Mako11 | 10 Apr 2014 5:10 p.m. PST |
I ran across an interesting comment, while surfing for an image of the YPR-408, which stated that "the Dutch Army doesn't have any tanks anymore, due to budgetary cuts", and their last two tank battalions have been disbanded, and apparently, sold off. I find that to be incredible, if true. I was also a bit shocked to hear that the USA doesn't have any MBTs in Europe anymore, either. I thought we'd leave at least a token force there. Apparently, due to events in Crimea, and on the Ukrainian border, this strategy (or lack thereof) is now under review. So, is this a common thread in Europe, where many nations have scrapped, or sold off their armor, and other military vehicles? I know the UK has had fairly deep cuts in their armed forces, so am wondering how some of the smaller, less well off nations in the EU are doing as well, defense-wise? |
anleiher | 10 Apr 2014 5:17 p.m. PST |
The parallels to the 1930's are interesting. As Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." |
Putins Pal | 10 Apr 2014 6:04 p.m. PST |
And maple syrup is strategic war asset. |
Mako11 | 10 Apr 2014 6:30 p.m. PST |
So, do Belgium, Denmark, others still have tanks, or have those been scrapped too. Seems like any enterprising pirates, or vikings could do quite well today (yes, you do detect a bit of over the top sarcasm). |
Ashokmarine | 10 Apr 2014 6:56 p.m. PST |
Kyote is right. They scraped cause the US does it all
|
Only Warlock | 10 Apr 2014 7:26 p.m. PST |
|
Sparker | 10 Apr 2014 11:00 p.m. PST |
I got rapped over the knuckles back in the day at a training budget meeting when the head pencil neck was telling us off for sending fully trained sailors to the fleet – not good business sense apparently, its cheaper to have the fleet provide that last 10% of training on the job
I suggested that if they were really keen to save money they could get rid of ships, subs and a/c altogehter! I meant it as a joke at the time, but its seems its now policy
|
Jemima Fawr | 10 Apr 2014 11:17 p.m. PST |
Belgium got rid of its tanks some years ago (around 2008 or thereabouts), though they were in any case, only early-model Leopard 1s (IIRC, the Leopard 1(BE) was equivalent to the Leopard 1A2). They sold them to Chile. The Dutch have placed their Leopard 2A6 fleet in mothballs since 2011 and are in the process of selling them to Finland and Canada. A shame from my point of view, as they were both regular visitors to Castlemartin Range here in Wales and were even more keen than the British Army for letting our cadets go crawling over their tanks. |
Gaz0045 | 10 Apr 2014 11:18 p.m. PST |
I read that the British Army now has more generals than tanks
..time to trim the fat! |
Khusrau | 10 Apr 2014 11:42 p.m. PST |
Have a look at what the Germans, French and the Poles, etc. have got. Then have a look at what the Russians have actually got that isn't quietly rusting away. There isn't much chance of a drive to the Rhine any time soon. |
Patrick R | 11 Apr 2014 2:34 a.m. PST |
Everything has to be transportable by air, so tanks are the big evil now. Until such time that there is a conflict that demands them and then everybody will rush to fix that mistake. Belgium still has a handful of Leopards stowed away, they have been on a field trip only a month or two ago. Rumors are they they are keeping a few "just in case' others claim that they couldn't sell the whole batch, so these are leftovers waiting to be scrapped, but there is no budget for that. Meanwhile the Belgian army wants to update their old jeeps to fully armoured vehicles, but again, no budget. Was surprised the other day to hear artillery fire from the army base in Brasschaat, turns out the Dutch were visiting with their Pz2000 howitzers, while Belgium showed off their spiffy 120mm mortars and 105mm guns. |
Jemima Fawr | 11 Apr 2014 3:13 a.m. PST |
That's interesting. There was also a Dutch unit down here a couple of weeks ago, so I was wondering if they were perhaps 'keeping their hand in' with regard to tank gunnery. |
doug redshirt | 11 Apr 2014 5:11 a.m. PST |
The US fault really. We coddled them too long and now they won't fight. Well the tough love is here now. You are on your own now. Try stopping a T-72 with a lawyer. |
wyeayeman | 11 Apr 2014 5:41 a.m. PST |
If you drive a T72 better get yourself a lawyer
you were sold a pup! |
chaos0xomega | 11 Apr 2014 5:59 a.m. PST |
My understanding is that though there is only a single active battalion of M1(A1s?) in Europe at the moment, there are still a few hundreds (thousands?) of them in storage scattered about as part of contingency plans (for example: Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway). |
