European NATO Army alternatives: 1950 - 1990

Generally for NATO the best that could happen would be an earlier standardization of different logistical parts (Ammunition, magazines, fuel canisters, hoses, radio parts etc) and still keeping the various regional differences.

The regional differences, while they do introduce stresses on the logistics chain, allow for the various member states to be able to produce and develop different designs that serve different purposes and overall allow NATO to be a much more flexible force than the more rigid Warsaw Pact.
 
Juste one price for one munition :

The OFL 105 F1 APFSDS ammunition intended for AMX-30 tanks from 1981 has a unit price at this date of around 8,000 French F or €3,125/piece in 2021 :
Obus-fl%C3%A8che_fran%C3%A7ais_OFL_105_F1.jpg

Wonder what this is in Euro??

The initial order for 2,501 M829A4 rounds in 2014 had a unit cost of $10,100 each.[5]
 
Actually wondering.
Was there a chance for the SP70/Panzerhaubitze 70 to actually see service?
I know it had its own fair numbers of problems both in the technological part but also in the political parts.

But could we somehow lessen those problems or screw up the M109 more for it to become a viable choice?

Part of my suggestion to go 120mm is part of the WW2 drag on artillery in NATO.

A 120mm could have been mounted on an ABBOT /M108-9. It could replace the old 105/155 short howitzers, but retain the range of older pieces.

A 120mm on a light weight carriage be the M102 and Light Gun, with 50% more hit and range, and if done earlier, allow longer distances btw firebases in Vietnam.

Effectively a "long tom" 155/45mm in a SP 70, front engined tank, gives corps artillery the reach (and nukes). Too heavy, vehicle and log, for Brigades, but excellent for a mobile fluid operational level pool artillery.

The MLRS I would have given the Rockeye AT bomblets and 2 X 4 rocket munitions. Lighter more mobile. It will kill MBTs, and yes less bomblets (250 vs 640) but less duds. BMPs will be completely destroyed. An alternative warhead for forest ops is 9 X 20kg airburst prefrag bomblets.

2 X 4 would allow 2 X 1 large rockets with unity warheads for point targets and non-persistant CW warheads.

M77_Cluster_Munition_With_Hand.jpg


lC9jDgfmttmwtLingONf50ubvnVF8lxo2OVWpPEa.jpg
 
Last edited:
In fact, 9mm ammunition against vests is a joke, which is why 5.7 mm and 4.6 mm were developed.

That is why many soldiers of the Polish Armed Forces complain about the Vis100 because it still uses 9×19 instead of the initially proposed 5.7 mm.

The use of submachine guns by vehicle crews is probably due to someone sleeping through the 1990s and the introduction of 10" barrels.

There is always the SCAMP.
Pre dates both PDWs.
Fits the original PDW of holster-able and 50m range.

images - 2024-03-11T204513.901.jpeg

images - 2024-03-11T204616.278.jpeg
 
Nato forces give up all pretence that the next war in Europe would be conventional and concentrate on deploying these nasty buggers en-mass?

OIP.8D-lW6aaB6W1NHYhZrmtCgHaFk


To somewhat (mis)quote the US Marines.

Every Soldier is a Rifleman
 
Le Panzerhaubitze GCT 155 est un canon automoteur qui utilise la coque du Leopard 1. Il s'agissait d'un projet privé réalisé en 1973 entre Krauss-Maffei et GIAT pour démontrer et tester la compatibilité entre la tourelle AuF1 et la coque du Leopard 1 (4 images) :


L'Auf-1 GCT sur la coque de l'AMX-30 avec ses tirs de 6 minutes surpasse largement les M109 américains. Il semble que la tourelle avec son chargeur automatique soit trop chère, d'où le fait qu'elle n'ait pas été beaucoup exportée. Mais je me demande si une grande série utilisant la coque du Leopard 1 qui s'exportait très bien aurait pu réussir et répondre à la suprématie de l'artillerie soviétique de l'époque ?
20240620_225548.png
 
Last edited:
Top