European NATO Army alternatives: 1950 - 1990

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

A spin off from my 'European Naval alternatives: 1950 - 1990'

What alternative/sanity options would have for NATO in regards to it's Armies?

This can be
small arms
armour
helicopters
C3
radars
organisational
etc

I'll start

Keeping the 7x 62mm x 51mm as the NATO standard round and not going to the 5x 56mm?
Getting every nation to have the same standard tank and APC's?

 

[L'amateur d'aéroplanes]

With the arrival of the AK-47, I always found it strange that it took more than ten years before the West introduced large-scale assault rifles.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Keeping the 7x 62mm x 51mm as the NATO standard round and not going to the 5x 56mm?

Better yet adopting the FAL in the original .280 (before they screwed it up trying to placate the Americans) in the early 1950's.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Getting every nation to have the same standard tank and APC's?

I won how you would make that work? Closest was circa 1950 when most of the tanks in the embryonic NATO armies were the M4 Medium, the Sherman. The most common AFV or infantry carrier was the M3 halftrack, most common artillery were US pattern. British kit was the second most common, so NATO kit was weighted towards two models of each item. I don't think you can really count the French battalion of Panther tanks.

 

[arctic warrior]

Standardization on such a scale would probably be wieved as kinda Communist and as quite a number of the European states had their own arms factories or at the outset at least Britain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark with the French wanting to rebuild and Spain in the cold there will be heavy commercial pressure for local developments.
As in all other democracies the problem will be reelections (you need to keep hands busy or they'll go communist) and not just rely on keeping US Arms industries up and running. Standadization will still be achieved on some issues like standard calibers of small arms and artillery but the hardware production will be wanted done in Europe. "Licence" production of US arms might be a way if done by handing such of free to the Europeans but I doubt the US Arms producers would oppose that!

 

[vetinari]

I think the problem is "it's US or it's nothing", so therefore NATO has to basically go US in most things. So, you really need a sensible US military or NATO is stuck. So, instead of adopting 7.62x51mm small arms, you need a smart US to adopt 5.56x45mm or something smaller straight off the bat rather than believing it was important in a post-WWII battlefield to kill a horse at 1,000 yards as they did. So, the most important thing is to retire all older US Bureaucrats and replace them with people with slightly more sensible thinking. They need a better GPMG than the M60, perhaps a license production of the FN-MAG. They also need more sensible Armour Bureaucrats who can look at something like the Centurion MBT and see how sensible it is and throw their lot in with that.

 

[L'amateur d'aéroplanes]

Fiat G-91 in 1961, NATO programme for US Army ?

Fiat G.91 : un avion pour l' OTAN ?

The US ARMY carried out evaluations of this aircraft in order to adopt a FAC (Forward Air Control) aircraft, it is true that this type of aircraft could take off and land from grass runways or unprepared dirt runways. The tests took place at Fort Rucker, the Fiat G.91s were compared to three Cessna T-37As (Serial N° 56-3464, 56-3465 and 56-3466) to two Douglas A4D-2Ns (BuN° 148483 and 148490) and the Northrop prototype the N-156F (Serial N° 59-4987) which became better known under the name of F-5 Freedom Fighter. The Fiat G.91s used during the tests were the G-91 R/1 No. 0042, Fiat G-91 R/3 No. 0065 and Fiat G.91 T No. 0002. Pilot Riccardo Bergamini was killed on the Fiat G.91 R/1 during an evaluation flight. Under the protests of the USAF and the Pentagon, not wanting the US ARMY to have operational fixed-wing aircraft, protests reinforced, but at what price! by the destruction of Riccardo Bergamini’s device due to technical damage. No contract for an FAC aircraft followed.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The NATO Force Goals from Lisbon 1952 are actually pursued fully.

