"70% of NATO European tanks are near or totally obsolete" Topic

Given all the argy-bargy between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, I had a quick look at NATO tank numbers from that flawed bible that is Wikipedia.

I looked at Europe only. Any US/Canadian tanks are in North America and would need to be redeployed over a periods of time.

I managed to get a figure of roughly 9,545 MBTs in service with NATO European forces. This includes tanks in reserve.

This can be split as:

Modern tanks

Leopard 2 1,894 (20%) – Germany, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Turkey Poland.
Challenger 2 407 (4%) – UK (only 226 in service)
Leclerc 406 (4%) France
Ariete – 200 (2%) – Italy

TOTAL MODERN: 2,907 (30%)

Older tanks
Leopard 1 671 (7%) – Greece, Turkey
M48 1,767 (19%) – Greece, Turkey
M60 1,759 (18%) – Greece, Turkey, Spain
T-55 1,092 (11%) – Romanian, Slovenia and Latvia (3 tanks is it's entire force)
T-72 1,349 (14%) – Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria

TOTAL OLDER: 6,638 (70%)

The older tanks does include updated versions ala PT91 and M-84 (T-72), TR-85 (T-55), Sabra (M60).

A large chunk of the above fleet is in reserve, especially the eastern European forces where anything up to 75% of a country's tank force might be in reserve/storage.

Belgium, Netherlands, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Albania have no MBTs in service.

In comparison Russia's tank force is quoted as:

T-72: 10,255 (8,000 of these are in reserve)
T-80: 4,500
T-90 743
TOTAL: 14,829 tanks

Assuming T-80 and T-90 as modern "3rd generation MBT" and T-72 as 2nd generation MBT, we have a split of 35% modern and 65% older.

However I doubt that any tank the Russians field gets even close to a Challenger 2/Leclerc/Leopard 2/Ariete in terms of capability. But they are equivalent or better than the large number of Leopard 1, M48, M60, T-72 and T-55s in service.

Much like with fighter aircraft the Eastern Europeans really drop the ball – the standard seems to be extremely low numbers of T-72s in actual service – often as low as 20-30 machines operational.

Romania uses the T-55 derivatives exclusively.

A lot have not received any major upgrades except "NATO-ification" (usually revolves around communication equipment).

The only exception is Poland which is acquiring 260 Leopard 2s and has introduced a considerably upgraded T-72 version -PT91.

Obviously North American tank stocks change the picture completely – 6,000+ M1 Abrams, 60+ Leopard 1 and 120-140 Leopard 2.

In comparison Russia's tank force is quoted as:

Quoted by someone with an interest in accuracy? Numbers quoted for Russia from military sources are often wildly inaccurate. The US base their tank numbers on Russia's at least in part, so have every reason to exaggerate. The military in European countries facing low funding have nothing to gain by being accurate either.

I doubt that the actual operational percentage for the Russians is very high. Their peacetime maintenance is never very flash.

Also, how many of their tanks are driven by recruits, as opposed to professionals?

1. Never stated all of Russia's tank force is operational. Indeed I stated large numbers were in "reserve."

What reserve means is debatable. For some countries reserve is actually stored in appropriate conditions with regular maintenance checks.

For others, in reserve means rusting in a paddock. This is especially the case with Russia and also Eastern European NATO countries.

2. Quality of crew is debatable.

There's a wierd assumption all NATO troops are awesome.

Not the case. E.g. many NATO Eastern European fighter pilots struggle to get more than 50-60 hours air time per annum and aren't night/all weather qualified. Even the French are struggling to maintain fighter hours (some are as low as 120 per annum whereas NATO proscribes 200 pa).

Eastern European militaries have been in terminal decline since 1989.

Even some Western European armies only maintain a small percentage of their forces at high readiness and equipped appropriately (e.g. only 40 odd Canadian tanks are classed as "deployable" (Leopard 2A6) – the rest are either obsolete (Leopard I) or missing up-to-date equipment Leopard 2A4).

