Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 24, 2026 12:17 am
"Ya know what? I'm doing a new deal with the Krauts!"
Two very different approaches to their military.
Britain may have a small military, but can check all the boxes for modern force:
Land, sea and air, all highly professional and mostly well equipped.
Germany is coming from a citizen army model and retains a multi-generational distaste for aggressive militarism.
One of the UKs weaknesses is procurement.
We have (to put it politely) made a total arse of new kit.
* The L85A1 was (in first issue) unreliable, fixed in the L85A3, that's a gap between 1990 and 2018.
* The development costs of the AJAX tracked infantry fighting vehicle have topped £3.8 Billion, it still induces nausea in most of its passengers.
By contrast, the German army has a Puma IFV and more servicable battle rifles.
I'll warm you, there's a lengthy ramble ahead.
The period between the first and second world wars saw significant shrinkage of military manufacture.
This resulted in closures (most prominently shipyards), mergers (the UK dominated by Enfiend, Vickers and Bedford) and a search for efficiency.
Even a world power like the UK realised we could not do it all.
We shopped around to fill emerging gaps in our arsenal.
The best known examples being the Swedish Bofors Gun and the American Tommy Gun.
Only the air industry escaped this shrinkage, maintaining a big range of manufacturers and volumes.
This owes a lot to the novel nature and rapid advances in aircraft technology.
The inter-war model isn't perfect, but does incorporate some examples of "good practice on a tight budget".
Wind the clock forward to the Cold War and NATO.
NATO may be many things to many people.
One of its major successes is as a standards organisation.
When NATO armies take the field, their infantry rifles, machineguns, light vehicle cannon, and field artillery pieces all use the same ammunition.
A Danish infantry commander could roll up at a British base and draw down fully compatible ammunition for his troops.
The kit they use is often different.
Most nations have a distinct national rifle, through the bullets and magazines are interchangeable.
We have different tanks and vehicles - politics affects procurement decisions.
But there are also joint development efforts - Eurofighter is well known.
Boxer is a German - Dutch developed 8 wheel infantry fighting vehicle used in many European armies.
What I would like to see:
Greater acceptance of mergers and standard kit.
Similar to the inter-war picture.
Instead of pissing almost 4 billion up the wall on AJAX, take a look at the best in class among our allies.
Adopt is, and get it built here.
Never underestimate the power of "We'll take 500, but you have to build a factory here".
I know there are brass in the services who insist on l specific localisations, often for good reason.
"The Dutch won't be operating in South Georgia".
So it's necessary to get not only the factory, but some input into the design process.
This isn't new - again harking back to the inter-war period.
Sweden didn't crank out Bofors Guns for themselves, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Dominions UK and Empire and the USA.
They lacked the capacity, so issued Licenses to major users, a right to manufacture at home and pay a fee for each one.
Both UK and USA customized the design for ease and speed of manufacture while still under license.
I would like to see the flexibility and standardisation of the best military kit expand.
Ideally under something like the inter-war licensing system, and with NATO continuing to manage the standards.
It won't be a quick thing to do.
The drawing board (computer) to prototype stage now costs billions.
I believe this will provide significant savings and deliver (that word) reliable kit, in volume, to the troops who need it.
- By Youngian
- By Boiler