In terms of land forces, they called for:

1953 M-Day
Belgium/Lux: 3 divisions
Canada: 1 brigade
Denmark: 1 division
France: 5 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 9 divisions
Netherlands: 1 division
Norway: 2 brigades
UK: 4 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 5 divisions + 2 brigades
West Germany: 6 divisions
Total: 34 divisions + 8 brigades

1953 M Day + 30
Belgium/Luxembourg: 5 divisions + 1 brigade
Canada: 1 division
Denmark: 3 divisions
France: 16 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 15 divisions + 1 brigade
Netherlands: 4 divisions
Norway: 3 divisions + 2 brigades
Portugal: 2 divisions
UK: 6 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 7 divisions + 2 brigades (+ 10 divisions and 1 brigade assigned to SHAPE in CONUS)
West Germany: 6 divisions
Total: 68 divisions + 9 brigades


1954 M Day
Belgium/Lux: 3 divisions
Canada: 1 brigade
Denmark: 1 division
France: 7 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 9 divisions
Netherlands: 1 division
Norway: 2 brigades
UK: 4 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 6 divisions + 2 brigades
West Germany: 8 divisions
Total: 39 divisions + 8 brigades

1954 M Day + 30
Belgium/Luxembourg: 6 divisions
Canada: 1 division
Denmark: 4 divisions
France: 22 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 16 divisions + 1 brigade
Netherlands: 5 divisions
Norway: 3 divisions + 2 brigades
Portugal: 2 divisions
UK: 8 divisions + 3 brigades
USA: 9 divisions + 2 brigades (+ 9 divisions and 1 brigade assigned to SHAPE in CONUS)
West Germany: 12 divisions
Total: 97 divisions + 10 brigades

https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/2/121172/SGM-0545-52_ENG_PDP.pdf

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps this is as good time as ever to introduce the intermediate cartridge on a wide scale? Say to the Americans: okay, the 7.62x51 is just fine and dandy, we want our MGs in that caliber, while we want something less powerful for the hand-held automatic weapons.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

It would probably make more sense to adopt the 7.5x54 French or the 7.5x55 Swiss than change over to a new cartridge like the 7.62x51. Both France and Switzerland spent decades improving on the 7.5 rounds.

Another interesting possibility is the Spanish 7.92x40 CETME, an intermediary cartridge that could hit targets at 1 km.

For vehicles I would say to adopt the Centurion en mass and later when it becomes available the Leopard I. Afterwards it is up to debate, M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Leclerc... Probably the best vehicle would be the Vickers Mk.7.

 

[Fred the Great]

In discussions like this, I always see arguments for standardising on particular platforms, weapons or ammunition; even comments about how it was wasteful that more than one tank - for example - was developed. I suggest this is actually really wrong-headed thinking. Competition is good. Different people working to develop solutions to the same problem is a positive. Furthermore, it was never going to be a one-size fits all proposition. The best tank for the Netherlands was not necessarily the best tank for France. Even with regards to consumables, such as ammunition and the like, it's not really that important to standardise provided the different logistic systems are doing their jobs.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I might suggest that the Leopard I represents a developmental cul de sac, similar to the AMX-30 - that HEAT (and to a lesser extent atomic war) meant that any real/major armour would not be of significant value. This didn’t turn out to be the case, with new composite armours developed during the development of the Leopard and after it was fielded.

Should there be an ‘all NATO’ effort, then the upgraded Centurion will suffice until the late 1960s, at which time it might be better for a “Leopard 1.5” drawing in aspects of the M60, the MBT-70, the 120mm gun and other bits to make a “Best of the West” 2nd generation MBT.

 

[Fred the Great]

The NATO Force Goals from Lisbon 1952 are actually pursued fully.

