Military equipment if the Cold War continued till 2019

[DougM]

I don’t see how several tons of batteries are easier to move then several tons of liquid fuel. And you will need pretty much the same number of batteries as you need fuel refills unless you are proposing a charging station someplace near the front that can recharge hundreds of these batteries at the same time.
And keep in mind that advanced batteries have a tendency to burn when damaged/exposed to air so they are not a lot more stable the the liquid fuels.
And pulling several tones of batteries is going to be either more complicated or more work then hooking up a hose and pumping in the liquid fuel. So you will need expensive equipment to pull one battery and insert the replacement. Then you need trucks to deliver these batteries (and that is more weight per tank the the fuel so you will need MORE trucks) and of course you need the vulnerable charging stations/generator plants capable of charging twice as many batters per hour as your divisions tanks can use in that same time. Why twice? Because you need some charged batteries on the way while the used are in the way back and a set is charging. And any hiccups in this flow will see a “surge” of batteries that need charging at the same time. So you need more charging capacity then you have capacity to use said energy.
So you for every tank on the front lines you need 5 batteries (1 in the tank, one going to get charged, on on the way back from charging, one being charged and one extra in case you gets damaged or you get a bottleneck)
You need three trucks able to haul said batteries (one on the way up one on the way back and one at the charging station swapping it’s load). Plus a few spare trucks.
Then you need a generator that is powerful enough to generate electricity about 1.5 to 2 times as fast as a tank can use it. And the crew to run this generator and to move the batteries around.
Then we get the kicker you need about and extra 50 to 100% of these generators and crews. Because at some point you WILL need to move the generators as the line moves and if it takes 4 to 24 hours to move that is time they are not generating power so you need some generators that are not being currently used so you can move them And you need the trucks that can move these generators and thier crews. And of course you need extras in case your enimies are not to idiots and attack these high value soft targets.
So you need a tank that has huge batteries
You need 5 batteries per tank
You need three sets of trucks (plus spares)
And you need to basically be able to generate two and a half to three times the electricity that a tank can use in any give hour (at max use rate)
And this assumes that the generators are located close enough that a truck can drive from the tank to the charger (and vise versa) in the time it takes to use up a battery. So in about 5 hours time if it equals the fuel. So 5 hours at 30 mph means the generators must be no more then 150miles away. This is made worse if the tanks are moving because they can move as fast as the trucks bringing them the batteries. So the batteries on the truck will never catch up. Thus those generators probably need to be closer or you need more batteries and more trucks to keep the supply moving. So you probably can double the number of batteries and the number of trucks.
No you will say that you don’t need to supply diesel fuel or whatever liquid your tanks are running on. But is that really true?
Because what do you think these generators are running on? Electricity is not just free for the taking. So you need enough fuel to power the generators so basically the same as the tank used (more probably) plus extra to run the trucks moving the generators around.

So frankly you are not going to see this implemented in any wide scale use anytime soon. Hybrids are a bit better. As they can run an onboard generator at slow times to provide electricity to charge batteries for use when needed. But if the generator can’t supply full max power then you are limiting yourself to short bursts of full capability. And in combat that can get you very dead very fast.
Batteries do have some advantages such as not as big a heat signature and they can be quite but a tank makes enough noice that they will never be sneaky. Now a patrol vehicle on the other hand could use a bit of battery power. The use the engine/generator until the get reasonable close then the roll in on batteries. Once they are detected the restart the generator and the batteries can be used as a booster system. But even those will not be swapped out any time soon.

 

[Blue cat]

Hybrids sure probably, but not with the ability to have a useful range on battery power. That is too much of a penalty. IR can be managed a number of ways, paints, add on appliques, active signature modification plus the old standbys of smoke, counter fires and terrain features. You don't need a hugely bulky battery system for that, and it may be counterproductive as it makes your vehicle bigger and more vulnerable to detection in other ways. Hybrid system would be adopted for fuel efficiency reasons and to supply extra power to new systems

All Batteries, or even merely carrying a battery for hour or two of use is far in the future, right now need to overcome the 5% energy by weight and 12% by volume vis a vis petrochemicals

Yep... With the proliferation of electronics I could see more emphasis on advanced batteries and technology such as regenerative breaking. Maybe some use of auxiliary electric propulsion motors in niche roles such as reconsiance vehicles where quiet operation is useful. All that being said I am doubtful we would have seen a wide spread deployment of electrically powered tactical land vehicles.

