Polish Land Forces Updates & Discussion

[Feanor]

Exactly because of closed production they may offer ToT and Polish production. OTOH, it may also be the excuse NOT to do so.
Sometimes you gotta break your own rules.
Poland has been a tough nut when it comes to arms imports. For the US it could be an all or nothing deal.
General Dynamics has European presence. Surely Poland can convince them to set up in Poland and get the approval to start producing Abrams tanks.

There may be another reason for Poland to go with the K2. Khlopotov revealed in a livestream that according to some industry insiders Russia has obtained a M1 turret (likely an M1A1 from Iraq or Saudi Arabia via Yemen) and a damaged Leo-2. Khlopotov is usually a reliable source, so Poland may wish to go for a tank that Russia would be less familiar with. Although it is interesting to think of a Polish M1 production line. If they can integrate Trophy better, and possibly add that new armor package that was spotted on the turret, it may even be possible to sell them to other customers, provided GD cooperates.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

There may be another reason for Poland to go with the K2. Khlopotov revealed in a livestream that according to some industry insiders Russia has obtained a M1 turret (likely an M1A1 from Iraq or Saudi Arabia via Yemen) and a damaged Leo-2. Khlopotov is usually a reliable source, so Poland may wish to go for a tank that Russia would be less familiar with. Although it is interesting to think of a Polish M1 production line. If they can integrate Trophy better, and possibly add that new armor package that was spotted on the turret, it may even be possible to sell them to other customers, provided GD cooperates.

GD has allowed Elbit to sell GD's ASCOD to the Philippines as the prime contractor, doing OEM level work, so that barrier has been broken at least.

I personally don't see the acquisition of M1 and Leo 2 turrets by Russia is a meaningful factor. It has merit for Russia, certainly, especially in understanding electronic components. The merit of studying the armor, especially of a dated export model (for the M1, replacing DU for WC, no other major changes AFAIK), is questionable.
The internal layout has been public knowledge for a very long time.

But in the end I don't think Poland needs to invest much in this program, as the next gen of AFVs, tanks included, becomes clearer by the year, and the old platforms are showing their conceptual age.

 

[CheeZe]

I find myself agreeing with @Feanor about the K2. I also see another factor. The South Koreans would likely be very happy to have such a large export customer who would help them fund their defense industry. They would likely see this as a priority and do what they can to see the deal through. Germany and the US, which have many more international contracts, would likely give this less special treatment than S. Korea would. So, the Koreans would likely bend to any requirements a bit more than their German or American counterparts.

I also wonder about operational/maintenance costs between the platforms. I presume that the Leo 2 and Abrams have higher costs than the K2, but I have no data to compare.

 

[swerve]

Exactly because of closed production they may offer ToT and Polish production. OTOH, it may also be the excuse NOT to do so.
Sometimes you gotta break your own rules.
Poland has been a tough nut when it comes to arms imports. For the US it could be an all or nothing deal.
General Dynamics has European presence. Surely Poland can convince them to set up in Poland and get the approval to start producing Abrams tanks.

The USA's had no difficulty selling F-16s & F-35s to Poland.

It's struggled with AFVs, but given that Poland has a long-established AFV industry & Germany's right next door, which makes logistics much easier, I think that's not surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if pitting the Germans against the Koreans & Americans is partly to make sure the Germans offer a good deal, with buying the M1 or K2 as a backup if they don't.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Poland has 2 big goals to achieve regarding its tank lot:
1. Modernize and use new and more capable tanks than it has now, to replace obsolete ones.
2. Become a partner in a tank development program.

Poland has shown it wants to be a big player in the world of defense. It wants its own experience to be valuable, it wants to to make hardware, and it wants the prestige.
The US is unlikely to let Poland make any changes, especially ones that induce delays, into programs like the OMFV and DLP (tank replacement).
The Franko-German MGCS, however, is a solid candidate for partnership. But they aren't taking Poland seriously.

It is perhaps in their best interest to let South Korea pursue them and have them offer all they can, including massive infrastructure in Poland.
But that would partially depend on just how much South Korea can succeed in other markets, to add commonality.

So Poland will essentially make a bet with K2PL. The result of the bet will only become clear years after that.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Poland selects the M1A2C (SEPv3), apparently:

MON: najnowsze Abramsy dla Polski

Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej zapowiedziało konferencję z udziałem ministra Mariusza Błaszczaka, która odbędzie się 14 lipca 2021 roku. Jej tematem będzie ujawnienie szczegółów dot. pozyskania przez Polskę czołgów podstawowych Abrams.

www.defence24.pl

I personally rooted for the K2PL just for the sake of more competitors in this market dominated by politics and 3 main manufacturers (USA, France, Germany).
But the Abrams selection does offer many things the K2PL can't, primarily those related to emergency scenarios.

