European NATO Army alternatives: 1950 - 1990

1960.
Seaking and Jolly Green become US/UK standard.

USMC waits for jolly over frogs. Massive savings for dept of navy.
USAF makes 3, USCG 4! USArmy buys jolly as main troop ship for Air Cav.
Jolly can lift field arty, Chinook not needed.

Huey becomes recce and light attack machine, evolves into cobra.

Skycrane and stag now NATO heavy help.

West land builds seaking and jolly. No puma or commando.
A stretch lynx becomes Britain's Huey. Westland make tiger.

images (2).jpeg
 
1960 b

M60 given stabilisation from day one. Euro V12 1000 HP powerpack under licence and matches Leo1 20HP/t. Much closer to centurion used by nations, Canada, Australia, etc.

Glass core cast armour accepted, giving 50% more protection against HEAT, and HESH 100% protected. 1973 war very different, with RPG and Sagger much less effective.
 
Somebody brought up the Mirage III as an alternative to the Lawn Dart/Widowmaker/flying piece of shit F-104G. Yes. A thousand times yes! Maybe Franz-Josef Strauß gets a bit more money and mistresses from the French and dumps Lockheed...
 
Somebody brought up the Mirage III as an alternative to the Lawn Dart/Widowmaker/flying piece of shit F-104G. Yes. A thousand times yes! Maybe Franz-Josef Strauß gets a bit more money and mistresses from the French and dumps Lockheed...

Saab Draken.
Designed to dog fight and intercept.
Simple for conscripts,
Operate from roads.
RR derived engine.

And
Doesn't kill pilots
images - 2024-02-07T100103.514.jpeg
 
It is my personal belief that world has been a lot better place if a united Germany had been conceived from the get-go after ww2 but Largely demilitarized like a giant Austria or maybe Finland

It would need a simple interceptor fighter ( like the Draken above or German version of mirage III optimized for interception)
army capable of largely defensive operations, so maybe lots of successors to STUG , not so much MBT.
 
Firstly recognise that different countries have different needs, experience and therefore different solutions are acceptable. The continental only states - Benelux Germany Denmark are different from the US UK and France who have out of area commitments in spades and will require forces useable in Africa the Far East. Canada and the US are across the Atlantic, Italy behind the Alps.

So do the simple things first. Bomb shackles, refueling systems, the size of truck beds, containers and palletized systems. Recognize that folk will want to promote their own industry and their own industry will want to make a living. It really does not matter if different armies use Mercedes, DAF, Renault, Bedford or Fiat trucks as long as they can all fill up and accept the same size cargo or later on use different radar systems but they can plug into a common architecture and control system.

Without going too far off piste into what might have been.

.270 rifle ammo with a FAL probably EM-2 cos Rules, MAG and accept the French will be using their ammo until the late 50's or so and its the next gen rifle and GPMG that will be chambered in common. Pistols do not matter.

MBT is Centurion initially after that, Leo 1 and AMX are a dead end. Vickers 1 MBT is intended as a low cost Centurion, when you get to the Centurion replacement a JV between Vickers and KraussMaffei to replace the BRD M48s with earlier buy in from other European countries to get a Vickers/KM Leopard say Vickers turret KM hull which gives a good enough power weight ratio for the Germans and more armour, and the British accept a less heavily armoured vehicle but upgrade the turret to 120 rifled and after the Yom Kippur war that turret is the basis for one mated to the OTL Leo 2 hull and armament and armour upgraded to Valiant2 over time. The US will still give away M60's and M48s rather than pay shipping back to the US but there you go.

AT weapons CG, Milan, HOT. Swingfire, cover the period as OTL. If in doubt buy Swedish.

APC/light armour. There are two good families depending on where you stand. The British wheeled Saracen Saladin etc, and the AML series are different but fine early on, Later the VAB series or if you want tracks the FV101 series ( scorpion and derivatives).

IFV the VCI as a start point after which its likely to be common hull, turret to taste.

Naturally there would be local tailoring but having some component and sub assemblies in other European countries is less of an issue that across the Atlantic.
 
And now the flying things.