 

[Mike D]

Because at some point you WILL need to move the generators as the line moves and if it takes 4 to 24 hours to move that is time they are not generating power so you need some generators that are not being currently used so you can move them

Of all the problems that replacing diesel with batteries give you this is probably the easiest to overcome, IMO. The charging stations live with brigade HQ - there's loads of generators there anyway powering the HQ so adding a handful more of them isn't a major issue if properly planned. The batteries are supplied to the combat unit's Echelon from Bde Echelon the same way as fuel, rations, water, ammunition etc all are now. As Brigade Step Up moves, half of the charging capacity goes with them while the other half stays with Brigade Main and continues supplying charged batteries. Once Step Up goes firm and starts running they pack up and move with Main while the Step Up chargers take over charging duties until they're both in place and working.

It is going to be a logistical headache but that's why we have QMs and the RLC (or their foreign equivalents) and it only really takes over from the headache they have now dealing with either pack fuel or fuel tankers in the field. It is a different challenge but if/when battery vehicles start to replace internal combustion then we'll gradually start having experienced logisticians who'll find battery planning/charging to be second nature just like now we have people who can tell you to within a few litres how much fuel you'll need to get you through a week on exercise or ops.

Also, as electric vehicle use increases (both in civilian and military uses) we're going to start finding more and more innovative ways to charge vehicles - for example flexible solar panels already exist (we had them as part of our recce pack when I was at a unit supporting JTFHQ's "spearhead" standby role - we used them to charge our comms equipment) so why not go a stage further and use them to make up the sides and roofs of the Bde/Div HQ tents to help power the HQ and use any excess to support the generators charging batteries. Reducing the generation capacity required simplifies your logistics, makes your HQ slightly more tactical (both from the point of view of having fewer generators running and reducing the footprint the HQ covers. With a bit of work you could even have them mounted on vehicles and use them to charge batteries along with the vehicle engine?

I'm not sure a battery powered MBT is feasible right now but the fact is we're slowly running out of fossil fuels and it's not some vague worry for them to talk about on Tomorrow's World anymore, it's a reality that needs to be prepared for. They say necessity drives innovation so as oil starts get harder to find and public opinion demands reductions in pollution a lot more money is going to be spent on researching advances in alternative vehicle power and (right now) battery appears to be the front runner right now.

 

[Marc]

Possibly, though it's far from a new idea.

The USA had a consistent lead in computers over the USSR, so I don't think our OTL attitude of not paying enough attention to cyber-warfare is necessarily valid.

If you can't get your tank to the battlefield, you lose by default.

Cyber warfare has much less to do with hardware than software. In that regard the Soviets were capable of assembling very skilled hackers (mathematics has for generations been one of the areas the Russians have matched the West). Ironically, less use of computer systems on their part actually works to their benefit. If we are speculating on a seriously surviving USSR and continuing Cold War, then being able to paralyze key national systems (such as our power grid) is as dangerous a threat as a new generation of stealth bombers; more so.

 

[MattII]

Cyber warfare has much less to do with hardware than software. In that regard the Soviets were capable of assembling very skilled hackers (mathematics has for generations been one of the areas the Russians have matched the West). Ironically, less use of computer systems on their part actually works to their benefit. If we are speculating on a seriously surviving USSR and continuing Cold War, then being able to paralyze key national systems (such as our power grid) is as dangerous a threat as a new generation of stealth bombers; more so.

You think the US wouldn't respond to attacks by the USSR?

 

[DougM]

I am not saying that if someone invents something like a ShipStones (a power cell that holds more energy per pound and volume then any liquid yet is totally stable, used in a number of Robert Heinlein books) that electric power vehicles won’t happen. But we are going to need HUGE increases in the capacity of batteries and before that day arrives.
And no solar powered anything is going to power a military vehicle anytime soon, Solar just doesn’t have the power per square foot available to recharge that much power in any reasonable time. And you sitting in the middle of an acre of solar panels waiting for your Hummer3 to recharge is a good way to get shop by some more primitive country that doesn’t care about the environment and is still burning oil. Or maybe alcohol or bio diesel.
So if your waiting for an huge advance in batteries, as well as a huge advance in electrical generators you are going to be waiting a couple decades so I don’t see in based on POD in this topic that any country is going to do much development in this area.
And you can drop the mess on logistics but that is a huge burden on logistics while excepting a big potential week spot (the generators) and for the foreseeable future those generators will use just as much fuel as the tanks themselves would have. So you have gained absolutely nothing for all this cost in technology, vulnerability and manpower. Fo no tactical reason.

