POLAND

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Poland has fill the boots vacated by Germany, as the key European member of NATO, especially when it comes to ground forces.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Defiance wrote: 20 Feb 2022, 08:46 Poland gets State Department approval to buy 250 M1A2SEPv3 Abrams from the US, added onto this are 25 recovery vehicles, 17 bridging systems and a bunch of ammo

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... rams-tanks

Can't work out if this are an expansion of their armoured forces or replacing older models, but they've got a good number of tanks in their force.
Poland is increasing defence budget (from 2021 level not inflation adjusted) by 30 % and the regular force will rise to 250k. Territorial defence will be fed from reservists of this force (just like Sweden is planning to do with conscripts after their service).
- I may not have my Polish terminology spot on, but looks like the force that anyone could join (100k did) is being turned into a much more professional component, better integrated with the main force.

Further, Forecast International reports that Reaper purchase is being accelerated.
- does that mean that Poland has told Turkey that they can supply Ukraine first and send their own 'order' later?

"In regard to its UAV acquisition efforts, Poland already procured 24 Bayraktar TB2 drones from Turkey back in May 2021, with deliveries to start this year and through 2024. These drones – which proved extremely effective in the Azerbaijani offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 and are currently being supplied to Ukraine by Turkey – will be equipped with anti-tank missiles."
- uptread there is good input as to what kind of missiles these might be (as the deployed Russian armour, on average, is made up from upgraded models compared to what Armenia had
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Well there is a very nice 40km long convoy just north west of Kiev. You could ask for a better target for UCAVs.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Mar 2022, 00:00 You could ask for a better target for UCAVs.
Two problems:
- how many UCAVs left?
- the satellite pictures show the column, at certain points, 3 wide. In the 'good ol' Soviet days the air defence vehicles used to pull to the right, whenever there was a stop. With UCAVs, coming in low, you can't rely much on radars so probably there are mobile AD vehicles on both sides, at intervals that should give coverage for the rest of the column... so they have learnt from their earlier 'Thunder Runs' and separate logs columns.

That does not change the fact that it is a juicy target; but you need weaponry with more reach than e.g. NLAWs. As for artillery, there must be lots of included so that counter-battery can be quickly brought into action
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Do we know how good the Russian Radars and EO sensors are at identifying small to medium UAVs? One of the pluses of the Turkish UCAV being used by Ukraine is that it is very hard to spot and track let alone engage. But as has been said how many are left and how many are being delivered still.

I wonder if NATO countries like Poland would let Ukrainian UAV operator operate from their territory? Could such countries become like say China was in the Vietnam war, where it was known to be supplying the North Vietnamese but was off limits to avoid escalation. It wouldn't even have to be a NATO policy as individual members are free to act as they wish. Imagine Ukrainian SF operating from Poland against Kaliningrad? Would Russia risk an Article 5 reaction by attacking Ukrainian forces abiding in a eastern NATO country?

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by jonas »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Well that is interesting. The fact the Poles are planning to use a version of Brimstone to arm their planned Tank Destroyers means we will the half way there if we wanted to add the same weapon to Ajax or Boxer variants. Well it should if the MoD gets off its arse and shows some interest beyond the odd PR Statement.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 May 2022, 19:50 The fact the Poles are planning to use a version of Brimstone to arm their planned Tank Destroyers means we will the half way there if we wanted to add the same weapon to Ajax or Boxer variants.
Just like we were half-way there when the Braveheart turret was designed, to accommodate the gun upgrade
... glad that someone knows what they want, and are doing it. We can then ... err, follow
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
Lord Jim
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ry-forces/

Amazing the industrial offsets others manage to get for buying US equipment.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacDahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

And we a dithering about buying fifty odd SP 155mm with delivery at the end of the decade. Poland once again put the UK to shame over defence procurement of systems urgently needed. We could also do with a regiment of HIMARS to supplement the forty four tracked M270s we will eventually have, both can fire the same rockets and missiles.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yeah, 5 x24 modern heavy (and, err protected, and err mobile) guns... with the 500 nifty wheeled platforms that compensate for their lesser protection by plying the 'divisional front' sideways
... this looks like they are running strong, no? Or is it all '80s
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Looks like the Polish Army sees the HIMARS as a direct replacement for their old but still reasonably effective 122mm GRADs.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by SW1 »



Poland purchasing the aw149 helicopter

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Little J »

Googles translation....
@mblaszczak
: In the near future, we will sign contracts for the supply of mine destroyers, ZSSW remote-controlled turret systems integrated with Rosomak transporters, AW149 multi-role support helicopters, 2 observation satellites and tank destroyers
These users liked the author Little J for the post (total 3):
SW1wargame_insomniacArmChairCivvy

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Jake1992 »

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poland- ... h9A2y7-3Kk

So Poland has just gone out a brought 3000 odd armoured vehicles from SK, looking at doubling the size of its army and has committed to hitting 5% of GDP on defence.

