I’d like to learn more about the progress on the rearmament of Europe. Do you have any long form resources I could read?
I only hear bits and pieces about the slow progress. I remember hearing the goal that the EU would produce X amounts of ammunition per year. Did that happen? I also recently heard about Ukraine opening a factory in Denmark. That seems good, but still not the broad rearmament I’ve been wanting to see.
Are there good overviews, with some stats and maybe some nice looking graphics? I realize a lot is secret, but still.
Edit: I decided not to be a lazy bum and did my own googling. I found this testimony about the “Danish Model” by a member of CSIS. I learnt that Ukraine has capacity to produce $35B of military equipment per year, but only $6B to spend. Other countries are purchasing another $10B worth of military equipment per year from Ukrainian producers. This is the Danish model.
Unfortunately at least on the english speaking internet the overall quality of resources for this has plummeted. To be frank, I think a lot of this has to do with the necessary dumbing down that has been applied to the media over conversations about war ever since 9/11 sent authoritarianism in the US into overdrive and reduced justifications for military strikes into cartoonish cynical jokes, this process has reached an absolute peak in utterly denying the Palestinian Genocide and pretending it is a war and as a result discussion in english speaking media about ALL wars and conflicts right now has been reduced to baby like parroting of whatever the military and politicians say with no journalistic critique of the narrative being presented from a perspective of known established realities about war. “tanks are obsolete!” “helicopters are obsolete!!” “artillery is obsolete!” … it is honestly exhausting.
That coupled with enshittification makes this a very difficult time to find good information even as in many ways paradoxically there has never been better access to information.
That rant aside, this article is a good place to start
In general I would pay attention to defense news websites and also note the general structure of joint european military exercises, they typically display the cohesive intention behind what can feel like meaningless unrelated details of arms procurement.
In a way I think the best way to put a picture together for yourself is to think of an abstracted idea of an armored brigade combat team with supporting drone, air and naval assets.
Armored Battalion (×2)
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Tank Company (×2)
Mechanized Infantry Company
Mechanized Infantry Battalion (×1)
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Tank Company
Mechanized Infantry Company (×2)
Cavalry Squadron (×1)
Headquarters and Headquarters Troop
Tank Troop (×2)
Cavalry Troop (x2)
Field artillery (fires) battalion
Headquarters and headquarters battery
Target acquisition platoon
M109 155 mm self propelled howitzer battery (×2)
Brigade engineer battalion
Headquarters and headquarters company
Combat engineer company
Engineer support company
Signal company
Military intelligence company
Brigade Support Battalion
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Distribution Company
Field Maintenance Company
Medical Company
Headquarters Platoon
Treatment Platoon
Medical Evacuation Platoon
Forward Support Company (Cavalry)
Forward Support Company (Combined Arms) (×3)
Consider all the primary equipment needed for a wholistic “unit” of an equivalent fighting force along with drones, aircraft and navy if applicable. Don’t forget bridgelayers and logistics! In general, considering the largest militaries in Europe such as the German military then ask the basic question what is the state of that countries equipment for those major roles? What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
That is relatively easy to google and get good information on, it is easy to establish for example that the Lynx and Leopards are extremely advanced fighting vehicles that have undergone many series of modernizations. You can compare this to the UK whose Ajax IFV vehicles are so broken that they vibrate too violently for the soldiers inside to not be injured by it. From this perspective of evaluating the state of equipment programs things are much more accessible.
Poland and Germany are two easy to point to European nations that have massively increased the power of their military. Poland alone with its orders of K2 and Abrams tanks, piles and piles of AH-64 helicopters and plenty of ground based missile and tube artillery now represents an extremely intimidating military power. I suppose it might not all be deployable tomorrow, but the longterm trajectory is definitely not a slow, limping subdued reaction. Both HIMARS type rocket artillery and traditional cannon artillery are crucial types of equipment to consider as well and Europe has thoroughly rearmed itself with both and will continue to do so into the indefinite future I imagine.
Lastly consider fighter aircraft programs as they are a strategic asset, here is easiest you can find lots of news about the increase of fighter aircraft production and modernization in European militaries. The fact that Canada would even consider purchasing European fighter aircraft instead of US equivalents even as it is neighbors of the US, yes even given the political situation right now, says a lot in itself. I also think the ability of France to donate Mirage 2000-5F aircraft to Ukraine reveals a depth and breadth to Europe’s sophisticated fighter-bomber aircraft stock demonstrating a serious increase in strength. Military airlift is the other big aviation asset (especially considering the future dominant role of Rapid Dragon type systems) that people always overlook and there again Europe is in a stronger position than ever with the Airbus A400M.