The Army is no place for social engineering and experimentation. It has one job and one job only to protect its country and it counties interests. And changing it because the people are worried about the environment is just insane and a very good way to end up dead or occupied by less socially conscious people then yourself.
And if you combined all the militaries in the world they are not going to amount to a hill of beers compared to the output from civilian ground vehicles and aircraft and manufacturing. Personally I will believe that the world is concerned about running out of oil and polotion when I see two huge changes being made. One outlaw any truck travel over 100 miles and put everything back on trains. Much more fuel efficient and a LOT less pollution. And the second point is when we start cutting down on plastic use. Plastic is hideously bad for the environment from the day the raw plastic is made until the day about a 1000 years from now that it will (maybe) breakdown. And a lot of it is still made using large amounts of petroleum products. Either directly or indirectly.

Now back onto topic. A lot of the slipshod perfume to programs that take decades I think would have been a little more reasonable if the Cold War continued. But one very big non military change would be with nasa. We would have had a much better plan in place to replace the shuttles. Most likely a much smaller space plane kind of thing along the lines of what NASA originally wanted. Think of a larger X15 launched on top of a rocket. (Or the old dynasore) You would probably also have seen either a much improved anti satellite rocket like the one test fired from an F15 or just possibly a space plane that like the X15 could be launched to the edge of space But carrying an anti satellite missile as its payload. So I think a lot more space based improvements

 

[Marc]

You think the US wouldn't respond to attacks by the USSR?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I was speaking of an accelerated development of cyber warfare in the context of a continuing Cold War between a extant Soviet Union and the United States. Like other military technologies developed during that long (horrible) era it wouldn't be used directly at more than very low levels between the principal powers, certainly would be a larger part of our indirect conflicts. Which has been happening for the past 20 years or so.
And as I said before, it's one form of warfare that we don't have a particular edge.

 

[MattII]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. I was speaking of an accelerated development of cyber warfare in the context of a continuing Cold War between a extant Soviet Union and the United States. Like other military technologies developed during that long (horrible) era it wouldn't be used directly at more than very low levels between the principal powers, certainly would be a larger part of our indirect conflicts. Which has been happening for the past 20 years or so.
And as I said before, it's one form of warfare that we don't have a particular edge.

Against China, that's true. But against the USSR?

 

[Griml0ck122]

I love these threads when they pop up;
As OP said, with a 1991 POD, the Warsaw Pact is gone, which make for a much more interesting state of affairs.
With a surviving USSR, then I couldn't imagine things in the West being much different from OTL, just with more higher end weaponry and larger militaries than otl, but technology being roughly the same. in regards to specific weapons systems, the Eurofighter would have probably become operational earlier, because it would still be needed for its original purpose (gone in the 90s), the F-22 and F-35 would be roughly developed as OTL, with the former still being in production and the latter still being a developmental nightmare (I see its problems as less need money and more herp derp how do i computer). Europe, of course would still actually care about defense, and be almost a peer of the US.

The USSR I imagine would turn out like Russia, but bigger, with Su-57s and Yasens in regular service. Their doctrine would still be the same, so expect many more S-400s and Iskanders than OTL, as well as proper carriers (Uylanovsk) to help out when it goes adventuring. China would be way more modern, as their build up would be "covered" by the USSR, so they can do more without the US getting suspicious.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I don't see batteries replacing ICE or turbines but I do see the more efficient and more powerful EuroPowerPack style engines replacing the US AGT1500

The aux powerpack might be introduced earlier

I can see more 'mobile gun systems' being used to increase effective mobile firepower among the NATO forces

We have been riding the wave of very effective missile systems like the Brimstone so in a Cold war scenario as proposed we might already be at the SPEAR 3 (3rd Gen Brimstone) stage - which allows attacking arircraft considerable stand off AT missile range

The missiles are less than 100 kgs each - carried 3 to a weapon pylon - allowing NATO aircraft to carry a larger number of effective AT weapons per aircraft

On a wider scale - with no peace dividend - expect to see a fuller production run of F22 and Eurofighter with Germany not cutting numbers etc (and then not spending money on their fleet etc).

As for the F22 it always shocked me how 'uncapitalist' the bidding process was with production of parts almost evenly and quite neatly spread across 48 states - its almost as if some one was trying to please all of the people all of the time

I know I know but It just seemed so blatent.

