Hello everyone,
This is my very first thread on AHC and tackles a a topic that I am very curious about.
During the Cold War and especially in the 60s up to the 80s, NATO procurement and defense was...complicated to say the least: several critical military projects (most notably in the US but not only) had very serious problems, delays and cost overruns and any were cancelled, thus putting the organisation in a difficult situation when it came to conventionnal forces in comparison to the Warsaw Pact.
A good example could be tank development which led NATO to release proper counters to modern Soviet MBTs only in the late '70s to early '80s, with a serious gap in the '70s.
Then again, conventionnal forces parity wasn't as important in NATO until the mid '80s due to a focus on tactical nukes, but what could be realistically be done about conventionnal forces to even the playing field earlier?
Your objective is to improve NATO armed forces of the Cold War through changes in procurement decisions, organisation changes and clever use of the limited budgetary ressources available.
The rules are:
- no POD before the end of WWII
- NATO members can't benefit from changes in the economy and will keep the same military budgets as OTL (the goal being to be more efficient instead), with a possible exception being Canada as PM Trudeau froze the budget in the late 60s in OTL for non-economic purposes. In this case the maximum possible budget will be that of the year preceding Trudeau's reform.
- no changes to the history outside of NATO forces changes: the US will still be involved in Vietnam for example, so no way to save money by avoiding some wars.
- to make it more realistic and interesting, try to focus on alternatives that actually existed IRL: alternative equipment in a competition that could arguably win, cancelled projects that could actually succeed...
So to start and give an example of what I mean by all that, I will talk a bit about Canada as I have mentionned it earlier: so when Pierre Trudeau came to power in 1968, he slowly decreased the defense budget but most importantly slashed the canadian commitment to NATO in Europe with the once 7000 men-strong force being reduced to 4000, sometimes a mere 3000 (althought he actually wasn't as bad as often believed, but still).
In the meantime, again in 1968, Canada became now tasked with sending a roughly 5000 men-strong force to Norway in case the Cold War went hot as the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable Brigade Group.
However, CAST was never really developed in a satisfactory way with the force being rather undermanned, transport capabilities low and next to no equipment having been prepositionned in Norway, leading the opposition to question the ability of Canada to perform this mission.
This is where the fun begins: Canada simply be involved in both West Germany and Norway. The forces involved are simply too small and badly equipped to really have an impact on either front. The country needs to make a choice.
And indeed as was actually suggested IRL Canada could shift her forces in Germany to Norway and focus entirely on CAST, which entirely makes sense because canadian forces are probably the most prepared non-norwegian forces for combat in a cold environment. On top of that the requirements for defending Norway are lower as the Soviets would commit a weaker force to the invasion of the nordic country, so a, say 10 000 men-strong, well equipped task force (so a division) with prepositionned equipment could really have a significant impact in case of a war.
So IMO, the best way for Canada to be a force to be reckoned with in NATO is to focus on a well equipped division to be sent to Norway and the air-and sea lifting capabilities and local infrastructures needed to perform the mission.
Regarding the equipment itself I would probably upgrade the M113A1 in use with the Canadian military to the AIFV standard (automotive improvements similar to those on the M113A2, additionnal armor, a 25mm gun turret) and the M113 C & R Lynx with the same 25mm gun turret as on the Dutch version.
They could also purchase the turrets used on the M901 ITVs to upgrade their AT capabilities and buy the TOW 2 or I-TOW missile when it comes out, or instead buy Bradleys in the 80s to replace the M113 in the transport and AT role (that would be quite dope in Norway). Maybe buy the Leopard 2 or the Abrams althought Leopard C1s should be enough.
Another priority would be to procure a short range air defense system as Blowpipe MANPADs simply won't be enough. And as CAST used F-5 aircraft and the Norwegians used this as well Canada could upgrade those to the F-5E standard with better avionics and ECM.
That's it for the day. Have fun with the wank!