Experience in the past few years makes it seem that the viability of tank-based warfare has dramatically declined.
I do disagree here though, I think this is a serious miscalculation that arose from as a narrative primarily from two things. The first was Ukraine having to innovate with what they were actually given (not enough traditional AT) and had access to in order to stop Russian assaults (quadcopters) and the second is Russian armor has fatal flaws that haven’t been meaningfully been addressed despite decades of feedback and indicators of those fatal flaws.
Drones have radically changed land warfare, but in the end I think they will make armored vehicles more crucial as part of combined arms land operations.
Take the Bradley for example, it simply outclasses almost all Russian armor, Russia can’t compete even against much older cold war western military equipment like this. On armor thickness alone most Russian armor fails to meet battlefield realities, even smaller artillery calibers shred their armor to pieces. This forces Russia to focus on drone tactics and also to HEAVILY propagandize the idea that traditional armored vehicles are obsolete lest they look weak and stuck in the past on a dead end of obsolete armor design like they are.
Drones have transformed the role of armor not made it obsolete, Russia is just trying to desperately bullshit the rest of the world this isn’t the case with a firehose of propaganda about it.
Look at the most recent iteration of the Abrams, it incorporates a capacity for hull mounted PERCH systems for launching loitering muition/surveillance drones from within the vehicle, integrating the use of drones tightly in with the use of main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, further the CROWS system on Abrams tanks highly emphasizes the capability to observe and target fast moving targets with advanced optics and apply kinetic force to them. The Bullfrog turret program meant for Bradleys and other armored vehicles fulfills a similar role. This is the way forward rather than considering tanks obsolete unless you build a massive unwieldy metal cage on top of them and pretend artillery and other direct fire weapons don’t exist as decisive counters.
Drone cages/cope cages are likely here to stay, I am talking about the Russian turtle “tanks” that are basically barely moving deathtraps for the crews.
As a modular system, PERCH is designed to be simply bolted onto an armored vehicle; in the case of the Abrams, it is fixed in place using existing attachment points. In the MARS event, PERCH was operated via a tablet interface, although GDLS says that future iterations will be fully integrated with existing vehicle computer systems.
By utilizing the Switchblade, PERCH provides the vehicle with not only extended-range surveillance but also over-the-horizon lethality. In certain circumstances, this can even be extended to beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS), in which the loitering munition is used in an autonomous, preprogrammed mode to fly a route and/or hit a fixed target.
The Bullfrog is equipped with a .50 caliber (12.7mm) weapon and a cyclic rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute. It is designed to defeat Group 1 through Group 3 UAVs and features both autonomous and semi-autonomous engagement modes. At just 165 pounds without ammunition and accurate to less than 1 MOA, the system is optimized for mobile operations and fixed-point defense.
Company specifications state the Bullfrog can engage aerial targets at ranges of up to 1,500 meters. In addition to battlefield deployment, the system can be used to protect critical infrastructure such as power substations.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc. And most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help (if they can fight as efficiently as Ukraine which is not a given). That’s why unity and further ramp up is so important. Most of the really impressive production is happening inside Ukraine. But it’s also generally not up to Russian rates. It will be some time before Europe is really prepared to go it alone and that’s only if they really start producing now, which I wouldn’t say is really happening yet.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc.
One of the reasons they’re producing so many tanks is the high attrition rate of tanks in the face of Ukrainian resistance.
Similarly, counting artillery shells is a crude measure of how effective their use has been. Blowing holes in the ground where the enemy isn’t is just burning money.
most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help
With the qualitative advantages of European materiel over those of Russia, especially fighter planes, how likely is a protracted war? And what would happen to Russia’s productive capacity in those first few months? It’s likely that those factories are very near the top of target lists, right after command and control centers and mobile air defense installations.
A war will last as long as Russia is willing to throw bodies and materiel at it. Same as we see in Ukraine. If they can keep going until their adversary is out of men and/or materiel, they will eventually win. It’s unlikely to happen if the western alliance stays together, but considerably more likely on a country by country basis if they don’t.
A state, let alone a union of lots of states, are not at war because you feel like it. wiki: war
It is generally characterized by widespread violence, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.
So what makes you think the EU is at war and why are all the implications that would have missing?
Note that “being attacked” is something different than being at war, as per above, but I am not going to start a new discussion before we have not finished this one.
Call it a covert war or what you want, but the EU is under attack by Russia and has been for some time. Just because one side has started a war campaign against the other and the other hasn’t responded in kind doesn’t make the war not real.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc.