 

[OPSSG]

But the Abrams selection does offer many things the K2PL can't, primarily those related to emergency scenarios.

Sorry, I don’t see what you are saying — I am not able to imagine the pros and cons and need guidance. Care to explain?

To my simple mind, Poland just incurred a larger logistics burden with the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine; and not just to increase the number of vehicles needed for last mile fuel supply logistics. The time between AGT1500 depot repairs also needs to be managed as part of their new product introduction plan in Poland.

 

[Feanor]

Sorry, I don’t see what you are saying — I am not able to imagine the pros and cons and need guidance. Care to explain?

To my simple mind, Poland just incurred a larger logistics burden with the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine; and not just to increase the number of vehicles needed for last mile fuel supply logistics. The time between AGT1500 depot repairs also needs to be managed as part of their new product introduction plan in Poland.

They also aren't getting enough to fully phase out T-72s and PT-90s. So they will likely be operating 3 types of MBTs with completely separate supply chains side by side.

Poland selects the M1A2C (SEPv3), apparently:

MON: najnowsze Abramsy dla Polski

Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej zapowiedziało konferencję z udziałem ministra Mariusza Błaszczaka, która odbędzie się 14 lipca 2021 roku. Jej tematem będzie ujawnienie szczegółów dot. pozyskania przez Polskę czołgów podstawowych Abrams.

www.defence24.pl

I personally rooted for the K2PL just for the sake of more competitors in this market dominated by politics and 3 main manufacturers (USA, France, Germany).
But the Abrams selection does offer many things the K2PL can't, primarily those related to emergency scenarios.

Technically it appears that this is a separate buy from the Wilk program meant to provide 500 new MBTs, this buy is only for 250. But I think its unlikely they will proceed with that program. Given that Poland has been getting closer and closer to the US in terms of foreign policy and military cooperation, this buy makes sense in that context. It makes very little from a stand point of what's strictly speaking best for the Polish armed forces. Unless of course their primary preparation is for a war with Russia as part of a US-led effort.

 

[swerve]

Sorry, I don’t see what you are saying — I am not able to imagine the pros and cons and need guidance. Care to explain?

To my simple mind, Poland just incurred a larger logistics burden with the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine; and not just to increase the number of vehicles needed for last mile fuel supply logistics. The time between AGT1500 depot repairs also needs to be managed as part of their new product introduction plan in Poland.

Indeed, especially as the Poles are already intimately familiar with the Leopard 2 & operate about 250, which they are currently ugrading in Poland. Either new Leopard 2s or the K2 would have much more commonality, an easier introduction into service, & simpler support than the M1.

The M1 would not only add a fourth tank, but one far less able than the other contenders to plug into Poland's existing army support system & civilian supply network. It makes sense only if the Polish government sees the role of its army as acting as a US auxiliary, supplying troops & equipment to assist US army operations.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Technically it appears that this is a separate buy from the Wilk program meant to provide 500 new MBTs, this buy is only for 250.

It is certainly not what's written in the article I linked. It does not mention any number, nor relation to the Wilk program. If anything, we can look at rumors, and there we notice a relation between the Wilk and this announcement.
My source on that is a Polish user in several forums named Damian Ratka, who also writes for a defense magazine. He did not spread that rumor, just reported he heard them. He also has a Twitter account.

They also aren't getting enough to fully phase out T-72s and PT-90s. So they will likely be operating 3 types of MBTs with completely separate supply chains side by side

As an extention of my previous point, we don't know how many tanks are to be acquired. Do you have a source that gives an explicit number? I've heard an official announcement with more details was supposed to be given hours ago but haven't followed.

Sorry, I don’t see what you are saying — I am not able to imagine the pros and cons and need guidance. Care to explain?

Poland's right on the border with Russia. And Russia just so happens to be a country that has a huge potential for attrition warfare. It has seemingly endless pieces of core equipment in storage ready to replace lost equipment of frontline units, and plenty of reserve units to keep the flow steady.
Poland needs some attrition potential to add strategic depth.
The USA is perhaps the most reliable emergency supplier of arms because of its MIC might, including production rates and available reserves, as well as prepositioned stocks that can also include AFVs.
The US will likely be a quick responder to any situation in Poland, paving the way for parts commonality for smoother joint operations.