With all flying things the airframe, avionics, engines and weapons systems can be different so the Sikorsky Sea King and Westland are exactly the same apart from the engines, avionics and weapons. Chinook is probably best in class and probably only in class. But apart from that assuming the deal could be got right. Alouette II/III, Gazelle, Puma, Gazelle, Lynx are a good mix, there are others but that would cover most needs.

You note no attack Helicopters. Europe has never really be sold on them, Europe is not a particularly permissive air environment on the central front, airmobility is smaller scale compared to US even in colonial wars and for at AT role adaptions of the Lynx or Gazelle or Alouettes work. Its really only when you get to the 2000's and genuine fire and forget weapons, much better sensors and larger colonial wars that a requirement emerges. If pressed the Mangusta or Cougar might have been workable, but most of the requirement is naval or transport.

As fixed wing have been mentioned. C130 is best in class for the era but for slightly smaller shorter ranged Noratlas and equivalents work. For fighters the Mirage III is a lightweight interceptor until the IIIC and has issues and never really works as a strike aircraft. The early Hunter/Mystere/F86 fits are fine for the era, its only in the late 50's and the F104G which predates any comparable Mirage. You are really talking about TSR2, Buc or another american as the bomber - which has all sorts of issues over nuclear policy, and Mirage or possibly Lightning as the Interceptor. If you accept going Swedish who are not a NATO member then the best choice is probably Draaken in 1960 but its not a bomber so you need something else.

Whatever you choose instead of the 104 its going to be the standard for a decade or more and is intended to be used to kickstart a series of national aerospace industries.

The correct answer BTW is Draaken and Buc then Viggen and Tornado then Eurofighter Crested Grebe. after failed attempts to get the French to play nice and the F16 have a much more limited production run.
 
1975
Lesson of '73 show M60 with glass core saves many lives. ~260mm turret front equal to 390mm against HEAT. ATGW and RPG need bigger warheads.

.257 much lighter than .270, and flatter shooting. Battles from Rhodesia to Vietnam show round is very capable. NATO troops out gun m43 cartridge guns. While heavy ball .30" out shoots old Russian cartridge SVD and PK.

Work by IDF is feed into new NATO tank, with front engine adopted (V12). New NATO gun is 105mm bored out to 110mm smooth bore. APDSFS with combustible case but stub base. Delayed fuse penetrator HEAT becomes main anti bunker/ light armour round exploding inside BMPs and bunker. Apres (shrapnel) with mix of flechette and balls replaces canister and HE. MTB carries 60 round vs 50 of 120mm.

TANK units have special H-IFV with 35mm /TOW to provide close support with 6 assault troopers.

CS MBT be equipped with a long smoothbore 152mm and a second generation LASER Shillelagh missile. 152mm APDSFS and HEP demo round for urban combat. The same stub case as 110mm, fixes much of Shillelagh issues.

Infantry units have the M723 carrying a full 9 man squad. Squads can comfortably carry two LMG with NO2. MICV crews are separate units with specially trained crews. Mech bns have a coy of MICV to lift a standard bn. Infantry BDE have a MICV coy to lift any infantry coy(s).

M723 with high pressure 90mm smoothbore, replace Sheridan with 76mm of the 1960s. Equips armd cavalry / Lt tank units. "Out-of-area" NATO units finally have armoured support.
(Edit or a 76 bored out to 80mm smoothbore with stub case)

NATO Close Recce vehicle for tank units is the Scorpion with 35mm/TOW and Spartan with m723 turret.
 
Last edited:
Next NATO and WUDO
Was third attempt called European Defence Community, aka 1952 Treaty of Paris
Proposed in 1950 by then French Prime Minister René Pleven in response to the American call for the rearmament of West Germany.
The formation of a pan-European defence architecture, as an alternative to West Germany's proposed accession to NATO,
EDC a pan-European military, divided into national components, under a common budget, common arms, centralised military procurement, and institutions.
Members would be France, Benelux, Italy, West Germany, It would be Part of NATO.

Planned were
France: 14 divisions, 750 planes
Germany: 12 divisions*
Italy: 12 divisions, 450 planes
Benelux: 5 divisions, 600 planes
*Germany would have had an air force, but a clause in the EDC treaty would have forbidden it to build war-planes, atomic weapons, guided missiles and battleships.

more info here
 
Better yet adopting the FAL in the original .280 (before they screwed it up trying to placate the Americans) in the early 1950's.
The Venezuelans actually did adopt the FAL in .280 (7mm) but converted them to 7.62mm.

