 1986 modern British Army remains the most detailed I’ve seen.
I did read a really interesting article from a Ltcol in the Indian army who basically said the whole concept of combat arm and CS was a load of rubbish anyway and he argued that even infantry were combat support .. if your winning the battle with artillery and the infantry is simply holding ground in support of the artillery who’s the support arm.. he essentially argued that who is the support arm and who is the combat arm is all contextual..
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
That last line is the main reason I keep advocating for a 5th SSBN (whilst it can still be done) and a Sovereign Stand Off Tactical Nuclear System. It could be an Anglo / French joint system, such as a stealthy Cruise replacement for storm Shadow or a Hypersonic that cuts the costs and risk factors.
I think that also explains why we get so many comments / threats from Putin and his stooges and France / US don’t.
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.
Is the UK definitely going for an up armed Ares type IFV or is it still at the heavy APC stage?
I’d not hold my breath for even the heavy APC, for a full on IFV, unlikely due to the Ares Turret ring.
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.
Germany has made it clear they are looking to expand the Bundeswehr by about 100,000 and match it with reserves, and will if necessary reintroduce conscription to achieve it.
Given that that increase will definitely be favouring the Heer, Germany will almost certainly have the manning for a Leo 2 tank fleet.
As for German industry: good.
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.
Hi F/USAF, yes I remember those discussions. To summarise in case anyone is interested …we bought 386 CR2 MBTs in the 90s, with an In-Service Date (ISD) of 1998. PM Cameron’s defence cuts of 2010 in the wake of the global financial crisis reduced the active list to 227 tanks with 159 ‘demoted’ to the inactive list. Some of the latter were apparently heavily cannibalised and at least 40 (43, I think) were thus rendered Beyond Economic Repair (BER) and then scrapped in the 2010 – 2014 time frame, and more since.
14 tanks from the active list were gifted to Ukraine a couple of years ago reducing that to today’s 213. In addition, one estimate is that there might be up to 70 tanks left on the inactive list, but they are likely to be mostly in poor condition with many parts ‘robbed’.
We do not have enough information to determine how many of these tanks would be at the correct Platform Presentation Standard to be acceptable for conversion to CR3.
In the past we have operated mixed fleets of MBTs, the last time being in 1983-1998 (ish) when we had a mixed CH/CR1 fleet (that is Chieftain and Challenger 1, to use the correct abbreviations!). Thus we could operate a mixed fleet (CR3 plus a foreign import) in the future, but I don’t see that happening, unless the ORBAT grew, which would mean the manpower headroom would have to increase.
7 Armoured Squadrons were also lost pre 2010. When in FAS – Future Army Structures, 19 Mechanized Brigade became 19 Light Bde and moved to N Ireland. Assume the Tanks were stored.
That removed the need for 1 AS90 Artillery Regiment and 1 Armoured Regiment from the ORBAT.
The UK based Brigades of 3 Division, at that time 1,12, and then 4 Mech, which had moved back from BFG to the UK, were also affected.
One Squadron of each’s Armoured Regiment was converted into a “Medium Armoured Squadron” on updated Scimitar.
An excuse for cuts, basically.
All before Cameron came along and continued the job.
GM,
Thanks for your response, always informative. Based upon your data, at least 213 CR2 could theoretically be upgraded to CR3 standard, and perhaps a relatively small percentage of the additional approximately 70 remaining on the inactive list. All considered, perhaps 225 as an upper bound. Not stating HMG would invest based upon ORBAT constraints, but theoretically feasible. Only other source might be the Omani CR2 contingent in some sort of intergovernmental sale/swap. Perhaps 250 CR2s total. Beyond that? Restarting a production line at this point?!? Literally every other MBT manufacturer would be touting own product as more cost-effective. 🤔
Oman only purchased 38 CR2s plus 4 Challenger recovery vehicles. When the UK updates the planned number of 148 CR2s to CR3s. Will Oman also look to upgrade theirs? Or will they look at purchasing some of the remaining CR2s for spares? The market for supplying CR2 spares will likely be ending. They may look elsewhere.
