AHC/WI: Common NATO Land Equipment

Delta Force

Banned
There has been a long history of collaboration between NATO countries with aerospace and naval equipment, but not for land equipment. What might a common NATO land equipment inventory have looked like if there had been more collaboration, especially after the more well known efforts in the 1950s?
 
Given countries design equipment to suit their industrial base and doctrine more standardisation might be worse and not better. A mix of doctrine, tactics and equipment complicated the WP forces' planning as what would work on Chieftain/FV430s won't necessarily work on Leopard I/Marder or M60/M113.
 
They tried with the next generation battle rifle, the US went M14, Italy the BM-59 and eventually Germany, Greece, Turkey would all go HK G3 and much of the rest would go FN FAL. France would keep the MAS-49 until the 1970s. The only thing they could agree on is the ammo component of any weapons system, there is to much money in outfitting a military force in each country.
 
The only thing they could agree on is the ammo component of any weapons system, there is to much money in outfitting a military force in each country.
Even there it wasn't so much agreement as the US sing its size and influence to get their proposed cartridge accepted, IIRC several European countries were proposing smaller cartridges, the US Army had a report which supported choosing a smaller cartridge but it was quietly buried, and what became the largeer 7.62 NATO was chosen instead.
 
Were there any substantial plans for large NATO units to deploy away from their own logistics organizations? This is about the only reason why major standardization would be needed.
 
Were there any substantial plans for large NATO units to deploy away from their own logistics organizations? This is about the only reason why major standardization would be needed.
NATO in general supported standardization. Communications frequencies and modulations were standardized, munitions were standardized (including magazine sizes), fuels (sometimes), electrical connectors...
 
Also consider defence spending from a domestic political perspective. Every nation wants to be a net arms exporter .... they want all defence dollars/euros/pounds spent on their army to also employ factory workers in their country.
IOW defence procurement is a great way to buy votes in your own country.
That policy worked well when Ottawa steered so many defence contracts towards factories (Bombardier, Canadair, Canadian Aviation Electronics, SNC Lavalin, Levi's shipyards, Vickers Shipyards, etc.) in Quebec, that they pulled the rug out from under separatist politicians.
 
Given countries design equipment to suit their industrial base and doctrine more standardisation might be worse and not better. A mix of doctrine, tactics and equipment complicated the WP forces' planning as what would work on Chieftain/FV430s won't necessarily work on Leopard I/Marder or M60/M113.

Chieftains would have been a lot better off with a Continental AVDS1790 powering them.

Don't see a problem with sticking with the M60s T97 tracks and roadwheels either, they were a shade wider than what the Chieftain ran
Leos were lighter, and could have just used fewer roadwheel, shorter track run.

In return the US and UK would use Marder chassis as a basis for all APCs
 
Also consider defence spending from a domestic political perspective. Every nation wants to be a net arms exporter .... they want all defence dollars/euros/pounds spent on their army to also employ factory workers in their country.
IOW defence procurement is a great way to buy votes in your own country.
That policy worked well when Ottawa steered so many defence contracts towards factories (Bombardier, Canadair, Canadian Aviation Electronics, SNC Lavalin, Levi's shipyards, Vickers Shipyards, etc.) in Quebec, that they pulled the rug out from under separatist politicians.
God bless the F-35, with a component built in each of the 50 states (actually, though, 46 states, like, for real - all of them but Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Nebraska :eek:)
 
Chieftains would have been a lot better off with a Continental AVDS1790 powering them.

Don't see a problem with sticking with the M60s T97 tracks and roadwheels either, they were a shade wider than what the Chieftain ran
Leos were lighter, and could have just used fewer roadwheel, shorter track run.

In return the US and UK would use Marder chassis as a basis for all APCs

Perhaps Britain could have just built a decent 800hp diesel themselves as well as those other things, they don't need to get US stuff. If Britain and US thought the Marder was what they needed they would have built one, just like if Germany thought the Chieftain or M60 was what they needed they would have built their own.
 
God bless the F-35, with a component built in each of the 50 states (actually, though, 46 states, like, for real - all of them but Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Nebraska :eek:)

46 states and 3 US, 2 UK, 7 partner and 2 SCIP customers is what it takes to get a 5th Generation aircraft through to production then that was exactly the right thing to do. If this was pared back to half the states, less services and less partners and got cancelled we'd be saying how stupid they were for not expanding it and getting it over the line.
 
Perhaps Britain could have just built a decent 800hp diesel themselves as well as those other things, they don't need to get US stuff. If Britain and US thought the Marder was what they needed they would have built one, just like if Germany thought the Chieftain or M60 was what they needed they would have built their own.

They would have made their design, it just would have had those common parts, like rifles are all different, but use the STANAG magazine.

It's still a Chieftain, but different engine, tracks and wheels. Better armor and gun than the M60, but slower. Leo has less armor, but faster. All are made in home countries, rather than bits all put together, like the Tornado fighter was from different countries.

UK showed they couldn't made a decent diesel for the Chieftain. Maybe Leland could make a decent AVDS under licience: they sure couldn't make a decent L60. And the higher HP would be pure benefit.

Since the US wanted an APC, they make the Marder from aluminum and delete the turret, so it's light enough to swim ( a stupid requirement, being amphibious)

The point is commonality in drive train, the bits that wear the fastest.
 
UK showed they couldn't made a decent diesel for the Chieftain. Maybe Leland could make a decent AVDS under licience: they sure couldn't make a decent L60. And the higher HP would be pure benefit.
The L60 was compromised largely by a NATO directive for multi-fuel engines that only Britain paid any attention to. Once that was abandoned, the L60 could be modified to remove the multi-fuel capability and improve reliability. If a pure diesel had been desired, Leyland could've designed one, or one of Rolls-Royce's entirely adequate diesels used - the CV12 has its' origins in the early 1950s C range.