Then there is large numbers of reservists who are kept at various levels of capability.

Also economic crisis has resulted in massive cuts in training programs (this has even affected US units many of which were stood down last year as a budget measure).

Finally old equipment makes it difficult to maintain up-to-date tactics or even maintain training due to serviceability issues.

I seriously doubt a Greek, Turkish conscript in their crusty old M48 or M60 or Romanian tanker in their crusty T-55 derivative is any better than a Russian conscript or professional in a T-72/-80/-90.

3. As for conscription, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Turkey all still practice conscription.

Indeed Greece and Turkey account for 5,018 tanks or 53% of MBTs in service with European NATO. Only 934 of these are modern Leopard 2s with the remainder being M48,M60 and Leopard I's of varying marks and upgrades.

The tip of the spear (UK/France/Germany) is only about 1038 tanks (of which about 850 is operational with other 150 in proper storage).

Another note on Eastern European forces – the main emphasis of these forces has been NATO compatibility and economically sustainability.

What this has meant is:

1. Massive reductions in force size.

2. Only minimal investment in equipment and usually based around following:

a. Minimal necessary upgrades to communication systems to be able to communicate with NATO.

b. Meeting NATO air policing requirement (very often using ancient MiG-21 and MiG-29 with communication upgrades).

c. Equipping deployable forces. These are usually special force type units which are relatively cheap to equip and train then say a full mechanised brigade.

d. Maintaining local industry capability. This has often meant acquiring relatively useless equipment to keep local manufacturers in work (e.g. Czech L-159 light attack jet or Croatian VHS rifle or Polish PT91 tank(they are now preferring Leopard 2).

e. Replacing large capital items only where absolutely necessary.

Only exception to the rule is Poland which has maintained significant investment in conventional forces.

Nice, but is appears you rate T72 in Russian service as a better tank than a T72 in non Russian, any particular reason.

Also France are not members of NATO

France has been a full NATO member again since 2009. It never actually 'left' as such, but withdrew from full command integration with other member nations in 1966.

I suspect that many of the Russian tanks 'in storage' are like these.

FreddBloggs wrote:

Also France are not members of NATO

France has been a member of NATO since it was founded, and has re-joined the integrated military structure in 2009.

Do try to keep up.

All the best,

John.

Based on the OP, it looks like 65% of the Soviet, sorry, Russian tanks are old too.

I really do wonder how many runners on both sides those otherwise impressive totals amount to, iirc for Gulf War One the entire resources of BAOR were only able to field a single brigade of tanks and IFVs which actually worked….

And is it just me, or does it look like the UK keeps 407 tanks just so it can claim to have more than France (406)?

;-)

Haha well we wouldn't want to lose our 1815 advantage would we ;)

the French army only has 4 battalions of tanks each with a theoretical 54 MBT.
about 150 in storage of which budget can / or not maintain about 40.

No money for training means an occasional out of hangars for a platoon or a squadron at most for each rgt a few times a year.
In fact there are only 36 max actually operational at any time.

The rest was sold, tries to be sold or is used for spare parts.(out of 876 built)

I would bet the Bundeswehr is not much better in actual efficiency.
Each tank cost twice the price of a Leo2

Lets just remind ourselves,dosaaf hobby training meant that soviet era conscripts were fully capable of calling in artillery strikes,full radio communications ,full small arms usage.Not quite the dumb stupid mindless oaf that is suggested by the term conscript.

Martin,

We deployed a full armoured division of two armoured brigades to the Gulf in 1990/91. This represented the vast majority of the British Army's holdings of Challenger I and Warrior at the time.

The few remaining Challenger regiments and Warrior battalions might well have been stripped out to provide spares and battlefield replacement groups, but that still left the majority of BAOR (seven more armoured brigades, plus other bits and pieces) intact, which at that time was still equipped with Chieftain and FV-432.