I might do a 'what if' F22/F22A 'best bidder' thread later to explore how many more F22s and even F22As might have been produced with a more efficient and open bidding process.

 

[Rath]

Countries like Germany and the UK at the moment don't spend very much on their militaries as they're unlikely to be attacked. Especially regarding (maybe West) Germany (which would still be the first battleground), they would likley spend far more on their militaries.

 

[AJE]

Soviets are likely going to further develop T-80 with turbine engine which development was discontinued IOTL due to poor cost/performance in First Chechen War.

The turbine-powered T-80's were already on their way out by the late 1980's. The T-80 would never have been very popular or even put into production to begin with if it weren't for Dimitry Ustinov really wanting gas turbine tanks. This video describes it well (historical data starts at around 11:00, probably based on information in Zaloga's books):

It can also be seen in this video with translated captions at about 8:30 that Ustinov had a great effect in getting the tank into production:

The tanks really showed little practical improvement over similar T-64 variants, more than offset by its much reduced range and increased fuel consumption. As soon as Ustinov died in 1985, plans began to produce diesel-powered versions of the latest T-80 variant, the T-80U. This used an improved version of the T-64's engine and since the T-80 itself was really just a development of the T-64 with a turbine engine, the resulting tank (the T-80UD) was essentially an upgraded T-64 with a regular diesel engine. This version was starting to be produced in much larger numbers than the normal T-80U version (because it wouldn't have production difficulties) when the USSR fell.

So realistically, the T-80 in itself was an aberration that wouldn't have even happened if it weren't for political infighting and more specifically interference by Ustinov running things. If the USSR had actually had decent leadership without political infighting it would have never built the T-80 at all and built the T-80UD (the T-80U was the only variant that was actually better than an OTL T-64 counterpart) as an improved T-64 (probably called the T-64U). But the USSR was still moving to abandon the T-80 after Ustinov died.

 

[Zen9]

Gosh where do I begin.....?

I would assume that the 'w' SSN programme would continue to move forward so there is no gap in design and production. This might experience delays however. But the issues of restarting such that bedevilled the Astute are not happening.
But I expect that the SSK effort will still be curtailed at 4 Upholders.

The second batch of Type 23s with enlarged Sea Wolf silos and a 5" gun, would roll out. This version might actually pick up some export orders.

Next Generation AAW Destroyer is still going to be mired in FUN, FUNGI, and Horizon. But if the stretched Type 23 is happening then it will form the backup plan.

The airlaunched tactical nuclear missile would move forward to succeed WE.177.

FOAS originally FOA, is going ahead, either looking for European collaborativery partners or as leverage with the US.
Jaguar upgrades are likely earlier and last longer.
Similarly with the Harrier II and SHar.
There was several plans for improvements to the Tornado.

ASTOVL is unlikely to end up merging with CALF. So no F35.

 

[SactoMan101]

Here's one obvious one: While we would still have the B57 depth charge bomb, the B61 bomb would be not longer in service, replaced by the AGM-131 SRAM-II missile. We'd still have a smaller number of B83 bombs in service, intended primarily against hardened targets. I wouldn't be surprised if an AGM-131 variant with a conventional warhead also is in service with GPS guidance, intended to attack more heavily defended targets.

 

[Blue cat]

Here's one obvious one: While we would still have the B57 depth charge bomb, the B61 bomb would be not longer in service, replaced by the AGM-131 SRAM-II missile. We'd still have a smaller number of B83 bombs in service, intended primarily against hardened targets. I wouldn't be surprised if an AGM-131 variant with a conventional warhead also is in service with GPS guidance, intended to attack more heavily defended targets.

Yeah.. I suspect production of the next generation SRAM was quite likely if the Cold War had continued. I also seem to recall there was a (canceled in our time line) B90 program to replace the B57.

I also wonder how long the 9 Megaton B53 would have stayed in service in a continued Cold War and / or if it was ever replaced with a more modern weapon with a similar yield. (Perhaps the Soviets build deeper and or better protected under ground command posts so the U.S. perceives a need for a more modern multi megaton weapon with earth penetrating capabilities (possibly for ICBM delivery as well as being dropped from bombers.)

 

[Ato]

The BRD introduced the G11 as it's standard infantry rifle, at least for its regular troops. The expenses involved probably mean that reservists make do with old G3s or perhaps, more cost effective new build G41s. The G36 is never made.