Without a qualitative measure, those numbers are nearly meaningless. It’s also worthwhile knowing how much of that materiel actually gets to the front lines. Command economies are notorious about claiming to hit production targets, yet nothing actually changing downstream. Nobody wants to tell the boss they missed their production quota, since doing so can lead to defenestration.
I’d like to learn more about the progress on the rearmament of Europe. Do you have any long form resources I could read?
I only hear bits and pieces about the slow progress. I remember hearing the goal that the EU would produce X amounts of ammunition per year. Did that happen? I also recently heard about Ukraine opening a factory in Denmark. That seems good, but still not the broad rearmament I’ve been wanting to see.
Are there good overviews, with some stats and maybe some nice looking graphics? I realize a lot is secret, but still.
Edit: I decided not to be a lazy bum and did my own googling. I found this testimony about the “Danish Model” by a member of CSIS. I learnt that Ukraine has capacity to produce $35B of military equipment per year, but only $6B to spend. Other countries are purchasing another $10B worth of military equipment per year from Ukrainian producers. This is the Danish model.
Unfortunately at least on the english speaking internet the overall quality of resources for this has plummeted. To be frank, I think a lot of this has to do with the necessary dumbing down that has been applied to the media over conversations about war ever since 9/11 sent authoritarianism in the US into overdrive and reduced justifications for military strikes into cartoonish cynical jokes, this process has reached an absolute peak in utterly denying the Palestinian Genocide and pretending it is a war and as a result discussion in english speaking media about ALL wars and conflicts right now has been reduced to baby like parroting of whatever the military and politicians say with no journalistic critique of the narrative being presented from a perspective of known established realities about war. “tanks are obsolete!” “helicopters are obsolete!!” “artillery is obsolete!” … it is honestly exhausting.
That coupled with enshittification makes this a very difficult time to find good information even as in many ways paradoxically there has never been better access to information.
That rant aside, this article is a good place to start
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/04/28/european-drone-training-sites-mushroom-in-nod-to-ukraine-war-tactics/
In general I would pay attention to defense news websites and also note the general structure of joint european military exercises, they typically display the cohesive intention behind what can feel like meaningless unrelated details of arms procurement.
In a way I think the best way to put a picture together for yourself is to think of an abstracted idea of an armored brigade combat team with supporting drone, air and naval assets.
Armored Battalion (×2) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company (×2) Mechanized Infantry Company Mechanized Infantry Battalion (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company Mechanized Infantry Company (×2) Cavalry Squadron (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Troop Tank Troop (×2) Cavalry Troop (x2) Field artillery (fires) battalion Headquarters and headquarters battery Target acquisition platoon M109 155 mm self propelled howitzer battery (×2) Brigade engineer battalion Headquarters and headquarters company Combat engineer company Engineer support company Signal company Military intelligence company Brigade Support Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company Distribution Company Field Maintenance Company Medical Company Headquarters Platoon Treatment Platoon Medical Evacuation Platoon Forward Support Company (Cavalry) Forward Support Company (Combined Arms) (×3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
Consider all the primary equipment needed for a wholistic “unit” of an equivalent fighting force along with drones, aircraft and navy if applicable. Don’t forget bridgelayers and logistics! In general, considering the largest militaries in Europe such as the German military then ask the basic question what is the state of that countries equipment for those major roles? What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
That is relatively easy to google and get good information on, it is easy to establish for example that the Lynx and Leopards are extremely advanced fighting vehicles that have undergone many series of modernizations. You can compare this to the UK whose Ajax IFV vehicles are so broken that they vibrate too violently for the soldiers inside to not be injured by it. From this perspective of evaluating the state of equipment programs things are much more accessible.
Poland and Germany are two easy to point to European nations that have massively increased the power of their military. Poland alone with its orders of K2 and Abrams tanks, piles and piles of AH-64 helicopters and plenty of ground based missile and tube artillery now represents an extremely intimidating military power. I suppose it might not all be deployable tomorrow, but the longterm trajectory is definitely not a slow, limping subdued reaction. Both HIMARS type rocket artillery and traditional cannon artillery are crucial types of equipment to consider as well and Europe has thoroughly rearmed itself with both and will continue to do so into the indefinite future I imagine.
Lastly consider fighter aircraft programs as they are a strategic asset, here is easiest you can find lots of news about the increase of fighter aircraft production and modernization in European militaries. The fact that Canada would even consider purchasing European fighter aircraft instead of US equivalents even as it is neighbors of the US, yes even given the political situation right now, says a lot in itself. I also think the ability of France to donate Mirage 2000-5F aircraft to Ukraine reveals a depth and breadth to Europe’s sophisticated fighter-bomber aircraft stock demonstrating a serious increase in strength. Military airlift is the other big aviation asset (especially considering the future dominant role of Rapid Dragon type systems) that people always overlook and there again Europe is in a stronger position than ever with the Airbus A400M.