To my simple mind, Poland just incurred a larger logistics burden with the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine; and not just to increase the number of vehicles needed for last mile fuel supply logistics.

I remember former tankers talking about how the fuel consumption was horrible at the beginning but was mostly tamed later on. I do not know how, whether the solution was technological or simply better procedures and discipline.
But the M1A2C has an APU, which can drastically reduce fuel consumption.
Big issue with the Abrams? Idle consumption. You want to keep the power on but don't move for hours, e.g for overwatch/ambush whatever? You're wasting a lot of fuel, much more than a diesel engine.
So an APU allows you to keep that consumption more or less just sufficient to keep systems running but the engine shut down.

Also, there were at least thoughts of giving the Abrams a diesel engine. I'd give it a very low chance here, but the US might hitch hike on a Polish request for an engine swap.

About engine maintenance, I'm completely in the dark here.

Either way, it's a small price to pay for a modern tank with 0 dependence on Germany which apparently Poland dislikes (according to Poles I met).

 

[FormerDirtDart]

It is certainly not what's written in the article I linked. It does not mention any number, nor relation to the Wilk program. If anything, we can look at rumors, and there we notice a relation between the Wilk and this announcement.
My source on that is a Polish user in several forums named Damian Ratka, who also writes for a defense magazine. He did not spread that rumor, just reported he heard them. He also has a Twitter account. ...

... As an extention of my previous point, we don't know how many tanks are to be acquired. Do you have a source that gives an explicit number? I've heard an official announcement with more details was supposed to be given hours ago but haven't followed.

Seems to be 250, as anticipated. $6 Billion and acquisitions could be as early as 2022

Poland to beef up defenses with 250 US-made Abrams tanks in $6 billion deal

Poland's purchase of Abrams tanks will add significant firepower to a priority area for US and NATO forces seeking to deter Russia.

www.stripes.com

 

[Feanor]

It is certainly not what's written in the article I linked. It does not mention any number, nor relation to the Wilk program. If anything, we can look at rumors, and there we notice a relation between the Wilk and this announcement.
My source on that is a Polish user in several forums named Damian Ratka, who also writes for a defense magazine. He did not spread that rumor, just reported he heard them. He also has a Twitter account.

As an extention of my previous point, we don't know how many tanks are to be acquired. Do you have a source that gives an explicit number? I've heard an official announcement with more details was supposed to be given hours ago but haven't followed.

Sorry, in all honesty I didn't read the article you linked. I came across this same information a few days ago on Russian sites, and was basing my comment off of what I had read there.

Here is the run down from CAST:

- 250 tanks, M1A2 SEP v3 with Trophy, plus engineer vehicles, ARVs, and training equipment
- price varying from 2.9-5.9 bln USD (11-19 bln zloty)
- the decision is being pushed directly by the Polish minister of defense, for a direct buy, bypassing the Wilk program

Польша ведет переговоры о приобретении 250 американских танков М1А2 SEP v3 Abrams

Как сообщил польский веб-ресурс Gazeta.pl , со ссылкой на два высокопоставленных польских источника, министерство национальной обороны Польши ведет переговоры с США о приобретении около 250 основных танков М1А2 SEP v3 Abrams. Танки М1А2 SEP v3 Abrams армии США (с) Calab Franklin / армия…

bmpd.livejournal.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Seems to be 250, as anticipated. $6 Billion and acquisitions could be as early as 2022

Poland to beef up defenses with 250 US-made Abrams tanks in $6 billion deal

Poland's purchase of Abrams tanks will add significant firepower to a priority area for US and NATO forces seeking to deter Russia.

www.stripes.com

Ayo, thanks.

250 tanks, M1A2 SEP v3 with Trophy, plus engineer vehicles, ARVs, and training equipment

New sources talking about info from already made announcements aren't talking about Trophy.

 

[Bob53]

Poland certainly gearing up… 180 and up to 580 KA tanks in addition to Abrams purchases, plus 670K9 SPH and 500+ Himars. That’s a lot of kit. Cant think of anyone purchasing in that volume in recent times.

South Korean officials say major sale of weapons to Poland is imminent

The Polish government is reportedly discussing the acquisition of K-2 tanks from Hyundai Rotem, FA50 light attack aircraft from KAI, and K9 self-propelled artillery from Hanwha under a long-term arrangement.

www.defensenews.com

Poland Buys 116 Used M1A1 Abrams Tanks From US

The Polish government has ordered 116 used M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks from the United States, defense minister Mariusz Blaszczak said.

www.thedefensepost.com

Poland to Acquire 500 HIMARS From US

Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak has announced that the country will acquire 500 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems.

www.thedefensepost.com

if all sales completed that would be a force of nearly 1000 MBTs and close to 1200 peice artillery and rocket force. Hope they have the transport, logistics and ammo supply worked out.