PDWs would be standard issue for almost all second line NATO troops. Most countries (BRD, US and UK definitely) probably choose the HK MP7, a few (Belgium obviously, maybe France) might go with the FN P90. Because of this 4.6x30mm likely become the new NATO 'pistol' caliber, and the P90 and any other PDWs developed are rechambered in it. Pistol sidearms are also eventually replaced with new weapons that use the armour piercing 4.6mm round in common with the PDWs

It is unlikely that the OICW bears fruit in it's full form, the final product was just always going to be to heavy for a standard infantry weapon. However the Kinetic component of this alt OICW likely ends up being derived from the G11. Mirroring OTL a G11 derivative service rifle is likely spun off from it and this time is adopted by the US Army. The Marines try and stick with the M16 for as long as possible, but will eventually succumb as well.
This adoption by the US leads to 4.73mm caseless becoming a NATO standard round, and other NATO majors also replacing their front line service rifles with G11s, or an other 4.73mm caseless rifle, perhaps one designed by FN.

The launcher component of the OICW, OTLs 'punisher' is still adopted and likely has a longer service life. Though it is heavy, the assumed need to fight Warsaw pact forces in large urban areas in a hot war, means that its counter emplacement and cover capability will be highly valued.

If there is no significant 'small war' to refine modern infantry tactics, it is likely that NATO forces continue with beltfed LMGs for squad support roles, instead of moving to magazine fed squad automatic weapons as per OTL. However it is very possible that with the high capacity and high rate of fire of the caseless infantry weapons, that every rifleman is capable of delivering this role in any case.

 

[Thoresby]

The BRD introduced the G11 as it's standard infantry rifle, at least for its regular troops.

I wouldn't be so certain, the G11 was absolutely not a finished, service ready weapon system in 1990 and it may well end up going the way of the SA80. There were issues with the ammunition and just how reliable it would be in service is unclear, I suspect not very considering it's complexity. Now if you throw enough money and time at something you can fix it, see the SA80, but equally you could see the G11 take 15 years to perfect and put everyone off caseless ammunition. Also PDW's are not the future and were never going to be. If artillerymen need a small arm something has gone catastrophically wrong so they're better off with something small and cheap like a conventional pistol.

 

[Ato]

I wouldn't be so certain, the G11 was absolutely not a finished, service ready weapon system in 1990 and it may well end up going the way of the SA80. There were issues with the ammunition and just how reliable it would be in service is unclear, I suspect not very considering it's complexity. Now if you throw enough money and time at something you can fix it, see the SA80, but equally you could see the G11 take 15 years to perfect and put everyone off caseless ammunition. Also PDW's are not the future and were never going to be. If artillerymen need a small arm something has gone catastrophically wrong so they're better off with something small and cheap like a conventional pistol.

The G11 was far more ready than people give it credit for. It had been accepted for service by the Bundeswher. That it was horrifically complex is true, but it worked, and better than than the L85A1 did. It is possible there could have been complications, which might have delayed wide scale adoption, in which case they may have been confined to more elite units whilst the 5.56 rifles soldiered on for most regulars. However the impetus behind the project, namely wide proliferation of effective infantry body armour and the need to increase hit probabilities, would eventually demand that it be put into wider service.

5.56 has endured in OTL only really because the expected opponents for NATO militaries are generally unarmored. Tests of 5.56 against modern body armour has shown that it is mostly ineffective. They knew this is was likely in the 80s and 90s, which is the reason for the G11 and similar programs. NATO majors would be highly hesitant to keep 5.56 weapons in frontline service if they thought that it would be insufficient to deal with the primary threat.

As for PDWs, the whole reason for them is because in a hot war, they expected things to go catastrophically wrong, and that it would be a high likelihood that second line troops would at some point encounter body armour equipped soviet infantry, not necessarily on the front line, but that would certainly be a possibility in the event of a soviet breakthrough. But the main expected threat being special forces and airborne troops on deep penetrating raids. Pistols would not cut it against that threat. The idea was similar to the M1 carbine of WW2, the PDWs would give second line troops sufficient firepower to deal with unexpected encounters, or at least stand their ground until the rapid reaction force turns up.
The PDWs in otl were expensive because the massive procurement programs to give every cook, driver and clerk one never came to fruition. So the large development costs they incurred meant the small rate purchases by SF units were relatively expensive. Had the cold war gone on, the need for them to arm the second line troops would have still been there, and they would have been mass produced on a titanic scale with resulting economies of scale.