ThePeninsularWarin15mm | 11 Apr 2014 6:35 a.m. PST |
|
Dn Jackson | 11 Apr 2014 7:46 a.m. PST |
Europe has essentially sold their military to but more social programs. I'm afraid they will pay dearly for that in the future. |
Martin Rapier | 11 Apr 2014 8:59 a.m. PST |
"Europe has essentially sold their military to but more social programs. I'm afraid they will pay dearly for that in the future." If that is the case, I'd sure like to know what the 200Bn USD (equivalent) combined annual defence expenditure of Britain, France, Germany and Italy gets spent on. For comparison Russia spends 91 Bn and PRC 166 Bn. |
Legion 4 | 11 Apr 2014 9:27 a.m. PST |
MBTs still are very useful
most if not all modern large armies still have them. I was a Grunt and I like them ! But the Dutch military is so small compared to many other forces in NATO/the region
I don't think what they have in their AFV inventory is really a game changer
|
Ron W DuBray | 11 Apr 2014 9:51 a.m. PST |
No one would dare invade another county and kill most of the people living there and enslave them to grow food and take their land in this day and age. really No one would do that. Or so people want to think. |
Lion in the Stars | 11 Apr 2014 10:51 a.m. PST |
@ doug don't give them any ideas – if they are willing to sacrifice dogs with anti-tank mines against tanks, then using a lawyer with the same device is a no-brainer. And with less outcry about animal abuse, too! |
Mikasa | 11 Apr 2014 11:27 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure any of the Western European nations need a big army at the moment. Where will the Mordor style legions come pouring from? Russia's army is no longer huge, she no longer has Soviet or Warsaw Pact nations to puff her up. Force projection is a completely different kettle of fish |
Fred Cartwright | 11 Apr 2014 11:35 a.m. PST |
And with less outcry about animal abuse, too! Yep win/win all round! One of the problems the UK has at the moment is that some smart talking Americans sold us a pup called the F-35, claiming it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. We should have kept the Harriers and our money in our pockets until, if ever, they make the VSTOL version work and then seen what deal the US and Lockheed would do to offset their massive overspend. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 11 Apr 2014 11:38 a.m. PST |
Tanks are considered to be more 'offensive' than 'defensive' weapons, so in a time of fiscal frugality they tend to be the first to go compared to tactical aircraft and infantry units. |
doug redshirt | 11 Apr 2014 2:38 p.m. PST |
I always thought the best counter to an enemy tank, is a tank of your own. After all a tank on defense usually gets in the first shot and first hit usually wins. |
Mako11 | 11 Apr 2014 5:38 p.m. PST |
"One of the problems the UK has at the moment is that some smart talking Americans sold us a pup called the F-35, claiming it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread". Well, you can't blame us if you fell for the marketing department's lies. That's on you, mate. Though sadly, we are both in the same little boat, on a large sea awash with taxpayer cash
.. |
basileus66 | 12 Apr 2014 2:42 a.m. PST |
We are living interesting times. And I don't mean it as it is a good thing! |
Chortle | 12 Apr 2014 5:10 a.m. PST |
Spain leased then acquired and then built hundreds of LeoIIs. Not sure if they ended up selling any to Saudi Arabia which was mooted at one point. Spain may have old M60s in storage
From the Leo II wiki After 2000, Germany and the Netherlands found themselves with large stocks of tanks they had no need for after the Cold War. These tanks were sold to NATO or friendly armies around the world. Among these were Austria, who received 114 vehicles, Canada (107), Chile (140), Denmark (51), Finland (139), Greece (183), Norway (52), Poland (128), Portugal (37), Singapore (96), Spain (108), Sweden (160), and Turkey (354) were among the buyers of the surplus tanks. |
Only Warlock | 12 Apr 2014 6:18 a.m. PST |
You can't compare European and Russian Defense budgets as apples vs apples. You can buy 10x T-72 tanks for one Leopard or Challenger. The Leopard or Challenger might get the first four, but the other six will roll past the burning hulk. And despite a smaller overall population, Tsar Putin the I's Russia has a larger military than the EU with more tanks and vastly more aircraft in the field. We had temporarily moved a small force of M1 MBTs back to Europe for NATO exercises but I think they have been pulled out again. |
Only Warlock | 12 Apr 2014 6:22 a.m. PST |
I take it back, we have 29 M1A2 Abrams and 30 or so Bradley IFVs in theater now. That'll stop them for sure! |