However, there is a very small possibility of more CR3s. the joint BAe/Rheinmetall group have said they have the drawings and jigs for the hull. So it’s feasible they could manufacture new hulls, then fit the new turret etc. Though I see CR3 as an interim solution, where the hull was never designed for the long one piece 120mm ammunition, hence the low ammo count. Really a new hull needs to be designed to take in to account the ammunition size. But by that stage you might as well design a new turret but without the CR2 constraints, i.e. design a new MBT.
The problem with using other manufacturers is that apart form Abrams and Leopard 2. None of them has seen a conflict, so how well will they perform outside of the range? For example the 56t combat weight of South Korea’s K2 Black Panther, suggests its armour may not be as protective as some Western tanks for instance, probably closer to a T90M. Which the current CR2 in Ukrainian hands has had no problems in taking out. I’m not sure the Army are willing to change their Firepower and protection priority over mobility just yet.
DaveyB,
Interesting perspective and questions. Really had not factored in the possibility that the Omanis would not be a donor organization, but rather a competitor for rationed spare parts. 🤔 In any event, believe virtually everyone agrees that there is a reasonably hard ceiling on potential number of CR3s, short of heroic efforts by GR/UK MIC. If conflict occurs in the foreseeable future, UK may be forced into an urgent shopping mission. There are literally thousands of M1A1s holding down the floors of Uncle Sugar’s warehouses, awaiting conversion to M1A2EPv3 standard. UK would be on the short list of eligible buyers. Realize this info will not be well received in the current political climate.
…M1A2 SEPv3…🙄 (brain, eye, hand coordination and lack thereof)
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.
I would say that apc boxer is not a replace for warrior.. it was never ordered as a replacement for warrior.. the warrior WCSP was the replacement for warrior…cancelling WCSP essentially cancelled the British army’s heavy brigades.
In reality the British army needs over 2500 armoured vehicles.. so far it’s ordered about 50% of what it needs..
What it should have as a modern 73,000 strong army representing one of the the power of the 3rd – 7th most powerful nations on earth is
250-300 MBTs
300-500 IFVs
300ish armoured cav vehicles
1500 APCs
That is not counting around another 1000 lighter protected mobility vehicles…. Because the British army is a 21c army and that means its light role infantry and air mobile infantry should all have organic light protected mobility vehicles..with STANAG level 2-4…
According to the MOD /Army Boxer is the planned replacement for Warrior.
There are no IFV variants being ordered, which creates another capability gap.
Yes but it was not replacing warrior.. they only started saying that after cancelling WCSP.. and they had already ordered boxer at that point..so essentially they are fibbing.
Yes. Sure ministers would have one think this was the plan all along.
Luckily some of us have long memories.
Rather than a mashed up cock up the result of their own actions, and Carters contribution bringing MIV forward which did for WCSP.
@BoF. A recent article on armyrecognition suggests that a turreted order for Boxer will be ordered.
And if the UK was same same following the French going with wheels and they go backed to tracks or have a mixed fleet things and we follow again then it might all work out okay in the end! Sorry to be simplistic but it’s “horses for courses” isn’t it? Right vehicles for the right places.
@QD63. No apology necessary for horses for courses common sense. I think it was Alfred Einstein who said make things as simple as possible but no simpler. I am a big fan of standardisation but as they say, necessity is the mother of invention; if circumstances dictate that the smart move is to replace Warrior by two vehicles – a modified Ares for tracked armour in Europe and Boxer with a turret for expeditionary mobility, and you can make this sensibly work then I support it. The concept of Boxer for everything was meant to make things easier not harder.
Hi Jon, there is a possible rumour gaining ground of an Ares IFV development (see above for Graham’s and Dan’s comments). There hasn’t been any info about how the veh8icle will be modified, what gun it uses, number of pax etc. But perhaps, just perhaps the Army has convinced someone, that Warrior must be replaced with an equivalent vehicle and not an APC being asked to step up!
There’s one vital point missing from your list. Which are the tactical and strategic reserves. If half of those vehicles listed are lost in the first week of a conflict what then? How is the fleet mass going to be sustained, once the reserves are used up?
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.
When I read this I thought you must have made a mistake, then I checked, and of course you are bang on (wiki actually says 63,000).
Wow, the largest country by population in Europe only has an army of 63,000.
And your question is right on the money too – how are they going to man all these extra units? Their demographic crisis is worse than most of Europe’s, including ours.
A good slice of the German army manpower was switched to a tri-service set-up, covering medics, logistics etc. I think the real army total is a good bit higher than 65 000.