Exerience in the past few years makes it seem that tank-based warfare’s viability has drastically declined.
Thank you!
I do disagree here though, I think this is a serious miscalculation that arose from as a narrative primarily from two things. The first was Ukraine having to innovate with what they were actually given (not enough traditional AT) and had access to in order to stop Russian assaults (quadcopters) and the second is Russian armor has fatal flaws that haven’t been meaningfully been addressed despite decades of feedback and indicators of those fatal flaws.
Drones have radically changed land warfare, but in the end I think they will make armored vehicles more crucial as part of combined arms land operations.
Take the Bradley for example, it simply outclasses almost all Russian armor, Russia can’t compete even against much older cold war western military equipment like this. On armor thickness alone most Russian armor fails to meet battlefield realities, even smaller artillery calibers shred their armor to pieces. This forces Russia to focus on drone tactics and also to HEAVILY propagandize the idea that traditional armored vehicles are obsolete lest they look weak and stuck in the past on a dead end of obsolete armor design like they are.
Drones have transformed the role of armor not made it obsolete, Russia is just trying to desperately bullshit the rest of the world this isn’t the case with a firehose of propaganda about it.
Look at the most recent iteration of the Abrams, it incorporates a capacity for hull mounted PERCH systems for launching loitering muition/surveillance drones from within the vehicle, integrating the use of drones tightly in with the use of main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, further the CROWS system on Abrams tanks highly emphasizes the capability to observe and target fast moving targets with advanced optics and apply kinetic force to them. The Bullfrog turret program meant for Bradleys and other armored vehicles fulfills a similar role. This is the way forward rather than considering tanks obsolete unless you build a massive unwieldy metal cage on top of them and pretend artillery and other direct fire weapons don’t exist as decisive counters.
Drone cages/cope cages are likely here to stay, I am talking about the Russian turtle “tanks” that are basically barely moving deathtraps for the crews.
https://www.twz.com/land/m1-abrams-tank-armed-with-switchblade-drones-tested-by-army
https://defence-blog.com/bradley-abrams-get-drone-defense-upgrade/
Thank you for that long write-up! I’m glad to see more progress. I’ll keep an eye on defense news
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc. And most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help (if they can fight as efficiently as Ukraine which is not a given). That’s why unity and further ramp up is so important. Most of the really impressive production is happening inside Ukraine. But it’s also generally not up to Russian rates. It will be some time before Europe is really prepared to go it alone and that’s only if they really start producing now, which I wouldn’t say is really happening yet.
One of the reasons they’re producing so many tanks is the high attrition rate of tanks in the face of Ukrainian resistance.
Similarly, counting artillery shells is a crude measure of how effective their use has been. Blowing holes in the ground where the enemy isn’t is just burning money.
With the qualitative advantages of European materiel over those of Russia, especially fighter planes, how likely is a protracted war? And what would happen to Russia’s productive capacity in those first few months? It’s likely that those factories are very near the top of target lists, right after command and control centers and mobile air defense installations.
A war will last as long as Russia is willing to throw bodies and materiel at it. Same as we see in Ukraine. If they can keep going until their adversary is out of men and/or materiel, they will eventually win. It’s unlikely to happen if the western alliance stays together, but considerably more likely on a country by country basis if they don’t.
Just note that you can not calculate like that. At war the whole economy switches over, instead of only a tiny fraction.
The question then is when Europe will realize it’s at war and start producing like it.
The EU is not at war.
There’s already a war going on against the EU. The fact that its leaders aren’t admitting it yet is a big mistake.
I disagree. We are being attacked on a regular basis.
A state, let alone a union of lots of states, are not at war because you feel like it. wiki: war
So what makes you think the EU is at war and why are all the implications that would have missing?
Note that “being attacked” is something different than being at war, as per above, but I am not going to start a new discussion before we have not finished this one.
Call it a covert war or what you want, but the EU is under attack by Russia and has been for some time. Just because one side has started a war campaign against the other and the other hasn’t responded in kind doesn’t make the war not real.
Those are perhaps hostile actions, but that is far away from war or “war campaign”.
Without a qualitative measure, those numbers are nearly meaningless. It’s also worthwhile knowing how much of that materiel actually gets to the front lines. Command economies are notorious about claiming to hit production targets, yet nothing actually changing downstream. Nobody wants to tell the boss they missed their production quota, since doing so can lead to defenestration.
They are certainly of lower quality, but in the words of Stalin, “Quantity has a quality of its own”.
I don’t think Stalin actually said that. I can’t find a good source anyway.