The Army does not have enough tanks and armored vehicles in Europe to provide a believable deterrent to Russian aggression against NATO and should bolster its position by permanently stationing an armored brigade on the continent, the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) recommends.
The Army has a total of nine armored brigade combat teams (ABCT) with three deployed on a rotational basis to either Europe, South Korea or U.S. Central Command. One brigade is required in training and one readying for deployment to keep one in the field, according to the Army’s current construct.
“That leaves no additional capacity,” retired four-star Gen. Carter Ham, who chaired the NCFA and was former commander of Army forces in Europe, said Jan. 29 during a Defense Writers Group breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C. “The security environment today is different than what we anticipated when decisions were made to reposition forces from Europe, to include removal and deployment of the two armored brigade combat teams that were there,” Ham said Jan. 28. “Those were perhaps logical decisions at the time, but the security environment is different now and it’s our best assessment that one of the ways to cope with that…in both deterrence and assurance, is forward stationing an ABCT in Europe.”
At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. military had about 275,000 troops stationed throughout Europe. The Army is figuring out how to make the much smaller force it now has in Europe as effective at deterring Russian aggression as that much larger force.
The commission’s final report, released Jan. 28, identifies a shortfall in armor, especially in Europe given current and emerging threats, said Kathleen Hicks, former principal undersecretary of defense for policy and a commissioner. The report does not single out specific threats or adversaries against which the Army should plan to fight, but Hicks admitted the Army’s need for armor in Europe was a direct result of Russia’s belligerence along NATO’s eastern flank.
“We find a gap in armor,” she said, adding that an array of current and emerging threats and campaigns were taken into account. “Russia is an obvious one in this case with regard to armor,”
Gen. James Thurman, who retired after commanding Army Forces Korea, said there simply are not sufficient troops or equipment in Europe to provide a credible deterrence to Russia.
“When you only have so many elements, at some point you exceed your capacity and that’s what has happened,” Thurman said. “We don’t have enough Army.”
Russia is rotating its ground combat forces through Syria much in the way that U.S. brigades cycle through the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, Calif., testing new equipment and gaining operational experience that can be transferred to ground combat elsewhere, Thurman said.
“Here’s the deal: The Russians today are their own NTC rotations in Syria,” he said. “They’re practicing with their new kit. They understand their ground integration. They go to school on this. To maintain a credible deterrence, you’ve got to match that and be serious about it in front of them.”
The commission recommends upping the Army’s overall armor capacity, but specifies that the capability is needed in Europe over other theaters. The report, however, does not offer specifics as to how the Army should accomplish that goal. Because the war planning process that will inform requirements in Europe is ongoing, the commission thought specifics were best left up to the Army, Hicks said.
“We felt in particular the issue in Europe was so severe that it made sense and could help with the overall capacity issue…to position one of the ABCTs we already have in Europe,” Hicks said.
Because the Army previously had an armored brigade stationed in Europe and because it would be taken from existing force structure rather than raised from scratch, Hicks said the move could be done with minimal additional staffing. With sufficient host-nation support, it would be “a very inexpensive option,” she said.
“For us it is a no-brainer to take one of the ABCTs, put it back in Europe where it had been and that would keep you from having to source [soldiers] from the U.S.,” she said.
At the Jan. 29 breakfast meeting with reporters, Hicks said stationing the brigade in Europe would boost deterrence of Russia and assurance of U.S. allies on NATO’s eastern flank.
“We weren’t comfortable making a whole slate of recommendations regarding what the Army is already doing in Europe,” Hicks said of efforts to preposition vehicles and equipment in Eastern Europe, among other deterrent measures. “Wherever the department ends up going with its counter-Russia approach, we see no way around the fact that an armored BCT forward stationed has to be a part of that.”
Selling the idea to Congress and to whichever Army commanders would be forced to give up and armored brigade will be the hard part, Hicks said.
“We know that [a permanent ABCT in Europe] is a very hard message politically on the Hill, but we think it is a no-brainer strategically,” Hicks said.