Ah, thanks for that context. The reason why the comment section on here is so good!
Aa Cripes said: The German Army doesn’t include 3 separate Branches: the Joint Medical Service, the Joint Logistics Service and the information and cyber warfare service. The exact breakdown of those three branches isn’t published, but given the weighting of the Bundeswehr towards Das Heer, that’s probably another 30-40,000 who are “Heeresuniformtraeger” but not counted in the Army numbers.
Interesting. That would bring the number more into line with my expectations.
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).
Hi M8, As a matter of interest would you have the same “hair on the back of the neck” feeling if Japan gets a Trump Rocket about their Defence spending and tripled the size of JSDF ?
It’s an odd paradox that European NATO has taken a well deserved kicking and gone up to 5% (3.5 1.5) and Japan isn’t even at 2% oa, but not a pip out of Tango man 🤔
.
I think it starts to get serious, when Japan starts building some proper aircraft carriers and says it needs to create a Kido Butai to counter Russian and Chinese threats!
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.
Agree,
Agree we are an Island and as such our defence is far more about strategic assets than anything else.. simple fact is the tyranny of distance reductions the effectiveness of lots of tactical assets.. so ships, subs, long range air and long range strike.. the army needs to be sized to our ability to deploy it using strategic transport and logistics support.. 1000MBTs would simply be so much scrap metal to the UK.
Jonathan, armour can move to the Continent quickly by rail including the Chunnel.
You are narrow in focussing on defence of the island – anyway, a CSG in the Far East does not do that.
Our role is to deter and defend across the NATO Euro-Atlantic area. We are not just defending our tiny island.
@ Graham
It’s about how much effect we can have, if you consider 73,000 army persons can in reality generate 3 brigades.. and our army is only ever going to be an adjunct to the large mainland armies. Unless we somehow find the budget and manpower to take it back up to 130,000 and generate 2 division into Europe.. but if we do that we then need to house it close to Eastern Europe.
ABC, the ARRC is SACEUR’s key strategic reserve and we contribute the Commander, HQ, two divisions and other framework components. It needs to have a lot of tanks in it to be effective – our provision of 112 tanks in 3 Div is very inadequate.
You will hate me for saying this but perhaps that NATO structure needs to be addressed, it was fine as long as we weren’t gifting all out kit to Ukraine and had the US as a completely reliable, 100% committed partner. But hand on heart do you trust Trump or those that will follow him ?
That is the game changer and I just think it’s time to re-assess how NATO is structured and who provides what.
How can we sit here and not point out that if NATO is relying on the British Army to provide part of a Strategic Reserve it’s the “Emperors New Clothes” time, it just doesn’t exist as a usable entity, and it will take at least a decade to rectify.
Tanks are one thing but we have just 14 SPG 155mm Guns, 100 odd 105mm and the KTRHA with 13 pounders.
You mention Strategic and the UK is the only country in NATO that’s Strategic Nuclear deterrent is NATO tasked, France hasn’t altered its stance since De Gaulle and the US just always points to Article 5 as their commitment. Ours at present is threadbare but it exists, it’s renewal is well funded and in track, the entire DNE is now well into the renewal / expansion process so capability can be expanded and delivery sped up (not sure about the AWRE side of it), that’s something we can do and IMHO it should be our No1 priority.
In addition we have a Warship and Aviation industry that is still on a peace footing, the infrastructure is fine but it’s not anywhere near to production capacity due to working hours and timescales driven by Treasury funding schedules. But is there and can kick up a gear if required, but it will need orders and more staff.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a stronger Army, we really do need double the number of MBTs, new tracked IFV, Artillery, SHORAD etc etc than we have. But to do that we need to recruit more professional troops and have an enlarged reserve, that is going to take a long time to resolve as to out it mildly the Army has a massive public perception of being a bit of a mess.
My background was being in part of the Defence Industry and I know you can’t just go out and buy X, Y and Z off the shelf anytime soon as everyone’s order books are full. So it has to involve us re inventing our AFV industry practically from scratch, which I would whole heartedly support but that takes years and quite simply we can’t just sit around whilst that’s happening. We need to push forwards where we can right now, contribute what we can and rebuild that which we lack.
To be honest I think it will be 10 years before you will see the Army enlarging.