 

[Vivendi]

It seems they are planning to increase spending to 5% of GDP. That's incredible. As a NATO member it should not be necessary to invest so much. Are they concerned about the future of NATO after the next US election? Poland to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP, highest level in NATO, says ruling party chief | Notes From Poland

 

[John Fedup]

It seems they are planning to increase spending to 5% of GDP. That's incredible. As a NATO member it should not be necessary to invest so much. Are they concerned about the future of NATO after the next US election? Poland to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP, highest level in NATO, says ruling party chief | Notes From Poland

It is not an unreasonable concern wrt the next election cycle given some of the comments GOP members. However it appears the biggest threat’s chances of running in 2024 are diminishing.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It seems they are planning to increase spending to 5% of GDP. That's incredible. As a NATO member it should not be necessary to invest so much. Are they concerned about the future of NATO after the next US election? Poland to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP, highest level in NATO, says ruling party chief | Notes From Poland

That's nearly Israel levels. Good for Poland! Europeans have become accustomed to seeing 2% as an optional goal, something not to exceed.
But I have a few points on why this change is welcome and should be adopted by all NATO members. I will be brief.

1. Economical growth is possible.
Here is a graph of Israeli defense expenditure as % of GDP, following the NATO definition.

We can see that for a decade it was above 20%, half that time above 25%, and peaked at over 30%.
For about 30 years it was above 10%. Yet Israel's economical growth has always been positive, with a stable exponential growth of ~5% per year.

Poland can, no doubt, do that as well. As can any country, really, with just a competent leadership.

2. Poland will be able to build a vast army with that budget, but it doesn't mean it's built to fight. Deterrence is the name of the game.
So many have misunderstood the value of their deterrence, thinking peace was a function of something else, only to grow militarily weak and thus inviting conflict.
So a powerful armed force is necessary not only when a war is expected.

3. NATO can and should adjust its mission, and demand of its members to prepare for contingencies, not only current threats.
Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, and various other entities that are a threat to the democratic world. So that if they attack allied/friendly countries, the west could react in some way other than merely economical.

A NATO that can react, and in sufficient capacity, on a global scale, will provide a strong deterrent.
Not only that, but if said deterrence still proves insufficient, NATO members will have the ability to donate weapons in significant enough quantities to make a difference in the vector they choose.

 

[swerve]

But is that domestically financed defence expenditure, or total? Israel has had a hell of a lot of military aid, & economic aid which effectively replaced local tax revenue & so enabled greater military spending. The burden on the domestic economy has not been the same as the resources the armed forces have received.

The difference is much smaller now than 40 or 50 years ago, but I suspect that the cost of the armed forces could have been economically crippling back then without the aid.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

But is that domestically financed defence expenditure, or total?

Domestically financed.

Israel has had a hell of a lot of military aid

Which is an offset agreement. The US provided aid to Arab countries and gave them access to western weaponry. Israel needed to prepare for that, so the higher quality of Arab weapons and training forced Israel to invest more in defense. And this hike in spending had to come from somewhere, and that's where the US pitched in. That's why officially it's called "Qualitative Military Edge", because the US reduced Israel's QME by aiding Arabs, and restored it via the aid.

Poland has no such circumstances, so it does not need military aid.

economic aid which effectively replaced local tax revenue

For the early years, during the 20th century. The economical aid is long gone.
Neither does Poland need it now.

Poland is certainly not going 30% territory here. 5% is very much doable and healthy.
To add to that, Poland may have an obligation (both moral and selfish) to protect its neighbors, so Russia won't create an even larger border with it.

 

[Vivendi]

Five percent is quite a lot for a European NATO country -- IMHO 3% would be a reasonable level right now. Great news for Polish defence forces, but I think for NATO it would have much bigger impact to:

1. push countries like Germany, Italy and Spain to spend more on defence. Imagine those 3 countries hitting 3%, it would make a much bigger difference to NATO than whatever Poland can do.
2. push European countries to spend money more efficiently. There are so many different types of tanks, frigates, fighter aircraft and whatnot in Europe, it's ridiculous. All just to support national defence industries. The waste is just incredible.

With those two actions the European part of NATO would become incredibly potent. This is not going to happen, of course, so it's great that Poland is stepping up.