Legion 4 | 12 Apr 2014 7:32 a.m. PST |
The Dutch have no armor !!!! All is lost ! All is lost !!!!! And MBTs are only an offensive weapons is not actually true
A dug in/ hull down AFV can shoot and move as need be. And counter-attack as well
Units in defense can rapidly go one the offense once the enemy is properly attrited
by among other things hull-down AFVs
|
fleabeard | 12 Apr 2014 10:21 a.m. PST |
Aside from the fact that the Netherlands is a small country with no hostile countries threatening their borders, presumably aren't planning crossing anyone else's, and therefore probably find it impossible to justify maintaining a heavy armour force
is it really that expensive to keep tanks in storage? |
Mobius | 12 Apr 2014 1:16 p.m. PST |
I heard the plan eventually is to scrap the entire army and hire one guy who speaks Russian to facilitate the surrender. |
Fred Cartwright | 12 Apr 2014 3:02 p.m. PST |
Well, you can't blame us if you fell for the marketing department's lies. Yeah I know. You would think we would have learnt something after the F-111 fiasco. The "Trust us this time we can do it – make 3 different aircraft on one airframe and they will all be great!" should have rung alarm bells. Obviously not. Sad thing is I don't think there is a great aircraft waiting in the wings like the F-4 Phantom was last time. We are going to have to get the VSTOL F-35 to work or we are stuffed. The government looked into changing the carriers to conventional catapult launch, arrested landing configuration, but the cost was too great. It would have made more sense as we could have had cross deck capability with the French and US carriers. We would have had find a replacement for the Harrier though. |
Mako11 | 12 Apr 2014 4:14 p.m. PST |
Yea, that, or the Skybolt project. |
Zargon | 12 Apr 2014 4:47 p.m. PST |
I'm sure the Pan Euros will buy the good ol USA 'hurrah for Uncle Sam' a round of crank juice after they save their butts in the Never Never wars against the bad Neo-Sovs. ( Ill eat my helmet and sh-t metal shards if anything even remotely like what you guys keep thinking will happen,happens. Its all smaller and higher tech. |
Fred Cartwright | 13 Apr 2014 4:00 a.m. PST |
You can't compare European and Russian Defense budgets as apples vs apples. You can buy 10x T-72 tanks for one Leopard or Challenger. The Leopard or Challenger might get the first four, but the other six will roll past the burning hulk. Not any more you can't. Last time I looked it was about 2 or 3 to 1. The T-90 is not cheap. That's the problem with a free market economy. Everyone wants to make a decent living! |
Legion 4 | 13 Apr 2014 8:11 a.m. PST |
Everybody wants to make a decent "profit"
making just a decent living as been left in the rear view a long time ago in the US it appears
|
Lion in the Stars | 13 Apr 2014 10:39 a.m. PST |
And I bet the primary reason for the cost difference between the Leo2 and a T90 is the Chobbham armor. Exotics like depleted uranium aren't cheap! Well, Chobbham armor and the turret stabilizer/fire control computer. |
Bangorstu | 13 Apr 2014 11:21 a.m. PST |
Can#'t say that having thousands of tanks did the Iraqis any good
. Albeit with differences in quality and training. Of course the other way of looking at this is all of our people get cheap (or free) excellent quality healthcare
Depends what you think is important. |
SouthernPhantom | 13 Apr 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
Financial stability is important. The guaranteed welfare of the people
not so much. It's all fun and games until entitlements and interest on your debt consume all your tax revenue
On topic, Denmark has two combined-arms BNs with 2A6 equivalents in service. The Belgian Leopards were 1A5s; no great loss. In any case, ~40 are supposedly going to remain in service in mech inf BNs. |
Durrati | 14 Apr 2014 6:19 a.m. PST |
Really you find it incredible that the Dutch army got rid of its tanks? Any idea how big the Dutch army is? Any idea of how big Holland is? The Dutch army is 3 brigades – i.e one division. That is formed in an operation army corp with German troops. The German army includes the 1st and 10th Panzer divisions. If you were making decisions on how to equip an army for a nation the size of Holland that is organisational linked to the German army, the following line of reasoning seems very sensible. OK, the Germans have two full armoured divisions of top class modern tanks, in fact they are not armoured divisions, they are Panzer divisions, yeah, the Germans have got a decent track record when it comes to that kind of thing so we can sort of assume they have our joint armoured warfare needs covered. In fact we wont assume it, we will probably have an in depth discussion with them about joint deployment and operation plans because that is the exact point of having a joint Dutch / German army corp. Any extra battalion that we may provide will not make to much difference either way and keeping a small Dutch armoured force in existence for no other reason really than to say we have one is a very inefficient use of limited resources. As budgets are very constrained better to save the money here where operationally it will not be missed really than elsewhere. Makes sense to me anyhow. |