Surely the next PM should look at this and commit to at least 3% for defence now.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jake1992 wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 21:56 Surely the next PM should look at this and commit to at least 3% for defence now.
Or, they could rely on the 'Elan' of the Polish army and the deep reserves of the French Army
... like we did in 1939.

Heh-he, delete the first one.; they are serious about it now. But whatabout the Bundeswehr and our own army
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: POLAND

Post by RunningStrong »

Jake1992 wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 21:56 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poland- ... h9A2y7-3Kk

So Poland has just gone out a brought 3000 odd armoured vehicles from SK, looking at doubling the size of its army and has committed to hitting 5% of GDP on defence.

Surely the next PM should look at this and commit to at least 3% for defence now.
Why?

Given the Russian performance in Ukraine the UK armed forces could go completely the opposite direction i.e. we clearly have sufficient Naval and Air Power capabilities to fight the Russians in those domains, why would we seek to invest more heavily in land forces where we will always be at a numerical and geographical disadvantage? For years other NATO countries have relied on UK, US etc spending, it's taken too long for others to share the financial burden.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Jake1992 »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:05
Jake1992 wrote: 27 Jul 2022, 21:56 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/poland- ... h9A2y7-3Kk

So Poland has just gone out a brought 3000 odd armoured vehicles from SK, looking at doubling the size of its army and has committed to hitting 5% of GDP on defence.

Surely the next PM should look at this and commit to at least 3% for defence now.
Why?

Given the Russian performance in Ukraine the UK armed forces could go completely the opposite direction i.e. we clearly have sufficient Naval and Air Power capabilities to fight the Russians in those domains, why would we seek to invest more heavily in land forces where we will always be at a numerical and geographical disadvantage? For years other NATO countries have relied on UK, US etc spending, it's taken too long for others to share the financial burden.
So it’ll be seen once again as we know best and do the opposite of other nations.

I am not saying that should be putting any or all increase in to solely land forces but to honestly believe we have sufficient forces in any of the 3 branches is living in denial. Russia is not the only area of concern for the UK or the western world as a whole.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: POLAND

Post by RunningStrong »

Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 So it’ll be seen once again as we know best and do the opposite of other nations.
The opposite?

We've been near the top of defence spending in NATO as a % of GDP and sum amount for decades. What has Poland been doing for the last 30 years?
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 I am not saying that should be putting any or all increase in to solely land forces but to honestly believe we have sufficient forces in any of the 3 branches is living in denial. Russia is not the only area of concern for the UK or the western world as a whole.
Sufficient forces for what? To fight a major power alone, no. To fight as a crucial part of a larger NATO force, yes.

Ukraine has bee a massive wake-up call for many countries that have failed to meet their capability commitments, like Poland, like Germany.

No one is asking Poland to deliver a carrier strike capability, but certainly I don't see why Poland should be expecting UK to invest in a far greater fleet of ground forces either.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Jake1992 »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:56
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 So it’ll be seen once again as we know best and do the opposite of other nations.
The opposite?

We've been near the top of defence spending in NATO as a % of GDP and sum amount for decades. What has Poland been doing for the last 30 years?
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 I am not saying that should be putting any or all increase in to solely land forces but to honestly believe we have sufficient forces in any of the 3 branches is living in denial. Russia is not the only area of concern for the UK or the western world as a whole.
Sufficient forces for what? To fight a major power alone, no. To fight as a crucial part of a larger NATO force, yes.

Ukraine has bee a massive wake-up call for many countries that have failed to meet their capability commitments, like Poland, like Germany.

No one is asking Poland to deliver a carrier strike capability, but certainly I don't see why Poland should be expecting UK to invest in a far greater fleet of ground forces either.
Opposit as in current time and not 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. The likes of Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, Sweden along with others in Europe are all upping defence spending because the situation has changed, even other nations such as Austalia are gradually increasing their budget.

You say we’ve been at the top of NATO spendING and that may be true but we’ve been cutting out forces over those years “at the top”.

We are a nation that has interest all over the world not just in NATO Europe like Poland has. We have the Falklands in S.A, over 2 million Brit’s in Australia and New Zealand, our obligations to Hong Kong nationals all out in the Far East and all of this does not account for trade routes we need to keep open.


What my original point was, is that is nations like Poland have seen the need to increase defence spending to such At leave ( and they have been one of few to meet 2% plus for many years already ) along with many others then surely this should be a wake up call to the next PM to stop with the cuts and look to get back to 3% odd we spent pre Blair.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: POLAND

Post by RunningStrong »

Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:08
RunningStrong wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:56
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 So it’ll be seen once again as we know best and do the opposite of other nations.
The opposite?

We've been near the top of defence spending in NATO as a % of GDP and sum amount for decades. What has Poland been doing for the last 30 years?
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 10:41 I am not saying that should be putting any or all increase in to solely land forces but to honestly believe we have sufficient forces in any of the 3 branches is living in denial. Russia is not the only area of concern for the UK or the western world as a whole.
Sufficient forces for what? To fight a major power alone, no. To fight as a crucial part of a larger NATO force, yes.