A common drivetrain has its' advantages, but you're still going to see lots of politicking over workshares. It's entirely possible that an Italian and Canadian unit will wind up with interchangeable American tank engines which have no commonality their German armoured personnel carriers and British light trucks. It's not obvious to me that that kind of 'horizontal' commonality is preferable to 'vertical' commonality within national supply chains.
 
Even there it wasn't so much agreement as the US sing its size and influence to get their proposed cartridge accepted, IIRC several European countries were proposing smaller cartridges, the US Army had a report which supported choosing a smaller cartridge but it was quietly buried, and what became the largeer 7.62 NATO was chosen instead.

The UK was planning on a 7mm/0.280'' cartridge (the EM-2 rifle) when the US essentially forced their 7.62mm round on NATO and we changed to the SLR. The L85 ('SA80') was originally designed in something like 4.85mm before the US decided they wanted 5.56mm to be the new standard.
 
F-35 shares a common drive train over three different missions.

Commonality of drive trains is a big issue when you are fighting at the end of a long supply chain, halfway around the world. Sharing high-wear drive train components can keep more allied vehicles on the road. Let's say you shred a tire on a land mine and it is going to take weeks to ship a replacement tire from a warehouse back in Canada.
The other option is to barter a tire off the German regiment next door in return for the linked ammo you gave them last week.
Nations can still brag about how their home-made Leopard tanks are better because they are faster and Brits can brag about more accurate guns and American tankers can brag about thicker armour, but if they share common drive trains .....

One disadvantage of common drive trains is political. Every weapons system is sold with political strings. That means if a third-world nation annoys its single-source, first-world supplier, the flow of spare parts halts and fancy weapons systems rust because of a shortage of high-wear parts.
OTOH if a dozen different NATO nations shared a common drive train, then the third-world despot has a dozen different possible sources for spare parts.
 
The L60 was compromised largely by a NATO directive for multi-fuel engines that only Britain paid any attention to. Once that was abandoned, the L60 could be modified to remove the multi-fuel capability and improve reliability. If a pure diesel had been desired, Leyland could've designed one, or one of Rolls-Royce's entirely adequate diesels used - the CV12 has its' origins in the early 1950s C range.

A common drivetrain has its' advantages, but you're still going to see lots of politicking over workshares. It's entirely possible that an Italian and Canadian unit will wind up with interchangeable American tank engines which have no commonality their German armoured personnel carriers and British light trucks. It's not obvious to me that that kind of 'horizontal' commonality is preferable to 'vertical' commonality within national supply chains.

I believe the multi-fuel engine was indirectly the reason for the transmission unreliability, because the multi-fuel engine was so down on power the drivers had to work the drivetrain hard which caused it to break.

I wonder how much the early versions tainted the reputation of tank even when later versions sorted the problem out? The L60 went from 650 through 720 to 850bhp by 1979, increasing with each change to the engine rebuild standard, 850bhp and better reliability would make for a good tank.
 
F-35 shares a common drive train over three different missions.

Commonality of drive trains is a big issue when you are fighting at the end of a long supply chain, halfway around the world. Sharing high-wear drive train components can keep more allied vehicles on the road. Let's say you shred a tire on a land mine and it is going to take weeks to ship a replacement tire from a warehouse back in Canada.
The other option is to barter a tire off the German regiment next door in return for the linked ammo you gave them last week.
Nations can still brag about how their home-made Leopard tanks are better because they are faster and Brits can brag about more accurate guns and American tankers can brag about thicker armour, but if they share common drive trains .....

One disadvantage of common drive trains is political. Every weapons system is sold with political strings. That means if a third-world nation annoys its single-source, first-world supplier, the flow of spare parts halts and fancy weapons systems rust because of a shortage of high-wear parts.
OTOH if a dozen different NATO nations shared a common drive train, then the third-world despot has a dozen different possible sources for spare parts.

Australia managed to sustain a squadron of centurion tanks in Vietnam from early 1968 to late 1971. These tanks were at the end of their lives, had no commonality with US armoured vehicles and were a fortnight sea voyage from the National support base. Yet the sqn managed 75-80% availability rates despite tanks being away from their bases for 3 months at a time and being a magnet for rpgs and recoilless rifles and mines and taking a lot of damage. Don't underestimate what can be done when it has to be.
 
That sounds like ex-post-facto propaganda dreamed up by a staff officer!
Hah!
Australians are the exception to the notion that you can keep a fleet of old tanks running thousands of miles from overhaul facilities. It hints at the handiness of Australians who grew up on sheep stations hundreds of miles from garages.

During the same time period, the Canadian fleet of Centurions wore out and rusted out because Ottawa was not willing to waste money on spare parts.

Give the same fleet of old tanks to an army of raw recruits and they will be scrap within a week.
 
Maybe the British stick to their 'guns' with the .280 cal rifles and the British Commonwealth forces along with Belgium adopt the Bullpup FN FAL (after the EM2 design proves to be too difficult and expensive to build in the numbers required) and FN MAG (with the Bren guns being rechambered accordingly) which is also introduced in the late 50s

I can see some other european Nations adopting it.

fnbullpup.jpg


The Germans denied the ability to build the FN design as per OTL design the 'G3' but in .280 British and design the MG3 also in .280

Between them they 'arm the free world' and the round proves to be versatile in many environments and the European nations resist adoption of the US 7.62 x 51 except France of course.....

The US Soldiers on with 7.62 x 51 until the 60s when it changes to a new 5.56 x 45 weapon based on the AR15 - then after another 30 years - they also adopt the .280 British (now referred to as 7mm NATO) using a modernised AR10 design
 
Top