If it really comes to the listed nations of tanks above fighting, it will likely become much less relevant when the losing side decides it is time to start splitting some atoms.

Does this mean TAC nukes would be more of an option since we won't be able to stop them? IF we cant keep them from overrunning eastern Europe and farther west, would the US and it's allies be more prone to use TAC Nukes because of the poor state of tank forces?

Who has tac nukes nowadays? The UK got rid of them years ago – Trident is now the only nuke in our arsenal.

Do the French still have them? No other NATO ally, aside from the USA, has nukes of any description. A lot of them used to keep tactical missile units of Lance, Pershing, Honest John, etc, with the intention of arming them with US warheads in time of war, but they're long gone.

"We deployed a full armoured division of two armoured brigades to the Gulf in 1990/91. This represented the vast majority of the British Army's holdings of Challenger I and Warrior at the time."

Oops, I suspect I got my Gulf Wars mixed up. Many apologies.

"would the US and it's allies be more prone to use TAC Nukes because of the poor state of tank forces?"

Well, we don't know how it looks on the other side of the hill in terms of tank availability so lets not get too excited.

I don't believe NATO has adopted the policy of No First Use (the public stance of member states varies of course) so of course it is a possibility.

Would we start a nuclear exchange in order to save Ukraine or Poland? Probably not. Germany, Austria or Italy, very probably. Once the nuclear genie is out it would be very hard to contain, so not a hugely cheery prospect.

Just checked and France still has the ASMP-A nuclear ALCM in service, in addition to its SLBMs.

An obsolete tank is better than no tank.

The problem with this kind of number crunching is it ignores the tank's biggest vulnerability: the fuel truck behind it. It doesn't matter how many tanks the Soviets, excuse me, the Russians have if they don't have the logistics to keep them fueled. The Soviets might have had barely adequate resources to reach the Channel back in their heyday. With the fall of the Warsaw Pact, the Russians have fewer resources strung out on hundreds of more miles of supply lines just begging to be interdicted. The best tank in the world doesn't go very far once it runs out of fuel.

You also can't assume that all tanks are going to be lined up in the same place at the same time for one big slug fest. Sometimes raw tank numbers really don't mean a lot.

I thought that the Russians had retired their T80s, and were running T72s and T90s instead?

I just want to see a dust up between them Greek and Turks, looking at them numbers they are on parity equipment wise at least. Very interesting I would say. As for the rest of it. What war are we contemplating where 'everyone' would lose?
And this is why everyone has rundown and obsolete equipment and the Chinese keep playing 'ihopethedo-ihopetheydo'.
I'd prefer more pics of the tanks than hopeful whatifs on bloody modern conflict which will impact on all of us here on TMP. We need a much healthier outlook chaps. Cheers and happy gaming.

I thought that the Russians had retired their T80s, and were running T72s and T90s instead?

I think that was the Russian's plan, but production of the T-90 hasn't been sufficient. Also there was some politics going on between the manufacturers too that helped the T-80 to stick around…

Damon.

Nice, but is appears you rate T72 in Russian service as a better tank than a T72 in non Russian, any particular reason.

Actually no. The T-72 is apparently a 2nd generation tank in same overall category as M60 and Leopard I.

Personally I'd say the T-80 and T-90 are obsolete as well compared to the heavy NATO bruisers (Leopard 2, M1, Challenger II).

T-90 is after all an upgraded T-72 with some elements of T-80 (itself an unsuccessful design that the Russians were never happy with, especially the powerplant which the T-72/-90 does not have).

Russians are aiming to introduce a new T-99 "Armata" tank in the future.

The basic chassis is meant to provide basis for replacement of all MBT, IFV, SPA, ARV etc. Good luck with that.

Personally I'd say the last great tank the Russians (Soviets) invented was the T-34. Everything after has proven third rate and a step behind the West (e.g. T-54/55 v M48, Centurion, T-62/T-64/T-72 v Chieftain/M60, Leopard I and T-80/-90 versus M1/Challenger 1 and 2, Leopard 2, Leclerc and Ariete).