So meanwhile we have an enlarged Defence Budget which we have to be seen to be spending responsibly and IMHO we should prioritise our strengths especially where others are weak in those areas. That’s what we can do and do now !
Hi Graham, I am going to slightly back track, it is possible to equip the British Army with a modern MBT and in quantity faster than having to either wait for us to rebuild out industry or get in a long queue for New build Leopards or K2’s.
Scrap CR3 now.
The US Army has a huge quantity of M1 Abram’s and with them pivoting east we could probably buy 3/400 latest spec versions (we don’t have same security issues as Ukraine). What I wasn’t aware of was that GD did actually test an M1 with a RR MTU power pack a few years ago, and it worked quite nicely.
Poland has half the population and about an 8th of the GDP of Germany (never mind Germany’s industrial base). If Germany has the will to have the strongest army in Europe, it will eventually overshadow Poland.
ABCR,
Would add the following a/c to the RAF shopping list: E-7 (qty 4 or more), P-8 (qty 7 or more), C-17 (provided USAF restarts production line) and an eventual replacement for Rivet Joint.
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.
Are you quoting incidents from 300 years ago on a modern defence debate? Can I bring up all the genocides our former colonies did against the native people in their new found lands then as some form of argument? At no point in history can I find any exploitation of European people in Canada, the USA or Australia by Britain. Maybe I’ll go and have a word with the Norwegians, Danes and Romans for all the bad things they did to us.
As for Australia’s AUKUS alternatives, Yes this highlights the dripping entitlement that is the Australian “defence” community. Why would the USA give anyone much less Australia a pretty vague ally the B21 it’s most prized and secret weapon system. Especially if (pre Hegseth) Australia suddenly turned around and said thanks but no thanks for the Submarines and we are going to suddenly cancel the AUKUS program you went to great lengths to arrange but give us your super secret bomber so we can complain about the cost of that too.
It’s also completely beyond me what any “defence community” can be comparing having SSN’s and long range conventional bombers like they are the same thing.
This $350 billion made up AUKUS number needs to be put to bed by Australia as well. Adding up life time costs if two submarine programs with assumed inflation costs (making numbers nonsense to begin with) is they type of s**t the CND or Greenpeace come up with. It has no place in serious nations defence programs.
Australia doesn’t even now how many Virginias or SSN A it might buy so these fugues are utter guess work to begin with.
What exactly is Australia going to use strategic bombers for.. ? Bombing China with a squadron of strategic bombers will do spit all and bombers cannot threaten and they are locked in place.. everyone wants SSNs because they are almost impossible to stop they are difficult to destroy and can hang around being a threat for a long time.. a strategic bomber squadron cannot prevent China from cutting sea lanes to Australia.. an ssn can.
Exactly, no idea why anyone thinks a mid sized country needs a strategic bomber , but the Australia talking heads and the Murdoch media frequently suggest B21 as the answer to all Australian defence needs and a way to get away from those dam “Pom Submarines”.
We should remember this is the same “defence community” that currently wants to cut anti submarine frigates because they don’t have enough missiles and clearly the only way to measure a warships utility is by how many missiles it carries. 😀
I also have no idea why anyone would think the USA would sell Australia strategic bombers. I don’t think they would sell them to the UK so no chance Australia will get them.
Johnathon,
Hmmm…unless Australia, US and selective other countries form an analog of NATO (SEATO redux?) and the US provides weapons in a manner analogous to NATO’s Nuclear Sharing arrangement. Squadron or Wing of RAAF B-21s equipped w/ both B61-12s and B61-13s would command the attention of the ChiComs. The ideal solution would also include SLCM-N onboard RAN SSN(A), but that would require Australian w/drawl from NPT.
Since the Israelis are already orchestrating a lobbying campaign to acquire B-2s (and virtually assuredly B-21s eventually), there should be no reason to w/hold B-21s from either RAF/RAAF. Admittedly either/both services may choke on the acquisition and sustainment costs, even at mate’s rates.
Not really..WW1 was an aberration that should never have happened.. WW2 was simply a continuation of that aberration ( infact so was the Cold War and a lot of what we are seeing now). Germany and the nations that made up Germany have historically tended to be far more beneficial to European peace and prosperity than most others.., the nation the UK has alway really kept a weather eye on is France 😂😂 love the country love the food, but they are crazed imperialist under it all….