In terms of land forces, they called for:

1953 M-Day
Belgium/Lux: 3 divisions
Canada: 1 brigade
Denmark: 1 division
France: 5 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 9 divisions
Netherlands: 1 division
Norway: 2 brigades
UK: 4 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 5 divisions + 2 brigades
West Germany: 6 divisions
Total: 34 divisions + 8 brigades

1953 M Day + 30
Belgium/Luxembourg: 5 divisions + 1 brigade
Canada: 1 division
Denmark: 3 divisions
France: 16 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 15 divisions + 1 brigade
Netherlands: 4 divisions
Norway: 3 divisions + 2 brigades
Portugal: 2 divisions
UK: 6 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 7 divisions + 2 brigades (+ 10 divisions and 1 brigade assigned to SHAPE in CONUS)
West Germany: 6 divisions
Total: 68 divisions + 9 brigades


1954 M Day
Belgium/Lux: 3 divisions
Canada: 1 brigade
Denmark: 1 division
France: 7 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 9 divisions
Netherlands: 1 division
Norway: 2 brigades
UK: 4 divisions + 2 brigades
USA: 6 divisions + 2 brigades
West Germany: 8 divisions
Total: 39 divisions + 8 brigades

1954 M Day + 30
Belgium/Luxembourg: 6 divisions
Canada: 1 division
Denmark: 4 divisions
France: 22 divisions + 1 brigade
Italy: 16 divisions + 1 brigade
Netherlands: 5 divisions
Norway: 3 divisions + 2 brigades
Portugal: 2 divisions
UK: 8 divisions + 3 brigades
USA: 9 divisions + 2 brigades (+ 9 divisions and 1 brigade assigned to SHAPE in CONUS)
West Germany: 12 divisions
Total: 97 divisions + 10 brigades

https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/1/2/121172/SGM-0545-52_ENG_PDP.pdf

I wonder how they came up with those numbers? They don't seem to reflect population share or relative economic output. e.g. Belgium/Luxemburg to field more, and sooner, than the Netherlands?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I can only speculate, but the Belgian Army had been larger than that of the Dutch throughout the 20th century up to that point; also, the Dutch had a larger projected naval contribution as illustrated here:

Naval Forces (Force Goals December 1952) D-Day

Belgium: 1 DE, 2 AM, 3 AMC
Canada: 1 CVL, 4 DDE, 3 DE, 4 PC, 5 AMC, 12 MPA
Denmark: 5 DE, 2 PC, 3 AMC, 2 AMI, 2 SS, 8 MTB, 3 MPA
France: 1 CVL, 2 CA, 3 DDE, 16 DE, 11 PC, 6 AM, 15 AMC, 6 SS, 49 MPA
Italy: 2 CA, 3 DDE, 3 DE, 20 PC, 10 AMC, 8 MTB, 15 MPA
Netherlands: 2 DDE, 2 DE, 4 PC, 4 AM, 9 AMC, 2 AMI, 2 SS, 6 MPA
Norway: 1 DD, 1 DE, 3 PC, 2 AMC, 2 SS, 4 MTB, 4 MPA
Portugal: 4 DE, 2 AM, 3 MPA
UK: 2 CV, 3 CVL, 10 CA, 20 DD, 13 DDE, 29 DE, 19 AM, 17 AMC, 12 AMI, 31 SS, 12 MTB, 2 CM, 92 MPA
USA: 2 BB, 6 CV, 10 CVL, 10 CA, 145 DD, 21 DDE, 33 DE, 16 PC, 30 AM, 24 AMC, 60 SS, 153 MPA; 1 USMC Division + 1 USMC Air Wing + Amphibious Lift for one division