 

[Thoresby]

The G11 was far more ready than people give it credit for. It had been accepted for service by the Bundeswher. That it was horrifically complex is true, but it worked, and better than than the L85A1 did. It is possible there could have been complications, which might have delayed wide scale adoption, in which case they may have been confined to more elite units whilst the 5.56 rifles soldiered on for most regulars. However the impetus behind the project, namely wide proliferation of effective infantry body armour and the need to increase hit probabilities, would eventually demand that it be put into wider service.

5.56 has endured in OTL only really because the expected opponents for NATO militaries are generally unarmored. Tests of 5.56 against modern body armour has shown that it is mostly ineffective. They knew this is was likely in the 80s and 90s, which is the reason for the G11 and similar programs. NATO majors would be highly hesitant to keep 5.56 weapons in frontline service if they thought that it would be insufficient to deal with the primary threat.

As for PDWs, the whole reason for them is because in a hot war, they expected things to go catastrophically wrong, and that it would be a high likelihood that second line troops would at some point encounter body armour equipped soviet infantry, not necessarily on the front line, but that would certainly be a possibility in the event of a soviet breakthrough. But the main expected threat being special forces and airborne troops on deep penetrating raids. Pistols would not cut it against that threat. The idea was similar to the M1 carbine of WW2, the PDWs would give second line troops sufficient firepower to deal with unexpected encounters, or at least stand their ground until the rapid reaction force turns up.
The PDWs in otl were expensive because the massive procurement programs to give every cook, driver and clerk one never came to fruition. So the large development costs they incurred meant the small rate purchases by SF units were relatively expensive. Had the cold war gone on, the need for them to arm the second line troops would have still been there, and they would have been mass produced on a titanic scale with resulting economies of scale.

The G11 rifle does appear to have been fairly good. I say appear because the L85 seemed okay when in the hands of trials troops, things only went to pot when they started issuing out the mass produced versions rather than hand fitted prototypes. Considering how complex the G11 was and how tight the tolerances it would be especially vulnerable to that happening. But the bigger issue was the ammunition. It was fragile and cooked off and despite the US continuing to develop it with the LSAT program in the 90's and various other efforts no one has a mass produced reliable caseless round in service. As I've said before the difficulties might be overcome and the G11 might be the best thing since sliced bread. But it wasn't a sure thing.

As for PDW's I'm sure that on the AH.com of a continued Cold War world there is a thread about how if the West had spent 20 years fighting insurgencies where the enemy might appear from anywhere PDW's would be widespread. When the US phased out the M1 carbine they issued many of the troops which had previously carried carbines pistols because they didn't need anything else. I suspect you'd see the same if someone has wasted money on issuing everyone PDW's in the 90's.

 

[Ato]

The G11 rifle does appear to have been fairly good. I say appear because the L85 seemed okay when in the hands of trials troops, things only went to pot when they started issuing out the mass produced versions rather than hand fitted prototypes. Considering how complex the G11 was and how tight the tolerances it would be especially vulnerable to that happening. But the bigger issue was the ammunition. It was fragile and cooked off and despite the US continuing to develop it with the LSAT program in the 90's and various other efforts no one has a mass produced reliable caseless round in service. As I've said before the difficulties might be overcome and the G11 might be the best thing since sliced bread. But it wasn't a sure thing.

As for PDW's I'm sure that on the AH.com of a continued Cold War world there is a thread about how if the West had spent 20 years fighting insurgencies where the enemy might appear from anywhere PDW's would be widespread. When the US phased out the M1 carbine they issued many of the troops which had previously carried carbines pistols because they didn't need anything else. I suspect you'd see the same if someone has wasted money on issuing everyone PDW's in the 90's.

Issuing PDWs to everyone in the 90s was the intention, the entire point behind the PDW program was to do just that. Without that intention there would have been no PDWs.
As far as the planners were concerned equipping Thier second line troops with pistols only in a hot war would be effectively the same as not arming them at all. Because they very much expected for the enemy to appear from anywhere, and to be equipped with body armour that was entirely immune to pistol rounds. The only reason it didn't happen was because the Soviet Union fell, and body armoured Warsaw pact paratroopers were no longer an imminent threat.

It was however such a concern in the late 80s that the requirement was issued NATO wide, not by individual countries, but by the whole alliance agreeing that it was a problem.

Against an insurgency PDWs would not be any good, they had poor wounding charcteristics, optimised instead for high-speed penetration. 9mm pistols are entirely adequate for rear area troops in that scenario, which is why the PDWs weren't later adopted during Iraq and Afghanistan.