“WW2 was simply a continuation….”
No, WW2 was caused by totally different reasons than WW1. Mainly the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, which enabled political extremists like the Nazis to rise.
The Cold War was not a continuation either, because it never went hot.
Ummm and why pray tell did the treaty of Versailles exist? WW1 caused WW2.. all of the major fault lines existed because of WW1 infact there was no real period of peace between WW1 and WW2 the interwar period was simply a European centric pause because the European powers were strategically exhausted had a number of internal struggles as powers collapse or reorganisation. The war simply paused in Europe and shift its focus eastwards for a time until reigniting in Europe. The interbellum was simply a space in time when the powers all reoriented ready for round two.. the fighting never really stopped.
Hi M8 Perhaps it would be more palatable to just go to the basic root cause and effects that led to WW2 being a result of how WW1 also you fail to address the other World War in the Far East.
IMHO The single Prime underlying cause was the attitudes of certain victorious countries ! Those being:-
1. France ! Neither the US nor UK wanted to humiliate Germany by extracting crushing reparations out of them. France wanted to “squeeze them till they bled”.
2. The USA ! Wilson tipped the balance of power in a European War when the US engaged the world stage as a super power, then they went into back into isolationism and didn’t join the League of Nations.
3. The arrogant attitudes of the U.K and US at the Washington Treaty towards Japan and Non Whites in General.
The Cold War never went hot.. you are joking an estimated up to 20 million people died due to direct conflicts in the Cold War.. it was very hot.
The treaty of Versailles has barely been applied. Why do you think French diplomats politicians felt betrayed by anglos in the 30s?
In reality, Germany: 4 massive wars in less than 70 years and did every possible efforts to start ww1.
This is nothing new – up to the 1990’s the Bundeswehr had massive Armoured Formations,being right on the front line of the Warsaw Pact.
As long as Germany is over her Imperial ambitions, like the rest of Europe, then it’s not a problem.We have had the Drone-ald expressing the wish for aquiring Canada & Greenland, so it seems the USA is the main Western power with expansionist leanings.
Frank, Germany joined NATO in 1956. The international community clearly decided that the Fatherland had got over Imperial ambitions by then.
Indeed, I didn’t mean to imply doubt, just reaffirm Germany responsibly stepping up their defence forces, so could have made that clearer. Putin, Xi & Trump are the ones to watch.
Don’t look at NATOs full Cold War ORBAT if that’s how you feel…
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.
Hi M8, I have been doing some digging and it seems Germany has a very logical way of increasing the size of their regular armed forces and trained reserves without reintroducing conscription.
They have worked out a short & long term overall cost / benefit analysis for both options, which is rather interesting and very Germanic.
It is based on increasing the Armed forces by 195,000 recruits using the previous method of conscription which resulted in 25% of each years available cohort being conscripted.
Previous analysis in France and the USA only looked at the direct costs to the Defence budget, Germany has taken a more economic holistic approach and its a Belter.
Option 1 Conscription using the present formula.
They calculated the direct costs of Training, equipment, accommodation and pay which was €3.2 billion pa but also added the economic cost to the German economy which was €17.1 Billion pa (which hadn’t been done before). That’s due to interruptions in workforce, education, training and productivity of a single age 18 year old age group each year.
So €20.3 billion pa.
Option 2 Recruit more long term regular forces personnel.
They calculated how much it would cost to get the same increase in Regulars by just paying a commercially competitive salary ! Direct costs including the Salary / pensions more than doubled at €7.7 Billion pa but economic impact was down to €9.4 Billion pa.
So €17.1 Billion pa.
The added bonus is they get a larger professional army but also an increased reserve of recently trained personnel.
So that may explain why Germany isn’t activating the draft again (FYI It was never cancelled, annual registration for 18yo is still mandatory, they just inactivated it). And yes they are starting to increase pay.
Yup. In Germany the attitude is basically “we want to do this by incentive and not conscription, but if we have to reinstate national service we will.” Remember that from 1970 onward the Majority of NATO ground forces in Europe where German.
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.
The German Army is not 63,000, it’s closer to about 90-100,000, due to the way the Bundeswehr has been historically structured:
The UK has
The RN
The Army
The RAF
and everyone fits under those headings.