ScoutJock | 14 Apr 2014 6:48 a.m. PST |
Not to mention the hundreds of kilometers from any potential aggressor. Of course if an aggressor were to land on the North Sea coast of Holland, NATO will pretty much have to be toast by then anyway. |
Legion 4 | 14 Apr 2014 6:57 a.m. PST |
"Can't say that having thousands of tanks did the Iraqis any good
." "Albeit with differences in quality and training." Yep
you got that right
|
Durrati | 14 Apr 2014 9:08 a.m. PST |
For the Dutch the distance from a potential aggressor should not be so important. The Dutch army is part of NATO and should be /is willing to defend the alliance, so it is the distance of a potential aggressor to any NATO member that is important. It is more a question of if Holland / other European countries are pulling their weight alliance wise. Is one division a good enough contribution from a country Hollands size? Add if so should they be providing tanks in that contribution? As to is a division enough? That is genuinely debatable depending on what force level is need by NATO in Europe to face common threats. If one division of troops is seen as a fair contribution the question is 'should it have to include tanks'. The answer here I feel is not necessarily. A well equipped, balanced and trained infantry division would be far preferable than a lopsided unbalanced force but with 'hey look, at least there are some tanks'. Any NATO force would of course need to include armour but as I said previously the Dutch / German Army Corp does indeed include armoured divisions, pretty good ones to by all accounts. This shows by the way the problems that Europe has in providing for common defense. As Europe does spend alot on the military but very inefficiently. This is not just Bureaucratic inefficiency as so beloved by British defense procurement by the way. The structural problem is that Europe is made up of many mid to small states that each provide its own armed forces in varying balance. Each spending individual small budgets across the whole gamut of military forces, meaning a large amount of duplication of effort, everyone with a small navy, everyone with a small air force and army, resulting in a lot less bang for the buck (or indeed euro). Compare this to the US or Russia with one budget that can be planned rationally (you would hope) meaning far less duplication. It would be far more rational militarily if the European nations divvied up the various military roles to work together. So Britain and France did the Navy, Spain and Italy did the Air Force, the Germans did the Panzer Divisions and all the smaller nations did the Infantry. This is not possible for political reasons though so Europe is going to have to carry on with far less efficient forces than the US and Russia. The Dutch / German army corp is a step in the right direction however. It means the Dutch are not wasting resources on a small, rather pointless armoured battalion whilst the Germans can provide the armoured heft knowing that the Dutch are going to supply a potent infantry division to support. Oh and by the way, the threat of an aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe / Central Asia is just as much a threat to US interests as it is to any other NATO member so please spare us the US is expected to solve Europe's problems nonsense. It is a common threat to all democratic countries and should be seen as such. Each alliance member should contribute to the common defense as much as it is able. If the US is doing to much considering its size and resources as compared to other alliance members is a fair debate. But harking back to some isolationist dream from the 20s and 30s when America thought the rests of the worlds problems somehow did not effect it is a nonsense, as the US found out when it was somewhat rudely shaken awake from the dream in 41. What goes for the 20th Century counts double in the globalized 21st. |
MarescialloDiCampo | 15 Apr 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
and whatever happened to the Italian defense cuts? |