And then add in modern concepts such as poor Russian logistics (e.g. Georgia), lack of modern C3 (again Georgia), continued usage of conscripts and of course a Russian T-72/-80/-90 unit probably won't stand a chance against an M1/Challenger 2/Leclerc unit (though judging by JCfrog's post French tank crew readiness seems to be lacking).

However these obsolete Russian tin cans are still capable enough against the average European NATO tank (M48, M60, Leopard 1, T-55, T-72).

The number of tanks is likely far less significant given the reality of ICBMs. In a NATO-Russia war the only possible winner is China, and they are as likely to be losers as anyone else given the subsequent economic downturn following a NATO-Russia war.

Thomas,

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you. As an active duty Army tanker, we know full well the capabilities and limitations of both our tanks and our potential adversaries. I think the "M1 is the God of the battlefield" is an overplayed hand.

You call the T-72 a second generation tank on par with the M60, that is true for the base production model from the 1970s, however that's an over-simplification that ignores any of the upgrades the Russians have introduced. Just like the base model of the M1 was constantly upgraded (M1P, M1A1, M1A1HC, M1A1SA, M1A2, M1A2SEP, etc) and is similar to our current tank in name and profile only, so too with the T-72 and T-80.

The reputation of the T-72 suffers from it's performance in the Gulf War and the Iraq War. What must be understood is that these were not Soviet production models, but export models that were assembled in Iraq for the most part, and used home made Iraqi ammunition. The export models are completely different from the production models in that they have much degraded armor packages and fire control systems. They are literally stamped "Not for Soviet use."

Likewise the T-80 suffers from it's reputation in Chechnya. Some of this is due to the design (ie the ammo storage carousel and auto loader) but their poor performance was largely due to crew inexperience and abysmal tactics (if you send M1A2s into an urban area without infantry support you'll get a very similar result, albeit with higher crew survivability rates assuming they don't get gunned down bailing out.)

After the Cold War ended, the Army conducted live fire tests against ex-Soviet tanks acquired in the 90s and found that NATO would have had a very hard time penetrating the advanced armor arrays deployed in the T-80U and T-72B, likewise their ammunition was substantially more potent than the 125mm ammo encountered in Iraq.

Of course our armor and ammunition has developed since then, but so has theirs. The advanced T-72BU was rebranded as the T-90 in order to live down the Iraqi T-72 reputation. Likewise their T-80s continued to be upgraded. Things like thermal sights, advanced ERA, and their ATGM capability make them very formidable opponents. The ATGM system in particular; it fires the AT-11 Svir or Refleks, which have a range of 4k and 5k respectively. These are very potent systems. A number of Abrams' were damaged in Iraq due to hits from AT-14 Kornets, a similar system. As well trained as we are (though I'd submit many 19Ks are grossly out of practice due to the "War on Terror"), there's only a few gunners ive had that id let pull the trigger on something at 2500m. So they greatly out range us.

Now granted their conscript crew quality can't be great, but the vehicles themselves are capable. I can tell you that if I were in a tank company that had to go up against a T-80U, T-72B, or T-90 company, we wouldn't take that lightly and would treat them with a healthy respect as more than a few crews probably wouldn't be coming home

The Poles have acquired from Germany 105 Leopard 2A5 tanks and 14 2A4 variants and 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks it already operates. Have they received the additional 105 Leopard 2A5 tanks and 14 2A4 variants?

MadMax17,

Thanks for taking time to respond!

Whilst Russia has developed upgrades for T-72 and T-80, I've not seen any evidence for massed adoption of these upgrades.

Same applies to their aircraft.

Basically Russian tanks were left in their 1980s configuration for most of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Indeed the Russians were quite eager to export top of the line gear to countries like China, India and Algeria to maintain production capability whilst their own military rotted away.

Since Putin took over, the situation has reversed. However there's not been any massed or systematic upgrades.