Germany has
The Army
The Navy
The Airforce
The Logistics Force
The Medical Service
The Cyber, Int and Signal Service.
The last three are about 60,000 put together, and in the British Armed Forces would be part of the other three services. The 63,000 number for “the German Army” doesn’t include any logistics, Medical, Signals, Intelligence or Cyberwarfare specialists that sit under those commands. Because Germany doesn’t list the breakdown of “uniformstraeger” in those three services, it’s hard to get an apples to apples comparison but 30-40,000 being Army seems about right.
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.
This is a very German way to deal with the the.. “what the hell do we buy with 3.5% gdp, but not appear a threat” question.. under it all you can never get away from Germanys generational trauma.. they are profoundly at their core fearful of war and militarism… but a tank is not necessarily militaristic in the same way way as huge numbers of fast jets or mass strategic enablers like nuclear tipped ballistic missiles and carriers.. in the end you can sit at home and Polish your 1000 tanks.. feeling good and protected but not militaristic..the UK on the other hand.. when asks what do we do with 3.5% GDP started with a well 7000 missiles to fire off and hurt someone sounds good… Germany builds an armoured wall, the UK builds a sharp sword..
If they just want to spend money without the manpower to use it then just buy and build the kit and hand it over to Poland. That should frighten the $#1T out of Putin and we can then all relax a bit.
The interesting thing about the large planned increase in the German army is that it is reportedly the result of a ‘request’ from NATO. NATO proposes force targets ans slaps everyone into line to fulfill them, which looks to be happening here.
German currently has 8.5 combat manoeuvre brigades, that is all-arms fighting brigades. Under the NATO plan, that will nearly double to 15.5 brigade groups, which would be a very powerful force and would undoubtedly need the return of conscription.
It makes one wonder what NATO has specified the future British army contribution to be. We are very cute at arguing that we are a global maritime power with an independent nuclear deterrent and so should be spared the heavy lifting in the land domain, as we repeatedly hear on comments on this site.
That UK stance must be wearing thin with our allies. The RN is now about the same size as the navies of France or Italy, so we are not some special naval power. Five others have a nuclear capability through air-dropped US bombs which, if not in the same strategic league as Trident, is nonetheless an expensive investment. And our fast jet combat aircraft fleet has shrunk to being the fifth in size in ENATO, behind Germany, France, Italy and even Spain
So basically, our special pleading that we don’t need to contribute very much in the way of land forces looks a bit of a threadbare story.
It seems that NATO is the driver for this mooted change to our future army ORBAT. If so, it looks as if we have got away with our ‘special naval power + nukes’ story once again, but NATO has insisted that our land contribution of a 2-divison corps means two properly-constituted combat divisions, which implies six fully-formed combat manoeuvre brigades with the right equipment, not four with big equipment gaps.
Instead of the anomaly of an armoured infantry division comprising well-armoured tracked kit and less well armoured wheeled vehicles, 3 division will get all-tracked AFVs and 1 Division all-wheeled Boxers, including MIVs with a cannon. All good and sensible stuff that will correct the confused Carter years.
To enable this re-org, there will have to be a marked increase in army manpower. While the MOD loves economising.by cutting serving personnel, these days are over. An increase from 2.34 to 3.5% for core defence is an increase of 63% * in the budget. That will permit a sufficient increase in serving personnel, as long as MOD doesn’t splash it all on new unmanned USVs and MCMVs and similar would-be ‘wunder weapons’.
We currently spend 2.34% of GDP on defence, but that apparently includes 0.2% spent on non-core defence. So we will actually be starting from 2.14% and will need to increase core spending by a further 1.3%.of GDP. Hence 60% increase by 2035.
Spot on with the ‘special pleading’ story. Encouraging to see corrective action is starting with the army; they are in the worst shape. As you say the next priority is an increase in numbers; be interested to see how they finesse this, and faster delivery of Boxers of all variants. Next priority is fast jets. An order for 24 Typhoons would be an excellent move. 12 months should see us start to come out of the trough in frigate numbers.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Healey already said manpower won’t increase for years, they’re more worried about stopping the loss of personnel.
The Boxer to 1 UK Division I think, at the most, means with 7 Brigade only.
4 Bde is light and has no CS CSS, 16 is Air Assault.
Dern has made several comparisons over the years of what it means to have 6 all arms Brigades.