Ukraine has bee a massive wake-up call for many countries that have failed to meet their capability commitments, like Poland, like Germany.

No one is asking Poland to deliver a carrier strike capability, but certainly I don't see why Poland should be expecting UK to invest in a far greater fleet of ground forces either.
Opposit as in current time and not 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. The likes of Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, Sweden along with others in Europe are all upping defence spending because the situation has changed, even other nations such as Austalia are gradually increasing their budget.
The situation has changed and now they're investing to match the capability others have been investing in for decades. Hardly worth of accusing UK of doing "the opposite". UK is also increasing budget, but not in the sudden panic of Poland and the like.
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:08 You say we’ve been at the top of NATO spendING and that may be true but we’ve been cutting out forces over those years “at the top”.
I'm not saying it, NATO said it, and it is true. We've been cutting numbers, because we've continued to invest more heavily in equipment than our peers that have failed to spend on equipment.

Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:08 We are a nation that has interest all over the world not just in NATO Europe like Poland has. We have the Falklands in S.A, over 2 million Brit’s in Australia and New Zealand, our obligations to Hong Kong nationals all out in the Far East and all of this does not account for trade routes we need to keep open.
And there are millions of Polish people living all around the world, but I haven't seen the Polish providing a North Sea Navy or AEW...
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:08 What my original point was, is that is nations like Poland have seen the need to increase defence spending to such At leave ( and they have been one of few to meet 2% plus for many years already ) along with many others then surely this should be a wake up call to the next PM to stop with the cuts and look to get back to 3% odd we spent pre Blair.
But why are Poland now increasing spending to such a level? It's because they've realised they have chronically under invested in equipment for 30 years and now they suddenly might be called upon to do some heavy lifting within NATO.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:56 a massive wake-up call for many countries that have failed to meet their capability commitments, like Poland
I am surprised that you chose to pick on Poland? A most cursive look over NATO figures proves the exact opposite to your view, as for defence expenditure:

Poland* (Zlotys)31,874 39,940 37,082 37,558 42,824 45,404 52,110 58,304 73,850
United Kingdom (Pounds)39,902 38,940 41,590 43,257 45,202 46,509 49,495 52,291 53,8703
Percentage change from Crimea 'event' to-date:
Poland 132%
UK 35%
... a hundred percentage point difference surely is not a rounding error, but rather 'proof' of reading few sources - if any?

I don't think Jake dug into the official statistics... but he sure has the 'big picture'
Jake1992 wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:08 You say we’ve been at the top of NATO spendING and that may be true but we’ve been cutting out forces over those years “at the top”.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: POLAND

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 15:37
RunningStrong wrote: 28 Jul 2022, 11:56 a massive wake-up call for many countries that have failed to meet their capability commitments, like Poland
I am surprised that you chose to pick on Poland? A most cursive look over NATO figures proves the exact opposite to your view, as for defence expenditure:
Are you aware of the thread title?

Your numbers prove me point entirely. Years of underfunding by Poland and then a wake-up call, and rapid rise in spending.

I always find it better when someone actually presents their links too.

https://www.statista.com/chart/14636/de ... countries/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by Lord Jim »

Just been watching a video on the recent defence agreement between Poland and South Korea. THree os its headlines are Poland's intention to purchase;
48 F'A=50 Aircraft. .
1000 K-2PL MBTs.
6772K-9 Self Propelled Howitzers.

I know we are having to fund other priorities like CASD and have a larger Navy etc, but the issues the British Army is having purchasing much smaller batches of AFVs, with programmes going over budget and having technical issues and so on, but the number of individual items Poland seems to be able to finance such as the planned purchase of M1-A3 Sep 3 MBTs, HIMARS launchers and their indigenous replacement for their out of date BMP-1 IFV do seem to put the MoD to shame. WE are struggling to retain the ability to form a single reduced strength Division by the early 2030s if we are lucky. I know Poland has a simpler set of threats to take into account of but our existing SDR from 2021 is so off track with current events, and the resources deemed sufficient are certainly no longer the case. The New PM is going to have to deal with this as a priority whilst also dealing with the other crisis that have formed. Defenceof the Realmis a top priority so concnetration on Europe and BORs should be top of the list. Missle East and the Indo/Pacific need to be downgraded as we simple cannot strtch our miliary too much. ANyhow well done Poland, wish we had a similar clear head when it came to defence procureent .

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: POLAND

Post by wargame_insomniac »

If the UK had moved quicker,, then there could have been scope to sign a contraxt with South Korea, especially for K9 SPO.

We could have done similar with Iver Huiteldt / T31 frigates in terms of; taking a foriegn design, adapting it to UK need but crucially build in Uk, thereby preserving UK industry. and maybe even securing the odd export contract.,

Post Reply