Additional Naval Forces D-Day + 180
Belgium: 2 AM, 4 AMC
Canada: 2 CA, 6 DDE, 21 DE, 21 PC, 9 AMC, 9 MPA
Denmark: 6 PC, 11 AMC, 7 AMI, 3 SS, 7 MTB,
France: 2 CA, 6 DDE, 21 DE, 10 PC, 3 AM, 5 AMC, 31 AMI, 4 SS, 11 MPA
Italy: 2 DDE, 2 DE, 10 PC, 7 AMC, 9 MTB, 7 MPA
Netherlands: 1 CVL, 2 CA, 3 DDE, 6 DE, 8 AM, 12 AMC, 14 AMI, 5 SS, 6 MPA
Norway: 4 DD, 1 DE, 2 PC, 2 AM, 5 AMC, 2 SS, 14 MTB
Portugal: 3 DE, 6 PC, 2 AM, 3 MPA
UK: 1 BB, 1 CVL, 4 CA, 29 DD, 15 DDE, 63 DE, 33 PC, 38 AM, 129 AMC, 40 AMI, 2 SS, 6 MTB, 1 CM
USA: 1 BB, 6 CV, 1 CVL, 5 CA, 63 DD, 77 DE, 15 PC, 40 AM, 16 AMC, 10 SS, 90 MPA; 1 USMC Division + 1 USMC Air Wing + Amphibious Lift for one division

Edit: Here are the air numbers, for what its worth:

Frontline Aircraft Goals 1952
Belgium: 409 (144 Fighter/Interceptors, 225 Fighter-Bombers, 24 AW Fighters, 16 Transports)
Canada: 96 (96 Fighter/Interceptors)
Denmark: 131 (96 Fighter/Ground Attack, 16 Fighter-Interceptor, 16 AW Fighters, 3 Tac Recon)
France: 478
Italy: 300 (125 Fighter/Interceptor, 175 Fighter-Bombers,
Netherlands: 207 (80 Fighter/Interceptor, 75 Fighter-Bombers, 24 AW Fighters, 12 Tac Recon, 16 Transports)
Norway: 135 (113 Fighter/Ground Attack, 6 Tac Recon, 10 Transports, 6 Maritime)
Portugal: 100 (100 Fighter/Ground Attack)
UK: 1516 (604 Fighter/Interceptors, 228 Fighter-Bombers, 274 AW Fighters, 160 Medium Bombers, 60 Light Bombers, 72 Tac Recon, 58 Transports)
USA: 695 (435 Fighter-Bombers, 64 Light Bombers, 100 Tac Recon, 96 Transports)
Total: 4067

1953
Belgium: 491 (192 FI, 225 FB, 40 AWF, 18 Recce, 16 Transport)
Canada: 225 (225 FI)
Denmark: 199 (175 FGA, 24 AWF)
France: 1218 (480 FI, 450 FB, 72 AWF, 96 LB, 72 Recce, 48 Transport)
Italy: 579 (200 FI, 225 FB, 36 AWF, 16 LB, 54 Recce, 48 Transport)
Netherlands 260 (96 FI, 100 FB, 36 AWF, 12 Recce, 16 Transport)
Norway: 194 (150 FGA, 25 AWF, 9 Recce, 10 Transport)
Portugal: 175 (175 FGA)
UK: 1960 (776 FI, 192 FB, 348 AWF, 370 LB, 144 MB, 80 Recce, 50 Transport)
USA: 1125 (300 FI, 500 FB, 25 AWF, 96 LB, 108 Recce, 96 Transport)
West Germany: 579 (150 FI, 375 FB, 54 Recce)
Total: 7005

1954
Belgium: 531 (192 FI, 225 FB, 64 AWF, 18 Recce, 32 Transport)
Canada: 300 (300 FI)
Denmark: 239 (175 FGA, 48 AWF, 16 Transport)
France: 2018 (960 FI, 600 FB, 110 AWF, 192 LB, 108 Recce, 48 Transport)
Italy: 852 (375 FI, 225 FB, 84 AWF, 48 LB, 72 Recce, 48 Transport)
Netherlands 374 (144 FI, 150 FB, 36 AWF, 16 Recce, 16 Transport)
Norway: 226 (150 FGA, 50 AWF, 16 Recce, 10 Transport)
Portugal: 200 (200 FGA)
UK: 2552 (930 FI, 352 FB, 408 AWF, 580 LB, 152 MB, 80 Recce, 50 Transport)
USA: 1515 (450 FI, 600 FB, 60 AWF, 96 LB, 90 MB, 108 Recce, 96 Transport)
West Germany: 1158 (300 FI, 750 FB, 108 Recce)

(I'd note that the American numbers are lowballed based on what was forward deployed to Western Europe, with a lot of extra tacair reinforcements from CONUS not detailed in the document)

 

[BlueTrousers]

Even with regards to consumables, such as ammunition and the like, it's not really that important to standardise provided the different logistic systems are doing their jobs.