We are well short of CS CSS.
Never mind the shortage of Divisional Troops for 1 UK Division.
Germany has 8.5 manuever brigades in the same way that Britain has 6 Manuever Brigades. I.e. it doesn’t. The three Panzer/Panzergrenadier Brigades in 1 Panzerdivision are currently supported by only 1 Artillery Battalion held at divisional level. Boxer RCH 155 should help, and there are plans to get the artillery built up, but that’s not going to happen until RCH 155 starts rolling off the line in numbers. The Parachute and Mountain Infantry Brigades also only have organic battalion fires, granted they have 120mm mortars, but still.
Agree that we won’t see any increase in service personnel this side of 2027/8, as the extra £5bn a year has already been committed – service pay rises, housing repairs, weapons stockpiles, UAVs, USVs etc.
But I cannot believe that NATO, which is asking all members to increase force levels, will accept the UK making the same distinctly meagre contribution of 4.5 army combat brigade groups. Sure, MOD likes to add divisional troops like 1 DRS brigade and the Divisional Aviation brigade and probably 3 Cdo ‘brigade” but can’t see NATO accepting the first two as combat manoeuvre brigade groups or 3 Cdo as a brigade at all.
So to meet what looks at minimum to be a future 6 brigade ORBAT, the army will need to expand numbers from 2029, by I would think 10,000 minimum, ideally more to fill the many CS and CSS gaps.
An army of 83 000 would not be that big a deal – the Blair-Brown government left it at 105,000 establishment, before the next lot cut another 30%.
The obstacle to increased numbers is not so much recruitment as the MOD’s overweening focus on buying ever more costly high end equipment. If every cent is being piled into Dreadnought. AuKUS, T83 destroyers, and the rest of the RN’s bloated wishlist, and then Tempest, increasing army personnel numbers and mass to what I suspect NATO is calling for is going to be a real challenge.
I have also wondered if more has been requested of the U.K. by NATO than the current Strategic Reserve Corps and Cabrit, considering they were committed to before the NATO discussions this year where the alliances needs of European allies seem to have increased significantly.
It’s unlikely that significantly more has been requested of Germany but no increase from the U.K. or other allies, I would assume Nations are looking how to achieve or respond to the requests before making it public.
Germany has always been army-centric. We have – unlike the British – no Blue Water Navy, and the Luftwaffe is also relatively small. For the UK, the priorities are somewhat different.
Regarding the capacities – this amount of orders requires a complete redesign of the current manufacturing process. The scaled down production in the last 30 years is not closely able to produce those numbers. On the other hand, Volkswagen has announced to reduce their manufacturing capacities. I am rather sure that some of their old plants might get refurbished for tanks.
In the last contract, Germany ordered around 100 tanks and opened this procurement deal for other nations like Norway and so on. I am rather sure that the capacity buildup needed to fulfil this order might also be open to other nations.
Given the current problems with the French regarding the German cooperation on the FCAS airplane, why not make a deal: Germany joins Tempest, and UK orders Leopard tanks.
Germany is welcome to purchase Tempest from the partner nations but UK, Italy and Japan will be keeping the programme locked in for those 3 partner nations now.
The design is set, prototypes will be flying soon enough and production hopefully will begin around 2030.
as for leopards. We don’t need them. We will have C3 and hopefully will increase those numbers back to around 200. If not then the 148 C3s will have to suffice. The UKs days of committing large armoured forces to European defence are over. We are an air and maritime focussed armed forces and the better for it.
Token small NATO deployments of battle groups are within our capacity. Anything requiring hundreds of tanks and divisional sized army units needs to be undertaken by Poland, Italy, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Germany
Mr Bell, you express a personal point of view however we have two divisions and the framework for a multi national Corps (Comdr, HQ, Signals and other elements) assigned to NATO. NATO is not therefore expecting us to send just a few BGs to a future major European conflict.
Should tiny countries like The Netherlands and Denmark really supply larger land forces than ourselves?
The days of committing large armoured formations to Europe are over?
Did you check with our allies?
You want to fight your 148 Challengers in token small battlegroups overseas? What do you have in reserve for home defence? Captain Mainwaring and his band of determined men in small boats, muffled oars?