For example advanced ARENA APS defense system was still not in regular service in 2012.

Upgrades and new builds are done in spasmodic batches at best. Only a few hundred T-72s have been upgraded to T-72B2 (under 200 tanks) and B3 standards (150 tanks on order and being delivered).

As it's on it's way out the T-80 has been largely ignored. Indeed apparently all T-80 tanks were placed into reserve as of 31/12/2013.

Even T-90 fleet is not all up to modern standard – over half the current fleet is the initial production model and not modernised to latest T-90A standard.

Hence in a Russia-NATO slugfest the most common tanks encountered would be 1980s technology at best.

Meanwhile Americans, Brits, Germans and French have at least applied upgrades to most of their tank fleets or in the US case a relatively large number.

The rest of NATO has been more similar to Russian model – the Turks for example operate 4-5 different versions of M60 Patton including long obsolete M60A1s.

Or Poland operates 2 versions of Leo 2 (none are latest 2A6 versions) and about 7 variants of T-72 (including 3 versions of locally built PT91).

Upgrades are seldom done fleet wide – for example Czech Republic only upgraded 30 out of 123 T-72s to modern standard (rest are old T-72M1 in "reserve").

Other countries like Croatia (M84D/M95)and Slovakia have designed upgrade programs but never implemented them at service level.

Confusion does arise from dodgy reporting and equally dodgy news reporting.

A lot of Eastern European articles that state upgrades to systems often only refer to overhauls to get assets back into service.

It's also worth remembering that the Russians used a lot of T-62s… Yes, T-62s… in Georgia.

"I think the "M1 is the God of the battlefield" is an overplayed hand."

Yes thankyou. Ex tanky aswell.
Having first hand experience with the M1 it still has its fair share of issues. Its a maintenance Whore.

I wouldn't completely right off the T80 or T90. They are still mean bit of kit and a very capable platform. ID hate to go toe to toe with any of them.

As it s been said already, numbers on paper never tell the whole story.

Yes thankyou. Ex tanky aswell.
Having first hand experience with the M1 it still has its fair share of issues. Its a maintenance Whore.

They're not that bad! Really. The Abrams is like any other vehicle. Give her good PMCS and do your job and she'll purr like a kitten and put sabot on target every time. Now she's a real POL and fuel hog though and that's the Lord's truth!

I honestly think we would have cleaned Ivan's clock back in '91. Yeah, it would have been ugly for sure, but we would have won in a conventional stand-up fight. Now a days…. Yeah, I think the Kilos are rusty from years of fighting insurgents and stuff. Maybe like the US in say '75, but with our military being in far better shape, especially the Army.

Really, the more I look at today the more I'm reminded of the post Vietnam era. What with tensions between the US and the West with China and Russia. Not really a Cold War yet, but perhaps the clouds for one are forming? So I'm guessing that the military is going to restructure itself to face conventional foes with the Navy and USMC looking to their old stomping grounds in the Pacific while the Army and the Air Corps… Errr… Force look again to Europe, but with a piece of the Pacific pie too.

Guess it's time to look at the old PKB drills again, eh TRADOC?

T80 uses a turbine, T72/90 has a diesel.

Turbines aren't bad, and they're awesome for speed (the S-Tank has both a diesel and a small turbine, for example). But they suck fuel like no tomorrow and they suck 4x the air a diesel of equal power does. How much fuel? Well, at idle they suck about 50% the fuel of full throttle, as opposed to 5-10% like a diesel. That's partially why the US replaced one of the battery banks in the Abrams with a 'small' diesel generator (something like 300hp!). Run that little Wankel rotary diesel at best-economy settings to spin the generator when you don't need to move the tank.

Turbines also have a very hot exhaust, so it's impractical for infantry to shelter behind a turbine-powered tank in urban battles.

Personally, I'd like to see the US do a serious change to the force structure. Keep the Bradley/Abrams Heavy Brigades, but change the light brigades to use vehicles like the FCS program, which were all C130-transportable.