The logistic considerations then gets you into things like whether it's good for the whole of NATO to use (say) a Renault light truck and a Mercedes medium truck that have no common parts, and therefore everyone needs two logistic chains - but it's the same two for everyone. Or, the French could use Renault, the Germans use Mercedes, the British use Bedford, and so forth, with their units having some degree of internal commonality.

Probably the best way to do this is for the basic unit of organisation to be internally consistent. That's probably the division, for ground forces at least, and that's how the abortive European Defence Community viewed things. Commonality of consumables - ammunition, fuel, and the likes - across the organisation probably is worthwhile, since those are the things it's useful to be able to send the first available truck to a unit that's running low.

The NATO Force Goals from Lisbon 1952 are actually pursued fully.

What would be valuable in this case would be for a formal definition of what constitutes a division, so that in an emergency a corps could be constituted from a French, German and British divisions and thrown into the line under an American corps commander, or something like that.

The structure of the European Defence Community is quite interesting and worth a look. Basically, the division was to be the largest national unit; the staff of corps and larger units, including the General Staff, would be supranational organisations. An arrangement which (not coincidentally) meant that there would be no German General Staff, and the German government would have no direct control over German troops.

Fully adopting such a structure would be as unacceptable to the UK and US as it was to France. But there's merit in some f the ideas.

 

[Fred the Great]

The logistic considerations then gets you into things like whether it's good for the whole of NATO to use (say) a Renault light truck and a Mercedes medium truck that have no common parts, and therefore everyone needs two logistic chains - but it's the same two for everyone. Or, the French could use Renault, the Germans use Mercedes, the British use Bedford, and so forth, with their units having some degree of internal commonality.

Probably the best way to do this is for the basic unit of organisation to be internally consistent. That's probably the division, for ground forces at least, and that's how the abortive European Defence Community viewed things. Commonality of consumables - ammunition, fuel, and the likes - across the organisation probably is worthwhile, since those are the things it's useful to be able to send the first available truck to a unit that's running low.

What would be valuable in this case would be for a formal definition of what constitutes a division, so that in an emergency a corps could be constituted from a French, German and British divisions and thrown into the line under an American corps commander, or something like that.

The structure of the European Defence Community is quite interesting and worth a look. Basically, the division was to be the largest national unit; the staff of corps and larger units, including the General Staff, would be supranational organisations. An arrangement which (not coincidentally) meant that there would be no German General Staff, and the German government would have no direct control over German troops.

Fully adopting such a structure would be as unacceptable to the UK and US as it was to France. But there's merit in some f the ideas.

Fuel is a given. Ammunition does make some degree of sense. Ammunition that can be fired / dropped from different weapons / platforms does make some sense. It may not be standard issue for one NATO army, air force, navy, but the fact that they can use it could come in handy.

More common structures do make sense. I think the biggest issue NATO had in this regard was when France withdrew from being part of its standing structures. The West German (more numerous), American (second), British and so on armies were generally similar in the size and composition of their divisions - with the exception of some periods where they experimented with some awful ideas - but the French went down a different route with much smaller divisions.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Formal definitions of divisions were certainly discussed in the EDC talks and prior 'pre-discussions' around German rearmament.

In addition to the British and French issues with modifying their army structure along a 'plug and play' line (with all that potentially entails for sovereignty and operations beyond the ambit of NATO), as well as the general French refusal to ratify the EDC Treaty of 1952.