If, God forbid, Britain once more fights alone, we may struggle a bit without an Army Corps.
No. The peace dividend is over. This country has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council and must match that with a credible combined arms footprint.
After all, the only true victory is deterrence.
This is called security independence in the making!
RB, you write “The CR3 order can’t be increased. A former Tory Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said in an interview with the Daily Telegraph that he wanted to do this in 2023, but it was reported back to him that there were simply no other CR2’s left that could be converted – over and above the 148 that had already been allocated for conversion. … Back in 2005, when the Challenger 2 Capability Sustainment Programme began it was widely assumed that at least 300 CR2’s would be upgraded in order to maintain a deployable Armoured Division, and as late as May 2021 there were still 227 in the fleet!”
I suppose we have to take Ben Wallace’s statement as being accurate and that those who gave him such advice were reporting the situation correctly, however it does not ring true. Certainly we had 227 tanks in the active fleet in May 2021 and that reduced to 213 when we gifted 14 tanks to UKR. We also had a number of tanks in the inactive fleet, estimated to be about 70.
Clearly some, or even many, of the 213 + 70 are probably in poor shape (hopefully not so many of the active fleet) and will be missing cannibalised parts…but we do not know the Platform Presentation State – there is no way that a tank would have to be presented to RBSL 100% complete, particularly as the entire turret is replaced.
We could also look to buy the 38 CR2 sold to Oman to increase CR3 hull numbers.
They are on the verge of retiring their CR2s to replace them with South Korean K2s.
Evaluating proposals, eh. Putin must be quaking in his boots.
I have said it before and I will say it again, does the Uk need a 1Br Corp with four armoured divisions, no. Would it be nice sure but not needed. What the UK does or should do with MBT numbers is as follows. First sit down with the US and see if they match the following concept. The concept is simple form a dedicated armoured corp of three divisions as the European NATO reserve. With Germany and Poland possibly having over 1,000 MBT each that should be more than enough to stop the bear. If not the reserve corp get thrown in on mass. Or the reserve is used to punch through at a weak point.
So what does that mean in numbers 4 Regt of MBTs each with 56 MBTs and 5 Regt of armoured Infantry forming three Brigades, 1 Brigade with two MBT Regt and one armoured infantry regt, the other two brigades with one MBT regt and two armoured infantry regt. A brigade of Artillery, which would be made up of two regt of 155mm, one regt of M270s and one regt air defence with a further Brigade of |Signals, Engineers, REME, etc. So that means 224 front line MBTs plus a further 56 for the reserves and 56 for training repairs so a total of 336. If we could get the Americans to then give two such divisions that gives a total of a reserve corp in the field of 672 MBTs.
Is 336 MBTs to much for the UK, sometimes I do wonder what we spend our money on.
Does NATO need 1 (BR) Corps comprising four divisions? You bet it does.
Why? Deterrence.
Do four divisions require more tanks than two divisions?
Not necessarily. In 1973 an armoured troop comprised only three tanks (Chieftain Mk 3 so often only one able to motor!) and an armoured regiment comprised three sabre squadrons. Probably, given drones replacing, to some extent, direct fire support from tanks to infantry, and given the increased lethality of the latest MBTs, fewer tanks within combined arms groupings seem to be the way forward. The Ukrainian Armed Forces certainly believe that to be the case and are reorganising accordingly.
Ron, interesting. 1 (BR) Corps went from having four armoured divisions to three armoured and one infantry division (UK-based) in 1982 – I remember this well as I was serving in BAOR at the time. Of course, those days are gone. Our primary potential opponent in NATO’s Euro-Atlantic area is of course no longer beligerent and no longer has any tanks!!
‘Options for Change’ reduced our armed forces dramatically due to the end of the Cold War, so we ordered a mere 386 CR2 MBTs to replace a mixed fleet of 435 CR1s and perhaps 450 Chieftains….and confirmed an order for a paltry 179 AS-90s.
Your European NATO Reserve sounds a bit similar to SACEURs strategic reserve of the ARRC, but which nations supply those divisions? It sounds like the UK suppies one armoured division of 224 tanks – thats punchy. Britain’s proposed total tank fleet of 336 is going to be a challenge even though it is far fewer than we had soon after the Cold War ended. We will have 148 CR3s, so I guess you are proposing foreign-sourced tanks to make up the difference?