The 82nd and 101st (and whoever else wants to play) would be armed, trained, and equipped for ~30 days and would actually have decent armor support from H-Hour on. But for extended combat operations, the Abrams/Bradley guys would come out to play.

Naturally, there's going to be some technology sharing between the FCS-like 'light tanks' and the Abrams/Bradley family. Ammo types, and all the C4I gear at the very least, as well as some of the active defense systems and exotic armor used on the lights.

Have to agree with Cold Steel and MadMax … And just like with air superiorty, the US needs to keeps it's MBT inventory updated and current. Even though with recent conflicts, overall MBTs don't always/rarely engage in tank vs. tank actions. But you still have to have the capability … Of course any modern MBT's main gun will do a lot of damage to most structures like you find in Afghanistan or even Iraq, outside of larger towns …

Lion, I have to say that I like that idea. The IBCT is basically useless in a conventional war, and even in a COIN environment, requires freaking huge amounts of inorganic equipment (Read: MRAPs and similar) to be effective. Some sort of BMD-style platform would be nice.

I don't know, unless I missed something … why would an IBCT be useless ? It's a Mech/Motorized Infantry unit … Infantry dismounts and fights … it been that way for decades. Dismounted Infantry can preform all the Infantry missions, like raids, ambushes, night attacks, etc. … Of course, I may be biased having lead a Rifle Plt in the 101 and later commanded a Mech Co. [M113] with a Sep Mech Bde of the 18th ABN Corps … Once on the ground, Infantry can operate in almost all terrain and situations …

Got a question for L4 and any other current/former US Army grunts: How much organic transportation does an IBCT have?

Can an IBCT keep up with the logistics elements of an Armored BCT? That is, once the armor clears the BGs out of the way, how long before the leg infantry arrive to hold the ground?

As much crap as the modern grunt carries, how far can a fully loaded grunt travel in a day?

I know the idea of the Stryker Brigade was to act as a Heavy Brigade to an IBCT, and as a Light Brigade to an Armored BCT. (I'm oddly amused that this aligns with the WW2 German troop classes. Grenadier Divisions were all foot or had to get trucks from elsewhere, Panzergrenadier Divisions were half trucked and half armored halftracks, and Panzer Divisions were all armored halftracks).

Check out the link … and link This is a much heavier organization then when I was with the 101, '80-'83. We trained for Light/Heavy Ops. With all the rolling stock in a IBCT [almost 600 vehicles], it should have no problem keeping up with an ABCT, IMO. Even if some of the Grunts have to hitch a ride on the back decks of AFVs. Been there … done that … And the Log Support assets wouldn't be a problem either. It's all in wheeled vehicles. As far as moving dismounted, it would be done after the the unit is delivered near the OBJ. That may be close as the terrain permits. But I doubt it would be a long forced march. In modern combat, things tend to move quickly, quicker than a unit can walk. That is why much of the IBCT can move on vehicles or by helos from higher levels of support. How long would it take to get there to support the Armor ? Shouldn't be long at all with all that transport. It could be moving right behind the AFVs by only a few 100 meters, based on terrain and situation. How long can an IBCT defend would be based on terrain and support … Well trained Infantry can hold ground. Being a former 101 Grunt, we trained for all situations. Anti-Armor defences and ambushs to COIN … Based on my experience as a 101 Rifle PL, to a Mech Co. Cdr [M113]. And in many cases I was attached to an Armor Bn. As well as being a Bn S4 and BMO and later a Bde BMO and Asst S4 … not to mention a 101 Bn Air Ops officer. Unless things have changed that greatly …

I remember before we deployed to Desert Storm everybody was talking about the dreaded T-72. Well after blowing off a few T-72 turrets that fear went totally way with us. A tank is a tank and it is the men who crew it that make it lethal. If you can move the shoot the fastest then you win.

That is very true … A weapon is generally only as good as the man/crew behind it …