 

Ramontxo

Donor
Assuming the French are willing to sell it to a reformed Luftwaffe. Admittedly the French weren't exactly fussy about who they sold weapons to, but arming West Germany may make them twitchy.
It was Marcel Dassault (born Bloch) who, after enjoying the Gestapo hospitality at Buchenwald refused to sell any aircraft to the Germans
 
There's an interesting opportunity for a common MBT in the early 50s in the form of the T95 Medium tank with the Chieftain turret.

G8rYOqi5Lec.jpg

images

I am unsure how better the chassis would be compared to the normal Chieftain but it is certainly smaller, lighter and somewhat similarly armored.
 
1975
Lesson of '73 show M60 with glass core saves many lives. ~260mm turret front equal to 390mm against HEAT. ATGW and RPG need bigger warheads.
No they don't ( you may have a tense problem with this) the original design of the M60 called for a composite armour which would have made a difference, but they could not make it in sufficient quantities or reliably so in 73 the M60s would have steel armour and both of these types were about to be supplanted by more modern composite and reactive armours. In Israeli popular consciousness the M60 was regarded as highly vulnerable to fire in the ?hydraulic systems.

The issue with the calibres - not sure what you mean by the .273 but the wars from Rhodesia - Vietnam were won by the guys with Russian weapons. Middle East, India/Pakistan and Malaya by the guys with FALS.

Any work by the IDF will be post 73, well by the late 60s the British will want to have fielded the 120L11 so no need to downgrade to a 110 bodge up and APFSDS is becoming viable so the 120 L44 from Rheinmetall is out of development in 74 and just needs the tank to build around it. The Valiant turret (later admittedly) has been shown to mount the 105/120 rifles and 120 smoothbore. Development of an entirely new gun and ammunition calibre will take most of a decade so only become available after the Rheinmetall gin has been in service.

Lets be fair any tank development line that ends up with Leo2 is a win.

Why the Heavy IFV? its not very mobile tactically ( think bridges) and its accompanying tanks who by nature will want to stand off and kill tanks. TOW in that context is a cost with no benefit, Most of the H-IFV are contextually a COIN vehicle where operational mobility is less of an issue and casualty reduction against light AT weapons a major issue. You could recycle older MBT into the role but why?

CS MBT be equipped with a long smoothbore 152mm and a second generation LASER Shillelagh missile. 152mm APDSFS and HEP demo round for urban combat. The same stub case as 110mm, fixes much of Shillelagh issues.
Why generally and when. A second gen Shillelagh would be 70s when the best you can get is a SACLOS laser system like Hellfire. Which is fine but you still need to have LOS and keep the laser on the target. Which tends to mean the designator not moving even if the launch vehicle does. If its much later then we are looking at copperhead, Excalibur Merlin type rounds which are artillery delivered AT systems or STRIX if in doubt buy Swedish. If you are going to scoot after firing why use an MBT as the launch vehicle? Also what advantage does this give over a 120 smoothbore or rifle firing HESH. One of the reasons for retaining the rifled gun is it makes HESH more effective. A 150mm close support vehicle is really niche. Most normal buildings wont stop a 7.62 bullet much less a 105 or 120 tank round. Not many Maginot lines to defeat.
Infantry units have the M723
Whereupon the European infantry look out from their 5-10 year old Marders and AMX's and mutter 'finally'.

M723 with high pressure 90mm smoothbore,
Whereupon the European infantry look up from their AMX10P and maybe TAMs and mutter 'Finally'

apparently there is this Swiss bloke shouting Piranha in the background.
 
No they don't ( you may have a tense problem with this) the original design of the M60 called for a composite armour which would have made a difference, but they could not make it in sufficient quantities or reliably so in 73 the M60s would have steel armour and both of these types were about to be supplanted by more modern composite and reactive armours. In Israeli popular consciousness the M60 was regarded as highly vulnerable to fire in the ?hydraulic systems.

