German Leopard 2A6 tanks fire during an exercise in Adazi, Latvia, Nov. 13, 2023. A new U.S. Army War College paper attributes a shortage of tanks and heavy equipment across NATO militaries to U.S. pressure to adjust force structure for operations in the Middle East during the 2000s. (Bernabe Lopez/U.S. Army)
NATO allies over two decades reshaped their ground forces in the image of a U.S. Army focused on operations in the Middle East, a decision that explains the loss of combat power in Europe, according to new research.
Europe’s insufficient arsenal of tanks and heavy artillery is often blamed on tight defense budgets, but a new U.S. Army War College paper argues that the bigger culprit was spending choices centered on lighter expeditionary forces built for Afghanistan.
The situation has left Europe’s ground forces inadequately armed and ill-prepared for the kind of large-scale land warfare seen in Ukraine and required to defend NATO’s eastern edges against Russia, the report said.
If European armies had maintained their 2001 force structure design even while downsizing, they would possess the heavy equipment needed to meet deterrence benchmarks in the Baltics, according to the analysis published in the March edition of the college’s journal Parameters.
“This doctrinal shift — not just underfunding — explains today’s shortfall, and reversing it will require a significant re-investment in armor and firepower,” researcher Bence Nemeth wrote in the report.
The paper highlights how European militaries were under intense pressure from the United States to transform from their Cold War-era setup to the expeditionary forces seen in the post-9/11 era.
That meant leaner and more agile militaries focused on counterinsurgency instead of defending against a potential Russian attack.
The report focused on equipment-to-personnel ratios for Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada from the 1990s through 2022, the year of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Each of those countries today has large roles in NATO deterrence missions in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The analysis looked at whether their 2001 force structures would be sufficient to meet NATO requirements in those countries.
Think tank benchmarks to prevent a rapid Russian breakthrough in the Baltics called for a minimum of 1,400 main battle tanks, about 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles and 700 artillery systems.
Those levels are currently more than the assets of all British, French, German and Italian land forces combined, the report said.
However, without the post-2001 doctrinal shift, Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom alone would have nearly sufficient capabilities, with 1,340 tanks compared to 593 tanks in 2022.
The report found a similar gap for heavy artillery. The three countries would collectively have 596 systems, which would be 100 short of the benchmark but 273 more than the 323 they had in 2022.
In the case of infantry fighting vehicles, changes in force design over two decades got a boost of 567 such vehicles, mostly thanks to a major increase by Canada during that time.
Such combat vehicles were highly valued during the 20-year-long U.S. war in Afghanistan following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Allies have taken steps to increase their capabilities over the past several years, with Germany in particular ramping up its spending levels.
Overall, however, the heavy-equipment gap in Europe is not purely the result of post–Cold War downsizing and underinvestment in defense budgets, the report said.
“Accordingly, the broader lesson is clear: Had different doctrinal choices been made, Europe’s frontline combat power would be stronger and significantly cheaper to restore.”