That treaty had defined the strength of divisions, or 'Groupements' as they were termed in the annexed Military Protocol on p 206-208, with 'Infantry Groupements' having a maximum peacetime complement of 13000 and a wartime strength of 15400; and 'Armored Groupements' and 'Mechanized Groupements' 12700 and 14600. ( https://aei.pitt.edu/5201/1/5201.pdf )

Another issue with fixing the formal definition of a division was related in a way to West Germany. Their maximum strength had been set at 12 divisions, which was maintained until 1990; this was a step back from some earlier projections such as one from August 1949, where the British Chiefs of Staff completed a study on West German rearmament that called for 20 regular and 10 reserve divisions, 1100 tactical fighters, a coastal defence navy and a substantial anti-aircraft force armed with guided weapons. Without a strict definition of the strength of the division, we got the very large West German units of @, with strengths of over 28000 in some cases, along with the 3 quasi-divisions of the Territorialheer ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorialkommando ), which allowed them to comply with the letter and spirit of treaty commitments whilst not really doing so.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Fuel is a given. Ammunition does make some degree of sense. Ammunition that can be fired / dropped from different weapons / platforms does make some sense. It may not be standard issue for one NATO army, air force, navy, but the fact that they can use it could come in handy.

More common structures do make sense. I think the biggest issue NATO had in this regard was when France withdrew from being part of its standing structures. The West German (more numerous), American (second), British and so on armies were generally similar in the size and composition of their divisions - with the exception of some periods where they experimented with some awful ideas - but the French went down a different route with much smaller divisions.

The French went down that change midway through the Cold War, from 1977 https://web.archive.org/web/2008040...story/historical/france/armeedeterre1977.html

Further discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Armoured_Division_(France)

Prior to that point, there was a plan (never fully reached) for 25 regular and 12 reserve divisions. Of those, 14 would be assigned to SACEUR (3 Armoured, 3 Mechanised and 8 Motorised) and 11 deployed to North Africa. There would additionally be the 1st Tactical Air Corps/CATAC of 7 TF wings and 2 SAM brigades.

 

[Fred the Great]

The French went down that change midway through the Cold War, from 1977 https://web.archive.org/web/2008040...story/historical/france/armeedeterre1977.html

Further discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Armoured_Division_(France)

Prior to that point, there was a plan (never fully reached) for 25 regular and 12 reserve divisions. Of those, 14 would be assigned to SACEUR (3 Armoured, 3 Mechanised and 8 Motorised) and 11 deployed to North Africa. There would additionally be the 1st Tactical Air Corps/CATAC of 7 TF wings and 2 SAM brigades.

Fourteen to North Africa? Whatever for?

I'm sure if the balloon had gone up they would have thrown everything they had at the Soviets. An army that was, say, two or three what the British had and organised and equipped similarly would have been valuable though than what they fielded.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

11 to North Africa, which really means Algeria.

The orbat here lists 15 in Algeria in 1961: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War_French_order_of_battle
From that, certain other numbers 'drop down' as shifting from European deployment to the deteriorating situation in Algeria. Apart from those 15 divisions, we can extrapolate the 1st, 3rd and 5th Armoured in Germany, plus 2nd Armoured and the 7th Armoured after 1955 and the mechanised formations that presumably would come from the 2nd and 4th Motorised. That gets us to 20 out of the 25, if our French friends succeeded in reaching their mooted early/mid 1950s force goals.

I would estimate, albeit without easily available evidence, that there would be some information on French divisional history on the French internet. I'll have a dig.

Edit:
I found the 11th Infantry Division deployed to Tunisia: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/11e_division_d'infanterie_(France)
There seems to be a basis for the 1st, 3rd and 8th Infantry Divisions being remobilised/re-raised if there was a desire to rise to the appropriate numbers.
Finally, there was the 6th Armoured Division disbanded in 1957. That gets us to 25.