The issue with the calibres - not sure what you mean by the .273 but the wars from Rhodesia - Vietnam were won by the guys with Russian weapons. Middle East, India/Pakistan and Malaya by the guys with FALS.

Any work by the IDF will be post 73, well by the late 60s the British will want to have fielded the 120L11 so no need to downgrade to a 110 bodge up and APFSDS is becoming viable so the 120 L44 from Rheinmetall is out of development in 74 and just needs the tank to build around it. The Valiant turret (later admittedly) has been shown to mount the 105/120 rifles and 120 smoothbore. Development of an entirely new gun and ammunition calibre will take most of a decade so only become available after the Rheinmetall gin has been in service.

Lets be fair any tank development line that ends up with Leo2 is a win.

Why the Heavy IFV? its not very mobile tactically ( think bridges) and its accompanying tanks who by nature will want to stand off and kill tanks. TOW in that context is a cost with no benefit, Most of the H-IFV are contextually a COIN vehicle where operational mobility is less of an issue and casualty reduction against light AT weapons a major issue. You could recycle older MBT into the role but why?


Why generally and when. A second gen Shillelagh would be 70s when the best you can get is a SACLOS laser system like Hellfire. Which is fine but you still need to have LOS and keep the laser on the target. Which tends to mean the designator not moving even if the launch vehicle does. If its much later then we are looking at copperhead, Excalibur Merlin type rounds which are artillery delivered AT systems or STRIX if in doubt buy Swedish. If you are going to scoot after firing why use an MBT as the launch vehicle? Also what advantage does this give over a 120 smoothbore or rifle firing HESH. One of the reasons for retaining the rifled gun is it makes HESH more effective. A 150mm close support vehicle is really niche. Most normal buildings wont stop a 7.62 bullet much less a 105 or 120 tank round. Not many Maginot lines to defeat.

Whereupon the European infantry look out from their 5-10 year old Marders and AMX's and mutter 'finally'.


Whereupon the European infantry look up from their AMX10P and maybe TAMs and mutter 'Finally'

apparently there is this Swiss bloke shouting Piranha in the background.
The reason the UK ditched 195mm engineering HESH gun on AVRE's was they found a MBT with 120mm HESH was more flexible and had much better combat persistence. For bunkers, AFV's, IFV's will definitely get wrecked by 120mm HESH
 
Getting every nation to have the same standard tank and APC?
I won how you would make that work?
Difficult as very few countries would be willing to see defence spending being sent abroad negatively affecting the balance of payments, plus running down domestic manufacturing capacity with memories of WWII still fresh and the Korean conflict ongoing. Best I can think of is picking a model and then domestic production by member states. Even then you'd still have issues over differing design decisions e.g. protection versus mobility for tanks.


Should there be an 'all NATO' effort, then the upgraded Centurion will suffice until the late 1960s…
All of the European sales for Centurion were funded by the US under MDAP and the like IIRC. I did have half an idea for getting it expanded to include West Germany as well but between France rejecting the European Defence Community, the Korean conflict winding down and the US ending the heavy military subsidies they'd been offering it's tricky to plot a path through.


I recall a NATO project in 1964/1965 for a multilateral seaborne force (MLF) where ships carrying Polaris ICBMs were served by crews of 6 or 7 nationalities :

[SNIP]​
I believe that was mainly the Kennedy administration's attempt to try and get the UK and France to give up their nuclear weapons, something which was never going to happen.


Somebody brought up the Mirage III as an alternative to the Lawn Dart/Widowmaker/flying piece of shit F-104G.
Comparing operational losses I've seen convincing arguments made that the problems with the F-104G had more to do with deficient training and operation on the part of the Luftwaffe than any major problem with the aircraft.


However Denmark seemed not too worried.
Was Denmark ever a part of NATO's nuclear weapon sharing programme? Citing them as a response to questions about the Draken being able to deploy nuclear weapons seems somewhat illogical.
 
Was Denmark ever a part of NATO's nuclear weapon sharing programme? Citing them as a response to questions about the Draken being able to deploy nuclear weapons seems somewhat illogical.

That sharing only started in 1960s, when the US released weapons to NATO air assets.

Without F104, the air weapon sharing could not happen. Catch 22.
 
Top